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 UK bans the export of goods to Argentina that might enhance its military capability. But Britain trained senior Argentinian military officers after a 2016 deal sought to facilitate oil development around the Falklands.

The Argentine soldiers were sent to Britain in 2018 but it is not known how many were trained or which courses they attended. The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) refused to clarify when asked by Declassified.

Argentine soldiers also attended three courses at the UK Defence Academy in Oxfordshire in 2019-20.

These courses included ‘Building Integrity for Senior Leaders’, which is designed for high-ranking commanders. Argentine military personnel also attended the ‘Advanced Command and Staff Course’ which “aims to prepare officers for high grade appointments”.

The course includes lectures from the most senior officers in the UK military and allows the students “to gain insight into the structure and workings of the MoD”. The UK Defence Secretary has previously attended.

The military training came after the UK and Argentina had signed a controversial Joint Communiqué in 2016. The agreement promised to “remove all obstacles” to the development of oil deposits around the Falkland Islands.

The deal also “agreed to strengthen relations between the two armed forces” and “widen their fields of cooperation”.

It is likely the Argentine military training was a part of this new cooperation. There is no publicly-available evidence showing the UK had provided military training to Argentina before 2018.

Since the 1982 Falklands War, the UK has not allowed the “export and trade of goods judged to enhance Argentine military capability”.

Alicia Castro, Argentina’s ambassador to the UK from 2012-15, told Declassified:

“It’s hard to believe we’ve been sending our senior officers to be trained by the same military that killed more than 600 of our soldiers and torpedoed the Belgrano in a horrific war crime.”

She added:

“That it looks like we were given this military training in exchange for giving up our claim to las Malvinas (Falklands) and its resources is even more shocking.”

UK Defence Academy in Shrivenham, Oxfordshire, where Argentine military personnel have been trained. (Photo: UK Defence Academy)

UK Defence Academy in Shrivenham, Oxfordshire, where Argentine military personnel have been trained. (Photo: UK Defence Academy)

Improving relations

The information comes as the two countries are marking the 40-year anniversary of the conflict which ran from April to June of 1982.

The war led to the deaths of 255 British military personnel, 649 Argentine soldiers, and three Falkland Islanders. On 2 May 1982, Argentina’s ARA General Belgrano warship was torpedoed by a British submarine, killing 323 Argentine sailors.

In 2018, the same year as the Argentine military personnel were trained in the UK, Alan Duncan, the foreign minister who had negotiated the 2016 Joint Communiqué, made a statement to parliament announcing a change in British arms export policy towards Argentina.

“This change will lift additional restrictions which were imposed in 2012, at a time when the Argentine government was escalating actions aimed at harming the economic interests of the Falkland islanders,” he said.

Duncan stated that since the election of rightwing President Mauricio Macri in 2015, “the UK’s relationship with Argentina has been improving.”

He added that the “historic” 2016 UK-Argentina agreement had “established closer cooperation across our bilateral relationship (including in defence)” and that the UK may now grant arms exports licences for Argentina.

‘Something very odd here’

In 2019, a new left-wing government swept to power in Buenos Aires, with Cristina Kirchner as vice-president. Kirchner had been president when the UK had added additional restrictions to military exports to Argentina in 2012.

The new government moved to ensure that the 2016 UK-Argentina Joint Communiqué promising increased “cooperation” between the countries armed forces was a “letra muerta” (dead letter).

Last month, the UK government was asked about reports of increased military deployment in Tierra del Fuego, a province in southern Argentina, and its implications for the security of the Falkland Islands.

Foreign minister Amanda Milling said:

“The UK undertakes regular assessments of possible threats to the Islands to ensure that an appropriate defence capability is maintained.”

The British military base on the Falklands hosts at least 500 troops and the UK regularly conducts military exercises, which include the firing of air defence missiles, on and around the islands.

Paul Rogers is an honorary fellow at the Joint Service Command and Staff College, which trains UK military officers. He told Declassified:

“Britain spends at least £60 million a year on Fortress Falklands yet is educating Argentine military personnel at UK defence colleges. Something very odd here.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson told Declassified:

“We do not train the Argentine armed forces to fight. Occasionally, we offer educational classroom-based courses, covering topics such as good governance and international humanitarian law.”

He added:

“Such courses are offered to a wide range of nations and serve an important diplomatic function.”

*

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

Matt Kennard is chief investigator at Declassified UK. He was a fellow and then director at the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London. Follow him on Twitter @kennardmatt

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Trained Argentine Soldiers After Signing Controversial Falklands Oil Deal
  • 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.

***

“Mass shootings have become routine in the United States and speak to a society that relies on violence to feed the coffers of the merchants of death. Given the profits made by arms manufacturers, the defense industry, gun dealers and the lobbyists who represent them in Congress, it comes as no surprise that the culture of violence cannot be abstracted from either the culture of business or the corruption of politics.”—Professor Henry A. Giroux

We are caught in a vicious cycle.

With alarming regularity, the nation is being subjected to a heartbreaking spate of violence that terrorizes the populace, fractures communities, and gives the government greater justifications to crack down, lock down, and institute even more authoritarian policies for the so-called sake of national security without many objections from the citizenry.

Mass shootings have taken place in schools, on college campuses, movie theaters, nightclubs, grocery stores, concert venues, bars, workplaces, churches, on military bases, and in government offices. In almost every instance, the shooters were dressed in military-style gear and armed with military-style weapons.

Take the latest shooting that took place in Uvalde, Texas, when 18-year-old Salvador Ramos, wearing body armor and carrying a rifle, walked into Robb Elementary School and opened fire, leaving at least 19 children and two teachers dead.

This Uvalde shooting took place ten days after another 18-year-old man, heavily armed and wearing tactical gear (including a tactical helmet and plated armor), opened fire in a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y, killing 10 people.

Cruz during his arrest in Coral Springs (Licensed under public domain)

In 2018, a 19-year-old former student armed with a gas mask, smoke grenades, magazines of ammunition, and an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle opened fire on students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., leaving 17 people dead.

Police at Sandy Hook.PNG

Police arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary, after the shooting on December 14, 2012. (Licensed under public domain)

Ten years ago, 20-year-old Adam Lanza—wearing body armor and black clothing, and armed with military-style weapons—opened fire on students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., leaving 26 dead. Prior to the shooting, Lanza reportedly spent his days “playing violent video games amid posters showcasing military equipment.”

According to an FBI report issued the day before the Uvalde shooting, these kinds of “active shooter attacks” have doubled in recent years.

As expected in the wake of such tragedies, there has been a vocal outcry for enacting more strident gun control measures, more mental health checks, and heightened security measures.

Yet surely there’s more to these shootings than just easy access to weapons and mental illness.

Ask yourself: Why do these mass shootings keep happening? Who are these shooters modelling themselves after? Where are they finding the inspiration for their weaponry and tactics? Whose stance and techniques are they mirroring?

When you start to connect the dots, they lead right back to the American police state and the war-drenched, violence-imbued, profit-driven military industrial complex, both of which continue to dominate, dictate and shape almost every aspect of our lives.

The United States is the number one consumer, exporter and perpetrator of violence and violent weapons in the world.

  • Violence has become America’s calling card.
  • We are a military culture engaged in continuous warfare.
  • We have been a nation at war for most of our existence.
  • We are a nation that makes a living from killing through defense contracts, weapons manufacturing and endless wars. 
  • We are being fed a steady diet of violence through our entertainment, news, sports and politics.

All of the military equipment featured in blockbuster movies is provided—at taxpayer expense—in exchange for carefully placed promotional spots aimed at boosting civic pride in the military, recruiting for the military, and churning out profit-driven propaganda for the military industrial complex. Even reality TV shows have gotten in on the gig.

It’s estimated that U.S. military intelligence agencies (including the NSA) have influenced over 1,800 movies and TV shows.

Then there are the growing number of violent video games, a number of which are engineered by or created for the military as recruitment tools, which have accustomed players to interactive war play through military simulations and first-person shooter scenarios. As Esther J. Cepeda writes for The Washington Post, “Violent video games alone do not cause people to go off the rails, arm themselves and open fire on innocent people in public places. But there’s also no question that there is something wrong with a multibillion-dollar video game industry that sells to young men the ability to virtually assassinate a foe as an escape from real life.”

The media, eager to score higher ratings, has been equally complicit in making (real) war more palatable to the public by packaging it as TV friendly. The military has also been firmly entrenched in the nation’s sports spectacles, having co-opted football, basketball, even NASCAR, “tying the symbols of sports with the symbols of war.”

  • This is how you acclimate a population to war.
  • This is how you cultivate loyalty to a war machine.
  • This is how, to borrow from the subtitle to the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, you teach a nation to “stop worrying and love the bomb.”
  • This is how you sustain the nation’s appetite for war.

As journalist David Sirota writes for Salon, to those who profit from war, it is “a ‘product’ to be sold via pop culture products that sanitize war and, in the process, boost recruitment numbers.”

No wonder entertainment violence is the hottest selling ticket at the box office. As professor Henry Giroux points out, “Popular culture not only trades in violence as entertainment, but also it delivers violence to a society addicted to a pleasure principle steeped in graphic and extreme images of human suffering, mayhem and torture.”

No wonder the government continues to whet the nation’s appetite for violence and war through paid propaganda programs (seeded throughout sports entertainment, Hollywood blockbusters and video games)—what professor Roger Stahl refers to as “militainment“—that glorify the military and serve as recruiting tools for America’s expanding military empire.

No wonder Americans from a very young age are being groomed to enlist as foot soldiers—even virtual ones—in America’s Army (coincidentally, that’s also the name of a first-person shooter video game that was produced by the military and used as a pivotal recruiting tool for 20 years).

Explorer scouts, for example, have been one of the most popular recruiting tools for the military and its civilian counterparts (law enforcement, Border Patrol, and the FBI). Writing for The Atlantic, a former Explorer scout described the highlight of the program: monthly weekend maneuvers with the National Guard where scouts “got to fire live rounds from M16s, M60 machine guns, and M203 grenade launchers… we would have urban firefights (shooting blanks, of course) in Combat Town, a warren of concrete buildings designed for just that purpose. The exercise always devolved into a free-for-all, with all of us weekend warriors emptying clip after clip of blanks until we couldn’t see past the end of our rifles for all the smoke in the air.”

No wonder America spends more money on war than the combined military budgets of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil. America polices the globe, with 800 military bases and troops stationed in 160 countries. Moreover, the war hawks have turned the American homeland into a quasi-battlefield with military gear, weapons and tactics. In turn, domestic police forces have become roving extensions of the military—a standing army.

You want to stop the gun violence?

Stop the worship of violence that permeates our culture.

  • Stop treating guns and war as entertainment fodder in movies, music, video games, toys, amusement parks, reality TV, sports and more.
  • Stop distributing weapons of war (weapons that have no business being anywhere but on a battlefield) to the local police and transforming police into extensions of the military.
  • Stop exposing young people to the military industrial complex’s pervasive propaganda.
  • Stop falling for the military industrial complex’s psychological war games.

Salvador Ramos may have pulled the trigger that resulted in the mayhem in Uvalde, Tex., but something else is driving the madness.

We’ve got to do more than react in a knee-jerk fashion.

Those who want safety at all costs will clamor for more gun control measures, widespread mental health screening of the general population and greater scrutiny of military veterans, more threat assessments and behavioral sensing warnings, more CCTV cameras with facial recognition capabilities, more “See Something, Say Something” programs aimed at turning Americans into snitches and spies, more metal detectors and whole-body imaging devices at soft targets, more roaming squads of militarized police empowered to do random bag searches, more fusion centers to centralize and disseminate information to law enforcement agencies, and more surveillance of what Americans say and do, where they go, what they buy and how they spend their time.

Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, all of these measures play into the government’s hands by locking down the nation without doing anything to address the underlying causes of this madness.

What we need is a thoughtful, measured, apolitical response to these shootings that takes aim at the violence plaguing our nation by lowering the levels of violence here and abroad, whether it’s violence we export to other countries, violence we glorify in entertainment, or violence we revel in when it’s leveled at our so-called enemies, politically or otherwise.

Our prolonged exposure to the toxic culture of the American police state is deadly.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from NPR

US-Iran Nuclear Treaty: Biden Blows It

May 26th, 2022 by Daniel Larison

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.

***

Nahal Toosi reports that Biden decided against removing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) from the list of foreign terrorist organizations at least a month ago:

President Joe Biden has finalized his decision to keep Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on a terrorist blacklist, according to a senior Western official, further complicating international efforts to restore the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

Another person familiar with the matter said Biden conveyed his decision during an April 24 phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, adding that the decision was conveyed as absolutely final and that the window for Iranian concessions had closed.

Removing the designation was likely the last chance that Biden had to salvage the nuclear deal. Top U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Blinken, confirmed that removing the designation would have no meaningful practical effect on the IRGC’s financing or operations, but the president chose to keep it in place knowing that it could torpedo the negotiations to revive the agreement. Maybe the Iranian government will drop its demand in the end, but right now I wouldn’t give you two cents for the JCPOA’s chances of surviving beyond this year. Trump added the IRGC to the list for the express purpose of making U.S. reentry into the agreement more difficult, and Biden ran right into the trap. The writing was on the wall several weeks ago. Now we have confirmation that Biden’s diplomacy has been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

Biden’s decision to leave the entire IRGC on the list is the wrong one, but more than that it is a remarkably stupid decision because the designation has served no purpose. This is not a case of weighing between different priorities and considering the tradeoffs between them. If the U.S. gained something from keeping the IRGC on the list, there might at least be something to debate, but the administration itself doesn’t believe that the designation matters. As Peter Beinart pointed out earlier this month, “By its own admission, the Biden administration is risking the Iran nuclear deal for nothing.” Biden is jeopardizing what should be a major policy success for the sake of preserving an empty gesture of hostility.

The IRGC was already under sanctions before it was added to the list, and it would have been under sanctions if it had been taken off the list. Everyone paying attention to this issue understood that the concession would have been mostly symbolic, but even that was more than the U.S. was willing to grant. John Carl Baker was speaking for many of us when he said this in response to the news:

This is like exhibit A in what drives me nuts about US foreign policy: even the tiniest concessions are off limits, even if that means the collapse of a major diplomatic agreement.

Iran hawks’ cynical framing that Biden would be “rewarding” terrorists if he made this face-saving concession defined the debate. They can celebrate that their campaign of lies and deceit about the nuclear deal has prevailed once again. The administration that boasted that “diplomacy is back” likely just tanked their best chance at a major diplomatic victory because they were scared of the optics.

Daniel Benjamin and Jason Blazakis wrote a good piece explaining that the terrorist designation was useless:

Iranian-backed terrorism is a serious issue, but the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization was a stupendously unserious move in the first place, a sanction that brought no discernible pressure on the group or Iran more broadly.

Instead, it is an artifact of the bizarre approach of the last administration, marked chiefly by empty symbolism, tantrums and puerile demonstrations of resentment meant to communicate maximal antipathy. It had nothing to do with advancing U.S. interests.

The Biden administration’s willingness to play along with this bankrupt approach has made it very likely that they will have nothing to show for more than a year of negotiations. Benjamin and Blazakis make a strong case that Biden would have been conceding nothing of importance if he had agreed to the Iranian government’s demand. As they put it, the designation “was just more Trump imaginary statecraft.” For whatever reason, Biden chose to treat the product of this imaginary statecraft as if it were real and more important than reviving a successful nonproliferation agreement. The U.S., Iran, and other countries in region will come to regret Biden’s decision. If the JCPOA does collapse, as many of us now expect it will, Biden will be the one who delivered the fatal blow.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate 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.

***

 

If you’ve seen Top Gun or Transformers, you may have wondered: Does all of that military machinery on screen come with strings attached? Does the military actually get a crack at the script?

Theaters of War digs deep into a vast new trove of recently released internal government documents to bring the answers to these questions into sharp focus.

Traveling across America, filmmaker and media scholar Roger Stahl engages an array of other researchers, bewildered veterans, PR insiders, and industry producers willing to talk. In unsettling and riveting detail, he discovers how the military and CIA have pushed official narratives while systematically scrubbing scripts of war crimes, corruption, racism, sexual assault, coups, assassinations, and torture.

From The Longest Day to Lone Survivor, Iron Man to Iron Chef, and James Bond to Jack Ryan, Theaters of War uncovers an alternative “cinematic universe” that stands as one of the great Pentagon PR coups of our time. As these activities gain new public scrutiny, new questions arise: How have they managed to fly under the radar for so long? And where do we go from here?

Watch the trailer below.

*

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

Featured image is from MEF

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Documentary: “Theaters of War: How the Pentagon and CIA Took Hollywood”
  • 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.

***

Have you read How to Prevent the Next Pandemic by Bill Gates yet?

Well, I have, and let me tell you: it’s every bit as infuriating, nauseating, ridiculous, laughable and risible as you would expect.

Here are the details.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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 killing of Al Jazeera journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, on May 11, is one more chapter of the 74-year-old Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe).

Much had been argued about the creation of Israel and the ensuing ethnic cleansing of historical Palestine. Sadly, most had become a desensitized academic debate, lifeless abstract portrayal failing to depict what it really meant to be a refugee without a country.

On May 15, 1948, Zionists danced and firecrackers burst over New York neighborhoods celebrating the founding of Israel. At the same time, and on the other side of the world, Zionist terrorist military organizations waged a war to depopulate Palestine from its native population. The end result, in access of 780,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from more than 500 destroyed towns and villages.

For the new state, Palestinian refugees, like my own parents, were dispensable nuisances. In a 1948 foreign ministry study, Israel predicted the refugees “… will waste away. Some will die but most will turn into human debris and social outcasts ..” in other countries.

To Israel’s chagrin, refugees rose from the ashes of burned villages refusing to be cast into the oblivion of injustice. Shireen Abu Akleh grew up under occupation, armed herself with a microphone and a camera making sure her parents’ story is remembered and Palestinians do not become “human debris.”

The murder of Abu Akleh is inseparable from Israel’s continuum crimes against Palestinian intellectuals. To name but few, the assassinations in Beirut of magazine editor Ghassan Kanafani in 1972, and Poet Kamal Nasser in 1973. The murders, like the razed villages in 1948, were part of determined Israeli efforts to thwart the Palestinian narratives and hide crimes against humanity.

Unlike Abu Akleh, when journalists were killed in Ukraine, the West rejected Russian inculpability, did not demand joint investigation, and requested the International Court to investigate Russia’s war crimes.

In this case, Israel (like Russia) denied responsibility, and charged its Hasbara PR machine with a deflection strategy to cast doubt on the murder and escape liability. Unlike Russia, however, Western media became a welling extension of the Israeli PR machine.

American media outlets ascribed nuance terminology to explain Abu Akleh’s death, or promoted, unquestionably, the false Israeli PR narratives. For example, the initial New York Times headline said, “Shireen Abu Akleh, Trailblazing Palestinian Journalist, Dies at 51.”

In their initial coverage, Western media outlets ignored testimonies of firsthand eyewitnesses and those of journalist’s colleagues.. One who was injured, and a second hid behind a tree two feet away from the journalist’s body unable to help her friend. She watched tortuously as an Israeli soldier continued to shoot in their direction despite their blue media vests. Instead, Western media sought corroborations of Israeli PR professionals who were tens of miles from the crime site.

CNN waited almost two weeks before airing eyewitness accounts, and the Associated Press (AP) 12 days to eventually, in an overly cautious report, challenge the Israeli PR machine.

On the official level, the Biden Administration called for a joined Israeli and Palestinian investigation into the “death” of the journalist. Palestinians rejected the call for a joint investigation asserting that murderers can’t be trusted in investigating their murder.

Israel’s previous sham investigations have almost always absolved its army’s crimes, or issued a slab on the hand, if any. In addition, Israel has in the past protracted its investigations as part of a dual strategy: squish calls for independent inquiry on the short term, and to deflate international outcries with the passing of time, on the long term.

To reference some examples, the 2003 murder of American activist Rachel Corrie, who was run over by an Israeli military bulldozer, and the murder in the same year of British cameraman James Miller. Or the 2000 murder of the 12-year-old Muhammad al-Durrah on live TV.

The army probes following up to these well publicized crimes, like all lesser-known murders, exonerated Israeli soldiers and blamed the victims for their own death.

Alas, When compared to life lost in Ukraine, American life, and all lives for that matter, seem to have less value when the alleged murderer is an Israeli soldier, who most likely used an American weapon.

As in the case of previously murdered journalists, activists, children, and the razing of the media tower in Gaza, Israel executed Shireen Abu Akleh to silence the Palestinian story. For the microphone in Abu Akleh’s hand had become more perilous than a gun, and the camera more powerful than a bullet.

*

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

Jamal Kanj (www.jamalkanj.com) is the author of “Children of Catastrophe,” Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America, and other books. He writes for various national and international commentaries.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

The Tyranny of Modern Scientism

May 26th, 2022 by Richard Gale

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 1976, Dr. Halstead Holman, the youngest professor to be named chairman of Stanford University’s Department of Medicine at the age of 35, wrote,

“the medical establishment is not primarily engaged in the disinterested pursuit of knowledge into medical practice; rather in significant part it is engaged in special interest advocacy, pursuing and preserving social power.”  

Holman called for a paradigm shift in medical laboratory research that would be innovative, support intellectual freedom, and have the courage to tackle the many challenges and shortcomings clinical medical practice faced.

The greatest obstacle Holman confronted within the medical community was what he called “excellence deception,” which he defined as an “ideological justification” that rejects criticism and insulates itself from alternative medical theories and opinions.

Consequently Holman was calling out the hubris that pervaded the higher echelons of the medical establishment.

A decade later, Dr. Robert Petersdorf, an internationally renowned expert in infectious disease, also worried over the direction modern medicine was headed. In 1989, Petersdorf stated, “We can no longer tolerate dishonesty, cheating, fraud and conflict of interest that have invaded science and medicine.” Looking back over the past three decades, Holman’s and Petersdorf’s warnings may have just as well been feathers floating down a cliff. The paradigm shift never occurred.  The medical profession has instead become increasingly corporatized, dogmatic, and oppressive.

Corruption is a high-stakes game played by the pharmaceutical complex, without which we might actually have a functioning healthcare system that improves public health. Whether it be concealing or fudging prior knowledge about drugs’ adverse effects to maximize profits, publishing junk clinical trials, buying off legislators, or engaging in devious retaliatory efforts to pressure and silence critics, these are only the costs of doing business that keep drug companies’ and Wall Street’s coffers overflowing. And this corporate culture of deception has the full approval of governments’ health ministries and the World Health Organization. Today our lives are at the mercy of a powerful cartel of medical bureaucrats in white physician coats intent on protecting a corporate-based inquisition to stifle dissent.

If anyone doubts that the Inquisition was only a dark anomaly in western history when the Church and superstitions reigned, and that our “enlightened” civilization would never fall back again into such tyranny or repeat the horrors of witch trials, you have not been paying attention. Monty Python got it correct, the Inquisition’s “chief weapon is surprise and fear… fear and surprise… and ruthless efficiency.” During the two years of the Covid-19 pandemic, fear, not science base on viable consensus, ruled over the population as a means to police compliance.

For years, Noam Chomsky has been pointing out the censorship that emerges when propaganda is united with a control over the media. Today’s media is no longer distinguishable from the CDC, the FDA and Silicon Valley’s technological masters of cancel culture and virtue signaling. The architecture of scientific materialism’s Inquisition has grown steadily. Tuomas Tahko, a professor of theoretical philosophy at the University of Helsinki, warns that the rise of a “Scientific Inquisition” is an effort to “convert us all to naturalism [scientific materialism or Scientism] and to denounce the false gods of intuition, a priori reasoning and thought experiments.”

When modern medicine’s greatest threat becomes “intellectual freedom,” even the freedom to carry out thought experiments outside the parameters of the dominant scientific tradition is heretical. The frontline physicians who found strong evidence for cheap off-patent drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as effective treatments against SARS-2 infections acted upon their intuitive suspicions and prescribed these drugs. They were proven correct; yet, despite having saved countless lives, who would have otherwise died in intensive care units due to the medical bureaucracy’s faith in the unfounded and barbaric medical advice from Anthony Fauci and the CDC, these physicians were vilified and viciously attacked in the media. “The philosophies of one age,” wrote the father of modern medicine William Osler, “have become the absurdities of the next, and the foolishness of yesterday have become the wisdom of tomorrow.”  For the hardcore followers of modern scientism, particularly those in the medical and biological sciences, a human being is nothing more than an animate machine controlled by a computer in the skull that will break and ultimately cease to function.

This is not an exaggeration. One of sicentism’s most popular voices, Daniel Dennett at Tufts University, would have us believe:

 “What we think of as our consciousness is actually our brains pulling a number of tricks to conjure up the world as we experience it. But in reality, it’s all smoke, mirrors and rapidly firing neurons… But it goes even further: If our brains are robots, then our neurons are smaller robots, which in turn are made up of even smaller robots.”

Or even a brilliant genius such as Stephen Hawking who describes the existence of the human race as “just chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies.” Hawking also believed the brain was simply a computer that could survive outside the body and replicated in artificial intelligence to reach immortality.  He also believed a computer virus was an actual life form.

Dennett’s and Hawking’s scientism, as well as many others in our educational institutions, are in line with the long term goals of the World Economic Forum for humanity’s dystopian future.  In our modern civilization where human life has lost all existential meaning and therefore it has forfeited its social moral compass, Klaus Schwab asks the appropriate questions: “Where do we draw the line between human and machine? What does it mean to be human?” The fact that we are even asking these questions indicates how far modern humanity has been torn away from itself. The potential consequences of this catastrophic self-inflicted dementia permeating scientism are literally terrifying.

Since Scientism embraces an extremely limited, and a rather demented view of reality, which discards much of human experience such as intuition and creative flights of the imagination as subjective nonsense, there is no room for “thought experiments” in modern reductionist science. Hence, no investigation or research is warranted nor should be funded that explores outside the conventional box. To even consider that biomolecular health and disease may be understood from certain principles of quantum theory is anathema; yet, for quantum physicist Prof. Marc Henry at the University of Strasbourg, understanding the particle-signal quanta of cellular biology is exactly what medicine needs to start learning.

In the 15th century, the Dominican friar Tomas de Torquemada established the Holy Office of the Inquisition and became its grand master. Today the Grand Inquisitor is a large and flexible consortium of power brokers and Big Pharm CEOs who exert enormous control over the CDC, FDA and the World Health Organization. Silicon Valley tech giants and billionaires such as Bill Gates bankroll the censorship of dependable evidence that threatens conventional healthcare and its regime. Our politicians, through the lobbying efforts of pharmaceutical henchmen, pressure internet firms to block, censor or blacklist dissident voices who call for public debate on health issues that directly impact all Americans. An Inquisition cannot succeed in advancing an invasion of terror without an army of fanatical fear mongers who can take control of the public’s channels of communication by stealth and surprise.

The radicalized scientific materialists through such organizations as the Center for Inquiry, the Skeptic Society and the Society of Science Based Medicine, which are aligned with the equally militant New Atheism, carry out orchestrated campaigns to brainwash the public into Scientism’s dogma through Wikipedia and social media. Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, professional medical institutions such as the AMA, and the entire mainstream media are also complicit in this medical tyranny. The mid nineteenth century father of faith-based Scientism, Thomas Huxley, would be proud of the reformation he started. “We are on the eve of a new Reformation,” wrote Aldous Huxley’s grandfather in 1859, “and if I have a wish to live… it is that I may see the foot of Science on the necks of her Enemies.” The primary enemy of today’s Scientism is critical thinking, especially within the medical community itself. Its success is all around us as we witness this malevolent doctrine being embedded into national policy

Modern institutionalized Scientism has but one command: play by our rules or be ostracized, persecuted, and ultimately have your reputation blemished. Even brilliant scientists, respected throughout the international community, may find themselves on the rack if they deviate from the norm.

One of the more tragic examples of a brilliant scientist who was victimized by today’s scientific Inquisition was the late Nobel laureate Dr. Luc Montagnier.  In 1983, Dr. Montagnier discovered the HIV virus. Later in his life he entered into a forbidden zone to validate quantum properties that might explain homeopathy’s efficacy. His research involved the teleportation of genetic frequencies from his French laboratory that were then successfully restructured into actual DNA or RNA amino-acid sequences at a university laboratory in Italy. Yet for this accomplishment, which some believed should have warranted a second Nobel award, this brilliant scientist was attacked for being a quack, a charlatan, by the militant scientific community and Wikipedia. Montagnier was also labeled a conspiracy theorist for having been one of the first geneticists to review the SARS-2 coronavirus genetic sequence and to suspect it had a lab origin.

Quantum mechanics, pioneered by Max Planck, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg and others, should have ushered humanity into the post-materialist world. Unfortunately modern medicine, neuroscience, evolutionary biology and other life sciences, which have been hijacked by private corporate interests, have lagged dismally behind. The most ardent proponents of Scientism are determined to prevent medicine from evolving beyond its current reductionist, materialist perspective. For that reason its followers adamantly oppose funding research that may someday explain why and how alternative healing modalities have been successful for countless people around the world. Consequently Scientism is the strongest opponent of the growing trend in CAM therapies entering medical school curriculums.

It is reasonable to question how objective, how fair, how honest are Scientism’s leaders when they are unwilling to enter open and hopefully productive dialogue with those that they oppose. It is an odd psychological fact that a mental obsession can potentially produce its opposite.  If an idol or dogma is revered faithfully enough, it can eventually flip and confirm its antithesis. We witness this today in the paradox that riddles modern Scientism; the cockiness of reason morphs into rigid blind faith. Every fundamentalist faith, whether it be a religious belief (one faith versus every other faith), economic polarities (capitalism versus Marxism), a political persuasion (conservative versus liberal) or a dominant paradigm in any given science, generates a layer of unyielding cynicism and denial that becomes increasingly intolerant. Cult author and futurist Robert Anton Wilson called this phenomenon “a psychological scotoma” — a blind spot of vision in an otherwise unobstructed normal visual field.

Although skepticism (with a small “s”) can be a very healthy attitude, it requires a willingness to present questions that might put our own skepticism into doubt. Yes, evidence deserves to be evaluated critically; but it also demands that there be enough allowance for our skeptical biases to be proven wrong. The only escape from skepticism’s trap is to be skeptical towards one’s own cherished beliefs. Yet, the rise of Scientism, as a coadjutor for a new Inquisition, is a self-deceptive illusion that views itself as virtuous. Nothing could be farther from the truth because this is the case for all dogmatic, militant, regressive religious beliefs in general that entertain hidden motives to persecute its perceived enemies.  Richard Feynman, arguably among the most famous quantum physicists and mathematicians of the late 20th century, wrote, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”  The good news is that humanity has managed to survive major catastrophes over the millennia. No doubt humanity will also survive the tragedy of Scientism and its bellicose child — modern corporatized medicine.

*

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

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow

They are regular contributors 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.

***

The article below was published by  Propaganda In Focus,  a new website committed to the study of propaganda.

In the words of Professor Mark Crispin Miller, founder of Propaganda In Focus,

“And yet our goal must be not merely to instruct the public in those many truths blacked out by the propaganda over COVID, or Ukraine, but to urge the public toward a firmer grasp of propaganda overall; and so our larger goal must be to explain the factors that have ultimately helped turn the West’s “free press” into the propaganda juggernaut now keeping millions upon millions in ferocious ignorance.”

***

For those of us who study propaganda critically and seek to do this all-important work as public intellectuals, these last two years have been uniquely challenging, and even dangerous, forcing us into a painful double bind.

On the one hand, we have never had so much to work with, nor has there ever been a greater need for our peculiar expertise. Whereas, in the “democratic” West, propaganda used to be most evident as an intensive episodic practice, flaring up in wartime, in political campaigns and following immense state crimes like JFK’s assassination, 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks (among other national traumas engineered by governments), the propaganda blasting all of us non-stop today is no longer national, or merely multinational, but global; and the former intermittency of those most awful crises, with decades going by between one trauma and the next, has given way to a mind-numbing strategy of serial bombardment — one cataclysmic fuss after another (with, sometimes, one within another), as under openly totalitarian rule.

Thus, throughout 2020 — Year One of the now-endless COVID crisis — we were inescapably suffused with terror of “the virus,” and thereby bullied into locking down (despite the scientific fact that lockdowns do more harm than good), while also masking all the time, and everywhere, and “social-distancing” as well (despite the scientific fact that neither practice “slows the spread” of any respiratory virus). While masking was imposed, ostensibly, to make us less afraid of COVID-19, it only made us more afraid of one another, and so compounded that disabling fear with a ferocious anger at all those not wearing masks (despite the scientific fact that masks would not prevent transmission of “the virus” even if the entire global population wore them all the time).

As propagated fiercely by the media — both corporate and “alternative” — throughout 2020, that sanctimonious division of ourselves into benevolent maskers and self-centered “anti-maskers” was just a pestilential variant of the “red”/”blue” divide that the media, with very few exceptions, had already fiercely propagated since the rise of Donald Trump; and that incapacitating tribalist division deepened, in mid-2020, with the George Floyd incident, and the emergent cult of BLM, whose blurry mission against “white supremacy” was suddenly and ostentatiously extolled throughout the media worldwide (George Floyd’s beatification being yet another stroke of global propaganda, the same big graphic of his quasi-tragic face popping up at rallies as far afield as France, Ghana and Japan), and anomalously hailed by Jeff Bezos, Mitt Romney, Jaimie Dimon, Bill and Melinda Gates, Nancy Pelosi, and other wealthy players not notable for their concern about black lives (on the contrary). Whereas the anti-lockdown protests flaring up (organically) that spring had been denounced throughout the government-and-media as lethal “super-spreader events” (despite the scientific fact that no respiratory virus ever has been known to spread asymptomatically, as even Dr. Fauci publicly admitted at one point), the multitudes of BLM protesters were applauded for assembling, although many wore no masks, or had their masks below their chins (nor were the rioters who followed them condemned for “putting everyone at risk,” either by their masklessness, or by their vandalism, arson and/or physical assaults in cities nationwide — crimes pointedly denied throughout the media).

Now reaffirmed as a distinctly racial melodrama, with BLM (and Antifa) facing off against the “white supremacists” supporting Trump and (just like him) not masking, the mass division between Us and Them so thunderously propagated — and exacerbated — by the media exploded one more time, on January 6, 2021, when, during the gigantic peaceful protest going on in Washington that day (to move the Supreme Court to look into the evidence that Joe Biden’s election victory had been stolen), an ebullient little horde of (unarmed) “white supremacists” — including over 20 FBI assets — “forced their way” into the US Capitol (having been urged in by Capitol police), their noisy antics universally and stridently misrepresented, by the Democrats-and-media, as an “attempted coup.” As a propaganda sideshow to the mammoth protest going on outside the Capitol that day — a protest as diverse as it was peaceable — this FBI-backed “insurrection” served the purpose of impugning that far larger gathering, intended to protest the likely theft of the election, as a “fascistic” mob intent on taking “our democracy” by force; and since the anti-Biden vote was driven mainly by resistance to the stringent “COVID measures” favored by the Democrats, the propaganda over “January 6” served to advance those measures, by demonizing their opponents as “extremists,” while making it now practically illegal to voice any doubts about Joe Biden’s inexplicable election “victory.”

Meanwhile, with millions now fixated on that raging “anti-fascist” propaganda drive (whether they believed it, or resisted it), Year Two of the COVID crisis started with the rollout of the most fascistic “COVID measure” of them all — the long-awaited “vaccination” program, which Bill Gates, in a televised exchange with Stephen Colbert, had hyped, indiscreetly, as “the Final Solution.” Thus, the propaganda inescapably instructing everybody to mask up (“Wearing is caring”), on the lunatic collectivist presumption that your mask will not “protect” you unless everybody’s wearing them, was now suddenly and inescapably instructing everybody to “get vaccinated,” as if anyone not getting jabbed was thereby (somehow) putting all those jabbed “at risk.” Thus, “vaccination” was now not only certified as “safe and effective” — by governments at every level, and by all the media, both corporate and “alternative,” and by hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities, and by every pharmacy, and by the schools, from grade schools up to colleges and universities, and, of course, by the “vaccine” manufacturers, along with Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates — but one’s own “vaccination” was now urged weirdly as (to quote Pope Benedict) “an act of love.”

And having thundered on through 2021, and into 2022 — with all those blithe assurances of “safety” and “effectiveness” disproved ever more dramatically by data out of country after country, harrowing research by independent scientists and doctors the world over, Pfizer’s and Moderna’s own clinical trials, and the ever-rising global toll in “sudden deaths” and incapacitating “vaccine injuries” — all at once that propaganda seemed to stop (the “COVID measures” abruptly dropped or modified by states and cities all around the world), as we were suddenly and (yet) still inescapably confronted, and surrounded, and pervaded, by another propaganda drive entirely; or so it seems.

This propaganda drive is, or was, not about “the virus,” or the “measures” used (allegedly) to stop it, but, exclusively, about Ukraine — and yet this drive is (or was) essentially the same as what preceded it; for just as that one had us all obsessed with COVID, the benevolence of those who followed every rule for “fighting” it, and the evil of all those who disobeyed, this one has (or had) us all obsessed with Ukraine’s struggle to defend itself against the monster Putin, the benevolence of all those who “stand with” Ukraine, and the evil of all those who don’t. And just as COVID once had everyone applauding, every evening, those courageous “frontline workers” in the hospitals (all “overrun,” reportedly, by COVID), so are (or were) we now attending vigils for Ukraine, signing petitions for Ukraine, sending money to Ukraine, and wearing Ukraine’s blue-and-yellow on our backs, and in our hair, and on our nails and our lapels, and hanging Ukraine’s blue-and-yellow in doorways and/or windows, and marveling at public monuments now bathed in blue-and-yellow lights, to show our solidarity with that upright democracy against the Nazi Putin’s bloody effort to assassinate its noble leader, wipe out its brave soldiers, and exterminate its people, in his ruthless drive to conquer all the world.

I put that rough description of this latest propaganda drive in both the past and present tense lest this one soon end, or seem to end, as suddenly as it upstaged the COVID propaganda; and since it too, in turn, will surely give way to some other inescapable campaign, it is appropriate to note the several further crises that the media, and heads of state, have variously floated, on and off, these past two years. (Such terroristic forecasts of imminent ordeals are in themselves a way to keep the widespread fear and anger simmering.) The possible next acts include a cyber-attack (“by Russia”); a breakdown of the world supply chain, and consequent food shortages, or famine (likely to be blamed on Russia); a heightened “climate crisis,” necessitating further lockdowns; “terrorist” attacks, by “white supremacists” and angry blacks (portending war between the races); an “alien attack” on Planet Earth, as in The War of the Worlds or Independence Day; and — of course — another plague or two, or three, caused by some further COVID “variant,” smallpox (Bill Gates’s favorite), the Marburg virus, and/or whatever other pathogen, real or imaginary, might serve the same old purpose (though this next pestilence is likely to be blamed on Putin, not the CCP). Such looming sequels to the COVID propaganda, which has arguably killed or injured millions through the mass injection program, and the Ukraine propaganda, which could bring on a nuclear war (and whose origins in 2014 led indirectly to the current bloodshed in that country), would also each inflict a vast amount of further suffering on humanity — and so those of us who study propaganda critically, as public intellectuals, must speak out loud and clear, to set things right.

This means, first of all, doing what the “fact-checkers” claim to do, and doing it far more conscientiously, and thoroughly, than they “debunk” whatever facts or theories contradict, or complicate, the narrative pumped out by governments and media. Whereas the “fact-checkers” do quick and sloppy work, and then move on, we work in depth, in scholarly commitment to the truth, which may take decades to discover — as with JFK’s murder, and the other key assassinations at that time, and 9/11; and just as we persist in careful refutation of the propaganda still obscuring those historic crimes, and others, so, throughout these last two years, have we been digging for, and trying to tell, the widely buried truth about the COVID crisis, its true origins, the actual lethality of SARS-CoV-2 (whatever that may really be), the PCR tests used to measure “cases,” the “COVID measures” hatched (allegedly) to “slow the spread,” the absolute futility of lockdowns, and their catastrophic harms, the homicidal impact of the standard COVID “treatment,” and the actual availability of valid remedies, the cynical redefinition of such key terms as “pandemic,” “cases,” “herd immunity,” “vaccine” and, “fully vaccinated,” the likely motives driving this whole crisis (and those still to come), the actual low number of those killed worldwide by COVID, and — above all — the ever-growing global toll of the experimental “vaccination” program; and now that COVID, and its “variants,” and “vaccination” have been pushed out of the spotlight by “Ukraine” (though governments-and-media continue warning us hysterically of “COVID” and its “variants,” and shouting at us to “get vaccinated”), we strive to find, and tell, the buried truths about that conflict — how and why it started, how it’s being fought on either side, and the fact that dozens of “atrocities” ascribed to Russia have turned out to be as bogus as those crimes charged to “the Hun” in World War One, the Iraqi army in Kuwait in 1990, and Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria, from 2011 until his imaginary barbarism was eclipsed by “the coronavirus,” and then Putin’s barbarism in Ukraine.

And yet our goal must be not merely to instruct the public in those many truths blacked out by the propaganda over COVID, or Ukraine, but to urge the public toward a firmer grasp of propaganda overall; and so our larger goal must be to explain the factors that have ultimately helped turn the West’s “free press” into the propaganda juggernaut now keeping millions upon millions in ferocious ignorance. That real-life Ministry of Truth was not set up ex nihilo by some iron faction of totalitarian oligarchs, but gradually took shape out of a corporate media cartel with interlocking boards, heavily dependent on the advertising revenues of Amazon, Big Pharma (especially Pfizer) and the media’s own parent companies (among other giant players), and with its assets closely managed by BlackRock, Vanguard and UBS; and as that vast commercial system has become more unified, it also has maintained, or even tightened, its covert relations with the military and “intelligence community” — essentially the same caste of untouchables that engineered JFK’s murder, and the media’s long cover-up thereof. And while the commercial media system has been thus corrupted top to bottom, through and through, the “public” media and “alternative” press — from NPR, PBS, the BBC and CBC (et al.) to nearly every single outlet on “the left” — have also been absorbed into the juggernaut primarily by their funding through such sturdy CIA pass-throughs as the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Open Society Institute.

Such is the “free press” that has been turned into a bio-fascist fear machine, its propaganda services assured by Bill Gates’ “strategic media partnerships,” and the concomitant “fact-checking” operation that he also largely funds. The propaganda gushing daily, hourly, from that system also has depended on the wisdom of such global PR firms as Weber Shandwick, Edelman and Hill+Knowlton Strategies, the keen participation of innumerable celebrities, and, within the Fourth Estate, the rise to managerial authority of “journalists” prepared, in university, to be far less concerned with honest journalism than with (somehow) serving “social justice.” And all the false and hateful “content” pumped out by this wholly owned “free press” is, every minute, amplified enormously on “social media,” where millions serve (for free!) as avid vectors of the propaganda, while those who contradict it, or just question it, are censored and defamed.

This brings us to that double bind in which we propaganda analysts have found ourselves these past two years; for, while there has never been so great a need for our analyses, there having never been so much disinformation, or so much highly poisonous disinformation, to correct, nor has there ever been so huge and powerful a propaganda system to explain, neither has it ever been more difficult, or dangerous, to contradict its claims, or show exactly how it works. Today, we recognize in Julian Assange a ravaged brother to us all, his long, brutal punishment on Airstrip One having anticipated the abuse now threatening anyone who dares to cast a shadow on the propaganda narrative roared everywhere by governments-and-media, as he, or Wikileaks, did with “Collateral Murder,” the gunship footage that lit up the dark side of the heroic “war on terror” propaganda. His long ordeal for that unpardonable sin foretold the (mostly lesser) punishments now undergone by doctors, scientists, journalists, and academics who have variously gone off-script, especially these past two years (although such heretics were also punished long before the rollout of “the virus”).

All such dissidents are doing what we do, in one way or another; and so — since every winning propaganda drive depends on censorship — all dissidents have been blacked out on “social media,” kept off the air by “our free press,” and/or variously canceled by “woke” activists. Since they can’t argue with the dissidents, whose claims are either indisputable or largely true, the propaganda managers have heaped us all with slime, without (of course) allowing us to answer it; nor is that all, as those countering the propaganda also have been fired, delicensed, jailed, involuntarily consigned to psychiatric wards, and, evidently, even killed, to shield the narrative. Most of those thus punished have been COVID dissidents; though those now speaking out against the “Ukraine” propaganda also are at risk, especially those living in Ukraine, where the Nazi forces have been seizing, torturing and murdering dissident reporters, and where American-Chilean commentator Gonzalo Lira disappeared on April 15, re-emerging six days later, having been detained by the SBU.

What, then, are we to do, as analysts of propaganda? For now, under this ever-rolling thunder of Big Lies, all we can do is keep on doing what we’re doing, while maintaining a thick skin, and taking due precautions, as it is ever more important that we tell the truths we know to those still capable of hearing them, and then of looking for them on their own. (This is especially true of younger people who are largely more receptive than their elders.) In the longer term, however, we must re-conceive and rebuild all our democratic institutions, whose absolute collapse has brought this whole world to the brink. Specifically, we need to rebuild journalism, so that it actually reports the news, just as we need a whole new medical establishment — one that will reclaim its Hippocratic duty to make people well instead of very profitably sick (or dead). And, of course, we need a new Academy, to educate its students, not indoctrinate them, teaching them not what to think but how to think, while introducing them to all the arts and sciences that better us as fully human beings; and, as we have learned so painfully these past two years, what these new schools must finally do — and not only our colleges and universities, but all our lower schools as well — is teach our students about propaganda: how to recognize it when it’s everywhere they look, and even (or especially) when they find themselves agreeing with it.

Only when We the People finally know what propaganda is, and how it works, will we be free at last to live our lives and rule ourselves.

*

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

Mark Crispin Miller is a professor of Media, Culture and Communication at New York University, where he has taught courses on media (including cinema) and propaganda since 1997. A recipient of grants from the Guggenheim Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Ingram Merrill Foundation, Miller maintains a daily list-serve, and a Substack column, both called News from Underground. One may join the former at https://markcrispinmiller.com, and/or subscribe to the latter at https://markcrispinmiller.substack.com/.

Featured image: “Bill Gates at NIH in 2018” by National Institutes of Health (NIH) is marked with CC PDM 1.0.

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.

 

 

 

***

Prologue: Mountie 019

A field somewhere in Northern Ontario, Canada, December 26, 2020…

I’d never flown in a plane before, much less a helicopter. When I was sixteen, Mathéo and I took the train to Toronto to see a Leafs game. Even for the grade eight trip to Quebec we traveled in one of those two-storey coaches with the tinted windows.

Now, strapped to a yellow cot, wrapped in some sort of emergency, crinkly, subzero sleeping bag, I stared at the air ambulance that awaited me. It was painted orange with the letters ORNGE on the side—as if they left out the A to save money. From above its windshield extended a metal spike like a unicorn’s horn. Except this orange, flying unicorn had only three legs—two in the back and one in the front—disappearing into a foot of snow.

Through the haze of pain, I could barely see the evergreen trees that surrounded the field, serving as a barrier against the howling wind. The dark night was lit by the headlights of many police vehicles and the red and blue light bar of an ambulance.

Overhead, the blades of the medical copter were whipping in circles—making the cold December air even colder. At least it numbed the excruciating pain in my chest a little. On the unicorn’s tail, a tiny vertical propeller was also spinning like a windmill in a hurricane—proving how the seemingly inconsequential can alter the direction of the large and powerful.

“Here we go, buddy,” said the Mountie who was holding the front end of the cot.

Instead of the iconic Red Serge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, he was suited in a thickly insulated black uniform. Rather than a brown, felt, wide-brimmed hat, he wore a military-style helmet bearing the ironic identification number 019. His white face mask matched his white eyebrows.

“You’ll be warm in a minute,” promised Mountie 019. He spoke in the groggy and grizzled voice of a man who had done too many back-to-back twelve-hour shifts.

The side door of the chopper slid open. With the grace of a gymnast, a thin, feminine figure dropped down onto a patch of frosty grass. Someone had cleared away the snow, making a path across the field to the emergency landing area.

Like the medic holding the back end of my cot, the woman approaching also wore a blue face mask and a round flight helmet with dome-shaped headphones. The bulging helmets, glowing body cams and one-piece flight suits made them both look more sci-fi than medical. Their epaulettes, however, proved they were not from outer space—each heralded a Canadian flag with a red maple leaf.

Mountie 019 introduced himself to the approaching paramedic. “I’ll be overseeing transport of the prisoner.”

Prisoner. It seemed too harsh, too hard to believe. Me. I still lived with my parents in a two-streetlight town no one had ever heard of. I went to Mass every Sunday—at least until they made church illegal. I must have groaned or moaned or something because Mountie 019 retracted his statement.

“Uh, I mean accused.” Icy vapour escaped from the edges of his face mask as he chuckled. “You know, in the academy, we’re taught to call those in custody our ‘clients.’”

Clients!” exclaimed the medic behind me. “That’s a joke.”

“No kidding. God, I need to retire.”

They all laughed in the way people do when they want to banish anxiety, guilt or confusion. I, however, did not laugh. Could not laugh. And if anything was funny, it was that they felt I needed this RCMP paratrooper to watch over me. It hurt enough to simply breathe; I was no threat to anyone. At least the black-clad Mountie no longer had the Remington assault rifle hanging from his shoulder. He’d traded it in for a modest fifteen-round Smith & Wesson sidearm.

The female medic looked down at me and asked, “How’re you doing?”

Her eyes were a pretty blue. But I knew not to trust them.

From behind my head, the male medic warned, “He’s a confirmed COVID case.”

No! I’m not, I wanted to scream. But I didn’t dare. The inferno of pain in my chest was burning too strongly.

“Can you tell me your name?” the female medic asked me.

I closed my eyes.

“Vincent,” answered Mountie 019, as if he was reading from a notepad. “His name is Vincent McKnight. Age twenty-four.”

“Oh,” she replied. “Is he the one we saw on—”

“Yes, ma’am.” He didn’t sound happy about it.

“Is he… the moose?

“That’s the other guy, I think.”

No, I’m the turtle and my shell is broken.

As they hoisted me up into the helicopter I screamed—the pain moving into the realm of sheer agony. Without a pause, they slid my cot headfirst into the warm chopper like a coffin into a funeral truck.

Mountie 019 buckled up in the seat beside me, all the while watching me intently. His gaze wasn’t one of a guard watching his prisoner. Instead, his eyes looked confused and bewildered as if asking, how did a kid like you end up in such a mess?

The answer, of course, involved a woman.

At twenty-eight some would say she was just a girl. And she would say that such juvenile labels were part of the grand plan to keep adults behaving like easy-to-manipulate children. She was certainly not a child. And in as little as six months, between her and this so-called pandemic, I had been forced to grow up real fast.

1. No Face, No Service

Friday, July 3, 2020, Moosehead, Ontario, Canada…

Hands on hips, she stood behind the counter glaring at me.

“No face, no service.”

What?” I blurted, as the door swung closed behind me, jingling a bell. “You mean: No mask, no service—right?”

“No face, no service,” she repeated. “This is a bakery, not a bank.”

The overwhelming smell of fresh sourdough penetrated the polyester fabric stretched over my nose, mouth and chin. I took a few slow steps toward the counter which separated us, shaking my head in non-understanding.

“A bank?” I replied. “What’re you talking about?”

The twenty-something girl, with bright blonde hair, raised a hand mirror from the countertop and aimed it at me.

“You look like a bank robber.” She spoke with the slightest hint of a Germanic accent.

The mirror reflected my brown eyes peering over a bright green face covering. In a mask-muffled voice I replied, “I think I look more like a turtle than a robber.”

“Well, you’re acting like a turtle, hiding behind a green shell.”

She lowered the mirror and rested her unmasked chin on her knuckles, elbows propped up on the countertop. Underneath, rows of dark crusted bread, sprinkled with rolled oats, lined the display.

“Do you always keep a mirror so handy?” I asked.

“Ever since people started auditioning for the bubonic plague.”

“Well, if you haven’t noticed,” I said, gesturing to either side of me, “we are in the middle of a pandemic.”

Her head turned slightly right and left, looking to either side of me.

“I don’t see any bodies piling up,” she replied. “All I’ve seen this year is a regular cold and flu season. And we’d be over it by now if turtles like you weren’t so scared of catching the sniffles.”

I felt oddly irritated (though at the same time attracted) by this blonde lioness. She also wore green, but not a mask. Her short-sleeved dress fit so well around her trim body I suspected she must have made it herself. The leafy green garment topped by her blonde hair reminded me of a…

“Hey, if this green mask makes me a turtle,” I jested, “then I’d say you look like a dandelion.”

“Suits me.” She removed her elbows from the counter and stood tall. “Dandelions aren’t afraid to be in the open air.”

“Yeah, well, plants can’t catch COVID.“

“No. Just really sick and old people.”

“Uh-huh,” I said.

I felt like calling her a covidiot but she was way too pretty: Big, blue and unblinking eyes dominated a lightly tanned face. Her pursed lips—it appeared as if she was restraining them from making further comment—had no lipstick. Her impractically long hair was held back by a braided portion that wrapped around her forehead like a golden diadem, reminding me of some medieval damsel—except this damsel was not in distress.

“COVID’s hitting more than just old folks,” I said. “Hundreds of thousands have died. Don’t you watch the news?”

She sighed. “Hundreds of thousands? Do you know how many people die each year from the old-fashioned flu?”

I hadn’t a clue. And even though half my face was covered, I’m sure my eyes betrayed my ignorance. Avoiding her question, I asked my own, “If you can’t trust the World Health Organization, then who can you trust?”

“How about evidence-based science?”

“Uh, I think scientists work at the WHO.”

She walked out around the counter, revealing the rest of her green dress, draping all the way down to her brown sandals, barely allowing me a glimpse of her ankles. Those sandals stepped toward me, coming dangerously close to breaching my COVID bubble. Instinctively, I backed away.

“I said evidence-based science,” she persisted, “not the words of scientists bribed, blackmailed and bamboozled into propagating mass hysteria. Because if you look at the facts, eight thousand Canadians died from the flu in 2018. Every year, on average, about 650,000 around the world die with the flu. Nothing has changed. Our government is lying to us.”

“You’re one of those… conspiracy theorists, aren’t you?”

“Ha!” she laughed. “Flattery will get you nowhere.”

“All I want is some bread.”

“Well, as they say in Italy: ‘Niente sorriso, niente pane.’” Her Italian accent was rather convincing. She made another step closer. “No smile, no bread. Capito?

I stepped backwards again, hitting the door, jingling the bell. She was about half a foot shorter than me, but nonetheless intimidating.

“I really doubt they say that in Italy,” I muttered.

“Probably not,” she admitted, swaying side to side for a second.

“And most stores won’t even let me inside without a mask.”

“Forcing medical treatment on people is against the Nuremberg Code,” she said, taking another step closer. “I’m surprised a big, strong guy like you would put up with that kind of abuse.”

I felt like prey. Part of me wanted to run, to open the door and never come back. I’d tell Grandad I couldn’t get him the bread he wanted because the place was run by a COVID denier. But I knew he’d just laugh at me. He’d already warned me that the baker was a “real hoot.”

“But masks save lives,” I protested.

The Dandelion looked me straight in the eyes. “And how do you know that?”

“The sc-science…” I stuttered.

“You’ve actually looked at a scientific study?”

“Uh, no…”

“Well, I have. Fourteen of them, actually. Every randomized controlled trial ever conducted on human beings—not mice or mannequins—shows that masks don’t stop people from getting sick or dying from the flu.”

“Ah!” I said, raising a finger, “but COVID’s far worse than the flu.”

She slid even closer, leaving barely six inches between our noses. “All right, Mr. Science, if a mask can’t even stop the humble flu, how’s it going to hinder your killer coronavirus?”

I reached my hand up to adjust my mask; but then pulled it away, remembering we aren’t supposed to touch them.

“Masks do work,” I said firmly. “I don’t know which conspiracy website you get your information from, but—”

The Journal of Infectious Diseases,” she interrupted. “In March, the CDCreviewed every study ever conducted on masks and found… they did nothing.”

“Well…” I said, drawing out the word, “nothing wrong with a placebo. Stops people from freaking out.”

“Freaking out over the common cold?”

“It’s not a cold,” I insisted, taking a deep and tense breath. “You think you know better than the experts?”

“Experts like Professor Ioannidis?” she asked.

I didn’t respond.

“You do know who Professor John Ioannidis is, don’t you?”

I sighed the sound of prey that had tired of the chase, ready to suffer its demise.

“Professor Ioannidis. One of the world’s leading epidemiologists. Stanford University. He says the SARS-CoV-2 death rate is in the ballpark of the regular flu season.”

“All right! All right!” I held up my hands. “Grandad’s waiting for his bread.”

Her face softened and she took a step back. “Who’s your grandad?”

“The old Indian with the long white hair,” I said, happy to change the subject.

“You mean Paul, the Anishinaabe Elder?”

“Yeah,” I said, taken aback by her familiarity. “Though, he’s more specifically Ojibwe.”

“Dokis band?”

“Uh-huh,” I said with a nod, though I truly could not remember which band he belonged to. “To me he’s just Grandad.”

That made her smile. “Can I call him Grandad, too?”

I paused, stumped on how to respond. “He’d probably be okay with that.”

“You don’t have him in quarantine, do you?”

“Kicking and screaming.”

“Shame on you, Turtle!” She waved her index finger. “That’s why I haven’t seen him since March. Under house arrest.”

“He’s at the nursing home, actually. We’re just keeping him safe.”

“He’s as healthy as a horse,” she said.

“He’s eighty-seven.”

“That proves it.”

“Anyway, now that the lockdown’s lifted, I was actually heading over there today—as soon as you sell me some bread, that is. I have an appointment”—I pulled out my cellphone and glanced at the time, 10:38 a.m.—“in thirty minutes. He told me he really misses your bread. So, I thought—”

“If his jail sentence is over, why doesn’t he come and get his own bread like he used to? I’d love to see Grandad again.”

“Well, it’s not safe enough yet,” I sighed, feeling a heaviness in my upper chest. “They’re only allowing them on the front lawn to meet with family.”

She rubbed her face with both hands, as if trying to hide from the world for a moment. “Four months locked in his room,” she said through cupped hands. “It’s inhuman.”

“He says it’s not been too bad.” Not that I believed him. “He reads a lot. Memorizes Shakespeare. He’s a bit of a loner.”

“So am I,” she said. “But four months of isolation sounds unbearable.”

“They are just trying to take care of him.”

She began twisting a strand of her hair tightly around her forefinger. “Oh, yeah, sure. If they call it caring then it must be okay. Abusing people is the new helping people.”

She’s nuts, I thought.

“That’s not really what’s going on.”

It can’t be.

She stared silently back at me. She didn’t appear to be breathing. And neither was I.

When I could hold my breath no longer, I inhaled deeply and demanded, “Are you going to give me some bread?”

“Are you going to lose the facial inhibitor?”

I pulled on the top of the green cloth and let the spandex snap back into place. “Hey, my mom made me this mask.”

Her blue eyes rolled up and to the left. “She also made your face.”

“Oh, for Christ’s sake!” I said, putting my hand to my forehead. “Do you have to be so difficult?”

“Do you have to wear a face diaper?”

More silence.

I needed her bread. But she didn’t seem too concerned about getting my money. She obviously placed her protests above profits. I could’ve left. Called it a draw.

No, I thought. All Grandad wanted was a loaf of her sourdough.

I was running out of time. If I was going to be defeated, I decided, I couldn’t let her win without some small victory on my side. Looking her in the eye, heart suddenly pounding, I said:

“I’ll take off the mask on one condition.” She took a big step back, crossed her arms and said, “What’s the condition?”

To find out what happens next, you can order the book here.

What Readers Are Saying…

“Sometimes fiction is the best way to get the truth across. Shakespeare and Charles Dickens knew that and so does John C. A. Manley. He has crafted a ripping story of courage, awakening and love (with some good laughs thrown in) all in the time of COVID. As with the truth, you won’t want to put Much Ado About Corona down.”—Patrick Corbett, former director/producer for W-5, Beachcombers and Dateline

Much Ado About Corona weaves a fascinating, entertaining, and sometimes very sad story, full of irony and subtle humour. The protagonist’s narrative is full of sarcasm, openness and directness. Heart warming and outright hilarious.”—Dr. Éva Székely, retired psychologist, author of Never Too Thin

“I enjoyed Much Ado About Corona immensely. The police interaction was bang on and the subtleties are not so subtle and portray an authentic realism to me. Constable Mackenzie is a tragic character.”—Retired Constable Leland “Lee” Keane, Royal Canadian Mounted Police

“I felt there was no more data I could absorb about COVID-19 without going crazy. Hence, it was refreshing to read a page-turning fictional account… Living in a profession where so few seem to see the horrors we are participating in, reading Much Ado About Corona was a cathartic experience.”—Andrew Brannan BScN, RN, ER and ICU nurse

More testimonials available at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca/testimonials.

*

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

John C. A. Manley is the author of the full-length novel, Much Ado About Corona: Dystopian Love Story. He is currently working on the sequel, Brave New Normal, while living in Stratford Ontario, with his wife Nicole and son Jonah. You can find out more about his controversial work of fiction at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

 


Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story

By John C. A. Manley

Publisher: Blazing Pine Cone Publishing (March 29, 2022)

Paperback:507 pages

ISBN-10:1778123104

ISBN-13:978-1778123108

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story”, by John C. A. Manley

The Economy of Tolerable Massacres: The Uvalde Shootings

May 26th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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.

***

 

Societies generate their own economies of tolerable cruelties and injustices.  Poverty, for instance, will be allowed, as long a sufficient number of individuals are profiting.  To an extent, crime and violence can be allowed to thrive.  In the United States, the economy of tolerable massacres, executed by military grade weapons, is considerable and seemingly resilient.  Its participants all partake in administering it, playing their bleak roles under the sacred banner of constitutional freedom and psychobabble.

Just as prison reform tends to keep pace with the expansion of the bloated system, the gun argument in the US keeps pace, barely, with each massacre.  With each round of killings, a script is activated: initial horror, hot tears of indignation of never again, and then, the stalemate on reform till the next round of killings can be duly accommodated. “It isn’t enough to reiterate the plain truth that the assault weapons used in mass shootings must be banned and confiscated,” observes Benjamin Kunkel.  “Instead, every fresh atrocity must be recruited into everyone’s preferred single-factor sociological narrative.”

In Uvalde, Texas, a teenage gunman (they do get younger) made his way into an elementary school and delivered an unforgettable May 24 lesson.  When he had finished at Robb Elementary School, 19 children and 2 adults had perished.  But even this effort, in the premier league ranking of school killings, failed to top the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in December 2012.  On that occasion, 26 lost their lives.

The horror and indignant tears were duly cued.  President of the United States, Joe Biden:

“Why are we willing to live with this carnage?  Why do we keep letting this happen?” he rhetorically intoned at a press conference.  “For every parent, for every citizen in this country, we have to make it clear to every elected official in this country: it’s time to act.”  This would involve the passing of “common sense gun laws” and combating the gun lobby.

The next day, Vice President Kamala Harris reiterated the formula.

“We must work together to create an America where everyone feels safe in their community, where children feel safe in their schools.”

The politicians are duly accompanied by the talking heads, such as Ron Avi Astor, described by NPR as “a mass shooting expert”.  With this unsavoury appellation, we are told that this UCLA professor is puzzled as to why negligible changes to gun laws have taken place since Sandy Hook.  In coping with such puzzlement, he suggests an old academic trick: reframe the problem to lessen its gravity.

With some gusto, Astor proceeds to say that schools in the US have been doing fabulously well in coping with violence – as long as you take the long view. “If you look over the last 20 years, really since Columbine, there’s been a massive, massive, massive … decrease in victimization and violence in schools.”  Diving into the silver lining in his own massive way, he finds “reductions” in violence in the order of 50 to 70 percent.

It never takes long for the economy of tolerable massacres to generate the next round of scrappy arguments, with the corpses barely cold.  The common one is that of shooting frequency.  Was this a good year relative to the last?  This year, the United States has suffered 27.

Since 2018, Education Week, showing how school deaths should very much feature in planning curricula, has taken a grim interest in the whole matter.  Reading its compiled figures – “heartbreaking, but important work”, the journal claims – is much like dipping into stock market returns with the requisite amount of sensitivity.  In 2021, there were 34 school shootings, a real bumper year.  In 2020, it was poor on that front: a modest 10.  Both 2019 and 2018 saw higher returns: 24 each.

If you wish to be entertained by the ghoulish nature of it all, Education Week also gives us some infotainment with a graphic on “Where the Shootings Happened.”  Dots feature on a map of the country.  “The size of the dots correlates to the number of people killed or injured.  Click on each dot for more information.”  Where would we be but for such valuable services?

To give credence to the seemingly immutable nature of this economy on shootings, platoons of commentators, equipped with various skills, argue about responses, most showing that common sense, in this field, is a noble dream.  The conservative National Review takes the view that “tougher background checks” would hardly have worked for the Uvalde shooter.  There was no paper trail flagging him as a threat, nothing to suggest that he should have been prevented as a “legal adult from purchasing a firearm.”  The implicit suggestion here: only nutters kill.

The business of guns is the business of a particular American sensibility.  With the school shooting still fresh, various members of the GOP and Donald Trump affirmed their interest in appearing at a Memorial Day weekend event hosted by the National Rifle Association.  In a statement on the shootings, the NRA expressed its “deepest sympathies” for the families and victims of “this horrific and evil crime” but preferred to describe the killings as the responsibility “of a lone, deranged criminal.”  Leave gun regulation alone; focus on school security instead.

With that brief formality discharged, the NRA expressed its delight at its forthcoming Annual Meetings and Exhibits event to take place at the George R. Brown Convention Center, Houston between May 27 and May 29.  “The Exhibit Hall is open all three days and will showcase over 14 acres of the latest guns and gear from the most popular companies in the Industry.”  It promises to be fun for the whole family.

Then comes the thorny matter of definitions, a sure way to kill off any sensible action.  From boffin to reactionary, no one can quite accept what a “school shooting” is.  Non-profit outfits such as the New York-based Everytown for Gun Safety include any discharge of a firearm at school as part of the definition.  “In 2022,” the organisation claims, “there were at least 77 incidents of gunfire on school grounds, resulting in 14 deaths and 45 injuries nationally.”

Everytown for Gun Safety is keen to paint a picture of annual murderous rampage: 3,500 children and teens being shot and killed; 15,000 shot and injured.  Some 3 million children in the US are exposed to shootings each year.

The tone underlying such a message is much at odds with the rest easy approach taken by Astor – what Australians would call the “she’ll be right, mate” caste of mind.  It is certainly Panglossian in nature, aligning with the views of cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, optimist extraordinaire on the human condition.  Taken holistically, he keeps insisting, we live in far better, less violent times than our forebears.  Such massacres as those at Sandy Hook should not be taken to mean that schools have become less safe.  “People always think that violence has increased because they reason from memorable examples rather than global data.”  For Pinker, the 2013 joint survey by the Departments of Justice and Education on such statistics as rates of victimisation since 1992 to non-fatal victimisations was sufficient rebuke against the pessimists and moaners.

The Uvalde massacre will, in time, be absorbed by this economy of tolerable violence.  The anger will dissipate; collective amnesia, if not simple indifference, will exert its dulling sleep.  The dead, except for the personally affected, will go the way of others, buried in the confetti and scrapings of statistics.

*

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

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

Monkeypox Mythology

May 26th, 2022 by Dr. Sam Bailey

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.

***

“Monkeypox” – who could have seen it coming? Well, apparently the organisation founded by Ted Turner in 2001 called the ‘Nuclear Threat Initiative’ (NTI) saw it coming when they published a report in November 2021 called, “Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats.”

The report states that in March 2021, they partnered with the Munich Security Conference to run an exercise scenario involving a, “deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months…the fictional pandemic resulted in more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.”

The Nuclear Threat Initiative introduces Plandemic 2.0? This time it is even bigger and monkeypox takes centre stage.

Amazingly, the scenario had the monkeypox outbreak emerging as a result of an act of bioterrorism in May 2022, right where we are now.

We have dealt with gain of function garbage involving non-existent viruses in several other videos, while Dr Stefan Lanka has also dismantled such fallacies. Regardless, the NTI’s report suggests that what is required in a fantasy outbreak is, “aggressive measures to slow virus transmission by shutting down mass gatherings, imposing social-distancing measures, and implementing mask mandates.” The winning countries in the NTI’s hallucination implemented, “large-scale testing and contact-tracing operations and scaled-up their health care systems.”

Their charts, which seem to be produced by Neil Ferguson’s calculator, show that countries that don’t comply with their restrictions and medical interventions will be far worse off. The report goes on to state,

“both the exercise scenario and the COVID-19 response demonstrate that early actions by national governments have significant, positive impacts in managing the impact of the disease.”

When they say “positive impacts” it is not quite clear who is on the receiving end, although they note that “the COVID vaccine market will exceed $150 billion in 2021.” All in all the NTI’s report reads like Event 201 on Ritalin. (Event 201 took place on 18 October, 2019. It was an exercise involving a, “coronavirus pandemic” just months before the COVID-19 “pandemic” was declared.)

Monkeypox attacks right on cue!

As with COVID-19 it appears that other parties have also been eagerly awaiting a market such a “pandemic” would present. Likewise, these fortune-tellers were preparing vaccines to go where no vaccine had gone before. In this case the biotech company Bavarian Nordic gained approval from the FDA in 2019 to market JYNNEOS, a smallpox and monkeypox vaccine. Other health authorities were also primed to react to a previously rare condition that has been of no concern for their nations…until now apparently. For example, on May 20, 2022, the UK Health Security Agency published a document titled, “Recommendations for the use of pre and post exposure vaccination during a monkeypox incident.” Like COVID-19, it’s starting to feel like all roads lead to vaccines again…

Just a matter of time before the “rare” monkeypox vaccine comes to your neighbourhood.

So now that the scene has been set we can get into the “science” of monkeypox starting with an official description of the alleged viral disease. The CDC states that, “Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 when two outbreaks of a pox-like disease occurred in colonies of monkeys kept for research, hence the name ‘monkeypox.’ The first human case of monkeypox was recorded in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of Congo.” They go on to state that, “in humans, the symptoms of monkeypox are similar to but milder than the symptoms of smallpox.” The illness is said to be flu-like with the addition of lymph node swelling and then development of a rash, and then lesions that progress from macules to vesicles to scabs.

In terms of the lethality of monkeypox, the CDC state that, “in Africa, monkeypox has been shown to cause death in as many as 1 in 10 persons who contract the disease.” This 10% fatality rate has already stoked the fear narrative and was also used as the case fatality rate in the NTI’s monkeypox pipe dream. It should be noted that historically monkeypox has been virtually unheard of in first world countries and the rare cases are usually in people that have recently arrived from Africa.

Indeed, one of the only recorded “outbreaks” of monkeypox in the first world was in the United States in April 2003. Cases were declared in 6 states and said to be caused by rodents that were imported to Texas from Ghana. This was the first time monkeypox had been reported outside of Africa and the CDC published a paper in 2006 analysing the incident. The paper states that, “person-to-person spread of the virus is thought to occur principally via infectious oropharyngeal exudates” although it is clear that this has never been scientifically established. They continue to say that, “the virus is thought to have been transmitted from African animals” – in other words, it’s another species-jumping pathogen tale.

They reported that, “individuals who had illness onset within 21 days after exposure to MPXV [Monkeypox virus] who experienced fever (defined as a body temperature greater 37.4°C) and vesicular pustular rash or rash (potentially uncharacterized) plus orthopox IgM antibodies were classified as having probable cases of infection.” Now 37.4°C is not a fever in our book, it is a normal body temperature and we would suggest 37.6°C and above qualifies as a fever. We noted in their chart that they were using the classification ≥39.4°C, but this appears to be an error as in another paper, we’ll get to soon, it was once again 37.4°C. The second paper even said the “fever” could be subjective, so they appear to be using this loose criteria and pathologising a normal state. Additionally, the CDC’s weekly report from the 11th of July 2003, stated that from a total of 71 cases, only “two patients, both children, had serious clinical illness; both of these patients have recovered.” The remainder had a variety of respiratory and gastrointestinal symptoms.

The CDC’s cases were confirmed on the basis of specimens that showed, “monkeypox virus isolation, detection of monkeypox-specific nucleic acid signatures, positive electron-microscopy findings, or positive immunohistochemical findings.”  We had a look at the electron micrographs presented by the CDC including the image shown below of a skin sample from one of the patients. The caption informs us that the round particles on the right are immature monkeypox virions, while the oval particles on the left are mature viruses. However, all they have is a static image of dead tissue and no conclusions can be made about the biological role of the imaged particles. None of them have been shown to be replication-competent disease-causing intracellular parasites and so should not be called ‘viruses’.

The oldest trick in the book: Image some vesicles and call them “viruses”. To see why this is insufficient watch Electron Microscopy and Unidentified “Viral” Objects.

Looking at the CDC’s weekly report from 2003 again, it appears that the 35 “laboratory-confirmed cases” all involved polymerase chain reaction (PCR) “tests”, so we investigated the scientific evidence behind this claim. One of the citations for the development of PCR detection of monkeypox is a 2004 paper titled “Real-Time PCR System for Detection of Orthopoxviruses and Simultaneous Identification of Smallpox Virus.” Now a PCR protocol requires them to know the genetic sequences of the alleged monkeypox virus, which takes us to this 2001 paper titled, “Human monkeypox and smallpox viruses: genomic comparison”. The paper claimed to have “isolated” the monkeypox virus in a rhesus monkey kidney cell culture from a scab of a monkeypox patient. Here the virologists are up to their old tricks again by asserting that: (a) the patient’s scab contains the monkeypox virus, and (b) it is now in their culture brew. They claimed to have sequenced the “viral genome” by referring to a process described for sequencing an alleged variola virus in 1993.

But when we look at this paper there is no virus demonstrated either, simply an assertion that it was “isolated” from, “the material from a patient from India” in 1967. They go on to make the claim that, “the virions were purified by differential centrifugation and viral DNA was isolated” – however, there is no demonstration of what they purified or how they were determined to be virions. In none of these experiments did they perform any controls by seeing what sequences can be detected from other human-derived scabs or similar specimens from unwell individuals. This is where we need to remind the virologists of what a virus is supposed to be – that is, a replication-competent intracellular parasite that infects and causes disease in a host. It is not detecting genetic sequences contained within scabs and claiming that they belong to a virus.

So returning to the CDC’s paper describing the 2003 “outbreak”, it is unclear how they established they could be diagnosing anyone with monkeypox by using the PCR. Their PCR can only have been calibrated to sequences of unproven provenance. Additionally, it doesn’t matter what kind of analytical specificity their PCR protocol had, there was no established diagnostic specificity – in other words it was not a clinically-validated test, an issue that goes beyond whether the “virus” exists or not. (From the MIQE GuidelinesAnalytical specificity refers to the qPCR assay detecting the appropriate target sequence rather than other, nonspecific targets also present in a sample. Diagnostic specificity is the percentage of individuals without a given condition whom the assay identifies as negative for that condition.)

The 47 US cases they ended up describing were all in some sort of contact with imported African prairie dogs and the CDC’s paper concludes that, “individuals contracted MPXV infections from infected prairie dogs; no human-to-human transmission was documented, but there were many different potential scenarios of infection involving respiratory and/or muco-cutaneous exposures, percutaneous and/or inoculation exposures.” Now there were some problems with the study design which they admitted to including that, “the analyses were limited by incomplete reporting or recall of information by patients. And, because of the retrospective nature of the study, we were unable to obtain highly detailed data.”

However, even allowing some wriggle room for them here, the inconsistencies go further still. Firstly, no one in the US incident died from the disease which is said to have a 10% fatality rate in Africa. No doubt, the inconsistent lethality rates will be attributed to different “variants”, but there can’t be variants of something that doesn’t exist.

There were few images available of the skin lesions that were reported in the 2003 incident but two of the US cases are depicted below and an image from a monkeypox case in Africa is shown for comparison. The reader can make up their own mind but those skin reactions do not look remotely comparable to us.

Next, the CDC claim that, “the natural reservoir of monkeypox remains unknown. However, African rodents and non-human primates (like monkeys) may harbor the virus and infect people” – in other words it’s all rather vague and remains an unproven hypothesis. Now, obviously some people became unwell in the US in 2003 but with the viral theory we are supposed to believe that it jumped from some prairie dogs to some humans and the latter became infected with the alleged virus…but then no human could pass it on to another human. The theory falls flat – a virus needs to spread, if it can’t spread, it’s dead and thus it’s not a virus. And the historical patterns of alleged monkeypox virus outbreaks make no sense – why did it pass to these people so easily and yet it can go a decade between alleged “outbreaks”?

Unfortunately, the 2003 incident was investigated as though the viral contagion theory had already been established and other explanations were ignored. If people were allegedly getting sick from these African rodents, wouldn’t it be a good idea to check the animals for other toxicities, particularly in their faeces and also for any ticks or parasites? We did note another reference state that with regards to the US cases, “many of the people had initial and satellite lesions on palms, soles, and extremities.” However, according to the CDC, monkeypox usually starts on the face so the clinical picture in the US cases was not consistent with cases that are typically described in Africa.

In any case, a review of the scientific evidence revealed that with regards to monkeypox: (a) there is no evidence of a physical particle that meets the definition of a virus, (b) there is no evidence of anything transmitting between humans, and (c) there is no way to confirm a diagnosis of monkeypox unless you believe in clinically-unvalidated tests such as the PCR kits that have been produced. In other words, if we see a monkeypox “pandemic” that is used as an excuse to role out more globalist terrorism, it will be on the back of another PCR pandemic, not one that has any basis in nature.

For those of you wanting to explore more problems with the various monkeypox claims, Mike Stone of ViroLIEgy has written a couple of interesting commentaries. The first article is, “Was Smallpox Really Eradicated?”, which among other things deals with the convenient emergence of monkeypox while smallpox was apparently being eradicated. The second article is, “Did William Heberden Distinguish Chickenpox From Smallpox in 1767?” This outlines the fact that the pox conditions are not as readily distinguishable from each other as the text books suggest and appear to relate more to the severity of a similar disease process. You can also watch our video, “Chickenpox Parties and Varicella Zoster Virus?” to see why there is no evidence of a virus in that related condition either.

From the perspective of terrain theory it is a fundamental mistake to attribute a person’s illness to a supposed virus, as the subsequent “treatments” don’t address the underlying issues. If someone is unwell, then they are usually deficient in nutrients and need to restore balance, or they have been exposed to environmental toxins and need to help the body detoxify. Wars against alleged pathogens that involve treating everyone the same way with civil rights restrictions and vaccines are certainly not about heath. It is good to see more people waking up to the COVID-19 fraud so there is hope that a monkeypox scamdemic, if attempted, will bring even more light to the situation. As always, your best health is in your own hands, not in the hands of a globalist cult and their cronies.

*

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

Sam is a content creator, medical author & health educator. Mark is a microbiology, medical industry and health researcher who worked in medical practice, including clinical trials, for two decades.

All images in this article are from the authors unless otherwise stated

Pan-Africanism Yes! U.S. AFRICOM and NATO No!

May 26th, 2022 by 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.

***

The following statement was delivered to the Africa Liberation Day/Palestine Nakba Day broadcast on Tues. May 24, 2022. The event was sponsored by the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party (A-APRP,GC), All-African Women’s Revolutionary Union (GC), the African Awareness Association, Africans on the Move podcast and the National Council of Arab Americans.

***

We are honored to participate in this annual commemoration of Africa Liberation Day some 59 years after the founding meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) on May 25, 1963, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Much has transpired since 1963 when more than 30 independent African states held this gathering and pledged to work towards the total liberation of the continent and greater unity among governments throughout the region.

Today, the African Union (AU), founded in 2002 in Sirte, Libya, is facing one of the most profound challenges of the post-colonial period. The struggle for the unification of the AU member-states cannot occur absent the removal of foreign military forces now occupying several geo-political regions.

The United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), French Armed Forces, European Union Forces, NATO, among others are claiming that they are in numerous AU states under the guise of providing military training and assisting in strengthening the overall security apparatuses of these territories. However, since the launching of AFRICOM in February 2008, the instability within numerous African states has worsened.

Most recently, the administration of President Joe Biden has ordered the redeployment of U.S. troops into the Horn of Africa state of Somalia. A conference involving several U.S. governmental agencies was held prior to the redeployment, in Djibouti, where thousands of Pentagon and French troops are based at Camp Lemonnier.

Somalia has been a focal point of imperialist intrigue for many decades. The instability in Somalia is compounded by the burgeoning humanitarian crisis in the country due to the drought, which is gripping the country, the worst in six decades. Although these environmental problems are escalating as a result of climate change, the Pentagon is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world today.

Therefore, to effectively address the phenomenon of environmental degradation, African people must demand the dismantling of the Pentagon, NATO and its allied military forces across the world. The security issues in Somalia are a by-product of the persistent involvement by the U.S. in the internal affairs of the oil-rich country.

Africa and the Imperialist War in Ukraine

There is much focus on the Russian special military operations in Ukraine which is designed to stave off the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Eastern Europe. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the COMECON states and the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia during the late 1980s and early 1990s emboldened this military alliance formed by Washington in 1949.

There does not appear to be any enthusiasm within the AU member-states related to their participation in the U.S.-engineered war in Ukraine. Many African states abstained from voting on the two resolutions passed by the United Nations General Assembly condemning the Russian Federation. The State of Eritrea in the Horn of Africa was the only government that voted against the first resolution.

Many leaders and mass organizations have explained why they cannot support the imperialist war in Ukraine and that there must be a diplomatic initiative to end the fighting. The Biden administration is continuing the same legacy of imperialist militarism that has plagued the world for more than a century. Among the youth and anti-imperialist working class elements, there is open solidarity with the Russian Federation based upon the aggressive posture of the Ukraine military which is being propped up by the Biden administration.

Among the U.S., progressive, liberal, moderate and conservative political officials, have all lined up behind the pro-NATO operations in Ukraine. $55 billion in direct assistance to the war has been announced. These are resources taken directly from the tax revenues paid by working class and poor people in the U.S. These large-scale expenditures to continue the Ukraine war are desperately needed in the Horn of Africa to address the food deficits and potential famine as well as providing relief to the masses of people in the U.S. suffering from the coronavirus pandemic, its aftermath and the inflationary spiral not seen in more than four decades.

These domestic and foreign policy questions require bold, independent and revolutionary action on the part of African people, the other oppressed nations in the U.S. and the working class as a whole. The organization of the workers and oppressed in the U.S. must be carried out in conjunction with the revolutionary and national democratic forces in operation around the globe. Africa is central to the struggle against imperialism since its origins stem from the advent of the Atlantic slave trade, colonialism and neo-colonialism.

In conclusion, we want to join with other genuinely progressive and revolutionary forces throughout the world to proclaim that Pan-Africanism and Proletarian Internationalism is the only real solution to the monumental social and economic problems engendered by capitalism and imperialism.

Long Live the African Revolution!

Smash NATO and Its Allies!

There is Victory for Us!

Author’s Note

The above statement was delivered to the Africa Liberation Day/Palestine Nakba Day broadcast on Tues. May 24, 2022. The event was sponsored by the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party (A-APRP,GC), All-African Women’s Revolutionary Union (GC), the African Awareness Association, Africans on the Move podcast and the National Council of Arab Americans.

Several organizations addressed the program including Louis Wolf, co-founder and editor of Covert Action magazine; Phil Wilay, Virginia Defenders for Freedom, Justice and Equality; Jihad Abdulmumit, Chairperson of the International Jericho Movement; Simin Royanian, Women for Friendship and Peace in Iran; John Steinbach, Hiroshima Nagasaki Peace Committee; Kweku Lumumba, KOSSA/Haiti; Bilal Sunni Ali, Imam Jamil al-Amin Action Network; Lee Robinson, African Awareness Association and A-APRP (GC); and Anthony Williams, A-APRP (GC). Promotional language for the broadcast said that:

“This year, our ALD/PD programs are being organized for the month of May 2022. There will be various activities and programs taking place during this time.  Our theme for year’s program is ‘Unleashing an Offensive of 64 YEARS of African Liberation Day:  Intensifying the Revolutionary Struggle Against Capitalism & Imperialism, Zionism & Neo-Colonialism; Forward to Pan-Africanism – One Unified Socialist Africa’, in principled solidarity with the Palestinian revolutionary struggle to liberate all of Palestine from Zionist occupation and control. We are additionally honoring the birthdays of Ho Chi Minh (May 19, 1890) and Malcolm X (May 19, 1925).” A link to the entire program can be found here.*

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

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

Featured image: African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Gesunder Menschenverstand versus magische Weltanschauung

May 26th, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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:

Wissenschaftliche Psychologie fordert neue „Aufklärung“

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, May 24, 2022


Die kritischen Gedanken über die Religion und ihre Auswirkungen auf das menschliche Fühlen, Denken und Handeln beruhen vor allem auf eigenen Erfahrungen des Autors mit dem religiösen Glauben und der Institution der katholischen Kirche. Darüber hinaus stützt sich der Autor als Pädagoge und Psychologe auf die Wissenschaft der Psychologie und das einzigartige Lebenswerk seines geschätzten Züricher Psychologie-Lehrers und Psychotherapeuten Friedrich Liebling (1893-1982). Von ihm stehen dem Autor unveröffentlichte Manuskripte und umfangreiche persönliche Aufzeichnungen von privaten und öffentlichen Gesprächen zur Verfügung.

Eine weitere Grundlage sind die Werke des französischen Aufklärers und Enzyklopädisten Baron Paul-Henri Thiry d’Holbach (1723-1789) „System der Natur“ (5) und „Der gesunde Menschenverstand des Pfarrers Meslier“ (6). Hinzu kommen die Gedanken des französischen Radikalaufklärers und „Atheisten im Priesterrock“ Jean Meslier (1664-1729), die er in seinem Testament „Memorandum der Gedanken und Überzeugungen des J. M“ niedergeschrieben hat.

Holbachs Buch „System der Natur oder von den Grenzen der physischen und der moralischen Welt“ erschien im Jahre 1770 unter fingierter Autorenschaft und erregte skandalöses Aufsehen. Der französische Klerus verlangte sein sofortiges Verbot durch das Parlament, weil es „gottlos, gotteslästerlich und aufrührerisch“ sei. Auszüge aus dem Vorwort des Verfassers lassen dies erahnen:

„Der Mensch ist nur darum unglücklich, weil er die Natur verkennt. Sein Geist ist durch Vorurteile derart verseucht, dass man glauben könnte, er sei für immer zum Irrtum verdammt: er ist mit dem Schleier der Anschauungen, den man von Kindheit an über ihn breitet, so fest verwachsen, dass er nur mit der größten Mühe daraus gelöst werden kann. Ein gefährlicher Gärstoff ist all seinen Kenntnissen beigemischt und macht sie notwendig schwankend, unklar und falsch; er wollte zu seinem Unglück die Grenzen seiner Sphäre überschreiten und versuchte, sich über die sichtbare Welt zu erheben; (…)

Es gibt nur eine Wahrheit; sie ist für den Menschen notwendig, sie kann ihm niemals schaden, ihre unbesiegbare Macht wird sich früher oder später offenbaren. Darum muss sie dem menschlichen Geschlecht enthüllt werden; (…)

Versuchen wir also, die Nebel zu verscheuchen, die den Menschen daran hindern, mit sicherem Schritt auf seinem Lebensweg voranzuschreiten, flößen wir ihm Mut und Achtung vor seiner Vernunft ein; er lerne sein Wesen und seine legitimen Rechte erkennen, er frage die Erfahrung um Rat und verzichte auf die Vorurteile seiner Kindheit; er gründe seine Moral auf seine Natur, seine Bedürfnisse, seine wirklichen Vorteile, welche die Gesellschaft ihm gewährt; er wage es, sich selbst zu lieben; er arbeite für sein eigenes Glück, indem er dasjenige der anderen fördert; mit einem Wort: er sei vernünftig und tugendhaft, um hier auf dieser Erde glücklich zu sein, und beschäftige sich nicht mit gefährlichen und unnützen Träumereien!“ (7)

1772, gerade einmal zwei Jahre nach Veröffentlichung von „System der Natur“, erschien unter dem Titel „LE BONS SENS DU CURE MESLIER“ das Buch „Der gesunde Menschenverstand des Pfarrers Meslier“ (8). Um sich der Verfolgung durch die „heilige Inquisition“ zu entziehen, veröffentlichte Holbach seine Gedanken unter dem Namen des bereits verstorbenen freidenkenden Pfarrers Jean Meslier.

Meslier, der es in seiner Amtszeit nicht wagen durfte, der Kirchengemeinde seine kritischen Gedanken mitzuteilen, schrieb diese während seiner letzten Jahre nieder. Dieses umfassende, antireligiöse Manifest „Mémoire“ wurde nach seinem Tod 1729 als Testament veröffentlicht und übte einen erheblichen Einfluss auf die beginnende Aufklärung aus. Das Gedankengut Meliers wurde in vielen Auszügen verbreitet und galt als Bestseller unter den geheimen Schriften. 1792 nahm auch Voltaire dazu Stellung.

1878 erschien eine deutsche Übersetzung von „LE BONS SENS DU CURE MESLIER“: „Der gesunde Menschenverstand oder das religiöse Testament des Pfarrers Meslier aus Étrépigny. Eine religiös-philosophische Abhandlung über den Begriff ‚Religion‘ und über die Existenz eines göttlichen schöpferischen Wesens – Dem geistig fortgeschrittenen Volke gewidmet -“ (9). Orthographie, Interpunktion und Satzstellung wurden unverändert übernommen.

Bereits in der Einleitung schreibt Holbach:

„Es ist vergebene Mühe, die Menschen von ihren Lastern heilen zu wollen, wenn man nicht mit der Heilung ihrer Vorurtheile beginnt. Man muss ihnen die Wahrheit sagen, damit sie ihre theuersten Interessen kennen lernen, und die wahren Motive, welche sie der Tugend und ihrem wahren Glück zuführen.

Die Volkslehrer haben lange genug ihre Augen zu dem Himmel erhoben; möchten sie endlich sie der Erde zuwenden! Gebeugt durch die unbegreifliche Theologie, durch lächerliche Fabeln, durch undurchdringliche Mysterien, durch kindliche Ceremonien, möchte der Mensch doch endlich sich mit natürlichen Dingen, mit verständlichen Gegenständen, mit sichtbaren Wahrheiten, mit nützlichen Kenntnissen befassen! Man beseitige die eitlen Chimären, welche die Menschen in Fesseln halten; und die vernünftigen Gedanken werden gleichsam von selbst in den Köpfen Wurzeln fassen, von denen man glaubte, sie seien für ewigen Irrthum bestimmt. (…)

Um die wahren Prinzipien der Moral zu entdecken, bedarf der Mensch weder der Theologie, noch einer Offenbarung, noch eines Gottes; er bedarf nur eines gesunden Verstandes; er braucht nur in sich selbst zu blicken, seine eigene Natur zu erforschen, seine Vortheile zu berücksichtigen, den Zweck der Gesellschaft und aller ihrer Mitglieder zu betrachten, und er wird leicht zur Einsicht kommen, dass die Tugend glücklich und das Laster unglücklich macht.

Sagen wir den Menschen, dass sie gerecht sein sollen, wohltätig, mäßig und gesellig, nicht weil es ihre Götter verlangen, sondern weil man seinen Nebenmenschen zu gefallen suchen muss; sagen wir ihnen, dass sie sich der Sünde und des Lasters enthalten sollen, nicht weil man in einer andern Welt gestraft wird, sondern weil sich das Böse schon in diesem Leben bestraft. (…).

Die Wahrheit ist einfach; der Irrthum ist compliziert, unsicher in seinem Gange und von Abwegen umgeben. Die Stimme der Natur ist verständlich; die der Lüge ist zweideutig, rätselhaft, mysteriös. Der Weg der Wahrheit ist gerade, jener des Betruges ist krumm und finster. Diese Wahrheit ist allen Menschen nothwendig, und wird von allen Gerechten gefühlt. Die Lehren der Vernunft sind für alle Jene, die redlichen Gemüthes sind. Die Menschen sind unglücklich, weil sie unwissend sind; sie sind unwissend, weil sich Alles gegen ihre Aufklärung verschwört, und bloß darum schlecht, weil ihre Denkkräfte nicht hinreichend entwickelt.“ (10)

Der französische Philosoph und Schriftsteller Pierre Bayle (1647-1706), ebenfalls eine zentrale Figur der Aufklärung, ist der Auffassung:

„Dass eine Meinung nur deshalb, weil sie sich von Jahrhundert zu Jahrhundert fortgeschleppt hat, nun eine Wahrheit sei, das ist ganz einfach eine Täuschung.“ (11)

Hohe „Suggestibilität“ im Kindesalter unterstützt religiöse Glaubensbereitschaft

Die christliche Kirche ist der Überzeugung, dass das, was an religiöser Erziehung des Kindes versäumt wird, kaum wieder eingeholt werden kann. Sie muss ihre Lehren dem jungen, geistig noch hilflosen Menschen erst künstlich induzieren, um ihn als Erwachsenen fest in der Hand zu haben.

Der Mensch glaubt gerne, was seinen Wünschen und seiner jeweiligen Gemütsstimmung entspricht. Die „Suggestibilität“ ist ein Persönlichkeitsmerkmal, welches das Ausmaß der „Empfänglichkeit“ für suggestiv übermittelte Informationen über bestimmte Sachverhalte ausdrückt, die in die eigenen kognitiven Systeme (Wahrnehmen, Denken, Erinnern usw.) integriert werden. Oft vermitteln Menschen diese Informationen als Selbsterlebtes oder eigene Erfahrungen weiter. Bei diesem Prozess werden von außerhalb Gedanken, Gefühle, Wahrnehmungen oder Vorstellungen übernommen, die nicht der Realität entsprechen und die Person in manipulativer Weise geistig-psychisch beeinflussen sollen (12).

Durch die mehr oder weniger große Suggestibilität fast aller Menschen wird die religiöse Glaubensbereitschaft wesentlich unterstützt. Sehr suggestible Erwachsene werden oft als „naiv“ oder „leichtgläubig“ bezeichnet. Anders verhält es sich bei Kindern: Ihre Suggestibilität ist sehr hoch, weshalb junge Menschen in besonderem Maße Ziel manipulativer Beeinflussung sind. Außerdem können Kinder dazu neigen, suggerierte Informationen mit Erlebtem zu verwechseln (13). Bevor noch das Bewusstsein erwacht und bevor es denken und bewerten kann, werden dem Kind die Ideen von Gott, Teufel, Dämonen, finsterer Mächte und der Hölle eingeflößt. Allein der Gedanke, an diesen Ideen zu zweifeln, führt direkt in die Hölle.

In der Regel betritt der gläubige Mensch seine Kirche bereits in einem halbsuggerierten Zustand; weiteres geschieht automatisch: Das feierliche kirchliche Milieu, die priesterliche Kleidung, Weihrauch, Orgelmusik, Litaneien und die Predigt, die pathetisch überreden will. All das vervollständigt die Suggestion und schaltet das kritische Denkvermögen aus. Das Denken wird leise und unbemerkbar beiseitegeschoben und durch die Stimme des Predigers eingelullt. Zum hundertsten und tausendsten Mal wird immer das gleiche gesagt, man hört kaum noch zu.

Durch die religiöse Suggestion wird nicht nur die Intelligenz eingeschüchtert, sondern auch der Wille und das Selbstbewusstsein, weil der Abfall vom Glauben und der Austritt aus der Kirche seit apostolischen Zeiten als schwere Sünde, als Untreue und Judas-Tat gelten. Der gesunde und geistig-psychisch nicht manipulierte Mensch äußert Urteile erst dann, wenn er sie an der Erfahrung überprüft und als nicht vernunftwidrig erkannt hat.

Die einschläfernde Wirkung der monotonen religiösen Zeremonien und die religiösen Feste, die den Höhepunkt des Jahres darstellen sowie die ständige Entwertung einer vorübergehenden Existenz auf Erden zugunsten des ewigen Lebens im Jenseits bewirken, dass eine fatalistische und passive Haltung häufig zum dominanten Charaktermerkmal der Persönlichkeit wird.

Ein Mensch kann sich aber in seiner Denkungsart und Gedankenwelt ändern. Die Jugend ist heute freier als früher; das ist schon eine andere Welt, weil die Zivilisation fortgeschritten ist. Dieser junge Mensch ist mit der Religion aufgewachsen, er kennt das ganze mystische Gedankengut und hat immer noch Angst, nicht zu glauben, weil das eine Sünde ist und er das ewige Leben verlieren könnte.

Wenn er jedoch zum Beispiel zu einem aufgeklärten Psychotherapeuten Vertrauen hat und bekommt Mut, steht nach einiger Zeit ein Mensch vor uns, der das alles ablegen kann: Er glaubt nicht mehr, weil er Einblick in die Naturwissenschaft bekommen hat, weil er angefangen hat zu lesen und weil er die Kirchengeschichte und die Geschichte der anderen Seite, der Zweifler, kennengelernt hat, die sich gegen die Religion aufgelehnt haben. Er fängt an, einen Blick für die reale Welt zu haben und bekommt neue Gedanken; an die alten glaubt er nicht mehr. Er hat eine andere Lebensauffassung, weil er seine Gedanken und Gefühle überprüft hat.

Das Problem der Gewalt in der autoritären Erziehung

In unserer Gesellschaft und Kultur wird immer mit Gewalt vorgegangen. Bei der Mutter fängt es an. Wie kommt es, dass eine Mutter ihr Kind schlägt, beschimpft und irritiert? Das ist doch nicht gewollt: Sie hat ein Kind auf die Welt gebracht und war mit dem ganzen Herzen dabei. Beziehen wir jedoch unsere gesamte Gesellschaftsordnung mit ein – das Prinzip der Gewalt und des Zwanges –, dann ist die Mutter schon so erzogen worden und ist der Meinung, dass sie ihr Kind auch in diesem Sinne zu erziehen hat.

Ein hoher Prozentsatz der Bevölkerung – die Intelligenten, die Dummen, die Akademiker, die Nichtakademiker, die Gläubigen und die Ungläubigen –, sie alle stimmen für „Ruhe und Ordnung!“. Das ist der Kasernenhof, unser kulturelles Problem und unser Unglück! Da liegt „der Hund begraben“. Wir haben alle den Zwang in der Erziehung erlebt – und deshalb haben wir den Zwang in uns.

Auch die Schule ist eine Gewaltinstitution – selbst dann, wenn sie heute wegen der psychologischen Erkenntnisse etwas gemildert ist. Der Lehrer darf nicht mehr schlagen – aber er schlägt trotzdem. Die ganze Haltung des Lehrers ist autoritär, auch wenn er nicht schlägt. Das Kind wird seines Lebens nicht froh. Es lebt nicht in einer freundlichen Welt; alles ist die Fortsetzung des Erziehungsproblems zuhause.

Der Professor ist ebenso ein Machthaber, dem der Student nicht gewachsen ist. Dieser Autoritätsgedanke wird überall gepflegt. Lehrer und Professor haben Angst, ihr Prestige zu verlieren, wenn sie sich mit dem Schüler oder Studenten unterhalten und ihm helfen. Sie haben Angst, weil auch sie diese Erziehung erlebt haben. Es ist kein gutes, gleichwertiges Verhältnis.

In der autoritären Erziehung führen wir das Kind nicht behutsam und behandeln es nicht wie ein Wesen, das werden soll, das sich entwickelt. Wir verlangen sehr viel und werden schnell nervös. Vater und Mutter kommen eben vom Schmelzkessel der Kirche und der Mystik. Unsere Moral und Meinung sind durchzogen vom Gedanken der Religion.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Lehrer (Rektor a. D.), Doktor der Pädagogik (Dr. paed.) und Diplom-Psychologe (Schwerpunkte: Klinische-, Pädagogische- und Medien-Psychologie). Als Pensionär arbeitete er viele Jahre als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und pädagogisch-psychologischen Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung und eine Erziehung zum Gemeinsinn und Frieden.

Noten

(5) D’Holbach, Paul Thiry (1978). System der Natur oder von den Gesetzen der physischen und der moralischen Welt. Frankfurt am Main

(6) D’Holbach, Paul-Henri Thiry (1878). Der gesunde Menschenverstand oder das religiöse Testament des Pfarrers Meslier aus Étrépigny. St. Gallen

(7) D’Holbach, Paul Thiry (1978). System der Natur oder von den Gesetzen der physischen und der moralischen Welt. Frankfurt am Main, S. 11 f.

(8) D’Holbach, Paul-Henri Thiry (1878). Der gesunde Menschenverstand oder das religiöse Testament des Pfarrers Meslier aus Étrépigny. St. Gallen

(9) D’Holbach, Paul-Henri Thiry (1976). Der gesunde Menschenverstand des Pfarrers Meslier. Zürich

(10) A. a. O., S. 4 ff.

(11) Hagen, Friedrich (1977). Jean Meslier oder ein Atheist im Priesterrock. Leverkusen und Köln, S. 36

(12) https://de.wikipedia.org./wiki/Suggestibilität

(13) A. a. O.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Gesunder Menschenverstand versus magische Weltanschauung

Common Sense Versus “A Magical Worldview”

May 26th, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

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:

The Agony of a Totalitarian “New World Order” (NWO) and A Different “Being Human”: Scientific Psychology Demands New “Enlightenment”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, May 24, 2022


The critical thoughts on religion and its effects on human feeling, thinking and acting are based primarily on the author’s own experiences with religious faith and the institution of the Catholic Church. In addition, as an educator and psychologist, the author draws on the science of psychology and the unique life work of his esteemed Zurich psychology teacher and psychotherapist Friedrich Liebling (1893-1982). From him, the author has unpublished manuscripts and extensive personal records of private and public conversations at his disposal.

Another basis are the works of the French Enlightenment philosopher and encyclopaedist Baron Paul-Henri Thiry d’Holbach (1723-1789) “System of Nature” (5) and “The Common Sense of Father Meslier” (6). In addition, there are the thoughts of the French radical enlightener and “atheist in a priest’s skirt” Jean Meslier (1664-1729), which he wrote down in his testament “Memorandum of the Thoughts and Convictions of J. M”.

Holbach’s book “System der Natur oder von den Grenzen der physischen und der moralischen Welt” (System of Nature or of the Limits of the Physical and Moral World) appeared in 1770 under fictitious authorship and caused a scandalous stir. The French clergy demanded its immediate banning by parliament because it was “godless, blasphemous and seditious”. Excerpts from the author’s preface suggest that:

“Man is unhappy only because he misjudges nature. His mind is so contaminated by prejudice that one could believe he is condemned to error forever: he is so tightly bound up with the veil of views that is spread over him from childhood that he can only be released from it with the greatest difficulty. A dangerous ferment is mixed with all his knowledge and makes it necessarily vacillating, unclear and false; he wanted, to his misfortune, to transcend the limits of his sphere and tried to raise himself above the visible world; (…)

There is only one truth; it is necessary for man, it can never harm him, its invincible power will reveal itself sooner or later. That is why it must be revealed to the human race; (…)

Let us, then, try to dispel the mists which prevent man from advancing with a sure step on his path of life, let us instil in him courage and respect for his reason; let him learn to recognise his nature and his legitimate rights, let him ask the advice of experience and renounce the prejudices of his childhood; let him base his morality on his nature, his needs, his real advantages which society affords him; let him dare to love himself; let him work for his own happiness by promoting that of others; in a word: let him be sensible and virtuous in order to be happy here on this earth, and not occupy himself with dangerous and useless reveries! ” (7)

In 1772, just two years after the publication of “System der Natur”, the book “Der gesunde Menschenverstand des Pfarrers Meslier” (8) appeared under the title “LE BONS SENS DU CURE MESLIER”. To avoid persecution by the “Holy Inquisition”, Holbach published his thoughts under the name of the already deceased free-thinking priest Jean Meslier.

Meslier, who was not allowed to share his critical thoughts with the church community during his tenure, wrote them down during his last years. This comprehensive, anti-religious manifesto “Mémoire” was published as a testament after his death in 1729 and exerted a considerable influence on the incipient Enlightenment. Melier’s ideas were disseminated in many excerpts and were considered a bestseller among the secret writings. In 1792, Voltaire also commented on it.

In 1878, a German translation of “LE BONS SENS DU CURE MESLIER” was published: “Der gesunde Menschenverstand oder das religiöse Testament des Pfarrers Meslier aus Étrépigny. A religious-philosophical treatise on the concept of ‘religion’ and on the existence of a divine creative being – Dedicated to the spiritually advanced people -” (9). Orthography, punctuation and sentence order were adopted unchanged.

Already in the introduction Holbach writes:

“It is a vain effort to try to cure people of their vices if one does not begin by curing their prejudices. They must be told the truth, so that they learn to know their dearest interests and the true motives that lead them to virtue and their true happiness.

The teachers of the people have long enough raised their eyes to heaven; would that they would at last turn them to earth! Bowed down by incomprehensible theology, by ridiculous fables, by impenetrable mysteries, by childish ceremonies, let man at last concern himself with natural things, with intelligible objects, with visible truths, with useful knowledge! Eliminate the vain chimeras which keep men in bondage; and sensible thoughts will, as it were, take root of their own accord in minds which were believed to be destined for eternal error. (…)

To discover the true principles of morality, man needs neither theology, nor revelation, nor God; he needs only a sound mind; he need only look within himself, investigate his own nature, consider his advantages, contemplate the purpose of society and of all its members, and he will easily come to the conclusion that virtue makes happy and vice makes unhappy.

Let us tell men to be just, charitable, temperate, and sociable, not because their gods demand it, but because one must seek to please one’s fellow men; let us tell them to abstain from sin and vice, not because one will be punished in another world, but because evil already punishes itself in this life. (…).

Truth is simple; error is complicated, uncertain in its course and surrounded by deviations. The voice of nature is intelligible; that of falsehood is ambiguous, enigmatic, mysterious. The path of truth is straight, that of deceit is crooked and dark. This truth is necessary to all men, and is felt by all the righteous. The teachings of reason are for all those who are of an honest mind. Men are unhappy because they are ignorant; they are ignorant because everything conspires against their enlightenment, and are bad merely because their powers of thought are not sufficiently developed.” (10)

The French philosopher and writer Pierre Bayle (1647-1706), also a central figure of the Enlightenment, believes:

“That an opinion, merely because it has dragged on from century to century, is now a truth, is quite simply a delusion.” (11)

High “suggestibility” in childhood supports religious readiness to believe

The Christian Church believes that what is missed in the religious education of the child can hardly be recovered. It must first artificially induce its teachings in the young, still spiritually helpless person in order to have him firmly in its grip as an adult.

Man likes to believe what corresponds to his desires and his respective mood. Suggestibility” is a personality trait that expresses the extent of “receptivity” to suggestively transmitted information about certain facts that are integrated into one’s own cognitive systems (perceiving, thinking, remembering, etc.). Often people transmit this information as self-experiences or their own experiences. In this process, thoughts, feelings, perceptions or ideas are taken over from outside that do not correspond to reality and are intended to influence the person mentally and psychologically in a manipulative way (12).

Due to the more or less great suggestibility of almost all people, religious belief is substantially supported. Very suggestible adults are often called “naive” or “gullible”. It is different with children: Their suggestibility is very high, which is why young people are particularly targeted for manipulative influence. In addition, children can tend to confuse suggested information with what they have experienced (13). Before even consciousness awakens and before it can think and evaluate, the child is instilled with the ideas of God, the devil, demons, dark forces and hell. The very thought of doubting these ideas leads directly to hell.

As a rule, the believer enters his church already in a semi-suggested state; further things happen automatically: the solemn church milieu, the priestly dress, incense, organ music, litanies and the sermon that pathetically wants to persuade. All this completes the suggestion and shuts down the critical thinking faculty. Thinking is quietly and imperceptibly pushed aside and lulled by the voice of the preacher. The same thing is said for the hundredth and thousandth time, one hardly listens any more.

Through religious suggestion, not only the intelligence is intimidated, but also the will and the self-confidence, because apostasy and leaving the church have been considered grave sins, infidelities and Judas deeds since apostolic times. The healthy and spiritually-psychologically unmanipulated person expresses judgements only when he has checked them against experience and recognised them as not contrary to reason.

The soporific effect of monotonous religious ceremonies and the religious festivals which represent the climax of the year, as well as the constant devaluation of a temporary existence on earth in favour of eternal life in the hereafter, mean that a fatalistic and passive attitude often becomes the dominant character trait of the personality.

A person can, however, change in his way of thinking and his world of thoughts. Young people today are freer than in the past; it is already a different world because civilisation has advanced. This young person has grown up with religion, he knows all the mystical thought and is still afraid not to believe because that is a sin and he could lose eternal life.

But if he trusts an enlightened psychotherapist, for example, and gets courage, after some time a person stands before us who can put all this aside: He no longer believes because he has gained insight into natural science, because he has begun to read and because he has become acquainted with church history and the history of the other side, the doubters, who have rebelled against religion. He begins to have an eye for the real world and gets new thoughts; he no longer believes in the old ones. He has a different view of life because he has examined his thoughts and feelings.

The problem of violence in authoritarian education

In our society and culture, violence is always used. It starts with the mother. How is it that a mother beats, insults and irritates her child? Surely this is not intentional: she brought a child into the world and put her whole heart into it. However, if we include our entire social order – the principle of violence and coercion – then the mother has already been brought up in this way and believes that she must also bring up her child in this way.

A high percentage of the population – the intelligent, the stupid, the academics, the non-academics, the believers and the unbelievers – they all vote for “peace and order!”. That is the barrack yard, our cultural problem and our misfortune! That is where “the dog is buried”. We have all experienced compulsion in education – and therefore we have compulsion within us.

School is also an institution of violence – even if it has been somewhat mitigated today because of psychological findings. The teacher is no longer allowed to hit – but he hits anyway. The teacher’s whole attitude is authoritarian, even if he does not hit. The child is not happy in life. He does not live in a friendly world; everything is the continuation of the educational problem at home.

The professor is also a ruler to whom the student is no match. This idea of authority is cultivated everywhere. Teacher and professor are afraid of losing their prestige if they talk to and help the student. They are afraid because they too have experienced this education. It is not a good, equal relationship.

In authoritarian education, we don’t guide the child gently and we don’t treat him or her like a being who is to become, who is developing. We demand a lot and quickly become nervous. Father and mother just come from the melting pot of the church and mysticism. Our morals and opinions are infused with the thought of religion.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a teacher (retired rector), doctor of education (Dr. paed.) and psychologist (specialising in clinical, educational and media psychology). As a retiree, he worked for many years as a psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and educational-psychological articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral values education and an education for public spirit and peace. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(5) D’Holbach, Paul Thiry (1978). System der Natur oder von den Gesetzen der physischen und der moralischen Welt. Frankfurt am Main

(6) D’Holbach, Paul-Henri Thiry (1878). Common Sense or the Religious Testament of Father Meslier of Étrépigny. St. Gall

(7) D’Holbach, Paul Thiry (1978). System der Natur oder von den Gesetzen der physischen und der moralischen Welt. Frankfurt am Main, p. 11 f.

(8) D’Holbach, Paul-Henri Thiry (1878). Common Sense or the Religious Testament of Father Meslier of Étrépigny. St. Gall

(9) D’Holbach, Paul-Henri Thiry (1976). The common sense of the priest Meslier. Zurich

(10) op. cit., p. 4 ff.

(11) Hagen, Friedrich (1977). Jean Meslier or an atheist in a priest’s skirt. Leverkusen and Cologne, p. 36

(12) https://de.wikipedia.org./wiki/Suggestibilität

(13) op. cit.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Common Sense Versus “A Magical Worldview”

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.

***

Tens of thousands of Pakistanis, including ordinary families and young people from every corner of the country, continue to converge in the capital, Islamabad, facing brutal state repression. They are doing so amidst the scorching heat wave afflicting Pakistan. There’s little to no Western coverage since these demonstrations aren’t taking place in Hong Kong, Moscow, or Tehran – but in a country with a Western-backed client regime.

This level of courage, sacrifice, and commitment is not merely about the persona of Imran Khan. It’s crystal clear that Pakistanis are marching and protesting to obtain some modicum of dignity, justice, and sovereignty by rejecting the traditional political-military elite that has plundered and prostituted the country to Riyadh-Washington since the nation’s establishment in 1947.

PTI long march reaches Islamabad following day-long battle with law enforcers.

Source: Junaid S. Ahmad

See The Tribune Report below.

The PML-N-led coalition government on Wednesday failed to contain PTI activists and supporters – who while staging their “Haqeeqi Azadi March” — managed to cross all barriers and reached near D-Chowk after setting some trees and public property on fire in Blue Area of the federal capital.

The ministers and leaders, who mocked the opponents for not having enough support and kept claiming victory throughout the day through their statements and news conferences, were left red-faced when the protesters crossed all the hurdles and compelled the law-enforcement agencies to retreat.

 

*

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

Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Religion, Law, and Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decoloniality. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Microplastics From Masks Found Deep in Lungs of the Living

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 25, 2022

Tiny bits of plastic about the size of a sesame seed or smaller are everywhere. News headlines often show intact plastic bags, rings and bottles as the primary threats to the environment — and these are indeed harmful to marine life and more — but the smaller, more insidious microplastic bits may even be more harmful. A study from Great Britain found microplastics in 11 out of 13 patients’ lungs.

‘Fact Checkers’ Furious After Henry Kissinger Says Ukraine Should Cede Territory for Peace with Russia

By Zero Hedge, May 25, 2022

Veteran US statesman Henry Kissinger has urged the West to stop trying to inflict a crushing defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine, warning that it would have disastrous consequences for the long term stability of Europe.

On African Liberation Day, Biden’s Troop Deployment to Somalia Confirms Africa Is Not Free

By Black Alliance for Peace, May 26, 2022

The Biden Administration’s recent decision to return U.S. troops to Somalia represents another effort on the part of the U.S. to deny agency and independence to African people. On the 59th commemoration of African Liberation Day, the Black Alliance for Peace expresses its unequivocal opposition to this redeployment.

Introduction: Re-examining Asia-Pacific War Memories: Grief, Narratives, and Memorials

By Prof. Justin Aukema, Daniel Milne, and et al., May 26, 2022

A diverse, global team of thirteen authors highlights subjects across a wide geographical area spanning the Asia-Pacific region especially. In the process, articles question common assumptions and narratives surrounding Asia-Pacific War memories by highlighting crucial, in-between spaces and remembrances. These range from Japanese military cemeteries in Malaysia, to the experiences of Filipino residents living near a Japanese POW camp, and to Japanese veterans’ personal narratives of guilt, trauma, and heroism.

The 16 Biggest Lies the U.S. Government Tells America About the Ukraine War

By Richard Ochs, May 25, 2022

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky banned all opposition parties and banned the use of Russian as a second state language. Why did he violate his 2019 campaign promise to stop the genocidal killing of thousands in Donbas, even though they voted for him?

Is Russia to Blame for the Looming Global Food Crisis?

By Dr. Mathew Maavak, May 25, 2022

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict is undoubtedly impacting global grain supplies as well as the means of growing crops around the world. But is the looming global food crisis solely Russia’s fault – as spun by the globalist media machinery? Only months earlier, COVID-19, lockdowns and climate change were repeatedly blamed for this scenario.

Former Virginia State Senator Richard H. Black: Ukraine, NATO Expansionism, US Proxy Wars in Ukraine, Syria, China May be Next

By Steven Sahiounie, May 25, 2022

Former Virginia State Senator Richard H. Black was recently interviewed by Mike Robinson.  In the video, Black discusses the conflict in Ukraine, his views on NATO expansionism, and draws parallels with the conflict in Syria. Black said the US has a strategic policy of using proxies to engage in war to overthrow existing governments.

Biden in Tokyo: Killing Strategic Ambiguity: The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, May 25, 2022

Biden was again flatly committing the US to a conflict over Taiwan should China deploy its forces.  He has done so on two previous occasions, showing either a degree of ignorance, or a willingness to throw caution to the wind.

US Four-Star General Tweets Video Game as Real Ukraine War Battle

By Free West Media, May 25, 2022

It is quite surprising that the high-ranking military officer did not verify the content he chose to spread on his social media account since it is not the first time the pro-Ukraine faction has published video game footage as genuine Ukraine victories.

Russia-Ukraine War: George Bush’s Admission of His Crimes in Iraq Was No ‘Gaffe’

By Jonathan Cook, May 25, 2022

It was apparently a “gaffe” of the kind we had forgotten since George W Bush stepped down from the US presidency in early 2009. During a speech in Dallas last week, he momentarily confused Russian President Vladimir Putin’s current war of aggression against Ukraine and his own war of aggression against Iraq in 2003.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Microplastics From Masks Found Deep in Lungs of the Living

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 Biden Administration’s recent decision to return U.S. troops to Somalia represents another effort on the part of the U.S. to deny agency and independence to African people. On the 59th commemoration of African Liberation Day, the Black Alliance for Peace expresses its unequivocal opposition to this redeployment. The 500 U.S. troops sent to Somalia are the latest to violate that nation’s sovereignty. As is the case with all US interventions, the underlying reasons are not only depraved but also indifferent to the constant suffering of African people caused by western-induced militarism and war.

The reintroduction of the U.S. military (AFRICOM) on the ground is related to a dispute between Somalia and the U.S. oil company, Coastline Exploration Ltd, over the validity of an oil exploration agreement. It is also a signal that the U.S. wants to both reassert its presence in the oil-rich and strategic region, and to directly target its long-time foe, Eritrea.

Netfa Freeman, BAP’s African Team Co-Coordinator states that this decision is “emblematic of the U.S. insistence on keeping Africa in perpetual turmoil and has nothing to do with enabling a more effective fight against al-Shabaab.” Biden’s advisors are certainly aware of various reports exposing that the billions Washington spends on counterterrorism programs, from Somalia to Nigeria, ostensibly to enhance security in Africa, is having the opposite effect.

While the U.S. continues its 30-year long series of interventions against Somalia, H.R. 7311 the “Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act” passed with the unanimous approval of every Democrat in Congress.

H.R. 7311 was introduced by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman and Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) member Gregory Meeks and passed in the House on April 28, 2022. The bill calls for assessments of Russia’s influence on the African continent and states that the U.S. will “hold accountable” Russia and African governments who are “complicit in aiding such malign influence.” This is reminiscent of the era of the George W. Bush administration that declared that any country not with the U.S. is against the U.S.

Margaret Kimberley, BAP Africa Team Co-Coordinator said, “This bill is a racist affront to the right to self-determination of African people.”

H.R. 7311 is a reaction to African nations that refrained from condemning Russia’s military operation in Ukraine; and as a deterrent against African nations acting as Mali has done, by ending the French military presence and turning toward Russian private military company Wagner for assistance. On May 16th the Mali government announced that Wagner played a role in thwarting a failed coup attempt allegedly carried out by a group of local soldiers, foreign mercenaries, and units from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member countries.

Rep. Meeks and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) – the “Black misleadership class” –  are fully aligned with the Biden administration and Democratic Party leadership, defending every imperialist effort to exercise U.S. dominance in Africa. The U.S. bombed Somalia on February 22, two days before the Russian Federation began its military operations in Ukraine. Yet Somalia has not become a focus of concern of Meeks and the rest of the Black misleaders, despite years of constant drone bombings by the U.S. having caused an estimated 250,000 deaths and the displacement of 3 million people. Meanwhile, these same CBC members won’t address domestic problems, but will lob billions to wage a proxy war against Russia and to support Nazi groups in Ukraine. The U.S. Black misleadership class demonstrates over and over that they do not care about African people – neither on the continent nor at home.

BAP is firm in its anti-imperialist stance and again says, “U.S. Out of Africa!” “Shut Down AFRICOM!”

No Compromise! No Retreat!

*

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

Featured image is from US Air Force

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on On African Liberation Day, Biden’s Troop Deployment to Somalia Confirms Africa Is Not Free
  • Tags: , ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: US Sees Anti-China Setback after Philippine Elections
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Introduction: Re-examining Asia-Pacific War Memories: Grief, Narratives, and Memorials

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 any war, the first casualty is truth. Here are the biggest lies:

1. “Ukraine is a democracy”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky banned all opposition parties and banned the use of Russian as a second state language. Why did he violate his 2019 campaign promise to stop the genocidal killing of thousands in Donbas, even though they voted for him? Did he lie because neo-Nazis threatened to kill him if he did not do what they wanted? [1] Or is he afraid of the CIA, which has assassinated other leaders, making him their puppet? Are we to trust the judgment of a man who demands a no-fly zone which could cause a global nuclear holocaust? Zelensky oversees torture and assassination of political dissenters.[2]

2. “National sovereignty is sacred”

When Idi Amin perpetrated genocide in Uganda, the UN violated Ugandan sovereignty to stop it. When Ukraine perpetrated genocide in Donbas and planned to escalate, Russia stopped it. [3] The U.S. violated Cuba’s sovereignty to take the planet to the edge of nuclear holocaust. The U.S. has violated lots of sovereignties in recent wars, killing millions. Given Ukraine’s genocide of a national minority, “should Ukraine’s sovereignty be respected”.

3. “Putin is a war criminal”

If he is a war criminal for causing the deaths of civilians, what do we call Ukraine killing 14,000 civilians in Donbas since 2014? [4] Is anyone calling Zelensky a war criminal? Millions killed by the U.S. in other recent wars is hundreds of times worse. Calling Putin a war criminal stops Biden from negotiating with him with the excuse “one cannot talk to war criminals.” That makes it very difficult to stop this war. Evidently, the U.S. wants this war to continue to the last Ukrainian. The plan of the Rand Corporation is to “quagmire” Russia just like the U.S. bankrupted the USSR by starting the al-Qaeda opposition in Afghanistan.

Source: wikipedia.org

4. “The world condemns Russia’s invasion”

Actually most of the world does not, including China, India, most of Africa, Israel, half of Latin America and many other countries. The two largest political parties in Russia do not oppose Russia’s intervention, the second largest party being the Communist Party.

5. “Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons”

Russia has the same policy as the U.S. On March 22, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia would only use nuclear weapons if its very existence were threatened, Tassnews agency reported. [5] Russia had a “no first use” policy until the U.S. refused to do the same, so Russia dropped it. U.S. presidents have threatened to use nuclear weapons several times since the end of WWII against countries not a threat to the U.S. [6]

6. “With his back against the wall, Putin will resort to chemical warfare, just like in Syria”

Russia did not use chemical weapons in Syria. Russia negotiated Syrian stockpiles to be destroyed or removed. The chemical attacks in Syria were done by rebels supported by Saudi Arabia and the U.S. [7] If anyone has their back against the wall, it is the Ukrainians and neo-Nazis who are trained in false-flag tactics by the CIA. Like in Syria, the U.S. media are falsely blaming the Russians with no evidence whatsoever. Like in Syria, any chemicals released in Ukraine will probably be the work of opponents of Russia to blame Russia.

The U.S. gave Iraq chemical weapons which were used to kill thousands of Kurds and Iranians in 1982-83 before stockpiles were destroyed by Iraq. The U.S. is the chemical killer, not Russia which prevented it. History is full of U.S. false flags. [8]

FACT CHECK: Did the Daily Mail Delete a Story Reporting the U.S. Planned to Blame Assad for 'False Flag' Chemical Attacks?

Source: snopes.com

7. “Putin may resort to biological warfare”

While this charge was propagated by media during the second week of March, since the embarrassing revelation that the Pentagon funded labs in Ukraine, nothing more has been said about it in the media. It was first reported by the U.S. that hazardous specimens had to be destroyed lest they fall into the hands of Russians; later, it was reported that specimens were not dangerous at all, so as not to incriminate the U.S. Which was it? Any false-flag release of pathogens by Ukraine to blame Russia is now probably precluded. The Pentagon is guilty of funding gain-of-function virus research in China after it was banned in the U.S., posing a possible lab release of COVID-19. The U.S. is the bio-killer using a U.S. Army strain of anthrax in October 2001, not Russia.

8. “Russia is targeting civilians in Ukraine”

According to Newsweek, “Putin is not intentionally attacking civilians…Over the course of almost four weeks, missiles fired at Kyiv have been scarce…The destruction is only a small fraction of what is possible.” [9] The alleged massacre of civilians in Bucha, prompting Biden to accuse Putin of war crimes, was perpetrated by Ukrainians who were “cleansing” the town of presumed collaborators after Russian troops had left days before. [10]

9. “Russia will make false-flag attacks”

There is no evidence that Russia attacked targets and blamed Ukraine. On the contrary, seven days prior to Russia’s incursion, the OSCE Monitoring Mission gave evidence of a Ukrainian false-flag attack on a kindergarten to blame Donbas separatists. [11] None were killed, but Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk increased 100-fold over the next four days, leading to Russia’s incursion to stop it. [12] The attacks on a maternity ward, apartments and concert hall may have been false-flag attacks, staged events, or situations where civilians were held hostage by combatants. It was reported that one maternity ward had Ukrainian snipers shooting from there. Residents of Mariupol who got out testified that Ukrainian combatants were preventing civilians from escaping through the humanitarian corridor in order to use them as human shields.[13]

10. “If Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will attack NATO countries next”

That is patently ridiculous because Russia is already over-extended and not able to attack anyone else. Russia also does not want a nuclear war. Russia’s goal is to protect Donbas, get recognition of Crimea, de-Nazify Ukraine and prevent nuclear missiles close to Russia’s border. By exaggerating Putin’s goals instead of negotiating these goals, the U.S. is prolonging the war and provoking the destruction of Ukraine.

11. “Russia is threatening nuclear power plants”

Russian soldiers were ordered to “guard and control” these plants to prevent inadvertent or deliberate damage. Photos showed Ukrainians fired the first shot, destroying a Russian tank, whereupon a second tank returned fire. A training building was damaged in the exchange. The fires were not near the reactors. The electricity for cooling was never turned off.  But the hype was spun to scare the crap out of Europe so as to get their intervention into the Ukraine war.[14]

12. “Russia’s invasion threatens the whole world”

If Russia succeeds in keeping U.S. nuclear missiles from being positioned in Ukraine seven minutes’ flight to Moscow, Russia will be doing humanity a big favor. Just as U.S. ICBM fixed missiles are on hair-trigger alert with “launch them or lose them” orders with no cancellations after launch possible, missiles in Ukraine would increase the chance of accident or miscalculation with little warning time to verify. Doomsday would be on pins and needles. That should scare the crap out of everyone. India had an accidental missile launch in March that landed in nuclear-armed Pakistan with no warhead. [15] Putin warned in 2019 that any incoming missile would be presumed to be nuclear, requiring a retaliatory launch by Russia before the incoming missile hit so Russia’s deterrent force would not be destroyed. [16]

The U.S. and NATO are threatening the planet, not Russia. Here are the facts:

  1. President Reagan rejected President Gorbachev’s offer to give up deployment of a “Star Wars” missile defense system in space as a condition for both countries to eliminate all their nuclear weapons.
  2. President Clinton refused President Putin’s offer to cut our massive nuclear arsenals to 1,500 bombs each, and to call on all of the other nuclear-armed states to negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons, in exchange for the U.S. not placing missile sites in Romania.
  3. President George W. Bush walked out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and put a missile base in Romania. President Trump placed another missile base in Poland.
  4. President Bush in 2008 and President Obama in 2014 blocked any discussion of Russian and Chinese proposals for a space weapons ban in the consensus-bound UN Committee for Disarmament in Geneva.
  5. President Obama rejected President Putin’s offer to negotiate a treaty to ban cyber war.
  6. President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
  7. From President Clinton through President Biden, the U.S. has never ratified the 1992 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, while Russia ratified it.

Click to access: “Nuclear Posture Review” by Veterans for Peace. (January 2022)

Should there be any question that it is the U.S., not Russia, that is not only threatening the world, but is threatening the entire human race for all eternity?

A picture containing sky, outdoor, shore, day Description automatically generated

U.S. naval facility in Redzikowo, Poland, where U.S. ballistic missiles that threaten Russia are stationed. [Source: wikipedia.org]

13. “The U.S. has a ‘free press’ while Russia’s news is controlled”

U.S. news outlets are owned by Wall Street billionaire oligarchs who give so-called journalists the script to report, making TV reporters paid actors who know where their bread is buttered. The U.S. media have proven to be more dangerous and warlike than the Pentagon, as shown in past U.S. wars (Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Gaza, Yemen, Afghanistan). Now these billionaires are censoring social media, so we are censored in doing personal research. The U.S. has shut down Russian media like Tass and Russia Today (RT) to prevent Americans from hearing the other side and making up our own minds who is lying and who is telling the truth. What is the U.S. afraid of if they are telling the truth? According to Carl Bernstein, Pulitzer Prize journalist, the CIA has captured The New York Times and The Washington Post.

14. “Russia is planning cyber attacks on the U.S.”

Russia remains open for dialogue and cooperation on information security with all states, and the United States is not an exception,” the Kremlin’s Andrey Krutskikh told Newsweek. “Moscow’s vision of such a multilateral cyber scheme includes a set of obligations not to use ICTs as a weapon.” A potentially key meeting was in April when Krutskikh sought to work with Washington in the digital realm. [17]

15. “Russia is killing children.”

The numbers are being exaggerated like all the other exaggerations by Ukraine to get NATO into the war. Any child deaths are accidental, not like the deliberate murder of children by the U.S. and Israel. When Madeleine Albright was asked if the half million children starved to death in Iraq from U.S. sanctions were worth it, she answered “yes.” [18]During Israel’s 2014 “Operation Protective Edge,” Israeli military forces killed 2,200 Palestinians, more than 80% of whom were civilians, and nearly one-quarter of whom were children.[19]

16. “Russia may use tactical nuclear weapons.”

Russia could have flattened Kyiv with conventional explosives, but did not, so why would they use nuclear weapons?

*

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

Richard Ochs is a board member of Maryland Peace Action. He has published articles in the Baltimore Sun, Baltimore Chronicle, and the website: www.freefromterror.net.

Notes

  1. Trying to de-Nazify Ukraine, Zelensky knows the biggest threat against him—and from what had always been prohibiting him from complying with the Minsk II accords. “The Nazis had always made clear that they’d kill him if he did any such thing.”
    https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-did-vladimir-putin-probably-save-volodymyr-zelenskys-life/5773835 

  2. https://thegrayzone.com/2022/04/17/traitor-zelensky-assassination-kidnapping-arrest-political-opposition/ 
  3. “In recent days, the number and intensity of shelling on the territory of the Republics by the Ukrainian army has sharply increased. The units of the People’s Militia are forced to constantly suppress the firing points of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in order to prevent the death of the civilian population.” Published on February 21, 2022.https://ugetube.com/watch/firefight-ukraine-army-039-s-plan-to-attack-donbass_wmIf7NNHXvOCqNV.html?msclkid=f3d55ab0ab2a11ec9d8c68334c4999d6 
  4. The map below shows two-thirds of Donbas was occupied by Kyiv forces before the Russian rescue mission on February 24, 2022. The line of conflict between the blue and brown areas indicates a third of the population of Donbas was in the target zone, suffering 10,000 civilian casualties. 
  5. President Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s nuclear forces to be put on high alert. U.S. nuclear missiles have been on hair-trigger for decades. In line with the order, Russia’s defense ministry said on February 28 that its nuclear missile forces and Northern and Pacific fleets had been placed on enhanced combat duty, the Interfax news agency reported. United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said on March 14: “The prospect of nuclear conflict, once unthinkable, is now back within the realm of possibility.” Since most Americans seem to have been oblivious to this existential threat, perhaps Putin did us a favor to remind us of the need for universal nuclear disarmament, which the U.S., not Russia, has been sabotaging. 
  6. The United States threatened to use nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam, China, Russia and Afghanistan after dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    when did US consider using nuclear weaons? – Search (bing.com) 
  7. Weapons inspector refutes U.S. Syria chemical claimsWeapons Inspector Refutes U.S. Syria Chemical Claims – Consortium News 
  8. History of U.S. false flags for war:
    1. Sinking of U.S. battleship Maine in 1898 to start war against Spain for Cuba, Guam, Puerto Rico and genocide in Philippines.
    2. Deliberately sending the Lusitania to be sunk in war zone despite warnings, creating a preext for the U.S. entry into WWI.
    3. “Operation Northwoods” conspiracy proposed by U.S. Joint Chiefs to JFK to crash U.S. plane and blame Cuba.
    4. Assassination of JFK by deep state cabal, blaming alleged communist despite evidence of the real gunman.
    5. Since 9/11, tons of evidence suggest it was an inside job by Dick Cheney and Saudi Royal Bandar bin Sultan.
    6. One month after 9/11, anthrax from a U.S. Army lab with letter falsely blaming Islamic zealot stampeded war. 
  9. Putin’s Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine but He’s Holding Back. Here’s why – Newsweek https://www.newsweek.com/putins-bombers-could-devastate-ukraine-hes-holding-back-heres-why-1690494?fbclid=IwAR1eVGkFmmNgnDLzkUdLXj0BAJpoHDUmqIvegtv2-fFmLVUIgdE24G_q0sE 
  10. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/04/04/questions-abound-about-bucha-massacre/https://standpointzero.com/2022/04/07/the-anatomy-of-a-russian-massacre/ 
  11. Ukraine attacked a kindergarten, blaming Donbas separatists.Report of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)The Monitoring Mission’s report on the kindergarten incident:
    “On 17 February, the Mission followed up on reports of damage to a working kindergarten in the north-western part of Stanytsia Luhanska (government-controlled, 16km north-east of Luhansk), located about 4.5km north-west of the north-western edge of the disengagement area near Stanytsia Luhanska.”

    Comment by munitions expert:

    “So the kindergarten was 4.5 kilometers inside Ukrainian-held territory. The monitors were denied access to the site by Ukrainian authorities and were only able to see it from a distance (very suspicious).  Also suspicious is that the mission was told that “20 children had been in the kindergarten at the time of the incident but reported no injuries.”  Really?  An artillery shell bursts through a classroom wall, and no one was injured?  More likely, they had been warned to get out ahead of time and evacuated before the shell was fired.

    “But there is no doubt whatsoever about how far away the tank (or artillery piece) was. The impact was dead on, and not from a descending shell. And the surrounding buildings mean that whoever fired at the kindergarten was situated in that very small open space right next to it.  And we know it was a dummy shell, because of the unbroken windows.  If there had been an explosion, they would have been shattered.  Someone took deliberate aim from only a few hundred yards away and carefully fired a single shot on a flat trajectory. They probably weren’t interested in causing “collateral damage,” but just wanted a propaganda photo. How convenient that the damage was to a kindergarten and not to one or another of the anonymous buildings surrounding it.” 

  12. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
    reports each day on the security situation with daily reports:
    https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reportsWed., Feb. 16  number of explosions: 5 in Donetsk and 71 in Luhansk = 76

    Thurs., Feb. 17  Kindergarten hit by Ukraine’s false-flag attack

    Thurs., Feb. 17 number of explosions: 128 in Donetsk and 188 in Luhansk = 316

    Fri., Feb. 18      number of explosions: 135 in Donetsk and 519 in Luhansk = 654

    Sat., Feb. 19     number of explosions: 553 in Donetsk and 860 in Luhansk = 1,413

    (An increase in Kyiv’s shelling of Donbas by a factor of 20 within four days of kindergarten false flag) 

  13. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/28/ukraine-kyiv-russia-civilians/ Increasingly, Ukrainians are confronting an uncomfortable truth: The military’s understandable impulse to defend against Russian attacks could be putting civilians in the crosshairs. Virtually every neighborhood in most cities has become militarized, some more than others, making them potential targets for Russian forces trying to take out Ukrainian defenses. “If there is military equipment there and [the Russians] are saying we are launching at this military equipment, it undermines an assertion that they are attacking intentionally civilian objects and civilians,” said Richard Weir, a researcher in Human Rights Watch’s crisis and conflict division, who is working in Ukraine. 

    “Over the past month, Washington Post journalists have witnessed Ukrainian antitank rockets, antiaircraft guns and armored personnel carriers placed near apartment buildings. . . Every day, it’s like this,” said Lubov Bura, 73, standing outside the apartment building where she lived that was destroyed two weeks ago.”

    The Ukrainian military has “a responsibility under international law” to remove their forces and equipment from civilian-populated areas, and if that is not possible, to move civilians out of those areas, Weir said. “If they don’t do that, that is a violation of the laws of war,” he added. “Because what they are doing is they are putting civilians at risk. Because all that military equipment are legitimate targets. 

    “Ukraine cannot use civilian neighborhoods as ‘human shields,’” said Schabas, adding that he was not suggesting this is what is happening.

    “In other militarized neighborhoods, residents also expressed concern about hearing outgoing rockets and artillery. “It’s scary,” said Ludmila Kramerenko. “It happens three or four times a day.” 

  14. The caption under the third photo in the link below says that Ukraine forces fired the first shot. Russians retaliated only after one of their tanks was destroyed. Hence, Ukraine forces started a battle at the nuclear power plant, which was not very smart. https://www.npr.org/2022/03/11/1085427380/ukraine-nuclear-power-plant-zaporizhzhia?utm_campaign=wp_the_daily_202&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_daily202 
  15. https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/the-curious-case-of-the-accidental-indian-missile-launch/ 
  16. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russia-warns-incoming-missile-nuclear-72232054?msclkid=8fd1c9b6b1e911ecad991b729498b410 
  17. See “As Biden Puts U.S. on Alert, Russia Seeks Talks to Help Prevent Cyber War” in Newsweek Magazine. Vladimir Putin had drawn up a four-point proposal for cooperation on cybersecurity in September 2020, one that in many ways echoed the arms control treaties of the Cold War era.
    The main tenets of the plan involved creating a “full-scale bilateral and regular interagency dialogue on key questions” of cybersecurity, communicating through existing bodies dealing with nuclear and computer readiness. It also included the establishment of new rules of the road mirroring U.S.-Soviet agreements on avoiding maritime incidents while securing mutual “guarantees of non-intervention into internal affairs of each other.” By Tom O’Connor, March 22, 2022. https://www.newsweek.com/biden-puts-us-alert-russia-seeks-talks-help-prevent-cyber-war-1690673 
  18. Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children.
    https://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/ 
  19. Israel’s 2014 “Operation Protective Edge,” when Israeli military forces killed 2,200 Palestinians, nearly one-quarter of them children and more than 80 percent civilians.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Gaza_War 

Is Russia to Blame for the Looming Global Food Crisis?

May 25th, 2022 by Dr. Mathew Maavak

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 ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict is undoubtedly impacting global grain supplies as well as the means of growing crops around the world. But is the looming global food crisis solely Russia’s fault – as spun by the globalist media machinery? Only months earlier, COVID-19, lockdowns and climate change were repeatedly blamed for this scenario.

A recent White House Joint Statement by US President Joe Biden and EU President Ursula von der Leyen clearly singled out the new culprit:

“We are deeply concerned by how Putin’s war in Ukraine has caused major disruptions to international food and agriculture supply chains, and the threat it poses to global food security. We recognize that many countries around the world have relied on imported food staples and fertilizer inputs from Ukraine and Russia, with Putin’s aggression disrupting that trade.”

The concept of global food security these days appear as fleeting as Biden’s mnemonic prowess. It has been 12 years since the world was shaken by a hunger-fuelled Arab Spring which was marked by violent uprisings and yet-unresolved civil wars in Libya, Yemen and Syria. Big Tech, Western officials and influencers fuelled this mayhem in the name of “freedom and democracy” but never proffered any concrete solutions to prevent another episode. Instead, global hunger grew unabated with its root causes explicated through the lens of “climate change” and “global governance”.

In the meantime, right at the doorsteps of Big Tech, the streets of San Francisco were increasingly strewn with the homeless, human faeces and discarded needles from drug abuse. Even a new urban art genre emerged in the form of poop graffiti! Nothing better represents the disconnect between the lofty promises and septic realities of Silicon Valley.

Here is something else for the reader to ponder: Contact-tracing technologies that were used to lock down societies were never trialled to connect the poor to nearby farmers markets, food banks and soup kitchens. A rational person cannot be blamed for suspecting that the intention all along was to eviscerate small-scale farmers, grocers and traders during lockdowns and thereby render citizens prostrate before governments and Big Business. As for technocrats who lap up the smarmy fantasies of the World Economic Forum (WEF), what lessons have they learnt since the fateful Arab Spring?

Here we look at two inexpiable failings of the purveyors of global governance. These are linked to the very issues which Biden and von der Leyen are using to scapegoat Russia.

National Granaries

The Arab Spring and its bloody aftermath should have informed governments on the criticality of establishing new national granaries. Well-maintained granaries can store wheat and corn, amongst others, for more than 10 years. Individuals can extend this shelf-life to a whopping 31 years under proper conditions.

Grain stats worldwide also raise questions over government commitments to food security. Global wheat production, for instance, steadily increased during the last decade. According to a Statista.com brief on Jan 27: “The global production volume of wheat came to about over 772 million metric tons in the marketing year of 2020/21. This was an increase of about ten million tons compared to the previous year. Wheat stocks is (sic) also estimated to increase to about 294 million metric tons worldwide by 2021.”

Although these figures are constantly updated as newer data pour in, there was indeed record wheat output in the face of relentless global lockdowns. However, most governments did little to build or expand their food stockpiles.

Granaries were an indispensable feature of ancient civilizations. The Bible recounts how Joseph had guided Egypt through seven years of famine by establishing imperial granaries during seven years of abundance.  Thousands of years later, our modern-day sages are mesmerized by the WEF mantra of “you’ll will own nothing and you’ll be happy” by 2030. Does that include ownership of real food? I ask this because the WEF is currently promoting synthetic meat and insect gourmet as one of the wonders of the Great Reset.

If your government had failed to set up a strategic food stockpile in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, do not blame Russia (or Ukraine) when the proverbial hits the fan.

Fertilizer Stockpiles

Unfortunately, our Gosplan-styled world is overly-centralized, bringing with it attendant risks to the global supply chain. An acute fertilizer shortage is now one of them. Sanctions, and the freezing of $300 billion in Russian assets worldwide, led to export bottlenecks on grain and fertilizers. The escalating energy war between Russia and Europe is also pushing the price of natural gas and essential downstream products through the roof.

Fertilizers are primarily made from nitrogen, phosphorus and/or potassium. Nitrogen and ammonia (another fertilizer compound consisting of nitrogen and hydrogen) are extracted from natural gas. Our food security therefore is inextricably linked to fossil fuel production. This is an immutable reality which eco-warriors love to forget.

As the military operation in Ukraine drags on, few dare speculate the end game. Bloomberg warns that for the “first time ever, farmers the world over — all at the same time — are testing the limits of how little chemical fertilizer they can apply without devastating their yields come harvest time.” Global agricultural output is therefore expected to plummet – in both qualitative and quantitative terms – over the coming months.

Astrophysicist David Friedberg paints a more alarming picture. The ongoing West-Russia standoff may likely result in the starvation of hundreds of millions of additional people — over and above the 800 million people who already face daily hunger. Our centralized Just-in-Time (JIT) global production system only allows for a 90-day food supply for the planet. More ominously, fertilizer-producing factories worldwide number in the paltry hundreds. The ongoing baby-formula shortage in the US is directly linked to the pitfalls of centralized JIT production.

Could this catastrophe have been avoided? The West and Russia were on a collision course since Moscow’s reincorporation of Crimea in 2014. The world has had eight-long years to game out any escalation of the new West-Russia cold war. As Russia steadily built its gold reserves, the West could have likewise studied, identified and stored up items it needed from Russia in the event of a geopolitical escalation. Right on top of that list should have been fertilizers and storable food. Instead, the West treated the world to a Pussy Riot show and an unremitting Woke saturnalia.

At the end of the day, there are absolutely no excuses for the criminal lack of foresight among governments. For those who wonder about the longevity of stored fertilizer, here are some facts from a gardening website: Liquid chemical fertilizers can be stored for a decade while liquid organic fertilizers have a shelf-life of 5-8 years. Dry granular or crystalized fertilizer can be stored indefinitely.

Where are the fertilizer storage facilities that could have buffered our farms for years?

Replacing Chemical Fertilizers

Over the coming months, Europe may be tempted to substitute Russian-origin chemical fertilizers with human waste sludge. However, as a recent Mongabay article cautions, “human waste — including pharmaceuticals and microplastics contained in faeces and urine — is a major public health hazard, causing disease outbreaks, and putting biodiversity at risk.” They contain a variety of contaminants and hazardous pathogens that may affect the entire food chain. Contaminants like nanoplastics cannot be filtered out using conventional means.

Despite the evident risks, the UK reportedly imported 27,500 tonnes of Dutch sewage sludge for its agricultural needs in 2020.  European farms, by extension, have now become the biggest global reservoir of microplastics due to its use of sewage sludge.  The degradation of European farmland may exacerbate as the Russia-Ukraine conflict drags on.

Whether famine will ravage the world by Christmas is anyone’s guess. But make no mistake: it will be poorer societies — primarily in Africa, Middle East and South Asia — that will suffer first and foremost. Even if Russia and Ukraine sign a truce tomorrow and normality returns to the region, many parts of China are facing unprecedented lockdowns. The nuts and bolts of the global economy are now bobbing aimlessly inside countless vessels along the coastlines of China. These include items essential to agriculture. The WHO slammed China’s zero-Covid policy as being “unsustainable” which was a marked departure from earlier praises heaped on New Zealand for doing the same thing.

In this cauldron of madness, our collective future was summed up this way: “The whole planet is a pot, and we’re all frogs.” The tiny few who stir the pot are the ones who will ultimately benefit from the Great Reset.

*

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

This article was originally published on RT.com.

Dr. Mathew Maavak is a Malaysian expert on risk foresight and governance. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Devastated by a Typhoon, Community Foresters in the Philippines Find Little Support

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.

***

Former Virginia State Senator Richard H. Black was recently interviewed by Mike Robinson.  In the video, Black discusses the conflict in Ukraine, his views on NATO expansionism, and draws parallels with the conflict in Syria. Black said the US has a strategic policy of using proxies to engage in war to overthrow existing governments.  He said the decision for war in Ukraine was made in Washington, DC.

Black said that Ukraine is meaningless to Americans, and yet American lives are affected by paying billions of dollars for weapons for Ukraine.  A similar case in Syria, where Radical Islamic terrorists were used for a proposed regime change, failed. According to Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Qatar, the US-sponsored regime change project in Syria cost billions of dollars and was administered by the US through the CIA office in Turkey.

“NATO’s arrogance prevents a serious response to Russia’s reasonable request that Ukraine never is accepted into the alliance,” said Black.

On Feb 19, Black urged Washington to seriously consider Russia’s call not to expand NATO. He said, “NATO and the United States refused to respond in the affirmative to Russia’s request to abandon a further expansion of the alliance and withdraw foreign troops from countries adjacent to Russia.”  He noted that this proposal deserved serious consideration, and refusal to negotiate could put Russia in a national security crisis.

Earlier, Black told Sputnik that the recognition of the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics (LPR, DPR) by Russian President Vladimir Putin is an indication that he intends to take further action in the east of Ukraine while expressing hope that the United States and the European Union will work to resolve the crisis peacefully.

“By signing the decree, President Putin has made clear his seriousness and willingness to take further action,” Black said. “Hopefully this will cause the US and European powers to work toward resolving matters in a way that avoids bloodshed for both Russians and Ukrainians.”

Black was not surprised by the Russian lower house’s recognition of the breakaway republics in the Donbas region, and said that it was “morally justified because Ukraine had abrogated its responsibilities under the Minsk agreements, conducted artillery shelling of the region, and imposed an economic blockade on the population.”

“Until now, they have been dismissive of Russia’s genuine apprehensions,” he stressed. “The US had 200 Florida National Guard troops deployed inside of Ukraine, and Canada had its troops deployed there too. Actions such as those were an unacceptable threat to Russia. That should have been obvious to anyone. Yet until now, politicians have seemed oblivious to the danger that NATO’s reckless eastward advance caused for both Russia and even Western nations too.”

Black believes that an independent non-aligned Ukraine would provide stability in the region. “Ideally, Ukraine would be treated as Austria was during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union permitted it to become a sovereign, non-aligned, demilitarized buffer between East and West,” he explained recalling the 1955 Austrian Declaration of Neutrality incorporated into its constitution.

Who is Senator Black?

Richard H. Black is a Republican, and he served as a member of the Virginia State Senate, from 2012 to 2020, retiring at the end of his term. Previously he served as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates from 1998 to 2006.

Black was a career military officer, having served in both the US Marines and in the US Army JAG Corps. He served a total of 31 years active and reserve, rising from the rank of private to full colonel. He was a pilot in the US Marines during the Vietnam War, earning the Purple Heart medal, while flying 269 combat helicopter missions.

Black has faced criticism from mainstream media in the US because he offers views that are divergent from the institutionalized biased media, which has covered the war in Syria by glorifying the rebels and demonizing the Syrian government.  The media fails to report that the so-called rebels are following the same Radical Islam political ideology that ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood expound.

Black on Syria

In April 2014, Black sent a letter to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad thanking “the Syrian Arab Army for its heroic rescue of Christians in the Qalamoun Mountain Range”, and for “treating with respect all Christians and the small community of Jews in Damascus.”  Black stated it was obvious that the rebel side of the war was largely being fought by “vicious war criminals linked to Al Qaeda.”

In 2015 ISIS included Black in a list of its enemies, calling him “The American Crusader.”  ISIS quoted the following statement by Black, “One thing is clear, if Damascus falls, the dreaded black and white flag of ISIS will fly over Damascus. … Within a period of months after the fall of Damascus, Jordan will fall and Lebanon will fall. … I think you will automatically see a beginning of a historic push of Islam towards Europe and I think, ultimately, Europe will be conquered.”

On April 27, 2016, Black began a three-day trip to Syria and explained his trip in a series of Twitter exchanges with The Washington Post.  Black wrote that the US was “allied with two of the most vile nations on earth, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which are intent on imposing a [Wahhabi] fundamentalist government on the Syrian people.”

On April 28, 2016, while visiting a hospital in Damascus treating soldiers who had lost limbs fighting terrorists, Black expressed concern over the US sanctions which had prevented Syrian hospitals from importing the materials to manufacture artificial limbs, and to provide other medical care. He described the US sanctions as a crime against humanity, in a country that had provided free medical to all in public hospitals. He said, “We should stop this dirty war and lift the economic siege.”

Black viewed the Syrian conflict as a plot by foreign powers to destroy the country and utilize false news in mainstream media.

Senator John McCain’s trip to Syria

While Black entered Syria legally, the Republican Senator from Arizona, John McCain, entered Syria in May 2013 illegally, without any visa or border controls. Illegal entry by foreigners into Arizona was a major issue to McCain domestically, but he broke the law himself deliberately.  McCain entered Idlib illegally from Turkey and was hosted by the terrorists employed by the US.  McCain was later accused of meeting with terrorists in the US media after one of the men he posed with in a photo op there was identified as an international kidnapper.  Another man in the photo was identified by some as the future leader of ISIS, Baghdadi, who was later killed in Idlib, where the McCain photo was taken.

In 2017 President Trump shut down the CIA program which supported the terrorists in Syria.

Poll in the US about Ukraine

“There was a time when an international crisis would unite the country behind both the federal government’s response as well as its leaders,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute. “That time is gone.”

Only 18 percent of Republicans surveyed by Monmouth approve of Biden’s handling of the Ukraine crisis as compared to 77 percent of Democrats. 69 percent of those surveyed for the Monmouth University poll released on May 11 support sending more US military troops to Eastern Europe to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from further stepping up the conflict, but only 41 percent support putting American military boots on Ukrainian soil.

Biden on Taiwan

The Taiwanese are following US army basic training videos online as they practice drills preparing for a possible war against China. The US has warned Taiwan for decades of the possible threat from China.  The recent conflict in Ukraine has been used by the US to ratchet up fear in Taiwan.

Beijing claims Taiwan as a Chinese province and has sworn to “unify” it. Taiwan has spent billions on weapons purchases from the US, and last week the defense minister ordered a return to a full year of conscription for young Taiwanese men and ended a non-military public service alternative.

Admiral Lee Hsi-ming, the former navy chief and chief of the general staff, has called for a government-backed territorial defense force. Lee’s proposal was written with Michael Hunzeker, a military expert at George Mason University.

While speaking in Japan recently, US President Joe Biden has warned China is “flirting with danger” over Taiwan, vowed to intervene militarily to protect the island if it is attacked, and drew a parallel between Taiwan and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is the second time in recent months he has unequivocally stated the US would defend Taiwan if China attacked.

When the press asked if the US would defend Taiwan militarily, even though the US has not done so in the invasion of Ukraine, he responded, “Yes… that’s the commitment we made.”

During the term of Clinton, there was the US-NATO attack on Yugoslavia, under Bush there was the US attack on Iraq and Afghanistan, under Obama there was the US-NATO attack on Libya and Syria, and all of those projects were for regime change. Now there is Biden at the helm, and he has started a proxy war in Ukraine to weaken Russia.  The Ukrainian conflict is only a few months old and Biden is already threatening an attack on China.

*

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

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 Former Virginia State Senator Richard H. Black: Ukraine, NATO Expansionism, US Proxy Wars in Ukraine, Syria, China May be Next
  • 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.

***

Former US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, who’s globally renowned for his realpolitik during the Old Cold War, strongly advised his country not to let Taiwan become the core of its relations with China. He warned that doing so risks a “World War I-type situation … where people slide into a conflict.” His wisdom about this issue of global concern should be seriously considered by US strategists, especially in the aftermath of US President Joe Biden’s provocative comments.

The American leader said during a press conference that his country will get involved militarily if China is resorts to forceful means for reunifying with Taiwan. The White House later walked back the same comments that the president spent a couple sentences elaborating on but the damage was already done. The US’ so-called “strategic ambiguity” towards that scenario, which was already in and of itself a violation of its One China policy, has now been clarified from the perspective of many observers.

In the event of a military conflict between those two parts of the People’s Republic, the US will most likely replicate the Ukrainian model of waging a proxy war on that major country via the emergency dispatch of unprecedented amounts of military, financial, and other forms of aid. Put another way, one can conceptualize the NATO-led proxy war on Russia through Ukraine as being the testing ground for waging an AUKUS-led proxy war on China through its Taiwan region sometime in the future.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley told West Point graduates over the weekend that they must prepare for countering what he claimed were China’s attempts to change the post-World War II international order. Biden’s first trip to the Republic of Korea and Japan as president is meant to solidify the US’ existing treaty alliances in Northeast Asia in possible preparation of the scenario that he scandalously discussed.

All of this very strongly suggests that a disaster of epic proportions is slowly in the making, one which many feel powerless to stop since it appears as though the grand strategic inertia is irreversibly moving in that direction. That’s why Kissinger’s wise comments are so important for US strategists to pay attention to. It’s only by preventing Taiwan from becoming the core of Chinese-American relations can the worst-case scenario of those two clashing over that region possibly be averted.

The US cannot claim to support a so-called “rules-based order” when it’s de facto violating its own One China policy and going against its official recognition of Taiwan as an integral part of the People’s Republic. America’s facilitation of approximately $20 billion in arms sales to Taiwan since 2017, as revealed by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken during his testimony before the Senate late last month, shows that the Pentagon is preparing for a proxy war against China exactly as Biden hinted.

This is occurring in parallel with Japan’s increasingly destabilizing role in the Asia-Pacific as a result of its illegal militarization in contravention of that country’s pacifist constitution that’s being carried out under the unconvincing pretext of bolstering its so-called “Self-Defense Forces”. Coupled with AUKUS, it’s clear that America is creating an “Asian NATO” whose undeclared purpose is to “contain” China and most likely militarily support Taiwan in the event of a future conflict between those two.

Kissinger is correct in assessing that the grand strategic trajectory is dangerously moving towards a “World War I-type situation”, but it’s not too late to stop it. The American economy is being crushed by a combination of the consequences stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden’s disastrous policies, and blowback from the US-led West’s unprecedented sanctions against Russia. The US objectively has a much more pressing interest in refocusing its efforts towards the home front than against China.

“Containing” China only generates profits for the US’ powerful military-industrial complex within which many political figures are speculated to have invested. It doesn’t benefit the American people, those in the Asia-Pacific, nor anyone across the world for that matter. To the contrary, it risks sparking another world war by miscalculation exactly as Kissinger fears. The first step towards preemptively averting that worst-case scenario is for the US to return to sincerely practicing its One China policy.

This entails suspending arms shipments to the island and associated training of its forces as well as no longer agitating for Taiwan to be treated separately from China at international fora like the World Health Organization (WHO). Those steps would signal to Beijing that Washington is sincere in avoiding a conflict with it over that region. Only then can those two return to talks for improving their troubled relations and exploring opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation that would stabilize the world.

*

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

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 frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

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

***

Could it have been just another case of bumbling poor judgment, the mind softened as the mouth opened?  A question was put to US President Joe Biden, visiting Tokyo and standing beside Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida: “You didn’t want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons.  Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?”  The answer: “Yes.  That’s a commitment we made.”

Biden was again flatly committing the US to a conflict over Taiwan should China deploy its forces.  He has done so on two previous occasions, showing either a degree of ignorance, or a willingness to throw caution to the wind.  The first took place during an interview with ABC News in August, when he equated Taiwan’s status to those of other allies such as South Korea.  The second, in a CNN town hall, took place in October, when he stated that the US had “a commitment to do that”.

In doing so a third time, he was helping no one in particular, and taking the hammer to the strategic ambiguity that has marked US-Taiwan policy for decades.  The only thing that could have been taken away from it is a reminder to Beijing that they are not facing a cautious superpower steered by a sage, but a government not unwilling to shed blood over Taiwan.

Biden has expressed this view before, and grates against a policy Washington has had for 43 years.  It is a policy characterised by two key understandings.  The first is the One China policy, which the Biden administration affirmed in Tokyo.  Beijing, accordingly, remains the sole legitimate authority representing China.

The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 is the other pillar that guides US policy towards Taiwan.  The Act declares it the policy of the United States “to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan, as well as the people of the China mainland and all other people in the Western Pacific area.”

The Act facilitates the provision of arms to Taiwan “of a defensive character” and maintains “the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.”  It does not impose an obligation on the US to intervene militarily in the event of an attack, or to compel the use of forces in defence of the island.

The first pertinent question was whether an actual change had been heralded in Tokyo.  The National Review certainly thought so.  “Biden’s remarks signal a big shift in US foreign policy regarding Taiwan.”  The New York Times also suggested that, unlike his previous, seemingly incautious remarks on the subject, this could not be treated as a simple gaffe.  Sebastian Smith, White House correspondent for Agence France-Presse, thought that Biden’s response “really raised the adrenaline levels in that palace briefing room”.

Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was overjoyed, expressing “sincere welcome and gratitude to President Biden of the United States for reiterating its rock solid commitment to Taiwan.”

For his part, Biden was having a bit each way, suggesting that strategic ambiguity was still being retained in some modest form.  “We agree with the One China policy and all the attendant agreements we made.  But the idea that it can be taken by force, would just not be appropriate.”  His Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin was even more adamant that there had been no change to speak of on the part of the president.  “As the president said, our One China policy has not changed,” he stated at the Pentagon.  “He reiterated that policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.  He also highlighted our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to help provide Taiwan the means to defend itself.  So, again, our policy has not changed.”

On being asked by a journalist what potential risks would rise as part of a US military defence of Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, General Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was unwilling to elucidate.  A “variety of contingency plans” were held by the military applicable to the Pacific, Europe “and elsewhere”, all classified.  “And it would be very inappropriate for me on a microphone to discuss the risk associated with those plans relative to anything with respect to Taiwan or anywhere else in the Pacific.”  Reassuring.

As often tends to come to pass, when the potential for war lurks in cupboards and around corners, there are those less than unwilling to repel it.  The chance to exercise muscle, especially indulged vicariously, brings out the inner war monger.  Bret Stephens uses the New York Times to promote the popular view held by many in the US and amongst its allies that Biden was quite right not to stick to “diplomatic formulas of a now-dead status quo”.  President Xi Jinping, that sly devil, had “changed the rules of the game” by crushing protests in Hong Kong, repudiating the “one country, two systems” formula and blithely ignored the ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration on Chinese claims on the South China Sea.

Stephens sees opportunity in this statement from Biden, a thankful slaying of ambiguity.  For one, the US can sell more arms to Taiwan while incorporating Taipei into its broader strategic approach.  The administration should also convince Taipei to increase its “scandalously low” military budget.  Washington, for its part, can increase the small component of US Special Operations and Marine personnel already deployed to train local forces.  Biden’s stumble, in short, was a shift; and the shift moves one step closer to inciting war.

*

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

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

Featured image is from The White House Facebook Page

Western Attempts to Blame Russia for Global Food Crisis

May 25th, 2022 by Paul Antonopoulos

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.

***

With the globe potentially on the brink of a food crisis caused by the lack of wheat exports from Ukraine, the West is attempting to blame Russia for this situation whilst ignoring Kiev’s culpability. Frustratingly for the West though, it is Russia that holds the key in ensuring that the world is not gripped in a food crisis.

With war waging in Ukraine and India suffering in a severe heatwave, the World Bank has warned that the world could face its biggest food crisis since the 1970’s because of grain shortages. The price of agricultural products is soaring as Ukraine cannot sow its fields to its maximum potential and Indian crops have been destroyed by the severe heat. The price of wheat has now risen to 456 euros per ton.

Before the Russian military operation began, Ukraine ranked fifth in grain exports, with their biggest customers being African and Middle Eastern countries. Most grain is shipped by sea. However, as Ukraine lost access to the Azov Sea, and with Odessa being blockaded, ships being impounded and sea mines planted near the coast, about 25 million tons of Ukrainian grain is stranded.

Russian envoy at the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya highlighted on May 20 that the West does not refute the “grains-for-weapons” proposal:

“We asked our Western colleagues to publicly refute this version that many experts are inclined to believe nowadays right at the meeting. Of course, nobody did this. Just as nobody explained how these deliveries facilitate the bolstering of global food security which the Western states are so concerned about verbally.”

The EU is effectively preparing a safety net of grain at the expense of the global south. The EU will first supply grains to the domestic market and then the rest will be sent to third countries. Delivery via the Danube helps increase the amount of grain supplied to Europe, but this volume is still not enough as the ability of river ports to transport goods is not more than 10% of goods transported by sea.

Another problem is that planting in Ukraine has not yet been completed. It is likely that harvest will be 20-30% smaller than usual, keeping in mind that 84 million tons of grain was harvested last year.

In addition to wheat, Ukraine ranks 4th in the world in terms of corn supply. Last year, Ukraine exported about 23 million tons of corn, with about 55% of exports going to the EU and about 30% to China and South Korea.

Although the G7 accuses Moscow of manufacturing a food crisis by preventing Ukrainian food barges from running through Russian territory, thus increasing prices, they remained silent on the fact that Ukraine is blockading foreign vessels in various ports and that the country’s military planted sea mines along the coast. Ukraine’s planting of sea mines has made most shipowners unwilling to navigate such dangerous waters, and in this way, Kiev has sabotaged its own export capabilities.

Blaming Russia for increased food prices could be the establishment of a new pretext to sanction Moscow. Such a pretext overlooks the crisis in India, China’s restriction of grain exports and Ukraine mining its Black Sea coastline.

The US, Canada, France and Germany, as key exporters, will present themselves as being capable of saving the world from famine, which they are evidently preparing to blame Russia for. However, these countries are also facing major crises, partly because of the knock-on effects of anti-Russia sanctions and the war in Ukraine.

In the US, the price of diesel, agricultural machinery, diesel-powered trucks and industrial equipment have skyrocketed. The price of diesel reached a record $5.50 per gallon. At the same time, US stockpiles fell sharply — nationwide, they have fallen 43% since 2020. Food prices are also rising.

The situation is exacerbated by sanctions, such as the EU’s ban on the import of fertilizers from Russia. This is despite the fact that Russia is one of the three largest suppliers of carbide, ammonia and ammonium nitrate.

This has not stopped the EU from restricting imports, but now they can expect half of a usual yield this harvest season. Because of this, it is likely that Western countries will not prioritize a potential global famine as they focus on their own domestic market instead.

French newspaper LeFigaro recalled that in 2007, problems with wheat provoked food riots in 37 countries. The consequences of this partially led to the so-called Arab Spring. At that time, the price of cereal was 240 euros per ton, now it is more than 450 euros.

Russia could serve as an alternative source of grain to plug the gap caused by Ukraine’s inability to sow, harvest and transport at full capacity. Russia is expecting a bumper crop this year, with grain harvests likely to reach 130 million tons, including 87 million tons of wheat. Russia remains a reliable supplier of grain and if it is not wanted in the West, there will be no shortage of buyers in the global market, especially as its largest shipments are already sent to non-Western countries such as Turkey, Egypt and the South Asia region.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Western Attempts to Blame Russia for Global Food 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.

***

Veteran US statesman Henry Kissinger has urged the West to stop trying to inflict a crushing defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine, warning that it would have disastrous consequences for the long term stability of Europe.

“I hope the Ukrainians will match the heroism they have shown with wisdom,” Kissinger warned an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, adding with his famous sense of realpolitik that the proper role for the country is to be a neutral buffer state rather than the frontier of Europe.

As The Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports, Kissinger’s comments came amid growing signs that the Western coalition against Vladimir Putin is fraying badly as the food and energy crisis deepens, and that sanctions may have reached their limits.

The former US secretary of state and architect of the Cold War rapprochement between the US and China told the gathering of elites that it would be fatal for the West to get swept up in the mood of the moment and forget the proper place of Russia in the European balance of power.

“Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome.

Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante.

Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself,” he said.

The architect of the détente with China under the Nixon administration suggested that ‘status quo’ ante means “how things were before,” implying that Ukraine should accept a peace deal to restore the situation on February 24, where Russia formally controlled the Crimea peninsula and informally controlled part of the Donetsk region in east Ukraine.

The 98-year-old statesman is making no friends among the blue-check-mark brigade who seem to see only one path for humanity… and it ends in a mushroom cloud…

However, one ‘blue-check’ appears to comprehend what Kissinger is saying – end this escalation now before it ends badly for all of us…

Kissinger appeared at a Financial Times conference over the weekend warning that “we are now living in a totally new era…”

The key exchange, expanding on his most recent comments regarding the West and Russia, was as follows:

Financial Times: The Biden administration is framing its grand geopolitical challenge as being democracy versus autocracy. I’m picking up an implicit hint that it’s the wrong framing?

Henry Kissinger: We have to be conscious of the differences of ideology and of interpretation that exists. We should use this consciousness to apply it in our own analysis of the importance of issues as they arise, rather than make it the principal issue of confrontation, unless we are prepared to make regime change the principal goal of our policy. I think given the evolution of technology, and the enormous destructiveness of weapons that now exist, [seeking regime change] may be imposed on us by the hostility of others, but we should avoid generating it with our own attitudes.

We are now [faced] with technologies where the rapidity of exchange, the subtlety of the inventions, can produce levels of catastrophe that were not even imaginable.

But there’s almost no discussion internationally about what would happen if the weapons actually became used.

My appeal in general, on whatever side you are, is to understand that we are now living in a totally new era, and we have gotten away with neglecting that aspect.

Food for thought from someone who’s been ‘in the room’.

*

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

Featured image: Vladimir Putin and Henry Kissinger shaking hands in 2007 (Source: ZH)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Fact Checkers’ Furious After Henry Kissinger Says Ukraine Should Cede Territory for Peace with Russia
  • Tags: , ,

Microplastics From Masks Found Deep in Lungs of the Living

May 25th, 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.

***

Researchers found 39 microplastics in surgical lung samples from 11 of 13 people. There were 12 types that would commonly be found in plastic bottles, twine, clothing and surgical masks

A respirator specialist says surgical masks don’t meet the legal definition of a mask but rather are “breathing barriers.” He was emphatic they are shedding microplastics small enough to be inhaled

A data analysis of cases, hospitalizations and deaths in Kansas revealed counties with mask mandates had higher mortality rates than those without mask mandates

Once inhaled or consumed, microplastics can be found in your bloodstream in particles small enough to cross membrane barriers. It’s also found in an infant’s first stool, suggesting maternal exposure; an animal study found nanopolystryene particles in fetal brain, liver, kidney and lung tissue 24 hours after maternal exposure

*

Tiny bits of plastic about the size of a sesame seed or smaller are everywhere. News headlines often show intact plastic bags, rings and bottles as the primary threats to the environment — and these are indeed harmful to marine life and more — but the smaller, more insidious microplastic bits may even be more harmful. A study1 from Great Britain2 found microplastics in 11 out of 13 patients’ lungs.

Across the world, 299 million tons of plastic were produced in 2013, much of which ended up in the oceans, threatening wildlife and the environment.3 That number jumped to 418 million tons in 2021.4 In 2018, the U.S. alone generated 35.7 million tons of plastic and sent 27 million tons to landfills, which accounted for 18.5% of all municipal solid waste.5

Chemicals found in plastic products are known to act as endocrine disruptors.6 These chemicals are similar in structure to natural sex hormones, and they interfere with the normal functioning of those hormones in your body.7 This poses a particular problem for children who are still growing and developing.

The price that society will pay for the ubiquitous use and distribution of plastic particles has yet to be quantified. Evidence suggests that the long-term exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like phthalates poses a significant danger to health and fertility.

The amount of plastic that enters the environment grows each year as manufacturers continue to produce products in disposable containers and consumers continue to demand a disposable lifestyle. At a time when advocacy groups warn that plastics are falling from the sky8 and have become a global tragedy,9 the COVID-19 pandemic has driven the plastic problem to even greater heights.

Study Finds Microplastics in 11 Out of 13 Patient’s Lungs

Decades of research have shown that people breathe in microparticles of air pollution as well as consume them in food and water. A 2021 autopsy study10 showed microplastics in 13 of the 20 people analyzed and over 20 years ago a 1998 U.S. lung cancer study11 found plastic and fibers in 99 of the 114 lung samples that were examined.

According to the Natural History Museum,12 microplastics measure less than 5 millimeters. They call microplastics “one of the greatest man-made disasters of our time.” While there are industrial uses for microplastics, most form when they break away from larger plastic products in the environment.

Primary microplastics are those produced in small sizes for industrial use, such as in sandblasters, cosmetics or microfiber clothing. Secondary microplastics result from the breakdown of larger plastic products caused by exposure to environmental stressors.13

One team of scientists from Hull York Medical School sought to analyze the impact that inhaling microplastics has on human tissue. Past research has found synthetic fibers in lung tissue, but researchers wrote there were no robust studies confirming microplastics in lung tissue. The current study analyzed human lung tissue in 13 patients who had undergone lung surgery.

They found microplastic contamination in 11 of the 13 patients.14 The team found 39 pieces in 11 lung tissue samples. Laura Sadofsky, senior lecturer and lead researcher in the study, commented on the importance of the results:15

“Microplastics have previously been found in human cadaver autopsy samples — this is the first robust study to show microplastics in lungs from live people. It also shows that they are in the lower parts of the lung. Lung airways are very narrow so no one thought they could possibly get there, but they clearly have.

This data provides an important advance in the field of air pollution, microplastics and human health. The characterisation of types and levels of microplastics we have found can now inform realistic conditions for laboratory exposure experiments with the aim of determining health impacts.”

Study authors found the subjects harbored 12 types of microplastics, “which have many uses and are commonly found in packaging, bottles, clothing, rope/twine, and many manufacturing processes. There were also considerably higher levels of microplastics in male patients compared to females.”16

Another unexpected finding was that a higher number of microplastics were found in the lower portions of the lung. The most abundant types of microplastics were polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET).17 This finding points to the recent ubiquitous use of blue surgical masks during the pandemic as PP is the most commonly used plastic component in those masks.

Expert Says COVID Face Covers Are Not Masks

A study18 published in 2021 looked at the risks of wearing blue surgical face masks and inhaling microplastics. The researchers found that reusing masks could increase the risk of inhaling microplastic particles and that N95 respirators had the lowest number of microplastics released when compared to not wearing a mask.

They said, “Surgical, cotton, fashion, and activated carbon masks wearing pose higher fiber-like microplastic inhalation risk …”19 and yet, according to Chris Schaefer, a respirator specialist and training expert, the masks used by millions of people throughout the world are not really masks at all.20

Schaefer calls these “breathing barriers” as they “don’t meet the legal definition” of a mask. He was emphatic that the surgical masks used by consumers throughout Canada, the U.S. and the world are shedding microplastics small enough to be inhaled.21

“A [proper] mask has engineered breathing openings in front of mouth and nose to ensure easy and effortless breathing. A breathing barrier is closed both over mouth and nose. And by doing that, it captures carbon dioxide that you exhale, forces you to re-inhale it, causing a reduction in your inhaled oxygen levels and causes excessive carbon dioxide. So, they’re not safe to wear.”

He encourages people to cut one open and look at the loose fibers that are easily dislodged within the product.22

“The heat and moisture that it captures will cause the degradation of those fibres to break down smaller. Absolutely, people are inhaling [microplastic particles]. I’ve written very extensively on the hazards of these breathing barriers the last two years, I’ve spoken to scientists [and other] people for the last two years about people inhaling the fibres.

If you get the sensation that you’ve gotten a little bit of cat hair, or any type of irritation in the back of your throat after wearing them. That means you’re inhaling the fibres.”

He went on to note that anyone exposed to these types of fibers in an occupational setting would be required to wear protection. Instead, people are using products that increase the risk of inhaling fibers that “break down very small and, well, what that’s going to do to people in the in the form of lung function — as well as toxicity overload in their body — I guess we’ll know in a few years.”23

Face Coverings Also Increase the Death Rate From COVID-19

German physician, Dr. Zacharias Fögen, published a study24 in the peer-reviewed journal Medicine, which analyzed data across counties in Kansas, comparing areas where there was a mask mandate against counties without a mandate.

He found that mandatory masking increased the death rate by 85%. The mortality rate remained 52% higher in counties that mandated masking even when the analysis accounted for confounding factors. Fögen writes that further analysis of the data showed that 95% of the effect “can only be attributed to COVID-19, so it is not CO2, bacteria or fungi under the mask.”25

He has named this the Foegen Effect which refers to the reinhalation of viral particles trapped in droplets and deposited on the mask, which worsens outcomes. He writes:26

“The most important finding from this study is that contrary to the accepted thought that fewer people are dying because infection rates are reduced by masks, this was not the case. Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ~50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates.

The mask mandates themselves have increased the CFR (case fatality rate) by 1.85 / 1.58 or by 85% / 58% in counties with mask mandates. It was also found that almost all of these additional deaths were attributed solely to COVID-19. This study revealed that wearing facemasks might impose a great risk on individuals, which would not be mitigated by a reduction in the infection rate.

The use of facemasks, therefore, might be unfit, if not contraindicated, as an epidemiologic intervention against COVID-19.”

Fögen notes two other large studies that found similar results with case fatality rates. The first was published in the journal Cureus27 and found no association between case numbers and mask compliance in Europe but a positive association with death and mask compliance.

The second study28 was published in PLOS|One, which demonstrated there was an association between negative COVID outcomes and mask mandates across 847,000 people in 69 countries. The researchers estimated that ending the mask mandates could reduce new cases with no effect on hospitalization and death.

Plastics Trigger Cell Damage and Death

Past research has highlighted the impact microplastics have on the environment, wildlife and human health. However, many studies have not drawn an association between microplastic consumption or inhalation and disease. Instead, they identify research gaps and recommend further study.29

A paper30 published in April 2022 has suggested why this data has been inconsistent. The lab data was the first to find that microplastics damaged human cells at levels that are relevant to the number of particles humans ingest or inhale.

The study was a meta-regression analysis of the toxicological impact on human cells across 17 studies that compared the level of microplastics that cause cell damage. The researchers found that it was the irregularly shaped microplastics that cause cell damage and not the spherical microplastics that are normally used in laboratory experiments.

This suggests that past lab data using spherical microplastics may not fully represent the damage that microplastics cause to human health. Evangelos Danopoulos from Hull York Medical School in the U.K., who led the study, commented on why research is increasing: “It is exploding and for good reason. We are exposed to these particles every day: we’re eating them, we’re inhaling them. And we don’t really know how they react with our bodies once they are in.”31

Where Does Plastic Pollution Go in Your Body?

Researchers have found that tiny microplastics are not only deposited in your lungs and gut but can also be found floating in your blood. Researchers from The Netherlands analyzed samples32 from 22 healthy volunteers and found plastic particles in 77% of the samples. These particles were 700 nanometers or greater in dimension, which is a size that can be absorbed across membranes.

Some samples contained up to three different types of plastic. The study author told The Guardian “Our study is the first indication that we have polymer particles in our blood — it’s a breakthrough result. But we have to extend the research and increase the sample sizes, the number of polymers assessed, etc.”33

The researchers wrote that where these plastic particles end up in the body also requires further study. They stated that it’s “scientifically plausible” that the plastic particles are being transported by the bloodstream to organs, based, for instance, on data showing that 50, 80 and 240 nm polystyrene beads and microsized polypropylene can permeate the human placenta.34

After these microplastics cross the placental barrier, they end up in a newborn’s first feces. This means they migrate from the infant’s blood to the gut. A pilot study35 published in 2021 looked at the magnitude of human exposure to microplastics and found that the microplastic polyethylene terephthalate (PET) was found in meconium samples, which is a baby’s first stool.

The amount of PET in infant stool was 10 times higher than found in adult samples, which suggested that babies have plastic in their system that is absorbed from their mother. How this will affect the future of human health is still being studied. An animal study found that just 24 hours after maternal inhalation exposure, nanopolystyrene particles could be detected in the placenta and fetal brain, lungs, liver, heart and kidney.36

It appears that inhaling or consuming microplastics allows micro particles access to your bloodstream and then to your vital organs. While researchers have demonstrated that the irregularly shaped microplastics found in the environment cause cell damage and death, the long-term effects on disease have not been identified. Yet, you may be sure that cell damage and death do not occur without consequences.

*

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

Notes

1, 14 Science of the Total Environment, 2022;831(2)

2, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 Western Standard, April 17, 2022

3 Coastal Care, November 2019

4 Our World in Data, Plastic Pollution

5 Environmental Protection Agency, Plastics: Material Specific Data, Overview

6 Endocrine Society, December 5, 2020

7 Scientific Reports, 2018;8(6086)

8 Scientific American, June 11, 2020

9 Center for Biological Diversity, Ocean Plastics Pollution

10 Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2021;416(124126)

11 Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, 1998;7(5)

12 Natural History Museum, January 21, 2020

13 National Geographic, microplastics

15, 16 Hull York Medical School, April 6, 2022

18, 19 Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2021;411

24 Medicine, 2022;101(7)

25 The Daily Skeptic, May 2, 2022

26 Medicine, 2022;101(7) 4

27 Cureus, 2022;14(4)

28 PLOS|One, 2021, doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252315

29 Food, Health, and the Environment, 2018;5:375

30 Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2021; 127861

31 The Guardian, December 8, 2021

32 Environment International 2022; doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199 3.2

33 The Guardian March 24, 2022

34 Environment International, 2022; doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199 3.3 Plastic’s biological fate?

35 Environmental Letters & Technology Letters, 2021; doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.10c00559

36 Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 2020;17(55)

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.

***

On Saturday, US President Joe Biden signed a bill authorizing $40 billion in spending, largely for weapons and other assistance to Ukraine.

One month ago, US military assistance to Ukraine under the Biden administration totaled $4 billion. With the stroke of a pen, Biden has expanded the US commitment to the conflict tenfold.

But with the ink barely dry on the latest weapons shipment, Washington went on to escalate the conflict further. On Monday, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced that the US would provide Ukraine with Harpoon anti-ship missiles via an intermediary, Denmark. The Harpoon is the standard anti-ship armament of the US Navy, capable of sinking large warships.

On Friday, Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs adviser Anton Gerashchenko tweeted that

“The US is preparing a plan to destroy the [Russian] Black Sea Fleet” as part of a “plan to unblock the ports.” He continued, “Deliveries of powerful anti-ship weapons (Harpoon and Naval Strike Missile with a range of 250–300 km) are being discussed.”

The Pentagon responded by officially denying that the US is actively planning operations to destroy Russia’s navy in the Black Sea. However, Monday’s announcement makes clear that it is engaged in precisely such an operation. The US was already directly involved in the sinking of the flagship of the Russian fleet, Moskva, last month.

As usual, military escalation by the United States is accompanied by a propaganda barrage. In this case, the apologists of US imperialism are declaring that greater involvement in military operations in the Black Sea is dictated by the need to open the ports for global food shipments.

The Washington Post published an editorial entitled “Putin is starving millions of people around the world.” It concludes, “with 20 million metric tons of grain and corn just sitting in storage at Ukrainian ports right now, there’s only so much the rest of the world can do. Mr. Putin’s war is on the verge of becoming Mr. Putin’s global famine.”

The Post’s hypocrisy is jaw-dropping. The United States is the world’s leading practitioner of using starvation as a “weapon” of foreign policy. In 1974, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz declared, “food is a weapon. It is now one of the principal tools in our negotiating kit.” In December 1980, John Block, Reagan’s secretary of agriculture, told reporters: “I believe food is the greatest weapon we have.”

The examples of the US using starvation as a weapon include withholding food aid to Chile in 1973 as part of a successful effort to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende and cutting food assistance to Bangladesh in 1974 during a massive famine to punish the country for trading with Cuba.

US sanctions on food and medicine imported by Iraq in the 1990s contributed to the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, while US sanctions against Iran led to runaway food price inflation, meaning that “following a healthy diet has become more difficult for most Iranians,” according to one study.

As for the present ongoing food crisis, fundamental responsibility lies with the US and NATO powers, which provoked the current conflict and have sought at every point to scuttle efforts at a negotiated solution to the war.

Establishing control over the Black Sea is a vital US war aim. This waterway connects Europe, Russia and the Middle East. It not only holds critical reserves of oil and gas, but serves as a nodal point for hydrocarbon pipelines connecting Europe and Asia.

Even as the United States was escalating its war with Russia, Biden openly threatened to go to war with China, the world’s most populous country and its second-largest economy.

Speaking at a press conference in Japan, Biden was asked, “Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?”

Biden replied, “Yes… That’s the commitment we made.”

Despite efforts by the media to present Biden’s comment as a misstatement or a “gaffe,” the reality is that Biden’s remark corresponds with the views of leading US foreign policy figures.

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote on Twitter, “This is the third time @potus has spoken out in favor of strategic clarity on Taiwan and third time WH [White House] staff has tried to walk it back. Better to embrace it as new US stance.”

Supporting Biden’s declaration that the US should go to war with China over Taiwan, Haass declared, “The ‘Ukraine model’ [is] inadequate for Taiwan. Taiwan [is] an island that cannot be easily resupplied. Plus local partners & allies in Asia want direct US intervention. Plus Taiwan not nearly as strong as Ukraine. So direct US military involvement would be essential for defense vs China.”

The US-provoked war against Russia in Ukraine has already killed tens of thousands of people and displaced millions. The war against China Biden is threatening would turn the entire Asia-Pacific region, the world’s most populous area, into a war zone, with devastating and incalculable consequences.

Far-reaching plans for military escalation were in place long before Biden even reached the White House. In 2020, Biden published an article entitled “Rescuing U.S. Foreign Policy After Trump” in Foreign Affairs.

Biden pledged, “to counter Russian aggression, we must keep the alliance’s military capabilities sharp.” At the same time, the United States needs to “get tough with China,” he wrote. The “most effective way to meet that challenge is to build a united front of U.S. allies and partners to confront China.”

These plans were limited to the specialist foreign policy press read by beltway insiders, and Biden’s plans to provoke war with Russia and China played virtually no part in his appeal to voters. Instead, Biden publicly pledged to end “forever wars.”

In reality, Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan was a repositioning of US forces in preparation for an escalation of the US conflict with Russia and China.

In 2020, the World Socialist Web Site warned:

“A Biden/Harris administration will not inaugurate a new dawn of American hegemony. Rather, the attempt to assert this hegemony will be through unprecedented violence. If it is brought to power—with the support of the assemblage of reactionaries responsible for the worst crimes of the 21st century—it will be committed to a vast expansion of war.”

These warnings have been confirmed. For years, the United States military has systematically emphasized its plans to wage “great-power conflict” with these two countries. Now, a war with Russia has already broken out, and Biden’s comments make it clear that the administration is systematically preparing for a war with China.

These conflicts threaten to escalate into a world war, waged between nuclear-armed powers, threatening Europe, Asia, North America and, indeed, the whole of human civilization with destruction.

The Biden administration’s war plans express the relentless drive by US imperialism to reverse its relative economic decline through military means.

The crisis triggered by the war, however, is bringing workers into struggle all over the world against the rising cost of living and the efforts by the ruling classes to make workers pay for the crisis. This global movement of the working class provides the social base for the struggle to avert a new world war and stop the catastrophe threatening mankind.

*

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

Featured image: The USS Coronado (LCS 4) launches a Harpoon Block 1C missile. (Source: WSWS)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As It Escalates War Against Russia, Biden Administration Threatens War Against China
  • 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.

***

An American mainstream “military analyst”, the four-star General Barry McCaffrey on Monday tweeted a sequence from a 2015 video game Arma 3 as the actual footage of Ukrainian forces downing a Russian aircraft.

It is quite surprising that the high-ranking military officer did not verify the content he chose to spread on his social media account since it is not the first time the pro-Ukraine faction has published video game footage as genuine Ukraine victories.

In fact, the Ukrainian government had previously released at least two video game clips for propaganda in recent months. In a short clip of the Arma 3 video game play, an imaginary Russian MiG-29 gets shot down by an air defense system.

“Russian aircraft getting nailed by UKR missile defense. Russians are losing large numbers of attack aircraft. UKR air defense becoming formidable,” McCaffrey announced on Twitter.

Faced with a deluge of mocking and incredulous comments, McCaffrey quickly deleted the embarrassing post. The fake footage did not stop CNN pro-Ukraine pundit Max Boot from retweeting it.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense had used Arma 3 video game footage before to claim non-existent victories.

On Monday meanwhile, the surrender of hundreds of Azov Battalion fighters that had been holed up in Mariupol’s Azovstal steel factory were described by the mainstream media as an “evacuation” and an “end” to their “combat mission”.

The New York Times, CNN, AP and other outlets tried to downplay what could be a devastating turn of events for the Ukrainian General Staff. Ukrainian soldiers will no doubt be dismayed by the lack of support they have now witnessed, not only from their superiors but also from their Western sponsors, after they were abandoned by them.

The headquarters of the territorial defense of the DPR said that so far 256 people have surrendered at Azovstal, of which 51 were wounded. The DPR reported that they were preparing reserve capacities to receive 2000 prisoners of war.

*

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

Featured image: Surrendering Ukrainian fighters in Mariupol. Screenshot from RIA NOVOSTI

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 member of the Israeli parliament, Israel Katz, warned Palestinians of another “Nakba” if they fly the Palestinian flag. The Likud lawmaker put up a video on his twitter this morning featuring him speaking at the parliament, with the message:

Yesterday I warned the Arab students, who are flying Palestine flags at universities: Remember 48. Remember our independence war and your Nakba, don’t stretch the rope too much. […] If you don’t calm down we’ll teach you a lesson that won’t be forgotten.

His actual speech elaborates a bit more:

Ask your elders, your grandfathers and grandmothers, and they will explain to you that in the end, the Jews awaken, they know to defend themselves and the idea of the Jewish state. Don’t stretch the rope too much.

The plenum seems to be quite empty, but Palestinian Israeli lawmaker Aida Touma-Sliman from the Joint List of Palestinian parties is there, and at this point she counters him: “Are you threatening?”

Katz answers, “Listen, listen, this is also meant for you.” He then tells her how Arabs in Israel have it better than in any Arab country, with welfare and democracy, and chides Touma-Sliman for being a Communist, who joins “the worst of Israel’s enemies – they speak of coexistence, while supporting the enemies of Israel… we will bring this to an end”.

Then he comes with that final sentence: “If you don’t calm down, we’ll teach you a lesson that won’t be forgotten”.

Touma-Sliman responds with a “Wow”.

Well it is wow, isn’t it? Katz is a former minister of finance, foreign affairs, and intelligence under Netanyahu– he is from the heart of the Israeli political establishment. But it’s not a very new occurrence, that Israeli lawmakers come up with warnings of another Nakba.

In May 2018, Likud lawmaker Avi Dichter (former head of Shin Bet) warned that the Great March of Return in Gaza would turn into “the great Nakba”. This is where Israel took the liberty to target unarmed civilians who posed no danger with live ammunition, targeting also journalists and humanitarian workers. The carnage resulted in over 200 dead and 33,000 wounded, many maimed for life, over those 86 weeks. As Israeli journalist Orly Noy says, “the IDF has done little more than whitewash its own violence”.

One really has to ask oneself why there is so much discontent among Israeli apologists, when Rep. Rashida Tlaib sponsored a resolution to recognize the Nakba. I mean, the Israeli fascists use the term regularly! And they deliberately taunt Palestinians with it. They threaten Palestinians with it.

It’s not like this is a novel and exclusive Palestinian narrative – Israelis know exactly what it’s about, and they use the term as a weapon.

This points to the fact that the Nakba is not merely an historic event, but rather an ongoing reality, just as Tlaib said:

The Israeli apartheid government’s ongoing ethnic cleansing seeks to degrade Palestinian humanity and break the will of the people to be free. Fortunately, as Palestinians and their allies prove time and time again, we will persist no matter the circumstances until peace, freedom, equity and respect for all people are secured and protected.

So let’s not just recognize and commemorate the Nakba – let’s oppose it as it keeps unfolding.

*

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

Featured image is from Mondoweiss

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 the Russian special military operation in Ukraine moves forward, it becomes harder for Western analysts to deny the evident failure of the NATO’s project for post-Maidan Kiev. Given the current scenario, one of the greatest geopolitical thinkers in the western world, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, gave realistic advice so that a solution to the conflict is found as quickly as possible, with little damage to the parties involved.

Henry Kissinger argues that Europe must stop insisting on a defeat of Russian forces in Ukraine, claiming that the effects of such insistence would be disastrous for European stability in the long term. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the former Secretary of State even suggested that Ukraine should cede part of its territory, in order to reach a peace agreement in this conflict.

According to The Telegraph, in his speech on Monday, May 23, Kissinger stated that direct negotiations for the cessation of the combat should begin within a maximum period of two months, in order to avoid further damage. The former head of US diplomacy believes that after this period it will be much more difficult to control the security crisis and its effects, as that would possibly mean for the West the beginning of a new war against Russia.

“Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante (…) Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself’, he says.

As we can see, for him, the ideal is to return to the pre-conflict status quo. But it is necessary to understand what such a status quo would be. Considering that, in other moments of his speech, Kissinger argued Ukraine should cede territory, he seems to agree that Kiev must accept all Russian-imposed peace conditions and recognize the new sovereign republics and Russian Crimea. With this territorial reformulation of the Ukrainian state, it would be possible to return to a scenario of stability not only pre-Russian operation, but even pre-Maidan, when Ukraine was truly geopolitically neutral.

For him, a “neutral Ukraine” today does not mean the same as it did eight years ago, but this is still the ideal scenario to look for: “About eight years ago, when the idea of membership of Ukraine in NATO came up, I wrote an article in which I said that the ideal outcome would be if Ukraine could be constituted as a neutral kind of state, as a bridge between Russia and Europe (…) I think that opportunity does not now exist in the same manner, but it could still be conceived as an ultimate objective”.

In fact, Kissinger is absolutely unsuspected of any “pro-Russian” position. His background in American foreign policy and all his vast literary work make his pro-Western thinking very clear, but without prejudice to his strategic sense. Kissinger, unlike most contemporary pro-Western politicians and globalist elites, does not give up realism. Certainly, for him, a world with NATO global hegemony would be ideal, but he knows that this is no longer materially viable and, in his expertise, he points out alternative paths to maintain world peace and avoid escalating tensions.

As expected, Ukrainian reactions to the former secretary’s statements were, in general, extremely negative. For example, Inna Sovsun, a member of the Ukrainian parliament, stated: “It’s a pity that the former U.S. secretary of state believes that giving up on part of the sovereign territory is a way for peace for any country”. Also, Zelensky’s adviser Mykhailo Podolyak: “As easily as Mr. Kissinger proposes to give Russia part of Ukraine to stop the war, he would allow to take Poland or Lithuania away. It’s good that Ukrainians in the trenches do not have time for listening to Davos panicmonger. They’re a little bit busy defending Freedom and Democracy”.

In the Western world, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult not to take a realistic stance. Even before Kissinger’s words, the New York Times had published an article with very similar content, exposing that it would be up to the Ukrainians to make difficult decisions in the name of peace: “In the end, it is the Ukrainians who must make the hard decisions: they are the ones fighting, dying and losing their homes to Russian aggression, and it is they who must decide what an end to the war might look like (…) If the conflict does lead to real negotiations, it will be Ukrainian leaders who will have to make the painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand”. In fact, as the situation worsens for Kiev, analysts who until recently encouraged “Ukrainian resistance” are forced to expose more realistic content, in order to save their own credibility.

But it is not analysts and ex-state officials who make real politics. Western politicians and the globalist elites that support and finance them need to understand the messages of Kissinger and the realists: a neutral and territorially reformed Ukraine is the only way to end the conflict.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

***

It was apparently a “gaffe” of the kind we had forgotten since George W Bush stepped down from the US presidency in early 2009. During a speech in Dallas last week, he momentarily confused Russian President Vladimir Putin’s current war of aggression against Ukraine and his own war of aggression against Iraq in 2003.

Bush observed that a lack of checks and balances in Russia had allowed “one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq… I mean, Ukraine. Iraq too. Anyway… I’m 75.”

It sounded like another “Bushism” – a verbal slip-up – for which the 43rd president was famous. Just like the time he boasted that people “misunderestimated” him, or when he warned that America’s enemies “never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people – and neither do we”.

Maybe that explains why his audience laughed. Or maybe not, given how uncomfortable the laughter sounded.

Bush certainly wanted his mistake to be seen as yet another slip-up, which is why he hurriedly blamed it on his age. The senility defence doubtless sounds a lot more plausible at a time when the incumbent president, Joe Biden, regularly loses track of what he is saying and even where he is.

The western media, in so far as it has bothered to report Bush’s speech, has laughed along nervously too. It has milked the incident largely for comic effect: “Look, we can laugh at ourselves – unlike that narcissist Russian monster, Putin.”

The BBC accorded Bush’s comment status as a down-page brief news item. Those that gave it more attention preferred to term it a “gaffe” or an amusing “Freudian slip”.

‘Putin apologists’

But the focus on the humour of the moment is actually part of the media’s continuing war on our understanding of recent history. It is intended to deflect us, the audience, from thinking about the real significance of Bush’s “gaffe”.

The only reason the media is now so belatedly connecting – if very indirectly – “a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion” of Ukraine and what happened in Iraq is because of Bush’s mistake.

Had it not happened, the establishment media would have continued to ignore any such comparison. And those trying to raise it would continue to be dismissed as conspiracy theorists or as apologists for Putin.

The implication of what Bush said – even for those mockingly characterising it in Freudian terms – is that he and his co-conspirator, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, are war criminals and that they should be on trial at the Hague for invading and occupying Iraq.

Everything the current US administration is saying against Putin, and every punishment meted out on Russia and ordinary Russians, can be turned around and directed at the United States and Britain.

Should the US not be under severe economic sanctions from the “civilised world” for what it did to Iraq? Should its sportspeople not be banned from international events? Should its billionaires not be hunted down and stripped of their assets? And should the works of its long-dead writers, artists and composers not be shunned by polite society?

And yet, the western establishment media are proposing none of the above. They are not calling for Blair and Bush to be tried for war crimes. Meanwhile, they echo western leaders in labelling what Russia is doing in Ukraine as genocide and labelling Putin as an evil madman.

The western media are as uncomfortable taking Bush’s speech at face value as his audience was. And for good reason.

That is because the media are equally implicated in US and UK crimes in Iraq. They never seriously questioned the ludicrous “weapons of mass destruction” justification for the invasion. They never debated whether the “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign of Baghdad was genocidal.

And, of course, they never described either Bush or Blair as madmen and megalomaniacs and never accused them of waging a war of imperialism – or one for oil – in invading Iraq. In fact, both continue to be treated by the media as respected elder statesmen.

During Trump’s presidency, leading journalists waxed nostalgic for the days of Bush, apparently unconcerned that he had used his own presidency to launch a war of aggression – the “supreme international crime”.

And Blair continues to be sought out by the British and US media for his opinions on domestic and world affairs. He is even listened to deferentially when he opines on Ukraine.

Pre-emption excuse

But this is not simply about a failure to acknowledge the recent historical record. Bush’s invasion of Iraq is deeply tied to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. And for that reason, if no other, the western media ought to have been driving home from the outset the parallels between the two – as Bush has now done in error.

That would have provided the geopolitical context for understanding – without necessarily justifying – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the West’s role in provoking it. Which is precisely why the media have worked so hard to ignore those parallels.

In invading Iraq, Bush and Blair created a precedent that powerful states could redefine their attack on another state as “pre-emptive” – as defensive rather than aggressive – and thereby justify the military invasion in violation of the laws of war.

Bush and Blair falsely claimed both that Iraq threatened the West with weapons of mass destruction and that its secular leader, Saddam Hussein, had cultivated ties with the extreme Islamists of al-Qaeda that carried out the 9/11 attacks on the US. These pretexts ranged from the entirely unsubstantiated to the downright preposterous.

Putin has argued – more plausibly – that Russia had to take pre-emptive action against covert efforts by a US-led Nato to expand its military sphere of influence right up to Russia’s borders. Russia feared that, left unchecked, the US and Nato were preparing to absorb Ukraine by stealth.

But how does that qualify Russia’s invasion as defensive? The Kremlin’s fears were chiefly twofold.

First, it could have paved the way for Nato stationing missiles minutes away from Moscow, eroding any principle of mutual deterrence.

And second, Nato’s incorporation of Ukraine would have drawn the western military alliance directly into Ukraine’s civil war in the eastern Donbas region. That is where Ukrainian forces, including neo-Nazi elements like the Azov Brigade, have been pitted in a bloody fight against ethnic Russian communities.

In this view, absent a Russian invasion, Nato could have become an active participant in propping up Ukrainian ultra-nationalists killing ethnic Russians – as the West is now effectively doing through its arming of Ukraine to the tune of more than $40bn.

Even if one discounts Russia’s concerns, Moscow clearly has a greater strategic interest invested in what its neighbour Ukraine is doing on their shared border than Washington ever had in Iraq, many thousands of miles away.

Proxy wars

Even more relevant, given the West’s failure to acknowledge, let alone address, Bush and Blair’s crimes committed in Iraq, is Russia’s suspicion that US foreign policy is unchanged two decades on. On what basis would Moscow believe that Washington is any less aggressive or power-hungry than it was when it launched its invasion of Iraq?

The western media continue to refer to the US attack on Iraq, and the subsequent bloody years of occupation, as variously a “mistake”, a “misadventure” and a “blunder”. But surely it does not look that way to Moscow, all the more so given that Washington followed its invasion of Iraq with a series of proxy wars against other Middle Eastern and North African states such as Libya, Syria and Yemen.

To Russia, the attack on Iraq looks more like a stepping stone in a continuum of wars the US has waged over decades for “full-spectrum dominance” and to eradicate competitors for control of the planet’s resources.

With that as the context, Moscow might have reasonably imagined that the US and its Nato allies were eager for yet another proxy war, this time using Ukraine as the battlefield. Recent comments from Biden administration officials, such as Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, noting that Washington’s tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Kyiv is intended to “weaken Russia”, can only accentuate such fears.

Back in March, Leon Panetta, a former US secretary of defence and the CIA director under Barack Obama, who is in a position to speak more freely than serving officials, observed that Washington was waging “a proxy war with Russia, whether we say so or not”.

He predicted where US policy would head next, noting that the aim would be “to provide as much military aid as necessary”. Diplomacy has been a glaringly low priority for Washington.

Barely concealed from public view is a desire in the US and its allies for another regime change operation – this time in Russia – rather than end the war and the suffering of Ukrainians.

Butcher versus blunderer

Last week, the New York Times very belatedly turned down the war rhetoric a notch and called on the Biden administration to advance negotiations. Even so, its assessment of where the blame lay for Ukraine’s destruction was unambiguous: “Mr Putin will go down in history as a butcher.”

But have Bush or Blair gone down in history as butchers? They most certainly haven’t. And the reason is that the western media have been complicit in rehabilitating their images, presenting them as statesmen who “blundered” – with the implication that good people blunder when they fail to take account of how entrenched the evil of everyone else in the world is.

A butcher versus a pair of blunderers.

This false distinction means western leaders and western publics continue to evade responsibility for western crimes in Iraq and elsewhere.

That was why in late February – in reference to Ukraine – a TV journalist could suggest to Condoleezza Rice, who was one of the architects of the illegal war of aggression on Iraq as Bush’s national security adviser: “When you invade a sovereign nation, that is a war crime.” The journalist apparently did not consider for a moment that it was not just Putin who was a war criminal but the very woman she was sitting opposite.

It was also why Rice could nod solemnly and agree with a straight face that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was “against every principle of international law and international order – and that’s why throwing the book at them [Russia] now in terms of economic sanctions and punishments is a part of it”.

But a West that has refused to come to terms with its role in committing the “supreme international crime” of invading Iraq, and has been supporting systematic crimes against the sovereignty of other states such as Yemen, Libya and Syria, cannot sit in judgment on Russia. And further, it should not be trying to take the high ground by meddling in the war in Ukraine.

If we took the implications of Bush’s comment seriously, rather than treating it as a “gaffe” and viewing the Iraq invasion as a “blunder”, we might be in a position to speak with moral authority instead of flaunting – once again – our hypocrisy.

*

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

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

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.

***

There should be no surprise that the summit meeting of the leaders of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) hosted by Russia at the Kremlin on May 16 fell short of articulating against the “collective West” over the Ukraine conflict. The same pattern as in the 2008 Russo-Georgian war is repeating. Russia is not dictating policies and is going along with the consensus opinion. The contrast with the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation couldn’t be sharper.

The president of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko said at the summit in Moscow, “It is absolutely clear that without united pushback from the CSTO allies and other integration associations in the post-Soviet space, the collective West will ratchet up its pressure.” But President Vladimir Putin was the only other speaker to echo what Lukashenko said. Putin dilated on the NATO’s expansion strategy and its implications. But the remarks by the CSTO leaders from Central Asia — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan — and Armenia show that they weren’t impressed. None of them even referred publicly to the Ukraine war as a topic of urgent concern for the CSTO. 

Without doubt, Washington has taken careful note. The Biden Administration singled out Kazakhstan as a special invitee to the ministerial meeting on global food security at the UN Headquarters in New York on May 18. Secretary of State Antony Blinken invited Foreign Minister Mukhtar Tileuberdi to Washington for a bilateral on May 20. 

The US has always prioritised Kazakhstan as a key partner in the Central Asian region. In retrospect, the uprising in January in Kazakhstan made no difference to Washington’s assessment. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s consolidation of power in Astana — ironically, with the help of CSTO forces led by Russia — seems to work splendidly for the US. 

As Washington sees it, President Tokayev, formerly a career diplomat himself, has potential to transform Kazakhstan as a “swing state.” Thus, it estimates that Europe and the US can help the Kazakhs break free from the ties of history and move toward a freer, more independent future, which is bound to have a domino effect on the Central Asian region as a whole in due course. 

In his welcoming remarks at the meeting with Tileuberdi at the state  department on Friday, Blinken said all the right things and came straight to the point — “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine,” which would have “profound impacts” in Central Asia in the areas of food, energy, trade, etc. The readout of the meeting said Blinken “confirmed our commitment to minimising the impact on allies and partners, including Kazakhstan, from the sanctions imposed on Russia.” 

This assurance virtually rules out secondary sanctions and will come as a matter of great relief to Kazakhstan. In fact, the primary outlet for Kazakh fossil fuels has been a pipeline to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Although Kazakhstan has the world’s twelfth-largest proven oil reserves and is fourteenth for gas, profiting from those resources has proven difficult because it is landlocked, making it cumbersome to bring the fuel to market and difficult to transport exploration and extraction infrastructure to the sites in the first place. Also, Russian irredentism has the potential to disrupt Kazakh energy export routes. (Three years back, Russia forced an end to Kazakh oil and coal shipments to Ukraine, which transit Russian territory by rail.) 

Paradoxically, Kazakhstan’s liberator comes from Beijing. Kazakhstan now supplies oil to China via pipeline and there is a parallel gas line that transits Turkmen exports through Kazakh territory. Whereas the conventional wisdom was that a China-Central Asia pipeline connection would be prohibitive cost-wise due to the vast distances involved, China has made the strategic investments along with Kazakh oil company KazMunaiGas, and the result is that the China National Petroleum Corporation has become Central Asia’s main energy player, overtaking Russia’s Gazprom. 

The geopolitical implications of Kazakhstan’s multi-vector policies are self-evident. Unsurprisingly, the Western majors have invested heavily in Kazakh oilfields too. Suffice to say, Washington senses that Kazakhstan’s current transition from the rule of former President Nurusultan Nazarbayev will likely fortify its independent foreign policy for years to come.

While Washington’s engagement of the Central Asian region used to be episodic in the past, in a marked departure, the Biden Administration has shown the determination to pay sustained attention. This coincides with the sharp deterioration of US-Russia relations during the past year. The state department readout on Friday stated pointedly that “Secretary Blinken and Foreign Minister Tileuberdi plan to stay in close contact.” 

The CSTO summit in Moscow last Monday, timed to coincide with the 30th  anniversary of the Collective Security Treaty and the 20th anniversary of the organisation, conveys a powerful signal that the allies of Russia and Belarus are taking a neutral stance vis-a-vis the war in Ukraine. They are neither supportive of Moscow nor opposed to it.  

However, this is not to be construed as a reflection of the character of the Russia-Kazakhstan strategic partnership. Putin has long known and worked with Tokayev, who before becoming president in 2019 served as chair of the Senate with earlier stints as prime minister and foreign minister. That said, looking back, Russia had its own compelling reasons to help Tokayev overcome the January uprising in Kazakhstan. To be sure, the presence of the CSTO troops was a game changer for Tokayev who was able to consolidate his grip on power and stabilise the situation, which in turn re-established his own position as president.

However, as a result of it, Tokayev does not owe any “debt” to Moscow and indeed there has been no major shift in Kazakhstan’s internal or external politics in Russia’s favour, either. Five months later, we can clearly see that Kazakhstan does not support the war in Ukraine.

Kazakhstan has ruled out any diplomatic recognition of the two breakaway republics in Donbass region. But Kazakhstan has also so far consistently abstained from international votes, such as those in the United Nations, voting neither for nor against measures directed at Russia. Nonetheless, on the other hand, Kazakhstan also maintains that it will follow the principles and norms of the UN when it comes to the Ukrainian conflict. It is a delicate trapeze act which Tokayev skilfully handles.

The outcome of the CSTO meeting has come as a disappointment to Chinese experts who expected the leaders who gathered in Moscow “to deliver a consistent message to the West which has been sowing discord between Moscow and other CSTO members,” as a commentary in Global Times put it.

The commentary noted: “Chinese analysts said Monday’s summit was of great significance to Russia and the bloc amid the Ukraine crisis and multiple emerging internal challenges on security and economy… On the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Central Asian countries did not fully support Russia or criticize Russia like Western countries.”

*

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

Featured image: The leaders of the member states of Collective Security Treaty Organisation met in the Kremlin, Moscow, May 16, 2022 (Source: Indian Punchline)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) Won’t be Drawn into Ukraine War. M. K. Bhadrakumar
  • 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.

***

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court to deny a request by Bayer to review a verdict that found the corporation liable for damages from the use of its Roundup (glyphosate) herbicides. Now, Bayer is using proxy organizations to place pressure on the Biden Administration and Justice Department to rescind its decision. Alongside a range of chemical industry umbrella groups, many of which—like Croplife America—Bayer is a member of, a letter was sent to President Biden expressing “grave concern” about the opinion filed by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. Among a range of baseless claims, the agrichemical industry is deflecting lower court findings on the hazards and cancer risk of their products with the claim that their toxic chemicals are needed to feed the world, as crops shipments from Ukraine have been halted during the ongoing war. “The agrichemical industry has long tried to sell the idea that their toxic pesticides are needed to feed the world, as if to suggest that their motives are altruistic when, in fact, they have shown a callous disregard for life and a sustainable future,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. ” We can grow food without toxic chemicals and offer support for all the victims of war, with a reverence for healthy ecosystems and the life they support,” he said.

Bayer filed its petition with the Supreme Court in August 2021, seeking to reverse the case of Hardeman v. Monsanto, as Bayer assumed all liabilities associated with Monsanto when it purchased the company in 2018. In that suit, a California court found unanimously in favor of the plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman. Mr. Hardeman told the jury he had used Roundup since the 1980s to spray poison oak and weeds around his property, resulting in his diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2014. He was awarded $5.27 million, while the punitive damages were ultimately reduced from $75 to $20 million.

Bayer’s appeal to the Supreme Court includes two claims. The first is a preemption argument, suggesting that federal pesticide law preempts state-level “failure-to-warn” claims that form the basis of the Hardeman suit. To prevail under California’s failure-to-warn law, plaintiffs must prove that the product had knowable risks, the risks presented were substantial if used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, consumers would not have recognized those risks, defendants failed to warn consumers, and consumers were thus injured as a result.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already affirmed a lower court ruling that state-level failure-to-warn claims were “equivalent to” and “fully consistent with” federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and that because the company had the ability to comply with both federal and California law, federal law did not preempt plaintiff claims. Bayer is arguing that because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not approve labels with a cancer warning, failure-to-warn claims should not apply. However the court ruled that Roundup’s label did not have “the force of law necessary to have a preemptive effect.”

Bayer is also arguing that the allowance of expert testimony by the Ninth Circuit violates court precedent and federal rules. The Ninth Circuit held that a district court applied the correct standards in admitting expert testimony in the Hardeman case. This issue centers significantly around causation experts use of epidemiological evidence, a strong and growing body of literature linking glyphosate to cancer, which EPA and pesticide manufacturers have regularly discounted.

In December 2021, the Supreme Court requested the Solicitor General provide an opinion about whether the Court should take up the civil verdict. This resulted in Bayer suspending settlement discussions until the Supreme Court made its decision. It is very rare for the Supreme Court to review a civil claim; reports indicate less than 1% of such claims are granted review by the Justices.

The amicus brief filed by the Solicitor General rejects both of Bayer’s claims. It asserts that the Ninth Circuit’s standard for the admission of expert testimony is not different from other circuit courts, “and its factbound application of that standard here raises no issue of general importance.”

In regard to preemption, it notes, “The court of appeals correctly held that FIFRA [federal pesticide law] does not preempt respondent’s claims, and that decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals. The brief further indicates, “Although some aspects of EPA-approved labeling may preempt particular state-law requirements, EPA’s approval of labeling that does not warn about particular chronic risks does not by itself preempt a state law requirement to provide such warnings.” Despite having the statutory authority to do so, and making regulatory determinations regarding the issue, EPA does not relay information on its label about the chronic risks, like cancer, that a pesticide product may pose. No legal requirements within federal pesticide law stop or preempt California from requiring pesticide labels to include information about chronic health dangers like cancer.

To the pesticide industry, allowing states to alert the public about the chronic hazards of the products they produce would stop them from feeding the world while there is a war in Ukraine. “Supplying wheat to the world is more important than ever given the unprecedented times with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” said National Association of Wheat Growers President Nicole Berg. “NAWG is concerned this new policy would undermine access to safe and effective crop protection tools that play a critical role in helping feed the world.”

The wording of the industry’s letter to President Biden urging his Administration to withdraw the brief is even more bombastic. “Such action would reduce crop yields at a time when lives depend on us producing every bushel possible.” With such a claim, one may suppose that the agrichemical industry is a nonprofit charity. Yet, nothing could be farther from the truth. These industry groups represent a modern-day oligopoly, focused solely on short-term goals, the next quarterly returns, and outsized compensation for its executives. The chemical industry aims to extract as much profit as possible from the land, and through the unnecessary use of hazardous pesticides, transfer the risk of crop loss from weeds and insects to its customers in the form of chronic health risks, health care costs, and environmental contamination.As the agrichemical industry proclaims its mission to “feed the world,” as many as 30 million adults and 12 million children are living in food insecure homes where they are not consistently getting enough to eat.

Bayer is a member, has a representative who sits sits on the board, or provides monetary donations to nearly every industry group that signed the letter attempting to pressure the Biden Administration to withdraw its amicus brief. This letter follows along with Bayer’s “Hail Mary” attempts to sidestep responsibility for the health effects of Roundup. As Bayer notes on its website, “Regardless of the final outcome at the Supreme Court, the company is fully prepared to move forward with its five-point plan, manage litigation risks and bring closure to the Roundup™ litigation.” As part of this “five-point plan,” the corporation has already indicated it is reformulating consumer-use Roundup products beginning in 2023. However, as Beyond Pesticides noted at the time, there would be nothing to stop Bayer from rescinding that decision at any moment.

It is not enough to maintain a status quo that permits chemical industry cartels to bully regulators and elected officials into defending their hazardous products. Real reform is needed to address the depth of corruption that allows dangerous, carcinogenic pesticides to be placed on the market in the first place. Join Beyond Pesticides in urging your Senators to enact meaningful reforms to federal pesticide law, and tell EPA to stop allowing the pesticide industry free rein to regulate itself based on financial risks instead of the risks to health and the environment that federal law requires.

*

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

Featured image is from Beyond Pesticide

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Agrichemical Industry Demands Biden Administration Rescind Support for Cancer Victims Before Supreme Court
  • Tags: , , ,

Latest Bad News About COVID Vaccines: Pfizer and FDA Knew Vaccines Were Not ‘Safe and Effective’

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 24, 2022

A previously healthy 36-year-old mother of two died 11 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot. Initially, her cause of death was deemed inconclusive, but at an inquest, pathologist Dr. Sukhvinder Ghataura explained that he believes the COVID-19 shot was to blame. He told the coroner.

Pfizer Tells Federal Judge that Pfizer Owns the Federal Government and Is Thereby Immune to Normal Contract Law

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 24, 2022

Pfizer affirms that its agreement with Washington under “Other Transaction Authority” permits Pfizer to violate clinical trial regulations and federal laws protecting the public. In other words, Pfizer has legal authority to commit fraud that kills people.

America Confronting Russia and China: U.S. General Mark Milley Predicts Grim Future of Deadly Great Power Wars Fought in Cities

By Kyle Anzalone, May 24, 2022

America’s highest-ranking military officer painted a picture of a dark future with great power wars fought in urban environments. Speaking to graduating cadets at the United States Military Academy, General Mark Milley forewarned of death tolls for US soldiers in the tens of thousands.

The Agony of a Totalitarian “New World Order” (NWO) and A Different “Being Human”: Scientific Psychology Demands New “Enlightenment”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, May 24, 2022

This appeal is the confession of a free soul in the midst of the agony of a global crisis that will lead to a totalitarian “New World Order” (NWO) and a different “being human”. It is not meant to be a self-portrayal, even if the author starts from experiences in his youth.

World Economic Forum (WEF): Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Opening Speech, Money Weapons Advisors — Standing Ovation

By Peter Koenig, May 24, 2022

First, the west received a little-bit of Zelenskyy’s praise for supporting Ukraine with money, weapons and NATO advisors to fight Russia, in most everybody’s Davos-mind, the aggressor. But that’s not enough. Then came the hammer, Zelenskyy asked for more. For much more, money, weapons – sophisticated weapons – billions and billions more. To fight Russia.

The Freedom Convoy and the Collapse of Canadian Liberalism

By Ray McGinnis, May 24, 2022

My comfort with the mainstream media pandemic narrative changed abruptly in June 2021. A close family friend I’d known since early childhood eagerly stepped up to get his first shot of AstraZeneca. Within 18 hours he suffered a brain aneurysm. He couldn’t speak. He couldn’t walk. He couldn’t work. His mother suffered from greatly reduced lung capacity after her first dose.

Biden Administration’s Ministry of Truth Stumbles

By Philip Giraldi, May 24, 2022

Finally some good news – maybe! The Department of Homeland Security’s recently launched Disinformation Governance Board has gone into what has been described as the “pause” mode and its controversial Director Nina Jankowicz has resigned, citing “vile personal attacks and physical threats.”

Russia to Reach Record Trade Surplus. US-EU Financial Sanctions Have Failed?

By Uriel Araujo, May 24, 2022

On March 1, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, in an interview to France Info radio, described the Western sanction packages as “extremely effective” measures that would cause “the collapse of the Russian economy”. This has failed – the ruble has recovered, and analysts also expect Moscow’s trade surplus to hit record highs in the coming months.

Pressure Mounts on Patel Over Assange Decision

By Joe Lauria, May 24, 2022

Pressure is building from both sides on the home secretary.  Press freedom and human rights organizations, a Nobel laureate, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, journalists and Assange supporters have appealed to Patel to let Assange go.

As Monkeypox Cases Spread, Report Shows Gates Foundation, WHO, Pharma Execs Took Part in Monkeypox Pandemic ‘Simulation’

By Michael Nevradakis, May 24, 2022

Days before the WHO convened, the Biden administration placed a $119 million order for monkeypox vaccines after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed six people in the U.S. were being monitored for the viral infection, and one person had tested positive.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Latest Bad News About COVID Vaccines: Pfizer and FDA Knew Vaccines Were Not ‘Safe and Effective’

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.

***

Pfizer affirms that its agreement with Washington under “Other Transaction Authority” permits Pfizer to violate clinical trial regulations and federal laws protecting the public.

In other words, Pfizer has legal authority to commit fraud that kills people. See this. 

Pfizer has asked a U.S. court to throw out a lawsuit from a whistleblower who revealed problems at sites that tested Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Brook Jackson, the whistleblower, alleged in a suit that was unsealed in February that Pfizer and associated parties violated clinical trial regulations and federal laws, including the False Claims Act.

In its motion to dismiss, Pfizer says the regulations don’t apply to its vaccine contract with the U.S. Department of Defense because the agreement was executed under the department’s Other Transaction Authority (OTA), which gives contract holders the ability to skirt many rules and laws that typically apply to contracts.

That means that Jackson’s claim that Pfizer must still comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulations “is simply wrong,” Pfizer said.

As I have explained on many occasions, the US government is privatized. It is run by private interests whose representatives are found on the SEC, FDA, EPA, Federal Reserve,  and all other regulatory agencies. 

As George Stigler made clear 60 years ago, the US regulatory agencies are captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate. 

The power of private interests also comes from the fact that private interests are the financiers of political campaigns. 

Every elected official—House, Senate, President—and every state and local official knows he/she is in office because of the campaign contributions.  This means that elected officials are responsible to their donors, not to the voters.  The power of private interests was reinforced by the US Supreme Court decision that gave essentially unlimited ability to corporations to purchase government to serve their interests. 

This is the real picture of today’s United States.  The US is a country that can only serve private interests, never the public interest, itself a hard interest to define in a country in which Identity Politics is pervasive. 

To read complete article, click here

 

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pfizer Tells Federal Judge that Pfizer Owns the Federal Government and Is Thereby Immune to Normal Contract Law
  • 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.

***

America’s highest-ranking military officer painted a picture of a dark future with great power wars fought in urban environments. Speaking to graduating cadets at the United States Military Academy, General Mark Milley forewarned of death tolls for US soldiers in the tens of thousands.

Milley identified Russia and China as the growing powers America will face in the next generation.

“We are facing right now two global powers, China and Russia,” he said. “As we are entering a world that is becoming more unstable. The world you are being commissioned into has the potential for significant international conflict between great powers, and that potential is increasing, not decreasing.”

During the commencement speech, he noted the importance of America confronting Russia in Ukraine.

“Yet again in Ukraine, we are learning the lesson that aggression left unanswered only emboldens the aggressor,” the general said.

After recalling the massive American casualties in World War I and World War II, the general explained future great power conflicts would likely cause tens of thousands of deaths for US soldiers.

“26,000 soldiers and marines were killed in only six weeks from October to November 1918…26,000 US troops were killed in the eight weeks in the summer of 1944, 58,000 Americans were killed in action in the air, at sea and on land in five theaters of war and only eight weeks. That’s the human cost of great power war.”

Milley laid out how he believed warfare would evolve over the next quarter-century.

The general said new technologies will shape the battlefield, including robotic tanks, ships, and airplanes. He referred to artificial intelligence as “the mother of all technologies” and said, “machines are actually developing the capacity to learn and to reason these rapidly converging developments in time and space or resulting in that profound change.”

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs assesses future conflicts will be fought in cities. “The battlefield will be highly complex and almost certainly decisive in urban areas,” he said. If Milley is correct, the coming wars will exact high tolls on civilian populations.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America Confronting Russia and China: U.S. General Mark Milley Predicts Grim Future of Deadly Great Power Wars Fought in Cities

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.

***

 

 

 

Author’s Forward

This appeal is the confession of a free soul in the midst of the agony of a global crisis that will lead to a totalitarian “New World Order” (NWO) and a different “being human”. It is not meant to be a self-portrayal, even if the author starts from experiences in his youth. All political questions were intentionally placed in the background: they were given special consideration in many articles.

Since the thoughts and actions of adults are still determined by a “magical belief in authority” – uncritical and clouded by promises of happiness – the author believes that the Enlightenment in the 17th/18th century remained an unfinished project. Belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute intellectual obedience and paralysis of the mind.

Full-minded adults can then no longer think independently and judge rationally. But it is not only their intelligence that is intimidated and degraded, but also their will and self-confidence.

In religious communities, education in obedience begins with the young child. It must allow itself to be led and guided without contradiction by all the “authorities” involved in the educational process – parents, teachers, priests. The authoritarian principle in education connects without any interruption to the “divine origin” of rule and respect for all “authorities” as conveyed by the Church. Thus, both religious and authoritarian education make the growing generation obedient and docile.

The author is concerned that these methods of education will lead to a situation where the younger generation will not be able to steer the world in a different direction. Scientific psychology, which researches human nature and provides assured answers to the question of the mental condition of human beings, therefore calls for a new “enlightenment” that incorporates the findings of scientific psychology about human nature.

In doing so, a free thinker does not claim to have at his or her disposal the only saint-making or the only truth that promises happiness. For the free mind, there is an unlimited number of truths to be discovered and to follow change.

Jean Meslier (1664-1729), Catholic priest and French radical enlightener from the time of the early Enlightenment, answers the question of what is true with the words:

“True is that which is not dogmatic bondage and does not divide men into believers and non-believers or those of other faiths, but is beneficial to the coexistence of men and promotes their understanding.” (1)

Of course, it remains the inalienable right of religious people to draw revelations of the highest religious truths from the words of the Bible. But it is equally the unconditional duty of the researcher to infer historical truths only from entirely unimpeachable testimonies.

According to the French physics professor and president of the Union of Atheists, Francis Perrin (1901-1992), the conviction that there is no God does not lead man to despair or fear, but to a deep understanding of the value and meaning of life:

“The firm conviction that there is no God and that the presumed answers of religions are illusory, foolish or childish, when man, beset by questions, ponders his lot or searches for a meaning to existence, this firm conviction does not lead at all to despair or fear, but to a great tranquillity of mind, to a deep understanding of the value of life and to a high conception of the dignity of man responsible to himself for his life and his deeds.” (2)

The appeal, written in generally understandable language, is also intended to provide the interested layperson with insights into the human life of the soul.

It is a supplement and deepening of the author’s book published in 2020 in Gornji Milanovac (Serbia) with the title “Handing over power to no one! A Psychological Manifesto of Common Sense” (ISBN 978-86-7432-119-5). The “Neue Rheinische Zeitung” (NRhZ) published a preprint and an abridged version of the book in November 2020. The abridged version was also adopted by “Global Research” in Canada.

Since it can be assumed that no publisher will be found for the present appeal, it will be distributed as a bilingual article (German and English) via the internet.

Introduction 

The theme of this appeal is the conviction of the author – a teacher, educationalist and qualified psychologist – that young people can very well develop into free-thinking, courageous and moral citizens. But for this to happen, all those responsible for the education of youth must refrain from making the growing generation “obedient” and “compliant” on their way to adulthood with mind-paralysing religious and authoritarian educational methods.

The Age of Enlightenment in the 17th/18th centuries was a great upheaval in history. The philosopher Emanuel Kant (1724-1804) formulated the guiding principle of the Enlightenment: “Have the courage to use your own mind.” Behind this statement was the idea that man should use his intellect and thereby develop into a mature personality.

Before the Enlightenment, the Church and the authorities did not want people to use their intellect: they were supposed to accept the “truths” presented to them by the state and the Church as a given without questioning them. Now, however, blind obedience to the Church began to waver.

The appeal to reason as the universal authority of judgement is considered an important characteristic of the Enlightenment. This includes the fight against prejudice, the turn to the natural sciences, the plea for religious tolerance and the orientation towards natural law.

Natural law, a right given by nature, says that there is something that is right by nature. The knowledge of what is right by nature makes it possible to oppose totalitarian ideologies and dictatorships from a firm human standpoint and to feel a sense of outrage against injustice and inhumanity.

Natural law thinking began in ancient Greek philosophy. Plato (427-347 BCE) assumed that there are objective, absolutely valid norms, values and laws that are not dependent on the changing opinions of people.

The objective ideas of what law is must guide the state and the state leadership at all times. The highest goal in human life was a rational life.

In socio-political terms, the Enlightenment aimed at more personal freedom of action (emancipation), education, civil rights, general human rights and the common good as a duty of the state. Many Enlightenment thinkers were optimistic about progress and assumed that a rational society would gradually solve the main problems of human coexistence.

In the author’s view, however, the Enlightenment has remained an incomplete project, an unfinished process of social emancipation. The thinking and actions of most people are still dominated by a “magical belief in authority” and an absolute spiritual obedience.

Yet human beings are born neither religious nor believing in God. However, the mentally healthy and “uncrippled” child enters a society where delusional ideas and illusions prevail. If one understands how the magical worldview affects the soul life and reason of the young person, then one also understands the immature behaviour of adult believers.

As soon as the first mental impulses appear in the little child and it learns to speak, it is “taken into care” by society, parents and the church. It is made clear to him that his nature is not allowed to develop freely with regard to his feeling for nature and his world view. If it wants to avoid being punished with general contempt and hellish chastisements, it must press its being into a certain ecclesiastical mould.

With this procedure, a very strong and paralysing pressure is exerted on the child’s soul. No political organisation, no matter how dictatorial and totalitarian, is capable of exerting such paralysing pressure on children’s souls. This mental rape is worse and more lasting than any physical rape. The same is true of the rape of the mind.

Religious faith places alongside reason and knowledge a magical illusory world that scientific analysis has no business approaching. Religions regard themselves as something above all that must not – and cannot – be the subject of empirical-rationalist investigation. They are of the opinion that science is not at all capable of grasping the realm of religion, which is of divine origin, in its totality.

If we start from a “magical faith in authority” and the reflex of an absolute spiritual obedience, then in order to understand its causes we must refer to a text written by Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), the founder of the Jesuit order, in the middle of the 16th century, and to which the German word “Kadavergehorsam” can be traced. The version translated from Spanish into Latin and published by the Congregation of the Order in 1558 reads:

“We should be aware that each one of those who live in obedience must allow himself to be led and guided by Divine Providence by means of the Superior, as if he were a dead body to be taken wherever and treated in whatever way, or like a staff of an old man to serve wherever and for whatever the wants to use him.” (3)

Long before Ignatius of Loyola, Francis of Assisi (1181/82-1226) compared the perfect and highest form of obedience to one’s superior to a dead, disembodied body that allows itself to be taken wherever one wishes without protest or grumbling (4).

According to Loyola’s text, the obedient person must allow himself to be “led” and “guided” by divine providence by means of the “superior” or “superior” without contradiction, as if he were a “dead body” or “disembodied body”. The ruling stratum of society has also always justified its domination, its political and economic power over people’s minds with the ideological concept of “authority”. And this in turn is supported by the idea of the “absolute”, which eludes any possibility of control through experience.

For the “rulers”, the highest power of such an ideology is “God” – as an “unknowable”, “ultimate” cause and ethical lawgiver. Kings, for example, call themselves “by God’s grace” and thus say that they derive their enthronement from the divine instance.

Since the child already has to be led and guided without contradiction by the “authorities” involved in the educational process in order to still be obedient as an adult, scientific psychology demands a new “Enlightenment”.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a teacher (retired headmaster), doctor of education (Dr. paed.) and psychologist (specialising in clinical, educational and media psychology). As a retiree, he worked for many years as a psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and educational-psychological articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral values education and an education for public spirit and peace.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) Hagen, Friedrich (1977). Jean Meslier oder der Atheist im Priesterrock. Leverkusen and Cologne, p. 37

(2) op. cit., p. 7

(3) https://de.wikipedia.org./wiki/Kadavergehorsam

(4) op. cit., p. 7

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Agony of a Totalitarian “New World Order” (NWO) and A Different “Being Human”: Scientific Psychology Demands New “Enlightenment”

Video: Testing the Waters. Evidence of the Corona Crisis and Actions

May 24th, 2022 by Corona Investigative Committee

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 Corona Committee was formed by four lawyers.

It is conducting an evidence review of the Corona crisis and actions. 

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Testing the Waters. Evidence of the Corona Crisis and Actions

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 two prior columns, which can be accessed here and here, Mark Skidmore and I wrote about the $21 trillion in federal government transactions in the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that our government indicated were undocumented and unexplained.

As the concerns and questions we raised gained traction, investigative reporter Dave Lindorff dug into the issue, recently publishing the article “Exclusive: The Pentagon’s Massive Accounting Fraud Exposed” in The Nation (2018). 

Based on a series of interviews with current and former government officials, Lindorff concluded that Pentagon accounting is “phony”, composed of made up numbers designed to obfuscate and thus propelling “US military spending higher year after year”.

The issue received additional attention in the media when incoming Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to the $21 trillion in a Tweet:

$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions “could not be traced, documented, or explained.” $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means %66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. And that’s before premiums.

This comment captured the attention of numerous media outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post where the focus was on fact checking (see here and here, for example). The near universal assessment was that the comment by Ocasio-Cortez was misleading—the $21 trillion in undocumentable transactions do not reflect actual unauthorized spending. However, there is a very important point that is missed by nearly everyone.

Click here to read the full article in Forbes (January 2019)

*

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

Featured image is from Forbes

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.

***

At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was “not done” to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in highbrow periodicals. – George Orwell, “Freedom of the Press”

Recently, a friend told me she’d taken part in a webinar conducted by the Council of Canadians. The webinar included First Nations people speaking about RCMP mistreatment of indigenous peoples on reserve. It was contrasted with the peaceful disbursement of freedom convoy protesters in Ottawa on February 18th.

The webinar narrative was partially true, likely informed by mainstream news reports. RCMP policing among First Nations people needs to be repaired. But, the Trucker Freedom Convoy in Ottawa wasn’t broken up peacefully. Just ask Candice “Candy” Sero.

Sero is a full-blood Mohawk woman from Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory in Hastings County, Ontario. On February 18, I watched live footage online of mounted police officers charging through the freedom protester crowd and trampling Candy Sero as she stood with her wheeled walker. She fell to the ground. A horse stepped on her shoulder.

A man in the crowd started yelling with growing desperation, “Oh my gosh. Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Look what you did. Look what you did to her. Look what you did to her. Look what you did to her. You trampled on the lady… Shame on you. Shame on everyone of you. Shame on you…”

Candy Sero survived the trampling. But she suffered a broken clavicle.

However, what I saw unfolding live in downtown Ottawa wasn’t part of the new orthodoxy. The live footage I saw wasn’t part of what right-thinking people would be shown, would accept. The people hosting the webinar could be forgiven.

But why did I have to depend on independent reporters and footage from protesters cell phones to reveal an ugly side to policing in Ottawa on February 18? Why weren’t the CBC or CTV covering these stories?

Why was I increasingly feeling set adrift from my NDP and Liberal political leaders?

My vote for Joe Clark in 1979 was the exception to my mostly voting NDP since 1980. My paternal grandfather voted for the United Farmer’s of Alberta party from 1921 until it collapsed in 1935, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation until 1961, and its successor – the New Democratic Party – until he died. NDP leader Tommy Douglas was a hero in my family. And so I supported causes like funding for the CBC, and giving donations at times to the Friends of the CBC.

Over the decades, I’ve been on the ‘left’ on a host of political debates: against NAFTA, keeping Canada out of the Iraq War, and more. I enthusiastically supported Jack Layton, NDP leader from 2003 to 2011, and was acquainted with him when I campaigned for him as a city counsellor when I’d lived in Toronto.

All governments require scrutiny

Still, I knew Liberal or NDP governments were fallible. Jody Wilson-Raybould was a star Kwakʼwala indigenous Liberal candidate Vancouver riding next to mine in the 2015 federal election. She was given the dual portfolio of Minister of Justice and Attorney-General by prime minister Justin Trudeau. But in 2019, she was expelled from the Liberal caucus over the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Canada’s Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion later found that Trudeau improperly pressured Wilson-Raybould to intervene in an ongoing criminal bribery case. Trudeau’s impropriety concerned the Quebec-based construction company SNC-Lavalin and pressuring Wilson-Raybould to offer the company a deferred prosecution agreement.

In read her memoir, Indian in the Cabinet, Jody Wilson-Raybould described a one-on-one meeting with Justin Trudeau at the Fairmont-Pacific Rim Hotel in Vancouver on February 11, 2019. It took place while the SNC-Lavalin affair dominated the headlines. These lines from her memoir haunted me:

He asked if I trusted him. I could see the agitation visibly building in the prime minister. His mood was shifting. I remember seeing it. I remember feeling it. I had seen and felt this before on a few occasions, when he would get frustrated and angry. But this was different. He became strident and disputed everything I had said. He made it clear that everyone in his office was telling the truth and that I…and others, were not. He told me I had not experienced what I said I did. He used the line that would later become public, that I had “experienced things differently.” I knew what he was really asking. What he was saying. In that moment I knew he wanted me to lie – to attest that what had occurred had not occurred.

By the time the pandemic began in March 2020, I had brought my manuscript Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored to a boutique publisher.

Early on, I heard from some friends who were beginning to question the official narrative about the pandemic. But most of my friends accepted mainstream news stories. I was shocked by accounts of people being put on ventilators. And boggled by the daily case counts, death counts. But, mostly I kept my own council.

Over the next 18 months I worked with editorial staff on editing, copyediting, proof reading, graphic design, and marketing for my book, working with a publicist. The lockdowns, semi-lockdowns and occasional modest restrictions were inconvenient. But, I had my home. I had my computer. In Vancouver, I could order take-out from restaurants. I was rolling with things. Not altogether comfortably. But, I was comfortable enough. I had a deadline to get my book to publication on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Vaccine adverse events get personal

My comfort with the mainstream media pandemic narrative changed abruptly in June 2021. A close family friend I’d known since early childhood eagerly stepped up to get his first shot of AstraZeneca. Within 18 hours he suffered a brain aneurysm. He couldn’t speak. He couldn’t walk. He couldn’t work. His mother suffered from greatly reduced lung capacity after her first dose.

As 2021 rolled along, several others in my wide circle across North America were injured by mRNA vaccines. Many others were learning about adverse events, AND calling into question how rare the side effects were.

Still, the media daily reported these vaccines were “safe and effective.” Though on August 6, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that the Covid-19 vaccines did not stop or reduce transmission, or prevent infection. What was being offered as the only solution to the pandemic didn’t seem to be able to deliver what it was peddled to solve.

Tolerance

In late December 2021, prime minister Justin Trudeau called the unvaccinated “misogynist, racist… We have a choice to make. Do we tolerate these people?” Given Trudeau’s carefully crafted image, this was jarring, illiberal. Classic liberalism has championed the value of tolerance. In 1789, the National Constituent Assembly of the French Revolution passed its Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Article 10 stated:

“No-one shall be interfered with for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their practice does not disturb public order as established by the law.”

But in 2021, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was signaling to Canadians that there were categories of people that maybe shouldn’t be tolerated. He was characterizing legal protests, of the right and freedom to assemble – established under the Canadian charter – as illegal.

Since he’d become leader of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau’s public image was that of someone who was inclusive. Trudeau was someone who cared about the average person. He was someone who listened to their concerns. But now, the prime minister was openly disdainful, calling the protesters everything but classist. Justin Trudeau’s unwavering rhetoric helped cement disgust toward the protesters among many Canadians.

Collapse of liberalism in Canada

What did the Liberal Party of Canada have to do with liberalism in 2022? Classical liberalism emerged with the collapse of feudalism and the slow erosion of church authority in the Renaissance.

Liberalism began with the invention of the printing press, the flowering of culture in the vernacular (non-Latin) languages among the commoners, and widespread educational reform. Classic liberalism advanced the need for non-interference and independence of citizens under the rule of law.

In his 2003 book, LiberalismJohn Gray writes that classical liberalism consists of these four pillars.

First, “it is individualist, in that it asserts the primacy of the person against any collectivity.”

Secondly, liberalism is “egalitarian, in that it confers on all human beings the same basic moral status.” It is universalist in its inclusion of all persons regardless of any distinguishing features – all having the same moral worth.

And fourthly, liberalism anticipates the march of human progress attained through critical reason to advance social wellbeing. The word liberal comes from the Latin liber which means “free.”

In the 18th and 19th centuries liberal politicians championed causes that included the 6-day/48-hour workweek, welfare, child labour laws and public schooling, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, universal suffrage, unemployment insurance, social security, and the abolition of slavery.

Bodily integrity and security of the person

Liberalism also advanced the value of bodily integrity. This included i) a women’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, ii) An individual’s right to not be sold into slavery or forced labour, iii) The right not to be tortured, iv) The right not to be sexually assaulted, v) and The right to the security of one’s person. The latter included informed decisions about taking medical treatments and procedures.

After World War II the security of one’s person was the catalyst for creating the Nuremberg Code of August 1947. In the Nuremberg Trial, German physicians were held responsible, and sentenced, for conducting unethical medical procedures on humans during the war. The judges at Nuremberg rendered this verdict in relation to any medical procedure or treatment, including:

  • Point 1: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
  • Point 4: The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  • Point 5: No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  • Point 6: The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

Off-message data

Almost 75 years later, was there reason to be concerned that the Covid vaccines could result in death or disabling injury? Were these vaccines riskier than advertised? The prime minister declared “the science is settled.” The Covid-19 vaccines were safe and effective.

Yet, documents released by court-order in the USA revealed Pfizer knew by February 2021 that 1,223 people had died from taking their vaccine, according to the pharmaceutical companies Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports.

At the Centers for Disease Control’s on Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the system was blinking red. In January 2022 the number of Covid-19 vaccine deaths stood at over 23,000 in America.

As of May 13, 2022, the CDC’s cumulative reported deaths after Covid vaccination in the USA stands at 28,141. This was in less than a year and a half. Since 1990, VAERS has been criticized for notorious underreporting.

Comparing VAERS data on Covid-19 vaccines with other CDC data is illuminating. Merck’s anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx, was pulled from the American market in 2004 after five years. In 2004 VAERS reported 6,636 people had died in reaction to taking Vioxx. An article in the Lancet determined Vioxx caused 88,000 heart attacks, and 38,000 of these died.

VAERS 6,636 reported Vioxx deaths turned out to reflect only 17% of the actual deaths. VAERS 5-year Vioxx data is less than 24% of deaths compared to experimental Covid vaccines reported in less than 18 months.

What if, like Vioxx, the 28,000 deaths from Covid-19 vaccines represent only 17% of the actual deaths and were 165,000? Or higher? It would appear the Covid-19 vaccines don’t meet the standards set in the Nuremberg Code, based on Pfizer’s own internal reports alone.

May 2022, Canadian hospital statistics on Covid-19 admissions found 50% had received the 3rd shot (booster), 32% were “fully vaccinated,” 2% had one shot – “partially vaccinated” – and 16% were unvaccinated. This is consistent with hospitalization trends since the start of 2022. Could this be due to a National Institutes of Health and Moderna study finding that the mRNA vaccine is “impeding the development of the anti-nucleocapsid antibodies” and suppressing the immunity of the vaccinated?

A study published by the NIH titled “‘Pandemic of the unvaccinated’? At midlife, white people are less vaccinated but still at less risk of Covid-19 mortality in Minnesota” suggested what was at play was a “pandemic of the disadvantaged.”

Autonomy

Nonetheless, Canadians were required to get two doses. When I got fully vaccinated, I no longer believed the vaccine would keep me safe from infection or injury. A mix of social obligations, personal circumstances, and social coercion played a big role.

In America, Dr. Anthony Fauci was alleging the spread of Covid was due to a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.

The claim was repeated in Canada.

Yet Peter Doshi, editor-in-chief of the prestigious British Medical Journal, concluded “We are not in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Doshi said, 

“It saddens me that we as a society are oversaturated with the attitude of ‘everybody knows,’ which limits intellectual curiosity and leads to self-censorship.” If hospitalizations and deaths occur almost exclusively in unvaccinated people, “why would booster shots be necessary?” asked Doshi.

“And why would the statistics be so different in the United Kingdom, where most hospitalizations and deaths from COVID occur among the fully vaccinated? There’s a correlation there that you should be curious about,” Doshi said. “Something’s not right.”

But Canadian authorities barreled along. The penalty for refusing vaccination in Canada for many has meant getting fired with no employment insurance.

In New Brunswick the government let stores decide if they would allow the unvaccinated to buy groceries.

In Quebec, the premier considered placing a tax on the unvaccinated. Effective November 30, 2021, unvaccinated Canadians were prohibited from traveling by air or train domestically, and from leaving the country by plane, train or ship.

Though these policies are mandated by governments that are purportedly ‘liberal,’ they reveal a serious collapse of liberalism in Canada. For centuries, liberalism has advanced the cause of citizen autonomy: the capacity of individuals in a nation state to make informed decisions free of coercion. But, coercion has been a regular feature accompanying these measures.

Heroes & villains

On March 31, 2021, Justin Trudeau lauded Canadian truckers as heroes of the pandemic. He tweeted:

“While many of us are working from home, there are others who aren’t able to do that – like truck drivers who are working day and night to make sure our shelves are stocked. So when you can, please #ThankATrucker for everything they’re doing and help them however you can.”

But as 2022 began, the Trudeau government determined that unvaccinated truckers WOULD not be allowed to cross the Canada-U.S. border, effective January 15, 2022. The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters have all asked the federal government to either eliminate or postpone the mandate. Factoring in American truck drivers, the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the American Trucking Associations estimated that as many as 32,000, or 20%, of the 160,000 Canadian and American cross-border truck drivers could be taken off the highways by the vaccination requirement.

When the new trucker mandate was enacted on January 15th, it crossed a line for many Canadians. Based on transmission of the virus by the vaccinated, and truckers never being super-spreaders, there was no defensible medical reason to require them to be vaccinated.

By January 22 a Trucker Freedom Convoy formed in Prince George and Vancouver, British Columbia. Their destination was Ottawa. On January 26, prime minister Trudeau derided those joining the convoy as a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views,” and claimed he was “following the science.”

As the convoy headed east during January’s freezing temperatures, truckers reported what was unfolding.

The convoy is 100kms long and growing all the time. The support people have is overwhelming. Coming into Winnipeg yesterday was pretty emotional the com radios went pretty quiet because no one could find words to express what we felt…people packed on the shoulders of the streets. Cars parked and people for miles and miles on the ring road around the city. On the four lane going out of Winnipeg…ended up driving 5 to 20 km/hr for hours and hours.

People had camp fires going in the ditches, fire works… Crane trucks with the booms up with signs, lights flashing, and flags. The shoulders of the four lane packed with people and cars. Overpasses packed with people. Tons of families little kids all bundled up. Everyone was jumping, dancing, waving signs, flags, and flash lights. All in -30C.”

CBC news footage on January 27 confirmed a sea of Canadian flags greeting the convoy as it headed to Ottawa.

As convoys from British Columbia departed on January 23, those charged with standing on guard for Canada were remarkably passive. CSIS, the RCMP and the Canadian military had access to surveillance of everyone’s phone calls, text messages, and emails among the organizers of the convoy (and all Canadians). Yet, no one in the military, CSIS or the RCMP expressed any concern about a coup or insurrection. There was no attempt by those in authority to halt Ottawa-bound convoys from the West or the Maritimes from arriving in Ottawa the week of January 23rd.

As the convoy arrived in Ottawa on January 28, on the Power and Politics show, CBC announcer Nil Koksal commented “there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, or perhaps even instigating it from the outside.”

Another CBC commentator mused

“I don’t know if it’s far-fetched to ask but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows… perhaps even instigating it…”

The allegations were retracted by the CBC on February 4. As well, there was a lot of media hype about the convoy being a white supremacist conspiracy. But federal financial investigators found no evidence of the charge.

Peaceful protest

Prime minister Justin Trudeau went into an undisclosed location after having caught COVID. The PM had received two vaccines and the booster, which might be seen as undercutting the need to mandate them. He ridiculed the whole convoy as “an insult to truth.”

Rex Murphy stood nearly alone, rebuking his counterparts in the Canadian media for its “alarmist rhetoric,” WHO WERE describing the arriving protesters as “an occupying force.” Murphy observed:

The protest has been actually not mainly but overwhelmingly peaceful, and the political and major press response, wildly alarmist and ominous. Ottawa shops remain with their windows intact, no assaults on police stations or police being bombarded with sticks and stones, no armed patrols by the truckers telling people where they could go or not go, and a splendid number of rather endearing incidents that have failed to make it to national or local press.”

Murphy lambasted slanted media coverage depicting the protesters as Nazis, based on a lone swastika carried by a dodgy man shunned by the crowd.

The New York Times commented:

“The protests…blocked traffic on major streets downtown, disrupted business and tormented residents with incessant honking. But they were by and large nonviolent. Organizers inflated bouncy castles in the street, and people brought small children and dogs. DJs played music from a flatbed truck turned into a stage. At one point people soaked in a hot tub erected in front of the Parliament building.”

This was hardly a recipe for insurrection.

Barring Australia and China, during the pandemic Canada had some of the harshest restrictions in the world. Many citizens wanted government accountability and a public discussion about the rationale for the mandates. National Post reporter Rupa Subramanya, Bill Gates, Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau weren’t alone being triple-vaxxed and still getting Covid. Based on hospitalizations, this was happening to a lot of Canadians who got the booster.

Allegations of property damage and arson

Trucker Freedom Convoy lawyer, Keith Wilson Q.C., reports that during the first week after the trucks arrived the trucks were vandalized.

Groups of Antifa were coming through at night in their black hoodies and backpacks and black jeans. And they would come when the truckers were sleeping and knife their tires and cut their air lines and spray paint the trucks. They would vandalize the trucks. So, each block had a block captain for that area of trucks. And they had a watch system so that when an Antifa person would show up, the trucker would grab them, call 9-1-1 and the police would come, arrest that guy and take him away. That would happen three instances in the night. Guess what the police chief would do the next day? He’d say ‘we had three arrests for property damage in the downtown core last night’ The arrests were Antifa, the 9-1-1 calls were from truckers.”

But Ottawa police left it to the media to infer the vandals, those responsible for “property damage,” were convoy protesters. But politicians and the press, hunting for any indication of violence on the part of the protests continued apace.

On the morning of February 6, Matias Munoz alleged two arsonists came to an apartment building at Metcalfe and Lisgar at 5 AM. with fire starter bricks into the lobby. He tweeted: “One of them taped the door handles so no one could get in or out” (including the arsonists).

According to the story, a tenant saw the arsonists lighting a fire in the lobby, asked if they were truckers. And then decided to go to bed without calling 911. Which is what you’d do if you knew you were in a building that was on fire.

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson held an emergency meeting of city council condemning the “malicious intent” of the convoy protesters. “Yesterday we learned of a horrific story that clearly demonstrates the malicious intent of the protesters occupying our city.”

But the Ottawa Deputy Chief told the press on February 8, “We don’t have any direct linkage between the occupation — the demonstrators — and that act.” On March 21, Ottawa police confirmed the person charged with the February 6th arson had nothing to do with the convoy protest.

On April 8th, Rex Murphy reported:

This week, we found out that the attempt to burn down an apartment building in Ottawa, which was so widely and wildly heralded during the Freedom Convoy protest, had nothing to do with the truckers. Please let this sink in.

At the time, such was the volume of assumption, innuendo and outright allegation that everyone from Nanaimo, B.C., to Nain, N.L., formed the impression that this despicable action, an outrage by any standard, was the work of the truckers. Not true. False. Nothing to do at all with the protesters. It was allegedly the work of two Ottawa miscreants who were working alone.”

Crowdfunding

As the convoy protest continued, over 130,0000 individuals contributed to crowdfunding on GoFundMe. When this was shut down on February 4, donors gave to GiveSendGo. Funds raised for the truckers soon reached $12.7 million, plus several million more in cryptocurrencies. The average donation was $75.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s brother-in-law donated $13,000 dollars to the Convoy. When the media found out, Jodver Singh Dhaliwal said he “didn’t know what the Convoy was all about.” It would seem prudent for anyone giving a $13,000 donation to look into what the donation was in support of. But, never mind.

The CBC alleged on February 10 that donors to the crowdfunding efforts were largely Trump supporters and foreign racists meddling in Canadian domestic affairs. But, GoFundMe testified to the House of Commons Safety Committee on March 3 “Our records show that 88% of donated funds originated in Canada.” This was about 113,000 Canadians. CBC eventually retracted their story that donors were mostly foreign.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford was among those addressing the protesters. On February 12, Peckford told the Freedom Convoy he worked with the prime minister’s father and other Canadian premiers to enshrine the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The April 1982 charter that Peckford and his counterparts signed gave Canadian citizens these inalienable rights:

  • 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (including) c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.
  • 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
  • Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
    a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
    b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
  • 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived…

Truckers who drove by themselves to take essential supplies to keep the economy running had for two years not been spreading Covid. Yet, now were being deprived of their charter rights: of mobility, to remain in and leave Canada, and to pursue a livelihood. Peckford slammed the vaccine mandates as a violation of the Charter.

Legal protest

Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland and other Liberal cabinet ministers, repeatedly referred to the convoy protest as “illegal.” But on February 7 Ontario Chief Justice McLean ruled the protest was legal. 

He wrote:

the defendents and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest.”

Ottawa city councillor Dianne Deans said the protesters were terrorists. This is a nationwide insurrection.

Yet, Barry MacKillop, deputy-director of FINTRAC, the federal organization that goes after terrorism funds and criminal money-laundering, told the Commons finance committee that there was not a shred of illegal activity associated with the trucker convoy. The protests had nothing to do with domestic terrorism or money-laundering.

Calls for dialogue

Several MPs with the Liberal Party disagreed publicly with the prime minister, advising the need for Trudeau to listen to citizens “legitimate concerns.” “It is time to stop dividing people, to stop pitting one part of the population against another,” said MP Joel Lightbound on February 8. Liberal MPs Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Yves Robillard agreed with Lightbound.

While the protest continued, scientists and physicians present with the convoy wanted to have a discussion with politicians and Dr. Theresa Tam and Dr. Howard Njoo (Public Health Agency of Canada), and Dr. Shelley Deeks (chair of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization). For two years there was no public discussion, debate, or scrutiny REGARDING the veracity of the claims of politicians and public health officials about the Covid vaccines, mask mandates, lockdowns or social distancing. There was no media exposure to any dissenting or alternate opinion, no matter the credentials of those asking for accountability.

After two years of “we’ve got the science, so shut up,” protesters said back up your claims. But Tam, Njoo and Deeks, along with the prime minister and his cabinet, avoided all opportunities to conduct public or private discussions.

Racists, misogynists

The media made much ado about a single protester sporting a Nazi swastika, and another masked man with a confederate flag. Justin Trudeau emerged from HIS COVID WITHDRAWAL from time to time to denounce the “racist, misogynist” protesters.

But on the ground others experienced things differently. Rupa Subramanya, reporting for the National Post and the Wall Street Journal is an Indo-Canadian. Throughout the protest, she was their daily visiting and interviewing people.

Subramanya said in an interview:

I wanted to go there and make up my own mind. The reality of these protesters, the truckers, starting from Day 1, is very different from the received narrative that was already in place – propaganda – because that is really what it amounted to. These people were a cross-section of Canadians. They were mostly working-class.

I encountered people of colour. I saw new immigrants. I saw children. I saw women. I saw the old, the young. Franco-Canadians, Anglo-Canadians. A lot of camaraderie. I spent three weeks at the protest every day, several times a day. I didn’t encounter a single racist, white supremacist, or even a misogynist.

These were some of the warmest, friendliest, people I’ve ever met in my life, two decades here, in Canada. It was quite unusual that my perspective as a person of colour who went into the protests was so different from the mainstream coverage. There was this total disconnect between what was being said and what I personally experienced.” Or as prime minister Justin Trudeau might have suggested, Rupa Subramanya “experienced things differently.”

When Asian-Canadian Doctor Daniel Nagase spoke from the stage he received nothing but applause. The same was the case for longtime Global TV news writer Indo-Canadian journalist Anita KrishnaDr. Julie Ponesse was another woman providing leadership, and speaking to a receptive crowd. Nonetheless, a completely different political and media depiction of the protesters saturated the news from Day 1. The fascist insurrection needed to be stopped to prevent a coup.

Who were these protesters?

Though the media framed the protest as “anti-vax,” Rupa Subramanya found most were vaccinated in the Ottawa crowd. Numbers had been infected with Covid and recovered. They wanted to know why natural immunity wasn’t accepted, for the first time in history, as part of a person’s medical history? The protesters also had fundamental questions about the erosion of Canadian democracy and infringement of charter rights.

Rupa Subramanya interviewed “Peter the trucker, who I spoke to very close to where I live (in downtown Ottawa). He pointed to my building and he said, you know, ‘I put the concrete stairs in that building.’”

The truckers were the people who delivered the food, delivered the hospital supplies, the oil and gas, construction materials for building, road and bridge upgrades and repairs, and botox to keep news anchors looking ten years younger on their daily newscasts. They’d delivered books from Amazon, and more for two years.

A downtown Ottawa data scientist named David lived on Kent Street, and saw the protesters “camped out below my bedroom window.” Interested to meet his new neighbors, David introduced himself. He walked to many of the protesters, including an indigenous man from Manitloulin Island who showed David his medicine wheel.

On his blog, David concluded that night he’d “met someone from every province except PEI. They all have a deep love for this country. They believe in it. They believe in Canadians. These are the people that Canada relies on to build its infrastructure, deliver its goods, and fill the ranks of its military in times of war.

“The overwhelming concern they have is that the vaccine mandates are creating an untouchable class of Canadians…. They see their government willing to push a class of people outside the boundaries of society, deny them a livelihood, and deny them full membership in the most welcoming country in the world; And they said enough. Last night I learned my new neighbours are not a monstrous faceless occupying mob. They are our moral conscience reminding us…. We are not a country that makes an untouchable class out of our citizens.”

During the first week of the protest, news broke on February 2 raising concerns of many in the convoy that the lockdowns were nothing more than a government confidence game. That day the front page of the National Post ran with this headline: “Lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2 per cent, John Hopkins study finds.”

Convoy and City of Ottawa letters of agreement

After February 8, Keith Wilson details how “there was a secret meeting between lawyers for the Convoy and City of Ottawa. The city wanted the trucks removed from the 5-way intersection near the Chateau Laurier. And the Convoy agreed to move the trucks.

Letters of agreement were signed and publicly released by the head of the Convoy, Tamara Lich, and Mayor Jim Watson. (This was) outlining a plan to move the trucks from downtown Ottawa side streets to a farm, and have people who wanted to protest be shuttled as pedestrians back to Parliament Hill. While Convoy leaders were moving trucks out of Ottawa Prime Minister Trudeau announced he was invoking the Emergency Act.

In an interview with Viva Frei, Wilson explained:

This was all in place by Friday, February 11 – Saturday, February 12. So, on Monday, February 14, the truckers started to move their trucks out of Ottawa. But not all the police were aware of this and so the police would stop them from moving the trucks out of the downtown core. However, after Convoy leaders got in touch with a Captain of the Ottawa police, they were able to get 40 trucks moved out of the downtown core to a farm. In Mayor Watson’s letter he acknowledged that moving the number of trucks the city wanted moved out of designated areas was a big operation that would take a number of days to accomplish. However, as the Convoy leaders were getting more trucks moved out of the downtown to de-escalate things, as the Mayor had requested, more Ottawa police kept stopping truckers from moving their trucks out of downtown Ottawa.”

Ottawa Police charged Tamara Lich with mischief for counseling truckers. Keith Wilson says:

“yes, she counseled truckers. She told truckers to move their trucks and open up emergency lanes in order to comply with the request of the City of Ottawa, and the Ottawa Police. They didn’t counsel any truckers to block a road. The word the Convoy leaders got from the Ottawa Police on Friday, February 11, to explain why they were stopping truckers from moving their trucks out of Ottawa, and off the side streets over to Wellington Street, was that they got their instructions to stop the trucks from moving from the Federal Government.”

Meanwhile, interim Ottawa Police chief Steve Bell told reporters “The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa is funded by the Ontario government and is empowered to seize children from families if necessary.” One trucker whose two teenagers were with him in his truck asked CBC reporter Joseph Tunney who was inferring his children were in danger said, “Are my children in danger for being in Ottawa? Is that what you’re saying to me? I have two teenagers here that are in my car. Are they in danger? Yes or no?”

Emergency Act

On the afternoon of Monday, February 14th, – Valentine’s Day – Justin Trudeau announced the invocation of the Emergency ActThe Emergency Act IS the successor to the War Measures Act.

The War Measures Act ceased to be in force the moment the Emergency Act was passed in parliament to replace it in July 1988. It was drafted by Perrin Beatty, Minister of Defense.

By the time Trudeau made his announcement, protests at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor had been cleared. While protests in Coutts (AB), Emerson (MB) and in the Pacific Highway Crossing (BC) were already in the process of being cleared by police using the legal powers they already had.

Yet, Justin Trudeau explained “It was only after we got advice from law enforcement that we invoked the Emergencies Act.” Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said, “We are listening to law enforcement. According to law enforcement we need the Emergencies Act.” 

But none of this was true. On May 11, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lecki told a joint Commons-Senate Committee, “No, there was never a question of requesting the Emergencies Act. We successfully used a measured approach and existing legislation to resolve (the) blockades.” Neither did the Ottawa Police or the Canadian Border Services Agency.

The National Post observed that:

The Ottawa Mayor, if requested by the chief of police, could invoke (municipal) Section 4 to prohibit public assemblies, or perhaps more simply just impose an overnight curfew in the downtown area, so police could fine and even detain anyone not in their residence. Emergency management, whether for public welfare or public order, starts at the lowest level of government before it — if necessary — escalates upwards. The prime minister shouldn’t be declaring a national emergency if the only result will be to prohibit assemblies or impose curfews. Having declared a municipal emergency the mayor of Ottawa can do so, and the question is, why hasn’t he?”

During a press conference on February 17, a Francophone reporter pointed out that Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino had been “insinuating for days” that weapons were being brought to Ottawa, or were in Ottawa with the convoy. Mendicino replied, “I am not saying that there is an intelligence saying there are weapons in Ottawa.”

At a March 24 House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety, Conservative MP Dane Lloyd pressed Ottawa Police Service (OPS) interim chief Steve Bell to confirm “Were loaded firearms (at the Freedom Convoy) found? Yes or no?” Bell replied, “In relation to—no, not relating to any charges to this point…at no point did we lay any firearms-related charges. ”

The Trucker Freedom Convoy protest of 2022 paled in comparison to the FLQ Crisis in October 1970. In 2022 there was no organized terrorist group. Acts of terrorism had not occurred. There were no bombs, no explosions. No one had been kidnapped and held for ransom. The convoy organizers urged an end to vaccine mandates and pandemic restrictions. Unlike 1970, no buildings were destroyed. No one had been killed. Contained in the February 14 invocation was the clear wording of the Emergency Proclamation confirming Canadians had the right to go to downtown Ottawa to protest.

Freezing bank accounts

As part of the passage of the Emergency Act, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that bank accounts, pension funds, mortgages, insurance, and other financial assets by protesters – and those who donated to their cause – would be frozen. Martha Durdin, CEO of the Canadian Credit Unions Association, confirmed in her March testimony before a Parliamentary committee that there was a run on the banks. This took place immediately after Freeland made her announcement that they were going to freeze people’s bank accounts for making small donations to the Convoy cause.

Convoy lawyer, Keith Wilson, told Viva Frei, “I have it from a very high source, that a) the banks realized what had happened when they saw how their customers reacted. Having people who don’t trust your institution…is bad for your business model. There were some people withdrawing millions of dollars from their accounts.

As well, big financial players in the investment community in the USA weighed in. They were asking if investing in Canada was now like investing in Venezuela or Cuba. “What just happened to Canada? I thought it had the rule of law. I thought  it had checks and balances.”

There was a phone call to the PMO from Wall Street which cautioned,“We are going to publicly distance ourselves from your actions. We are going to criticize your actions. You have 24 hours to reverse them.” So, Justin Trudeau held a press conference and said “circumstances have changed and now it’s time for Canada…”

By March 30, 2022, authorities had the bank accounts of 206 people frozen. Despite some reports in the press, Keith Wilson was not aware of any of the crowdfunding donors having their bank accounts frozen. Wilson said, “if someone in a retirement home in Lethbridge, Alberta, made a $50 donation because it was important to him, I think he’s just going to be fine.”

The implied threat by the Freeland to retroactively seize and freeze accounts of donors prior to invoking the Emergency Act on February 14, Keith Wilson claimed, was legal a non-starter.

The Freedom Convoy was a federally licensed non-profit organization. Media commentator Viva Frei remarked “The Convoy was never designated a terrorist organization. And you can’t just make it one – a terrorist organization – because you don’t like it.”

Cracking down on the convoy

On February 18th, police cracked down on the peaceful protest and disbursed the crowd. The mainstream media in Canada showed viewers tension in the air, but not police beating, or swarming, protesters with batons or ends of rifles. All-Day footage showed protesters experienced things differently here, and here.

The Financial Times of London wrote an editorial titled “Canada’s Illiberal Response to Protesters.”

FT warned:

“Canadian leader Justin Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act this week in response to the occupation was a step too far… The measures are designed to respond to insurrection, espionage and genuine threats to the Canadian constitution rather than peaceful protest, no matter how irritating and inconvenient. The right to such protest is fundamental to a free society.”

Wall Street Journal headline asked “Will Canadian Democracy Survive Justin Trudeau?: His father invoked emergency powers in 1970—but that was against terrorists, not peaceful protesters.”

WSJ wondered:

will Canada return to its peaceful, democratic roots? Or will this episode transform into something more sinister and undemocratic. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has certainly acted like a tinpot dictator. Mr. Trudeau refused to meet with Freedom Convoy organizers or protesters in Ottawa…the PM was nowhere to be seen. Instead of finding ways to diffuse this tense situation, Mr. Trudeau’s approach was to throw more gasoline on the fire. The absentee Prime Minister would infrequently grace the nation with his presence to mock and smear his opponents.”

In another editorial, the paper concluded “Government’s job is to maintain public order while respecting civil liberties. Canada has failed on both scores.”

The Economist editorialized that “a wise government would listen to them (Freedom Convoy protesters) and respond politely, taking their complaints seriously and patiently explaining why COVID restrictions, though onerous, are necessary for the time being.” But if you followed the mainstream news in Canada, seldom was heard a discouraging word.

Canada’s mainstream media gave Trudeau’s decision to invoke the Emergency Act two thumbs up. Perhaps it helped that 1,500 Canadian media outlets received a total of $61 million from the Trudeau Liberals before the fall 2021 election.

Emergency Act lifted

The Emergency Act was enforced by the Federal cabinet bringing the act into force on February 14. But both Parliament and the Senate had to pass the act. As senators debated the measure it looked like it was going to be defeated. 45 of 91 Senators debating the Emergency Act indicated they would vote no. More had yet to speak.

As well, all the provinces had to pass the act within 30 days. Seven premiers had cautioned Trudeau against invoking the Emergency Act.

On February 23, once 45 senators indicated they would vote no, only one was more needed to signal a no vote and embarrass the Liberals. While the senators were still speaking, a press conference was hurriedly called. Prime minister Trudeau announced the Emergency Act was lifted, and it was now a time for “healing.”

Brian Lilley described the 180-degree turn-of-events in the Toronto Sun: “Less than 24 hours after defending the need to keep all the emergency powers he had granted his own government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dropped every single last one. Not just some of them. Not just the ban on taking minors into the area around Parliament Hill. He dropped all of them at 4 p.m. on Wednesday.

It is mind-boggling…

The worst part of this whole ordeal though is the precedent Trudeau and his government have set with the politicization of the Emergencies Act. Declaring a national emergency over concerns about tow trucks and some ineffective local policing is a pretty low bar.”

The convoy protest unfolded while most lockdown, or semi-lockdown, measures remained in force across Canada. Citizens made meaning of what was happening in their own bubbles, watching their trusted news sources to frame the story. The Liberals and the media succeeded in stampeding a majority of Canadians into a state of agitation and disgust toward the protesters. At most the protest could be construed as civil disobedience.

But an Ontario judge had ruled the protest was legal. It was never an insurrection, or an occupation. The long history of civil unrest has numbers of other incidents, like the 78-day Mohawk blockade or the Mercier Bridge in 1990.

Even after September 11, when 26 Canadians died in the terrorist attacks in the USA, amidst great chaos and confusion, there was no invocation of the Emergency Act.

Mandatory inquiry

In the United States, when the 9/11 Commission was impaneled, President George W. Bush declared the purpose of the inquiry was “to examine and report on the facts and causes relating to the September 11th terrorist attacks” and “make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks.”

However, it turned out the Bush White House didn’t actually want this at all.

Before the 9/11 Commission began its investigation, Executive Director Philip Zelikow drew up an outline of the final Report. Zelikow was the author of the paper justifying preemptive war in Iraq and neglecting Clinton White House briefings about al Qaeda in the transition to the Bush administration. Zelikow’s outline for chapter headings and sub-headings for the 9/11 Commission Report prescribed what narrative the inquiry would conclude.

During the course of the investigation, Zelikow decided who would speak before the commission, and whose testimony would be included or omitted from the Report. 9/11 victims’ families asked for Zelikow’s resignation.

The Trudeau government is mimicking the 9/11 Commission, viewed by many September 11th families as a cover-up. As required by law, an inquiry will report back to Parliament on February 20, 2023.

Trudeau has mandated Ontario appeals court judge Justice Paul Rouleau to focus on the actions of the Freedom Convoy protesters, rather than on holding the government accountable. Rouleau donated over half a million dollars to the federal Liberal Party between 1993 and 1997 alone. Rouleau’s instructions are:

(i) …to examine and report on the circumstances that led to the declaration of a public order emergency being issued by the federal government and the measures taken by the Governor in Council by means of the Emergency Measures Regulations and the Emergency Economic Measures Order for dealing with the public order emergency that was in effect from February 14 to 23, 2022;

(ii) to examine issues, to the extent relevant to the circumstances of the declaration and measures taken, with respect to

(A) the evolution and goals of the convoy and blockades, their leadership, organization and participants,

(B) the impact of domestic and foreign funding, including crowdsourcing platforms,

(C) the impact, role and sources of misinformation and disinformation, including the use of social media,

(D) the impact of the blockades, including their economic impact, and

(E) the efforts of police and other responders prior to and after the declaration…

The inquiry into the freedom convoy protest omits investigating the Trudeau government for its response to the protest. There is no requirement to scrutinize the choice not to meet with convoy leaders. No mandate to scrutinize the prime minister’s rhetoric about the working-class protest.

No scrutiny about the merits of suddenly requiring vaccination for truckers crossing the U.S.-Canada border. No scrutiny into how the prime minster’s own rhetoric may have been a catalyst for the protest itself. There is no instruction to Justice Rouleau to access the necessity to invoke the Emergency Act.

What’s left of the Canadian Left

In the midst of the freedom convoy protest, where was the Canadian Left? From the 1900s, the coming together of workers in a powerful way in order to demand greater rights, including the right to work, has been seen as a positive thing by the Left. Historically, whether it was the Dominion Labor Party, United Farmers of Alberta, Progressive, CCF, or the NDP, all have supported working-class strikes and protests of almost any kind.

But the face of the Left in 2022 is NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, egging on Trudeau to pass the Emergency Act.

It fell to former NDP MP Svend Robinson, who served as NDP’s Justice Critic when the Emergency Act was passed to replace the War Measures Act, to comment two days after Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergency Act,

I was in the House during 1988 debate on the Act, when we were promised that “emergency powers can only be used when the situation is so drastic that no other law of Canada can deal with the situation.” That test has not been met. The NDP can stop this. Will they?”

Yet this view wasn’t echoed by a single sitting member of the NDP parliamentary caucus in 2022.

In October 1970, NDP leader Tommy Douglas, while agreeing that the FLQ kidnapping was serious, told parliament the federal government had the option:

to deal with it (FLQ Crisis) under the powers which it now has under the laws of Canada…There are very considerable powers there. I think the government deserves some criticism because some of those sections have not been used.”

The same could be said for the considerable powers the federal government had at its disposal, in the Criminal Code, in February 2022. Yet, Jagmeet Singh endorsed invoking the Emergency Act before it was debated, before it was declared. Singh was part of the hysteria, warning Canadians about sedition, and a coup. Meanwhile protesters played hockey, gave food to the homeless, danced to the Macarena, and honked horns, and sang O Canada.

The Freedom Convoy protest reveals a growing class divide in Canada. This is accompanied by a huge disconnect between the Left and the working-class. When a real insurrection comes along, I’ll rush to my laptop and pen a call for patriots across our nation to “stand on guard for thee.”

Meanwhile, I’m waiting for our political establishment to reacquaint themselves with the meaning of words like inclusion, listening, tolerance, autonomy, mobility, accountability, and liberty. And why they still matter.

What is the future of civil disobedience, of protest, of liberty in Canada?

The Freedom Convoy has been framed as sedition, insurrection, a cause for the Emergency Act. What excuse will future governments cook up?

The convoy protests of 2022 has revealed, especially for the working class, not so much the fact of liberal democracy but the myth of liberal democracy. The mainstream narrative about the protest is a case study of how, through the clever and careful use of language, politicians and the media can manipulate the emotions of citizens, influencing their perceptions and actions.

The truckers for two years were lauded as heroes, but media spin and political ridicule turned them into enemies, “mercenaries.” The story we’ve been told about the truckers must not stand. In May 2022, 5 to 6 million Canadians are unvaccinated. Accepting the media spin about the trucker convoy as history ensures another group of people will be shown the door as Canada morphs into a society, based on who is “in” and who is “out.”

*

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

Ray McGinnis is the author of “Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored”.

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.

***

Continental Observer conducted an interview with Lieutenant Colonel Jacques Guillemain, a former Air Force pilot, who provides us with his analysis of the situation in Ukraine, but also on on NATO.

Continental Observer: Concerning the characteristics of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. How can an independent expert explain and comment on this?

Jacques Guillemain: First of all, I thank you for this interview, which allows us to contradict the dominant anti-Russian discourse. One day, historians will be able to sort out the truth from the falsehood. I do not claim to be an “independent expert”, but the observation of the real facts allows one to form an opinion, free from any one-sided propaganda. Every war has multiple reasons, and the key to any analysis is to remain objective. This is not the case in the Western camp, which is totally enslaved to Washington’s narrative, which amounts to designating Putin as the aggressor and sole culprit. The disinformation is insane.

However, for Vladimir Putin, it is above all a question of ensuring the security of Russia and its people, threatened by constant pressure from NATO since 1990.

It is all the same dismaying to hear that Russia is the aggressor, when NATO, despite the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, has found nothing better than to integrate 14 countries of the former USSR, thus going from 16 countries in 1990 to 30 members in 2022 and soon 32, with Sweden and Finland.

I would add that the Minsk agreements signed in 2015 by Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France, providing for autonomy for the pro-Russian republics of Donbass, have never been respected. A war waged by Kiev against the separatist republics resulted in 13,000 deaths, but who is talking about it? And, it is proven that Kiev was preparing an attack on the separatists for March 2022, a reality that precipitated the Russian offensive. Putin does not want missiles on Ukrainian soil, just as Kennedy did not want them in Cuba in 1962. An obvious fact that our Western “experts” prefer to hide.

CO: Why is the German practice of creating “Festung” – fortress cities with civilians as “human shields” – visible in the actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU)?

JG: Urban warfare is the response of the weak to the strong. It is estimated that in open terrain, the balance of power between the attacker and the defender must be 3 to 1 to ensure victory. But it increases to 6 or 10 to 1 in an urban war. An exorbitant cost for the attacker. A suicidal option that Putin refused in Kiev. There is no question of conquering the city district by district, house by house. There is no question of razing a city of 2.5 million inhabitants and adding up the civilian casualties, as the enemy does not hesitate to take over inhabited buildings, hospitals and even schools to protect itself from the Russian artillery.

It is obvious that the Ukrainian army has no chance of resisting the Russian army in a frontal clash in open terrain. The Ukrainians have never carried out any large-scale attacks and have totally suffered the invasion of the first three days of the war. Since then, the front has stabilized over 1000 km long and 150 km wide. The Ukrainians understood that urban warfare was their salvation, and this is what they practice, which explains the destruction in many cities, even if the Russians target only military objectives, not wanting to raze the cities and kill civilians.

In 1944, Hitler proposed the idea of “Festung” in cities that had operational or strategic importance. The enemy had to occupy these “strongholds” first in order to free up transportation routes for a new offensive. In August 1944, American troops began the siege of the French port of Brest. It was turned into a “Festung” by the German general, Bernhard Ramke, who held the defense for 43 days before surrendering. Many inhabitants of Brest were killed, starved to death or perished under the rubble.

CO: Can we see a similar military strategy with the Ukrainian army?

JG: Warfare in the shelter of fortresses has existed since the dawn of time. Messada, Alesia, Constantinople, to name only the most famous sieges. The Middle Ages were built around castles, these fortresses that were most often besieged, waiting for famine and disease to do the work instead of weapons. Therefore, it is understandable that the Ukrainian soldiers are entrenched in the cities. But, we must not forget that the Russians are perfectly informed about the targets to be destroyed. When Ukrainian soldiers hide in a civilian building, it becomes a military target, with the risk of collateral losses. The Russians fear that in the Donbass, the Ukrainians will generalize an urban war like in Mariupol, which would lead to inevitable destruction and civilian casualties.

CO: In Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian armed forces have not only taken Ukrainian citizens hostage. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, more than 7,500 foreigners are currently being held hostage in Ukrainian cities. Why don’t the French media talk about this?

JG: In this war, there is only one culprit, Putin, according to the Western narrative. Therefore, let’s not expect from our media the truth about the Ukrainian turpitude and exactions. We are never told about Kiev’s crimes in Donbass for eight years. Yes, it is the great silence on the civilians who are used as human shields, on the foreigners trapped by the war. But there is also a silence about the hundreds of foreign soldiers serving alongside Ukrainian soldiers, either as advisors or as mercenaries. We learn on the Russian side that NATO officers have been killed, but nothing filters through to the Ukrainian side. The best example is the Azovstal fortress, where Azov units, civilians and foreign soldiers were locked up. The siege of this factory seems to be over, since the civilians have been evacuated and 260 fighters have surrendered. The Russian command expects a lot from this partial surrender, rich in information of all kinds.

CO: During the war, the first strikes are made against the capital of the attacked state, the residence of its leader and the military headquarters. Why does Russia almost never strike the centers of political and military leadership, does not destroy key infrastructure – rail transport, communications, pipelines, bridges and other facilities for survival of the civilian population?

JG: In my opinion, Kiev was never a military objective for Putin. He probably thought that the Ukrainians would not object to the overthrow of a corrupt government, hated by the population. But Biden decided otherwise and saw in this Russian offensive, the unexpected opportunity to fight Russia by proxy. And Zelensky, manipulated by Washington, immediately took on the role of David against Goliath. The media artillery then took it upon itself to make the Ukrainian president the new Churchill and Putin a “butcher”. The result is that Ukraine, helped by forty nations, “resists” the Russian bear, but at what price? How many military losses? How many civilian victims? How much destruction? Only the Americans are the big winners of this useless relentlessness. Because Putin will not back down. Crimea and the Donbass will remain Russian. In my opinion, the “hero” Zelensky will have to answer to his people one day, for having refused to negotiate when there was still time. And, to answer the second part of your question, Putin never wanted to wage war on the brotherly Ukrainian people, but only on the regime in place and the Nazi units accused of abuses by Amnesty International and Human Right Watch. He first wanted to preserve all civilian infrastructures. He only decided to destroy them in order to block the convoys of arms supplied on a massive scale by the West.

CO: How do you explain the fact that Russia supplies Europe with gas via Ukraine?

JG: Putin would be wrong to deprive himself of this manna which brings him billions. He has almost doubled his income with the rise in prices, and these sales in rubles have enabled him to bring the ruble back to its pre-war level. As for the rights of passage that Ukraine receives, this is part of the give and take deals that we see in all conflicts.

CO: Why hasn’t Russia refused to honor the contracts?

JG: For the moment, Putin needs these contracts. Let’s not forget that the West has blocked, not to say stolen from Russia, $300 billion in foreign exchange reserves, half of the reserves of the Bank of Russia. A hold-up never seen in history. If France’s nominal GDP is 2500 billion euros, Russia’s is 1500 billion. Therefore, the main wealth of Russia, beyond its scientific geniuses, is its colossal mining resources, that is to say 20% of the world reserves!

CO: What position should France take in this conflict?

JG: A total neutrality. No arms to Ukraine, but massive humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian people. Secondly, I am in favor of leaving the integrated command of NATO, which has become an offensive alliance at the sole service of Uncle Sam and in particular the American arms lobby. We do not have to be the Americans’ auxiliaries in their colonial expeditions worthy of the 19th century. Adventures that have all ended in fiascos.

CO: Finally, Sweden and Finland have declared that they want to join NATO. What is your opinion on this decision?

JG: I am opposed to it, but I hear that Putin is ready to accept this double membership, provided that no NATO base is established in these countries. And if Biden plays with fire, we should not be surprised if the world relives a new Cuban missile crisis, that frightening game of “nuclear poker” that was played in 1962 and brought the planet to the brink of the Apocalypse. Because Putin is not Khrushchev…

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on French Lieutenant Colonel Jacques Guillemain: “Ukrainian soldiers are entrenched in the cities”
  • Tags: ,

Biden Administration’s Ministry of Truth Stumbles

May 24th, 2022 by Philip Giraldi

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.

***

Finally some good news – maybe! The Department of Homeland Security’s recently launched Disinformation Governance Board has gone into what has been described as the “pause” mode and its controversial Director Nina Jankowicz has resigned, citing “vile personal attacks and physical threats.” Its status will reportedly be reviewed over the next 75 days and it will likely be rolled out more quietly next time around and under a different name.

The Board was developed to counter what was held to be unfair criticism of policies being promoted by the government.

Ironically, however, it has recently become clear that the White House itself has been doing much of the lying. It uses the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other government agencies to spread false information, referred to as disinformation, to dupe the public into believing that there is something good and noble about America becoming heavily involved in the war in Ukraine, with all that entails. And, of course, since the evildoers must be excoriated as that drama is playing out, good old Russia fits in admirably, particularly as the Democrats still like to pretend that it was Moscow’s interference that defeated Hillary in 2016.

A lie is a lie, but it is the ultimate irony when a government that is caught lying on a regular basis sets up an inquisition that seeks to identify and take action against ordinary citizens who are accused of spreading “disinformation.”

Of course, critics on the right immediately discerned that the disinformation will consist of anything that challenges the official government line on various issues, up to including pandemics, white supremacist domestic terrorism, aborting unwanted babies, and even the march to war.

Although the inept President Joe Biden Administration can rightly be accused of elevating deceit to a steady diet of malapropisms, one can trace the rise of egregious lying by heads of state to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and, more recently, to the criminal deceptions carried out by the George W. Bush Administration. Those lies led to the invasion of Iraq, which cost trillions of dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans, and which is still producing unrest in the region.

So now we were to be confronted by the Disinformation Governance Board, so designated under the august authority of the Department of Homeland Security to root out disinformation and those who are seeking to disseminate falsehoods about what our noble elected officials are doing to us in Washington. Followers of George Orwell inevitably, and almost immediately, dubbed the new creation the Ministry of Truth.

The official launch documents in late April claimed that the DGB would be “protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights, & civil liberties” against the “threat of disinformation.” Its focus would be on “homeland security, focused specifically on irregular migration and Russia,” meaning that it would be discrediting any source that complains about the flood of aliens crossing the US southern border or casting doubts on the necessity of supporting America’s Ukraine “allies.” In a follow-up briefing DHS elaborated that it would monitor threat “disinformation spread by foreign states such as Russia, China and Iran, or other adversaries such as transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling organizations.”

And the board was to be headed by one Nina Jankowicz, a weird, highly politicized concoction who sang about her mission in a tweet entitled “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation” while confirming that she would be the first executive director of the DGB. She has also written a book entitled “How To Be A Woman Online.” She has worked for the National Democratic Institute, the Democratic Party affiliate of the National Endowment for Democracy that promotes democracy worldwide. She has also been a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

In an NPR interview responding to a question concerning Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, Jankowicz ridiculously opined that “I shudder to think about, if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would be like for the marginalized communities around the world…” Glenn Greenwald further described the new Disinformation Czar as having “herself ratified and helped spread virtually every disinformation campaign concocted by the union of the Democratic Party and corporate media over the last five years. Indeed, the only valid basis for calling her a ‘disinformation expert’ is that she has spread disinformation with such gusto. The most notorious of those was the pre-election lie that the authentic Hunter Biden laptop was ‘disinformation.’ She also decreed falsely that the origins of COVID were definitively proven to be zoonotic and could not have come from a lab leak, was a frequent and vocal advocate of the fraudulent Steele Dossier, and repeatedly pronounced as true all sorts of Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theories which Robert Mueller, after conducting an intense 18-month investigation, rejected as lacking evidence to establish their truth.”

Jankowicz’s boss Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas nevertheless claimed that she was “eminently qualified,” a “renowned expert,” and politically “neutral.” But to put that in context, her rather thin actual work history, heavy on being a Democratic Party apparatchik tied to the Clintons, oddly includes a stint as a Fulbright-Clinton fellow in 2017 serving as an adviser on disinformation to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry. She sports the US and Ukrainian flags next to her picture on her twitter page.

Attempts by governments to shape their message by discrediting alternative viewpoints are not exactly new. Here in the US, suppressing contrary views is nearly as old as the republic. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 gave the president power to deport potentially “dangerous” foreigners and made it a crime to print “any false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the government. President John Adams supported these laws because he wanted to prevent a war with France, quite the reverse of what the Biden regime is seeking to do as it mobilizes against Russia. Vice President Thomas Jefferson was openly disgusted by the unconstitutional acts, which probably contributed to his election as president in 1800.

The Acts were subsequently allowed to expire and were never reviewed by the Supreme Court, but there is also the later example of the Committee for Public Information which was used by the government to support the war party line in World War One. There followed the Espionage Act of 1918, which is still in effect, that was used liberally by President Woodrow Wilson to silence critics of American entry into the war. The definition of what constitutes “espionage” was deliberately made infinitely elastic and the Act is still in use against whistleblowers and presumably also Julian Assange.

Given the language connected with the launch of the Disinformation Government Board, it might reasonably be assumed that it would have surely sought to suppress “malicious writing” and speech relating to the Biden sponsored wave of illegal immigration along the country’s southern border that has driven America’s foreign-born population to a record 46.6 million people. And, in addition to an increase in arriving Afghans, which was actually written into the bill proposing $33 billion more for Ukraine, there will surely be more Ukrainian migrants. Jewish organizations in the US, Europe and Israel are already actively bringing in co-religionists. Given political realities, displaced Ukrainian Jews will likely be quietly given refugee status granting them full benefits to include housing and welfare payments.

Not surprisingly, the surging wave of immigration is highly unpopular among working people who are already established, even among many Democrats, and the Biden response will be to compel the bad vibes go away, literally, by openly labeling critics as liars peddling disinformation. Whether there will be actual criminal or civil penalties attached to the process remains to be seen when the board is most likely resurrected under another name.

And, of course, the likes of Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Tom Massie, journalist Tucker Carlson and former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard would have their views on the developing catastrophe in Ukraine challenged and denigrated, to include possibly arranging for their banning from social media sites, which is already being done to some critics. The fact is that we do not know at this point exactly what the new Board will eventually be empowered to do, but one can count on the results being bad, destructive both of the First Amendment and of honest journalism in the United States.

The ability of the government to collude with corporate America to diminish personal liberty of the citizenry cannot be understated. We have already seen corporations that operate on the internet proactively terminating accounts that it considers politically unacceptable. Consortium News, a perfect respectable site of long standing that has a splendid record of investigative journalism, was recently delisted by PayPal, which took the further step of confiscating its nearly $10,000 of funds with the threat that the money might be retained by PayPal as an additional punishment.

The reality is that the government can unleash its thousands of lawyers to make a case against nearly every citizen who is politically active. Which is why the Biden Administration has already been criminalizing and/or sanctioning any foreign organization that has “interfered in or undermined public confidence in United States elections,” as if the two major parties are not already doing that quite effectively all by themselves. If that is truly a crime why aren’t Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell being sanctioned?

In my own experience, I have dealt with threatened punishment regarding my contributing to and participating in the activities of an Iranian NGO and a Russian information site. Neither organization can plausibly regarded as a threat to the United States, though they both were highly critical of US government policies, as am I. In one case, American participants in a conference overseas organized by the Iranians were warned that they would be arrested upon return, which currently appears to be “due process” in the US. In the case of the Russian site, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) advised that any American writing for the site could be fined as much as $311,562!

The unfortunate reality is that the real damage is being done through the employment of government driven restrictions punishing ordinary citizens who are exercising their right of free speech and free association. It is easy to claim that a foreign news service or NGO is “undermining confidence in US elections” as it is a charge that one need not have to prove. Indeed, it is unprovable and it is a weapon that can be used to manage dissent and to narrow the bounds of acceptable discourse. The question becomes whether and to what extent the successor to the now paused Disinformation Governance Board will attempt to apply similar standards to Americans. One might suggest that the barring of dissident US journalists and political figures from social media sites and from funding mechanisms like PayPal is the first shot to be fired in a long struggle over what is “truth” that will play out over the next two years.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 March 1, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, in an interview to France Info radio, described the Western sanction packages as “extremely effective” measures that would cause “the collapse of the Russian economy”. This has failed – the ruble has recovered, and analysts also expect Moscow’s trade surplus to hit record highs in the coming months.

The West did sanction the country in an unprecedented way, targeting its foreign reserves particularly, and, as response to that, worried citizens rushed to their banks to withdraw cash. The financial system thus seemed to be on the way to its collapse.

Imports fell, as expected, due to logistical disruptions and also due to the regulatory uncertainty that arose as a result of the new sanctions and their relative vagueness. For example, Kazakhstan’s vice-minister of trade and integration, Kairat Torebayev, complained in an interview to EURACTIV on May 13 that “nobody can tell me if Kazakhstan can sell yogurt to Russia”.

Moreover, the sanctions and the expulsion of some of the Russian lenders from the SWIFT network made it harder for firms in Russia to buy goods from the West. Initially, the ruble depreciated dramatically and there was talk of an inevitable default on Russian debts. With its assets frozen, and sanctions preventing its Central Bank from using about half of its $640 billion in foreign reserves (to pay back its creditors), plus rising inflation and capital flight, things certainly were not looking good.

However, at the end of March, the currency began to recover. By mid-April, its value had already reached 1 RUB = 0.013 USD, which was the rate just before Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine.

On April 26, the rouble hit a more than two years high (trading at 76.90 versus the euro) before it stabilized near 77. And, on May 5, it was then reported that the ruble briefly reached its highest level (against the US dollar) since March 2020. It hit a high of 65.31 per dollar.

Finally, on May 20, the ruble reached both its strongest level against the Euro since June 2015 (touching 59.02) and the strongest level against the US dollar since March 2018 (hitting 57.0750).

On May 19, Moscow stated that about half of the 54 Russian gas company Gazprom’s clients have opened accounts at the Gazprombank; analysts have attributed the ruble rally to this fact. The EU after all has allowed its member states to keep purchasing Russian gas without breaching the sanctions they themselves imposed on Moscow – by using rubles for payment.

But it is not just the currency that has recovered.

Exports are going well too. According to the Economist, Russia in fact can expect a record trade surplus.

Even though the Kremlin has ceased to publish detailed monthly trade data, one can still work on the data pertaining to Russia’s trading partners themselves.

The data available shows that China, on May 9, reported that its goods exports to the country did fall by more than a quarter (in comparison with last year), but its imports from Russia rose by over 65%. Based on data from the eight largest Russian trading partners, the Economist estimates that while Russian imports may have fallen by approximately 45% (since February), its exports, on the other hand, have risen by around 8%.

The Institute of International Finance (IIF), which is a bankers’ organization, estimates that the current-account surplus (including trade and financial flows) can come in at $250 billion in 2022. That is more than double the $120 billion that was recorded last year. Thus it would appear that sanctions in fact have boosted Moscow’s trade surplus. Even the exports directed to the West have been holding up well. The global rise in energy prices has boosted the revenues even further. Russian inflation is still high, but it is slowing. With economic activity indicators improving, the Russian authorities have reasons to be optimistic about avoiding a financial crisis.

The truth is that the Russian Federation, being an almost 140 million people market, comprises half of the whole Eurasian Union. The Russian market is quite irreplaceable from the perspective of these countries. Moreover, in Europe, there is no quick alternative for Russian energy sources.

Meanwhile, Germany’s inflation rate rose in April at its fastest pace since before the country’s reunification in 1981. This is fuelled by the rising energy prices, which in turn have been exacerbated by the current Russo-Ukrainian crisis. Similarly, with energy bills soaring, the UK inflation rate is rising at its fastest rate for 40 years.

At this point one can already say that the Western sanctions against Russia have failed and even backfired.

This means the West is losing the economic and financial war it waged against Moscow. Sending weapons to Ukraine is not working either.

This explains why talks of a cease-fire are being echoed by the main European leaders and by the US itself, even though the very same players had signaled their intention to a full-spectrum confrontation quite recently. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski has changed his hitherto uncompromising tone: speaking on national TV, on May 21, he stated that “only diplomacy can end the Ukraine war”.

The West is losing its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine – both militarily and economically. Now it has to reopen diplomatic channels. The only other choice is a global nuclear war.

*

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

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

***

Robert Snow, a pilot for American Airlines, one of the top 3 largest airlines in the country, has 31 years of commercial airline experience and additionally seven years of experience as a U.S. Air Force pilot.

Snow says that he might not be able to fly again after he suffered a cardiac arrest only 6 or 7 minutes after landing a plane he piloted from Denver to Dallas Fort Worth (DFW).

He still had two more flights scheduled on April 9.

He believes that his cardiac arrest is connected to the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine he was forced to take in order to keep his job on Nov. 4, 2021, even though he already had natural immunity from previously contracting the virus.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a world-renowned cardiologist, told Newsmax that Snow’s case fits a “pattern.”

“There is no other explanation,” McCullough said about Snow’s case since Snow has no coronary disease.

“The MRI pattern is consistent,” the doctor said. “Indeed, it may have been vaccine-induced myocarditis with a late manifestation of cardiac death.”

In addition, he told The Epoch Times that he has received “several phone calls and communications from friends in the industry that do think that they might have had issues with a vaccine.”

Most alarming is that some pilots are “afraid to raise the flag and say, ‘Hey, I think I might have an issue because they’re afraid they’ll either lose their medical certification to fly, which if we lose our medical, we can no longer operate. We can’t be a commercial pilot anymore. And in worst-case scenario, which is what right now probably what I’m experiencing is you can’t fly at all. Period,” Snow said.

“I would just tell you that there are other pilots out there that have had concerns, not just pilots, also because it was an employee mandate. So we have flight attendants, we have mechanics, we have dispatchers, we have gate agents, you name it. Of course, for pilots, we consider that a safety-sensitive job so we’re a little bit more concerned from the standpoint of aviation safety; but yes, I have received calls from other pilots and other communications stating that they have concerns but because of the nature of this, they’re afraid to come forward.”

The veteran pilot had serious questions about the novel COVID vaccines that are supposed to prevent infection from the SAR-CoV-2 virus.

Vaccine booster efficacy also wanes over time.

What’s more, cases of myocarditis—inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis—inflammation of the lining outside the heart have spiked dramatically since the COVID vaccines started being administered worldwide.

He did not want to get the shot, but being the sole provider for his family, decided to take the risk.

Amid short sighs, Snow told The Epoch Times: “Initially, my employer was not going to force the vaccine on its employees. They subsequently changed their mind on approximately October 1, in conjunction with the executive office here in the United States mandate on federal contractors. They decided that now that they would enforce the vaccine mandate on all employees of the airline. And in regard to that, we were told that if we did not receive the vaccination we would be terminated. There was no question as to the sincerity at that time of their statement.”

Airlines, which are government contractors, were affected by President Joe Biden’s executive order from September that states all employees of those companies have to be vaccinated against the CCP virus.

The Epoch Times reported on December last year that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) was breaking its own rule that states pilots should not fly after having taken medications that have been approved for less than a year, according to a group of attorneys, doctors, and other experts; including another pilot who says his career ended due to adverse reactions from a vaccine.

“So I elected, after some serious consideration given that I was the sole source of income for my family, that I would go ahead and receive the vaccine. I didn’t want to,” Snow said.

“I had serious questions as to the safety and the efficiency and the effectiveness of the vaccine. I’d already had COVID. I’d already tested positive for antibodies, and really didn’t see the rationale for it. But, the only solution that might have been available to me to not receive the vaccine was to request a religious or medical exemption. Neither of which did I really feel like I should request. Medical exemption, I didn’t have any reason to not to, scientifically speaking, not receive it, other than the fact that it was issued under an EUA and not fully tested. And as far as a religious exemption, I didn’t see any reason to request that because I don’t really have a religious belief that would prevent me from receiving this particular vaccination. So for moral and ethical reasons, absolutely. But that wasn’t considered a valid reason not to get the vaccine.”

The veteran pilot had a sore arm for 10 days after getting the jab, and later experienced a strange pain that spread through his upper body.

Snow said that his arm became “pretty sore,” for 10 days, something which he didn’t experience with any previous vaccinations. For other vaccines for travel or in the military, he would usually have soreness for two or three days maximum.

Things returned to normal until January, then he recalled:

“I was on that course of a flight and noticed a strange pain while I was working on the overhead panel. …  I got a strange pain in my right shoulder, seemed to spread down to my lower right quadrant and then up into my chest and through my shoulder blades, which I thought was very strange, but I just kind of chalked it up to manipulating myself oddly on the overhead panel, maybe tweaked a nerve or something like that, because I really had no history of that whatsoever that I’d ever experienced. And so [the] pain went away after one or two minutes and then back to normal.

“When we finished that flight, I actually tested positive again for COVID for the second time, [the] first time I had it was in March of 2021. Second time then would have been in January of 2022—this is postvaccination mind you— and that was what I presumed to be the Omicron variant because it presented itself basically as just allergies, I kept sneezing a lot, runny nose and that was it, no fever, no chills, no nothing, no loss of taste and smell like I had the first time. So I went back to work, after the mandatory amount of time, and I started getting the pain again, only a little bit more frequently this time. So actually, with a history of gastrointestinal issues, I went to see a gastroenterologist he elected to do an endoscopy to take a look to see if I had maybe a hiatal hernia or something that was aggravating the vagus nerve. We also did an abdominal CAT scan.

“During the course of awaiting the results of the abdominal CAT scan, that’s when I had my sudden cardiac arrest and that was after the course of a flight from Denver to DFW. We had been on the gate just a few minutes after shutting the aircraft down, probably about six minutes, six, seven minutes after touchdown. And I stood up to collect my bags to proceed to the next aircraft. We were to finish up with another turn to a different city to come back and then finish the trip on day four. And that’s the last I remember, standing up collecting my luggage. And at that point, witnesses say I collapsed in the flight deck. And that’s all I know at this point. When I woke up, I was in the ICU at Baylor Scott and White in Grapevine Texas, having suffered a sudden cardiac arrest.”

He now has to wear an automatic external defibrillator or “life vest” that monitors his heartbeats, except when he showers when he is supposed to be monitored by a family member. The life vest is designed so that if the heart rhythm becomes abnormal, it will send a small shock to get it back to sinus rhythm, and if it detects full atrial fibrillation, ventricular fibrillation, or any sort of fibrillation, it would send a much stronger shock to try to get it back to the right rhythm.

Albeit all this trauma, Snow feels very fortunate because he was able to get professional care immediately, which is not the case for many other people.

According to heart.org:

“Cardiac arrest is when the heart stops beating. Some 350,000 cases occur each year outside of a hospital, and the survival rate is less than 12 percent. CPR can double or triple the chances of survival.”

“If you look at the numbers … I try not to look too closely at them because it’s rather intimidating.” Snow said, referring to the survival rate of cardiac arrests.

“The thing that concerns me, is [that] this happened in the right place at the right time. Because if it had happened … any other time where I was either alone or beyond reasonable response time for a medical response, I wouldn’t be here having this conversation.”

John Pierce Law, who previously represented many prominent conservatives, is going to sue 18 major airlines, including American Airlines, focusing on the alleged unconstitutionality of the vaccine mandates that were imposed on the airline employees.

*

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

Enrico Trigoso is an Epoch Times reporter focusing on the NYC area.

Featured image: A stock photo of an airplane taking off. (Mohamed Hassan/Pixabay)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Top Airline Pilot Suffers Cardiac Arrest Between Flights Post Mandatory COVID Vaccination

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.

***

 

 

 

 

 

Der vorliegende Appell ist das Bekenntnis einer freien Seele inmitten der Qual einer globalen Krise, die zu einer totalitären „Neuen Weltordnung“ (NWO) und einem anderen „Menschsein“ führen wird. Man möge keine Selbstschilderung darin erblicken, auch wenn der Autor von Erlebnissen in seiner Jugend ausgeht. Mit Absicht wurden alle politischen Fragen in den Hintergrund gestellt: ihnen kam in vielen Artikeln besondere Betrachtung zu.

Da das Denken und Handeln erwachsener Menschen nach wie vor von einem „magischen Autoritätsglauben“ – kritiklos und umnebelt von Glücksverheißungen – bestimmt wird, ist der Autor der Auffassung, dass die Aufklärung im 17./18. Jahrhundert ein unabgeschlossenes Projekt geblieben ist. Die Autoritätsgläubigkeit führt unweigerlich zur Autoritätshörigkeit, die in der Regel den Reflex eines absoluten geistigen Gehorsams und eine Verstandeslähmung auslöst. Vollsinnige Erwachsene können dann nicht mehr selbständig denken und vernünftig urteilen. Aber nicht nur ihre Intelligenz wird eingeschüchtert und herabgesetzt, sondern auch ihr Wille und ihr Selbstbewusstsein.

In religiösen Gemeinschaften beginnt die Erziehung zum Gehorsam bereits beim kleinen Kind. Es muss sich von allen am Erziehungsprozess beteiligten „Autoritäten“ – Eltern, Lehrern, Priestern – widerspruchslos führen und leiten lassen. Das autoritäre Prinzip in der Erziehung schließt sich ohne jeden Unterbruch an den „göttlichen Ursprung“ der Herrschaft und den Respekt vor allen „Autoritäten“ an, so wie er von der Kirche vermittelt wird. Somit machen sowohl die religiöse wie auch die autoritäre Erziehung die heranwachsende Generation gehorsam und gefügig.

Den Autor treibt die Sorge um, dass diese Erziehungsmethoden dazu führen werden, dass auch die junge Generation nicht in der Lage sein wird, die Welt einmal in eine andere Bahn zu lenken. Die wissenschaftliche Psychologie, die die menschliche Natur erforscht und gesicherte Antworten auf die Frage nach der seelischen Verfassung des Menschen bereithält, fordert deshalb eine neue „Aufklärung“, die die Erkenntnisse der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie über die menschliche Natur mit einbezieht.

Dabei behauptet ein freier Denker nicht, dass er über die alleinseligmachende oder alleinglückverheißende Wahrheit verfügt. Für den freien Geist gibt es eine unbegrenzte Anzahl von zu entdeckenden und dem Wandel folgenden Wahrheiten.

Jean Meslier (1664-1729), katholischer Priester und französischer Radikalaufklärer aus der Zeit der Frühaufklärung, beantwortet die Frage, was wahr ist, mit den Worten:

„Wahr ist, was nicht dogmatische Fessel ist und die Menschen nicht in Gläubige und in Nichtgläubige oder Andersgläubige trennt, sondern dem Zusammenleben der Menschen nützt und ihr Einvernehmen fördert.“ (1)

Selbstverständlich bleibt es das unveräußerliche Recht des religiösen Menschen, aus den Bibelworten Offenbarungen der höchsten religiösen Wahrheiten zu schöpfen. Aber es ist ebenso die unbedingte Pflicht des Forschers, historische Wahrheiten nur aus ganz einwandfreien Zeugnissen zu folgern.

Nach Auffassung des französischen Physik-Professors und Präsidenten der Union der Atheisten, Francis Perrin (1901-1992), führt die Überzeugung, dass kein Gott ist, den Menschen nicht zu Verzweiflung oder Angst, sondern zu einem tiefen Verständnis für den Wert und Sinn des Lebens:

„Die feste Überzeugung, dass kein Gott ist und dass die angemaßten Antworten der Religionen illusorisch, töricht oder kindisch sind, wenn der Mensch, von Fragen bedrängt, über sein Los nachdenkt oder nach einem Sinn des Daseins sucht, diese feste Überzeugung führt keineswegs zu Verzweiflung oder Angst, sondern zu einer großen Ruhe des Geistes, zu einem tiefen Verständnis für den Wert des Lebens und zu einer hohen Vorstellung von der Würde des für sein Leben und seine Taten vor sich selbst verantwortlichen Menschen.“ (2)

Der in allgemeinverständlicher Sprache verfasste Appell soll auch dem interessierten Laien Einsichten in das menschliche Seelenleben vermitteln.

Er ist eine Ergänzung und Vertiefung des 2020 in Gornji Milanovac (Serbien) erschienen Buches des Autors mit dem Titel „Keinem die Macht übergeben! Ein psychologisches Manifest des gesunden Menschenverstands“ (ISBN 978-86-7432-119-5). Die „Neue Rheinische Zeitung“ (NRhZ) veröffentlichte im November 2020 einen Vorabdruck und eine Kurzfassung des Buches. Die Kurzfassung wurde auch von „Global Research“ in Kanada übernommen.

Da davon auszugehen ist, dass sich für den vorliegenden Aufruf kein Verleger finden wird, wird er als zweisprachiger Artikel (Deutsch und Englisch) per Internet verbreitet werden.

Einleitung 

Thema dieses Appells ist die Überzeugung des Autors – einem Lehrer, Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologen –, dass junge Menschen sich sehr wohl zu frei denkenden, mutigen und moralischen Bürgern entwickeln können. Doch dazu müssen es alle für die Erziehung der Jugend Verantwortlichen unterlassen, die heranwachsende Generation auf ihrem Weg ins Erwachsenenleben mit verstandeslähmenden religiösen und autoritären Erziehungsmethoden „gehorsam“ und „gefügig“ zu machen.

Das Zeitalter der Aufklärung im 17./18. Jahrhundert war ein großer Umbruch in der Geschichte. Der Philosoph Emanuel Kant (1724-1804) formulierte den Leitsatz der Aufklärung: „Habe den Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen.“ Hinter dieser Aussage stand der Gedanke, dass der Mensch seinen Verstand gebrauchen und sich dadurch zu einer mündigen Persönlichkeit entwickeln soll.

Vor der Aufklärung war es von der Kirche und der Obrigkeit nicht gewünscht, dass der Mensch seinen Verstand gebraucht: Er sollte die „Wahrheiten“, die ihm von Staat und Kirche vorgesetzt wurden, als gegeben hinnehmen, ohne diese zu hinterfragen. Nun aber geriet der blinde Gehorsam gegenüber der Kirche ins Wanken.

Die Berufung auf die Vernunft als universelle Urteilsinstanz gilt als wichtiges Kennzeichen der Aufklärung. Dazu gehört der Kampf gegen Vorurteile, die Hinwendung zu den Naturwissenschaften, das Plädoyer für religiöse Toleranz und die Orientierung am Naturrecht.

Das Naturrecht, ein von der Natur gegebenes Recht sagt, dass es etwas gibt, was von Natur aus recht ist. Das Wissen darüber, was von Natur aus recht ist, macht es möglich, totalitären Ideologien und Diktaturen von einem festen menschlichen Standpunkt aus entgegenzutreten und ein Gefühl der Empörung gegen Unrecht und Unmenschlichkeit zu empfinden.

Seinen Anfang nahm das naturrechtliche Denken in der antiken griechischen Philosophie. Platon (427-347 v.u.Z.) ging davon aus, dass es objektive, absolut gültige Normen, Werte und Gesetze gibt, die nicht von den wechselnden Meinungen der Menschen abhängig sind. An den objektiven Ideen dessen, was Recht ist, müsse sich der Staat und die Staatsführung zu allen Zeiten orientieren. Das höchste Ziel im menschlichen Leben sei ein vernunftbestimmtes Leben.

Gesellschaftspolitisch zielte die Aufklärung auf mehr persönliche Handlungsfreiheit (Emanzipation), Bildung, Bürgerrechte, allgemeine Menschenrechte und das Gemeinwohl als Staatspflicht. Viele Vordenker der Aufklärung waren fortschrittsoptimistisch und nahmen an, eine vernunftorientierte Gesellschaft werde die Hauptprobleme menschlichen Zusammenlebens schrittweise lösen.

Nach Auffassung des Autors ist die Aufklärung jedoch ein unabgeschlossenes Projekt geblieben, ein unvollendeter gesellschaftlicher Emanzipationsprozess. Denken und Handeln der meisten Menschen wird nach wie vor beherrscht von einem „magischen Autoritätsglauben“ und einem absoluten geistigen Gehorsam.

Dabei wird der Mensch weder religiös noch gottesgläubig geboren. Das geistig gesunde und „unverkrüppelte“ Kind gerät jedoch in eine Gesellschaft, in der wahnhafte Ideen und Illusionen vorherrschen. Wenn man versteht, wie die magische Weltanschauung auf das Seelenleben und die Vernunft des jungen Menschen wirkt, dann versteht man auch das unmündige Verhalten erwachsener Gläubiger.

Kaum zeigen sich beim kleinen Kind die ersten seelischen Regungen und es lernt zu sprechen, wird es von der Gesellschaft, den Eltern und der Kirche „in Obhut genommen“. Es wird ihm klar gemacht, dass sich sein Wesen bezüglich des Naturgefühls und der Weltanschauung nicht frei entwickeln darf. Will es verhindern, mit allgemeiner Verachtung und höllischen Peinigungen bestraft zu werden, muss es sein Wesen in eine bestimmte kirchliche Form pressen.

Mit diesem Vorgehen wird ein sehr starker und lähmender Druck auf die Kinderseele ausgeübt. Keine noch so diktatorische und totalitäre politische Organisation ist imstande, einen solch lähmenden Druck auf Kinderseelen auszuüben. Diese seelische Vergewaltigung ist schlimmer und nachhaltiger als jede körperliche. Das gleiche gilt für die Vergewaltigung des Geistes.

Der religiöse Glaube setzt neben Vernunft und Wissen eine magische Scheinwelt, der sich die wissenschaftliche Analyse nicht zu nähern hat. Die Religionen betrachten sich als etwas über Allem Stehendes, das nicht Gegenstand empirisch-rationalistischer Untersuchung sein darf – und auch nicht sein kann. Sie sind der Meinung, dass die Wissenschaft überhaupt nicht imstande ist, den Bereich der Religion, der göttlicher Herkunft sei, in seiner Totalität zu erfassen.

Wenn wir von einem „magischen Autoritätsglauben“ und dem Reflex eines absoluten geistigen Gehorsams ausgehen, dann müssen wir zum Verständnis seiner Ursachen einen Text heranziehen, den Ignatius von Loyola (1491-1556), der Gründer des Jesuitenordens, Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts verfasste und auf den das deutsche Wort „Kadavergehorsam“ zurückzuführen ist. In der vom Spanischen ins Lateinische übertragenen und von der Ordenskongregation 1558 veröffentlichten Fassung heißt es:

„Wir sollten uns dessen bewusst sein, dass ein jeder von denen, die im Gehorsam leben, sich von der göttlichen Vorsehung mittels des Oberen führen und leiten lassen muss, als sei er ein toter Körper, der sich wohin auch immer bringen und auf welche Weise auch immer behandeln lässt, oder wie ein Stab eines alten Mannes, der dient, wo und wozu auch immer ihn der benutzen will.“ (3)

Bereits lange Zeit vor Ignatius von Loyola verglich Franz von Assisi (1181/82-1226) die vollkommene und höchste Form des Gehorsams gegenüber dem Vorgesetzten mit einem toten, entseelten Leib, der sich ohne Widerspruch und ohne Murren hinbringen lässt, wo man will (4).

Der gehorsame Mensch muss sich gemäß dem Text von Loyola „von der göttlichen Vorsehung mittels des Oberen“ oder „Vorgesetzten“ widerspruchslos „führen“ und „leiten“ lassen als wäre er ein „toter Körper“ oder „entseelter Leib“. Auch die herrschende Schicht der Gesellschaft rechtfertigt ihre Herrschaft, ihre politische und wirtschaftliche Macht über die Gemüter der Menschen seit jeher mit dem ideologischen Begriff der „Autorität“. Und diese wird wiederum gestützt durch die Idee des „Absoluten“, das sich jeder Kontrollmöglichkeit durch die Erfahrung entzieht.

Für die „Herrschenden“ ist die höchste Kraft einer solchen Ideologie „Gott“ – als „unerkennbare“, „letzte“ Ursache und ethischer Gesetzgeber. So nennen sich etwa Könige „von Gottes Gnaden“ und sagen damit, dass sie ihre Inthronisierung von der göttlichen Instanz herleiten.

Da sich bereits das Kind von den am Erziehungsprozess beteiligten „Autoritäten“ widerspruchslos führen und leiten lassen muss, um auch noch als Erwachsener gehorsam zu sein, fordert die wissenschaftliche Psychologie eine neue „Aufklärung“.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Lehrer (Rektor a. D.), Doktor der Pädagogik (Dr. paed.) und Diplom-Psychologe (Schwerpunkte: Klinische-, Pädagogische- und Medien-Psychologie). Als Pensionär arbeitete er viele Jahre als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und pädagogisch-psychologischen Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung und eine Erziehung zum Gemeinsinn und Frieden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Noten 

  1. Hagen, Friedrich (1977). Jean Meslier oder der Atheist im Priesterrock. Leverkusen und Köln, S. 37
  2. A. a. O., S. 7
  3. https://de.wikipedia.org./wiki/Kadavergehorsam
  4. A. a. O., S. 7
  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Wissenschaftliche Psychologie fordert neue „Aufklärung“

What’s Biden’s End Game in Ukraine?

May 24th, 2022 by Rep. Ron Paul

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, President Biden signed a massive $40 billion military aid bill for Ukraine. Who cares that inflation is killing the American economy and mothers can’t even get baby formula. For Washington, spending on war and empire always seems to trump America’s interests.

To put this giveaway to Ukraine in perspective: just since late February, the US has provided nearly $60 billion in “assistance” to Ukraine. That is almost half that country’s entire 2020 GDP! Washington has literally adopted Ukraine in our name and on our dime.

The Biden Administration claims that Ukraine is winning the war with Russia and that such an expenditure to protect Ukraine’s borders is critical to our national interests and worth risking a nuclear war over.

But protecting Ukraine’s democracy is no longer the stated goal of the Administration. Defense Secretary Austin outlined the Administration’s new intention not long ago when he said that the real goal is to weaken Russia.

Biden’s neocons are fighting a war with Russia, but once again Congress has no interest in voting on a war declaration or even in debating whether war with Russia 30 years after the end of the Cold War is a good idea.

There is a reason our Constitution grants war powers to the legislative branch. Forcing Members of the House and Senate to declare the US to be in a state of war also enables them  – through the powers of the purse-string – to define the goals of the war and particularly what a victory looks like. That prevents the kind of mission-creep ahd shifting objectives that have characterized our endless wars in the 21st century – including this current proxy war with Russia.

Even the US mainstream media is beginning to notice. Last week the New York Times’ Editorial Board published an editorial originally titled, “What is America’s Strategy in Ukraine?” complaining that the Biden Administration has yet to answer any questions to the American people regarding its involvement in Ukraine.

While, as could be expected, the paper attacked the “isolationists” in the US Congress who opposed the $40 billion giveaway, the NY Times editorial board nevertheless registered what can only be seen as the first major sign of dissent among the usual media war cheerleaders.

They wrote:

…it is still not in America’s best interest to plunge into an all-out war with Russia, even if a negotiated peace may require Ukraine to make some hard decisions. And the US aims and strategy in this war have become harder to discern, as the parameters of the mission appear to have changed.

While warning that Americans’ interest in Ukraine will begin to wane without more clarity from Washington as to its goals, the paper went on to directly contradict the Biden Administration’s predictions of a Ukraine victory:

A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal.

Congress – with very few exceptions – has opened a financial spigot to the government in Kiev without asking a single question about how and why the money is to be spent. When Senator Paul simply asked for someone to keep track of the $60 billion we shipped over there he was met with near-unanimous opposition.

An endless supply of US taxpayer money to Ukraine with zero stated goals and zero oversight. Isn’t it time to stand up and demand that both parties in Congress start asking some hard questions?

*

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

Featured image is from The Last Refuge

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 president of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council, Mahdi al-Mashat, weighed in on the effects of the UN-brokered truce and the future position of Yemen during a televised address carried by Al Masirah TV on 22 May.

According to the Yemeni president, the truce has resulted in very little alleviation of the suffering of the Yemeni people.

“The citizen did not feel a difference between truce and non-truce, which is not encouraging enough. We are not against extending the truce, but what is not possible is accepting any truce in which the suffering of Yemeni people continues,” Al-Mashat said.

Saudi Arabia has consistently violated the UN-brokered ceasefire agreement which started on 2 April.

By 9 April, the Saudi-led coalition had committed 1,647 violations of the ceasefire.

The violations consist of shelling residential communities, the seizure of oil tankers approved by the UN, and the launch of hundreds of illegal spy plane missions over Yemeni airspace.

The ceasefire stipulated that UN-approved fuel ships must be allowed to pass the Saudi-imposed naval blockade. Few ships have been allowed to enter Yemeni ports, despite having UN approval.

Another stipulation – the re-opening of Sanaa International Airport to commercial flights – was not honored until approximately one and a half months into the two-month truce, with the first flight departing on 16 May.

Two flights per week are being reportedly allowed during the remaining 15 days of the truce.

On this basis, President Al-Mashat affirmed the will of Yemen and its people for establishing a real and lasting peace, but said that it must coincide with their demands for ending the siege, bombardment and military occupation of Yemeni lands, as well as the start of reconstruction efforts to rebuild what was destroyed during the war.

On 17 May, the UN declared its intentions to extend the truce in order to begin negotiations to end the seven years of war.

The Yemeni president expressed the desire of his country to engage in real cooperation that leads to the improvement of humanitarian and economic situations in any truce.

Al-Mashat referred to the unelected council appointed by Saudi Arabia as the “Council of Shame,” stating that such a council was  responsible for killing Yemeni people and that “there was no difference between their position and that of the traitor Hadi.”

The war-torn country continues to experience one of the worst humanitarian crises as a result of the Saudi-led war and its economic blockade on Yemen.

*

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

Featured image: Yemeni President Mahdi al-Mashat (Photo credit: Al Masirah / Al Mayadeen)

EU Gives OK to Pay for Russian Gas in Rubles

May 24th, 2022 by Julianne Geiger

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 EU has put an end to the lingering ambiguity surrounding how EU members can pay for Russian gas without violating sanctions.

Russia has demanded that countries pay for its gas in rubles, although European governments have struggled to find a way to oblige Russia while not running afoul of sanctions. Further complicating matters—until now—was the EU’s lack of clarification on whether such an arrangement would violate the current sanctions.

On Friday, Germany and Italy both told companies that they could open up rubles accounts in order to purchase Russian gas, in line with President Vladimir Putin’s request.

Russia’s request has companies opening up two accounts at Gazprombank; one in euros or U.S. dollars and another in rubles. Buyers would deposit the payment into one account in U.S. dollars or euros, and then it is automatically converted to rubles without the involvement of the Bank of Russia.

As of last week, 20 companies in the EU had opened accounts at Gazprombank, while another 14 had asked for the necessary paperwork to open up accounts. Germany’s VNG had already opened up an account with Gazprombank.

With the EU now clarifying that such an arrangement would not violate sanctions, additional companies are expected to file paperwork to open up ruble accounts.

But so far, Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland have refused to pay with ruble accounts. Russia has already cut off supplies to Bulgaria and Poland, and Russia said it would cut off gas supplies to Finland on Saturday.

According to Reuters, the EU has so far given out contradictory information, one version in writing on how to buy gas from Russia without violating sanctions, and a contrary version in a closed-door meeting that cautioned EU members not to open ruble accounts with Gazprombank.

*

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

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.

***

A previously healthy 36-year-old mother of two died 11 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot; her death was deemed to be caused by myocarditis due to the shot

Emergency calls for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020

Pfizer deliberately excluded pregnant women from COVID-19 shot trials; the recommendation that the shots are safe and effective for pregnant women was based on a 42-day study involving 44 rats

Research conducted by the New York State Department of Health found the shots’ effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%

Considering the adverse effects and lack of effectiveness, many have called for an immediate withdrawal of the shots

*

A previously healthy 36-year-old mother of two died 11 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot.1 Initially, her cause of death was deemed inconclusive, but at an inquest, pathologist Dr. Sukhvinder Ghataura explained that he believes the COVID-19 shot was to blame. He told the coroner:2

“On the balance of probabilities, she had vaccine-related problems. There is nothing else for me to hang my hat on. It is the most likely reason, in my conclusion. It is more than likely Dawn died in response to the Covid jab.”

Government officials continue to deny deaths linked to Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 shot. In the U.S., they’ve only acknowledged nine deaths as causally associated with Johnson and Johnson’s COVID-19 shot as of May 10, 2022.3 But this case, which occurred in the U.K., highlights the potential dangers of shot-induced myocarditis.

According to Ghataura, the woman had several signs of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, including inflammation of the heart, fluid in the lungs and a small clot in her lungs.

She had also reported menstrual irregularities, jaw pain and arm pain.4 When asked by a family member whether he believed the woman would still be alive today if she hadn’t received the shot, Ghataura said, “It’s a difficult question but I would say yes.”5

COVID-19 Shots Increase Heart Attack Risk by 25% in Youth

At the conclusion of the inquest regarding the woman’s death, assistant coroner Alison McCormick stated, “I give the narrative conclusion that her death was caused by acute myocarditis, due to recent Covid-19 immunization.”6 Myocarditis is a recognized adverse effect of mRNA COVID-19 shots,7 and one that has been named in other deaths.

Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla, a CEO of a major health clinic, fell asleep four days after he got a COVID-19 booster shot — and died from a heart attack.8 The autopsy stated myocarditis. He was only 48 years old and had never had heart problems in his life. In another example, epidemiologists confirmed that two teenage boys from different U.S. states died of myocarditis days after getting the Pfizer shot.9

Both had received second doses of the shot. In a study that examined the autopsy findings, it’s reported that the “myocarditis” described in the boys’ deaths is “not typical myocarditis pathology”:10

“The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy. Understanding that these instances are different from typical myocarditis and that cytokine storm has a known feedback loop with catecholamines may help guide screening and therapy.”

An astounding study published in Scientific Reports further revealed that calls to Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January 2021 to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.11

The researchers evaluated the association between the volume of the calls and other factors, including COVID-19 shots and COVID-19 infection, but a link was only found for the shots:12

“[T]he weekly emergency call counts were significantly associated with the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administered to this age group but were not with COVID-19 infection rates.

While not establishing causal relationships, the findings raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side-effects and underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.”

COVID Shots Weren’t Tested on Pregnant Women

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Pfizer attempted to hide COVID-19 shot clinical trial data for 75 years. “When I saw that, that’s when I got very vocal and said fraud has occurred. How do I know that? They won’t show us the clinical data,” former Blackrock portfolio manager Edward Dowd said.13 This should be a red flag for all Americans.

Now that a lawsuit forced the FDA to release thousands of the documents, data about what they were trying to hide is coming out. Among the revelations is evidence that Pfizer deliberately excluded pregnant women from COVID-19 shot trials. So how did they make the recommendation that the shots are safe and effective for pregnant women?

This was based on a 42-day study involving 44 rats.14 What’s more, a Pfizer-BioNTech rat study revealed the shot more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss and also led to a low incidence of mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae in the fetuses.15

A CDC-sponsored study that was widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected “presents falsely reassuring statistics related to the risk of spontaneous abortion in early pregnancy,” according to the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK).16

When the risk of miscarriage was recalculated to include all women injected prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, the incidence was seven to eight times higher than the original study indicated, with a cumulative incidence of miscarriage ranging from 82% to 91%.

Also buried in one of the documents is the statement, “Clinical laboratory evaluation showed a transient decrease in lymphocytes that was observed in all age and dose groups after Dose 1, which resolved within approximately one week …”17 What this means is Pfizer knew that, in the first week after the shot, people of all ages experienced transient immunosuppression, or put another way, a temporary weakening of the immune system, after the first dose.

Pfizer and FDA Knew Vaccines Were Not ‘Safe and Effective’

“It looks to me — this is not an overstatement from what I’ve seen — that this was a clinical trial that by August 2021, Pfizer and the FDA knew was failed, the vaccines were not safe and effective,” said investigative author Naomi Wolf. “That they weren’t working. That the efficacy was waning … and that they were seriously dangerous. And they rolled it out anyway.”18

Regarding the shots for pregnant women, Wolf said, in an interview with Stephen Bannon on “War Room,” that a spike in severe adverse events among pregnant women coincides with the rollout of COVID-19 shots.

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) whistleblowers datamined the DOD health database, revealing significant increases in rates of miscarriage and stillbirths, along with cancer and neurological disease, since COVID-19 jabs rolled out.19 “This is honestly one of the wors[t] things I’ve ever, ever seen in my 35 years as a reporter,” Wolf said.20

Not only does IPAK’s data show COVID-19 injections prior to 20 weeks are unsafe for pregnant women, but 12.6% of women who received it in the third trimester reported Grade 3 adverse events, which are severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening. Another 8% also reported a fever of 38 degrees C (100.4 degrees F), which can lead to miscarriage or premature labor.21

Young children are also developing severe hepatitis and nobody knows why.22 COVID-19 shots have been linked to cases of liver disease23 and liver damage following the shots has been deemed “plausible.”24

Confirmed: COVID Shots Affect Menstrual Cycles

It’s clear that there are many unknowns about how COVID-19 shots affect pregnancy and reproduction, including their effects on menstrual cycles. Women around the globe have reported changes in their menstrual cycles following COVID-19 shots, and health officials have tried to brush off the reports or label them all as anecdotal.

But a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology — and funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Research on Women’s Health — confirms an association between menstrual cycle length and COVID-19 shots.25

Clinical trials for COVID-19 shots did not collect data about menstrual cycles following injection, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) does not actively collect menstrual cycle information either, making it difficult to initially determine whether the shots were having an effect. Anecdotal reports on social media, however, are numerous and, according to the study, “suggest menstrual disturbances are much more common …”26

The Obstetrics & Gynecology study involved 3,959 individuals between the ages of 18 and 45 years. Those who had not received a COVID-19 shot noted no significant changes in cycle four during the study compared to their first three cycles.

Those who received COVID-19 shots, however, had longer menstrual cycles, typically by less than one day, when they received the shots. The longer cycles were noted for both doses of the injection, with a 0.71-day increase after the first dose and 0.91-day increase after the second dose.27

While the researchers described the change as not clinically significant, meaning it’s not notable from a health standpoint, there were some women who experienced even greater menstrual changes, particularly those who received two shots in the same menstrual cycle. These changes included a two-day increase in cycle length and, in some cases, changes in cycle length of eight days or more.

Pfizer Shot Only 12% Effective in Children

Adding insult to injury, research conducted by the New York State Department of Health shows the dismal reality about the effectiveness of COVID-19 shots in children.28 From December 13, 2021 to January 24, 2022, they analyzed outcomes among 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 years, and 365,502 children aged 5 to 11 year, who had received two doses of the shots.

Effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%. Protection against hospitalization also dropped, from 100% to 48%. Among 11-year-olds alone, vaccine effectiveness plunged to 11%.29 The lackluster response was blamed on the dosage discrepancies among the age groups, as 5- to 11-year-olds receive two 10-microgram Pfizer shots, while 12- to 17-year-olds receive 30-microgram shots.30

In the younger age group, the shots provided almost no protection at all. And it’s not only children who are affected by the shots’ rapidly waning effectiveness. COVID-19 booster shots also lose effectiveness rapidly, with protection plummeting by the fourth month post-shot.31 One CDC-funded study involved data from 10 states collected from August 26, 2021 to January 22, 2022, periods during which both delta and omicron variants were circulating.

Visits to emergency rooms and urgent care facilities, as well as hospitalizations, among people seeking medical care for COVID-19 were analyzed. The study did not include milder COVID-19 cases, for which no medical attention was sought.

While initially vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-associated emergency department or urgent care visits and hospitalizations was higher after the booster shot, compared to the second COVID-19 injection, effectiveness waned as time passed since vaccination.32

Within two months of the second COVID-19 shot, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits related to COVID-19 was at 69%. This dropped to 37% after five months post-shot. The low effectiveness five months after the initial shot series is what prompted officials to recommend a booster dose — and the third shot “boosted” effectiveness to 87%.

This boost was short-lived, however. Within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.33

Considering the adverse effects and lack of effectiveness, many have called for an immediate withdrawal of the shots. IPAK believes the data are already compelling enough to withdraw the shots for vulnerable populations, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, children and those of child-bearing age.34

Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., a prominent toxicologist and molecular biologist who works with M.D. Anderson Cancer Center-Houston, spoke at the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting held April 23, 2021, and also called for “all gene therapy vaccines” to “be halted immediately due to safety concerns on several fronts,” including fertility.35

*

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

Notes

1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Independent May 6, 2022

3 U.S. CDC, Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination May 10, 2022

7 U.S. CDC November 12, 2021

8 BitChute December 28, 2021

9 Odysee February 17, 2022

10 Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine February 2022

11, 12 Scientific Reports volume 12, Article number: 6978 (2022)

13 KLIM News February 15, 2022, 6:45

14, 20 WND May 4, 2022

15, 16, 34 Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law Volume 4:130-143 November 2021

17 The Naked Emperor Substack March 29, 2022

18 WND April 18, 2022

19 Rumble, The Red Line With Dr. Robert Malone, Part I February 3, 2022, 18:48

21 Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law Volume 4:130-143 November 2021, Further Discussion

22 NBC News April 15, 2022

23 Journal of Hepatology October 4, 2021

24 Food and Chemical Toxicology June 2022, Volume 164, 113008, Section 11

25, 26, 27 Obstetrics & Gynecology: January 5, 2022 – Volume – Issue – 10.1097

28 medRxiv February 28, 2022

29, 30 CNBC February 28, 2022

31, 32 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. ePub: 11 February 2022

33 The New York Times February 11, 2022

35 Halt COVID Vaccine, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC

Featured image is from Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Latest Bad News About COVID Vaccines: Pfizer and FDA Knew Vaccines Were Not ‘Safe and Effective’
  • Tags: , ,

Pressure Mounts on Patel Over Assange Decision

May 24th, 2022 by Joe Lauria

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.

***

At some point during the next nine days, British Home Secretary Priti Patel will decide whether or not to extradite imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the United States to face espionage charges for publishing accurate information revealing U.S. war crimes.

Pressure is building from both sides on the home secretary.  Press freedom and human rights organizations, a Nobel laureate, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, journalists and Assange supporters have appealed to Patel to let Assange go.

While it would be deemed improper for outside influence to be brought on judges, it would not be fanciful to imagine that behind the scenes Patel is getting the message from the U.S. Department of Justice and possibly from U.S. and U.K. intelligence services about what is expected of her.

The home secretary should know without prodding what the U.S. and British governments want her to do. Patel is a highly-ambitious politician who no doubt will calculate how her decision will impact her career.

“Politicians think about their next election, they think about their voters … that’s what makes them tick,” Kristinn Hrafnnson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, told Consortium News at a protest outside the Home Office in London last Wednesday. “For the first time it’s in the hands of a politician, and Priti Patel, if she wants to think about her legacy … she should do the right thing.”

“Politics is a strange beast,” Hrafnsson said. “Anything can happen. I’m hoping this is something that will be taken up in the Cabinet here. Let’s not forget that Boris Johnson was a journalist. He was part of the media community and should have better understanding of this case than many others.”

Patel is acting after the U.K. Supreme Court refused to hear Assange’s appeal of a High Court decision to overturn a lower court ruling barring Assange’s extradition on health grounds and the danger of U.S. prisons. The High Court decided solely on conditional U.S. promises that Assange would be well treated in custody.

With the courts no longer involved and the decision solely in Patel’s hands, the case now is purely political, meaning political pressure can be brought to bear on the home secretary.

“The home secretary has the discretion to block this extradition, and there is a lot of pressure from civil society and press freedom groups for her to do so,” said Stella Assange at a film screening on Thursday.

She said the “heaviest” pressure had come from Dunja Mijatovic, the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe, “urging Patel to block it.” Mijatovic wrote to Patel on May 10, saying:

“I have been following the developments in Mr Assange’s case with great attention. In the judicial proceedings so far, the focus has mainly been on Mr Assange’s personal circumstances upon his possible extradition to the United States. While a very important matter, this also means, in my opinion, that the wider human rights implications of Mr Assange’s possible extradition, which reach far beyond his individual case, have not been adequately considered so far.

In particular, it is my view that the indictment by the United States against Mr Assange raises important questions about the protection of those that publish classified information in the public interest, including information that exposes human rights violations. The broad and vague nature of the allegations against Mr Assange, and of the offences listed in the indictment, are troubling as many of them concern activities at the core of investigative journalism in Europe and beyond.

Consequently, allowing Mr Assange’s extradition on this basis would have a chilling effect on media freedom, and could ultimately hamper the press in performing its task as purveyor of information and public watchdog in democratic societies.”

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquive has also written to Patel. “I join the growing collective concern about the violations of the human, civil and political rights of Mr. Julian Assange,” the Argentine wrote. He called the extradition request “illegal and abusive” and said it imperiled press freedom and could bring “potentially fatal consequences” to Assange.

Amnesty International released a statement at the end of April calling on Patel to deny extradition. “If the Home Secretary certifies the US request to extradite Julian Assange it will violate the prohibition against torture and set an alarming precedent for publishers and journalists around the world,” Amnesty said. It went on:

“Prolonged solitary confinement is a regular occurrence in the USA’s maximum-security prisons. The practice amounts to torture or other ill-treatment, which is prohibited under international law. The assurances of fair treatment offered by the USA in Julian Assange’s case are deeply flawed and could be revoked at any time. Extradition to the USA would put Assange at risk of serious human rights violations, and hollow diplomatic assurances cannot protect him from such abuse.

If the UK government allows a foreign country to exercise extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction to prosecute a person publishing from the UK, other governments could use the same legal apparatus to imprison journalists and silence the press far beyond the borders of their own countries.”

“There has been a huge mobilization all over Europe in many countries and 1,800 journalists have written an open letter to Priti Patel saying that this case should be blocked because it affects their safety because of the implications for global press freedom,” Stella Assange said.

Reporters Without Borders submitted a petition to Patel on Thursday with 65,000 signatures. It was delivered to British embassies in eight countries, Assange said.  More than  700,000 Australians have also signed a petition.

New Australian Government 

The election on Friday of just the fourth Labor government in Australia since the Second World War may bode well for Assange. The new prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has said publicly that Assange should be returned to his native Australia.

It is now up to the new prime minister to pick up the phone and call Joe Biden to tell him that “enough is enough” means the prosecution must be dropped and Assange sent home. He also knows Patel’s phone number.

“Albanese, I hope he will stick to his promises and convictions,” Hrafnsson said. But he is skeptical. “I’ve been a journalist for 30 years to rely on politicians is something … I’d rather be betting on the card table I guess.”

Cross Appeal

If Patel decides to extradite Assange it’s not the end of the legal road for Assange. He has the option of launching a “cross” appeal to the High Court. Though he won in magistrate’s court on health grounds and the condition of U.S. prisons, the judge ruled on every other point of law in Washington’s favor.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied that the case was a political offense in violation of the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty; that it violated the U.S. first amendment and threatened press freedom; and that Assange’s rights to due process were violated when it was revealed that the C.I.A. had spied on privileged conversations with his lawyers and she ignored testimony that the C.I.A. had discussed kidnapping or poisoning Assange.

“The judges will have all the other elements, the important elements, that were discussed by the magistrate’s court but disregarded by the High Court because it was not the appeal point,” Hrafnsson said. The U.S. appeal was only about Assange’s health and U.S. prison conditions and Washington won because it convinced the judges of the credibility of its conditional assurances to treat Assange humanely.

Since Baraitser’s Jan. 4, 2021 decision, other facts have emerged that could form part of the cross appeal. The C.I.A. plot against Assange was further corroborated by U.S. officials in a Yahoo! Newsreport. A key U.S. witness on computer charges against Assange recanted his testimony. And Assange’s health has further deteriorated when he suffered a mini-stroke last October.

Assange’s legal team hopes the High Court will hear the cross appeal on at least some of the nine points it would raise. “If Priti Patel signs the extradition, then we will be given the opportunity to seek to appeal on all the points that were lost,” said Stella Assange. “It’s basically as if we had lost back in 2021. That’s the position we are in now. ”

*

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

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times.  He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe  

Featured image: Priti Patel. (Number 10/Flickr)

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 World Health Organization (WHO) on Friday held an emergency meeting to discuss the outbreak of monkeypox after more than 100 cases were reported across 12 countries.

Days before the WHO convened, the Biden administration placed a $119 million order for monkeypox vaccines after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed six people in the U.S. were being monitored for the viral infection, and one person had tested positive.

Belgium on Sunday became the first country to introduce a compulsory 21-day quarantine for monkeypox patients after reporting four cases of the disease in the last week, Politico reported.

The 100 newly reported cases, or suspected cases, garnered attention because many of them do not appear to be linked to travel to Africa, where in some regions, monkeypox is endemic.

Cases were reported in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. No deaths are reported as of yet.

The number of identified cases in Europe is a record, described by Germany’s armed forces medical services as “the largest and most widespread outbreak … ever seen in Europe,” while its spread in the U.K. was described as “unprecedented.”

U.K. public health officials warned more monkeypox cases are being detected “on a daily basis” and that there “could be really significant numbers over the next two or three weeks,” though they did not specify what “numbers” would be considered “really significant.”

The manner in which monkeypox may have spread — through sexual health services and sexual contact between men — also may have helped to heap attention on this new outbreak.

Many of the recent cases were traced to two “superspreader” events that involved situations in which men came into close physical contact, including 30 monkeypox cases in Spain traced to a single adult sauna in Madrid.

Monkeypox cases reported in Belgium appear to be connected to a recent gay “fetish festival.”

For some, these developments may bring to mind the early onset of HIV, which at the time was connected to sexual contact among males, and to remarks by Dr. Anthony Fauci that he visited gay saunas and bars during the early years of the HIV outbreak to understand how the virus was spreading.

WHO Europe regional director Hans Kluge last week expressed concerns about transmission at “mass gatherings, festivals, and parties.”

However, other public health professionals said there is a low risk to the public and a low likelihood that the epidemic will last long.

Meanwhile, questions are popping up about the similarity between a March 2021 tabletop “simulation” of a monkeypox outbreak and a similar simulation in 2019 — Event 201 — which correctly “predicted” the COVID-19 pandemic

Monkeypox — what is it?

Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 in monkeys, although they are not the source of the virus. It was first identified in humans in 1970.

The virus is particularly prevalent in Central and West Africa and is considered a rare zoonotic disease, which means that it is caused by germs that spread between animals and people.

Monkeypox typically is spread by wild animals, such as in instances when a human is bitten or comes into contact with animal blood or bodily fluids. However, human-to-human transmission, while rare, is possible.

The virus is known to enter the human body through broken skin, the respiratory tract, or the eyes, nose or mouth, for instance through large respiratory droplets or through contact — including sexual contact — with bodily fluids or lesions, or indirectly through contaminated clothing or linens.

However, “common household disinfectants can kill it.”

A prior outbreak — the first to occur outside of the African continent — occurred in the U.S. in 2003, linked to animals shipped to Texas from Ghana.

And in July 2021, monkeypox was confirmed in a Texas individual who had returned to Dallas from Nigeria, according to the CDC.

Symptoms of monkeypox infection tend to be mild, and include fever, rash and swollen lymph nodes, and occasionally intense headache, back pain, muscle aches, lack of energy and skin eruptions which can cause painful lesions, scabs or crusts.

There are two strains of monkeypox: the West African and Central African strains. The latter is known as the deadlier of the two, but the cases identified in the recent outbreak all appear to have been caused by the milder West African strain.

Did March 2021 ‘pandemic exercise’ predict monkeypox outbreak?

In October 2019, just weeks before the outbreak of COVID-19, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, along with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, organized “Event 201,” a “high-level pandemic exercise” that mirrored what later followed with COVID-19 pandemic.

In March 2021, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), in conjunction with the Munich Security Conference, held a “tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats.”

This “fictional exercise scenario” involved the simulation of “a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that first emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months.”

According to NTI, this exercise, which was “[d]eveloped in consultation with technical and policy experts,” brought together “19 senior leaders and experts from across Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe with decades of combined experience in public health, biotechnology industry, international security, and philanthropy.”

The exercise culminated in a report, published November 2021, titled “Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats: Results from the 2021 Tabletop Exercise Conducted in Partnership with the Munich Security Conference.”

This report contains key findings from the exercise, as well as “actionable recommendations for the international community.”

The outcome of this “exercise scenario” found the fictional pandemic, “caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight,” led to “more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.”

The fictional start date of the monkeypox pandemic in this exercise was May 15, 2022. The first European case of monkeypox was identified on May 7, 2022.

Key findings from the report included:

  • The “need” for “a more robust, transparent detection, evaluation, and early warning system that can rapidly communicate actionable information about pandemic risks.”
  • “Gaps in national-level preparedness,” which will require national governments to “improve preparedness by developing national-level pandemic response plans built upon a coherent system of ‘triggers’ that prompt anticipatory action, despite uncertainty and near-term costs,” described as a “no-regrets” policymaking basis.
  • “Gaps in biological research governance” in order to “meet today’s security requirements” and be “ready for significantly expanded challenges in the future.”
  • “Insufficient financing of international preparedness for pandemics,” and a lack of financing for countries to “make the essential national investments in pandemic preparedness.”

Key recommendations included:

  • Bolstering international systems “for pandemic risk assessment, warning, and investigating outbreak origins,” calling upon the WHO to “establish a graded, transparent, international public health alert system” and the United Nations system to “establish a new mechanism for investigating high-consequence biological events of unknown origin.”
  • The development and implementation of “national-level triggers for early, proactive pandemic response,” including the adaptation of the “no-regrets” approach to responding to pandemics via “anticipatory action” based on “triggers” that would automatically generate a response to “high-consequence biological events.”
  • The establishment of “an international entity dedicated to reducing emerging biological risks associated with rapid technology advances,” that would “support interventions throughout the bioscience and biotechnology research and development life cycle — from funding, through execution, and on to publication or commercialization.”
  • The development of “a catalytic global health security fund to accelerate pandemic preparedness capacity building in countries around the world,” which would include “[n]ational leaders, development banks, philanthropic donors, and the private sector” with the aim of establishing and funding “a new financing mechanism to bolster global health security and pandemic preparedness” and that would incentivize “national governments to invest in their own preparedness over the long term.”
  • The establishment of “a robust international process to tackle the challenge of supply chain resilience,” based on a “high-level panel’ that would be convened by the UN secretary-general “to develop recommendations for critical measures to bolster global supply chain resilience for medical and public health supplies.”

The above recommendations were borne out in practice during the simulated monkeypox pandemic scenario.

As stated in the report:

“In national pandemic response plans, specific readiness measures would be ‘triggered’ based on factors related to the potential severity of the outbreak, expected delays in situational awareness, and the time it would take to implement response measures and see results.”

What would be “triggered” bears a remarkable similarity to the COVID-19-related measures of the past two-plus years.

The report states:

“Although triggered actions would vary depending upon the particular needs of the country, in most cases the goals are the same: slow the spread of disease to buy time and flatten the epidemiological curve, while using that time to scale up public health and medical systems to keep up with growing caseloads and save lives.

“NPIs [non-pharmaceutical interventions] such as mask mandates and ceasing mass gatherings were deemed to be critical for blocking chains of disease transmission.

“Participants generally did not endorse travel restrictions such as border closures, but travel health screening measures [i.e., vaccine passports] were viewed as valuable.”

According to the results of the simulated scenario, the fictional countries that “prioritized keeping their economies open, undertaking little-to-no NPIs, and downplaying the virus and its potential impacts … have experienced much worse outcomes in terms of illness and mortality” than those fictional countries that “promptly adopted aggressive measures to slow virus transmission,” such as “shutting down mass gatherings, imposing social-distancing measures, and implementing mask mandates,” in addition to establishing “large-scale testing and contact-tracing operations.”

Gates Foundation, pharma execs, WHO participated in monkeypox pandemic simulation

Who took part in the NTI’s monkeypox pandemic simulation?

Key participants included:

  • Dr. Ruxandra Draghia-Akli, global head of Johnson & Johnson Global Public Health R&D and Janssen Research & Development.
  • Dr. Chris Elias, president of the global development division of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
  • Dr. George Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (the Chinese CDC).
  • Dr. Margaret (Peggy) A. Hamburg, interim vice president for global biological policy and programs at NTI, a member of the global health scientific advisory committee for the Gates Foundation and a member of the board of GAVI-The Vaccine Alliance.
  • Sam Nunn, a former U.S. senator who is the founder and co-chair of NTI.
  • Dr. Michael Ryan, executive director of the WHO Health Emergencies Program and a highly visible figure during COVID-19 times.
  • Dr. Petra Wicklandt, head of corporate affairs for Merck.

Several of the participants listed above also “participated” in Event 201.

The authors of the report also stand out for their background.

For example, Dr. Jaime M. Yassif, vice president of NTI global biological policy and programs, holds a Ph.D. in biophysics from the University of California-Berkeley and a master’s degree in science and security from the King’s College, London, war studies department.

Yassif previously led the initiative on biosecurity and pandemic preparedness at the Open Philanthropy Project, including the management of nearly $40 million in biosecurity grants, the “initiation of new biosecurity work in China and India,” and “establishment of the Global Health Security Index.”

She also previously advised the U.S. Department of Defense on science and technology policy and worked on the Global Health Security Agenda at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Co-author Chris Isaac, program officer for NTI’s Global Biological Policy and Programs team, “has been involved with synthetic biology through the Internationally Genetically Engineered Machines Competition since the start of his scientific career” and “is an alumnus of the Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Fellowship at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.”

The report is the product of a partnership between NTI, co-founded by Nunn and Ted Turner, and the Munich Security Conference.

Both NTI ($3.5 million, for “vaccine development”) and the Munich Security conference ($1.2 million) received funding from the Gates Foundation.

The report itself was funded by the Open Philanthropy project, one of whose main funders is Dustin Moscovitz, co-founder of Facebook along with Mark Zuckerberg.

Open Philanthropy, over the past decade, has provided donations and grants to the following entities and for the following purposes:

  • $166.9 million for “global health.”
  • $90.2 million for “biosecurity and pandemic preparedness.”
  • $18 million for “global catastrophic risks.”
  • $40.2 to Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
  • $17.9 to NTI.
  • $2.2 to The Guardian.
  • $1.6 to Rockefeller University.

Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at center of multiple tabletop exercises

NTI and the Munich Security Conference are not new to “tabletop exercises” — their report highlights previous simulations, including a 2019 report titled “A Spreading Plague,” and a 2020 report titled “Preventing Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.”

Other simulations in the recent past, in addition to Event 201, include:

  • Operation Dark Winter (June 2001, less than three months before the 9/11 attacks and subsequent anthrax scare, “examining the national security, intergovernmental, and information challenges of a biological attack on the American homeland”).
  • Operation Atlantic Storm (January 2005, “designed to mimic a summit of transatlantic leaders forced to respond to a bioterrorist attack”).
  • The Clade X exercise (May 2018, “to illustrate high-level strategic decisions and policies that the United States and the world will need to pursue in order to prevent a pandemic or diminish its consequences should prevention fail”). Yassif helped develop the Clade X exercise.

The common denominator among all of these simulations? The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which published a document titled “The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028,” comprising “a futuristic scenario that illustrates communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures (MCMs) that could plausibly emerge in the not-so-distant future.”

Predictions for the future don’t end there, however. For instance, in September 2017, NTI and the WEF organized a roundtable discussion on the current state of biological risks presented by technology advancement in light of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

And in January 2020, NTI and the WEF again joined forces, issuing a report titled “Biosecurity Innovation and Risk Reduction: A Global Framework for Accessible, Safe and Secure DNA Synthesis.”

According to the report:

“Rapid advancements in commercially available DNA synthesis technologies — used for example to artificially create gene sequences for clinical diagnosis and treatment — pose growing risks, with the potential to cause a catastrophic biological security threat if accidentally or deliberately misused.”

Merck, whose head of corporate affairs participated in the monkeypox simulation, was the subject of an FBI and CDC investigation in November 2021 regarding 15 suspicious vials labeled “smallpox” at a Merck facility in Philadelphia.

Bill Gates no stranger to predicting the future

Bill Gates has himself been remarkably prescient with his predictions of future events.

Here are some of Gates’ predictions:

  • In a November 2015 TED talk, he stated “[i]f anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s most likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war. Not missiles, but microbes.”
  • In a 2017 speech at that year’s Munich Security Conference, he said “the next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus,” arguing in favor of the merger of “health security” and “international security.”
  • In May 2021, Gates said “[s]omebody who wants to cause damage could engineer a virus so that the cost, the chance of running into this is more than that of naturally-caused epidemics such as the current one … [t]he ways the humans interact with other species, these viruses are coming across the species barriers whether it’s bats or monkeys.”
  • In November 2021, Gates publicly pondered, “[y]ou say, OK, what if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports? You know, how would the world respond to that? There’s naturally-caused epidemics and bioterrorism-caused epidemics that could even be way worse than what we experienced today.”
  • In February 2022, Gates warned that the next pandemic “… won’t necessarily be a coronavirus or even the flu. It is likely to be a respiratory virus. Because, with all the human travel we have now, that’s the one that can spread in such a rapid way,” emphasizing the significance of providing sufficient funds to the private sector and academia to build better vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.
  • Earlier this month, Gates called for the development of a so-called “Global Epidemic Response and Mobilization” (GERM) initiative, stating that present WHO funding was “not at all serious about pandemics” and that $1 billion a year would be needed to operate this initiative.
  • Also this month, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced “a new financial commitment of up to US$125 million to help end the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for future pandemics,” with much of the money going toward “strengthening health systems in low-income countries, enhancing integrated disease monitoring, expanding access to pandemic tools, and helping countries manage COVID-19 alongside other pressing health needs.”
  • In his new book, “How to Prevent the Next Pandemic,” Gates argues that, despite COVID fatigue, the world must focus on preparing for future pandemics, regardless of whether a disease is circulating.

*

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

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As Monkeypox Cases Spread, Report Shows Gates Foundation, WHO, Pharma Execs Took Part in Monkeypox Pandemic ‘Simulation’
  • Tags: , , ,

Another Orchestrated Health Crisis in the Works? Smallpox Vaccine to Protect against Monkeypox

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 23, 2022

The corrupt public health officials in the Western world, who are shills for Big Pharma as they share in the profits of the drugs that they approve, are about to inflict on humanity a worst castrophe than the Covid vaccine. 

How Many People Have Been Killed by the COVID Vaccine?

By Josh Mitteldorf, May 23, 2022

Several scholars and statisticians have used different methods to estimate how many Americans the vaccines have killed. I took a stab at it myself. Credible results fall in the range 250,000 to 500,000 people killed promptly by the vaccines, about ¼ to ½ the number that the COVID virus has reportedly killed.

Over 100 Monkeypox Infections Detected in 10 Countries as Unprecedented Outbreak Spreads Globally

By Evan Blake and Benjamin Mateus, May 23, 2022

Much remains unknown about what is causing the outbreak, which is the most geographically dispersed and rapidly spreading monkeypox outbreak since the virus was first discovered in 1958. In the coming days and weeks, more data and scientific understanding will emerge, but already there is profound concern within the scientific community and among the public, which has found wide expression on social media.

The U.S. Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

By James A. Lucas, May 23, 2022

The largest WWII casualties  were China and the Soviet Union, 26 million in the Soviet Union,  China estimates its losses at approximately 20 million deaths. Ironically, these two countries (allies of the US during WWII) which lost a large share of their population during WWII are now under the Biden-Harris administration categorized as “enemies of America”, which are threatening the Western World.

History of Ukraine’s Nazi Connection

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, May 23, 2022

Britain’s parliamentary warlords have to date gladly provided £2.1 Billion to fund the Ukrainian war effort rather than budgeting to fix the UK’s gutted NHS, declining educational system, historic poverty or ever-increasing homeless population. With the deplorable state of the UK in mind, why does the British public continue to ignore this national decline in favour of Ukraine’s factual allegiance to neo-Nazism?

The History They Don’t Teach You in School: America and Russia Have a Long History of Collaboration

By Nancy Spannaus, May 23, 2022

History shows that, from the period of America’s independence struggle to the time of President John F. Kennedy, American statesmen sought and achieved alliances with Russia (including in the Soviet period) in their common interest. In each case these statesmen were leading representatives of the American System of political economy.

Globalization and Rampant Racism

By Jim Miles, May 23, 2022

Words are important.  Using the word ‘rampant’ in the title gives the real image of racism:  not some narrow right wing ethos that surfaces occasionally into violence, but something that is “violent or extravagant in action or opinion, arrant, aggressive, unchecked, prevailing.” (Oxford English dictionary). All wars and significant amounts of domestic violence throughout the world can be accurately viewed through the perspective of racism, racism prevails.

How to Mitigate the Infant Formula Disaster

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 23, 2022

Skyrocketing prices and food shortages are already looming, and are likely to become worse in the coming months. At present, many parents across the U.S. are running from store to store in search of baby formula and finding only empty shelves. How did this happen?

Dr. McCullough: ‘Medical Crisis’ Is Being Exploited to Push Global Government

By Emily Mangiaracina, May 23, 2022

Since the early stages of COVID-19, McCullough has spoken regularly about the dangers of the COVID shots, and about the suppression of effective early treatment for COVID. However, he has been mostly tight-lipped on the reasons behind the seemingly ubiquitous push for dangerous jabs, and suppression of effective treatment.

The Anatomy of Inflation

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, May 23, 2022

In my latest Alternative Visions radio show I break down the various causes of US inflation and its evolution from the summer of 2021 when it emerged to the present (and coming months). False narratives by US politicians–inflation due to too much government relief spending in March 2021, due to ‘Putin’s war, or due to US households’ flush with savings and cash–are exposed for the economic ideology they represent.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Another Orchestrated Health Crisis in the Works? Smallpox Vaccine to Protect Against Monkeypox

How Many People Have Been Killed by the Covid Vaccine?

May 23rd, 2022 by Josh Mitteldorf

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 science-based world, in the world we all want to live in, this question would be answered directly by institutions and agencies eager to collect safety information on a new medical technology, even as it was being rushed to market. But this is not our world, and in reality we have to glean bits of information from diverse sources and try to compare their implications to converge on a consensus view.

Several scholars and statisticians have used different methods to estimate how many Americans the vaccines have killed. I took a stab at it myself. Credible results fall in the range 250,000 to 500,000 people killed promptly by the vaccines, about ¼ to ½ the number that the COVID virus has reportedly killed. 

This includes only people who die within a few days or sometimes weeks after vaccination. Long-term health effects from the vaccines are thought to be predominantly detrimental, but difficult to quantify because they are just beginning to become apparent.

Medical journals that are worse than useless

Such is the captured state of our most prestigious medical journals that this article appeared in Britain’s “best” medical journal last month. The message they want to propagate is that “most reactions were mild”. MedPageToday summarized the Lancet study with the headline, “6 Months of U.S. Data Support Safety of mRNA COVID Vaccines” — a statement that goes well beyond the (distorted) claims in the Lancet, as covered by the Children’s Health Defender here.

“Most reactions were mild?” Well, yes, that’s true in the sense that there were a whole lot more headaches than deaths, and more sore arms even than headaches. But look at the absolute numbers! Deaths from the COVID vaccine have been 90 times higher than the previous most deadly vaccine in history, Shingrix.

This practice of looking only at the ratios of different kinds of vaccine injuries and not the crucial issue of absolute rates was introduced into the FDA protocol just last year, undoubtedly because the mRNA vaccines could never have been approved if absolute rates of injury were considered.

A measure called PRR = proportional reporting ratio is a complicated statistical algorithm that effectively makes most readers’ eyes glaze over. But Matthew Crawfordis not most readers, and he pointed out last summer that PRR had this diabolical property that the absolute number of injuries appears in both the numerator and the denominator, so that PRR is completely insensitive to the actual rate of injuries caused by the vaccine.

Long-term harm — no data yet

Here, I focus only on the short-term risk of death from the vaccines.

There is good reason to suspect that the mRNA vaccines have detrimental effects on the immune system and, in some cases, on the heart, the nervous system, and the reproductive system. Seneff and McCullough (with other experts) analyzed mechanisms of immune suppression from the vaccines, with potential long-term consequences for cancer, infectious disease, and other aspects of health.

Another recent publication documents that the RNA from the vaccines can be reverse-transcribed, with potential to become a permanent part of a person’s DNA. The implication of these findings is that some vaccinated patients may continue to generate spike protein for the rest of their lives, and that there is a possibility their offspring might also carry genes for the spike protein.

Sen Ron Johnson and attorney Tom Renz have obtained statistics from the US Medical Military Epidemiological Database.

Figures for 2021 show large increases in several types of cancer, MS, inflammation of the heart, and a variety of chronic diseases. This has large but yet unmeasured implications for long-term health of the vaccinated.

Renz also announced last year that an anonymous whistleblower within CDC had leaked to him unpublished data from Medicare and Medicaid patients. Among this group (about 60 million people), there were 48,465 deaths within 2 weeks of vaccination. These were concentrated among the elderly, but the rate was far above background death rates for all age groups.

Actual data from people vaccinated more than a year ago is just beginning to be available, and there is no substitute for compiling symptoms and statistics in the real world.

Nevertheless, I don’t hesitate to say that it was the height of irresponsibility for Pfizer and Moderna and FDA to have distributed mRNA vaccines to billions of human experimental subjects without even considering the question how long the spike protein remains active in the minority of cases where the mRNA is not efficiently eliminated and whether the RNA can reverse-transcribe to become a permanent part of a person’s genome, and the FDA stepped far outside its role as watchdog and protector in the health marketplace when it authorized (then approved) COVID vaccines with no data on long-term health effects.

Pfizer’s data

The FDA originally asked to withhold, for up to 75 years, Pfizer’s data, submitted to them in support of approval of their vaccine. But now some of this data is being released over about a year. This first data dump reports 1,223 deaths worldwide following vaccination through February 28, and suggests that about ⅓ of them are in the US. Based on 38.4 million US Pfizer vaccinations during this time period (CDC data), Pfizer’s own figures suggest a prompt fatality rate of 10 per million vaccination doses.

That would scale to about 6,000 American vaccine deaths today, assuming the rate remained constant, based on 558 million vaccine doses delivered (according to CDC). This is much smaller than the number of deaths reported to date to VAERS (11,700 US) and VAERS is generally considered to be substantially under-reported — see below. Incidentally, CDC treats all these deaths as coincidence, and has acknowledged just nine deaths from COVID vaccines, none of them from Pfizer or Moderna.

Pfizer’s reported 1,223 deaths is almost certainly an undercount based on what we have seen from other sources. But for the FDA, it was an unprecedented level of risk. For example, when the swine flu vaccine was rushed out in 1976, the vaccine was pulled abruptly from the market after 53 people died. 53 deaths were enough to pull the plug on a vaccination program in 1976; but the Pfizer vaccine was authorized by FDA with 1,223 admitted deaths, and later approved after more than 10,000 deaths had been reported to VAERS.

VAERS

VAERS, the 30-year-old Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, though deeply flawed, may be the best resource we have. There have been 12,000 US deaths reported to VAERS following receipt of the COVID vaccines in 2021 and 2022. We know that reporting to VAERS is not only voluntary but cumbersome and that most harms from vaccines are never reported to VAERS.

So to get from 12,000 to the full number of deaths, we need to multiply by a compensatory “underreporting factor”, URF. For every reported death there are URF total deaths, reported and unreported. A Harvard Pilgrim Study in 2010 concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”, or URF>100, but we expect that a single URF is an oversimplification.

More serious injuries that begin immediately after vaccination are likely to be reported at a higher rate (lower URF) compared to milder injuries that become apparent only weeks or months after vaccination. Deaths are a special case — the most serious of “adverse events”, but no patient remains to report the issue. What is the URF for deaths?

In the past, CDC itself has estimated its underreporting factor. Here [2020], they come up with numbers from 1.5 to 8 for various conditions. No CDC estimate has been made since the mRNA vaccines appeared. There are credible charges that VAERS has deleted reports and that social and economic pressures are used to discourage reporting of COVID vaccine injuries in particular.

This article from Massachusetts General Hospital is limited to anaphylactic shock in response to the COVID vaccines. This is the most obvious and most immediate serious (life-threatening) side-effect of vaccination. The authors calculate an underreporting factor between 50 and 123.  Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford compute URF=41 based on this same MGH data and corresponding reports to VAERS.

Jessica Rose estimates the underreporting factor using Pfizer’s own data for the 15,000 subjects in their trial and comparing the rate of severe side-effects in Pfizer’s trial with the numbers subsequently reported to VAERS when the same vaccine was distributed to the public. She arrives at URF=31. 12,000 reported deaths for mRNA vaccines might then correspond to 370,000 actual vaccine deaths.

More ways to estimate the death toll from COVID vaccines

There are other methods we might use to estimate URF, the number of VAERS cases that go unreported for each one that is reported. One is to look at excess all-cause mortality from all causes in 2021 (when the vaccines were introduced), and compare it to 2020 and prior years; another is to look at data from other countries or whole-world data.

Mark Skidmore has taken a direct approach with a broad-based national survey.

A fourth approach, which I undertook myself, is based on data reported by life insurance companies indicating that death claims in the working-age population (18 – 65) were up.

Edward Dowd, a securities analyst, posted his analysis based solely on CDC all-cause mortality data that for millennials (age 25-40), all-cause mortality is up 84% during this year of vaccination compared to what would be expected based on recent previous years.

The percentage is larger for the young millennials because the baseline number is smaller. In other words, the expected death rate among 25-40 year olds is low, so vaccine injuries show up as a larger percentage, and the result is easier to see.

This is evidence that while COVID-19 kills mostly older people, roughly in proportion to their baseline demographic risk, the COVID-19 vaccines take a relatively greater toll on younger people. Older people have exponentially higher probabilities of dying of any cause, and the COVID virus mimics the natural background rate, killing older people far more often than younger people. The mRNA vaccines also kill older people more often than younger, but the probability is not so strongly skewed, so, compared to background rates, vaccine deaths in younger people scream from the rafters as a statistical anomaly.

Since the beginning of 2021, there have been a lot of “excess deaths” (more than in previous years), and the numbers are too glaring to hide. Of course, the mainstream press is not even asking the obvious question, “could these be connected to the COVID jabs?” Everyone agrees the number of deaths is far in excess of what can be explained directly by the COVID virus.

The excess mortality for young people provides clear and compelling evidence for vaccine fatalities. We can extrapolate roughly from data pertaining to the young to the population as a whole using the VAERS database to estimate what portion of the deaths are in each age range. (In doing this, we assume that the URF does not depend on age, even though we know intuitively that it is far more likely that a VAERS report will be filed for a 40-year-old death than a 90-year-old death.)

Outright denial from the usual sources

This Lancet article, sponsored by the Gates Foundation, offers a model to help us understand the factors leading to excess deaths at various places in the world. They use statistical methods to select relevant variables, but, as you might guess, some salient variables like “vaccination rate”, “lockdowns”, and “use of ivermectin” were not under consideration.

The article finds that in addition to 6 million people who died of COVID-19 in two years of the pandemic, there were 12 million excess deaths that could not be traced directly to the virus. Their estimate of 18 million worldwide excess deaths agrees pretty well with The Economist’s model, described below, which centered on 20 million, with wide margins.

This is a list of the variables considered by the Lancet/Gates study for explanation of the increase in all-cause mortality.

This kind of study is called a “multivariate regression”. A list of possible causes is first postulated, each of which is correlated with the outcome, and with each other. The statistical procedure then tells you quantitatively what percentage of the outcome is explained by each of the candidate causes.

In this case, the outcome is the difference between the death rate in 2020-2021 and death rate before 2020. The fact that billions of doses of an experimental vaccine were delivered to half the world population during 2021 and not at time before stands out as the elephant in the room, but assessing vaccine risk was not on the agenda of this list of authors.

The list of candidate causes that they came up with is implausible because none of these factors changed between 2020 and 2021, and the most dramatic increase in all-cause mortality occurred in 2021. I assume that mass vaccination with a hastily-tested experimental technology is the most plausible candidate for the 2021 increase in deaths.

Skidmore survey

Prof Mark Skidmore is the same man who uncovered $21 trillion [sic] missing from Pentagon accounting three years ago.

Late last year, he conducted a modest survey of just 3,000 people, designed to be a representative sample of Americans. Results were published here. Skidmore was recently interviewed on Rumble.

He asked subjects about family members and people who died of COVID-19 and in parallel asked about people in the same group who died of the COVID-19 vaccine. He found 55 people who reported a fatality from inoculations compared to 150 people who reported a fatality from COVID-19.

The implication is that COVID vaccines have killed 37% as many people as the COVID virus. (Because of the small sample size, the percentage could be as low as 26% or as high as 47%.) An additional, more contingent, step in the calculation is to then calculate 37% of government estimates of COVID fatalities nationwide (996,000) to conclude that 365,000 Americans have died (promptly) from the COVID vaccinations. Skidmore himself hedges this extrapolation, and suggests the number is 294,000 for calendar 2021.

Deaths from all causes are up in 2021, far beyond the highs of 2020

Several research articles have been written based on research from The Economist. Their modelers brought together real world data and projections to come up with the best estimate they could of the number of excess deaths during the pandemic—those due to the virus, and those due to other causes, principally the responses to the pandemic. They estimate (with wide margins of error) 20 million excess deaths over 2 years, with only 6 million caused by the virus directly.

You can see that only 6 million of the excess deaths occurred in 2020, and 14 million in 2021. The virus was with us in both years, and the worst of the lockdowns and economic hardship was in 2020. The thing that distinguishes 2021 is that 11 billion doses of an experimental vaccine were administered to 58% of the world’s population.

1.9 million people died of COVID worldwide in 2020, and 4.0 million in 2021. This accounts for 2.1 million of the 8 million difference. If w attribute the remaining 5.9 million difference between 2021 and 2020 to vaccines, we can divide by 11 billion doses to get a mortality risk per vaccination = 0.053%. This translates to just over 300,000 US deaths, based on 577 million US doses. (This is my own calculation, unpublished and unsourced.)

Of course, there were other causes of excess deaths besides vaccines: deferred medical attention while hospital staffs were COVID-spooked, deaths caused indirectly by lockdowns and economic hardship, suicides, overdoses, and deaths from addiction while people were isolated and depressed. I don’t subtract these from the calculation above because I presume they were present about equally in 2020 and 2021. There were already 6 million excess deaths in 2020 which included both direct COVID deaths and deaths caused by the COVID response. An important assumption in this calculation is that in subtracting 14 million 2021 excess deaths minus 6 million 2020 excess deaths = 8 million “excess excess deaths”, I presume to have accounted for everything except the vaccine deaths. To the extent this is not true, this calculation of vaccine risk is an overestimate.

“Life insurance CEO claims deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”

This is a huge spike, by historic standards. Life insurance statisticians estimated a 1 in 1,000 chance that the number would fluctuate by as much as 10%. Since 1950, the year-over-year death rate in the US has never before varied by more than 1%. Clearly, something dramatic happened in the third quarter of 2021.

I have taken this headline (“Life insurance CEO claims deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”) and translated into a very rough estimate of the absolute number of deaths.

The result I got was that a dose of one of the vaccines has a probability 0.036% of being lethal for the 18-64 age group. This translates to 201,000 Americans killed by the vaccines. This number is lower than most of the estimates above, probably because I have made a straight-line extrapolation from the employed and healthy 18-64 age group to the population as a whole. In fact, the probability of dying from the vaccine is greater for the elderly and people who are too sick to work.

Details of the calculation are at the end of this article.

The bottom line

We can say with some confidence that several hundred thousand Americans have been killed promptly by the COVID vaccines, and that long-term effects are yet to be counted. Even though we cannot pin the number down more exactly, we have confidence in the magnitude because so many independent calculations roughly agree. The magnitude of COVID vaccine deaths, even at the low end of our estimate, is unprecedented in American medical history, and it screams out for a change in course.

Details of my calculation based on 40% increase in Life Insurance claims

To compute the expected number of deaths among 18-64 year olds for a calendar quarter, I started with two demographic tables. One was the number of Americans in each 5-year age cohort — 20-24, 25-29…. etc, from Statista.com. The other was a life expectancy table from the Social Security Administration which lists the probability of a person age x dying before he or she reaches age x+1. Both these tables were divided M/F.

To make the two tables compatible, I averaged the one-year probability of death in 5-year aggregates. Then, I multiplied each 5-year average by the number of people in the age group, added M+F to get the total number of expected deaths in a year. I divided by 4 to get the number of deaths in a quarter = 174,000. 40% of that number is 69,500. This is the increase in all-cause mortality (in ages 18-64) reported by the insurance executives.

To extrapolate from 18-64 year olds to the population as a whole, we can use the VAERS data, reported by age, and summarized in the histogram (bar chart) above. From that chart, it appears that about 26% of the VAERS deaths are in the 18-64 age group. If 69,500 deaths is 26% of the whole, then the number of excess deaths in the entire population is 267,000. This is just the deaths in the third quarter. There were 66 million doses distributed in the third quarter. So if we attributed all these excess deaths to vaccines, this calculation would lead to an implausibly high risk of death: 267,000 / 66,400,000 = 0.40%, equivalent to over 2 million vaccine deaths for the whole country, all dates. This tells us that either the claim by insurance executives (40% excess mortality in the working age population) is exaggerated, or not all of these deaths follow promptly on vaccination. I also suspect that the vaccines are damaging immune systems, so that there are delayed deaths of people vaccinated months earlier. Some of the excess deaths in the third quarter are indeed vaccine deaths, but they come from vaccinations in the first and second quarters. The long-term effects of mRNA vaccines represent a frontier in our knowledge that we are just opening.

The population that the life insurance executives were attending to were predominantly people who worked for large employers, because it is those employers who bought group life insurance policies. According to President Biden’s mandate, these people would have all been vaccinated in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2021 in order to keep their jobs. I assumed one vaccination per individual in the life insurance group during the 3rd quarter. So the number of doses is presumed equal to the 18-64 population, which was 193 million. Dividing 69,500 deaths by 193 million doses, I calculated the probability that a vaccine dose is lethal = 0.036% in this age group.

A straight extrapolation to the whole US population (558 million doses) suggests that 201,000 Americans have died from the COVID injections. This doesn’t take into account the fact that the vaccine is more likely to kill elderly people than the 18-64 age group for which we have data.

*

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

This article was originally published on Unauthorized Science.

Featured image is from The Conservative Woman

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.

***

An unprecedented outbreak of monkeypox virus has officially spread to 10 countries outside of Africa, with 107 confirmed or suspected cases reported as of this writing, in the United Kingdom (9 cases), Portugal (34), Spain (32), France (1), Belgium (2), Sweden (1), Italy (3), Canada (22), the United States (2), and Australia (1).

Much remains unknown about what is causing the outbreak, which is the most geographically dispersed and rapidly spreading monkeypox outbreak since the virus was first discovered in 1958. In the coming days and weeks, more data and scientific understanding will emerge, but already there is profound concern within the scientific community and among the public, which has found wide expression on social media.

In preliminary posts, scientists speculate that the virus, which is endemic in parts of Africa, could have evolved to become more contagious and better suited to human-to-human transmission. In addition, nearly all people under 42 years old have not received a smallpox vaccine (which is 85 percent effective at preventing monkeypox infection) since smallpox was eradicated in 1980. As a result, they have no immunity, and younger adults can be infected as easily as children. Since 2017, annual monkeypox cases have been steadily rising in Africa.

The fact that this monkeypox outbreak takes place amid the deepening COVID-19 pandemic has caused unease among a growing number of people, particularly those who have been alerted to threats to public health by the COVID pandemic. Over the past two years, the criminal negligence and policies of deliberate mass infection by the majority of world governments have needlessly killed over 20 million people worldwide. If capitalist society has disastrously failed to stop the preventable spread of COVID-19, what will transpire in the coming weeks and months with new or previously rare infections?

Since the peak of the global Omicron BA.1 surge in January, nearly every government outside China has scrapped all mitigation measures to slow the spread of COVID-19, falsely claiming that the virus has become “endemic.”

In the US, the Biden administration is presently doing nothing to stop the growing surge of the highly infectious Omicron BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 subvariants, which have once again driven the 7-day average of daily new cases above 100,000.

Due to the deliberate undermining of public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, world society is deeply unprepared for this latest infectious disease outbreak, which could potentially develop into another parallel global pandemic.

On May 13, the World Health Organization (WHO) was first notified of two confirmed and one probable case of monkeypox in the same household in the UK. A British citizen who traveled to Nigeria developed a classic monkeypox rash on April 29, and subsequently returned to the UK on May 4, is considered a likely index case. Upon his return, he was immediately isolated and contact tracing identified chains of transmission, though health authorities indicated that onward risk of infections from this case is minimal. The source of infection in Nigeria has not been determined.

Regarding the UK cases, the WHO has stated,

“In contrast to sporadic cases with travel links to endemic countries, no source of infection has been confirmed yet. Based on currently available information, infection seems to have been locally acquired in the United Kingdom.”

The emergence of multiple cases across different countries is deeply problematic. Dr. Jennifer McQuiston, the Deputy Director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) division of high consequences pathogens and pathology, told STAT News,

“Given that we have seen now confirmed cases out of Portugal, suspected cases out of Spain, we’re seeing this expansion of confirmed and suspect cases globally, we have a sense that no one has their arms around this to know how large and expansive it might be. And given how much travel there is between the United States and Europe, I am very confident we’re going to see cases in the United States.”

Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, added his concerns, stating,

“There could be dynamic transmission here that we just haven’t appreciated because of the potential number of contacts.”

In nearly every public statement by epidemiologists, they have all admitted to being bewildered by how entrenched the virus already is in communities, given that it is normally extremely rare. Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told STAT News,

“this is starting off with much more of a foothold, in a much more distributed way, and we don’t understand how it got into those networks.”

The monkeypox virus was first identified by Danish virologist Preben von Magnus in 1958 from crab-eating macaque monkeys used as laboratory animals, hence the name of the disease and the virus that causes it. Unlike the single-stranded RNA-based SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, the monkeypox virus is a double-stranded DNA zoonotic virus, one of the human orthopoxyviruses that includes the variola virus which causes smallpox.

The incubation period lasts about one to two weeks and symptoms of overt infection begin with fever, headache, fatigue, muscle aches and swollen glands. After a few days of high fever, distinct lesions appear, first on the face before spreading to other parts of the body. The lesions begin flat, then raise, containing fluid and pus. The lesions then scab over and can leave scars. The course of illness usually takes two to four weeks.

According to the WHO, human-to-human transmission is normally limited, requiring close contact with respiratory secretions or skin lesions of an infected person or recently contaminated objects. Saliva and respiratory droplet transmission are possible, placing health care workers and their family members at risk of infection. Some studies have shown that monkeypox could potentially be airborne, similar to SARS-CoV-2, although this has not been definitively proven.

Asymptomatic transmission is theoretically possible. Patients with monkeypox can suffer from secondary infections, respiratory distress, gastrointestinal disturbances, vision problems, and brain inflammation. Treatment is supportive.

The number of severe side-effects of the smallpox vaccine makes its use in a mass vaccination campaign problematic. However, due to the long incubation period for monkeypox, the smallpox vaccine can work as a post-exposure prophylaxis in a “ring vaccination” model.

Monkeypox is endemic to Central and West Africa and found mainly in the rainforest regions. There are two natural groups of viruses split into clades (groups with common ancestry) from the Congo Basin and West Africa. The first human transmission was reported in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC, then known as Zaire) in a nine-year-old boy in a region where smallpox had been eliminated two years earlier.

Since its emergence in human populations, monkeypox outbreaks have been primarily limited to the African continent. In a World Health Organization (WHO) surveillance between 1981 and 1986 in the DRC, 338 confirmed cases and 33 deaths gave the Congo Basic clade a case fatality ratio of roughly 10 percent, similar to SARS-CoV-1. The clade that has caused the current outbreak in Europe and North America is the milder West African clade, with a fatality rate comparable to SARS-CoV-2.

The first monkeypox outbreak outside Africa occurred in the Midwest of the US in the spring of 2003. The zoonotic source was pet prairie dogs that had been infected by African rodents brought in from Ghana. Since then, there have been more frequent reports of cases across the globe.

An outbreak in Nigeria that started in 2017 has been ongoing. The UK reported its first case of monkeypox in September of 2018 from a Nigerian national, and three additional cases were identified that winter. In May 2019, a middle-aged man traveling from Nigeria was hospitalized with monkeypox in Singapore.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, three cases in a UK household with connection to Nigeria were identified on May 24, 2021. On July 16, 2021, an American traveling from Nigeria was hospitalized.

A report published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases in April 2021, by Dr. Raina MacIntyre of the Kirby Institute in New South Wales, Australia, detailed the emergence of monkeypox in Nigeria, noting, “[t]he effect of a decline in individual-level immunity among vaccinated persons, as well as population growth in the [smallpox] postvaccination era, has substantially reduced the overall population immunity level within the past 45 years.”

Critical to the current global outbreak of monkeypox was the ending of the mass vaccination program for smallpox after it was eradicated in 1980, leaving the youngest in the population susceptible to monkeypox.

MacIntyre et al. wrote, “This contemporary susceptible population is composed mainly of working adults who maintain wider social contact and are more likely to engage in activities that include risk of animal exposures, such as hunting, farming, or trading bush meat. In addition, the expanding unvaccinated population means that entire households are now susceptible to monkeypox instead of just children, which enhances the risk of human-to-human transmission. In fact, the index case in 2017 was part of a five-member family cluster of cases.”

These observations for the Nigerian population are just as applicable to the global population. In a world deeply interconnected by travel and commerce, local outbreaks in one country are no longer isolated events.

As with COVID-19, the emergence of monkeypox and the lack of any internationally coordinated response by health authorities to address the crisis speaks to a much broader decay of public health precautions under the impact of the deepening crisis of capitalism.

The past two years of the COVID-19 pandemic and the deepening propaganda campaign that workers must “learn to live the virus” underscores the inability of capitalism to protect the lives and livelihood of the world’s population against any such threat.

It is both possible and necessary to eliminate monkeypox, SARS-CoV-2 and myriad other infectious diseases worldwide, but this will only happen through the development of a mass revolutionary movement of the international working class, the overthrow of capitalism, and the building of a world socialist society which prioritizes social needs over private profit.

*

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

Featured image: Close-up of monkeypox lesions on the arm and leg of a female child in Bondua, Grand Gedeh County, Liberia. http://phil.cdc.gov (CDC’s Public Health Image Library)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Over 100 Monkeypox Infections Detected in 10 Countries as Unprecedented Outbreak Spreads Globally
  • Tags:

History of Ukraine’s Nazi Connection

May 23rd, 2022 by Brett Redmayne-Titley

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 UK government is funding a Nazi regime in Ukraine rather than prioritizing its domestic national interests.

Britain’s parliamentary warlords have to date gladly provided £2.1 Billion to fund the Ukrainian war effort rather than budgeting to fix the UK’s gutted NHS, declining educational system, historic poverty or ever-increasing homeless population. With the deplorable state of the UK in mind, why does the British public continue to ignore this national decline in favour of Ukraine’s factual allegiance to neo-Nazism?

Answer: the lies of the British media.

It is high time to factually challenge the British media cover-up of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi connection by exposing the inconvenient truths regarding its allegiance to Nazi-inspired Ukrainian leader Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian Right Sector, and the Azov Battalion whose swastikas are steeped in the blood from the slaughter of 14,000 eastern Ukrainians.

 

 

The origin of the war in Ukraine and its propagation of neo-Nazism can be traced back to the 2014 Ukrainian “Orange Revolution” that saw America help overthrow the legitimately elected president Viktor Yanukovych and create the terror of Maidan Square. Months before, Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland had publicly stated that the US had spent US$5 Billion to support US-style democracy in Ukraine. When that “democracy” spiralled into predictable national violence much to the dismay of European leaders, Nuland famously stated, “Fuck the EU.” A three-word synopsis for US democratic diplomacy then and now.

Regionally and culturally Ukraine is divided East to West, on either side of the Dnieper River with the capital, Kyiv at the north end. Eastern Ukraine is primarily culturally Russian and has been for centuries. The 1939 Molotov/ Ribbentrop Pact divided Ukraine along new borders and today western Ukraine is far more aligned culturally and politically with western Europe and the US. For these reasons, western Ukraine has great animosity towards the East, hence the 2014 election was very close and violent.

Yanukovych was from the Donbas of far eastern Ukraine and until the 2014 election, the people of the city regions of Luhansk (LPR), Donetsk (DPR), and the Donbas had little to fear from the Ukrainian government. These regions are the important industrial, manufacturing and mining centres of Ukraine while the western half is far more agrarian. Regardless, east and west lived in relative harmony post-1939 until 2014. On Feb 20 that year pro-democracy snipers murdered in cold blood forty-nine innocent Ukrainians and four policemen in one night during the US-backed post-election protests against Yanukovych at Maidan Square.    

The murders- falsely blamed on Russia- had the intended effect of sending Ukraine into a tailspin of East vs. West anti-Russian ultra-violence. Yanukovych abandoned the presidency and went to Russia and the parliament installed Arseniy Yatsenyuk as temporary president until new elections brought to power Petro Poroshenko who was aligned with US interests and did nothing to restrict the growing influence of the neo-Nazi Right Sector or Azov Battalion.

Thus began the Ukraine war.

For the western media to cover up the neo-Nazi connection in Ukraine is the biggest lie of this war. I have recently returned from two months of reporting in and around Ukraine. Certainly, both sides are guilty of atrocity but I have seen a different kind of barbarity by the AFU that is beyond the pale of war because the AFU and the Avovs consider and treat all Ukrainian Russians, Jews and even peace advocates as vermin. They have given up all morality. I can bear witness to the killings of the innocent, the torture and killings of prisoners, the firing on civilian targets, the mining of the humanitarian corridors to prevent escape, and the execution of anyone who suggests peace much less negotiation, and I have seen the Swastikas and pro-Nazi tattoos scrawled on the hands, arms, necks and chests of the AFU killers.

This is evidenced by a Ukrainian politician, Andriy Parubiy. He has served as Deputy Speaker and Speaker of the Ukrainian parliament from 2014 to 2019, and Secretary of National Security and the Defence Council of Ukraine. Andriy Parubiy is a Nazi. He has proudly proclaimed this many times before his parliament, before the Ukrainian military and the public on TV.

V Nuland and A. Parubiy

Parubiy at the House of Commons, Canada

When Poroshenko was elected, Washington used this opportunity to open the flood gates into Ukraine for US weaponry and military training in preparation for its eventual de facto assault on the East and Russian influence there. As such, Ukraine incrementally became the largest military in Europe. It was also at this time that the previously suppressed “Banderists” dominated the AFU and Ukrainian politics, much to the pleasure of the US and NATO.

The Right Sector is admittedly disciples of Stepan Bandera and exerts neo-Nazi influence as they act as a political watchdog propagating their philosophy across Ukraine. The AFU is not exclusively Banderist but the massive Azov battalion stationed in the east is predominately so. Like Bandera, they hate Ukrainian Russians and Jews. The United Nations Human Rights Commission reported that the Azovs have killed over 14,000 eastern Ukrainians since 2014, as the East begged Russia for military assistance to help their regional militias fight back.

To stop this slaughter in 2014 Russia brokered a truce called the Minsk Protocols which the AFU ignored. This was followed in 2015 by Minsk II which also had no practical effect on the AFU genocide. For seven years this terror continued unchecked as Washington salivated in the wings for more dead Russians.

In 2019 Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a comedian and actor famous for his role in the TV series, Servant of the People, defeated Poroshenko in a landslide by promising peace by honouring the Minsk accords and controlling corruption and the rising violence of the Right Sector.  But it took mere months for the Ukrainians to become the brunt of this comedian’s dark joke that saw him become, not a leader for peace, but a US and Banderist puppet.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and its divestiture of its many satellite countries in 1990, NATO had promised not to expand into these countries. However, almost without exception NATO expanded and began to ring Russia with US weapons and NATO influence. With Ukraine being the launching point for past wars against Russia, the Kremlin had made it clear to the US that Ukraine joining NATO was a red line.

For the UK media to suggest that Russia was not incrementally provoked into defending both eastern Ukraine and its own national interests is to turn the truth on its head. With Spring being historically the best time to begin a war, during February Zelensky ordered the Azov Battalion and the AFU to begin amassing 100,000 troops and munitions towards the east in preparation for a massive attack designed to take back the autonomous eastern regions.

The DPR, LPR and Donbas militias again begged Russia for intervention but Putin still refused. Instead, the Russians tried diplomacy and repeatedly contacted Washington and Kyiv in an effort not to militarily intervene. The demands were simple and rational: Abide my Minsk I & II; not attack the East; de-Nazify the AFU and not join NATO.

The US and Kyiv did not so much as respond. In an effort to get a negotiated response, and with the AFU continuing to amass forces eastward, Russia began to prepare its army on the Russian/ Ukraine border. Instead of negotiating with Russia for peace, Ukraine and the western media falsely screamed “Russian aggression.”

Then on the last week of February Zelensky did the unthinkable. He informed the US that he was now willing to allow US nuclear weapons into Ukraine.

The next day, February 24th, the Russian army crossed into eastern Ukraine.  Thus began the Russian / Ukrainian war and the incredible barbarity of the AFU.

For the western media to cover up the neo-Nazi connection in Ukraine is the biggest lie of this war.

I have recently returned from two months of reporting in and around Ukraine. Certainly, both sides are guilty of atrocity but I have seen a different kind of barbarity by the AFU that is beyond the pale of war because the AFU and the Avovs consider and treat all Ukrainian Russians, Jews and even peace advocates as vermin.

They have given up all morality.

I can bear witness to the killings of the innocent, the torture and killings of prisoners, the firing on civilian targets, the mining of the humanitarian corridors to prevent escape, and the execution of anyone who suggests peace much less negotiation, and I have seen the Swastikas and pro-Nazi tattoos scrawled on the hands, arms, necks and chests of the AFU killers.

Many facts are being covered up such as the network of US bio-weapons labs discovered across Ukraine and that the Ukrainian army is not winning this war, it is being decimated. Air Force, Navy, fuel refineries, supply and railway lines destroyed. 50,000 men dead with so many surrendering that the Russians are building larger POW camps. All men16-60 being- by law- conscripted as replacements. NATO munitions supplies destroyed as soon as they cross the polish border, and command and control communications centres are in ruins.

This day Boris Johnson‘s favourite democratic champion, President Zelensky signed a new law banning all opposition parties from existence after already arresting five generals and the main opposition leader, Viktor Medvedchuk as “anti-heroes” for the treasonous crime of suggesting peace.

Thus factually challenged here, the neo-Nazi connection properly exposed and the big lie of this war properly exposed is it not  time for an increasingly impoverished Britain to now demand of Mr Johnson, their parliament, and the British media the most fundamental, important and intelligent of age-old questions.

*

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

Brett Redmayne-Titley has spent the last decade travelling and documenting the “Sorrows of Empire.” An archive of his many articles can be found at watchingromeburn.uk. He can be contacted at [email protected]. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: 2015 march in Kiev to celebrate the birthday of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (pictured on black and red flag) (Source: Liberation News)

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.

***

Below are selected excerpts from an incisive opinion article published by The New York Post.

Our thanks to the NYP for having brought this to our attention.

***

Two decades ago, when I was 4 years old, my parents immigrated to Canada from India in search of greater freedoms, autonomy and economic opportunities. They’re core Canadian values — enshrined in our national anthem, which gloriously heralds “The True North strong and free.”

However, the past two years have seen a near complete erosion of the foundational liberal values that have attracted millions of immigrants like myself to this country.

Under the once-righteous guise of COVID safety and online protections, the Canadian government has taken its power to extreme levels once only imaginable — let alone permissible — in a dissent-stifling authoritarian state.

The control has extended to nearly every element of Canadian society, but nowhere more so than in our everyday personal lives.

Take my own case contending with Canada’s COVID bureaucracy a few months back.

I was returning to Canada from the US when multiple Air Canada employees refused to let me on the plane. Although I had a negative COVID test, the government was suddenly requiring even returning citizens to be vaccinated (unvaccinated foreigners were already barred from entering).

Since the most documented adverse effect associated with COVID vaccination — heart inflammation — is concentrated in young men ages 15 – 25, I chose not to get vaccinated. I am 21 years old, have already recovered from COVID and have no co-morbidities. I’m at low risk from serious COVID illness, which is why I remain unvaccinated. But this can make air travel difficult — especially in Canada.

Minutes before my boarding gate was closed, a sympathetic Air Canada staffer “begged” his manager to let me board the plane. “I just gave you a massive favor. No one else would do this,” he said as I finally made my way down the jetway.

In the Canada of Justin Trudeau’s making, you must now go to extreme measures simply to be allowed to return to your own nation. And for what?

COVID is just the beginning of the Canadian madness. The internationally recognized trucker protestsearlier this year were the most flagrant display of political control ever witnessed within the ranks of the Canadian government. After trying to dismiss the truckers as a “fringe minority” of “swastika wavers,”Trudeau manufactured a National Emergency in order to justify truly outrageous tactics. Not only did he suspend the insurance of the truckers’ vehicles, he regulated the cryptocurrency transfers and froze the bank accounts of folks simply donating to the trucker cause.

In my own small British Columbia town, Chilliwack (about an hour and a half from Vancouver), a single mother earning minimum wage who donated $50 to the Truckers Convoy allegedly had her bank account frozen.

But the crackdowns on truckers were just the tip of the iceberg.

I know a bank worker in my city who was fired for not getting vaccinated, despite working remotely. A food truck delivery driver in my city met the same fate. If any of this was about “science,” prior infection or regular COVID testing would have been a factor here, but they weren’t. Get the jab or get out.

Trudeau, who once professed to being cognitively unable to do basic math, has plunged the country into over $1 trillion in national debt for the first time in history. Everyday, that number surges by an additional $400 million. Canada is now at risk for stagflation: both economic stagnation and high inflation, as families are unable to meet their bills.

 

Click here to read the full article.

*

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

Rav Arora specializes in topics of race, civil liberties, and spirituality. Follow him on Twitter @Ravarora1 and on Substack at ravarora.substack.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.

***

There was a time in the intelligence and diplomatic communities of the United States, when “intelligence” required study of the history and culture of other nations, and their historical relationship with our own country. The current conflict between the United States and Russia, dangerously escalating toward a potential World War III, begs for such an approach.

History shows that, from the period of America’s independence struggle to the time of President John F. Kennedy, American statesmen sought and achieved alliances with Russia (including in the Soviet period) in their common interest. In each case these statesmen were leading representatives of the American System of political economy.

These statesmen saw a common interest with leading Russians in developing their huge land masses through collaboration in scientific and technological ventures, raising the standard of living and conditions of life for their populations and assuring world peace.

Their successes, although constantly under assault and significantly sabotaged, were crucial in creating conditions for progress worldwide—as they intended. The stated commitments of the American System of Economics—advancing the productive powers of labor, scientific and technological progress, unleashing humankind’s creative powers of mind to “garden” the earth and the universe—led them to find common cause with Russian leaders who, for all their political differences with the United States, shared those aspirations.

In other words, collaboration with Russia on a principled basis is an American System tradition.

The three prime examples I will deal with here are Presidents John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In each case, their determination to develop our nation led them to seek alliances with Russia which had lasting positive effects.

While this article, a version of which was first published in 2017, is primarily addressed to an American audience, I believe it is also quite relevant for Russian readers as well.

First, Some Crucial Background

While it is beyond the scope of this article to deal in depth with the genesis of the pro-progress factions in both the United States and Russia, a few significant historical aspects should be noted.

The first was the influence of the great German philosopher/scientist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in both nations. The universal thinker Leibniz (1646-1716) headed an international network of scientists and statesmen who devoted themselves to building institutions that would serve the general welfare of their nations. He pioneered discoveries in economics as well as physical science, promoting the development of heat-based machines and scientific academies to foster such scientific work. He looked beyond ideology to find the higher principles upon which nations could be developed, as well as collaborate.

How was Leibniz connected to Russia and America? In Russia, he became an adviser to Czar Peter the Great, from which position he inspired the establishment of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1724), reshaped the structure of the Russian government, and promoted the remarkable development of industry in Russia under that Czar’s reign.

The institutions he created, especially the still-existent network of Russian academies of science, were crucial in producing the later collaborators with the United States. In America, Leibniz’s scientific and philosophical input came through the leaders of both the Massachusetts Bay Colony (such as Cotton Mather) and Philadelphia (led by William Penn’s secretary James Logan and the great American philosopher/statesman Benjamin Franklin).

Leibniz also had a more indirect influence through his follower Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss thinker whose writing on statecraft and international law had a major influence on Alexander Hamilton, among others.

A second major precondition for the policies of the three American System presidents we mention here was the critical role played by Russia in the formation of the League of Armed Neutrality, the 1780 pact among Russia, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Prussia, Portugal and the Holy Roman Empire to defend neutral shipping against the British Empire’s assaults on the French-American alliance in the American Revolutionary War. This action, while showing no political affinity of Empress Catherine the Great with the American republican cause as such, established a strong sense of sympathy and appreciation from the American side toward the Russians.

The third significant element involved the spread of American System economics to Russia. As early as 1792, Russian diplomatic circles were seeking access to Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures, submitted to Congress the previous year. That report was then published in Russian in 1807, in a translation sponsored by the Ministry of Finance, with an introduction by Russian educator V.F. Malinovsky, who wrote, “The similarity of American United Provinces with Russia appears both in the expanse of the land, climate and natural conditions, in the size of population disproportionate to the space, and in the general youthfulness of various generally useful institutions; therefore all the rules, remarks and means proposed here are suitable for our country.”

The influence of Hamilton’s outlook persisted among Russian government circles, enhanced by the interventions of German adherents of the American System, like followers of Friedrich List, and finally coming dramatically into fruition in the late 19th century under Czars Alexander II and Alexander III.

We now turn to the first instance of documented close collaboration between Russian and American elites, that of John Quincy Adams.

John Quincy Adams and Russia

John Quincy Adams was the first ambassador to Russia, following the opening of diplomatic relations in 1807.

While in St. Petersburg, the capital of Russia at that time, he conducted a years-long dialogue on affairs of state, foreign relations and trade with Russian Chancellor Count Nikolay Rumyantsev. Rumyantsev’s devotion to American ideas and interests was such that, when he was ousted from office in 1813, he told Adams: “I could say that my heart belongs to America, and were it not for my age and infirmities, I would go now to that country.”

Image on the right: John Quincy Adams [Source: whitehouse.gov]

John Quincy Adams | The White House

Rumyantsev interceded to stop Denmark from aiding the British against America in the War of 1812, and even proposed to join the United States in its anti-British trade policy with South America—although this plan was nixed by the Czar.

In his subsequent career as Secretary of State (1817-25) and then President (1825-29), John Quincy Adams found his potential partners in Russia to be less amenable—Russia having acquiesced to the British and Austrian-engineered post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, but subsequent developments showed that the pro-American strain in Russian institutions was not dead.

For example, cooperation continued among engineering circles, particularly those involved in launching Russia’s railways. Engineer Pavel Melnikov was sent by Czar Nicholas I to the United States in 1839 to meet all the American railroad builders (the era of mass expansion of rail and canals began under Adams’ administration of 1825-1829).

His success is shown by the fact that he ended up hiring American engineers to help build the first major Russian railway, one from St. Petersburg to Moscow. World-famous railroad engineer George Washington Whistler ended up going to Russia to consult on the project; he died there in 1849, leaving a legacy of cooperation that lasted through the end of the century.

Abraham Lincoln’s Alliance with Russia

When Abraham Lincoln entered the office of the Presidency in the spring of 1861, Russian Czar Alexander II had just the day before abolished serfdom, which had held 20 million Russians in bondage to the land and its owners.

Biography of Alexander II, Russia's Reformist Tsar

Czar Alexander II at his desk. [Source: thoughtco.com]

Czar Alexander had been classically educated and was steeped in the ideas of the pro-American German poet of freedom, Friedrich Schiller. He also took power during the devastating British assault on Russia in the Crimean War (1853-56) and was painfully aware of the vulnerability which a society based on serfdom represented. (The United States supported Russia against the British in this war, although not with soldiers.) The new czar was determined to modernize Russia and, throughout his reign, which lasted until his assassination in 1881, encouraged and backed international collaboration that would help develop his nation.

Lincoln appointed the Kentucky anti-slavery politician Cassius Clay as his ambassador to Russia. From his post in St. Petersburg, Clay spread the word of the American System, especially the work of Lincoln’s chief economist, Henry Carey.

From the very start of the Civil War, the Russians expressed the “most cordial sympathy” for the Lincoln government. Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov wrote a highly publicized note to President Lincoln on July 10, 1861, in which he declared the Czar’s “sincere wishes” for U.S. success.

This was not just a sentiment. It was followed on October 29, 1862, by a formal Russian pledge never to act against the United States, and to oppose attempts of others to do so. The “maintenance of the American Union as one indivisible nation” was the Russian objective. It was also backed up by Russian refusal to join a British-inspired “mediation” effort between North and South, which would, in effect, have resulted in recognition of the Confederacy as a separate nation.

U.S.-Russian Collaboration: An American System Tradition

Russian naval officers during their trip to the United States during the Civil War. [Source: americansystemnow.com]

The highlight of the close relations between Russia and the United States in this period was the deployment of the Russian fleet to both New York City and San Francisco in the fall of 1863. While these visits to “ports of call” were not explicitly intended as participation in the fighting (Russia insisted it was actually neutral in the Civil War), they provided enormous moral support for the embattled Union forces and Presidency. And, although they never had to carry them out, the Russian fleet in San Francisco had orders to defend U.S. forts from attacks by the Confederates, should they occur.

<p>The crew of the Russian frigate <em>Osliaba</em> during the American Civil War (Photo: Getty Images)</p>

Crew of the Russian frigate Osliaba while docked in New York harbor in 1863. [Source: usrussiarelations.org]

The Russian fleet was greeted in lavish style in New York City, with parades and a Grand Ball. When it went on to the port of Alexandria, Virginia, in December, Mrs. Lincoln herself joined the celebrations. San Francisco also put out the welcome mat, although in less lavish style. The fleets stayed in American waters until the spring of 1864.

<p>Cartoon depicting Abraham Lincoln and Alexander II shaking hands as fighting and death take place around them (Photo: Getty Images)</p>

Cartoon depicting Abraham Lincoln and Russian Czar Alexander II with fighting all around them. [Source: usrussiarelations.org]

Why was Russia so sympathetic to Lincoln’s United States? A pamphlet put out by the U.S. Naval Historical Foundation in 1969 cites the agreement between the two governments on getting rid of slavery, maintaining the Union, and supporting domestic manufactures through the protective tariff. The collaboration continued after Lincoln’s death, with visits to Russia by American military leaders, public figures, and engineers. The United States sent a naval force to Russia in 1866 after an assassination attempt against Czar Alexander II failed, and was greeted with a grand celebration. “May these two flags in peaceful embrace be thus united forever,” wrote Admiral Gustavus Vasa Fox, who led the 1866 U.S. naval force.

The Russians and the Americans saw their alliance as a stepping-stone to cooperation in economic development. In his Annual Address to Congress in 1864, President Lincoln touted the work under way on an overland telegraph linking the American and Asian continents across the Bering Strait. This link would be followed by the construction of the rail route, the Trans-Siberian Railway, which was accomplished under the leadership of Count Sergey Witte, an advocate of an American System approach.

Witte saw the completion of the railroad (1904) as “one of those world events that usher in new epochs in the history of nations and not infrequently bring about the radical upheaval of established economic relations between states.” He was thinking in particular of providing the basis for “recognition of tangible mutual interests in the field of the worldwide economic activity of mankind,” and the opportunity for “more direct relations with the North American states.” The railway would disclose a “solidarity of political interests” between Russia and the United States,” Witte wrote.

The route of Witte’s Trans-Siberian railroad, built with the aid of the United States. [Source: americansystemnow.org]

Among the significant Russian interlocutors with American scientists and industrialists was world-famous Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev, then a member of the St. Petersburg Academy and government consultant, who visited the United States during the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia. Mendeleev used his time in the U.S. to work with Thomas Edison, study the oil industry, and learn about the economics of America’s developing industries.

He was already familiar with the American System of Economics through his travels and time in Germany (through the List circles), but clearly developed them further during this trip. In 1891 he published a major piece on protective tariffs, which reflects the influence of his American collaborators.

Not to be overlooked in the 19th century, collaboration between the U.S. American System advocates and Russia was the Russian sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867. In Russia, supporters of the sale argued that Russia and the United States were natural allies in the Pacific Basin and that, if Great Britain were to try to seize “Russian America” (Alaska), the U.S. would be in a better position to defend it than Russia would. The British, for their part, were noticeably alarmed at the closeness of Russian-American collaboration.

FDR’s Policy Toward Russia

It was the United States that broke diplomatic relations with Russia (then within the Soviet Union) after the Bolshevik Revolution (1917). In early 1918, the Wilson administration invaded the country with six other nations in an attempt to restore czarist rule, but failed.

Though business activity certainly continued through the 1920s, official diplomatic recognition for the Soviet Union did not occur until Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared it in November 1933. FDR sidestepped the State Department professionals and braved significant public opposition in making this decision, but he refused to be dissuaded. The agreement was consummated in the Oval Office through personal diplomacy between FDR and Commissar of Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov.

At the time FDR made this decision, all the other major powers had diplomatic relations with the Soviets, and he felt the United States could only lose by maintaining its isolation, commercially and strategically. Renewed relations were not easy, but when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, FDR moved immediately in support. He sent his personal emissary, Harry Hopkins, to Moscow to meet with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

This was followed by an official exchange of notes in August, in which FDR pledged support. Soon afterwards, the Soviets sent Washington a list of the supplies they urgently needed in order to carry out their defense. Despite continued opposition, FDR decided to use the Lend-Lease legislation, which had passed in March of that year (and was being used to supply Great Britain), to provide material support to the Soviets.

U.S.-Russian Collaboration: An American System Tradition

This statue stands in Fairbanks, Alaska, as a testament to U.S.-Soviet collaboration in World War II. [Source: americansystemnow.com]

Ultimately, the United States provided 250,000 tons of materiel, ranging from planes to tanks to foodstuffs, to the Soviet Union to aid in the war effort. The physical aid played a critical role in keeping the Russian resistance going. Meanwhile, FDR carried out personal diplomacy—through both Hopkins and Vice President Henry Wallace—to seek to establish a relationship with Stalin.

This was finally accomplished at the Tehran Conference in 1943, with the aid of humor at the expense of Winston Churchill. When Stalin burst out laughing at FDR’s ribbing of Churchill, FDR knew he had succeeded. FDR also went to bat against Churchill’s constant attempts to sabotage the invasion of France, the so-called second front, which the Soviets desperately needed in order to divert the Nazis from their mayhem in Russia.

FDR was convinced that patience and good will would make the Soviet Union a good partner in the post-war arrangements to keep world peace. As he said in Tehran, “we have proved… that the varying ideas of our nations can come together in a harmonious whole, moving unitedly for the common good of ourselves and of the world.” He had devised a plan for the United Nations that would recognize the Soviet Union as the great power it was.

Collusion with the USSR: Why did FDR's Vice President visit the GULAG and praise it? - Russia Beyond

Henry Wallace, FDR’s Vice President, third from left in front row, with Russian guides in Moscow in 1944. [Source: rbth.com]

The Soviets had borne the brunt of the Nazi onslaught, losing some 27 million people during the war. Had FDR lived into the post-war period, respect for that sacrifice and for the Soviet people would have dictated U.S. policy, and potentially cut the legs out from under the British initiative to go straight from the war against the Nazis to war against the Soviet Union.

The British, for their part, concentrated on destroying Soviet-American collaboration, which they considered a threat to their imperial interests. With Roosevelt dead, they succeeded, and the Cold War ensued. The American System’s albeit rhetorical posture to sovereignty, international relations, and progress was increasingly undermined, while the dangers to world peace escalated.

The JFK Echo

President John F. Kennedy attempted to continue the FDR/American System tradition in his brief presidency, including on the question of relations with the Soviet Union. Kennedy’s decision to establish personal communication with Soviet leader Khrushchev upon taking office, played a critical role in allowing the Cuban Missile Crisis to be defused.

One of the most striking statements of Kennedy’s policy break with the Cold War mentality came in his June 10, 1963, American University speech, where he tackled the question of achieving world peace, and proposed the talks that ultimately resulted in the test-ban treaty. But, more interesting to us today than the final result is the approach which Kennedy took to dealing with the superpower which had—from Cuba to Berlin and elsewhere—become “the enemy.” I quote at some length:

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament—and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude—as individuals and as a Nation—for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward—by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable—that mankind is doomed—that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are man-made—therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable—and we believe they can do it again. …

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims—such as the allegation that “American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars” …

[I]t is sad to read these Soviet statements—to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning—a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements—in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique, among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland—a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again—no matter how—our two countries would become the primary targets….

So, let us not be blind to our differences—but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.

Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy—or of a collective death-wish for the world.

The leaders of the Soviet Union were so impressed with this speech that they reprinted it in their press. The negotiations on the test-ban treaty did take place and succeed. Kennedy himself followed up with an offer on September 20 for joint work with the Soviets on space exploration.

What Will the Answer Be?

Kennedy was right. The current breakdown in U.S.-Russian relations is “man-made, and reversible.” The key is to revive those American System principles on the highest level, for they define the common interests which both nations (among others) have in cooperation for improving the lives of all people on earth through scientific and technological progress. Our history augurs it. Our future demands it.

*

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

Nancy Spannaus is the manager of the blog americansystemnow, which features many historical and topical articles on the political economy of the United States. She is also the author of the book Hamilton Versus Wall Street: The Core Principles of the American System of Economics, available here. Nancy can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Statue of Abraham Lincoln and Czar Alexander II in Moscow that commemorates U.S.-Russian friendship in that period. [Source: twitter.com]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The History They Don’t Teach You in School: America and Russia Have a Long History of Collaboration
  • 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 corrupt public health officials in the Western world, who are shills for Big Pharma as they share in the profits of the drugs that they approve, are about to inflict on humanity a worst castrophe than the Covid vaccine. 

They are considering using smallpox vaccine to protect against monkeypox.  The New York Times, dependent as it is on pharmaceutical advertising, will support the next wave of orchestrated “health crisis” in service to vaccination profit.

Although complicit public health officials and Big Pharma will not admit it, many distinguished independent scientists have concluded that the Covid vaccine leaves the vaccinated immunocompromised. 

The smallpox vaccine was always dangerous even to those with good immune systems.  The result of giving smallpox vaccine to the immunocompromised could be to give them smallpox and thus reinfect the human population with a far more dangerous virus than Covid and monkeyvirus. 

The reason public health is threatened is not because of Covid or monkeypox or any other illness. 

Public health is endangered because public health authorities are marketing agents for pharmaceutical companies, and members of Congress are dependent on campaign contributions from Big Pharma for their reelections.  Those who are supposed to be watching out for the public’s health are instead watching out for their own interests.  This is why Covid with its masks, lockdowns, and untested vaccine was a catastrophe.

No one has explained why and how monkeypox, a problem in a small area of Africa, suddenly appeared all at once all over the Western world.  Was the virus released in order to continue vaccination profits and to further the pandemic controls that are on the verge of being handed to the World Health Organization? See this.

Are we about to experience another fear campaign?  Or is something even more evil in the works—population control by infecting the immunocompromised with smallpox?

The gullibility of Western peoples and the mendacity of their rulers is enormous.  No evil is beyond the likes of a Fauci.  The public has a perfect record of falling for every fear and brainwashing campaign.  Are we to expect another “health crisis” in the middle of a war in Ukraine that could widen, rising food and energy prices, rising national indebtedness, open European and American borders to immigrant-invaders whose care imposes high costs on European and American populations that cannot trust their own governments and whose living standards are falling?

Smallpox vaccination ceased four decades ago when the disease was wiped out.  Older generations who were vaccinated against smallpox are probably immune to monkeypox. Younger generations are not.  Most at risk are those whose immune systems have been compromised by the mRNA vaccines.

Here is some good solid information with which to arm yourself against the forthcoming lies from the New York Times and the rest of the presstitutes and from the many shills for Big Pharma.  Try not to be panicked a second time before we recover from the first: see Paul Alexander’s analysis:

Smallpox vaccine to prevent monkeypox could cause global smallpox (vaccinia) epidemic; I warn, do not be that stupid, understand you have damaged the immune systems of m (b)illions with COVID vaccines

Experts are saying the smallpox vax 85% effective in monkey pox; this is NOT good news, for millions/billions are now immunocompromised from COVID vax; smallpox vax, potential huge problems.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.