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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russian communists called for a united anti-fascist front against the NATO-led “nazification of Ukraine” as Western leaders gathered in Munich to discuss the escalating crisis in the Donbass region over the weekend.

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation repeated its assertion that the aim of Washington and Britain is “not only the final enslavement of Ukraine and the bleeding of Russia.”

They are also “implementing a project to undermine the economic potential of the European Union and reduce its influence in the modern world,” according to a central committee statement.

“The war in the centre of Europe, the forced sanctions against Russia, the fall in economic activity in the EU will ensure an increase in the competitive capabilities of the United States,” it claimed.

NATO’s eastward expansion and the drive to war with Ukraine has divided some of its member states, most notably France which remains angry over its treatment in the AUKUS security deal between Britain, the US and Australia.

Germany, which is also the final destination of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline, has also adopted a more cautious approach, initially refusing to send weapons to Ukraine with Chancellor Olaf Scholz calling for diplomacy.

As tensions escalate Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned of a “genocide” in the Donbass region as its citizens began a mass evacuation.

Explosions in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics are blamed by them on Ukrainian forces, which include Neo-nazi units and mercenaries, but Western governments have claimed they are “false flag” operations staged by Russia-backed separatists.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson reiterated his support for Ukraine and told world leaders that it was time to “wean ourselves off dependence on Putin’s oil and gas.”

And he insisted that Nato would continue its eastward expansion, having admitted 14 new countries since 1999, a clear breach of agreements made with Russia.

But the CPRF warned that capitalist powers in the US and Europe were “ready to contribute bloodshed and aggression” in the region as they promote fascism in Ukraine.

“In the middle of the last century, humanity paid for such a policy with millions of victims. The Soviet people alone lost 27 million lives of their sons and daughters in the fight against fascism,” it said.

It said there is no point in dialogue with “the heirs of Bandera and Shukhevych” — former fascist leaders celebrated by the Ukrainian government.

Emergency measures were necessary including the evacuation of women, children and the elderly and for Mr Putin to recognise both the separatist Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics as independent states, the CPRF said.

It also called for “a decisive political offensive” against the rehabilitation of fascism and for support from global anti-fascist and anti-war movements.

“It is time for everyone to realise that the mechanisms of democracy in Ukraine have been abolished. After the coup d’etat of 2014, the real politics on its territory is increasingly dictated by aggressive nationalist gangs,” the party said.

“The task of denazification of Ukraine should become the most important concern of the world community.”

*

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

Featured image is from Passage

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

I’ve always loved the holidays, but last year was bittersweet. As 2021 came to a close, I walked away from a comfortable career where I once did good in the world. Unsure of how we would make ends meet and wondering if I’d just made a huge mistake, I knew only that I couldn’t continue working in Public Health.

Since graduating from nursing school in 2008, I’d dreamed of being in this field. I thought of Public Health as a noble mission that made peoples’ lives better, improving the overall health of individuals, families, and communities. I was drawn to this broad, holistic approach. After a decade of working overseas, I found a position with a Minnesota public health agency focused on maternal and child health. For the first couple years, it was almost exactly as I’d hoped. But when the pandemic hit, I saw a totally myopic focus on one respiratory illness and a near complete disregard for any other aspect of health.

For the first time in my career, I was told to ignore suffering and forget best practices. Every day, I felt like a fraud.

My first two years on the job were not without their frustrations, but I loved what I did. As a family health nurse, I visited new mothers and infants that our agency had deemed at risk. I was proud of the relationships I formed and humbled when parents allowed me into their homes. I saw people who lived on a knife’s edge economically, socially, and psychologically. They trusted me with some of their deepest fears.“Is my baby ok? Am I a good enough parent? How will we get by?” I was in awe of my clients who stood in the face of poverty, loneliness, uncertainty, and fear but worked hard and sacrificed everything for their infants. Whether I was helping a new mother to breastfeed, find English classes, muster the courage to call a therapist, or access a food pantry, I felt grateful to be doing this work.

In March 2020, as rumblings of the pandemic picked up, I overheard the nurses commenting that the public schools were closing indefinitely. I thought about the families on my caseload that had kids in school. How would they manage without special education services, how would they manage with work? Many parents didn’t speak much English; did they know what was going on and how to find help? What about kids on free/reduced price meals? “But we know that this virus is not deadly for kids,” I said to one of them. “I know, but they can spread it to the teachers,” one nurse responded. My heart sank and I got a pit in my belly that has been there ever since.

The epidemiologist on staff explained the concept of “flattening the curve” by drawing a graph in blue marker on a white board in the conference room. I suspect it’s still there to this day. Who would see it? Everyone was sent home.

We were told not to come into the office except to pick up any needed supplies and to stay 6 feet away from others when we did. We were to schedule ‘phone visits’ with our clients and check in on them virtually. I spent my final day of in-person work furiously searching for essentials to give my families who couldn’t afford “stocking up.”

From the abrupt halt of home visiting and the laughable direction that we counsel new mothers and assess infants online to vaccine mandates that bred mistrust and fear, I watched my vulnerable families founder and fail. Throughout 2020 and then in late 2021, I voiced my concerns to leadership about the loss of trust in public health. “Harm will happen,” I was told. “Public Health addresses the immediate physical danger first, then deals with the repercussions.”

I watched for 18 months as our new ‘public health’ policies exacerbated inequality, drug abuse, child endangerment, and mental illness. My director responded by accepting more grant money to address these very issues. I was implementing policies that negatively affected the poor and racial minorities while our agency was declaring racism a public health crisis and receiving dollars to fight it. I was helping to trap people in isolation and despair while a coworker wrote about the impending mental health crisis and won a grant from the American Rescue Plan.

I was watching our agency coerce people to take vaccines, which severely decreases trust, and then use federal grant funds to address vaccine hesitancy. While the families I saw were losing their livelihoods, my director was posing for pictures with the governor who enforced the closure of their workplaces. Tolkien’s character Galadriel reminds us, “The hearts of men are easily corrupted.”

One family that I had been working with for over a year was already on the edge of isolation and poverty. The mother stayed home with the four kids, including two young babies, while the dad worked a minimum wage job. They had recently become US citizens and were taking a shot at the American Dream. Their two elementary school-aged children were now home, and mom had to find a way to feed them breakfast and lunch. She did not read English and did not understand she could still access school meals. The school district required families to be physically present at the school and provide proof that they were residents of the district — each day — in order to take home meals. For a woman with 4 small children and no access to a vehicle, this was impossible.

I emailed the school to ask if I could vouch for the family and deliver the meals for the kids. I was denied. The family went without until the father was completely without work and now had the time to go and pick up the meals.

Many of the families I served were undocumented immigrants and unable to file for unemployment or rent assistance. Most lost their income overnight. Head Start closed, forcing low-income parents to leave children with unlicensed childcare providers so that they could attempt to find a new job in an “essential” industry.

One mom told me her 18-month-old would cry when she left him with an old lady in an apartment full of kids. He seemed ‘different’ ever since she started leaving him there, but didn’t feel she had any other choice. As these children were placed in potentially unsafe situations, many in the laptop class would remark to me that they enjoyed the cost savings of not having to put their kids in full time daycare.

It was no surprise to me when the American Academy of Pediatrics declared a national emergency of pediatric mental health in October 2021. Many who work closely with children felt as though we were screaming into the void that this would happen and were just met with the response “children are resilient.” People had confused resilient with adaptable. Children will adapt to any environment they are placed in, including toxic ones. This does not mean they are innately resilient; the problems often manifest in adulthood, particularly when they come to have their own children. The current sharp decline in the mental health of children is only the tip of the iceberg of what is to come.

One family I worked with had 5 children, 4 of whom had special needs. Their mother was single and relied on special-ed services at the school. When the schools closed, she became a prisoner in her own home. She was unable to leave because she could not handle that many children in public by herself. Her mother used to help, but was at high risk for Covid complications and stayed away for many months. She told me that to use her WIC and EBT she would park in front of grocery stores and beg the workers to take her card and use her PIN in order to pay for her groceries.

Summer came and she was unable to take her kids outside because the one who was nonverbal would run through the neighborhood. I called her every week for nearly a year and I would hear the desperation in her voice. She would yell at the kids in the background and tell me she felt like she was going crazy; her children had been without therapies for months. She tried to get online counseling for herself, but it was hard to find the space in her home for privacy.

Another mother had struggled with suicidal ideation and major depression for years. She had a difficult time making it to her counseling appointments. At one point when I called her, she told me she had been in the bathroom the week prior with a bottle of pills. Thinking about her children caused her to put it down. I thanked her for her courage and we came up with a plan and made an appointment with her psychiatrist. Then I hung up the phone and cried. When I caught up with her a few months later, she told me that she had turned to drugs to cope. With 3 young kids, one of whom would later be diagnosed with autism, she was overwhelmed when their Head Start program closed.

Families were terrified of catching Covid and some skipped appointments for themselves or their children because they perceived clinics as dangerous. I discovered later that one family was refusing to allow their boys, ages 6 and 8, outside to play because of the fear of catching Covid from the air. They stayed in the small, cluttered apartment for many weeks watching TV and playing video games. When I saw them in summer, they had gained significant amounts of weight. One mother described symptoms of mastitis and I pleaded with her to go to urgent care but she refused because she was too afraid of Covid. Another young mother would not take her child to get his 18-month vaccines because of a fear of contracting Covid. I tried to explain that pertussis is far more dangerous to her child, but the fear had taken root.

I had always understood that the role of Public Health was to give accurate information to the public and support them in making healthy choices. We were supposed to use facts and data to dispel fear. But now, Public Health began to routinely distort and exaggerate data to fit their narrative. Emails between the Minnesota Health Department and Governor Walz’s staff appear to do just this. The communications director at our own local agency asked us to find a young healthy person who had ended up hospitalized in order to illustrate the dangers of Covid to young people. Since the actual dangers to young healthy people were quite rare, we never found anyone in our community to fit her profile. But someone else did.

How could I convey to the mother with mastitis that the urgent care was safe if I, myself wasn’t permitted into her home for breastfeeding support because it was “too risky?” If I was not permitted to go into a home in order to weigh and assess a newborn baby, why should a mother not be concerned about taking him to the clinic for his vaccines? It felt completely disingenuous and I started to experience deep moral distress.

Every time I asked what the goal was to return to visiting families in their homes, I was given the same answer: “Let me check into it.” Who had decided to stop in-person nursing services? I couldn’t always tell because no one seemed to want to take that responsibility. The State Health department had told us to do what we were comfortable with as an agency. Sometimes I was told it was the safety and compliance officer, sometimes it was the director of public health.

Many of the nurses themselves did not want to return in person — which I understood. For the first time in my career, I didn’t have to worry about childcare, rush hour, or getting up in time to take a shower before work. I didn’t have to sit in a cramped, hot, smelly apartment with someone’s boogery child crawling all over me. I was pregnant with my fourth child and far more comfortable staying home. But that convenience didn’t make up for the guilt I felt.

The families that were part of our program made it possible for people like me to stay home. They went to work in grocery stores, restaurants, packing school lunches, construction, and working as nursing assistants in long-term care.

Then the vaccines came. Many had already recovered from Covid and found it to be mild, myself included. They were wary of the vaccine or felt they didn’t need it because they had already had the illness. But Public Health insisted through a variety of coercive means, that in order for us to feel safe around these people, they must get vaccinated.

A few days after my baby was born, our agency received its first shipment of the long awaited mRNA vaccines. We were short-staffed, so I called my manager and let her know that I would be willing to return 1-2 days per week to give vaccines. I was determined to do my part in ending the pandemic in order to get back to normal for the families on my caseload (not to mention my own family). I recall telling people that they were 95% protected from ever getting Covid at all. It was a hopeful and exciting time that was extremely short-lived.

Within months, we had people asking us just to give them a filled out vaccine card so that they could enter lotteries and earn incentives from Krispy Kreme. One of our nurses had someone tell her he would give her his stimulus check if she would just fill out the card. Of course, we declined these requests and bribes. By April, we were told by the state health department that we could start opening a 10-dose vial for 1 person and waste the other 9 doses, something that was unconscionable just weeks prior.

Then things started to turn even more sinister.

One afternoon, a young man sat down at my vaccine station in an angry manner. I asked what was going on, he said, “I’m only here because my work is telling me I have to get this to keep my job.” I set down my alcohol swab and removed my gloves saying “I’m sorry sir, but I can’t give you this vaccine if you are being coerced.” (At that time, I understood this to be the policy of public health.) He looked surprised. I told him that he appeared capable of making his own medical decisions and I could not take part in coercion. He and I chatted for a while about his personal risk factors for Covid, the known potential side effects of the vaccine, etc. In the end, he decided that he did want it after all, so I put my gloves back on and gave it to him. But the incident haunted me.

After that, I tried to avoid working at Covid vaccine clinics. But there was one that I ended up working at in September at a local community college. While sitting there with nearly no one showing up, I recounted this story to the nurse I was with to see what she thought about it. “We are at the point where people need to be forced,” was her reply. My heart sank. I never wanted to be part of forcing medical treatments on anyone.

Tears streamed down my cheeks as I turned in my resignation letter in November 2021. It had been an honor to be invited to do the work that I did, but I felt that I no longer belonged nor was welcome in my workplace. As I cleared out my desk, I came across infographics on the importance of babies seeing faces, the dangers of too much screen time, and notes from trainings that described the detrimental effects of social isolation. These were relics of a time when the well-being of children was the singular focus of my work, but that era in public health seemed to have passed.

*

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

Laura Van Luven is a Registered Nurse living in the Twin Cities, MN. She has also practiced nursing in East Africa and Pittsburgh, PA. She and her husband spend most of their energy trying to give their 4 young children as normal a childhood as possible.

Featured image is from BI

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In the early evening of February 12, 2022, a Russian Pacific Fleet naval exercise turned very real. The purpose of the exercise was, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, to practice the “search and elimination of a hypothetical enemy’s submarines in the areas of their possible deployment.” The exercise involved a mix of surface ships, submarines, and aircraft. According to the Russian MoD, an Il-38 anti-submarine warfare aircraft, operating in the vicinity of Urup, an uninhabited island in the eastern Kuril chain, spotted what looked like a Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine belonging to the US Navy (the USS Missouri, a Virginia-class submarine,had recently conducted a port visit in nearby Japan).

The crew of the Il-38 reported the contact information to a nearby Russian submarine, which began tracking the unknown vessel. The Russian submarine in turn handed over responsibility for responding to what appeared to be a violation of Russian territorial waters (the suspected submarine was located several miles inside Russia’s territorial limit) to a Russian destroyer, the Marshal Shaposhnikov, which immediately instructed the suspected US submarine to surface.

Over the course of the next three hours, the Marshal Shaposhnikov played a game of hide and seek with the suspected US submarine, eventually deploying what the Russian MoD called “approved measures in accordance with the documents governing the Russian Federation border protection” (more than likely some form of underwater explosive) which eventually caused the suspected US submarine to “rapidly depart the area” after “employing countermeasures” to help mask its location.

The Russian MoD summoned the US Naval Attache in Moscow to issue a formal complaint; for its part, the US Navy denies any of its submarines were in Russian waters.

While one cannot rule out that the Russian MoD was tracking a non-US submarine, a whale, or inflating the event (the US and Russia are, after all, engaged in a high-stakes war of words over Ukraine), the fact of the matter is that the details provided by the Russian MoD, when examined alongside the known history of classified US submarine operations, make the likelihood that the Russians had, in fact, chased off a Virginia-class submarine quite high. My own experience backs this theory up.

When the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA) was formed, back in the spring of 1988, to implement the provisions of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, the Department of Defense gathered some of the best and brightest from its stable of Cold Warriors. OSIA was headed by Brigadier General Roland Lajoie, a veteran Soviet Foreign Affairs Officer with multiple tours as a defense attaché in Moscow and the former commander of the US Military Liaison Mission (USMLM) in Potsdam, East Germany, responsible for monitoring the activities of the Soviet Group of Forces, Germany (a dangerous job – on March 24, 1985, Major Arthur Nicholson, assigned to the USMLM while Lajoie was in command, was shot and killed by a Soviet sentry while attempting to gain entry into a restricted area; Lajoie himself was injured when a Soviet truck rammed his vehicle while he observed a Soviet training exercise.) Lajoie assembled a cadre of military experts in Soviet affairs who shared his resume.

I was one of the officers brought in to help form OSIA. As a junior lieutenant, I lacked the first-hand experience of the Cold War veterans I was now serving with. In a time of peace, where medals for valor were rare, one learned how to glean an individual’s experience level by reading the ribbons on his or her chest – an occupation medal meant service in Berlin (USMLM), while a joint service decoration usually implied embassy duty as an attaché. Some of these soldiers wore the Soldier’s Medal – the highest award for heroism during peacetime. One of these awards was issued to an officer for rescuing classified documents from the US Embassy in Moscow when it caught fire in 1977. He did so to prevent the documents from falling into the hands of Soviet KGB officers who had entered the embassy disguised as firefighters.

There was a class of military professionals, however, who stood apart – the naval officers and petty officers whose uniforms were adorned with the Presidential Unit Citation, or PUC. The PUC is awarded to units of the uniformed services of the United States, and those of allied countries, for extraordinary heroism in action against “an armed enemy.” The unit must display such “gallantry, determination, and esprit de corps in accomplishing its mission under extremely difficult and hazardous conditions” so as to set it apart from and above other units participating in the same campaign. It is the unit equivalent of the Navy Cross – the second highest award for individual heroism in combat.

The PUC is not a peacetime decoration, and yet none of those who wore this ribbon had any corresponding military campaign ribbons indicating service during wartime. What I later found out was that they had all served on US Navy attack submarines that had been involved in some of the most secret Cold War operations targeting the former Soviet Union. These operations were of an intelligence nature, involving the penetration of Soviet territorial waters to tap communications cables, photograph Soviet ships and port facilities, and to track Soviet submarines. If caught, the submarine could have been sunk by the Soviet navy. This is why, in a time of ostensible peace, the sailors who crewed these submarines were decorated for their actions as if they had been in combat, because, effectively, for them there was no distinction.

It was the memory of these naval professionals that I first thought of when I read the news reports about the Russian navy chasing away a suspected US nuclear attack submarine that had penetrated Russian territorial waters near the eastern Kuril Islands, in the northern Pacific Ocean.

Heroic actions deserving of the award of a PUC in peacetime were not limited to the Cold War-era. Indeed, in 2013, a PUC was awarded to the crew of the USS Jimmy Carter, a modified Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine specially configured for intelligence collection operations. In 2017, the USS Jimmy Carter returned from another deployment flying the Jolly Roger flag, indicating that it had carried out a successful operation.

There is no doubt in my mind that on February 12, 2022, a US Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine, more than likely the USS Missouri, was engaged in an intelligence collection mission involving the tracking of Russian anti-submarine warfare operations. If the USS Missouri followed in the footsteps of its Cold War brethren, this mission most likely involved penetrating Russian territorial waters to gain access to a particular intelligence target. During this mission, the USS Missouri was detected and, after failing to covertly break contact, was compelled to deploy countermeasures and flee in a manner which would have allowed the Russian navy to confirm its identity using sonar identification techniques.

It is not shocking that this incident took place – based upon the record of the USS Jimmy Carter, the US Navy has continued to conduct dangerous intelligence-driven missions in the Pacific Ocean using nuclear attack submarines. What is worrisome, however, is that these operations have continued at a time when US-Russia tensions are high, and diplomatic efforts are underway to lessen the potential for broader conflict. The ramifications that would accrue if the Russians, as they had every right, opted to engage and destroy what they reasonably could have assumed was a hostile penetration of their territorial waters, are unthinkable.

*

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

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. 

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Valentines’ Day 2022, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared the 1988 Emergencies Act in response to the Trucker Freedom Convoy in Ottawa and US-Canada border protests in Windsor (ON), Emerson (MB), Coutts (AB), Osoyoos and Surrey (BC). This stunning political development ignored the House of Commons in favour of making the announcement at a press conference.

Prior to the September 2021 election, Trudeau spoke of “consequences” for the unvaccinated.

He described vaccine passports as a reward for Canadians who “did the right thing,” and said he had “little patience” and “no sympathy” for those who were “anti-vaxxers.”

In the weeks and months after the election, the unvaccinated learned what type of punishment the Prime Minister had in mind.

Unvaccinated travelers were no longer allowed to board a plane or train.

Unvaccinated workers in many job sectors were fired, and prohibited from collecting employment insurance.

In Quebec, the unvaccinated couldn’t go to Walmart or Costco, and the government considered imposing a tax on those who refused to get the shot.

In New Brunswick, unvaccinated people could be refused entry to a grocery store. Premier Blaine Higgs pledged to make life “increasingly uncomfortable” for the unvaccinated, prohibiting entry to liquor and cannabis stores.

When Prime Minister Trudeau mandated on January 15 all truckers crossing the border must be vaccinated, he sparked a protest.

An estimated ten percent of Canadian truckers were unvaccinated. 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 roads by the vaccination requirement. The mandate would trigger huge supply chain issues and disrupt the economy. As well, the Trudeau minority government announced plans to require vaccination for all inter-provincial trucking.

In protest, a Metis woman and a Jewish-Canadian truck driver forged a trucker convoy drive to Ottawa.

The idea took off. Once the 50KM long convoy arrived in Ottawa on January 29, its first official event was a prayer service. It was opened by two clan mothers, one Dene and one Cree. Others leading the prayer service included an Iraqi-born Arab Shia Muslim and an Afro-Canadian evangelical Quebecois pastor from Montreal, and a white Mennonite pastor from Ontario.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Trudeau went to an undisclosed location. He occasionally emerged to name-call those in the convoy white supremacists, Nazis, homophobes, racists, misogynists, transphobic and more.

An orphan protester with a black mask walked outside the Parliament Buildings carrying a Confederate flag. He was shunned by all he met. A Confederate flag? To what end? To incite the original eleven Confederate States of America (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina) who fought against the Union in the American Civil War (1861-65) to secede from the USA in 2022?

Canadian and American mainstream media were eager to report about the lone balaclava-clad Confederate flag protester. They implied truckers in Ottawa longed to establish slavery well north of the Mason-Dixon Line. Spectator World reported convoy protesters disavowed the Confederate flag balaclava clad protester, asking him to leave. Could the masked man waving a confederate flag be an agent provocateur? A $6,500 reward was issued by convoy protesters to identify the mystery man with the swastika.

Back in the early 1980s, Mark MacGuigan, Secretary of State for External Affairs, spoke to a passionate group of peace protesters at a hall in downtown Vancouver.

They were protesting the Cruise Missile and nuclear arms race. As I listened to MacGuigan, suddenly, a masked grim reaper costumed with an outstretched 8-foot arms stood on stilts above the seated crowd. The Dickensian reaper accusingly pointed its fingers at MacGuigan who left the stage.

That night on the local Vancouver TV stations, there was news footage of the grim reaper chasing MacGuigan into his waiting limousine. Its ghoulish mask and stilts made for great political theatre. Former Vancouver City Councillor, David Cadman, remembers people in the peace movement asked around to find out who the masked reaper was. I was told phone calls were made to far-left Marxist and anarchist groups in the Vancouver area. But no one knew who the reaper was. News headlines shifted focus away from peace protesters concerns about the nuclear arms race and cruise missiles. Now, the Vancouver peace movement was blamed for intimidating a member of the Federal cabinet. How convenient for the government. Could the masked grim reaper on stilts have been an agent provocateur?

After all, we have seen this before. Violent protesters at economic Summit protests in Quebec turned out to be government agents. Handcuffed and lying on the ground, their police boots gave them away as agents infiltrating and violently undermining the peaceful protests.

Former elite RCMP sniper Daniel Buford, charged with protecting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been part of the Ottawa convoy.

He recently warned that firearms were stolen in Peterborough, and that people in the convoy needed to be vigilant to prevent anyone from planting weapons in any of the trucks on Parliament Hill. Buford was arrested this afternoon. There are reports that firearms have been seized from protesters in Coutts, Alberta. But, history has shown that sometimes government agents will go to any length to frame and discredit those engaging in peaceful protest or civil disobedience. Just ask the RCMP who burned down a barn in Quebec and blamed the barn-burning on the FLQ.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau contends the Emergencies Act is required because the Freedom Convoy involves activities that are “directed toward or in support” of terrorism. He has said in Parliament that his declaration is “proportionate” to what is happening in Ottawa and across the nation. Yet, the “national emergency” had already been resolved peacefully with local law enforcement at the Ambassador Bridge from Windsor to Detroit on February 13, and subsequently at the Coutts, Alberta-Sweetgrass, Montana border on February 15. The latter involved reports showing footage of protesters and police shaking hands and giving each other hugs.

Rosemary Barton of the CBC alleged the protesters were trying to overthrow the government. She must not be familiar with world history.

The Truckers Freedom Convoy is no storming of the Bastille in Paris in 1789. It bears no resemblance to the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 when Lenin, with armed workers, sailors and soldiers clashed with government forces. Playing ball hockey, honking horns and staying away from the Parliament Buildings is no way to overthrow a government. Nonetheless, the Liberal minority government’s key ally in Parliament, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, warned the truckers were engaged in “an act to overthrow the government.”

In other reports by Canada’s national broadcaster, security expert David Shipley suggested the Russians were behind the trucker convoy protest.

Some in the media have dubbed the truckers protest as Canada’s January 6. In any event, no one in the trucker freedom convoy has barged into the Parliament Buildings. They waited in vain for Prime Minister Trudeau to give them a hearing. Trucker freedom convoy leaders wanted to air their grievances and have a discussion with the Prime Minister. But Justin Trudeau, despite his long history campaigning on empathy, had no interest in understanding, or listening, to what these ordinary working-class citizens who’ve provided basic essential services to the nation for the past two years had to say.

Trudeau must have forgotten his March 2021, tweet “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.” Having arrived in Ottawa, helping the truckers however he can was the last thing on the Prime Minister’s mind.

Questioning the media “Narrative,” Rex Murphy wrote in the National Post: “In Ottawa, the sky isn’t falling, despite what the political elite would have you believe,” underscoring “Trudeau’s Monumentally Misguided Emergency Measures are an Insult to Canadians.” While the Wall Street Journal in an Editorial cautioned the Prime Minister, “you’ve lost the political plot. Time to adopt a new strategy more tolerant of the need to return to life not dominated by pandemic fear and government commands.”

Image on the right is licensed under CC0

Before February 14, 2022, only once had a Canadian government sought Emergencies Act powers. This was when Justin Trudeau’s father, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, passed the War Measures Act to deal with the FLQ Crisis. In October 1970 British diplomat James Cross and Quebec Deputy Premier Pierre Laporte were kidnapped. Although negotiations led to Cross’s release, Laporte was murdered by FLQ kidnappers.

Since January 29 in Ottawa, there have been parking tickets issued to truck drivers by the Ottawa Police. There have been a couple of people arrested for carrying gas cans to truckers who run their engines overnight to keep warm. (Carrying gas to refuel a vehicle is a new punishable offense). When Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson wrote to the convoy leaders asking that all trucks be removed from residential neighborhoods, the truckers agreed. Unlike the FLQ Crisis, no one had been kidnapped. No one has been murdered.

The overwhelmingly peaceful protests in Ottawa have featured children playing on bouncy castles, protesters playing ball hockey, hourly singing of the national anthem, dancing to House of Pain’s “Jump Around,” linking arms and singing “We Are The World,” feeding the homeless, cleaning downtown streets of litter, shoveling snow – and yes honking. These protests have been mild compared to other acts of civil disobedience over the past century.

In 1914, the War Measures Act was passed in Parliament and in effect during the First World War, and was enacted again during World War II.

From May 15 to June 16, 1919, there was the Winnipeg General Strike. More than 30,000 strikers brought economic activity to a standstill in what was at the time Canada’s third largest city. Numbers of people died. There was gunfire.

In response to the Winnipeg General Strike no War Measures Act was declared.

In late 1934, unemployed workers planned to trek from Vancouver to Ottawa. In Regina in mid-June 1935, eight elected representatives of the trekkers were invited to Ottawa to meet R.B. Bennett on June 22. The meeting turned into a shouting match, with Bennett accusing Trek leader Arthur “Slim” Evans of being an “embezzler.” Evans, in turn, called the Prime Minister “a liar” before the delegation was finally escorted out of the building and on to the street. Back in Regina, trekkers were thwarted by the RCMP in attempts to travel east by car, truck or train.

On July 1, 1935, there was a clash between trekkers and police in Regina. Charles Miller, a plainclothes policeman, died, and Nick Schaack, a Trekker, later died in the hospital from injuries sustained in the riot. Prime Minister R.B. Bennett characterized the On-to-Ottawa Trek as “not a mere uprising against law and order but a definite revolutionary effort on the part of a group of men to usurp authority and destroy government.” The Federal Minister of Justice Hugh Guthri falsely stated on July 2 in the House of Commons that “shots were fired by the strikers, and the fire was replied to with shots from the city police.” During the lengthy trials that followed, no evidence was ever produced to show that strikers fired shots during the riot.

The War Measures Act was not declared.

In May 1962, a meeting of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan passed a resolution vowing physicians would close their practices if Medicare came into force. “Keep Our Doctors” committees were established throughout the province and a campaign, backed by the Regina Leader-Post was undertaken, with warnings that most doctors would leave Saskatchewan if socialized medicine was introduced. On July 1, 1962, the doctors strike began and 90% of the province’s doctors shut their offices. The strike by doctors lasted 23 days, and numbers of people died for lack of care.

The War Measures Act was not declared.

In 1990, for 78 days between July and September, Mohawks blocked the Mercier Bridge. There were numbers of violent confrontations between the Mohawk and non-indigenous commuters. 31-year-old Sûreté du Québec Corporal Marcel Lemay died after he was shot in a gun battle between SQ and Mohawk warriors. Mohawk elder Joe Armstrong, age 71, was struck in the chest by a large rock and died of a heart attack the next day. Routes 132, 138 and 207 were all blocked to the blockaded Mercier Bridge. (24)

The Emergencies Act was not declared.

In 1993 in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia, more than 700 people were arrested in 1993 during a peaceful three-month anti-clearcutting protest on Vancouver Island. They objected to the B.C. government’s logging plan for the Clayoquot, which would have allowed some form of logging in two-thirds of the 350,000 hectares of forest, home to some of Canada’s largest and oldest trees. Logging companies said the protests imperiled economic growth.

The Emergencies Act was not declared.

In the summer of 2021, after news of unmarked graves of First Nations children were reported in Kamloops, nearly fifty churches across Canada were vandalized, and desecrated, over 30 burned down by arsonists.

The Emergencies Act was not declared.

And in 2020 and 2021, Black Lives Matter and anti-colonialism protesters variously 1) toppled a statue of Prime Minister John A. MacDonald in Montreal, decapitating his head, 2) toppled statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II in Winnipeg, and 3) Captain James Cook in Victoria, among others. Those opposed to the Trucker Freedom Convoy were outragedthat Terry Fox was draped with an upside-down Canadian flag, and was holding a “Mandate Freedom” poster. Yet, the Terry Fox statue by Parliament Hill remains unharmed, the flag and poster removed.

Ironically, while truckers protest a mandatory vaccine mandate for driving trucks across the Canada-US border, those charged with keeping the peace near Parliament Hill – the Ottawa Police – are not required to get vaccinated. They can opt to take COVID tests instead.

Back in 2013 at a Liberal fundraiser, Justin Trudeau, in response to a question about which country he admired the most – said China. “There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime. There is a flexibility… having a dictatorship where you can do whatever you wanted, that I find quite interesting.”

In passing the Emergencies Act, Justin Trudeau may hope to turn the Canadian economy around, vaccinating our way to an economic boom with his newfound “flexibility,” freezing protesters bank accounts, cancelling their licenses to drive, and doing whatever else he wants to crush dissent. (Many hundreds of police are beating and arresting protesters as I write this). But, when political power is fueled by political calculations to divide citizens between an “in-group” and an “out-group,” at what point does the damage done to society become permanent?

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.”

Trudeau is getting pushback. Seven provinces have registered their opposition, stating the Prime Minister has not satisfied them that the nation is faced with “an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that … seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it,” as outlined in Section 3 of the Act. That development was reported, among others, by signatory to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, former Premier of Newfoundland, Brian Peckford.

Speaking to protesters gathered in Ottawa, Peckford expressed his firm opposition to the actions of the Liberal government. He added that former Charter signatories – Premiers Peter Lougheed, Alan Blackney, and Angus MacLean – would also view the actions of the Prime Minister as unconstitutional. Peckford emphasized key provisions of the Charter guarantee every citizen “the right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province” and “the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.”

*

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

Ray McGinnis is author of Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored. Read other articles by Ray.

Featured image is from Dissident Voice

Dear Readers,

As everyone faces difficult times, the company which deals with the fulfillment of book sales on behalf of Global Research is no longer able to provide its services. We are unfortunately suspending the sale of print books until further notice.

We will be contacting and refunding readers who have purchased our books in print format. Meanwhile, PDF versions are still available for purchase. We hope to be able to resolve this matter as soon as possible. Our apologies for the inconvenience.

Thank you for your valuable support.

***

Open Letter to Novak Djokovic. You Are a Role Model for All Free People

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, February 20, 2022

For many weeks now, I have been following from here the fear pandemic unleashed worldwide by a diabolical financial “elite” and the compulsion to be vaccinated with a gene-altering so-called vaccine. I was always very curious about your statement and your behaviour as an exceptional Serbian athlete and role model not only for the youth worldwide.

Zelensky’s Munich Speech Implies That Ukraine’s Becoming Increasingly Desperate

By Andrew Korybko, February 21, 2022

The entire Ukrainian state structure is extremely worried about being abandoned by the US-led West after their American patron beat the drums of war, accelerated Ukraine’s economic collapse, then literally fled in the face of their fearmongered ‘Russian invasion’.

NATO No Longer a Defensive Alliance Is a Tool of Aggression

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, February 21, 2022

Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of NATO who answers to Washington declared today (Feb 19) at the Munich Security Conference that “if the Kremlin’s aim is to have less NATO on its borders, it will only get more NATO.” He says NATO is beefing up its forces “across the alliance,” that is, in the NATO countries on Russia’s borders.

The True Story of Trudeau’s First War Measures Act of 1970

By Matthew Ehret-Kump and Benoit Chalifoux, February 20, 2022

Due to the current activation of the Emergency Measures Act by Justin Trudeau on February 14 in response to the Freedom Convoys and blockades both in Ottawa and across various provinces of Canada, I thought it fitting to republish the text in full here. Where part one deals with some important contextual backstory, part two breaks down the facts of the October Crisis inside job itself.

The Mind Control Police: The Government’s War on Thought Crimes and Truth-Tellers

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, February 20, 2022

In recent years, the government has used the phrase “domestic terrorist” interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.” The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

Time for UK Government to Come Clean on Ties to U.S. Torture Program

By John Kiriakou, February 20, 2022

We Americans have had a painful and difficult national debate over the past 20 years relative to torture. Torture was official U.S. government policy from 2002 until at least 2005, and that iteration was not formally outlawed until passage of the McCain-Feinstein Amendment in 2015.

Breaking: Decisive Night for Eastern Ukraine. The Shelling of Donbass by UAF

By South Front, February 20, 2022

The failure of the information campaign aimed at provoking an armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine on February 15-16 did not bring the Ukrainian regime and its patrons to their senses.

Is Justin Trudeau Waging a War on the National Security of Canada and Canadians?

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, February 20, 2022

Justin Trudeau is a fitting embodiment of those who inhabit the peaks of privilege in this unjust society. His recent action personifies how some members of his dynastic class further their unbounded quest for power by disguising their actions behind a veneer of emergency measures.

Will Washington Launch a Mass-Casualty “False Flag” to Sabotage Nord Stream?

By Mike Whitney, February 20, 2022

February 16 has come and gone without incident. The information spread by US officials and the media proved to be wrong. Russia did not invade Ukraine nor did any of the unverified warnings turn out to be true.

Video: Anti-COVID Mandate Protest in the US

By mistersunshinebaby, February 20, 2022

“We Are Guaranteed Equal Protection Under the Law So Why Are the Unvaccinated Being Treated Differently Than the Vaccinated?”

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Last June, the Associated Press reported [1] the largest warship in the Iranian navy caught fire and later sank in the Gulf of Oman under unclear circumstances. The blaze began around midnight and firefighters tried to contain it, but their efforts failed to save the 207-meter Kharg, which was used to resupply other ships in the fleet at sea and conduct training exercises. The Fars News Agency reported 400 sailors and trainee cadets on board fled the vessel, with 33 suffering injuries.

The ship sank near the Iranian port of Jask, some 1,270 kilometers southeast of Tehran on the Gulf of Oman near the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf. Photos circulated on Iranian social media showed sailors wearing life jackets evacuating the vessel as a fire burned behind them.

Meanwhile, a massive fire broke out at the oil refinery serving Iran’s capital, sending thick plumes of black smoke over Tehran. Similarly, last April, an Iranian ship MV Saviz believed to be an Iranian Revolutionary Guard base and anchored for years in the Red Sea off Yemen was targeted in an attack suspected to have been carried out by Israel.

Among the major attacks to target Iran, none have struck deeper than two explosions in July 2020 and then again in April last year at its Natanz nuclear facility. Former chief of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service Yossi Cohen offered the closest acknowledgment yet that his country was behind the attacks targeting Iran’s nuclear program and the assassination of a military scientist.

While Cohen was being interviewed in investigative program Uvda of Israel’s Channel 12 in a segment aired last June, the interviewer, journalist Ilana Dayan, offered a detailed description of how Israel snuck the explosives into Natanz’s underground halls.

The man who was responsible for these explosions, it became clear, made sure to supply to the Iranians the marble foundation on which the centrifuges were placed, Dayan said. “As they install this foundation within the Natanz facility, they have no idea that it already includes an enormous amount of explosives.”

They also discussed the November 2020 killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, an Iranian scientist who began Tehran’s military nuclear program decades ago. While Cohen on camera didn’t claim the killing, Dayan in the segment described Cohen as having “personally signed off on the entire campaign.” Dayan also described how a remotely operated machinegun fixed to a pickup truck killed Fakhrizadeh and later self-destructed.

A joint American-Israeli program [2], involving a series of short-of-war clandestine strikes, aimed at taking out the most prominent generals of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and targeting Iran’s power stations, industrial infrastructure, and missile and nuclear facilities has been going on since early 2020 after the commander of IRGC’s Quds Force General Qassem Soleimani was assassinated in an American airstrike at the Baghdad airport on January 3, 2020.

Besides pandering to Zionist lobbies in Washington, another purpose of these subversive attacks has been to avenge a string of audacious attacks mounted by the Iran-backed forces against the US strategic interests in the Persian Gulf that brought the US and Iran to the brink of a full-scale war in September 2019.

In addition to planting limpet mines on oil tankers off the coast of UAE in May 2019 and the subsequent downing of the American Global Hawk surveillance drone in the Persian Gulf by Iran, the brazen attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia on September 14, 2019, was the third major attack in the Persian Gulf against the assets of Washington and its regional allies.

The “sacrilegious assault” on the veritable mecca of the oil production industry was an apocalypse for the global oil industry, because the Persian Gulf holds 800 billion barrels, over half of world’s total 1,500 billion barrels crude oil reserves.

The subversive attack sent jitters across the global markets and the oil price surged 15%, the largest spike witnessed in three decades since the First Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, though the oil price was eased within weeks after industrialized nations released their strategic oil reserves.

Alongside deploying several thousand American troops, additional aircraft squadrons and Patriot missile batteries in Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the Abqaiq attack, several interventionist hawks in Washington invoked the Carter Doctrine of 1980 as a ground for mounting retaliatory strikes against Iran, which states:

“Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

Although the Houthi rebels based in Yemen claimed the responsibility for the September 2019 complex attack involving drones and cruise missiles on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, Washington dismissed the possibility. Instead, it accused Tehran of mounting the strikes from Iran’s territory.

Obviously, the audacious attack was Iran’s retaliation in sheer desperation to the Trump administration reneging on its predecessor’s pledge and unilaterally canceling the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018.

It’s noteworthy that the Iran nuclear sanctions that were re-imposed by the Trump administration in 2018 after the revocation of the JCPOA were “third-party sanctions,” implying that any state or business organization doing business with Iran wouldn’t be permitted to engage in commercial activities with the US government and commercial enterprises based in the US, thus practically excluding Iran’s economy from the global financial system led by the US.

After being elected president, Biden has kept his statements deliberately ambiguous in order to fill the gaps in his Iran policy. Nevertheless, even if we assume Biden is sincere in restoring the nuclear pact, considering the influence of Zionist lobbies in Washington, which literally forced the Trump administration to abandon the deal in May 2018, Biden would find it a daunting task to follow through on his pacifist rhetoric with tangible policy decisions.

His predecessor Donald Trump repeatedly complained during the four years of his presidency that the Iran nuclear deal, signed by the Obama administration in 2015, was an “unfair deal” that gave concessions to Iran without giving anything in return to the US.

Regrettably, there is a grain of truth in Trump’s statements because the Obama administration signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran in July 2015 under pressure, as Washington had bungled in its Middle East policy and wanted Iran’s co-operation in Syria and Iraq to get a face-saving.

In order to understand how the Obama administration bungled in Syria and Iraq, we should bear the background of Washington’s Middle East policy during the recent years in mind. The decade-long conflict in Syria that gave birth to myriads of militant groups, including the Islamic State, and after the conflict spilled across the border into neighboring Iraq in early 2014 was directly responsible for the spate of Islamic State-inspired terror attacks in Europe from 2015 to 2017.

Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in August 2011 to June 2014, when the Islamic State overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq, an informal pact existed between the Western powers, their regional allies and jihadists of the Middle East against the Iranian resistance axis comprising Iran, Syria and their Lebanon-based proxy Hezbollah that posed an existential threat to Israel’s regional security. Therefore, in accordance with the pact, militants were trained and armed in the training camps located in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan to battle the Syrian government.

This arrangement of an informal pact between the Western powers and the jihadists of the Middle East against the Iran-allied forces worked well up to August 2014, when the Obama Administration made a volte-face on its previous regime change policy in Syria and began conducting air strikes against one group of militants battling the Syrian government, the Islamic State, after the latter overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq from where the US had withdrawn its troops only a couple of years ago in December 2011.

After this reversal of policy in Syria by the Western powers and the subsequent Russian military intervention on the side of the Syrian government in September 2015, the momentum of jihadists’ expansion in Syria and Iraq stalled, and they felt that their Western patrons had committed a treachery against the jihadists’ cause, hence they were infuriated and rose up in arms to exact revenge for this betrayal.

If we look at the chain of events, the timing of the spate of terror attacks against the West was critical: the Islamic State overran Mosul in June 2014, the Obama Administration began conducting air strikes against the Islamic State’s targets in Iraq and Syria in August 2014, and after a lull of almost a decade since the horrific Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005, respectively, the first such incident of terrorism occurred on the Western soil at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in January 2015.

Then the Islamic State carried out the audacious November 2015 Paris attacks, the March 2016 Brussels bombings, the June 2016 truck-ramming incident in Nice, and three horrific terror attacks took place in the United Kingdom within a span of less than three months in 2017, and after that the Islamic State carried out the Barcelona terrorist attack in August 2017.

Keeping this background of the quagmire created by the Obama administration in Syria and Iraq in mind, it becomes abundantly clear that the Obama administration desperately needed Iran’s cooperation in Syria and Iraq to salvage its botched policy of training and arming jihadists to topple the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria that backfired and gave birth to the Islamic State that carried out some of the most audacious terror attacks in Europe from 2015 to 2017.

Thus, Washington signed the JCPOA in July 2015 that gave some concessions to Iran, and in return, former hardline Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki was forced out of power in September 2014 with Iran’s tacit approval and moderate former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi was appointed in his stead, who gave permission to the US Air Force and ground troops to assist the Iraqi Armed Forces and allied militias to subdue the Islamic State in Mosul and Anbar.

The Iran nuclear deal, however, was neither an international treaty under the American laws nor even an executive agreement. It was simply categorized as a “political commitment.” Due to the influence of Zionist lobbies in Washington, the opposition to the JCPOA in the American political discourse was so vehement that forget about having it passed through the US Congress, the task the Obama administration faced was to muster enough votes of dissident Democrats to defeat a resolution of disapproval so that it couldn’t override a presidential veto.

The Trump administration, however, was not hampered by the legacy of the Obama administration, and since the objective of defeating the Islamic State had already been achieved in October 2017, therefore Washington felt safe to unilaterally annul the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 at former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s behest, and the crippling “third-party sanctions” were once again imposed on Iran’s oil and financial sectors.

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Af-Pak and Middle East regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

Notes

[1] Iran’s largest warship catches fire, sinks in Gulf of Oman

[2] Long-Planned and Bigger Than Thought: Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Program

Featured image is from Silent Crow 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The entire Ukrainian state structure is extremely worried about being abandoned by the US-led West after their American patron beat the drums of war, accelerated Ukraine’s economic collapse, then literally fled in the face of their fearmongered ‘Russian invasion’.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the Munich Security Conference on Saturday in a dramatic speech that implies how increasingly desperate his country has become. Comparing the Russian Federation to Nazi Germany and fearmongering about World War III has become standard fare among Moscow’s many critics so it isn’t surprising that Zelensky resorted to the same. He meant to scare his audience so that they consider scaling up their military and economic assistance of his country, which suggests that he isn’t satisfied with the hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of aid he’s already received this year alone.

According to Zelensky, Ukraine deserves even more because it serves as a so-called “shield” for protecting Europe. Nonetheless, he’s against it being considered a “buffer” between Russia and the West since he insists that his country should be part of the latter, including through NATO membership. About that, he called the alliance out and told it to finally be honest about Ukraine’s membership prospects. Even if it never joins, though, he said that it’ll always defend itself against any threat. This shows that Zelensky is very unhappy with everything that’s recently transpiring, especially the evacuation of all US-led Western military forces and most of their diplomats in recent weeks.

Moreover, he’s also very upset at them always talking about this or that date of a so-called “Russian invasion”. Reports have claimed that such hysteria already cost Ukraine several billion dollars but the reality is probably a lot more, including in terms of decreasing investor confidence in the country’s future. That’s probably why Zelensky proposed a “Stability and Reconstruction Fund” for Ukraine as well as a “lend-lease” military-technical program. He likely doesn’t expect all that much more free aid and therefore wants to make it known that Kiev is ready to cut deals in exchange for more. This further confirms how desperate the country has recently become.

Zelensky lamented several times throughout the course of his speech that Ukraine seems to be considered a peripheral country among many Europeans, who apparently haven’t paid all that much attention to it until the recent undeclared US–provoked missile crisis in Europe. That likely explains why he suggested that Ukraine play a front and center role in creating what he described as a new European security architecture. To that end, he proposed convening a meeting between the UNSC, Ukraine, Germany, and Turkey. He also said that his country might abandon the Budapest Memorandum’s obligations for Kiev not to develop nuclear weapons since he claims that its terms have been violated.

That last-mentioned aspect of his speech leaves no question to the fact that Ukraine is unprecedentedly desperate to receive more US-led Western support in all respects otherwise Zelensky wouldn’t have flirted with going nuclear, which is delusional in any case but was nevertheless meant to generate hysterical headlines the day after for redirecting global attention to Kiev’s case (not that it wasn’t getting enough already). It’s unlikely that the Ukrainian leader wrote his speech himself so observers can interpret his words as representing the concerns of his country’s military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”).

This insight suggests that the entire state structure is extremely worried about being abandoned by the US-led West after their American patron beat the drums of war, accelerated Ukraine’s economic collapse, then literally fled in the face of their fearmongered “Russian invasion”. Zelensky’s country has been hung out to dry at no cost to the US-led West itself but with unprecedented costs to Ukraine in every respect, especially economic and financial. While it remains unclear whether the US will give the green light for Ukraine to initiate a third round of all-out civil war hostilities and thus probably prompt a Russian military response in self-defense, there’s no doubt that its ties with Kiev are very complicated.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of NATO who answers to Washington declared today (Feb 19) at the Munich Security Conference that “if the Kremlin’s aim is to have less NATO on its borders, it will only get more NATO.” He says NATO is beefing up its forces “across the alliance,” that is, in the NATO countries on Russia’s borders. See this.

This is an extremely aggressive response to Russia’s concern about missile bases placed on her borders. To speak frankly, Stoltenberg is inviting a Russian attack before she finds herself with more missile bases on her borders.

As if this isn’t enough and with Russia already concerned with the unwillingness of the West to abide by any agreements, treaties, and international law, the president of Ukraine declared today at the Munich Security Conference that Ukraine was on the verge of renouncing the Budapest Memorandum in which Ukraine agreed to abstain from nuclear weapons in exchange for its independence from Russia.  As Ukraine has already broken the Minsk Agreement, there is no reason for Ukraine to keep to the Budapest Memorandum. See this.

So, Russia goes to the US and NATO and says frankly: “You are making us uncomfortable by putting missile bases on our borders and by your plans to bring Ukraine into NATO.  This is not something we can accept.  Here is our proposal for mutual security.”  And the reply is more NATO military expansion and Ukraine developing nuclear weapons.

There was never any possibility of any success of Russian negotiations with Ukraine, because Ukraine is not a sovereign country and cannot make its own decisions.  Ukraine is Washington’s pawn used to cause trouble for Russia. Russia brought this upon herself by standing aside while Washington overthrew the Ukraine government and installed a Washington puppet.  Biden, Blinken, Stoltenberg, and the rest of the crew have made it completely clear that they intend to make Russia less secure.  The West thinks that this is riskless because all the Russians will do is complain and ask for more negotiations.  Washington has Russia trapped in the self-defeating process of answering Washington’s accusations. 

Perhaps Biden, Blinken, and Stoltenberg are right.  But on the other hand, what would you do if you were the government of a vast country allied with China and armed with a military force that can walk through any force NATO can muster as if it were a wet paper bag?  Would you sit there wasting time and energy in negotiations that only make things worse while your enemies build up their forces on your borders and Ukraine acquires nuclear weapons?  

You would only if you were foolish.

I don’t know what Putin has learned.  I have learned that previous Russian and Soviet governments were correct in realizing that Russian security required buffers.  There are solid reasons Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Central Asia were integral parts of Russia and the Soviet Union. The Soviet government formed the Warsaw Pact (East European countries) as a buffer to NATO, which was formed first.  The weak Yeltsin government, by agreeing to strip Russia of her buffers, has produced the insecurity that Putin has tried to resolve peacefully.

Biden, Blinken, Stoltenberg, Inc. have made it clear that there will be no peaceful resolution except the Kremlin’s acceptance of Washington’s hegemony.  As I have written for years, Russia’s choice is surrender or fight.  

I still think peace is achievable, but not until there is a demonstration of judicious Russian force. The West needs to understand that Russia means it when she says she has had enough.

What would be an example of judicious force?  Perhaps this:

• The Kremlin accepts the vote of the Donbass Russians to be returned to Russia like Crimea.  This would end the violence in Ukraine as not even the Ukrainian neo-Nazis are stupid enough to attack Russia.
• The Kremlin announces that Ukraine is in no danger from Russia unless Ukraine becomes a NATO member, accepts US missile bases, or begins developing nuclear weapons, in which case Ukraine will be destroyed.
• The US missile bases in Poland and Romania will be removed or Russia will remove them.
• There will be no further strengthening of NATO military forces in NATO countries bordering Russia.  Any such forces will be destroyed upon arrival.

The red lines would be clear.  If the West crosses them, it will be the West that is responsible for the violence. 

If nothing of this sort is done, Washington will keep pushing until Russia has to take far more drastic action that would bring a much greater chance of nuclear war.  

It is clear from Washington’s negative response to Russia’s demand that her security concerns be addressed that negotiations are pointless.  Washington controls the Western media, and the media spins the outcome to Washington’s satisfaction.  More negotiation just means more Russian frustration.

It is difficult for the Kremlin to act in Russia’s interest because of the Russian fifth column consisting of the Atlanticist Integrationists. These are influential people and organizations who are more concerned to be a part of the West than they are with Russian sovereignty.  Globalism is everywhere, including in the Russian government and economic establishment.  Russian economists have been indoctrinated by their Western counterparts that Russia needs foreign exchange in order to develop the Russian economy.  Consequently, they think energy sales to Europe should be billed in dollars or euros, which strengthens the dollar and the euro instead of the ruble.  It is a sad situation when a country’s economists recommend a policy that strengthens the enemy’s currency instead of its own.

Washington is relying on the Atlanticist Integrationists and the Western-financed NGOs, which the Russian government foolishly permits to operate against itself inside Russia, to make it difficult for Putin to meet the challenges that Washington is bringing in order to weaken and destabilize Russia.

Russia cannot negotiate away either the US military/security complex’s need for an enemy to justify its power and budget or Washington’s desire for hegemony.  This is the reality that Putin faces.

Putin and Lavrov keep trying to rely on reason and fact, but in the West reason and fact have lost their influence.  Reason is a “white construct” that white people who are “systemic racists” use to oppress people of color.  Biologically-based gender is not even a fact.  A physical man can declare himself a woman, and a physical woman can declare herself to be a man. Employers, schools, even the military have to accept the self-declaration of gender regardless of fact, or courts rule they are in violation of the Civil Rights Act and are discriminating on the basis of sex.

The Western world has replaced reason and fact with narratives.  Narratives are official explanations that no matter how false carry the imprimatur of truth. To challenge them can be life-threatening.  We are not yet shot in the back of the head in the Lubyanka.  Instead, we are declared to be “domestic terrorists,” “Russian agents,” “disinformation agents,” “enemies of democracy.”  We are deplatformed, fired from our jobs, our medical licenses are taken away, we are arrested and our property seized for protesting a narrative as is currently happening to the Canadian  protesters.  

Independent scientists of the highest reputation have proven that the Covid narrative is incorrect, that the mRNA vaccines are more dangerous to most people than Covid itself.  Yet the scientific facts do not correct the narrative.  Instead, the narrative bans the facts.  

How is it possible that Putin and Lavrov expect to negotiate with a culture in which reason and fact do not exist? Why do they continue in this folly? Is the reality they face too much to accept compared to the pretend world of negotiation?

*

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

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 http://nousnatobases.org

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

When it comes to the ever ascending techno-economic colossus of China, it is year-round open season in the West for monopoly media and government officials to invoke whatever opprobrium, throw it against the wall and hope it sticks, if not repeat the defamation. Evidence does not matter. It can be cooked up. And the same story can be repeated ad nauseam because if someone hears it often enough, it must be true, … right?

The Beijing-hosted Winter Olympics are happening, and this provided an opportunity for Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai to meet with gathered western media and clarify misconceptions or doubts about her narrative. But that is not how western monopoly media operates. Still she met with two journalists, Sophie Dorgan and Marc Ventouillac, from the French sports newspaper L’Equipe.

The Associated Press notes of the interview that Peng was “prepped and ready to talk for the first time with western media about allegations she made of forced sex with a former top-ranked Communist Party official.” It comes across as saying she would produce canned responses. Given the hullabaloo that exploded after her Weibo social-media post, many people would want to forgo such an interview. But Peng had opened a can of worms with that post, a post she soon after deleted. It was incumbent that she clear the air much more than she had done hitherto. Going into such an interview cold turkey was not in the cards. Besides, it is normal and recommended that athletes prepare for an interview.

AP writes of a “restrictive interview arranged with Chinese Olympic officials.” Isn’t every interview/interaction restricted in some sense? So what was the purpose of the adjective “restricted”? And since it is taking place at the Olympic venue, wouldn’t arrangements best be made by Olympic officials from China? But the AP framing is pointed: behind the scenes, Chinese officials were controlling the process. Does China not have a responsibility to look out for one of its citizens, whether Peng is at fault or not through her own (mis)handling of the situation? There is nothing sinister in this.

One of two L’Equipe journalists, Marc Ventouillac, told AP “he is still unsure if she is free to say and do what she wants.”

“It’s impossible to say,” he said in English. “This interview don’t give proof that there is no problem with Peng Shuai.”

In other words, Ventouillac doesn’t know. How could he know? There is nothing substantial for AP to seize on here.

So instead AP writes,

China’s intent, however, was clear to him [Ventouillac]: By granting the interview as Beijing is hosting the Winter Olympics, it appeared that Chinese officials hope to put the controversy to rest, so it doesn’t pollute the event.

Really? First, how was the Chinese intent clear? Second, when AP writes “it appeared that Chinese officials hope to put the controversy to rest,” the phrasing “it appeared” does not speak to clarity or certainty. It instead appears that the AP is backing down from its stance on Ventouillac’s clarity of Chinese intent. Third, where does the phrase “Chinese officials hope” come from? Did the journalists interview Chinese officials? This was not stated anywhere. If not having spoken to Chinese officials, then how would the French journalists know what Chinese officials were hoping for? This is pure conjecture without any substantiation. Is this journalism?

AP tries a different take:

“It’s a part of communication, propaganda, from the Chinese Olympic Committee,” Ventouillac told The Associated Press on Tuesday, the day after L’Equipe published its exclusive.

More questions are raised by this. What communication was that? Who communicated it? What exactly was stated in the communication? Why is this communication termed propaganda? Is there anything meaningful in this short quotation by AP? If not, then why was it not edited out of the article? It appears that the propaganda is coming from AP.

More supposition follows:

With “an interview to a big European newspaper, they [China] can show: ‘OK, there is no problem with Peng Shuai. See? Journalists (came), they can ask all the questions they wanted.’”

Why not? I don’t think China cares so much about the ruckus stemming from the Weibo post. It is small potatoes compared to allegations of US presidents, current and past, involvement in sexual scandals. But, understandably, Peng would like to clear the air, and China would like to help out an athlete who has been a good ambassador on the tennis court.

However, AP puts a different spin on this:

“It’s important, I think, for the Chinese Olympic committee, for the Communist Party and for many people in China to try to show: ‘No, there is no Peng Shuai affair,’” Ventouillac said.

Speaking of small potatoes, how does a social media faux pas stack up against allegations, patently false though they are, of genocide? If there is nothing more to the issue than a regrettable posting on her social media account that blew up into an international fiasco, then of course Peng would like to put the issue to rest.

The Women’s Tennis Association is unconvinced, saying that the L’Equipe interview “does not alleviate any of our concerns” about the allegations she made in November. First, what concern? The AP piece makes it sound like a concern about the allegation and not about the well-being of the player. Second, what concern is an allegation of a crime committed outside the WTA’s jurisdiction to the WTA? Is the WTA an international forensics and prosecutorial agency now? Third, is it any business of the WTA, especially since Peng has stated she wanted to be left in peace?

Simon has two demands: “As we would do with any of our players globally, we have called for a formal investigation into the allegations by the appropriate authorities and an opportunity for the WTA to meet with Peng — privately — to discuss her situation.” We would like to meet privately with Peng. Privately, so she should appear before the WTA brass alone? The WTA is not alone; Simon stated “we.” Why can Peng not bring anyone to accompany her? A lawyer would be a good start. And what if she doesn’t want to meet?

Two other key words here are “would do.” Has the WTA ever acted in such capacity before, beyond words?

When 19-year-old tennis star Jelena Dokic, a victim of parental abuse, asked the WTA to not issue credentials to her parents, the WTA keenly stressed that Dokic’s personal arrangements were “a private matter.”

Nonetheless, although Peng’s matter is public now (and social media is not a medium if you want privacy), are the details of Peng’s matter not private as far as the WTA is concerned?

What did the ATP, the men’s equivalent of the WTA, do when one of its former star players, the phenotypically Black James Blake, was assaulted by a white New York plains clothes officer James Frascatore? I never heard the then ATP president, Chris Kermode, issue any statements of concern for Blake. I am unaware of any ATP calls for a formal investigation into alleged, and subsequently confirmed, police brutality.

Nowadays, German tennis star Alexander Zverev finds himself dogged by allegations of domestic violence made by a former girlfriend. All the ATP has done publicly in this matter is issue new domestic abuse guidelines. I have not heard of ATP concern for the player or the alleged victim.

The WTA has come up with its own framing of the incident. WTA chief executive Steve Simon stated, “Peng took a bold step in publicly coming forth with the accusation that she was sexually assaulted by a senior Chinese government leader.”

That is Simon’s framing. First, was the Weibo post a big step or big mistake by Peng? Second, when you put out a statement, then get it right. Simon’s statement is factually inaccurate. The “senior Government leader” has been retired for a few years. It should have read a former senior vice premier of the State Council. Is Kamala Harris ever called a leader of the United States? Simon has willfully positioned Peng’s paramour, Zhang Gaoli, in the leadership position in China. Had anyone outside of China ever heard of Zhang before Peng’s Weibo post?

Conveniently appearing at the end of the AP piece are the following:

1. Ventouillac said Peng “seems to be healthy.”
2. Originally 30 minutes were allotted for the interview, but it lasted nearly an hour.
3. Ventouillac said the journalists had asked all the questions they wanted.
4. And, “There was no censorship in the questions.”

Telling is what was unmentioned in the AP article: that Peng denies an assault as having happened.

Is that clarity? I submit that there remains a question still answered: why did she write of being forced to have sex in the first place? She denies it having been the case, but she put it out there in social media. Hence, the once posted allegation is something that anti-China types can and will latch onto to besmirch the nation.

It is not up to the WTA, ATP, IOC, AP, US, EU, NATO, IMF or whichever entity to force Peng to do anything she is uncomfortable with. She is not a criminal. At worst, she was engaged in thoughtless mischief. If she says it never happened, everyone has to accept her at her word. Peng is the only one who knows with 100 percent certainty her truth. If need be, she knows that there are plenty of people out there who would listen to her story.

Meanwhile in Washington, there is a “leader,” a sitting president with an accusation of sexual assault against him. Tara Reade has never backed down from her allegation against Joe Biden, but the domestic US mass media has given him a pass, belying the two-faced nature of American media when it comes to the alleged malfeasance of American officials versus the allegations of wrongdoing against a officials in a state-designation enemy.

*

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Dear Mr. Novak Djokovic,

Since I will not be able to reach you personally, I am addressing you with an Open Letter.

I am a German scientist and psychologist and have been living in your home country Serbia for more than two years.

For many weeks now, I have been following from here the fear pandemic unleashed worldwide by a diabolical financial “elite” and the compulsion to be vaccinated with a gene-altering so-called vaccine. I was always very curious about your statement and your behaviour as an exceptional Serbian athlete and role model not only for the youth worldwide.

When I read your new statement today in the German newspapers,

“Rather miss trophies than be forced to get a COVID vaccine” (1)

and on BBC:

“I am not against vaccination but would sacrifice trophies if told to get vaccinated.” (2)

I was thrilled and would like to congratulate you on your courage. The whole of Serbia will be proud of you. For me, you are not only a role model for free youth, but for all free people. I wish you all the best in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Rudi Hänsel

Educationalist and graduate psychologist
Belgrade / Serbia

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) https://www.welt.de/sport/article236910447/Novak-Djokovic-Keine-Impfung-Keine-Turniere-Den-Preis-zahle-ich.html

(2) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60354068

Featured image is from 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

The following two part series was co-written with Paris-based journalist Benoit Chalifoux and myself (first published in Canadian Patriot #4 in 2013) documenting the inside job run by Anglo-Canadian intelligence networks during the first Trudeau dictatorship of Canada in October 1970.

Due to the current activation of the Emergency Measures Act by Justin Trudeau on February 14 in response to the Freedom Convoys and blockades both in Ottawa and across various provinces of Canada, I thought it fitting to republish the text in full here. Where part one deals with some important contextual backstory, part two breaks down the facts of the October Crisis inside job itself.

It is also worth noting that the driving force behind the border blockades and the Ottawa protests which are spreading across the world are not the same process. Facts on the ground in Windsor and Manitoba demonstrate that unlike the freedom convoy, the border blockades are not organic and carry many signatures of stage-managed operations put on with a complicit media and fools to justify such an unjustifiable crackdown.

Sovereignty or Technocracy: A Tale of Two Revolutions

Until 1947, Canada was known as “The Dominion of Canada”.  While its title of “Dominion” has changed, Canada is still not an independent nation, but a Monarchy ruled by the British Queen and Privy Council. Until the 1960s, the French Canadians, who form the overwhelming majority of the population of Quebec, were in the main confined to manual labour and low-level clerical jobs, while the upper echelons of society were occupied by the descendants of the British colonial elite. The question for honest leaders in Quebec at that time was “How can a society so long kept economically and culturally underdeveloped be brought into a state of self-government, skills and dignity”?

Faced with that conundrum, Quebec Premiers Paul Sauvé (1959), Jean Lesage (Liberal Party 1960-65) and Daniel Johnson Sr. (Union nationale 1966-68) had, between 1959 and 1968, instituted policies that had led to a great economic revolution in Quebec centered on scientific and technological progress. This was done by the creation of an advanced engineering culture of Quebec and an international outlook towards ending colonialism under French President Charles de Gaulle’s leadership.

This was, however only one current that shaped the 1959-68 period of Quebec. There was a second, much more evil current that also shaped that period. WIthout an understanding of both currents, then no comprehension of the true purpose of the October crisis of 1970 and its effects were at all possible.

The Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Society

The De Gaulle-Johnson-Lesage nation-building momentum had been an inspired attempt to outflank the British Malthusian movement that was then attempting to impose the program which Fabian Society leader H.G. Wells described in detail in his 1930 book the “New World Order” of depopulation, eugenics, and one world government. In his book, H.G. Wells states:

“It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go… We are living in the end of the sovereign states… In the great struggle to evoke a westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish….Countless people…will hate the new world order….and will die protesting against it.”

Later on, in 1932, Wells, ever the devout eugenicist stated that all progressives and social reformers must become “liberal fascisti… enlightened nazis.”

The strategy of the synarchist figures who ran both the October Crisis and the secularization of Quebec was to bring society under a system of perfect predictability and control outlined by Wells and other Fabian socialists decades earlier. For this deconstruction of pre-existing values to occur, Wells and other Fabian thinkers reasoned that society would have to be purged of its traditional Judeo-Christian values, love for the general welfare, and especially scientific and technological progress. In this sense, all forms of individualism that Wells refers to, which are in harmony with patriotic nationalism are simply causes of uncertainty and uncontrollable change in the mind of a social engineer and hence must be purged. Only a materialist society motivated by selfish impulses under a system of fixed resources can be controlled in a predetermined fashion. The outcome of this social purging came later to be known as the “rock-drug-sex baby boomer counterculture”. Quebec, during this period was a battleground for the soul of western civilization.

Using the hypocrisies and corruption in the old Duplessis order as a moral lever to direct social anger towards the existing established order, the social engineering program that had been gaining steam from 1946-1960 under the control of Georges-Henri Levesque at the Université Laval, blew up with what had later come to be dubbed the ‘Quiet Revolution’.

While the nation-builders attempted to guide this transformation into a constructive direction, terrorist separatist groups such as the FLQ were created throughout the 1960s leading to the implementation of the War Measures Act on October 16th 1970, and then to the Emergency Measures Act under the leadership of Fabian Socialist Pierre Elliot Trudeau (Trudeau had been recruited to the Fabian Society under his tutelage of Fabian Leader Harold Laski at the London School of Economics from 1947-49 before being set up in the Ottawa Privy Council Office which has been a control center of Canada since Confederation). The latter act, somewhat less drastic than the War Measures Act, was voted up by the Canadian Parliament on December 1st 1970, and remained in force for five months.

Introducing Pierre Vallières

Many of the resources utilized in the following report are derived from a book written by a journalist called Pierre Vallières, L’exécution de Pierre Laporte, les dessous de operation Essai (Editions Quebec-Amériques, 1977). Beyond what he writes in this book, Pierre Vallières himself is an important clue in the true story behind the true top down agenda of the Synarchy which organized the various intelligence organizations that effectively ran the October crisis.

Vallières was a major player in the events of October 1970. He came from the separatist left wing, and was a leading member of the Front de Libération du Quebec (FLQ), the movement that was held responsible for the bomb attacks, and the kidnapping of British diplomat James Cross, and Quebec’s Deputy Premier, Pierre Laporte. Vallières’ connection to the FLQ and his first hand account of the events surrounding the October Crisis are only truly useful if we take into account what he leaves out. By intentionally omitting a series of important facts, Vallières deflects the reader of his book from acquiring a sense of causality in the same way that September 11 “Inside job” reports may seem impressive in their knowledge of the mechanics of controlled demolitions, yet always leave out the role of the Saudi and British governments (through BAE Systems) in sponsoring the operation.

It is for that reason that it is vital to take into consideration the higher dynamics that Vallieres omits before plunging into the important mechanics which Vallière’s work accurately portrays regarding the fallacy behind the official narrative surrounding the FLQ and the October Crisis. Thus, before proceeding, we must first look at a relationship between Pierre Vallières and a magazine called Cité Libre.

The Cité Libre-Vallières-Trudeau Connection

Cité Libre was an influential journal foundedby none other than Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Gérard Pelletier while both young men were employed in the Ottawa Privy Council Office in 1951. Cité Libre served as an important organizing tool used to attract young leftist élites of Quebec around an existentialist “personalist” ideology [1]  and plan for overthrowing the catholic regime of Maurice Duplessis and the Vatican influenced Union National party that ran Quebec from 1945-1960. In fact, Vallières even received the reins of Cité Libre directly from Trudeau in 1965 taking over Trudeau’s job as Editor-in-Chief and thus freeing Trudeau up to become a federal Member of Parliament under the newly re-organized Liberal Party banner. The Federal Liberal Party had, by that time, been purged of all C.D. Howe influences, and had become the chosen host which leading Fabians and Rhodes scholars chose to take over to advance their agenda. The Liberal Party was chosen due to the simple fact that the Fabian Society of Canada (New Democratic Party) demonstrated itself incapable of gaining the necessary political power [2].

Within merely five years of this transfer of editorship of Cité Libre, Vallières was credited for leading Quebec into a state of crisis, while Trudeau (by now Prime Minister) used the chaos of Vallière’s organization as an excuse to implement the greatest psychological trauma on the Quebec population in history by declaring Martial Law. This act also served to break the will of may Gaullist forces who were still resisting the technocratic Fabian reforms as late as 1970.

Several other Cité Libre operatives who rose to prominence in Quebec or Federal politics leading up to or after the October crisis include René Levésques, founder of the Parti Quebecois, Gérard Pelletier, Jean-Louis Gagnon, Marc Lalonde, Jean Marchand and Jean-Pierre Goyer.

Jean-Pierre Goyer was a frequent contributor to Cité Libre becoming an MP alongside Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier in 1965, and then becoming appointed Solicitor General by Trudeau, overseeing the entire RCMP during the October Crisis. When the RCMP became too scandal ridden to be of any use, having been caught creating FLQ cells, robbing dynamite, conducting extortion and theft throughout the 1970s, Goyer played an instrumental role in creating CSIS alongside Trudeau`s right hand man and Privy Council Clerk Michael Pitfield in 1984. Pitfield himself had been active with the Cite Libre nest in the early 1960s translating the group’s influential “Manifesto pour une politique fonctionelle” of April 1964.

Jean-Louis Gagnon not only served as Managing editor of La Presse (alongside Gérald Pelletier), but Deputy Cabinet Minister and then head of Information Canada under Trudeau during the period of the October Crisis, while Gérard Pelletier was appointed Pierre Trudeau`s Secretary of State. The Oxford trained Marc Lalonde became Principle Secretary to Trudeau (and later his Justice Minister), Jean Marchand (who was dubbed by the Quebec press as one of the “Three Doves” (Pelletier and Trudeau being the other two) also became a Cabinet minister during this period. The vast majority of Cité Libre figures who rose to prominence were members of the Fabian Society’s Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (renamed NDP in 1960) before joining the Liberals.

This is the same group that brought in a cybernetics overhaul to the Canadian government [3] as well as the Malthusian Canadian branch of the Club of Rome, whose Privy Council sponsorship under Trudeau, Pitfield and Lalonde directed government funds to the study which later came to be called Limits to Growth (1972). It was this fraudulent work that became the gospel of the neo-Malthusian revival and was used to justify the “post industrial paradigm of depopulation, and empire.

As you will come to realize in due course by the mere presentation of the elementary facts regarding the October Crisis of 1970, everything you have ever been told about the FLQ and the greater October Crisis which resulted from their activities is a lie.

*

 

Notes

[1] The personalist ideology which formed the basis of Cité Libre was built around the thinking of Jacques Maritaine and Jean Mounier. Maritain and Mounier were part of the “Catholic” variety of the discrete collaborators with Vichy during WWII, after the integrist Pope, Pius XII, had signed a Concordat deal with Hitler. Maritain was an Ultramontane integrist type of fascist who revived Thomas Aquinas with the purpose of instituting a “New Middle Ages” with the collaboration of the Dominicans. Maritain and Mounier were the leaders of the very Catholic “Ordre Nouveau” under Vichy. (See Pierre Beaudry’s Synarchy report on the DOMINICAN FASCIST YOUTH MOVEMENT in Book II: The Modern Synarchy Movement of Empire www.amatterofmind.org/Pierres_PDFs/SYNARCHY_I/BOOK_II/2._SYNARCHY_MOVEMENT_OF_EMPIRE_BOOK_II.pdf.) Maritain was the most important French philosopher of the war years in France and later in America. The entire Maritain, Mounier, and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange salon at Meudon was anti- De Gaulle, during and after the war. They were “Catholic personalist communitarians” who oriented against individualism and materialism for the benefit of the Revolution Nationale of Petain.

[2] Before 1960, the New Democratic Party was known since its 1933 creation as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF). The CCF was created as the political party of the League of Social Reconstruction, founded in 1932 by six Oxford Rhodes Scholars (F.R. Scott, Eugene Forsey, King Gordon, Escott Reid, David Lewis and Graham Spry), and two Fabians (Frank Underhill and Leonard Marsh). The purpose of the LSR and its spawn CCF was to implement a scientific dictatorship under the model set forth by H.G. Wells as a “solution” to the great depression of 1928-1933. It is thus not a coincidence the first CCF leader J.S. Woodsworth was a leading advocate of eugenics. F.R. Scott became a leading recruiter and lifelong controller of Trudeau upon the laters’ return to Canada in 1950. The LSR, CCF leadership worked closely with the Canadian Institute for International Affairs and founded the Canadian Forum.

[3] Speaking of his love for Cybernetics and systems analysis at a Harrison, Ontario Liberal Conference on November 21, 1969, Trudeau said:

“We are aware that the many techniques of cybernetics, by transforming the control function and the manipulation of information, will transform our whole society. With this knowledge, we are wide awake, alert, capable of action; no longer are we blind, inert powers of fate.”

It was Trudeau, Pitfield, Lalonde, Maurice Lamontagne and  Rhodes Scholar Governor General Roland Michener, along with a batch of Malthusians from the Privy Council Office who founded the Club of Rome Canada in 1970 which established the zero growth depopulation agenda which would be pursued for the next 40 years by the oligarchy.

---

The October Crisis of 1970: A Carefully-Prepared Plot

By Benoit Chalifoux and Matthew Ehret-Kump

The list of structures and institutions that follows shows clearly that some in official circles had anticipated the October 1970 crisis, which crisis had been concocted to lead into the War Measures Act and a consolidation of power in the hands of the “new technocratic elite” that had taken control of the Quiet Revolution after the death of Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson in 1968 and the ouster of both Jean Lesage and Charles de Gaulle from political power in 1969.

The purpose of the following report, which relies heavily upon accounts by Pierre Vallières, taken from his 1977 book L’exécution de Pierre Laporte, les dessous de operation Essai (Editions Quebec-Amériques, 1977) , is not to establish the cause of the October Crisis, but to sufficiently demonstrate that the official narrative commonly used to explain this period is not true. Not only that, but as the facts will show, the cause of these terrible events were organized by more powerful institutions both within and above the Canadian government.

At the Federal Level (Ottawa)

• Based at Ottawa, the Strategic Operations Centre (SOC), was the channel from the army to the Trudeau Government.  Its existence became publicly known only in 1975, like that of the Centre national de planification des mesures d’urgences (C.N.P.M.U.), that worked closely alongside the SOC.  In the light of what we now know, one can well imagine that the tasks of those centres was to draft, and implement, scenarios that could lead to promulgating the War Measures Act.

• Establishment of the Comité du 7 May 1970:  set up by the Federal Government in the wake of the elections on April 29th 1970, as we shall shortly see.  The decision was disclosed only on December 23rd 1971, by the Toronto daily The Globe and Mail.

In Quebec

• Opération Essai (Operation Trial), derived from an initial plan, first drafted in 1960, by the Planning and Operations Section of the Quebec Command.  That same year, 1960, Jean Lesage became head of the Quebec Government, and launched the «Quiet Revolution» which was a process that had a bipolar character. This process became a key battle ground between two opposing forces. The first had aimed at installing a technocratic elite in Quebec while secularizing the province in preparation for a new Malthusian culture that could be reconstructed to the will of the oligarchy. The opposing force was represented by those nation-building, largely Catholic forces then centered around Lesage and Daniel Johnson who desired to direct the revolutionary energy then embracing Quebec around an anti-imperial strategy of republicanism and technological progress.

• 1966:  the Infantry, Air Force and Navy were regrouped, and a new Mobile Army Command was set up at the Federal Military Base of Saint-Hubert.

• 1969:  the Mobile Army Command set up its Civil Emergencies Section, whereby contacts with the army were to be restricted to carefully selected political figures.

• 7 June 1970:  Michel Côté, the City of Montreal’s Head of Litigation, was secretly appointed to head the Combined Anti-terror Team – Escouade combinée anti-terroriste or C.A.T..  His job was to keep an eye on Jean Drapeau, then Mayor of Montreal.

Chronology of the October 1970 crisis

The chronology below challenges the official thesis, and points up a great many contradictions.

• 1966:  Daniel Johnson is elected Quebec Premier giving the anti-Malthusian catholic forces a new opening to regain their lost power on the continent. This coincides with the rise of Robert F. Kennedy to greater prominence in preparation for his 1968 announcement of his plans to revive his brother`s policies in his bid for the Presidency.
• 1967:  Charles de Gaulle visits Quebec on Johnson’s invitation at which point deals are struck between the two leaders based on advanced technology, infrastructure, space technology and cultural programs. Many components of this arrangement were based upon the French-Quebec assistance of technology and training to former African colonies now gaining their independence. The French President was invited to return at the end 1968 for the Francophone Summit.

• 26th September 1968: Daniel Johnson dies under unusual circumstances mere hours before the unveiling ceremony of the Manicouagan-5 Dam that Johnson had put into motion a decade earlier alongside then Premier and nation builder Paul Sauvé. Officially, he suffered a fatal heart attack. By 1969, De Gaulle is forced out of office in an anarchistic mock referendum in France. De Gaulle himself had survived over 13 assassination attempts run largely by the Montreal-based Permindex which was also at the center of the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963. Two of the three previous Union National Premiers before Johnson met identical fates and died of heart attacks while in office in a period of 6 months. Maurice Duplessis died on September 7, 1959, while Paul Sauvé died on January 2, 1960.

• 1968: Daniel Johnson’s two greatest enemies: Pierre Trudeau and Rene Lévesques, both agents of the of the technocratic reforms of the Quiet Revolution steered by Georges Henri Lévesque’s Université Laval are set up to polarize Canada between two false notions of nationalism and install a new form of Malthusian power structure on both provincial and federal levels. Trudeau is set up as Prime Minister and Lévesques founds the Parti Quebecois (two weeks after Johnson’s death), later to emerge as Premier of Quebec (1976-85). The PQ absorbs many of the saner independence forces who advocated Johnson’s formulation of “Independence if necessary, but not necessarily independence”.
• 1968-1970:  violent demonstrations break out in Montreal.
• The Civil Emergencies Section predicts « grave disturbances » during the April elections, and states that the army might have to be called out to « protect the democratic vote ».
• April 29th 1970: Provincial elections held whereby the separatists win 23% of the vote.
• February and June 1970:  two kidnapping plots are uncovered by the Montreal police force (police de la Communauté urbaine de Montreal, CUM).  One plot, to be launched in June 1970, was to be an FLQ attack on the US Consulate, launched by FLQers Lanctôt and Marcil.
• 27 May 1970:  an article in La Presse appears, on the army’s rôle in putting down civil disturbances in Canada.  According to the article, military operations were be run out of the Saint-Hubert base.

In Pierre Vallières’ view « by late summer 1970, everything was in place, and liaison between the army and the police forces concerned had moved onto a weekly, sometimes daily basis ».  He adds that « by June, the contents of the October manifesto had already been printed in some newspapers, following the abortive ‘Lanctôt-Marcil’ plot against the US Consulate; the FLQers demands had become known, and, finally, the FLQ’s operational bases (save for the flat rented in September in Northern Montreal by Cossette-Trudel) had been dismantled or had become known to the police.  The FLQ-1970 was under control in October, and no surprise was possible ».

James Cross is kidnapped

• 5th October 1970:  the British diplomat James Cross is kidnapped.  The police’s first step is to go straight to the Greek Consul’s place of residence!  The kidnappers’ trace is lost.  The kidnappers demand that the FLQ’s manifesto be published, and that their political prisoners be freed.
• 7th October:  one o’clock in the afternoon.  Mrs. Cross is shown police photographs and identifies Jacques Lanctôt as one of the kidnappers.
• 8th October:  the FLQ manifesto is published, but negotiations continue over the freeing of political prisoners.

Pierre Laporte is kidnapped:  the crisis intensifies

• 10th October (five forty in the afternoon):  the Quebec Justice Minister announces that the authorities have decided to categorically reject the demands made by Cross’ kidnappers, nor will they free the political prisoners
• 10th October (six eighteen in the afternoon):  Pierre Laporte, Vice-Premier of Quebec  and Minister of Labour and Immigration, is kidnapped in front of his home, just as he was about to play ball with his nephew.  Pierre Laporte was second in command of the Quebec Government, and as such, was, allegedly, afforded special police protection.  But the first thing the police did – having been notified of the kidnapping within two minutes of the event – was, yet again, to go straight to the wrong place!
• Vallière reports that « the  six eyewitnesses of the kidnapping of Pierre Laporte (his nephew, his wife and their neighbours) are unanimous:  the kidnappers were ‘clean cut’ and well dressed, a fact sergeant Desjardins confirmed to journalists that evening (…) Another witness, who worked in a petrol station on Taschereau boulevard, stated that shortly before the Minister was kidnapped, strangers had asked him how to get to rue Robitaille. ‘I thought they were policemen’, he said, because one was carrying something that looked like a walkie-talkie’ ».
• Night of October 12th to 13th:  the Army Mobile Command sends an emissary to Quebec’s Justice Minister, Jérôme Choquette, demanding he sign, in the name of the Bourassa cabinet, a letter requiring intervention by the armed forces.  The cabinet was not then prepared to sign, and Choquette announces he would continue his efforts to persuade the reluctant elements.
• 15th-17th October:  « for appearances’ sake» the Canadian Parliament debates the opportunity of proclaiming the War Measures Act.  The Opposition puts up a show of protest until Saturday October 17th.  Pierre Laporte’s body is thereupon discovered, « proving » a posteriori that the measures unleashed on October 16th had been needful.
• 15th October (two in the afternoon):  the Canadian army begins to deploy in Quebec, at Bourassa’s request.
• 15th October (nine in the evening):  Bourassa ups the ante, and lays down a six-hour deadline for the kidnappers to hand over James Cross and Pierre Laporte.
• 16th October (in the night):  Quebec Premier Bourassa signs a letter written by Federal Justice Minister Marc Lalonde, instituting the War Measures Act.  Several thousand soldiers were already deployed in the streets of Quebec and in the Federal Capital Ottawa.  Through the War Measures Act – whose application need not be voted up by Parliament and that has NEVER been abrogated since – the curfew came down, civil liberties were suspended, and, inter alia, search of private domicile without warrant became lawful.  Over four hundred people were arrested.
• 16th October (four in the morning):  Meeting in Council, the Governor General, the Queen’s direct representative in Canada, approves the proclamation of a state of emergency, pursuant to which the War Measures Act comes into force automatically.
• 17th October (four in the afternoon):  a member of the Cell that calls itself “Dieppe (Royal 22°)” (this is the name of a French Canadian regiment but that was not, oddly enough, at Dieppe in WWII, where many French Canadians died) calls into the CKAC radio station.  Purportedly, this is a third and heretofore unknown FLQ cell.  The caller announces that Pierre Laporte has been murdered.  The earlier communiqués had all come from the FLQ cell known as Libération, that held James Cross, and that spoke on behalf of the Chenier Cell, the members of which were presumed to be the Pierre Laporte’s kidnappers. The Libération cell, that seemed to find the “Dieppe (Royal 22°)” business disturbing, put out a communiqué at mid-day, calling upon the press to blow the whistle on a “montage” (coup monté) by the Federal Government.  The police prevented that communiqué from being published until December 8th.
• Pierre Laporte’s body is found in the boot of the very car used to kidnap him (witnesses had taken down the car’s registration number at the time) later in the evening on the Saint-Hubert military base (!), right next to the Army Mobile Command.  Given the prevailing State of Emergency, who, I ask, could have driven the car onto the base without being stopped and searched ?  Credibility is stretched well beyond the breaking point here.

• In the hours following on the death of Pierre Laporte, the authorities put out a description of Paul Rose and Marc Carbonneau, but not that of Jacques Rose, Francis Simard or Bernard Lortie.  Paul Rose, Jacques Rose and Francis Simard (presumed to be members alongside Bernard Lortie of the Chénier cell, while Marc Carbonneau and Jacques Lanctôt were part of the Libération cell holding James Cross) had been on police files and monitored since no later than 1968.  The three had been in Texas (or perhaps Mexico) since September 1970, and had raced back to Quebec after James Cross was kidnapped.  The many trips by Chénier cell members during the time Pierre Laporte was held (and the temporary gaoling of Jacques Rose and Francis Simard between October 15th and 17th) lead one to presume that it could only have been someone quite different keeping watch over the Minister, and that the actual role played by the cell in kidnapping and murdering him was secondary, perhaps even notional.
• 19th October:  the house where Pierre Laporte was held and murdered, or so goes the official thesis, is « discovered »:  5630 rue Armstrong at Saint-Hubert, near the aforesaid military base bearing that name.  That very house had been ransacked by police whilst the Minister might have been there, but nothing was turned up.  Bourassa told Mrs. Laporte on 14th October that the police had found the place her husband was being held:  « he will be freed within hours, we await the opportunity to do so without endangering [him] ». The question remains:  was that safehouse 5630 rue Armstrong?
• 2nd November:  the Federal Minister John Turner proposes an Emergency Measures Bill, based on the War Measures Act.  The Emergency Measures Act was voted up on December 1st and came into force for five months.
• 3rd December:  the Emergency Measures Act is signed into law by the Queen.  The crisis was, at least apparently, over.  Why the fresh Emergency Measures ?

At that very moment, James Cross is freed, and his kidnappers in the Libération cell are given a safe-conduct to Cuba.

• Late December:  Paul and Jacques Rose, as well as Francis Simard are arrested.  The coroner’s report is based upon unsigned confessions.  Paul Rose never acknowledges, not even verbally, the confession attributed to him.  Although he was actually firmly in police custody at the time, to avoid any risk whatsoever that he spill the beans in open Court, he was, unbelievably, tried in absentia !
• 31st March 1971:  Paul Rose, Bernard Lortie and Francis Simard are sentenced to life imprisonment. Jacques Rose, who was tried later, was acquitted.  The Prosecution Service declines to appeal.  Jacques Lancôt and Marc Carbonneau were already in exile in Cuba.

If we are to go by the explicit terms of the War Measures Act, the entire country was about to go down in murder and mayhem.  The truth is rather different:  the FLQ was a tiny, two-cell organisation with a total membership of about ten !  But we read, at Article 2 of the War Measures Act:

“EVIDENCE OF WAR

The issue of a proclamation by Her Majesty, or under the authority of the Governor in Council shall be conclusive evidence that war, invasion, or insurrection, real or apprehended exists and has existed for any period of time therein stated, and of its continuance, until by the issue of a further proclamation it is declared that the war, invasion or insurrection no longer exists.”

Until 1970, the War Measures Act, first promulgated in 1914, had been proclaimed only twice before:  when Canada entered the World War I, in 1914, and World War II, in 1939.  Here, we are to take the  Governor General’s personal opinion, as “conclusive evidence” of a State of War, that absolutely did not exist.

What did the victim himself think about all this?  All that is known for certain, is that in none of his letters to Robert Bourassa whilst kidnapped did Pierre Laporte ever refer to the FLQ, nor did his wife, or most of his friends, ever buy the official story. A Royal Mounted Canadian Police (RCMP) report dated March 3rd 1971 states that Mrs. Laporte’s opinion was that the authorities had executed her husband.

There is a dreadful similarity between the Laporte kidnapping and murder, and that of former Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978, down to the detail of the police wandering about in circles in the vicinity of the safehouse.  In both cases, subsequent events show that the real intention was never to free the kidnap victim, but to use the crisis to shift the balance of power in the country, in favour of rentier-finance interests.

The Material Ease of Terrorists

It is rather astonishing that so many players from that time, have risen to positions of material ease and social prominence.  Precisely at the point the synarchy has launched a fresh wave of strategy of tension in Europe and the Americas, they appear to want to keep a tight grip on the main players in the events of October 1970, in order to avoid their disclosing what really went on.

Ex-FLQer Jacques Lanctôt now owns his own publishing house, with a large stock-in-trade on cultural, sociological and psychological issues, and essays on the separatist movement.  On March 28th 2004, Télé-Quebec broadcast a documentary called Hostage (Otage), comprised of interviews with Jacques Lanctôt, who kidnapped James Cross, and the Cross family. The documentary was finished in early 2004. Lanctot is now a leading journalist with Canoe Inc. which is owned by Quebecor (whose Vice Chairman is none other than Brian Mulroney)

From 1996 to 2002, Paul Rose had achieved such a miraculous boost of success that he became the head of the Quebec wing of the New Democratic Party of Quebec! This Party merged with the Union des Forces Progresistes which in turn merged with two other organizations to become Quebec Solidaire which currently holds 7.6% of the seats in Quebec’s National Assembly. On March 14, 2013 Quebec Solidaire spokesman MP Amir Khadir introduced a resolution into the National Assembly to honour Paul Rose.

CSIS’s ‘Trudeau Files’ Erased in 1989

On June 15, 2019 the strange fact was made public by Canada’s National Post that the entire 40 year CSIS/RCMP dossier compiled on Canada’s most famous Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau was destroyed by Canada’s top spy agency… in 1989.

How this embarrassing fact could have gone un-noticed for so long is tied to access to information laws in Canada which make all government dossiers available on any public or private citizen 20 years after their deaths. In 2019, historians searching for a story filed early applications to read this long awaited dossier which was supposed to be awaiting scrutinizing eyes in the Archives of Canada. The answer they received from CSIS and the National Archives was that the massive treasure of documentation was destroyed because it did not “meet the threshold set out by the CSIS Act to justify being kept in service’s active inventory. The file also fell short of criteria for preservation set out by the national archives”.

Based upon the facts laid bare in the above text and earlier report, it can safely be said that the true reason for CSIS’s destruction of the Trudeau Files had everything to do with devastating information on the role played by Canada’s third longest standing Prime Minister within the context of Britain’s geopolitical “Great Game” against the world.

The role his son is playing as a pawn within this Great Game in carrying out the dictatorial legacy begun by his father 50 years ago can only be understood from this vantage point.

*

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

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation .

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from The Canadian Patriot

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

We Americans have had a painful and difficult national debate over the past 20 years relative to torture. Torture was official U.S. government policy from 2002 until at least 2005, and that iteration was not formally outlawed until passage of the McCain-Feinstein Amendment in 2015. (The torture program was a highly-classified secret from 2002 until I revealed it in a nationally-televised interview in December 2007.)

In truth, torture has been illegal in the U.S. since at least the end of World War II. In 1946, the U.S. Government executed Japanese soldiers who had waterboarded American prisoners of war. In January 1968, the Washington Post ran a front-page photograph showing an American soldier waterboarding a North Vietnamese prisoner.

Source: time.com

On the day the photo ran, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered an investigation. The soldier was arrested, tried, convicted of torture, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Torture was clearly a crime in 1946 and in 1968. But somehow, due to the legalistic gymnastics of the Bush Administration, torture was somehow magically legal in 2002. The law hadn’t changed; Americans had. It took us until 2015 to come to our collective senses again.

What Americans generally don’t discuss is the position and actions on torture of our closest friend and ally, the United Kingdom. There is very little in the American media addressing the UK position on torture and whether the UK participated in “enhanced” interrogations during the so-called War on Terror.

Certainly, there has been reporting on British actions in Northern Ireland during the “troubles” there. We know, for example, about the “hooded men”—Northern Irish men who were arrested and held without charge by British officers, hooded, kept in stress positions, deprived of sleep, deprived of food and water, and in some cases thrown out of low-flying helicopters. (Sound familiar?)

But precious little has been said about UK cooperation with the U.S. Government against al-Qaeda members and their allies.

British troops hold captive in Iraq. [Source: irishtimes.com]

With that said, we can still draw conclusions based on what little the UK Government has revealed. In 2020, for example, a UK court denied a request by two members of Parliament and a human rights organization to publicly investigate the role of the British intelligence services in torture and rendition.

The judges declared that the MPs and the human rights organization Reprieve did not have standing to force the case, and that only the actual victims of torture and rendition would have standing. They did not address the fact that many of those who had allegedly been tortured were either missing or dead because of, well, torture and rendition.

In an earlier hearing related to the same case, judges heard that there were at least 15 people who had alleged that they had been tortured by British intelligence officers, but very few details from those cases were ever made public.

Only one name was revealed at the time—that of Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a Libyan national snatched by the CIA in Thailand in 2004 with “help” from the British MI-6. Belhaj was rendered to Libya, tortured again, and sentenced to death, although he somehow survived the experience. Then-Prime Minister Theresa May eventually apologized to him.

Even if British intelligence officers did not personally torture Belhaj or other prisoners, they must answer for their cooperation with the United States and other countries where torture was used. And they must account for the information they used in other cases when that information was collected through torture.

The UK, like the U.S., maintains close relationships on, and “memoranda of understanding” on, counterterrorism with countries including Jordan, Libya, and Lebanon, countries known to use torture.

In the words of Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former Director of Counterterrorism, “You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind” to believe that some of these countries would not use torture, despite promises to the contrary. Why won’t the British government promise to not use information gathered through the use of torture? Its people are still waiting for an answer.

The UK, like the U.S., is an original signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Its tenets are actually quite simple. The agreement bans, “Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”

It doesn’t get much more clear than that. Now it’s up to the UK government to come clean.

*

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

John Kiriakou was a CIA analyst and case officer from 1990 to 2004.

In December 2007, John was the first U.S. government official to confirm that waterboarding was used to interrogate al-Qaeda prisoners, a practice he described as torture.

Kiriakou was a former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a former counter-terrorism consultant. While employed with the CIA, he was involved in critical counter-terrorism missions following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but refused to be trained in so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” nor did he ever authorize or engage in such crimes.

After leaving the CIA, Kiriakou appeared on ABC News in an interview with Brian Ross, during which he became the first former CIA officer to confirm the existence of the CIA’s torture program. Kiriakou’s interview revealed that this practice was not just the result of a few rogue agents, but was official U.S. policy approved at the highest levels of the government.

Kiriakou is the sole CIA agent to go to jail in connection with the U.S. torture program, despite the fact that he never tortured anyone. Rather, he blew the whistle on this horrific wrongdoing.

John can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image is from redress.org

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

The failure of the information campaign aimed at provoking an armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine on February 15-16 did not bring the Ukrainian regime and its patrons to their senses.

Since the night of February 16, the shelling of the DPR and LPR by the UAF has sharply intensified. By the afternoon of February 17, the frequency of the attacks reached the intensity of 2014-2015.

(some of the Videos are dysfunctional scroll down for text and analysis)

Today, the UAF artillery carried out 18 massive attacks on the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). For example, during one of these attacks on the village of Shakhty Izotov, 16 mines were fired from an 82mm mortar launchers. In total, about 300 rounds of heavy artillery and mortars were fired.

For example, in the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), the following attacks were recorded in just one hour:

• at 7.55 p.m Katerinovka – Molodezhnoye: AGS-17 (8 shots);
• at 8.15 p.m. Zolotoe 4 – Zolotoe 5: ATGM (2 shots), SPG-9 (3 shots);
• at 8.35 p.m Geevka – Slavyanoserbsk: AGS-17 ( 25 shots);
• at 9.10 p.m. Crimean – Sokolniki: SPG-9 (4 shots), heavy machine gun.

On the night of February 18, the shelling intensified. This night may become a decisive one.

According to some recent reports, a complete evacuation from the village of Alexandrovka near Donetsk has been announced. All the civilians were ordered to leave the village.

On the night of February 18, fighting continued on almost all front lines: Donetsk, Gorlovka, Debaltseve-Svetlodarsk, Pervomaiskaoe, Western part of the Bakhmutka highway.

Tanks and heavy artillery of the UAF began theirs attempts to break through the defense positions near the village of Nikolaevka.

At about 1 a.m. local time, the mobile network was cut off in some of the front regions under the UAF control.

The OSCE has recorded numerous shellings by the UAF along the front lines. The UN Deputy Secretary General said that the current escalation is the largest since 2014.

The Western MSM continue to escalate the situation by publishing paint-styled maps showing the ways of the Russian invasion of the territory of Ukraine.

The White House declares “Russia’s imminent invasion of Ukraine.”

Everything may seem logical. The situation on the front lines has significantly escalated, Russia replied that it was not satisfied with the U.S. response to the proposal of the security guarantees in Europe. But the ground facts are that all attacks on civilian objects on February 17 were carried out by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

In its turn, on the morning of February 17, Kiev published fake videos and photos that allegedly showed a shell fired by the LPR militants hit a kindergarten in Stanytsia Luhanska.

A few hours later, these statements were exposed by objective geo-analysis, which made it possible to calculate the trajectory of the projectile and revealed that the shot was carried out from the territory under the Kiev control, particularly from the deployment site of the UAF 79th brigade. It is also suspicious that the windows were not broken.

On the afternoon of February 17, the LPR announced the arrival of Western journalists to the Kiev-controlled part of Donbass to provide “informational support for the UAF offensive operation”. According to the same scheme that the West tried to apply in 2008 in Georgia, foreign journalists in the Donbass region have the task of covering the Ukrainian offensive on the territory of the republics in the “right” way.

Foreign reporters in the kindergarten:

At the same time, a significant part of the Russian military forces that conducted military exercises in the Russia’s Western regions returned to their permanent location in other Russian regions, including Siberia and the Far East.

Apparently, it was the withdrawal of part of the Russian troops from the West of the country, including Crimea, that triggered the aggressive actions of the Kiev regime.

Kiev considered that Russia had demonstrated weakness in the face of the United States and its allies, and now there is a unique chance to solve several Ukrainian problems at once by military methods. At the same time, it does not matter whether the military fortune will be on the Kiev’s side during the battles in the East of the country.

At the cost of thousands of lives of Ukrainians, both citizens of Ukraine and residents of the DPR/LPR, the Kiev regime is trying to keep the U.S. front going, receive new multibillion-dollar financial support from the United States and NATO countries, kill as many civilians in the DPR/LPR as possible and divert the attention of its own citizens and military personnel from the catastrophic socio-economic situation in the country.

It doesn’t matter what the end result is. In any case, the MSM propaganda machine will show the picture that the Kiev regime and their overseas patrons need.

The bonus for Zelensky will be that, by sacrificing his country, he will ensure the guaranteed death of the most passionate serviceman of the Ukrainian army, who could well turn their bayonets against him. A significant part of the motivated UAF servicemen who are currently deployed in the East of the country consists of nationalist extremists from the Western regions. In Ukrainian domestic political solitaire, they are the ones who pose a dangerous threat to Zelensky’s rule.

Unfortunately, the Ukrainian war is inevitable, the last questions are the date and the consequences for Europe.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

All images in this article are from SF

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

One of the earliest pioneers in the field of alternative cancer therapies who uses, among other things, low-cost, re-purposed drugs including anti-parasitic and diabetes drugs to heal cancer patients, Dr. Chang details the serious problems with the current medical paradigm that inhibits mainstream use of his successful “cocktail” approach to healing cancer patients.

Dr. Chang’s book, Beyond the Magic Bullet, the Anti-Cancer Cocktail: A New Approach to Beating Cancer, is available here.

Watch the interview below.

*

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

This interview was originally published on The Whistleblower Newsroom.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

The latest developments suggest that the COVID-19 narrative is crumbling amidst major protests worldwide.

A mass movement against COVID mandates is unfolding coast to coast across Canada in solidarity with the Freedom Convoy movement. 

All COVID mandates must be immediately suspended. They are not intended to “protect people’s lives” as claimed by our government. IT’s A BIG LIE. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The so-called pandemic is a criminal undertaking.

Below are video reports from Ottawa confirming acts of police violence and brutality which the mainstream media will not be reporting upon.

Police Brutality was ordered by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who is in blatant violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are divisions with the police force.

The Freedom Convoy is Telling the Police to Go Home, to Refuse to Implement the Illegal actions ordered by Justin Trudeau.

Spread the word Worldwide.

Our Message to Trudeau: STEP DOWN. “Indefinite Political Quarantine for Justin Trudeau”

Global Research, February 20, 2022

@kayleeanderlum Screen recorded a live stream currently in Ottawa. SHARE THIS!! A peaceful protest turning into violence by those who are here to protect us?!? #ottawacanada #WeAllPlayforCanada #RBCPodiumPose #ToyotaWave #CloseYourRings #freedomconvoy2022 #freedom ♬ original sound – ALL Girl Mom

@frankiegotz #peacefulprotest #freedomconvoy2022 #freedomconvoy #ottawa #ottawacanada #freedom #police #protester #fyp #pageforyou #page4u #4yourpage ♬ original sound – frankiegotz

@andrialogic #ottawa #canada #ottawapolice #emergenciesact #ontario #AVrboForTogether ♬ original sound – Andria

&nbsp

@canloyst To serve and protect. #policebrutallity #canada #ottawa #freedom #peacefulprotest #endtheviolence #freedomconvoy #convoytoottawa #holdtheline #convoy ♬ original sound – Can

@jamesofhighwire What?! How is this happening?! #policeviolence #ottawa #freedomconvoy2022 ♬ original sound – James Miller

@amandapinkyneil Ottawa right now.. #help #ottawa #canada #police #brutality ♬ original sound – Amanda Pinky Neil

@frankiegotz #peacefulprotest #freedomconvoy2022 #freedomconvoy #ottawa #ottawacanada #freedom #police #protester #fyp #pageforyou #page4u #4yourpage ♬ original sound – frankiegotz

@mattbelair The elderly woman who was trampled was chanting, “peace, love and happiness” before the police trampled her. #ottawapolice #ottawapolicetyrants #freedomconvoy2022 #freedomconvoy ♬ original sound – mattbelair

@allisonslindsay #freedomconvoy2022 #freedomconvoycanada #freedomconvoy #freedom #policebrutallity #holdtheline #ottawa #canada ♬ original sound – Allison

 

 

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The Truckers’ Freedom Convoys that touched down in Ottawa on January 29 have helped set in motion a worldwide showdown. The ante was raised in this showdown as the Truckers’ action in Ottawa sparked a series of supportive actions cutting off the flow of traffic at some crossing points along the Canada-US border. The ante was increased again on February 14 when the minority government of Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced its intention to ask Parliament to approve the so-called Emergency Act, the outgrowth of the former War Measures Act.

The invocation of the most consequential of Canada’s Emergency Acts serves to highlight how a medical crisis can suddenly morph into a civil liberties crisis. This transition demonstrates that a genuine showdown with significant global implications is developing in Canada. Essential to this showdown is the question of how “the law” is to be shaped, interpreted and enforced.

Will “the law” continue to be exploited as an instrument available to protect elites and to further concentrate the disproportionate and disreputable distribution of wealth and power? Or will “the law” be liberated from the grasp of its usurpers to become a facilitator of liberty and justice for the overall citizenry?

Justin Trudeau is a fitting embodiment of those who inhabit the peaks of privilege in this unjust society. His recent action personifies how some members of his dynastic class further their unbounded quest for power by disguising their actions behind a veneer of emergency measures.

Such emergency measures are always advanced in the name of protecting the public. The reality is, however, that emergency measures are often more likely to subject average people to greater levels of risk and danger especially from the actions of their own governments. This sad reality is now especially true in the totalitarian plutocracy that Trudeau seems determined to create with his ruthless wedging and creation of artificial divisions.

Beginning in early 2020, many emergency measures enactments were used to give false justification to the actions of protagonists seeking to advance their own self-interest by aggressively manufacturing the overhyped COVID crisis.

Now the COVID pushers and their attending fear mongers seem, for the moment at least, to be moving away from the emergency measures advanced in the name of protecting public health. Instead, the politicians and the chain of command that directs them from places like Davos Switzerland are resorting to a different category of emergency measures.

The new variants in the ongoing emergency scam are meant to impose coercive restrictions and punishments on those citizens deemed to be outside the realm of compliance. Compliance apparently now includes refraining from honking horns to signify that one is harboring grievances against inept government officials like Justin Trudeau.

The Peter Pan Prime Minister 

Those who have commandeered the instruments of law enforcement are seeking to counter the sequence of events initiated by the Truckers’ historic pilgrimage along the Trans-Canada Highway. This pilgrimage was accompanied by an unprecedented outpouring of hope and appreciation from the Canadian people, many of whom found ways to urge the Truckers to do their bidding in the nation’s capital.   

Once the Truckers got to Ottawa they kept true to their promise that they would do their best to be heard by the government in power. By and large they conscientiously went about the business of trying to influence the national government. Instead of being invited to take part in dialogue, the Truckers were met with a flurry of vindictiveness, hatred, and insults from a power-tripping yet cowardly Justin Trudeau.

The supposedly triple-jabbed Trudeau is showing he is prepared to put the country quite literally on a war footing in order to stand his ground. His attempt at a Rambo-like stance seems to be based on his original position that the federal Liberals must avoid any dialogue with the Truckers, let alone any compromises that might water down Trudeau’s misguided pandemic policies.

Trudeau’s approval rating dropped precipitously to 16% in the wake of his verbal assaults on the Truckers and the people across Canada who showed great appreciation for their initiative. Perhaps he is invoking the Emergency Act to fend off even those in the Liberal Party who understandably would want to drag him from office. 

Some followed Trudeau’s lead of intransigence towards the Truckers. For instance, rather than promote the establishment of some middle ground, the city government of Ottawa came up with its own emergency measures enactment.

Then the government of Ontario invoked an emergency measures response largely in reaction to a Truckers’ blockage of northward-flowing traffic across the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor. This bridge carries about a quarter of Canada-US trade and is a crucial corridor in what remains of the shared North American automotive industry still significantly based in the adjoining cities of Windsor and Detroit.

On Valentines Day Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked for the first time since its creation in 1988 the outgrowth of the War Measures Act. In 1970 the War Measures Act was invoked by the current PM’s father, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.

Trudeau Senior’s actions have been interpreted as a response to kidnappings conducted by the extreme wing of the Quebec independence movement. It has been argued, however, that Trudeau worked with covert operatives to set up false flag kidnappings in order to justify his crackdown on his political enemies in Canada’s oldest province.

[Reference, Robin Mathews, “Lies Damned Lies and the Globe and Mail,” Dialogue Magazine, Vol. 35, no 2, winter 2021-2022, opp. 38-39]

Many have observed that Trudeau basically made a fool of himself in his efforts of self-justification when he denied the Truckers any opening even for conversation with representatives of the federal government. Again and again Trudeau demonstrates he wants to turn Canadians against one another even as he ludicrously promotes his self-image as a champion of “inclusion.” See this.

When they arrived in Ottawa the Truckers scored much higher in the court of public opinion than the Peter Pan Prime Minister who seems caught somewhere in the NeverNever Land of his own infantile fantasies. It seems he shares some of Michael Jackson’s predispositions.

One can well anticipate the possibility of the formation of a public safety movement within the segment of Canadian police and Armed Forces who might very well refuse to take orders from Justin Trudeau. Trudeau’s own high-level criminality is being avidly discussed inside and outside the Armed Forces. See this. 

Financing Terrorism? 

Part of the current discussion about Trudeau’s fitness for high office involves his political decision to reject the applicability of Canada’s self-described “supreme law.” The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a Canadian equivalent to the US Bill of Rights, is a prominent part of Canada’s supreme law. As Prof. Michel Chossudovsky observes,

“Justin Trudeau is not only in blatant violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he is now threatening Canadians who uphold the basic tenets of Canadian democracy.”

In demonstrating his point about Trudeau’s threats, Prof. Chossudovsky cites former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford. In 1981 and 1982 Mr. Peckford helped draft and enact the Charter. Brian Peckford is presently leading a court challenge criticizing Trudeau’s political decisions that violate the rights and freedoms of Canadians as constitutionally protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Peckford has indicated,

“When I heard Prime Minister Trudeau call the unvaccinated ‘racists,’ ‘misogynists, ‘anti-science’ and ‘extremist’ and his musing, ‘do we tolerate these people?’ it became clear he is sowing divisions and advancing his vendetta against a specific group of Canadians—this is completely against the democratic and Canadian values I love about this country” 

In a press conference many of the most shocking aspects of Trudeau’s war on the Truckers were described by Christia Freeland. Freeland is one of the most influential figures in the cabinet of the Liberal minority government. Like Trudeau and NDP Leader, Jagmeet Singh, Freeland is a World Economic Forum alumnus.  

Ms. Freeland is also currently on the WEF Board during a time when WEF founder, Klaus Schwab, stated that:

I have to say then I mention names like Mrs Merkel, even Vladimir Putin and so on they all have been Young Global Leaders of The World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now with the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, is that we penetrate the cabinets… It is true in Argentina and it is true in France now… (Klaus Schwab) (emphasis added)

Click here or image to access Video 

 

With all this influence from the Great Reset’s headquarters in Davos, what room is left for average working people to have any say whatsoever in the formulation of the Canadian government’s policies?

World Economic Forum founder admits he has penetrated the cabinets of PM Trudeau. https://t.co/NDSdVVs9vt

— Dr. Joseph Mercola (@mercola) January 31, 2022

Freeland is reported in Rebel News to have announced,

“the government has ordered banks to review their relationships with anyone involved in the blockades and report them to the authorities. As of today, any bank or financial service provider will be able to immediately freeze or suspend any account without a court order and will be protected from civil liability “for actions provided in good faith.”

“This is about following the money,” stated Freeland. “This is about stopping the financing of these illegal blockades and occupations. We are today serving notice. IF your truck is being used in these illegal blockades and occupations, your corporate accounts will be frozen. The insurance on your vehicle will be suspended. Send your semitrailers home.”

The implications of authorizing banks to freeze or suspend private and corporate accounts without the need to provide notice or proof is all-too indicative of where we seem to be headed. Will we allow our government to dive even deeper into the depths of totalitarianism?

The Liberals are advancing the war on the middle class. Even after the disastrous lockdowns, government intentions to cancel insurance policies seem like a formula for yet further destruction of small businesses.

The Trudeau government is moving in this draconian direction on the basis of claims that has not been proven to meet any of the criteria set by the legal text of the Emergency Act. Will our corrupt judges once again do a dive on this issue like they did on challenges to the extremely destructive, futile and totally unscientific lockdowns?

Just like the vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued for the abundant deaths and injuries caused by the COVID clot shots, so it seems the banks are establishing the precedent that they too cannot be sued for the damage their arbitrary actions do to customers. How many other financial sectors will line up now to get their own indemnification deals with Canada’s dangerous and unpredictable national government?

The whole initiative is framed as the “broadening of the scope of Canada’s anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rules.”

See this.

So there it is. The Truckers and their supporters are to be made subject to laws involving “terrorist financing.” What comes next? Will it be the prolonged incarceration of Truckers in Canadian dungeons. Such government barbarity would resemble the nightmare experiences of Biden’s human trophies captured in the wake of the January 6 entrapment at the US Capitol Building?

How is it possible not to see Justin Trudeau as a fanatical zealot who is waging a war that will surely undermine the national security of Canada and Canadians? Who can intervene to take Trudeau’s finger off the political nuke he is flippantly aiming at us all?

*

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

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Daily Signal

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

At the time of writing, the Trudeau government is carrying out a major and ongoing police operation directed against the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa.

The decision to take action against the Freedom Convoy was implemented prior to the vote on the National Emergency which was scheduled for Monday.

The leaders of the movement Tamara Lich and Chris Barber were arrested and are in police custody. Former RCMP bodyguard of Justin Trudeau Daniel Bulford was arrested on February 18th.

.

Declaration of the Freedom Convoy

Issued on Saturday, 19th of February:

“The Freedom Convoy 2022 is shocked at the abuses of power by the law enforcement in Ottawa. The police have horse-trampled on demonstrators and deployed riot control agents. They have also beaten peaceful protestors with batons and with the stock of their guns. We have therefore asked our truckers to move from Parliament Hill to avoid further brutality. To move the trucks it will require time. This has been communicated with Ottawa Police, and we hope that they will show judicious restraint. The truckers are moving, and the use of more force will only be used to punish people, and not to preserve or establish order.” (emphasis added)

.

Violent Actions and Brute Force by Police: See Videos below

 

@mattbelair Ottawa police attack and beat a war veteran. #ottawapolice #ottawapolicetyrants #freedomconvoy #truckersconvoy2022 ♬ original sound – mattbelair

@benswann___ Police in Ottawa Trample Peaceful Protestors With Horses #Protesters #Trampling #Ottawa ♬ original sound – Ben Swann

 

@motolashes What happened to the lady Trampled by #Ottawa Police horse #Canada #FreedomConvoy2022 #unitedwestand #mainstreammedialies #thinktwicecanada ♬ original sound – LASHES

.

Chaos and Divisions Within the Police Forces

There is currently a state of chaos and a lack of leadership within Ottawa’s Police Services (OPS). The operation against the Freedom Convoy is conducted by the Ottawa Police, the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police. The Sureté du Québec is also involved.

There are divisions both within the Ottawa Police force and the Ottawa City Council. It’s a situation of utter chaos.

Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly “resigned” on Tuesday February 15 following Trudeau’s announced intent to apply the Emergencies Act. Visibly he was pressured to resign. Press reports intimate that “he was fired”.

Peter Sloly was accused of “mishandling”.

While police forces are currently involved in acts of violence and brutal repression, large sectors of the Ottawa Police and the RCMP had from the outset expressed their solidarity with the Freedom Convoy. See below.

@tristasuk Beautiful people handing out roses to the Ottawa police, truckers and everybody else!♥️ #valentinesday #truckerconvoy2022 #freedomconvoy #protest ♬ You Send Me – Aretha Franklin

@ottawapolicelover #freedomconvoy2022 #truckersfreedomconvoy #canada #police #officerdown @ottawapolice @OfficialTorontoPolice #wearecoming #ftrudeau #novaccineforme #f ♬ original sound – Sloly Quit

.

Chaos at the Ottawa City Council

Was the firing of police chief Peter Sloly ordered by the Trudeau government?

“Ottawa Councillor. Diane Deans went to the [Ottawa police services] board to fire previous police chief Peter Sloly, sources said.”

“After that, she and the board tried to hire a new interim police chief from southern Ontario without a competition“

Members of the Ottawa City Council were not consulted.

Former Waterloo police chief Matthew Torigian  was contacted and hastily offered the job:

“A former Waterloo police chief who was hired for Ottawa’s top job, only to have the person who hired him turfed from her position, has withdrawn from the job.”

A contract was offered to Matthew Torigian on February 15, as interim Ottawa Police chief to lead Trudeau’s police operation against the Freedom Convoy. He never came to Ottawa. Two days later he resigned and requested for his two day contract to be rescinded.

.

A Major Police Operation against the Freedom Convoy Without a Duly Appointed OPS Police Chief

Following the firing of Peter Sloly and Matthew Torigan’s refusal, OPS Deputy Chief Steve Bell was put in charge “as interim chief until further notice”. By whom? He was not duly approved by the Ottawa City Council. (Read CTV report).

.

The Biggest Mess in Ottawa Municipal Politics

Following the removal of Councillor Diane Deans (as chair of the OPS board) who screwed up on the appointment of Matthew Torrigan, a new police board chair was hastily appointed, who immediately confirmed his unbending support for Steve Bell as the de facto interim police chief:

“El-Chantiry’s first act as chair of the police oversight board was to confirm [that] Interim Chief Steve Bell will remain in his current position as police deal with the ongoing occupation of downtown streets.

…  “You are the interim chief and that’s going to be until another time when we have this discussion. For the time being we need you to focus on the operation, we need the membership to know there’s the stability here.”

(quoted by CTV)

.

WOW. This Is the Chronology

• “Diane Deans went to the board to fire previous police chief Peter Sloly” (quoted in CTV report, emphasis added) and then proceeded to hire a new interim Police Chief without consultations with the OCC, and “without a competition” (Tuesday, February 15)
• Matthew Torigian was contacted by Deans and was hastily offered the job of interim police chief (Wednesday)
• Councillor Diane Deans is removed from the Ottawa Police Services Board (heated OCC debate on Wednesday Evening)
• Torigian resigns following the scandal with Councillor Diane Deans (Thursday, February 17)
• Councillor Eli El-Chantiry is appointed chair of the OPS Board  (Thursday)
• Upon Torgian’s resignation, Steve Bell is then hastily “approved” (without consultations with the OCC) by Councillor El Chantiry as “interim Police Chief” (Thursday)
• Steve Bell’s designated mandate is to coordinate by far the largest Ottawa police operation in Canadian History, against The Freedom Convoy Movement (Thursday Evening, February 17)

.

Ad hoc de facto “Interim Police Chief” Steve Bell

Following  Trudeau’s announcement to apply the Emergencies Act, Ottawa Deputy Police Chief Steve Bell called a Press Conference confirming his commitment to “ending the protest movement”.

Below is the statement of the ad hoc de facto “interim police chief” Steve Bell pointing to “lawful techniques” against an “unlawful” protest movement in defiance of the Ottawa City Council. (Thursday, February 17, 2022)

 

.

 

Who Are the Criminals?

The ongoing Police Operation in Ottawa is an illegal and criminal act against Canadians ordered by a corrupt Prime Minister who is acting on behalf of prominent members of the financial establishment. 

Ironically, the intrusion of Big Money interests in the conduct of Canadian politics was raised during the House of Commons Question Period (19 February, 2022).

Here it is… pic.twitter.com/K20UaL2FKW

— Lucian Scott 🇨🇷 🇨🇦 (@ScottLucian) February 19, 2022

.

The Criminalization of Justice

On February 15, following the statements of Trudeau and Freeland, “An Ottawa judge frozen the bank accounts and digital “wallets” of convoy leaders”.

*

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Russian President Vladimir Putin has called Israel a “Russian-speaking state,” saying the two countries share a common history and extensive family ties.

Israel is home to the world’s largest population of Russian-speaking Jews, with ethnic Russian Jews as well as Jews from former Soviet countries making up some 17% of the country’s population. The community, which has its own distinct cultural and political identity, has been influential in Israeli society in the three decades since the first wave of mass immigration from the former Soviet Union.

The Russians in Israel are Russian citizens who are immigrants to Israel from Russian communities of the Soviet Union and post-Soviet states, and their descendants. They are mostly members of mixed families, some of them are non-Jewish members of Jewish households living in Israel. A few are descended from Russian Subbotnik families, who have migrated to Israel over the past century. People of full or partial non-Jewish ethnic Russian ancestry number around 300,000 of the Israeli population from the immigrants from the Soviet Union and post-Soviet states, and the number of Russian passport holders living in Israel is in the hundreds of thousands.

Most Russian people in Israel have full Israeli citizenship and are involved in the country’s economy on all levels. Russian Jews have been very dominant in Israeli politics, due to large number of Russian Jews occupied in the official positions of Israeli Government. Former Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, claimed ancestry from former Soviet Union’s Moldova. Many Russian Jews maintain their ties with Russia, and play an important role in the relationship between Russia and Israel.

Israel–Russia relations refer to the bilateral ties between the State of Israel and the Russian Federation. Israel is represented in Russia through an embassy in Moscow and a consulate-general in Yekaterinburg. Russia is represented in Israel through an embassy in Tel Aviv and a consulate in Haifa.

Russia is a member of the Quartet on the Middle East. For many years, Israel served as a sanctuary for Russian Jews. This was especially the case during the aliyah from the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1990s. Israel and Russia were on opposing sides during the Cold War. However, the relationship between Israel and Russia began to improve significantly from the early 2000s onwards, with the election of the more pro-Israel Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and in 2001 with election of the more pro-Russia Israeli leader Ariel Sharon.

Israel is part Russophone and considered to be the world’s only part-Russophone country outside of the former Soviet states. The Russian language is the third-most widely spoken first language in Israel after Hebrew and Arabic; Israel has the thirdlargest number of Russian speakers outside of the post-Soviet states, and the highest as a proportion of the total population. Over 100,000 Israeli citizens live in Russia, with 80,000 Israelis living in Moscow, while hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens reside in Israel, from around 1.5 million native Russian-speaking Israelis.

In 2011, Putin said:

“Israel is, in fact, a special state to us. It is practically a Russian-speaking country. Israel is one of the few foreign countries that can be called Russian-speaking. It’s apparent that more than half of the population speaks Russian”.

Putin additionally claimed that Israel could be considered part of the Russian cultural world, and contended that “songs which are considered to be national Israeli songs in Israel are in fact Russian national songs”. He further stated that he regarded Russian-speaking Israeli citizens as his compatriots and part of the ‘Russian world’.

Notwithstanding the above, for years NATO has allowed Israeli military and espionage contractors, free access to become essential suppliers to NATO’s critical security network in Britain, Germany and the EU – whose national defence systems must now be considered compromised and ineffective thereby giving Putin, Netanyahu (and his successor), the keys to the security of all 27 EU Member States.

*

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

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Oriental Review

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Negotiations between the western powers and Iran are continuing concerning a new nuclear deal.  Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Massoud Khodabandeh to gain insight not only about the negotiation, but a wide array of topics connected to Iran and the Middle East. Khodabandeh is a regular writer and contributor on Middle East issues in print, broadcast and documentaries. He co-authored the book ‘The Life of Camp Ashraf – Victims of Many Masters” with his wife Anne Singleton.

Steven Sahiounie (SS): We have seen the Houthis launching several attacks on the UAE and Saudi Arabia.  In your opinion, are these attacks in reply to the Saudi-led coalition massacres, or is it political pressure by Iran against Saudi Arabia and the USA to change the conditions of negotiations?

Massoud Khodabandeh (MK): If we look at history, we can see that there is consensus among all parties that the Houthis started fighting for the things that all Yemenis crave: government accountability, an end to corruption, regular utilities, fair prices, job opportunities for ordinary Yemenis. It is also true that they wanted an end to Western influence which to their view was the main cause of all the above problems.

In 2015 a Saudi-led coalition – backed by the United States – intervened militarily in Yemen in a bid to fight the Houthis and restore their favorite President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi’s government, who, facing the uprising of Yemeni citizens, had to run away and hide in Riyadh. The UAE is also officially part of this hostile coalition. It is important to observe that the UAE is both under Western pressure to do her bit to help the invading coalition but also vulnerable to any disturbances in the country’s position as both a trade and military base for the US, UK and nowadays increasingly Israel.

After nearly 7 years of resistance against these invaders, the Houthis – rather say the Yemenis – are now in a position to effectively push back against one of the most brutal bombing and siege campaigns in the recent history of the region. This is of course not without the help of Iran, but Iran also has legitimate interests in the region, not least the security of oil exports and the security of the Persian Gulf.

Let me explain.

If Yemen becomes a subsidiary of a US/Saudi coalition, if pipelines and roads are put in place to export Saudi (and UAE, also perhaps Kuwaiti, Iraqi and Qatari) oil from Yemeni ports and if the Gulf of Aden (and the Red Sea) is secured for western tankers but not for Iranian tankers, then not only will Iran have a strategic problem, it is more than likely that the historic desire of western powers to start a war in the Persian Gulf (involving the separation of southern parts of Iran from the mainland) would certainly be on the table. This scheme has always been left on a back burner as any disturbances in the Persian Gulf would result in disruption to over 1/3 of the world’s oil supply.

Hence Iran has legitimate security issues. Other non-western countries are also looking at this geopolitical phenomenon with interest; just remember last year and how a simple accident in the Suez Canal disrupted the flow of Chinese (and other) goods to Europe and beyond. The Gulf of Adan, Yemen, Djibouti, and the Red Sea are not somewhere you can just invade to change its fabric without huge consequences.

SS: We have seen attempts to have a peace deal between Riyadh and Tehran. In your opinion, will these peace talks between the two regional powers, Tehran and Riyadh, go through and if so will this end the war on Yemen?

MK: First of all, Iran and the KSA are not at war (let’s hope they never will be), therefore there is no need to negotiate peace. Although the leaders of the KSA have historically always been conservative as well as pragmatic, in recent years the kingdom has been invited (or pushed) to play a more hostile role against Iran. The KSA has of course been backing the enemies of Iran for years (for example, Saddam Hussain during the 8 years of war and financing and supporting anti-Iranian terrorist groups like the Mujahedin Khalq and others) to balance regional power. Even though Iran has not been the cause of imbalance or at least not as persistently. Confronting Iranian interests in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon (the axes of resistance if you will) and confronting Iran in Yemen have always been on the Saudi agenda. But although there has been push and pull, it is clear that Iran is not the loser in this confrontation on either front, and the KSA is not getting the Western backing she hoped for.

There are clear indications that the KSA and her Persian Gulf allies are coming to the conclusion that a new treaty or at least a new approach (i.e. diplomacy based on mutual understanding and addressing the needs of both sides) with Iran and her allies like China, Russia, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, would perhaps be more effective than confrontation. The KSA’s leaders have also seen that the Iranians are more inclined to respond positively and negotiate when their neighbors are working with them directly rather than bringing outside powers into the region. Iran’s policy is based on independence rather than ‘who has got the bigger backer’ and as time progresses, the other regional powers are seeing the benefit of this line of action for their own stability and prosperity.

The KSA and Iran certainly have the potential to work very closely together. Their hostility is a concept imported into the region, and both Iranian and Saudi officials know this well. As they move forward – a first negotiation step was started recently in Baghdad – they will certainly get closer together on a variety of subjects. The interests of Saudis and Iranians in the region are in many aspects the same – security and the stability of governments – and many of their differences have simply been brought in from other parts of the world and imposed on them.

The legitimate concerns of both Iranians and Saudis (and the UAE) in Yemen are not separate from their concerns about the wider Persian Gulf, Gulf of Adan and Red Sea areas. These can easily be addressed and resolved. In fact, the immediate result of such an understanding should be both Iran and the KSA getting together to help the Yemenis build a democratic process of governance as well as rebuilding the war-torn country. That is true in both Iraq and Syria and in much-needed cooperation between neighboring countries that has unfortunately not been achieved, perhaps due to foreign interference.

SS: The Israeli occupation is escalating politically and military against Iran and its allies like Syria, Hezbollah, Palestinian resistance, and others. Does Israel want a war with Iran, or are they just trying to put pressure on Washington to not make a new Iranian nuclear deal?

MK: There is a theory within the Israeli elite that we (i.e. Israel) have to be at least 50 years ahead of any other country in the Middle East. If we (Israel) cannot advance as rapidly as we need, then the only way is to send the other back 50 years. That happened – or at least was tried – in Iraq, Syria, Libya etc. If you recall history, what George W Bush was intending to do was to start with Iran as part of his Axis of Evil, but he was persuaded at the time that this would be too risky. Better to start with Iraq and Afghanistan and then surround Iran. Even then many Israeli officials were not happy and wanted him to attack Iran; essentially to fulfill their need to have Iran sent back fifty years.

Now, after all these years, Iran is not a country that either Israel, or the USA and her allies, could attack without dire consequences. Israel’s population – if we count every Israeli passport holder as part of the population – is less than half Iran’s capital, Tehran city. It is not feasible for them to even provoke Iran to war. Remember that Iran hit the American Base ‘ein Al-Assad’ in Iraq in retaliation against the assassination of their general Qassem Soleimani. This demonstrated very clearly that Iran will not hesitate to hit back against any attack on its territory. It is however true that the Israelis, through their powerful lobbies in the US and UK, are doing their best to stop any rapprochement between Iran and Western countries.

What is more important now is that the existence of Israel – in its current manifestation as an apartheid occupation force in the region – will be under serious threat if Iran and the KSA become partners rather than rivals.

As they say Israel is adamant to fight the Iranians, and others in the Middle East, to the last American soldier. Israel by itself however does not have a passion for doing anything themselves. Their provocative incursions into Syria and Lebanon are nothing more than an effort to engage the US and UK. It is simply not going to happen.

The only exit strategy for the people in Israel is to accept to submit to internationally recognized laws and norms: put pressure on their rulers to end the apartheid, have a fair and meaningful democratic process of Governance (to start with accept the system of one person one vote) and join the rest of the international community.

SS: The Iranian nuclear deal meetings have got to a crucial point.  In your opinion, is it possible to get to a new nuclear deal, and if not, will this lead to war, or more regional tension between Iran and its alliances and the West?

MK: Let’s start from beginning. It was the USG which tore up the JCPOA agreement and spat at their own signature on camera (demonstrated in a performance by Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, in a rally organized by the anti-Iranian Mujahedin Khalq Terrorist Organization, which was deported from Iraq and is now based in Albania). The door has always been left open by the rest of the signatories to allow the Americans to come back to their obligations and they are on the cusp of an agreement in Vienna. However, if they don’t come back the agreement will continue, under United Nations scrutiny and observations, with or without the US. There is no “new nuclear deal” as such and what is being discussed is how the west can get back to lifting sanctions against Iran and how Iran can go back to the original nuclear restrictions. I believe there will be an agreement; although Israel is determined to torpedo the negotiations, America’s benefits will outweigh Israeli pressure.

Whether or not the US and Iran come to an agreement in Vienna, the JCPOA will come to an end in less than 2 years. Iran is not holding back on advancements because of this deal and the West will not stop their sanctions but will continue them under other pretexts and labels – human rights, missiles, defense, terrorism, etc., you name it. The only time sanctions will actually be lifted is when Western countries realize that sanctions are hurting their own economies more than hurting Iran’s economy. I believe that with Iran joining the Shanghai treaty and the fading of the US dollar as dominant international currency this is not going to be too far off. Iran’s currency has stabilized in the last couple of years thanks to a variety of reasons. These include the opening of Iranian trade routes to Mediterranean ports as well as trade through Tajikistan and other neighboring countries. Only a few years ago, Iran’s import/export trade was at the mercy of the UAE from where Iran’s currency could be manipulated easily. Now, bilateral pacts with Russia, China, India, South Africa etc. are helping this stabilization.

I would conclude by pointing out that there has been a shift of power in the Middle East – as there has been a global shift. The dust is settling, and a new world and Middle Eastern order is on the horizon. Both the winners and losers of this change – if we can call it losing or winning as it is not as black and white as that – are coming round to the reality that accepting the new order is much better for everyone than trying to disrupt and disturb and try to bring back what is not deliverable.

I firmly believe that the tension between the axes of resistance and the West is coming to its end. The West is no longer in a position to dictate to these countries and frankly they really don’t need to be dictated to either. In the post neo-colonial world and in particular due to recent rapid changes in the world of business and technology, the interests of all parties can be negotiated and protected over negotiation tables not the field of battle. I am not downplaying this – it will not be easy. It will not happen overnight, but it is certainly both a possible and desirable way forward for all parties.

SS: In your opinion, could the new Iran nuclear deal, if successful, lead to the lifting of Syrian sanctions as well?  Is the situation in Syria tied into the Iran negotiations at all?

MK: Remember, the sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussain’s Iraq are still in place and have not been lifted. New Western sanctions are being imposed on Russia and China every day. It is important to acknowledge that:

1. Unilateral sanctions, especially US ones, are imposed because the military option is either not possible or has been tried and failed.
2. Sanctions are only effective as long as they can be implemented and maintained. The days of effective unilateral sanctions are numbered. Monopolies are being replaced by alternative means. The use of non-dollar currencies, alternative financial transfer mechanisms and treaties that do not involve either US or EU are being introduced.
3. Sanctions will only be lifted when they are more harmful to the Western countries than the ones imposed on.

Having said that, the Iran nuclear deal has a great message. It is a success story of moving forward in a direction that preserves everyone’s interests. History shows us that every war ends. Every conflict is resolved with a treaty signed by diplomats. The Syrian situation is no different. The people of Syria may have lost a lot in lives and livelihoods, but they have gained a lot as well. The self-esteem, the confidence, the new examination of the world and their place in it has most definitely created the springboard Syrians need to accelerate into a better future. This time more and more standing on their own feet and relying on their own powers. Syrians certainly don’t lack the drive, the history or the knowledge needed for this.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

“American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European-Soviet (re: EU-Russia) relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US-UK’s political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe.” Christof Lehmann

February 16 has come and gone without incident. The information spread by US officials and the media proved to be wrong. Russia did not invade Ukraine nor did any of the unverified warnings turn out to be true. So far, neither the media nor the administration has produced a scintilla of evidence that Russia actually planned to invade Ukraine or that the presumed invasion was “imminent.” The whole thing may have been a hoax concocted by Washington to advance their regional agenda; we just don’t know for sure. What we do know, however, is that no one from the administration, the media or the intelligence agencies have offered any explanation, apology or retraction for their errant predictions. Of that, we can be 100% certain.

What are we to make of this? Why would the administration stake its credibility on a prediction that was so far-fetched? And why did the media participate in the ruse when they clearly had no hard evidence to back up the claims? Did they really think Putin is so cognitively-impaired that he’d order his troops into Ukraine just to follow Washington’s loony script?

No, of course not.

Then why did they do it?

Perhaps the warnings were intended to divert attention from other suspicious goings-on that are presently taking place in Ukraine. For example, why are Ukrainian oligarchs and deep-pocket elites fleeing the country en masse? Here’s the story from 24-7 News Agency:

“Ukrainian oligarchs and businessmen are leaving Ukraine on charter flights. According to Ukrayinska Pravda, about 20 charters and private planes have taken off from Kiev over the past day.

According to the newspaper, the planes of Rinat Akhmetov and Boris Kolesnikov took off from Ukraine today… A private plane for 50 people was also ordered by the deputy of the Opposition Platform – For Life (OPPL) party, millionaire Igor Abramovich. According to Ukrainska Pravda, this plane is supposed to take relatives of fellow party members, as well as business partn Ukrainian oligarchs and businessmen are leaving Ukraine on charter flights”. (“ Ukrainian oligarchs and businessmen are leaving Ukraine on charter flights”, 247 News)

Get the picture? The “big money” guys are getting out now while there’s still time. But, why? Are they concerned about the fictitious Russian legions storming Kiev or were they tipped off by insiders who have knowledge of upcoming events? Which is it?

And why is the CIA bailing-out at the same time? That seems a bit suspicious, don’t you think? Check out this clip from an article in Tass titled: “US temporarily relocates its CIA station from Kiev“:

“US authorities have temporarily relocated the employees of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from Kiev, The New York Times reported on Tuesday citing sources. According to the sources, the CIA station was “temporarily relocated” from Kiev on Tuesday… According to its sources, the relocation of the CIA employees may complicate gathering intelligence on Russia’s alleged “activity” in the country.”

The article doesn’t explain why the CIA shut its offices and vamoosed, so we have to assume that they know something that the rest of don’t. But what would that be?

Typically, people do not evacuate unless they are in danger, right? So, the agents at the CIA facility must have been briefed on upcoming events would put their lives in danger. In other words, the CIA and Kiev’s business elites are making for the exits before the storm hits, which suggests they were tipped off by someone who knows Washington’s plan. But who could that be, and how do these oddball developments fit with the “Russian invasion” fiasco? Is there a connection?

Yes, there is, but first, let’s put the “Russian invasion” meme in context. Many of the people who saw through the fakery are feeling pretty proud of themselves today, and for good reason, after all, they were right and the media was wrong. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the bigger picture which is that the war-drums are beating as ferociously today as they were before the predictions proved to be wrong. Why?

It’s because the media is still preparing the public for either a confrontation with Russia or something even worse. Take a look at this sampling of Wednesday’s headlines:

• Russia is still building up troops near Ukraine, say U.S. and NATO, Reuters
• US secretary of state: “No meaningful pullback” of Russian forces from the Ukrainian border , CNN
• NATO says Russia is increasing troop numbers at Ukrainian border, calls for talks, CNBC
• Russia Is Continuing to Build Up Forces Near Ukraine, NATO Chief Says, WSJ

So, the media is still ramping up the pro-war propaganda even though Russia never invaded Ukraine. What does that tell you?

It tells you the crisis is not over. It tells you that the media is still whipping the public into a Russophobic frenzy. It tells you that Uncle Sam has something else up his sleeve that no one really expects; a surprise event that will shake things up and reframe the narrative in a way that benefits Washington and hurts Russia. That’s what we can conclude from Wednesday’s headline news. War is still on the docket.

Readers of this column know that we think that Washington’s real objective is not Ukraine at all, but Nord Stream, the natural gas pipeline that connects Germany to Russia. Here’s what makes the pipeline so important:

Nord Stream creates the critical infrastructure needed to connect Europe’s industrial powerhouse (Germany) to Russia’s vast energy reserves. The link strengthens commercial ties paving the way for warmer relations, the easing of cross-border regulations and a gradual merging of the two continents into the world’s most expansive and prosperous free trade zone. Nord Stream represents the energy component of China’s Belt and Road initiative that will draw Europe and Asia closer together via an expansive high-speed rail system that reduces shipping costs, boosts foreign commerce and shifts the world’s center of gravity eastward to Asia.

Bottom line: The emergence of an EU-Asia free trade zone means an end to the present global power structure in which the US plays the dominant role. It points the way to a new multipolar world order in which all the states are treated with greater equality and justice. But does anyone seriously think Washington is ready to relinquish its power and accept a place among the family of nations?

No, that’s not going to happen. Not without a fight at least.

Just take a look at the Nord Stream fracas. Washington has opposed Nord Stream since its inception in 2015 and piled on the sanctions at every opportunity.

Recently, however, Biden lifted the sanctions because they are so unpopular among the German people who need a source of clean energy to make up for the shortfall from (decommissioned) nuclear power plants. The problem for Washington is that– aside from the sanctions — there are few ways to prevent the pipeline from coming on line.

That means Washington will have to resort to more extreme measures like coercion, incitement and false flags. Check out this excerpt from an article at Tass on Tuesday:

“A Lugansk resident alerted the State Security Ministry about finding an object that resembles a homemade explosive device in a trash bin at the Friendship of the People’s Park

The bomb was made of a cell phone, a detonator, two TNT slabs weighing a total of 400 grams and damage agents, such as pieces of steel rods. The ministry said it had reason to believe the detonation of the device was planned for the time of a rally devoted to veterans that was scheduled for the morning of February 15.

The ministry said Ukraine’s subversive groups may have been involved in the attempted attack as they seek to destabilize the situation in the LPR. The detonation of the explosive device amid a large crowd in downtown Lugansk could have inflicted injuries to civilians, the ministry said.” (LPR’s security forces foiled terrorist attack in Lugansk“, Tass)

Would a terrorist event of this size convince Putin that he needed to send in the troops to defend the ethnic Russians in east Ukraine?

Probably not, but it does help to show how a terrorist attack can be used to justify retaliation and maybe even war. Let’s say, for example, a small nuclear device or chemical weapon was detonated in Kiev killing hundreds of civilians and maiming thousands more. What would happen?

Would the world be shocked and horrified?

Of course.

And would political leaders around the world condemn the action and pledge to bring the perpetrators to justice?

Yes, they would.

And would the media fuel the public hysteria and use it to promote a response that advanced the interests of elites?

Yes, again.

And would members of the Ukrainian Security Services — acting in concert with their US Law Enforcement allies– quickly round up a small cell of terrorists (allegedly) linked to Russian intelligence or Russian military, thus, placing the blame squarely on Putin’s shoulders?

Indeed, they would. In fact, these frame-ups of alleged terror suspects are so commonplace in the US that rogue FBI agents have turned “entrapment” into an art-form. There’s no reason to believe the practice cannot be exported to Ukraine. In short, there’s no doubt that these same “alleged Russian” patsies would be swiftly processed and severely punished without ever seeing the inside of a courthouse.

And how would that effect the crisis in Ukraine?

It would provide a justification for the Ukrainian army to invade the Donbass and wipe out thousands of ethnic Russians who were in no way connected to the terrorist bombing. That, in turn, would force Putin to send his troops across the border to end the fighting and restore the peace. And that’s when Washington would repudiate Russia’s action by calling it “an Invasion”. Which would put additional pressure on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to abandon the German-Russo pipeline project and prevent the launching of Nord Stream. This is how a false flag can be used to achieve one’s geopolitical objectives. Here’s an excerpt from an article at RT:

“Ukrainian commandos trained by Britain are planning a “series of terrorist attacks” in the Donbass to use as cover for a false flag operation.. Local militia spokesman Eduard Basurin said on Wednesday that Kiev will stage a provocation to accuse Russia of invading the country….

Basurin, however, insisted that he had “reliable information” suggesting six groups of saboteurs from the 8th Special Purpose Regiment of Ukrainian Armed Forces (VSU) had been trained by specialists from the UK and deployed near the line of contact. Their targets would allegedly include gas and water supply as well as power stations.

The purpose of their supposed provocation is to accuse Russia of ‘false flag’ attacks to prepare “aggression” against Ukraine, and to create panic among the local residents, he added….

In December, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu alleged that American private military companies had begun shipping “unidentified chemical components” to towns in the Donbass as a potential precursor to an attack…

Last week, Washington accused Russia of planning a ‘false flag’ attack in the separatist-controlled territory as a pretext for invading Ukraine. The allegation echoed claims of the Ukrainian government and came after CIA Director William Burns visited Kiev. Russia has rejected it as baseless, and called US insinuations of a planned invasion “fake news.” (“Ukraine planning ‘false flag’ Donbass incident”, RT)

What’s interesting about this article, is that all three parties are accusing each other of fomenting the same illicit plan. That suggests that they all think that a false flag operation is probable in the current circumstances. In other words, the likelihood of a catastrophic mass casualty event used as a pretext for war, is no longer dismissed as a far-out conspiracy theory among the main participants in the conflict. Rather, they see it as the anticipated course of action. We agree with that conclusion. Here’s more from an article at PBS:

“The U.S. accused the Kremlin on Thursday of an elaborate plot to fabricate an attack by Ukrainian forces that Russia could use as a pretext to take military action against its neighbor. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said the scheme included production of a graphic propaganda video that would show staged explosions and use corpses and actors depicting grieving mourners.

The plan for the fake attack on Russian territory or Russian-speaking people was revealed in declassified intelligence shared with Ukrainian officials and European allies in recent days. It is the latest allegation by the U.S. and Britain that Russia is plotting to use a false pretext to go to war against Ukraine.

The White House in December accused Russia of developing a “false-flag” operation to create pretext for an invasion… The U.S. has not provided detailed information backing up the intelligence findings. (“U.S. intel suggests Russia is plotting false flag attack in Ukraine as pretext for invasion”, PBS News)

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Russia gains nothing from a false flag in Ukraine because Russia’s sole objective is to join the US in signing legally-binding agreements limiting the expansion of NATO and eliminating nuclear missile sites in Romania and Poland. That’s it. That’s all Putin wants. So, how does a provocation help to achieve those ends?

It doesn’t. The only one who benefits from a violent incitement is the United States. For Washington, a false flag is perhaps the last opportunity to block Nord Stream and prevent the steady erosion of its global power. And whether a provocation of this kind smacks of desperation or not, is completely irrelevant. The US remains fully-commited to doing whatever it takes to maintain its dominant place in the global order. Here’s how political analyst Christof Lehmann summed it up more than a decade ago:

“American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow European-Soviet (re: Russia) relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US-UK’s political, economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe”.

There it is in black and white. Washington is not going to roll-over and play dead while new centers of power crop-up across the planet. That’s not going to happen. The US is going to identify the nations that could cause them problems and do everything they can to crush them. That’s how Empire’s work. They don’t wait to be knocked off their pedestal. They take the bull by the horns and act preemptively. Paul Wolfowitz articulated the nuts and bolts of US foreign policy like this:

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

This is the core doctrine that guides US foreign policy: Identify potential threats to US hegemony and then obliterate them without mercy. That suggests a false flag in Ukraine is more than likely, it’s probable.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

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

Featured image is from 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Dr Stephen Malthouse is a rare and great physician. He has walked a straight, intelligent, and  honest path, even through the last two years, when so many fell short. I am very aware of and grateful for his sacrifice and dedication in working for a better future for all of us.

Dr Malthouse’s 6-minute message to Canada’s Freedom Rally is super!

Thanks Bright Light News on the front line.

*

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

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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

*

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

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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Investment giants BlackRock and The Vanguard Group stand to benefit from their ownership stakes in most of the corporations that imposed COVID vaccine mandates, and in some of the technology firms developing vaccine passports.

After the U.S. Supreme Court last month froze the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for large private employers, some companies — including Boeing, General Electric and Starbucks — dropped plans to implement the mandate.

Others, based on guidance issued in 2020 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, left the mandates in place.

Most of the large employers that opted to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees, even though the Supreme Court ruled they didn’t have to, have something in common: BlackRock and The Vanguard Group have ownership stakes in them.

BlackRock and Vanguard, two of the world’s “Big Three” asset managers, also are among the top three shareholders of COVID vaccine makers Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — which means the two investment giants stand to benefit from these companies’ soaring profits and the resulting rise in those companies’ stock prices.

BlackRock and Vanguard don’t just benefit from sales of COVID vaccines. As it turns out, they also have ownership stakes in technology companies developing vaccine passports and digital wallets.

BlackRock: the ‘fourth branch of government’?

Combined, BlackRock and Vanguard manage more than $15 trillion in global assets.

To put this figure into perspective, that amounts to more than three-fourths of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and more than triple the GDP of the European Union’s economic powerhouse, Germany.

BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager, with more than $9.5 trillion in assets as of July 2021, while Vanguard held more than $7 trillion in assets as of January 2021.

Notably, Vanguard is the largest stockholder in BlackRock (7.61%), while BlackRock is the biggest stockholder in Vanguard (13.06%) — though the actual ownership structure of these companies has been described as “dark.”

In an August 2021 article about the two firms, Dr. Joseph Mercola pointed out that, far from the appearance of competition promised by capitalism, BlackRock and Vanguard own significant shares in companies that ostensibly compete directly with each other, such as Google, Apple and Microsoft, or Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.

This influence extends to the media. BlackRock alone owns significant shares in supposed “competitors” such as Fox News, CBS, Comcast (NBC), CNN, Disney (ABC), Gannett (USA TODAY and 250 daily newspapers throughout the U.S.), Sinclair Media (whose television stations reach72% of the American public), and the Graham Media Group (Slate, Foreign Policy).

BlackRock is also politically influential and well-connected, having been chosen by the Obama administration to buy up toxic assets following the 2007-2008 financial collapse.

In 2020, BlackRock received a no-bid contract from the U.S. Treasury Department to manage a $454 billion fund, under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), for businesses adversely impacted by the COVID lockdowns early that year. It wasn’t the first timeBlackRock had been granted a no-bid contract from the federal government.

BlackRock along with other firms also is engaged in a real estate purchasing spree, buying up entire neighborhoods of single-family homes and converting them to rentals, driving up home prices by reducing supply on the marketplace.

BlackRock’s real estate strategy echoes the words of the World Economic Forum: “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

This level of power and influence promoted none other than Bloomberg in 2020 to characterizeBlackRock as the “fourth branch of government.”

BlackRock, Vanguard among top 10 stockholders in most companies mandating vaccines

It is unclear to what extent BlackRock and Vanguard are able to dictate the vaccination policies of the companies in which they hold a stake — but what is clear is that the two investment firms are among the top 10 stockholders in most of these companies.

Here’s a rundown of major U.S. employers that continue to mandate COVID vaccines for their employers, and these companies’ relationships with BlackRock and/or Vanguard (all ownership figures are accurate as of this writing):

• Abbvie, a U.S.-based pharmaceutical company, mandated its employees either get vaccinated or undergo weekly tests and continue to follow anti-coronavirus measures. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.80% and 4.47%, respectively.
• Albertsons, a grocery store chain, required its office employees to get vaccinated and offeredits staff a $100 incentive to get the vaccine. BlackRock is its third-largest stockholder (0.85%), and Vanguard is the sixth largest (0.43%).
• American Express imposed a vaccine requirement for employees in its U.S. offices. Vanguard is its top stockholder (5.78%), while BlackRock is the third largest (3.68%).
• Anthem Inc., a health insurer, requires employees to be fully vaccinated to physically enter the company’s offices, offered financial incentives to its workforce to get vaccinated and requires new candidates to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.38% and 4.68%, respectively.
• AstraZeneca requires its U.S. employees and visiting clients to be vaccinated. Three of the top 10 mutual funds holding shares in AstraZeneca PLC are managed by Vanguard.
• AT&T, in two separate policies, required company managers (by Oct. 11, 2021) and unionized employees (by Feb. 1), to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.58% and 5.10%, respectively.
• Blackstone, an investment management company, mandated employees be vaccinated and boosted in order to return to the office. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 5.57% and 3.14%, respectively.
• CapitalOne required employees in office-based positions to be vaccinated. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (7.62%), and BlackRock is its fourth largest (4.79%).
• Carhartt, a clothing and apparel company, issued a vaccine mandate for its employees. It is one of the few exceptions on this list, as it is privately owned.
• Centene, a healthcare provider, required its workforce to be vaccinated, and gave employees up to 10 days’ paid leave and a $1,000 discount on health premiums as incentives. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (10.25%), while BlackRock is the fifth largest (4.34%).
• Chevron issued a vaccination requirement for employees who travel internationally, expatriate employees, offshore workforce in the Gulf of Mexico and some onshore support personnel. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (7.98%) while BlackRock is the third-largest(4.57%).
• Cigna, a healthcare and insurance company, required employees working remotely who visit the physical worksite to be vaccinated as of Sept. 7, 2021, and employees whose roles can only be performed onsite to be vaccinated as of Oct. 18, 2021, with an alternate option for two weekly COVID tests. Employees also were offered a $200 incentive to get vaccinated. Vanguard is Cigna’s largest stockholder (7.62%) while BlackRock is its fourth-largest (4.52%).
• Cisco allows only vaccinated “critical workers” to go to the office, and claims that 90% of its employees are vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.54% and 4.87%, respectively.
• Citigroup required employees be vaccinated before returning to its offices, claiming it has reached 99% compliance. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 8.00% and 4.75%, respectively.
• Columbia Sportswear required employees in its corporate headquarters to get vaccinated as of Feb. 1, placing those who didn’t comply on unpaid leave and commencing a termination process against them. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (5.39%) and BlackRock is the fourth largest (4.15%).

Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle previously said his company was “thrilled” with the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate.

• CVS Health has a no jab, no job policy, requiring corporate staff and employees who interact with patients to have been fully vaccinated as of Oct. 31, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its top two stockholders, at 7.79% and 4.41%, respectively.
• Deloitte, one of the Big Four accounting firms, requires its staff to be vaccinated. It is another exception in that it is a partnership firm and not publicly traded.

• Delta Air Lines indirectly imposed a vaccine mandate for its employees, charging those who are not vaccinated a $200 monthly health insurance surcharge. CEO Ed Bastian previously saidthe company is “not opposed” to mandates and claimed 90% of Delta’s employees were vaccinated as of October 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are the top two stockholders, at 10.15% and 4.63%, respectively.
• DoorDash permits only fully vaccinated employees to voluntarily return to the office, even as its office return is delayed indefinitely. Vanguard is its third-largest stockholder (3.26%), while BlackRock is the tenth largest (1.57%).
• Eli Lilly, a pharmaceutical company, requires all employees be vaccinated. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (6.86%), while BlackRock is the third biggest (4.04%).
• Emergent BioSolutions, a pharmaceutical company that produced the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and which attained infamy for losing a $600 million federal contract after millions of vaccine doses were ruined, requires employees be vaccinated. The company’s federal contractallowed it to keep a “reasonable quantity” of COVID vaccine doses for its “employees and critical subcontractors, and their respective immediate families.” Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 10.07% and 9.81%, respectively.
• The Equinox Group, which owns SoulCycle and a chain of gyms, required employees to provide one-time proof of vaccination. It is an exception in that it is privately owned.
• Facebook, now known as Meta, requires employees coming to work at any of its U.S. locations to be vaccinated. Vanguard is its top stockholder at 7.30%, while BlackRock is the third largest, at 4.28%.
• The Ford Motor Company imposed a vaccine mandate on its U.S. salaried employees. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.18% and 4.53%, respectively.
• Frontier Airlines required employees be vaccinated or regularly take COVID tests, as of Oct. 1, 2021. Vanguard is its fourth-largest stockholder (1.29%).
• Gap required employees in its New York, Bay Area and Albuquerque hubs be vaccinated as of Sept. 7, 2021, and conducts weekly $1,000 drawings for vaccinated employees as an incentive. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (7.20%), while BlackRock is fifth largest (2.51%).
• Gilead Sciences Inc., a pharmaceutical company, requires all workers and contractors to be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its second-largest and fifth-largest stockholders, at 7.96% and 6.30%, respectively.
• Goldman Sachs requires anyone entering its offices be fully vaccinated, as of Sept. 7, 2021, while those who are not vaccinated are obliged to work remotely. Booster shots are mandatedfor employees physically working in its offices, as well as for visitors,  starting on Feb. 1. In January, the bank also required staff to receive twice-weekly COVID tests. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 7.34% and 4.76%, respectively.
• Google, also known as Alphabet, Inc., in a policy described as “compassionate,” gave most of its unvaccinated employees in the U.S. a Jan. 18 deadline to get vaccinated or be placed on paid administrative leave for 30 days. After 30 days, those who are still not vaccinated are placed on unpaid leave for up to six months, after which they will be dismissed. In November 2021, some employees at Google circulated a manifesto opposing the company’s widened vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.21% and 4.32%, respectively.
• Hasbro implemented a vaccine requirement for its employees. Vanguard is its largeststockholder, at 11.01%, while BlackRock is the fourth-largest, at 4.69%.
• Hawaiian Airlines required its U.S. workers to be vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021. On Feb. 2, a judge denied a bid by seven Hawaiian Airlines employees to block the company’s vaccine mandate. BlackRock and Vanguard are their two biggest stockholders, at 14.41% and 9.71%, respectively.
• Hershey implemented a vaccine mandate for its salaried employees that went into effect Oct. 4, 2021. Recently, the company announced a “small number” of employees who did not get vaccinated or receive an exemption were “separated from the company.” Frontline employees received four hours’ pay as an incentive to get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are the company’s two biggest stockholders, at 8.86% and 6.93%, respectively.
• Hess, a petroleum company, mandated vaccination for its U.S. employees. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (9.39%), while BlackRock is fourth largest (4.45%).
• Humana, a healthcare company, enacted a no-jab, no-job policy for its employees, requiringthem to be vaccinated as of Oct. 22, 2021. The company offered employees rewards points as part of an existing employee incentive program to encourage them to get vaccinated. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder at 7.39%, while BlackRock is the fourth-largest, at 4.32%.
• IBM, the developer of New York State’s digital vaccine passport, the Excelsior Pass, allowedonly fully vaccinated U.S. employees to physically return to the office, as of Sept. 7, 2021, and mandated employees be fully vaccinated by Dec. 8, 2021, or face an unpaid suspension. In December 2021, some IBM employees circulated an open letter questioning the company’s vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are IBM’s biggest and third-biggest stockholders, at 7.94% and 4.87%, respectively.
• Intel employees were given until Jan. 4 to get vaccinated or apply for an exemption, while employees who would not get vaccinated and who were not granted an exemption were to be placed on unpaid leave in April. This policy was, however, recently “paused.” Vanguard and BlackRock are Intel’s two largest stockholders, at 7.94% and 5.33%, respectively.
• Jefferies, a financial services company, allows only vaccinated individuals into its physical offices and outside company events, while non-vaccinated employees can continue working remotely. The company recently claimed over 95% of its global workforce has been vaccinated and said boosters would soon be required as part of the company’s “JefVaxPass strategy.” Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 8.84% and 6.46%, respectively.
• Johnson & Johnson enacted a no-jab, no-job policy, and required all of its employees and contractors to be vaccinated, as of Oct. 4, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 8.46% and 4.67%, respectively.
• KraftHeinz enacted a no-jab, no-job policy for its U.S. employees and implemented a vaccine mandate as of January. Vanguard is its second-largest stockholder (4.21%), while BlackRock is the fourth largest (2.43%).
• Lyft required corporate employees physically working in or entering its offices, but not its drivers, to furnish proof of vaccination to enter offices, as of Aug. 2, 2021. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (7.18%), while BlackRock is the fourth biggest (3.47%).

• McDonald’s required its corporate workforce, but not its restaurant-level workers, to get vaccinated. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (8.33%), while BlackRock is the third largest(4.56%).
• MGM Resorts International requires salaried employees and all new-hires be fully vaccinated even if working remotely, while unvaccinated hourly employees can provide weekly negative COVID tests. Vanguard and BlackRock are its largest and third-largest stockholders, at 8.76% and 3.96%, respectively.
• Microsoft required proof of vaccination for all employees, vendors and guests entering its physical locations in the U.S. as of September 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.75% and 4.35%, respectively.
• Moderna requires all U.S. employees be vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its second- and third-largest stockholders, at 6.34% and 4.61%, respectively.
• Morgan Stanley required employees to get vaccinated before returning to its New York offices, and required staff to disclose their vaccination status by July 1, 2021. The policy was extended to contingent workers, clients, and visitors visiting its New York City and Westchester County, New York locations, as of July 12, 2021. As of August 2021, the company claimed 90% of its employees were vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its second- and third-biggest stockholders, at 6.27% and 3.81%, respectively.
• NBCUniversal required U.S.-based workers returning to the office be fully vaccinated and provide details about their vaccination status, while a full return to the office has been indefinitely postponed. NBCUniversal is fully owned by Comcast, whose largest and third-largest stockholders are Vanguard (8.26%) and BlackRock (4.12%).

Comcast, in turn, has required all of its employees to get vaccinated.

• Netflix implemented a vaccine requirement for its U.S. offices and filming locations. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.14%), while BlackRock is the sixth largest (4.03%).
• The New York Times Company requires proof of vaccination for employees who voluntarily wish to return to the office, and is eyeing a full return to the office in the first quarter of this year. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 9.25% and 7.32%, respectively.
• Nike requires office-based employees be vaccinated, and in January made headlines for firinga vaccinated employee who refused to furnish proof of vaccination to a third-party verification service hired by the company. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 7.88% and 4.62%, respectively.
• Novartis, a pharmaceutical company, requires U.S. staff to be vaccinated. Vanguard mutual funds are four of the top 10 mutual funds holding stock in Novartis AG.
• Pfizer required all U.S. workforce and contractors to get vaccinated or participate in weekly COVID testing. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.77%), while BlackRock is its third largest(4.63%).
• Pioneer Natural Resources mandated vaccination for its new-hires and offered a $1,000 incentive to employees who get vaccinated. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (9.53%), while BlackRock is the fifth largest (4.57%).
• PwC (PriceWaterhouseCoopers) required staff visiting any physical office or client location to be fully vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021, and introduced a work-anywhere policy for its U.S. employees, allowing them to work remotely in perpetuity. PwC is an exception in that it is not publicly traded — it is the fourth biggest privately owned company in the U.S.
• Roblox, a tech company, requires U.S. employees to be vaccinated. Vanguard is its seventh biggest stockholder (1.96%).
• Roche, a pharmaceutical and medical equipment company, requires U.S. employees be vaccinated. The company is largely family-owned, but Vanguard mutual funds are two of the five largest mutual funds holding shares in Roche Holding AG.
• Salesforce, a cloud software provider, requires office employees be vaccinated, but allows the majority of its global workforce to choose remote work. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.07%); BlackRock is the fourth largest (4.28%).
• TJX, the parent company of retail chains such as HomeGoods, Marshalls and T.J. Maxx, required U.S. “home and regional office associates” be fully vaccinated as of Nov. 1, 2021, and mandated a booster shot by Feb. 1. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (7.17%), while BlackRock (4.13%) is the third largest.
• T-Mobile US announced it will fire corporate employees who are not fully vaccinated by April 2. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two biggest stockholders, at 3.28% and 2.38%, respectively.
• Twitter requires employees be vaccinated and demonstrate proof of vaccination prior to returning to the company’s offices in San Francisco and New York City. In May 2020, the company announced an indefinite work-from-home option for its workforce. Vanguard (8.35%) and BlackRock (4.49%) are its second- and third-largest stockholders, respectively.
• Tyson Foods mandated vaccination for its employees, and in Nov. 2021, announced 96% of its workforce was vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 11.38% and 4.91%, respectively.
• Uber requires U.S. office staff be vaccinated in order to return to the office, but did not extend this requirement to its drivers. Vanguard (4.07%) is its second-largest stockholder, while BlackRock (2.50%) is the fourth largest.
• United Airlines implemented a no-jab, no-job policy and required employees be vaccinated five weeks after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration fully approved a COVID vaccine or five weeks after Sept. 20, 2021, whichever came first. In December 2021, a court declined a bid by some United employees to block the company’s vaccine mandate. Vanguard and BlackRock are the airline’s biggest and third-biggest stockholders, at 10.16% and 4.28%, respectively.
• UPS required office workers in some of its U.S. locations get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 8.39% and 4.60%, respectively.
• Valero required new hires at its Louisiana and Texas refineries to be vaccinated, as of Oct. 1, 2021. Vanguard is its biggest stockholder (10.98%), while BlackRock (5.58%) is its third biggest.
• Verizon required non-union employees — representing most of its workforce — provide proof of vaccination as of Dec. 8, 2021. Vanguard and BlackRock are its two largest stockholders, at 7.44% and 4.71%, respectively.
• ViacomCBS requires all of U.S.-based employees working onsite during the company’s “Yellow Phase” be fully vaccinated, while the company is “still assessing” whether this mandate will be extended into its “Green Phase,” when most staff will physically return to the office. Vanguard (10.29%) is its largest stockholder, while BlackRock (5.03%) is third largest.
• Walgreens required employees in the company’s U.S. support offices be fully vaccinated by Sept. 30, 2021, or enroll in a COVID testing program. Vanguard is the top stockholder of the Walgreens Boots Alliance (6.61%), while BlackRock is third largest (4.22%).
• Walmart implemented a no-jab, no-job policy for corporate staff, but not for store or warehouse employees. It has, however, offered a $150 incentive to store and warehouse workers to get vaccinated. The company claimed the “overwhelming majority” of its employees who were mandated to get vaccinated, have done so. Notably, the company enforced a vaccine mandate for shoppers in Canada, generating criticism. Vanguard is its largest stockholder (4.31%), while BlackRock is the third largest (2.30%).
• The Walt Disney Company required much of its U.S. workforce be vaccinated, though the company was obliged to pause this policy for its Florida employees after state lawmakers barred employers from requiring workers to get vaccinated. Vanguard and BlackRock are Disney’s two biggest stockholders, at 7.15% and 4.24%, respectively.
• Warner Media, a subsidiary of AT&T, required salaried and non-union U.S. employees to get vaccinated before returning to the office in September 2021, while proof of vaccination is required to enter a WarnerMedia office building.
• The Washington Post requires all employees, including new employees, to provide proof of vaccination, implementing a no jab, no job policy. The newspaper is owned by Nash Holdings LLC, which is fully owned by Jeff Bezos, founder and executive chairman of Amazon, whose two largest stockholders are Vanguard (6.19%) and BlackRock (3.51%).

What about the two asset management companies, BlackRock and Vanguard?

Of the two, only BlackRock has implemented a vaccine mandate, allowing vaccinated staff to return to the office in July 2021.

Vanguard has not implemented a mandate, but offered a $1,000 incentive to its employees to encourage them to get vaccinated.

Vaccine passport technology — another way BlackRock, Vanguard profit from vaccines

BlackRock and Vanguard also are stakeholders in tech companies involved in the development of digital vaccine passports or “digital wallets” and technology that can track and allocate “personal carbon allowances.”

These companies include:

• Apple, which is collaborating with several U.S. states to make official documents such as drivers’ licenses and medical records available digitally via Apple Wallet. Vanguard is its top shareholder (7.35%) and BlackRock is its third-biggest (4.12%).
• Mastercard, which supports the Good Health Pass vaccine passport initiative that is also backed by the ID2020 alliance, and promoted technology that can be embedded into the DO Card, a credit/debit card that can keep track of one’s “personal carbon allowance.” Its top two stockholders are Vanguard (6.82%) and BlackRock (4.13%).

In turn, Mastercard is the fifth largest investor in Doconomy, a Swedish “FinTech” firm that is also heavily involved in the development of the DO Card.

Doconomy, in turn, collaborates with another Swedish “FinTech” firm, Klarna, in providing 90 million customers with “carbon footprint insights” based on their Doconomy transactions. While Klarna is privately held, its top investors include BlackRock and Visa.

• Oracle is a backer of the SMART Health Card, which is gaining prominence in the U.S. as a de facto national digital vaccine ‘passport’, and also is a provider of cloud services to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its top two stockholders are Vanguard and BlackRock, with 5.16% and 2.99%, respectively.
• Thales Group, is a founding member of the Security Identity Alliance, which is a stakeholder in the UN’s Legal Identity Agenda Task Force that has set the establishment of digital identification for all by 2030. Thales Group has also developed a “smart health card” and digital ID wallet technology.

While the government of France, which has imposed among the strictest COVID-19 restrictions in Europe and has used ‘vaccine passports’ to shut the unvaccinated out of many public spaces and activities, is Thales’ top shareholder (25.7%), Vanguard is the sixth largest, at 1.31%.

No moral core . . . no moral purpose

In podcaster Joe Rogan’s interview last month with Dr. Robert Malone — the interview that triggered the exodus of musicians and others from Spotify — Malone described companies like BlackRock and Vanguard as “large massive funds that are completely decoupled from nation states” and that “have no moral core … no moral purpose,” their only purpose being a “return on investment.”

As it turns out, BlackRock and Vanguard — and Moderna — also have ties to Spotify.

BlackRock is Spotify’s seventh-largest shareholder (1.37%), while Vanguard manages the top mutual fund holding Spotify Technology SA.

Baillie Gifford, a Scotland-based asset management firm in existence since 1909, is the top institutional stockholder (11.60%) in Spotify — and the top stockholder of Moderna (11.29%), the company that carries the largest overall weight in the firm’s portfolio, at $12 billion in holdings.

Other major Baillie Gifford holdings — including some companies listed above among those mandating COVID vaccines — include Tesla (second highest at 6.3% of its portfolio’s value), Amazon (fourth highest at 3.8%), Spotify (seventh highest at 2.8%), Netflix (ninth highest at 2.6%), Meta (12th, 1.4%), Microsoft (16th, 1.3%), Anthem (21st, 1.2%), Alphabet Inc. (22nd, 1.1%), BioNTech (29th, 0.9%), Mastercard (39th, 0.6%), DoorDash (45th, 0.6%), Salesforce (53rd, 0.5%), and Lyft (93rd, 0.2%).

Baillie Gifford, through its Scottish Mortgage Investment Trust, also maintains a significant stakein Palantir (0.2% of the firm’s net asset value, or NAV).

As reported by The Defender, Palantir developed the Tiberius vaccine allocation planning systemoperated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal (which terminated the contracts of nonprofits opposed to vaccine mandates) and a Facebook board member, also is a co-founder of Palantir and serves on its board of directors.

Palantir’s top two stockholders are Vanguard (6.08%) and BlackRock (3.31%).

In turn, the top stockholders of BioNTech, Pfizer’s partner in the development of its COVID vaccine, include Baillie Gifford (biggest stockholder, 2.69%) and BlackRock (seventh highest, 0.59%), while Vanguard manages the top mutual fund with holdings in BioNTech (0.92%), and Baillie Gifford the ninth biggest (0.23%).

Tangled web of corporate connections raises host of questions

BlackRock and Vanguard are poised to continue expanding— as far back as 2017, Bloomberg predicted that by 2028, these two companies would be managing $20 trillion worth of investments.

The size and scope of the firms’ investments raise questions about how much influence BlackRock and Vanguard can wield over the formulation of corporate policies by the companies in which the two firms are heavily invested.

This ever-growing influence has led some analysts to describe the two firms as “kingmakers,” arguing their growing voting share in an increasing number of corporations would “hand them a de-facto veto on all major corporate decisions by 2040.

To what extent do companies mandating COVID vaccines have the best interest of their employees in mind? Or are these companies implementing policies under the guise of “protecting” employees, when in fact they are more concerned about appeasing major investors?

What else might these companies do, if “encouraged” in some way by major stockholders?

Moreover, do mandatory (or strongly encouraged) vaccination policies reflect the worldview of funds such as BlackRock and Vanguard, and their managers — in much the same way major corporations have embraced purportedly “green” policies which only barely cloak potentially totalitarian restrictions on civil liberties, such as “personal carbon allowances” and digital “vaccine passports”?

The answers may lie, in part, in the words of BlackRock CEO and chairman, Larry Fink.

In his 2022 annual letter to CEOs, Fink wrote that “employees are increasingly looking to their employer as the most trusted, competent and ethical source of information — more so than government, the media and NGOs.”

Fink said, “workers demanding more from their employers is an essential feature of effective capitalism” — an interesting viewpoint given that the BlackRock and Vanguard strategy to control as many corporations as possible, including competing ones, would seem to contradict the principles of capitalism, competition, and a free market.

Fink also warned that “companies not adjusting to this new reality and responding to their workers do so at their own peril.”

In other words, employees and workers of companies that have imposed vaccine mandates should take comfort in such policies, as their employer appears to know what’s best for them — at least according to Fink.

*

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

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The upshot of the Russian response, transmitted to Washington on Thursday, regarding security guarantees may look as if the stalemate is heading toward a war. Moscow has rejected the US’ call for ‘de-escalation’ by pointing out that the Russian troops are deployed on Russian territories; it also rejects the threat of sanctions, which it says is a contrived attempt to “exert pressure and devalue Russia’s proposals on security guarantees.” 

Second, Russia is concerned over “the growing military activity of the United States and NATO directly near Russian borders, while our ‘red lines’ and core security interests, as well as Russia’s sovereign right to protect them, are still being ignored”. 

Third, Russia believes that in order to de-escalate the situation around Ukraine,“it is fundamentally important” to implement an array of steps, including the halt of arms supplies to Ukraine, the recall of all Western advisers and instructors from that country as well as cessation of NATO countries’ joint exercises with the Ukrainian armed forces. 

Finally, Russia reiterated that its demands for legally bound guarantees (stopping NATO’s expansion, refusing to use strike weapons systems near Russian borders, and returning the bloc’s military infrastructure in Europe to its status in 1997) are being ignored. 

However, the latest word from Moscow is that negotiations will continue on European security issues although Moscow’s core demands have not been met. A meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is being scheduled for next week at a European venue. 

This is a pragmatic decision. For Moscow, the secondary issues relating to issues of military security, arms control and strategic stability look generally solvable and could even be put together as an agreement. After all, these issues were originally Russian proposals, which Washington had previously ignored and is now willing to discuss. 

For the US too, this is a realistic approach, since, after all, the development of hypersonic missiles by Russia has changed the strategic balance in the latter’s favour and there is no point deploying intermediate nuclear forces in Europe in the changed circumstances! 

On the other hand, both superpowers sense the importance of good optics which can only create some gravitas for the political track in the near term that may help address the core issues.

Does it mean that the crisis has peaked? The point to be noted here is that the possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine was never really there. However, below that threshold, a Russian intervention in Donbass region is a one hundred percent certainty  if the Ukrainian forces launch an attack against the separatist forces. 

The catch is, if Russian intervention takes place, all bets are off, because an entirely different dynamics might appear. Conceivably, Moscow will act with a scenario in mind to ensure that pending a durable settlement in Ukraine, the security of the millions of ethnic Russians (many holding Russian passports) will never again be in jeopardy, or held hostage by the right-wing neo-Nazi Ukrainian nationalist forces mentored by the Western intelligence who dominate Kiev.

Therefore, a Russian offensive westward upto the Dnepr River may become necessary to create a buffer zone.  In fact, an evacuation of the elderly, women and children from Donbass to the Rostov region in southern Russia began today. The Kremlin has been ringing alarm bells in the past 48 hours that the possibility of an attack on Donbass is “quite real.” 

It is from such a perspective that the Duma’s recommendation to President Putin to recognise the two breakaway “people’s republics” in Donbass needs to be viewed. Putin has said he doesn’t intend to act on it now. In reality, it gives underpinning for a Plan B in case conflict erupts in Donbass, or if the US gameplan is to bog down Russia in protracted negotiations, or if Washington remains obdurate vis-a-vis Moscow’s demands for security guarantee.

Washington has conceded some ground, though. Apart from showing readiness to discuss the issues of European security, the US has withdrawn its military advisors and trainers from Ukraine, Biden has committed that US will not militarily intervene in Ukraine even if it is attacked or faces defeat and surrender, and that US will not deploy missiles. 

Russia’s coercive diplomacy seems to be working! Time is on its side because this is about national security and national defence, no matter what efforts that entails or how long they must continue. Contrary to western propaganda, Russian public trusts Putin’s judgment and leadership. There’s no dent in his public rating.

On the other side of the Atlantic, however, setting aside the usual bluster in the American propaganda, the political reality is that according to the latest CBS poll, 53% of Americans think US shouldn’t take sides in a conflict and 33% think Ukraine is simply not America’s business. And even American analysts concede that Russian economy has the capacity and resilience to withstand US sanctions. 

Therefore, we may expect, as the noted Russian security analyst Fyodor Lukyanov told Kommersant paper today, “the next phase of the game of nerves may be a diplomatic one… On the whole, another phase of manageable tensions is to be expected.” But even here, the advantage lies with Russia. 

For a start, China has given robust support to Russia and on Wednesday, called on Washington to “accommodate Russia’s legitimate and reasonable concerns over security and play a constructive role for all parties to seek a political settlement to  Ukraine issue on the basis of Minsk-2 agreement, rather than hype up and sensationalise and escalate tensions.” 

On the contrary, despite Washington’s tall claims that the US and European allies are moving in “lockstep” (to borrow Biden’s expression) and the 24×7 efforts by US officials to take the allies along, the picture that emerges is that the fault lines that have been there in the recent years in the western alliance system are surging and cracks are appearing due to the immense strategic burden of a confrontation with Russia, the spectre of a war in Europe and a massive refugee flow that will ensue, and all the attendant uncertainties for Europe’s post-pandemic economic recovery. 

The stance of France and Germany, the two most important European players, must be causing anxiety in Washington. Both President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Moscow and held lengthy talks with Putin. Macron also showed his discontent over the US’ overlordship by telephoning Chinese President Xi Jinping on February 16. 

Macron showered fulsome praise for the “splendid and successful opening ceremony” of the Olympic Winter Games and conveyed France’s full support for China’s “effort to make a success of the Olympic”! 

Xi in turn complimented Macron that “since assuming the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU) this year, France has done a lot to enhance EU solidarity and strengthen Europe’s strategic autonomy.” 

Macron went on to pledge that “France will make all-out efforts to advance the positive agenda between the EU and China, and work together with China to ensure the success of the EU-China Leaders’ Meeting and push forward the development of EU-China relations.” The two leaders reached consensus over a six-point agenda for bilateral cooperation for the next stage. 

Macron also took the initiative to schedule an EU-China summit meeting on April 1 against the backdrop of China’s deepening ties with Russia and amidst the war hysteria in the US over a Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Reports have appeared that due to opposition from some European countries, Washington has had to drop from the sanctions package the s-called “nuclear option” — Russia’s exclusion from SWIFT payment mechanism, effectively cutting it off from the international banking system. 

All these undercurrents in play put pressure on the Biden administration. While in Moscow, Scholz who had met Biden in Washington before that, affirmed publicly in the presence of Putin that so long as they remained in power in Berlin and Moscow, for all practical purposes, there is no question of the NATO admitting Ukraine as a member.

Put differently, so long as Russia regards Ukraine’s NATO membership as a casus belli, the alliance will not move in that direction. That is to say, unless Moscow changes it mind, there’s no NATO membership for Ukraine (or Georgia.) We could be hearing the crunchy sound of ice cracking on the frozen lake.

*

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Autopsies of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine prove the vaccine caused their deaths. Pathological findings suggest there may be a way to distinguish SARS-COV-2 infection-induced myo/pericarditis from vaccine-induced cardiac injury. Vaccine-induced heart injury can be sub-clinical, but how often?

Pathologists who examined the autopsies of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine concluded the vaccine caused the teens’ deaths.

The three pathologists, two of whom are medical examiners, published their findings Feb. 14 in an early online release article, “Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in Two Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose,” in the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.

The authors’ findings were conclusive. Two teenage boys were pronounced dead in their homes three and four days after receiving the second Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 dose.

There was no evidence of active or previous COVID-19 infection. The teens had negative toxicology screens (i.e. no drugs or poisons were present in their bodies).

These boys died from the vaccine.

Histopathological examination of their cardiac tissue revealed an important new finding: Neither heart demonstrated evidence of typical myocarditis.

Instead, the authors found evidence of microscopic changes consistent with a different form of heart injury called toxic cardiomyopathy. They wrote:

“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.”

The authors further explained what they observed under the microscope:

“Their histopathology does not demonstrate a typical myocarditis … In these two post-vaccination instances, there are areas of contraction bands and hypereosinophilic myocytes distinct from the inflammation.

“This injury pattern is instead similar to what is seen in the myocardium of patients who are clinically diagnosed with Takotsubo, toxic or ‘stress’ cardiomyopathy, which is a temporary myocardial injury that can develop in patients with extreme physical, chemical, or sometimes emotional stressors.

“Stress cardiomyopathy is a catecholamine-mediated ischemic process seen in high catecholamine states in the absence of coronary artery disease or spasm. It has also been called ‘neurogenic myocardial injury’ and ‘broken heart syndrome.’”

The pathologists determined there was a different mechanism of heart injury at play in these two boys, distinct from a purely infectious process that would result directly from a viral infection like COVID-19.

This is an important finding. There may be a way to distinguish cardiac injury resulting from a SARS-COV-2 infection from cardiac injury where the vaccine predisposes the patient to stress cardiomyopathy before contracting COVID-19.

However, the authors are careful not to assume that cardiac injuries from COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines can always be sorted out under the microscope.

They explain that stress cardiomyopathy, or “broken heart syndrome,” may also occur in a rare hyperinflammatory state that is known to occur in COVID-19 infection as well:

“This post-vaccine reaction may represent an overly exuberant immune response and the myocardial injury is mediated by similar immune mechanisms as described with SARS-COV-2 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) cytokine storms.”

The authors admit this pathological finding may also occur as a result of MIS-C, a known complication of SARS-COV2 infection.

Learning more about this condition requires a biopsy of heart tissue, or in this case an autopsy. We know very little about the nature of myocarditis in people who are clinically stable because heart biopsies are not conducted on them and autopsies are rarely done on patients who die from COVID-19.

There still is no practical way of screening for cardiac injury beyond assessing symptoms.

Unfortunately, the two boys did not have symptoms of myocarditis (fever, chest pain, palpitations, or dyspnea) prior to their cardiac arrest and death. One complained of a headache and gastric upset which resolved. The other had no complaints.

This is extremely concerning. These boys had smoldering, catastrophic heart injuries with no symptoms.

How many others have insidious cardiac involvement from vaccination that won’t manifest until they get a serious case of COVID-19 or the flu? Or perhaps when they subject themselves to the physical stress of competitive sports?

These findings suggest a significant subset of COVID-19 deaths in the vaccinated could be due to the vaccines themselves.

Furthermore, it raises this question: How often does this condition exist in a latent form in vaccinated individuals?

The CDC believes the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis not significant

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents who get the COVID-19 vaccine is “extremely rare” and “most cases are mild.”

But those assurances conflict with the agency’s own data.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) presented this disquieting information (see chart below) during its June 23, 2021 meeting convened specifically to address the risks of myo/pericarditis in 12- to 15-year-olds who received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine:

This slide is important for two reasons.

First, the incidence of this potentially lethal condition is significantly higher in the vaccinated (“Observed” column) compared to the background rate (“Expected” column), especially in males in the 18- to 24-year-old age range.

In the 12- to 17-year-old male cohort, the risk of myo/pericarditis is at least 11 times higher than the background rate.

With more than 2 million doses administered at the time when these cases of myo/pericarditis were identified, we can be confident these data represent an undeniable safety signal.

The second reason this slide is important is this: The CDC is drawing directly from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a system specifically designed to monitor for safety signals when vaccines are administered to the public.

As of Feb. 15, the CDC continues to assure the public that “Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem.”

In essence, the CDC is acknowledging that reports of deaths and other adverse events following vaccination exist in VAERS but do not comprise any risk because causality has not been verified.

Then why did the ACIP choose to accept VAERS as a legitimate source of information on myo/pericarditis in their calculations?

The CDC released its conclusions immediately following the ACIP meeting:

“The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination. Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment.”

But how do they know this?

One month after this comforting statement from the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admitted in this letter to Pfizer that the agency was not able to adequately assess the risk of myocarditis from Pfizer’s product:

“We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis.

“Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.”

Commenting on the FDA’s letter, Dr. Meryl Nass said,

“The FDA is saying that neither an analysis of the data in VAERS or of any of the other taxpayer-funded databases will provide sufficient assessment of the risk of this product.”

“This is a joke,” said Nass, adding:

“All this data, plus software, plus a team of analysts, and the FDA says it can’t assess the risk of myocarditis, despite identifying thousands of cases?

“Furthermore, unsaid, but implied by the FDA, is that if the FDA is incapable of assessing the risk of myocarditis despite thousands of reported cases, it cannot or will not be capable of assessing the other serious adverse events that have been reported in conjunction with COVID vaccines.”

If the FDA is not able to perform adequate surveillance of safety signals around vaccine-induced myocarditis, who will?

The FDA assigns this unenviable but essential task to Pfizer itself (again, from the FDA’S letter to Pfizer):

“Therefore, based on appropriate scientific data, we have determined that you are required to conduct the following studies…”

Is myocarditis ‘extremely rare’ after COVID-19 vaccination? 

As of Feb. 4, VAERS reported 495 cases of myo/pericarditis in 12- to 17-year-olds. VAERS data show that as of Feb. 10, there were 2,239 reported cases of myocarditis in people under the age of 30.

However, a widely cited CDC-sponsored study (Lazarus et al) concluded the incidence of adverse events is 10 to 100 times higher than are reported to VAERS.

More recent calculations estimate that adverse events are underreported by a factor of approximately 41.

From these estimates, we can conclude there may have been approximately 20,000 cases of myocarditis in 12- to 17-year-olds since Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine received Emergency Use Authorization and was rolled out to this age group..

The VAERS data from June 11, 2021 from the table above show 132 cases of myo/pericarditis were observed in 2,039,000 doses given to 12- to 17-year-old males. This is approximately 6.5 cases in 100,000 doses.

This study from Hong Kong found the incidence of myo/pericarditis after two doses with Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine was 37 in 100,000. This incidence matches nearly exactly with findings from this study that used the Vaccine Safety DataLink (VSD) system (37.7 12-17 year olds per 100,000 suffered myo/pericarditis after their second dose). This is more evidence that significant underreporting is in play in the VAERS system.

Will most of these teens “recover on their own”? How many other vaccinated people have varying degrees of “broken heart” syndrome that remain asymptomatic, undiagnosed and unreported?

These new findings indicate that no one can answer these questions right now — especially not the CDC and the FDA.

If the FDA has admitted it cannot assess the risk of myocarditis using the surveillance systems in place, how then is the CDC able to assure us that the risk is low enough to continue to proceed with a vaccination campaign that now includes 5- to 11-year-old children?

The FDA has abdicated its responsibility for monitoring the safety of these vaccines to the vaccine manufacturers.

The CDC is using VAERS data in its own analyses while urging the public to discount all adverse events, including deaths, that appear in the very same database.

There isn’t any regulation happening here. Our regulatory agencies have become mouthpieces for the very industry they are tasked to oversee.

*

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

Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Regardless of the war propaganda – the dreams of young Ukrainians do not differ from the hopes and expectations of their peers from other peripheral parts of the world.  Maybe just a little more prematurely grown bitterness and distrust in them.  Perhaps they are also more divided than the neighbouring youth – not only by social and class barriers, but also by a different historical or linguistic experience.  This is confirmed by the research carried out last year by the Research Centre PULS from Odessa.

Internal break

Everyday frightening the world with war in Ukraine distracts from the country’s everyday problems.  And yet people, especially those aged 14-18, do not live there “between one Putin’s invasion and another”.  Although, of course, living in the information society, additionally strongly politicised – they are forced to receive information and stimuli of a political and ideological nature at least passively.

And so, for example 72% of respondents consider human rights issues important.  However, are they respected in their own country?  Well, 42% think so, but another 39% teenagers are convinced that not at all.  Moreover, the closer to adulthood – the more doubters.  The inhabitants of the south of the country clearly have more reasons to doubt, especially Russian-speaking and students.  Is it the heritage of ethnic tensions that have continued since 2014 – or is it also the result of these areas’ recent turbulent pasts?

As few people in the West know, on 2nd May 2014 in Odessa, during the attack of extreme Ukrainian nationalists on participants of a demonstration in defence of the right to use the Russian language – 46 Russian-speaking people were intentionally burned in the Trade Union House, and over 200 were injured.

Meanwhile, about 35 percent. young Ukrainians have never heard of these events from less than 8 years ago!  Obviously, this proportion is decreasing among those living in the South and East of the country.  52% surveyed describes the incident as a “tragedy”.  In turn, in Western Ukraine 24% young Ukrainians agree that the death of their countrymen was just “a victory over pro-Russian separatists”.

There is no place for “aliens”?

A study aimed at detecting the level of xenophobia sheds additional light on this far-reaching polarization.  It must not be forgotten that an important and controversial element of Ukrainian historical policy is the official cult of anti-Soviet armed organizations that actively collaborated with Hitler during the Second World War and participated in the Holocaust organisation.

The official role model for Ukrainian schoolchildren is Stepan Bandera, in the 1940s the leader of the Nazi Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, personally responsible for the mass murder of Ukrainian Jews and other minorities, as well as people suspected of Communism and leftist views.

After the war, Bandera avoided punishment, cooperating with American and British intelligence before being murdered in 1959 by a Soviet agent.

Does Ukrainian youth really follow the thought of the one demanding from his supporters “You will not hesitate to commit even the greatest crime, if the good of the Cause demands it” and “With hatred and deceit you will receive the enemies of Your Nation”?

Unfortunately, at least partially yes – 35% teenagers do not see a place in Ukraine for Russians, 26 percent. for Arabs, 25 percent would not like Jews to be the inhabitants or even tourists in the Ukrainian state.

In this specific popularity ranking, almost exclusively Americans (25%) are more widely accepted as “close friends”, while 75%of respondents can only imagine other Ukrainians as close family members.  Several years of intense nationalist and jingoist propaganda have done a lot of evil…

Run as far as possible!

But after all young Ukrainians are no different from their peers, knowing well that their future in own country, still subjected to the oligarchs’ rule – is at least questionable.  55% of teenagers plan emigration, of which 28% are ambitiously dreaming of the United States, 16% would realistically be satisfied with work or studies in neighbouring Poland, and 11% in the Czech Republic.  Why do they want to emigrate?  Has the situation in Ukraine not improved after 2014 and the victory of pro-Western forces?  39% did not see any positive changes, 17% believe that it is even worse, and only 21 percent. believes there has been an improvement.

And would they themselves support that coup (“revolution”)?  36% can’t answer, 33% would certainly not go to that Maidan and 31% perhaps would follow parents demonstrating then in Kiev against the Government and for European integration.

How many Ukraines?

Research confirms that, unlike in the Western media, there is no single Ukraine, and the differences between the inhabitants of individual regions are significant and potentially antagonising.  72% of teenagers, when asked about the level of trust, replied that in any relations with others they will maintain a high degree of distrust and scepticism. 55% see no possibility, sense or need of any political and social activity.  46% agree that “not everyone in Ukraine today can freely express their views”.  But in same time between 91 and 98% of the respondents declare themselves unequivocally Ukrainian – although 42% think that this can be both a source of pride and shame.  And to complete the picture, it is worth adding that in the South, East and the Centre of the country between 40 and 61% declare themselves bilingual, both Ukrainian and Russian, while this indicator in Western Ukraine drops to only 5%compared to a 94% advantage solely of Ukrainian.

No future – no hope?

Modern Ukrainians are not only subjected to geopolitical pressure from Russia, but still have a number of historical and cultural ties with her.  At the same time, there is intensively implemented economic and civilizational transformational dictate of Western Liberal Capitalism.  The internal situation is the aftermath of several decades of oligarchy, and earlier of the Soviet state quasi-capitalism.  

Subjective lack of prospects is therefore accompanied by a natural increase in frustration, channelled through stimulating xenophobia and emigration pressure, again primarily in the interests of Western labour markets.  Ukrainian youth are discouraged, do not see any sense in their own activity, and see own future primarily outside the country.  Neither of these problems can be solved by war propaganda, nor by sending these young people to the front to kill and die at the hands of the similar peers from Russia or the Donbass.  Meanwhile, the only response to embittered and disillusioned young Ukrainians from the US and the UK – remain guns, the vision of marvelous capitalism and the promise of a minimum wage job in the West…

*

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

Konrad Rękas is a renowned geopolitical analyst and a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

The research was conducted by the independent Research Centre PULS, Odessa, Ukraine in cooperation with the International Expert Club, on April 4-21, 2021, on a sample of 1,200 respondents aged 14-18, representative of the main sociodemographic characteristics (gender, age, type of settlement, macro region. Response Rate: RR3 = 61. The statistical error of the sample (with a probability of 0.95) does not exceed: 2.9% for indicators close to 50%, 2.5% for indicators close to 25%, 1.7% for indicators close to 10%, 1.3% for indicators close to 5. The actual sampling error for controlled quota and uncontrolled (non-quota) characteristics does not exceed 2.3%.

Featured image is from Donbass Insider

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The title of this January 2022 most important article is “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes and microRNAs.”  It is written by very credentialed medical researchers.  It presents an extremely detailed analysis that proves COVID vaccines are very unsafe. 

Here, I focus on the findings showing a relationship between the vaccines and cancers.  Everything below is directly from the paper.  It is difficult reading, but the messages are very important.

Screenshot from Authorea

Abstract

The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the widely perceived public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease had no precedent, but desperate times seemed to call for desperate measures. The mRNA vaccines utilize genetically modified mRNA encoding spike proteins. These alterations hide the mRNA from cellular defenses, promote a longer biological half-life for the proteins, and provoke higher overall spike protein production.

However, both experimental and observational evidence reveals a very different immune response to the vaccines compared to the response to infection with SARS-CoV-2. As we will show, the genetic modifications introduced by the vaccine are likely the source of these differential responses. In this paper, we present the evidence that vaccination, unlike natural infection, induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. We explain the mechanism by which immune cells release into the circulation large quantities of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance. These disturbances are shown to have a potentially direct causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, increased tumorigenesis, and DNA damage. We show evidence from adverse event reports in the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines excludes them as positive contributors to public health, even in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. [emphasis added]

VAERS Signal for Cancer

Cancer is a disease generally understood to take months or, more commonly, years to progress from an initial malignant transformation in a cell to development of a clinically recognized condition. Since VAERS reports of adverse events are happening primarily within the first month or even the first few days after vaccination [209], it seems likely that the acceleration of cancer progression following vaccines would be a difficult signal to recognize. Furthermore, most people do not expect cancer to be an adverse event that could be caused by a vaccine.

However, as we have outlined in our paper, if the mRNA vaccinations are leading to widespread dysregulation of oncogene controls, cell cycle regulation, and apoptosis, then VAERS reports should reflect an increase in reports of cancer, relative to the other vaccines.

This is in fact what VAERS reports reflect, and dramatically so. Table 1 illustrates events involving the most common cancers reported to VAERS in the US, cancers either newly identified or stable disease newly progressing. It compares reports related to COVID-19 vaccination to reports related to all other vaccinations over the 31-year history of VAERS information collection. To obtain this table, we searched the online resource, for search terms indicating cancer, such as “cancer,” “carcinoma,” “mass,” “neoplasm,” etc., and summed over all hits related to a particular organ, such as “lung.” These data were collected on December 12, 2021.

Notably, there were three times as many reports of breast cancer following a COVID-19 vaccine, and more than six times the number of reports of B-cell lymphoma. All but one of the cases of follicular lymphoma were associated with COVID-19 vaccines. Pancreatic carcinoma was more than three times as high.

This cannot be explained by reference to a disproportionately large number of people receiving an mRNA vaccination in the past year compared to all other vaccinations. The total number of people receiving a non-COVID-19 vaccination is unknown, but over the 31 years history of reports VAERS contains it is unquestionably many orders of magnitude larger than the number receiving an mRNA vaccination in the past year. Overall, in the above table, twice as many cancer reports to VAERS are related to a COVID-19 vaccination compared to those related to all other vaccines. That, in our opinion, constitutes a signal in urgent need of investigation.

Table 1:  Number of events in the VAERS database from 1990 to December 12, 2021, where several terms indicating cancer occurred in association with COVID-19 vaccines or with all other vaccines, along with the ratio between the two counts. Counts were restricted to data from the United States. Note that counts for all the other vaccines are totals for 31 years, whereas the COVID-19 counts are for a single class of vaccines over less than one year.

[I cannot reproduce Table 1 here, but here is the bottom line finding: Total of 735 cancer cases in the CDC VAERS database compared to a total of 368 cancer cases from all other vaccines. This produces a ratio of 2.00 of COVID to all other vaccines. I urge readers to access the article and examine the considerable data in Table 1. The data give a compelling case for being concerned about the COVID vaccines.]

Discussion

There has been an unwavering message about the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 from the public health apparatus in the US and around the globe. The efficacy is increasingly in doubt, as shown in a recent letter to the Lancet Regional Health by Günter Kampf.  Kampf provided data showing that the vaccinated are now as likely as the unvaccinated to spread disease. He concluded: “It appears to be grossly negligent to ignore the vaccinated population as a possible and relevant source of transmission when deciding about public health control measures.”

In this paper we call attention to three very important aspects of the safety profile of these vaccinations. First is the extensively documented subversion of innate immunity, primarily via suppression of IFN-α and its associated signaling cascade. This suppression will have a wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections. Second is the dysregulation of the system for both preventing and detecting genetically driven malignant transformation within cells and the consequent potential for vaccination to promote those transformations. Third, mRNA vaccination potentially disrupts intracellular communication carried out by exosomes, and induces cells taking up spike mRNA to produce high levels of spike-carrying exosomes, with potentially serious inflammatory consequences. Should any of these potentials be fully realized, the impact on billions of people around the world could be enormous and could contribute to both the short-term and long-term disease burden our health care system faces.

Given the current rapidly expanding awareness of the multiple roles of G4s in regulation of mRNA translation and clearance through stress granules, the increase in pG4s due to enrichment of GC content as a consequence of codon optimization has unknown but likely far-reaching consequences. Specific analytical evaluation of the safety of these constructs in vaccines is urgently needed, including mass spectrometry for identification of cryptic expression and immunoprecipitation studies to evaluate the potential for disturbance of or interference with the essential activities of RNA and DNA binding proteins.

Conclusions

It is imperative that worldwide administration of the mRNA vaccinations be stopped immediately until further studies are conducted to determine the extent of the potential pathological consequences outlined in this paper. [emphasis added] It is not possible for these vaccinations to be considered part of a public health campaign without a detailed analysis of the human impact of the potential collateral damage. It is also imperative that VAERS and other monitoring system be optimized to detect signals related to the health consequences of mRNA vaccination we have outlined. We believe the upgraded VAERS monitoring system described in the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. study, but unfortunately not supported by the CDC, would be a valuable start in this regard.

In the end, we are not exaggerating to say that billions of lives are at stake. We call on the public health institutions to demonstrate, with evidence, why the issues discussed in this paper are not relevant to public health, or to acknowledge that they are and to act accordingly. Until our public health institutions do what is right in this regard, we encourage all individuals to make their own health care decisions with this information as a contributing factor in those decisions. [emphasis added]

*

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

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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Just more data that dispel the propaganda that COVID vaccines work:

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Douglas Murray, author and associate editor of Spectator, was interviewed by GBNews on Justin Trudeau’s response to the Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa.

According to Murray,

“It’s perfectly clear that Justin Trudeau has no empathy to the truckers and the others in his country who are disagreeing with his policies. He is trying to freeze them out of Ottawa, he is ordering police to steal the gasoline. He ordered GoFundMe to seize the funds that was sent to the truckers. He ordered the banks in Canada to freeze the accounts of people supporting the truckers.”

Watch the video below.

*

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

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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

I want to address the prime minister: No matter what you do, we will hold the line. There are no threats which will frighten us. We will hold the line. — Tamara Lich, convoy organizer, 14 February 2022

Justin Trudeau had cornered himself by grotesquely smearing the trucker convoy and its supporters as racist, misogynist, fringe, anti-science, vandals, and otherwise holding unacceptable views. He is unable to negotiate a peaceful outcome because he has refused to speak to the pro-freedom/anti-mandate protest movement.

Many of the truckers have insisted they aren’t leaving the capital of Ottawa. This is despite Trudeau trying his darndest to get them to leave. In addition to his invective against the truckers, he tried to have their funding cut off, he had jerry cans bringing fuel to the truckers seized, and he beefed up the police presence to cower them. All to no avail.

Meanwhile, Trudeau’s popularity has been tanking among Canadians.

Desperate, he resorted to a nuclear option from his father Pierre Trudeau’s days. In Pierre’s case, he invoked the War Measures Act during the October Crisis in 1970 to fight the FLQ (Front de libération du Québec), terrorists seeking Quebec’s separation from Canada. The FLQ had kidnapped British diplomat James Cross and Quebec labor minister Pierre Laporte, the latter being killed by the FLQ.

The situation in Pierre’s day was decidedly different from the situation now for Justin’s invocation of, what is now called, the Emergencies Act. Justin has undertaken an extraordinary action to grab extra powers to handle the pro-freedom protests across the country. Perversely, Justin’s power grab would further diminish freedoms. One can only imagine how the truckers, who have vowed not to leave Ottawa until the mandates are removed, will react to the increased diminution of freedoms.

One side will be crushed in this final showdown.

“It is now clear that there are serious challenges to law enforcement’s ability to effectively enforce the law,” said Trudeau.

Effectively enforcing constitutional law is what former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford is seeking, citing Justin’s mandates as abrogating Canada’s Charter of Rights. These charter rights were enacted by Pierre Trudeau’s government along with nine provinces, one of which was Peckford’s.

Justin Trudeau calls the emergency measures “reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.”

Is the convoy a threat? Up to now, the demonstration has been peaceful. However, the convoy poses a threat to the political viability of Justin Trudeau. And as for threats, Trudeau’s tweet sounds eerily close to a threat, even toward the kids of truckers:

Make no mistake: The border cannot, and will not, remain closed. Every option is on the table. So, if you’re participating in these illegal blockades that are taking our neighbourhoods and our economy hostage, it’s time to go home – especially if you have your kids with you.

Make no mistake: The border cannot, and will not, remain closed. Every option is on the table. So, if you’re participating in these illegal blockades that are taking our neighbourhoods and our economy hostage, it’s time to go home – especially if you have your kids with you.

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 11, 2022

The Emergencies Act also allows the government to direct banks to freeze money for the protestors.

Cryptocurrency exchanges surely welcome such an action.

To invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate that a state of emergency exists, and it must be approved by the parliament within seven days.

Errol Mendes, a professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Ottawa, opined, “If you look at what’s happened not just in Ottawa but at the Ambassador Bridge and Coutts, Alberta and in BC, essentially we have a national emergency.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) demurs:

The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met.

The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met. 1/3

— Canadian Civil Liberties Association (@cancivlib) February 15, 2022

Mendes argues that asking poses a national security threat: “You have this small group basically asking the government to do whatever they want. That’s the national security problem.”

It is true that relative to the Canadian population the truckers are a small group. However, that argument applies more so to the federal government. The members of parliament are a small group demanding, not asking, Canadians comply with mandates.

For whatever likes on a tweet are worth, the CCLA tweet (14 February 5:36 PM) has received 52.3 K likes while Trudeau’s tweet (14 February 8:36 PM) making clear the government’s position has received 5470 likes.

Granted, it is a ballsy move by Trudeau, but even more ballsy has been the “righteous dissidence” of the convoy of truckers in taking on the government and its gendarmes by behaving peacefully, being friendly, and keeping the streets clean. Crime has dropped during the protest.

The lines have been drawn. One of two likely outcomes will likely prevail: either Canadians will sacrifice their freedoms and comply with the mandates or the mandates will be repealed and Trudeau will have to step down.

*

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

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

The Trudeau government is carrying out a major and ongoing police operation directed against the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa.

The protest movement is peaceful. There is evidence of Police Violence and Brute Force. See Global Research’s Report.

Below is a livestream of events in Ottawa, February 19, 2022.

The decision to take action against the Freedom Convoy was implemented by the Trudeau government prior to the vote on the National Emergency which is scheduled for Monday.

The leaders of the movement Tamara Lich and Chris Barber were arrested and are in police custody.  

***

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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Joe Biden told the American people, on 15 February 2022, “The United States and NATO are not a threat to Russia. …  To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy.”

He expected Americans and Russians to believe that America’s anti-Russian military alliance (NATO) wasn’t hostile to Russia, wasn’t against it, didn’t consider it to be even an enemy (much less U.S/NATO’s main enemy, which is the case in their own actual policies).

How stupid are the public (both Americans and Russians) — that stupid?

Or was he (the U.S. President), instead, so stupid, himself, as to believe what he said?

If he wasn’t that stupid, then was he a liar? Could he have been both (stupid and a liar)? Could he have been actually a stupid liar? Is that the reality?

Russia might not be an enemy of America, but America is certainly very much an enemy of Russia, and makes this clear in everything that it does regarding Russia — not ONLY the many U.S. economic sanctions against Russia, but ALSO the many weapons (some being nuclear) that it places near to Russia’s borders, actually endangering Russians as much as the Soviet leader Khrushchev had been only intending to endanger Americans in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis by arming a country near to America.

If America ultimately succeeds in getting Ukraine into NATO, then U.S. nuclear weapons would almost certainly become positioned even less than a 7-minute striking time away from Moscow and therefore achieve the U.S. Government’s objective of becoming able to launch against Russia a surprise nuclear attack that hits so fast it could eliminate Russia’s ability to launch its own (retaliatory) nukes — this objective, on the part of the U.S. Government (since around 2006), being called by American theorists “Nuclear Primacy”: the ability for the U.S. Government (supposedly) to ‘win’ a nuclear war against Russia: the ability to conquer Russia. None of this plan is official, but it has been U.S. Government policy unofficially, ever since approximately 2006.

So: it’s quite reasonable for Putin now to be demanding that this 1962 Cuban-Missile-Crisis-in-reverse not be allowed, and he wants the U.S. Government and its NATO military alliance to remove from near Russia’s border ALL military hardware they’ve positioned there, and to promise in writing that they will NEVER again place such weapons and forces there.

Previously, however, the U.S. Government proved that it lies blatantly, and so even a written U.S./NATO promise of that wouldn’t actually be reliable. Therefore Biden’s saying that  “The United States and NATO are not a threat to Russia. …  To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy.” is fully in accord with the record of all recent American Presidents, which is a record of blatant lying. For example:

U.S. President George W. Bush seems to have been informed, in advance, about a New York Times article (which was the lead-story in the newspaper on Sunday, 8 September 2002), titled “U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS”, in which the sources were anonymous “Administration officials.” The story concerned “aluminum tubes” that were “intended as casing for rotors in centrifuges, which are one means of producing highly enriched uranium …  to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.”

So, on Saturday, September 7th, of 2002, U.S. President Bush said, while standing beside British Prime Minister Tony Blair, 

We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need [in order for Congress to authorize an invasion of Iraq].

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Absolutely right.

Then, as soon as the weekend was over, on Monday 9 September 2002, was issued by the IAEA the following:

Related Coverage: Director General’s statement on Iraq to the IAEA Board of Governors on 9 September 2002 [this being a republication of their notice three days earlier, on 6 Sep.].

Vienna, 06 September, 2002 – With reference to an article published today in the New York Times [which, as usual, stenographically reported the Administration’s false allegations, which the IAEA was trying to correct in a way that would minimally offend the NYT and the U.S. President], the International Atomic Energy Agency would like to state that it has no new information on Iraq’s nuclear programme since December 1998 when its inspectors left Iraq [and verified that no WMD remained there at that time]. Only through a resumption of inspections in accordance with Security Council Resolution 687 and other relevant resolutions can the Agency draw any conclusion with regard to Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under the above resolutions relating to its nuclear activities.

Contact: Mark Gwozdecky, Tel: (+43 1) 2600-21270, e-mail: [email protected].

It even linked to the following statement from the IAEA Director General amplifying it:

Since December 1998 when our inspectors left Iraq, we have no additional information that can be directly linked without inspection to Iraq’s nuclear activities. I should emphasize that it is only through resumption of inspections that the Agency can draw any conclusion or provide any assurance regarding Iraq’s compliance with its obligations under these resolutions.

So, this was proof of the falsehood of Bush’s and Blair’s reference, on September 7th, to the IAEA, in which Bush-Blair were saying that, upon the authority of the IAEA itself, there was “the new report … a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need.”

Because of the news-media’s ignoring the IAEA’s denial of the President’s statement, the author of the IAEA’s denial, Mark Gwozdecky, spoke again nearly three weeks later, by phone, with the only journalist who was interested, Joseph Curl of the Washington Times, who headlined on 27 September 2002, “Agency Disavows Report on Iraq Arms” — perhaps that should instead have been “President Lied About ‘Saddam’s WMD’” — and Curl quoted Gwozdecky: “There’s never been a report like that [which Bush alleged] issued from this agency. … When we left in December ’98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program.

We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment.” Other news-media failed to pick up Curl’s article. And, even in that article, there was no clear statement that the President had, in fact, lied — cooked up an IAEA ‘report’ that never actually existed. Actually, the IAEA hadn’t even so much as been mentioned in that New York Times article.

Bush had simply lied, and Blair seconded it, and the ‘news’-media stenographically accepted it, and broadcasted their lies to the public, and continued to do so, despite the IAEA’s having denied, as early as September 6th, that they had issued any such “new report” at all. (The IAEA had, apparently, somehow known in advance that someone would soon be saying that the IAEA had issued a report alleging that Iraq was resuming its nuclear program.) Virtually all of the alleged news-media (and not only the NYT) entirely ignored the IAEA’s denial (though it was not merely one bullet, but rapidly fired on four separate occasions, into the wilderness of America’s ‘news’-media) that it had issued any such “report.” All of them were actually only propaganda-media: they hid the fact that George W. Bush was simply lying. Both the U.S. Government and its media were frauds.

The day after that 7 September 2002 unquestioned lie by Bush, saying Iraq was only six months from having a nuclear weapon, and citing the IAEA as his source for that, the New York Times ran their article. It included such hair-raisers as “‘The jewel in the crown is nuclear,’ a senior administration official said. ‘The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical or biological weapons. Nuclear weapons are his hole card.’” The fake ‘news’ — stenography from the lying Government and its chosen lying sources (in this case anonymous Administration-officials) — came in an incessant stream, from the U.S. Government and its ‘news’ media (such as happened also later, regarding Honduras 2009, Libya 2011, Yemen 2011-, Syria 2011-, Ukraine 2014, and Yemen 2015-). Do the American people never learn — ever — that their Presidents and ‘news’-media) now lie routinely?

Also on Sunday, September 8th, of 2002, the Bush Administration’s big guns were firing off against Iraq from the Sunday ‘news’ shows; and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice delivered her famous “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” statement, which was clearly building upon the lying Bush allegation of the day before, that the International Atomic Energy Agency had just come up with this ominous “Atomic” “new report.”

Then, President Bush himself, on 12 September 2002, addressed the U.N. General Assembly, seeking authorization to invade:

We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced — the just demands of peace and security will be met — or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable — the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

Bush (and Blair) failed to win any authorization to invade, but did it anyway. They should be hung for it. They were atop a bi-national and entirely bipartisan (in each of the two countries) public-deception operation, like had occurred in Germany during Hitler’s time. (Hitler was a boon for the nation’s armaments-makers then, just as America’s Presidents now are for America’s armaments-firms.)

And both of America’s political Parties are controlled by their billionaires, who fund the political careers of the politicians whom those mega-donors want to become s‘elected’ by the public to win public offices. For example, whereas George W. Bush lied America into invading and destroying Iraq, Barack Obama and Joe Biden lied America into believing that their coup overthrowing and replacing Ukraine’s democratically elected Government in February 2014 was instead a ‘democratic revolution’ there. It’s so bad that even the progressive Democratic Party site, David Sirota’s “The Daily Poster,” has NEVER exposed anything about that Obama coup and about those Obama-Clinton-Biden lies about Ukraine, and about the U.S.

Government’s planned conquest of both Russia and China — the things that might actually produce WW III (in other words: are even more important than what they do report about).

In fact, Sirota had the nerve, on 15 February 2022, to post to Vimeo an anti-Republican-Party propaganda video, “The Pundits Who Lied America Into A War”, against the Republican Party’s liars who deceived the American people into invading and destroying Iraq in 2003 — though almost all leading Democrats, including Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton, had voted in the U.S. Senate for (not against) that lie-based invasion, and though all Democratic-Party ‘news’-media (and not ONLY the Republican-Party ones) unquestioningly transmitted the Bush-Administration’s lies to the American people, against Iraq, in order to fool Americans into supporting the then-upcoming U.S. invasion.

That Sirota video entirely ignores the Democratic-Party “Pundits” — such as the Party’s think tank, the Brookings Institution, whose Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, propagandized on TV and elsewhere to invade Iraq (such as in Pollack’s Council on Foreign Relations article, “Invasion the Only Realistic Option to Head Off the Threat from Iraq, Argues Kenneth Pollack in The Threatening Storm” did). Whereas Democrats blame Republicans, and Republicans blame Democrats, it’s the billionaires of BOTH Parties who actually fund all of these lies and liars — and who continue to fund those liars’ careers, and to present them on their ’news’-media as ‘experts’, to fool the public to okay the trillions of dollars that the U.S. Government pays to those billionaires’ corporations such as Lockheed Martin, to profit from those wars. It’s hypocrisy on top of lying, so as to convey an impression that neoconservatism — U.S. imperialism — is a ‘Republican’ (or else a ‘Democratic’) evil, when it’s ACTUALLY an evil by the billionaires who fund BOTH Parties AND who fund the ’news’-media, both liberal and conservative, and who profit from those invasions. It’s not just the lies of America’s Presidents; it is the lies that are funded by America’s billionaires, who placed such people as that into Congress and the White House.

This regime is an aristocracy, and imperialism is second nature to aristocrats. But an aristocracy is a dictatorship by the very rich — NOT any sort of democracy. This is the type of dictatorship that America now has — NOT a Republican dictatorship, or a Democratic dictatorship, but a dictatorship by the aristocracy, of BOTH Parties. They have made a mockery of their ‘democracy’. Practically everything they do is fake, except the vast harms that they produce.

*

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

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Featured image is from Trending Politics

The botched narrative of a February 16 Russian invasion of Ukraine reveals the desperation of the Anglo-American allies in provoking a third world war. As the warmongers of the West continue building up their war propaganda while their military equipment and personnel are on standby, Russia calmly resorts to diplomacy as means of addressing the crisis.

Will Ukraine become the next war theatre? Is gunboat diplomacy an option? What is the Minsk Agreement and how will it impact on the resolution of the crisis?

Read our selection below and spread the word.

***

Oversaturation of Ukrainian Forces Escalates Security Crisis

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, February 17, 2022

The current security crisis in Ukraine fueled by Kiev and its western allies is on the verge of triggering a new wave of violence in the Donbass region. Recent statements by Russian officials have warned about the possibility of a resurgence of large-scale clashes, which would be a consequence of the extreme militarization promoted in the conflict zone by Ukrainian forces.

British Officials Spread Russia Coup Plot Disinformation for United States

By Kit Klarenberg, February 17, 2022

Months of frenzied speculation about an imminent Russian invasion of Kiev by Western journalists, think tanks, and politicians culminated on February 15 with Moscow reducing its military footprint near Ukraine’s border.

Biden Insists Russian Invasion “Distinctly Possible” Despite Troop Demobilization

By Paul Antonopoulos, February 16, 2022

The Russian troops that took part in defense exercises in Belarus and Crimea are now returning to their barracks, contradicting widely circulated reports that Russia is about to invade Ukraine. Although Moscow repeatedly stressed that troop mobilizations were for defense exercises, a weak and unverified intelligence leak disseminated across Western media claimed that Russia would invade Ukraine on February 16.

In the Donbass, the Fuse Is Lit

By Manlio Dinucci, February 16, 2022

Every day, signs of an imminent war intensify. The State Department is evacuating the Embassy in Kyiv leaving behind only a few diplomats and a team of Marines, and is warning US citizens to leave Ukraine because “it would not be able to protect them from the Russian attack.”

Why Are We Evacuating Diplomats from Ukraine?

By Prof. Anatol Lieven, February 16, 2022

How they must be laughing in the Kremlin. Western policy towards Ukraine is evolving from the ridiculous to the positively surreal. Thus the latest demonstration of the West’s unbreakable commitment to Ukraine and to future Ukrainian NATO membership is — to evacuate Western diplomats from Kiev, before a single shot has been fired, and while Russia continues to deny that it has any intention of invading.

By All Measures, the US Has the World’s Most Incompetent Government and the Worst Media

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, February 16, 2022

US President Biden claims Russian troops continue “encircling Ukraine” even as Moscow says they are withdrawing. The Russian soldiers were never there for the purpose of invading Ukraine. They were in Belarus as part of a training exercise akin to the ones NATO continually conducts on Russia’s borders. 

Today’s Crisis Over Ukraine. Former US Ambassador to USSR Jack F. Matlock, Jr

By Jack Matlock, February 15, 2022

We are being told each day that war may be imminent in Ukraine. Russian troops, we are told, are massing at Ukraine’s borders and could attack at any time. American citizens are being advised to leave Ukraine and dependents of the American Embassy staff are being evacuated.

Making Sense of the Ukraine Standoff

By Eric Zuesse, February 15, 2022

Putin intends to assure that if Ukraine invades Donbass, the residents in Donbass will win. He has armed and trained them how to use the weapons, but if Russian soldiers would need to enter Donbass and fight there against Ukraine, he also will need to defeat the Ukrainian soldiers there. He is waiting for Ukraine to invade Donbass.

West Exaggerates Russian Invasion Claim as Zelensky Loses Control of Narrative

By Paul Antonopoulos, February 15, 2022

The Minsk agreements, written in 2014 by the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, consisting of the Kiev government, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), with mediation from France and Germany in the so-called Normandy Format, seeks to end war in the mostly Russian-speaking Donbass region of eastern Ukraine.

77 Years Ago, U.S. and Russia Signed Historic Agreement at Yalta

By Jeremy Kuzmarov and Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, February 14, 2022

Under the terms of the Yalta agreements, Stalin agreed to enter the war in the Pacific in exchange for the return of Russian territory that had been lost during the Russo-Japanese war. Stalin further agreed to the division of Germany and to stay out of Greece’s civil war. In return, the U.S. and Great Britain agreed to a Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe to avoid the prospect of Germany ever invading Russia again.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

The UK coldly abandoned Poland to Nazi Germany, after which approximately 6 million of its citizens were literally genocided within less than six years. Moreover, Ukraine does indeed have the right to choose its alliances, just not at anyone else’s expense like Russia’s.

Poland, Ukraine, and the UK issued a joint statement on Thursday confirming the creation of a new trilateral partnership. As the author earlier explained, it’s unlikely to have any meaningful impact on shaping regional dynamics but is mostly meant to enhance the profits of their military-industrial complexes and generate more attention for their complementary information warfare campaigns against Russia. There’s no need to rehash the points made in his previous piece, which is why the present one will explain how their joint statement practically trolls itself twice.

The first point that they made reads as follows: “The United Kingdom, Poland and Ukraine enjoy deep historical ties, built on shared values, a shared commitment to peace and security and a shared history of standing together against aggressors who threaten freedom in Europe.” That’s factually misleading though since the UK abandoned Poland after Nazi Germany invaded it on 1 September 1939. Although the UK subsequently hosted Polish forces and officials, it nevertheless also agreed to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s redrawing of the Second Polish Republic’s eastern borders after World War II ended.

Both of these are popularly regarded in the Polish consciousness as “Western betrayals”. Poles expected the Brits to honor their alliance against Nazi Germany, which London refused to do right after the invasion began. That resulted in the tremendous destruction of the country, including the genocide of at least 17% of its population (some estimates go even higher to around 25% or so). This tragedy might have been prevented had the UK swiftly responded to Nazi. It’s thus misleading to say that they have “a shared history of standing together against aggressors who threaten freedom in Europe.”

The second point of their statement reads that “We reiterate that each European State is free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, and no State can consider any part of Europe as its sphere of influence.” This is also misleading since Russia just reminded the US-led West in its response to their reply to Moscow’s security guarantee requests that Washington always omits the second part of this agreed-upon international principle related to ensuring that enhancing one’s security doesn’t occur at anyone else’s expense.

That’s precisely the problem too since the US has been hiding behind the first-mentioned part of this principle to violate the second with respect to Russia’s nuclear second-strike capabilities, ergo the very reason for the undeclared US–provoked missile crisis in Europe in the first place. Nevertheless, the Polish-Ukrainian-UK Troika does indeed have a point in reiterating “each European State is free to choose or change its security arrangements, including treaties of alliance, and no State can consider any part of Europe as its sphere of influence”, it’s just not the point that they intended.

Ukraine’s constitutionally enshrined goal to eventually enter NATO poses a serious threat to Russia’s national security red lines. Kiev can, however, reconsider the wisdom of doing so as a meaningful de-escalation measure if it wants, in which case its decision must be respected by the US-led West and in particular by Poland and the UK per their latest joint statement. As for “spheres of influence”, it’s hypocritical that the Anglo-American Axis considers Ukraine to tacitly fall within their own unstated one, though these double standards are obviously lost on those three and Poland.

It’s due to these observations that one can describe the Polish-Ukrainian-UK joint statement as practically trolling itself twice. The UK coldly abandoned Poland to Nazi Germany, after which approximately 6 million of its citizens were literally genocided within less than six years. Moreover, Ukraine does indeed have the right to choose its alliances, just not at anyone else’s expense like Russia’s. It could even theoretically reverse its goal of joining NATO too since its formal incorporation into the US’ sphere of military interests could literally lead to World War III like President Putin warned.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“I would just encourage that all your listeners do participate in the fund raising drive. Do give money to CKUW or the Global Research News Hour because these are really important sources of information that break through the kind of monopoly of disinformation that we face.” 

 – Glenn Michalchuk (from today’s interview)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Thanks to technological innovation, the world is more capable than ever of knowing itself. [1]

And yet, we are now seeing signs that the range of our news reporting is becoming narrowed much as we were witnessing the world through the entrance of a tunnel as we have entered deeper and deeper into it.

The corporate forces is hooked into independent reporting and are finding ways to outflank the desperate voices of stories they don’t want being told. Witness the frequency of the thought-stopper “conspiracy theory” to shelve in the stockpile of stories bound for oblivion stories about COVID, or 9/11, or Russiagate. Witness the narrow focus around broadcast recording around Russia’s involvement in the east of Ukraine revealing no other possibility other than the unstated intention of militarily invading the country. Or the ways that climate change is a left wing vehicle that is actually providing secure transportation to whatever the world’s financial elites have cooked up.

Increasingly, thanks to technological sophistication, online instruments are thwarting online ventures through, for example, Google redirecting internet searches. We are already seeing, shockingly, how those folks on the Freedom Convoy with access to information outside the major outlets are not only being stopped cold under Prime Minister Trudeau’s use of the Emergency Act, but seeing their funds electronically shut down! This potentially includes people who sent a donation but otherwise had nothing to do with what they believed to  be a peaceful demonstration!

For generations, it has been crystal clear that mainstream media simply has not always provided all the essential facts, especially if a war, lucrative from the standpoint of media invested in the military industrial complex is being contemplated.

Global Research has since its conception worked hard to try to bring those facts forward. And the Global Research News Hour, its audio outlet operates in the realm of community radio. Both have suffered challenges in the past year.

But CKUW, the Winnipeg-based station out of which this enterprising show is broadcast recognizes the importance of making radio available to everyone. It knows that democracy is furthered when we have a wider range of perspectives and not merely an echo-chamber out of which the Bill Gateses, the Rockefellers, the Elon Musks, and one war-happy president after another can have their communicative notes penetrate the skulls of the vulnerable.

That is why the campus-based community radio station has to turn to listeners to keep the project afloat. It gets zero money from the government and zero from paid advertisers. Coca-Cola, Monsanto, Texaco, Lockheed Martin and Pfizer have no call here! So to help our station stay active and energized in a world where the ruling class makes the profits, and the working class sheds blood in imperialist wars, ordinary listeners should probe news better attenuated to their needs. That’s why it is they who must lend a hand in this special annual fund-raiser called CKUW FUNDRIVE.

On this week’s show we will hear from three activists across the country, Ken Stone of the Coalition to Stop the War, Glenn Michalchuk from Peace Alliance Winnipeg, and Ed Lehman from the Regina Peace Council to talk about their range of activities at the present time, and of what a tour de force CKUW can be in their respective battles. We will also feature a lot of pitching for contributions and even a couple of songs!

Readers and listeners can contribute to this fund-raiser RIGHT NOW and on until the 25th of February by going to FUNDRIVE.CKUW.CA and making a donation. Tax relief available only for Canadians. The many incentives we offer would have the cost of shipping and handling applied.

As an alternative, direct your funds to the Global Research donation site, highlighting funding for the Global Research News Hour.

CLICK TO DONATE:

PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE A NOTE MENTIONING “GLOBAL RESEARCH NEWS HOUR” OR “GRNH” WITH YOUR TRANSACTION

Thanks again to our regular listeners who have given their all to keep this program going. It is most appreciated!

Ken Stone is a veteran antiwar activist, a former Steering Committee Member of the Canadian Peace Alliance, an executive member of the SyriaSolidarityMovement.org, and treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War [hcsw.ca]. 

Ed Lehman is editor for the Saskatchewan Peace News, head of the Saskatchewan Peace Council, and a member of Peace Quest Regina, and is also involved with the Making Peace Vigil.

Glenn Michalchuk is Chair of Peace Alliance Winnipeg and Treasurer for the Canadian Peace Alliance. 

(Global Research News Hour Episode 344) 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

1. http://www.topjournalismschools.org/15-interesting-ways-technology-has-changed-journalism/

Since the COVID vaccines were authorized, MANY women have posted reports of disrupted and unusual menstrual cycles, heavy bleeding, and miscarriages.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

First published on February  4, 2021

The Big Picture of the plan is clear. It plays out in front of our eyes. And we do not want to see it. Or we are blinded by the relentless lie- and deceit-propaganda stream flooding us with false news and outright lies about covid – and what’s to come.

When we understand that since more than 70 years the overall concept of the Rockefeller cum Gates plan – and certainly others, like Soros – and the rest of the Bilderberger and the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) members, and yet others – whose affiliates overlap different semi-obscure organizations – is to drastically reduce the world population – and that this moment has come now – then we understand much better what is happening today; then we get a better overview of the Big Picture.

The time has come in the form of an invisible virus called SARS-CoV-2 – later renamed by WHO to “Covid-19 Disease”; with massive and non-stop fear propaganda throughout the west; and with the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) “Covid-19 – The Great Reset”, authored by Klaus Schwab, founder and CEO of the WEF (1971) and his associate, Thierry Malleret.

The Great Reset is a Globalist Agenda that is managed by a small ultra-rich neoliberal group of oligarchs – names shall not be mentioned at this point – who want to implement a world destructive plan, leading to “deleting” humanity to a minimum, so that those who are left, may serve as serfs to these plutocrats, sort of the “Epsilon” people, when you compare the plan to the Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

When we understand this, it should come like an awakening what is currently happening with the different purposefully uncoordinated lockdowns around the globe. Especially since covid – the falsely declared pandemic, actually a Plandemic – has engulfed all 193 UN member countries at once. It is physically and scientifically impossible that a virus hits the entire world at the same time. Unless it has been artificially (human-made) spread to every corner of the world at the same time.

Therefore, the current killer-measures – lockdowns, obligatory mask wearing, defacing of our dignity;

• humiliating of humanity; “social distancing”;
• quarantines; homeoffice work;
• separation from colleagues; school from home via Zoom or Skype

The monstruous fear campaign – the repressive police and military measures to implement these society, family and friendship breaking rules – are all the puzzles of a much larger picture.

They are only the beginning of an unraveling Big Picture.

But you remember the end-goal – “deletion” of humanity, and you will not be surprised at what’s planned – and indeed coming – if we do not stop it. We must stop it.

Because, if we, the People – do not stop this horrendous crime on humanity by disobedience and spiritual connection – we will soon look back on 2020 as a year of paradise.

What is in the making – the implementation of the real UN Agenda 21-30 – a disaster and crime on humanity of an epic dimension.

Do not get fooled by the UN Agenda’s 17 noble Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which are designed to make people believe the UN is interested in alleviating poverty in the world, to bring the Global South and the Global North on an even keel. That’s at best an illusion and in reality, a false pretense, to deviate your attention from reality. From the outset it is clear – has been clear since their design – that these goals will not be met.

To even getting closer to meet the 17 SDGs, would require an enormous amount of capital and implementation capacity. Where should capacity and capital come from? – The funding, naturally, from the IMF and the World Bank and the associated regional development banks and bilateral development agencies. Absorptive capacity is secondary. Debt and enslavement are priority.

Such capital “injections” in the form of loans, in some cases grants – would come with terrifying strings attached. For example, developing country governments will have to follow the strict rules of the global covid narrative; they also have to grant concessions for exploitation of their natural resources to foreign corporations – and they have to “structurally reform” their internal economy, meaning massively reducing public employees, making them redundant, unemployed. And of course, the usual – they have to adopt severe austerity programs. Just the contrary of what would allow destroyed economies to breathe and recover.

Back to the big picture of massive population reduction and total digital control of the remaining population under a One World Order (OWO) – as proclaimed by the WEF’s Great Reset. The Great Restructuring, as the IMF calls it, has various phases – the end-phase being – “you own nothing but you are happy”. The Great Reset and the end of the UN Agenda 21-30, is to be achieved in a decade. This will require a fair amount of mind manipulations of the “Epsilon” people (the lowest cast in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”).

The current heads of governments (sic-sic) probably have been promised important roles, Alpha or Beta types, in the New OWO government – a compensation for obeying the Global Cabal’s orders, betraying their people, destroying their economy – and driving millions, literally tens of millions into misery and outright death. For this service to the Global Cabal, they deserve a decent compensation, of course.

One of the key priorities in this “satanic” plan is getting everybody injected, what they call officially “vaccinated”. Though what the west so far has to offer are not vaccines, but mRNA, “gene-therapy” injections, that are supposed to modify the human genome, so as to produce antibodies for the corona virus… that’s what they pretend. In fact, they contain many toxic substances that have already now, as immediate reactions – horrendous side effects, with many people dying.

See this.

RT reports on 1 February 2021 that 7 die at a Spanish care home after getting Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. ALL 78 residents test positive for the virus after the jab. The second doses are still to come.

On 22 January CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) lists the latest numbers of 329 deaths, of which 285 were from the US and 44 from other countries. The average age of those who died was 76.5, which shows that “vaccinating” the elderly as part of the most vulnerable – is like a death sentence for them. Its purposefully “deleting” those who cost society the most – medical expenses, housing and food. These figures represent vast under-reporting. Perhaps only one percent of all vaccine-related adverse effects are reported.

*

Dr. Lee Merrit, from American Frontline Doctors AFLDS.com, says in an interview with Alex Newman, The New American (TNA) – 16 January 2021, that the covid statistical survival rate is 99.991%; that conventional drugs, like ivermectin, hydrochloroquine and other anti-viral drugs are efficient treatments for covid infections, even with strong symptoms, but they are forbidden, against the code of medicine – under fines and possible job-loss for medical personnel who disobey these orders.

Because, with effective medication, “they cannot terrorize us with more viruses and new vaccines, because anti-viral drugs will be sufficient to treat them.” And second, the vaccine industry, a US$ 69 billion-dollar business – goes to zero if conventional drugs are used.

For prevention there are also a number of highly efficient food supplements, like Zinc, Selenium, vitamin C, D – and almost all vitamins enhance your immune system. According to an Indonesian study, the vitamin D-level is of key importance; “If above 30, your chance of having to be admitted to a hospital, is less than 4%”.

On the vaccines (Modern, Pfizer, AstraZeneca), she says they are not really vaccines, but by the pharma-companies’ own admission, they are experimental injections, inserting messenger RNA (mRNA) into your body, hoping they will “produce a spike-protein in every cell of your body, creating the actual pathogen in your body to enhance your immune system. But we have so far, no experience.

We don’t know how and whether they work. In the few animal trials that were carried out, all animals died. We have no long-term human experience with these injections, and short-term experiences with side effects and sudden deaths, look far from satisfactory.”  She adds, “We are not getting informed consent for these experimental injections.”

Dr. Meritt’s final words of wisdom: “If you wanna get out of the pandemic, it’s really easy: Turn off your TV, take off your mask, you reopen your business, and you relive your life; you hug your relatives and friends, you go see your elderly relatives and you have neighborhood parties. Let me tell you, we cannot live in a basement. Even if you think masks work, don’t do this to our children. How many decades are you gonna do this? Every winter with masks on? – Masks don’t work.”

See her full-length interview (30 min) below.

*

The mRNA injections are also known to have a sterilization / infertility effect, helping reducing the population. And who knows what “side effects” (maybe principal effects) will occur over time, when, say in one, two, three years, it may be difficult to trace a strange rise in mortality back to the vaccine. It will then be sheer speculation. This may be the reason for Bill Gates smirkingly saying – in the latter part of January 2021 – after Covid there will be another, much stronger pandemic.
Will see.

Maybe its fear-mongering. He is good at it. Maybe it’s true. Such Plandemics are planned with long hands – especially now, when the US with Globalist Joe Biden is back in WHO, with, of all people, Anthony Fauci having been chosen as the US representative on WHO’s Governing Board. Gates, Fauci and Dr. Tedros, WHO’s Director General, are good buddies and share the same (conflicts of) interests – launching viruses so that their patented vaccines may come to multi-billion-dollar fruitions.

The infamous 2010 Rockefeller Report which predicted the “Lockstep Scenario” that we are living today, had several viral attacks on humanity in store for us.

*

Scientists with integrity are exiting the Globalist Matrix by the thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands – telling the people the truth – but the truth is slow in penetrating and piercing the corporate propaganda wall.

To the contrary. Despite all the evidence opposing the official narrative, the lies continue being propagated in all the official media. They are rolling with bulldozers over facts and studies and foremost over the truth.

The government-compradores do not shy from slandering these doctors, virologists and other scientists, making them lose their jobs and even medical licenses, in some cases putting them into psychiatric wards – yet they prevail. And little by little their message is coming through to the common people, and when a critical mass has been awakened – we may see the light.

For example, this past weekend 30 / 31 January 2021, massive anti-lockdown demonstrations took place in Vienna, Austria – and the police took off their helmets and walked with the people. Is this the beginning of a turn-around? – See this.

Will others follow their Austrian brothers? Of course, this is not covered by the mainstream – but this type of act of solidarity has a high frequency of vibration – and is transmitted spiritually to other police officers around the globe, who start questioning themselves their role in defending an elite. They start realizing, once they have successfully helped the elite to reach their goal, they will be dismissed, or just be put in the pot of “Epsilons”.

*

Once everybody has received their jab – not necessarily vaccines – according to Bill Gates 7 billion-plus people, the bulk of the work with people manipulation has been done.

This may take a while. Russia and China have real vaccines; the traditional type, where a weakened virus is injected to trigger an immune reaction in the body. It looks like these true vaccines become increasingly popular in many parts of the world, especially in Latin America and Asia. Will the west accept vaccination certification, or “vaccination passports”, from people who have received the Russian or Chinese jabs?

These people, who received Russian and Chinese – and possibly other traditional vaccines that may be in the making, may, over time be a real stumbling block for the implantation of Agenda ID2020 (see this, and therefore, the implementation of the Great Reset, for the Globalist Cabal. Many of Reset’s achievements depend on the human body being transformed into an electromagnetic field (EMF), so as to be digitally receptive for signals to influence their brain waves, to read their brain functions and to transform them into semi-robotic “transhumans”.

This is for “full spectrum” control over your person, including your bank account – which of course, contains by then only digital money that can no longer be withdrawn from an ATM. No, this is not conspiracy theory. This is their conspiracy upon humanity – it is their diabolical plan. These monsters are dangerous psychopaths, mass murderers, to be brought to justice, once light prevails over darkness.

On 28 January 2021, Natural News reports on the Joe Biden Globalist Agenda to Delete Humanity. The article refers to the Brain Computer Interface (BCI), Neurolink – developed by Elon Musk.

The BCI consists of electronic waves linking up with the human brain which previously had been converted into an EMF, so that it can receive digital commandos that will influence our behavior. The EMF would be achieved by mRNA injections (erroneously called “vaccines”) that contain a nano-EMF substance, eventually spreading throughout the cells within the human body, thanks to the mRNA programmed spike-protein production.

In other words, at the end of the decade, when the eugenists (Gates / Rockefellers et al) have fulfilled their dream to drastically “delete” large segments of the world population, the survivors will become mere serfs of a ruthless ultra-rich ruling class, the Globalist Cabal, also called Deep State – or the Powers That Be (PTB).

The diabolical plan that underwrites these massive changes in socioeconomic structures, coincides with UN Agenda 21-30 which is the base for the Great Reset. Neurolink founder and CEO, Elon Musk, is now in close collaboration with Bill Gates and the WEF, the executioners of the Great Reset — that’s another reason why Covid may be just the precursor for much worse to come.

It will not happen. We will not let it happen.

It is most likely that 2021 (the beginning of the UN Agenda 20-30) and subsequent years, may be much worse than 2020. Twenty-twenty was the “precursor year” – the year in which the “virus” had to be implanted – if not physically, then at least as an agent of fear – because fearful people are manipulable – they have a psychologically-proven behavior like a herd of sheep. 

Is the Agenda to “delete” a significant share of humanity?  It’s hard to believe, and We, Humanity, will not allow this to happen.

We increase the level of our spiritual vibration, and the cadence of peaceful anti-covid-measures protests throughout the western cities and count on police and even military to take off their helmets and riot gear – and march with us, The People – into a bright sunrise, where people will reshape a new world of sovereign nation states, interconnected, aiming at a common future for mankind.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

 

 

 

***

Police making mass arrests in Ottawa where the Freedom Convoy

Live coverage from Parliament Hill with Rick Walker, Brendan Kennedy and Carla Olson. freedomreporters.com\

Maverick Multimedia

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

 

***

 

Video Viva Frei

Independent Media

Police move in on protesters in Ottawa

At the time of writing, the Trudeau government is in the process of carrying out a major police operation directed against the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa in the midst of a snow storm.

The decision to take action against the Freedom Convoy was implemented prior to the vote on the National Emergency which was scheduled for Monday.

The leaders of the movement Tamara Lich and Chris Barber have been arrested and are, according to reports, in police custody. 

Who are the Criminals 

All the Covid Mandates adopted since March 2020 are illegal, imposed Worldwide, based on political lies and fake science.

Extensive crimes against humanity have been committed.

Moreover, contrary to the US, EU and UK, Health Canada does not inform Canadians pertaining to the Covid-19 vaccine related deaths and adverse events.

Canadians from coast to coast and people Worldwide support the Freedom Convoy.

Trudeau does not have the support of the provincial governments. 

The latest developments suggest that the COVID-19 narrative is crumbling in numerous countries. 

The Trudeau government does not have a leg to stand on.

“Indefinite Quarantine for Justin Trudeau”. It’s a big lie.

All COVID mandates must be immediately suspended.  

The evidence is overwhelming.  

From the very outset in January 2020, people were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic. That’s a LIE. 

Very Summarized

1. The RT-PCR test is meaningless (now confirmed by the WHO and the CDC).

The entire data base of so-called “COVID confirmed cases” is  totally invalid.

These are the estimates which have been used to justify ALL the COVID-19 mandates since March 2020. The figures on COVID-19 related mortality are also invalid .

These are the fake “estimates” used to justify the violation of fundamental human rights.

2. SARS-CoV-2 is “similar to seasonal influenza” according to the CDC and the WHO. It is not a killer virus. 

3. The economic and social impacts of the lockdowns are devastating: bankruptcies, unemployment, poverty and despair. The COVID-19 mandates are destroying people’s lives. 

4. The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have resulted in a worldwide upward trend in mortality and morbidity which is amply documented.

A confidential report by Pfizer made public under Freedom of Information (FOI) confirms that the COVID-19 jab is a “killer vaccine”. 

5. Recorded and registered for EU/UK/USA – 61,654 COVID-19 injection-related deaths and 9,755,085 injuries reported as at 28 January 2022 (only a small percentage of deaths and injuries are reported and recorded).

6. Pfizer has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice. 

For details see my E-Book (13 chapters)

The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

Spread the word. In solidarity with the Freedom Convoy.

Michel Chossudovsky,

Global Research, February 18, 2022

 

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

One wonders if Putin and Lavrov will ever understand that there is no possibility whatsoever of having a successful negotiation of Russia’s security concerns with Washington.  There are powerful reasons for this impossibility and the reasons are powerfully obvious.

One reason is that Washington greatly prefers Russia as an enemy than as a partner.  Why?  Because the US military/security complex is a powerful, entrenched collection of institutions that has an annual budget of 1,000 billion dollars.  Such a vast sum requires an enemy for its justification.  

Russia is the enemy of choice because of its vast size and because the long decades of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union has Americans accustomed to Russia as an enemy.  Better the old enemy we know than to have to be taught a new one.

Another reason is that US foreign policy is under the influence of the Zionist neoconservatives.  The neoconservatives hate Russia for historical reasons.  Their hatred was brought to a fevered pitch when Putin restored Russia to sufficient strength to assert her sovereignty.  At the 2007 Munich Security Conference Putin announced the end of the US “unipolar world.”  The neoconservatives enjoying their Middle East conquests were caught off guard by Russia’s Resurrection.

This was a massive affront to the neoconservatives’ claim of US hegemony over the world.  In the 1990s US Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz declared the “Wolfowitz doctrine” as the basis for US unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress in advance any potential threats to US hegemony that might arise in the future.  The doctrine states:

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

The statement was considered to be too revealing and too arrogant. The statement defines a country as hostile if it is strong enough to constrain US hegemony.  Wolfowitz’s statement was rewritten, made wordy and dressed up in nicer sounding words, but the meaning remained.

At the Munich Security Conference Putin challenged the doctrine of US hegemony.  He did it again when he blocked President Obama’s planned invasion of Syria and when the Russian Air Force helped the Syrian military defeat the jihadists pretending to be “Syria’s democratic elements.” Putin has also prevented Washington from serving as Israel’s proxy in an attack on Iran.

The neoconservatives find these restraints on Washington’s hegemony intolerable.

Searching for a way to gain the initiative over Russia, the neoconservatives, observing the Kremlin’s focus on the Sochi Olympics, seized the opportunity to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine and to install a neo-Nazi regime answerable to Washington. Washington’s attempt to seize via this coup the Russian Black Sea naval base in Crimea failed when the people there voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia.  The Donbass Russians did the same. Putin accepted the former but not the latter.  This left the Donbass area, formerly a part of Russia, as a trouble spot that Washington could agitate and for eight years has done so.

The Minsk Protocol or Minsk Agreement that was fashioned to protect the Donbass Russians while keeping them as part of the Ukraine was a dead letter agreement by January 2015.  Yet Putin seems to think that this abandoned agreement is still the solution.  It is unclear why Putin thinks that if the same parties sign it again it will mean any more than before.

Washington has no intention of letting go of this hotspot.  The longer it lasts, the more it works against Russia.  Not even the withdrawal of Russian soldiers from the area can calm the situation. Washington continues to predict a Russian invasion, and the US Secretary of State is again in the UN as I write making more false charges against Russia.  Russia’s insistence that her own security concerns receive attention from the West is portrayed by Secretary of State Blinken as Russian aggression.  

It would be to Ukraine’s advantage to agree to the Minsk Agreement, because it officially puts the Donbass region back into Ukraine, which would allow the Ukraine government to gradually erode the semi-autonomy granted the region and resume its persecution of the Russian population.  

But Washington doesn’t want Donbass restored to Ukraine. Washington wants a flash point to keep agitating. The constant shelling of the Donbass Russians erodes Putin’s status with patriotic Russians.  The low level warfare keeps alive the prospect of a Russian invasion with which to frighten Europe and keep Europe on Washington’s reservation.  In short, Washington has no interest whatsoever in resolving the situation.  It doesn’t hurt Washington.  It only hurts Russia.

Perhaps Putin hopes that sooner or later Western peoples will tire of the situation and demand an end to it.  But the people only have the information that the presstitutes give them, and that is that Russia is to blame. 

Putin might hope that sooner or later Ukrainians, long part of Russia, will tire of the situation and demand that their government stop acting in Washington’s interest and act instead in Ukraine’s interest.  This cannot happen because of the strength of the neo-Nazi element.  

All the world, not just Putin, should listen carefully to Blinken’s address to the UN.  It is only a few minutes.  This address was given today, Thursday, Feb 17 following worldwide reports of  withdrawn Russian forces, forces that were never there to invade Ukraine.  There is something more cynical, more evil, in Blinken’s address than in Secretary of State Powell’s “weapons of mass destruction” lie in February 2003 setting up the US invasion of Iraq.  It makes no sense for Blinken to make a total fool of himself and US intelligence by predicting that a Russian false flag event is about to happen unless it happens. I can only wonder if what Blinken is doing is describing a planned US false flag attack and blaming it in advance on Russia.

We know for a certain fact that the Western media will not give Russia a fair shake.  Whatever happens and whoever is responsible, it will be blamed on Russia.  Russian denials will have no more effect than their repeated denials that they intend to invade Ukraine.  

Western media and Western governments are so corrupt that Blinken could declare that Russia has invaded Ukraine when Russia has not, and the media would convince the world that an invasion has occurred.  The function of the Western media is to turn fiction into truth.

And the Kremlin thinks Russia can negotiate a security agreement with the West, a West that most definitely does not want Russia to be secure.

I am convinced that the only way a dangerous war can be avoided is if:

• Putin accepts the vote of the Donbass Russians for their homelands to return to Russia
• Putin makes it clear that Ukraine will be destroyed if the country becomes a NATO member
• Putin makes it clear that any US or NATO missile base put in Ukraine will be destroyed
• Putin makes it clear that US missile bases on its borders will be destroyed if not  removed
• Putin provides Iran with the conventional missiles to defend its air space 
• Russia ignores the West and globalism and creates a Russian-Chinese trade bloc

Washington constantly warns Europe of a dangerous Russia, but once Europe sees decisive Russian action, Europe will cease to cooperate in baiting the Bear.  Russia’s attitude should be that Europe can purchase Russian energy priced in rubles or gold if they want it, but otherwise the West can go to hell.

It is past time for Russia to get the West out of its system.  For years Russia has suffered insults, false accusations, provocations, missile bases on its borders, and installation of US puppet states in what were former constituent parts of Russia.  What good have Russia’s protests and negotiations done?  None whatsoever.  Why does the Kremlin think this will change? What will change it is for Russia to declare and enforce its red lines and spend its energies in those parts of the world where they are appreciated.  It makes no sense for the Kremlin to sacrifice Russia to the New World Order.

*

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

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: Russian President Vladimir Putin (ID1974/Shutterstock) and President Joe Biden (Stratos Brilakis/shutterstock)

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Every day brings new noise and fury in the crisis over Ukraine, mostly from Washington. But what is really likely to happen?

There are three possible scenarios: 

The first is that Russia will suddenly launch an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

The second is that the Ukrainian government in Kyiv will launch an escalation of its civil war against the self-declared People’s Republics of Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR), provoking various possible reactions from other countries.

The third is that neither of these will happen, and the crisis will pass without a major escalation of the war in the short term.

So who will do what, and how will other countries respond in each case?

Unprovoked Russian invasion

This seems to be the least likely outcome. 

An actual Russian invasion would unleash unpredictable and cascading consequences that could escalate quickly, leading to mass civilian casualties, a new refugee crisis in Europe, war between Russia and NATO, or even nuclear war.   

If Russia wanted to annex the DPR and LPR, it could have done so amid the crisis that followed the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014. Russia already faced a furious Western response over its annexation of Crimea, so the international cost of annexing the DPR and LPR, which were also asking to rejoin Russia, would have been less then than it would be now.

Russia instead adopted a carefully calculated position in which it gave the Republics only covert military and political support. If Russia was really ready to risk so much more now than in 2014, that would be a dreadful reflection of just how far U.S.-Russian relations have sunk.

If Russia does launch an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine or annex the DPR and LPR, Biden has already said that the United States and NATO would not directly fight a war with Russia over Ukraine, although that promise could be severely tested by the hawks in Congress and a media hellbent on stirring up anti-Russia hysteria.

However, the United States and its allies would definitely impose heavy new sanctions on Russia, cementing the Cold War economic and political division of the world between the United States and its allies on one hand, and Russia, China and their allies on the other. Biden would achieve the full-blown Cold War that successive U.S. administrations have been cooking up for a decade, and which seems to be the unstated purpose of this manufactured crisis.

In terms of Europe, the U.S. geopolitical goal is clearly to engineer a complete breakdown in relations between Russia and the European Union (EU), to bind Europe to the United States. Forcing Germany to cancel its $11 billion Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline from Russia will certainly make Germany more energy dependent on the U.S. and its allies. The overall result would be exactly as Lord Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary General, described when he said that the purpose of the alliance was to keep “the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.” 

Brexit (the U.K. departure from the EU) detached the U.K. from the EU and cemented its “special relationship” and military alliance with the United States. In the current crisis, this joined-at-the-hip U.S.-U.K. alliance is reprising the unified role it played to diplomatically engineer and wage wars on Iraq in 1991 and 2003. 

Today, China and the European Union (led by France and Germany) are the two leading trade partners of most countries in the world, a position formerly occupied by the United States. If the U.S. strategy in this crisis succeeds, it will erect a new Iron Curtain between Russia and the rest of Europe to inextricably tie the EU to the United States and prevent it from becoming a truly independent pole in a new multipolar world. If Biden pulls this off, he will have reduced America’s celebrated “victory” in the Cold War to simply dismantling the Iron Curtain and rebuilding it a few hundred miles to the east 30 years later.

But Biden may be trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. The EU is already an independent economic power. It is politically diverse and sometimes divided, but its political divisions seem manageable when compared with the political chaos, corruption and endemic poverty in the United States. Most Europeans think their political systems are healthier and more democratic than America’s, and they seem to be correct. 

Like China, the EU and its members are proving to be more reliable partners for international trade and peaceful development than the self-absorbed, capricious and militaristic United States, where positive steps by one administration are regularly undone by the next, and whose military aid and arms sales destabilize countries (as in Africa right now), and strengthen dictatorships and extreme right-wing governments around the world.

But an unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine would almost certainly fulfill Biden’s goal of isolating Russia from Europe, at least in the short term. If Russia was ready to pay that price, it would be because it now sees the renewed Cold War division of Europe by the United States and NATO as unavoidable and irrevocable, and has concluded that it must consolidate and strengthen its defenses. That would also imply that Russia has China’s full support for doing so, heralding a darker and more dangerous future for the whole world. 

Ukrainian escalation of civil war   

The second scenario, an escalation of the civil war by Ukrainian forces, seems more likely.  

Whether it is a full-scale invasion of the Donbas or something less, its main purpose from the U.S. point of view would be to provoke Russia into intervening more directly in Ukraine, to fulfill Biden’s prediction of a “Russian invasion” and unleash the maximum pressure sanctions he has threatened. 

While Western leaders have been warning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian, DPR and LPR officials have been warning for months that Ukrainian government forces were escalating the civil war and have 150,000 troops and new weapons poised to attack the DPR and LPR. 

In that scenario, the massive U.S. and Western arms shipments arriving in Ukraine on the pretext of deterring a Russian invasion would in fact be intended for use in an already planned Ukrainian government offensive.

On one hand, if Ukrainian President Zelensky and his government are planning an offensive in the East, why are they so publicly playing down fears of a Russian invasion? Surely they would be joining the chorus from Washington, London and Brussels, setting the stage to point their fingers at Russia as soon as they launch their own escalation. 

And why are the Russians not more vocal in alerting the world to the danger of escalation by Ukrainian government forces surrounding the DPR and LPR? Surely the Russians have extensive intelligence sources inside Ukraine and would know if Ukraine was indeed planning a new offensive. But the Russians seem much more concerned by the breakdown in U.S.-Russian relations than in what the Ukrainian military may be up to.

On the other hand, the U.S., U.K. and NATO propaganda strategy has been organized in plain sight, with a new “intelligence” revelation or high-level pronouncement for every day of the month. So what might they have up their sleeves? Are they really confident that they can wrong-foot the Russians and leave them carrying the can for a deception operation that could rival the Tonkin Gulf incident or the WMD lies about Iraq?

The plan could be very simple. Ukrainian government forces attack. Russia comes to the defense of the DPR and LPR. Biden and Boris Johnson scream “Invasion,” and “We told you so!” Macron and Scholz mutely echo “Invasion,” and “We stand together.” The United States and its allies impose “maximum pressure” sanctions on Russia, and NATO’s plans for a new Iron Curtain across Europe are a fait accompli.

An added wrinkle could be the kind of “false flag” narrative that U.S. and U.K. officials have hinted at several times. A Ukrainian government attack on the DPR or LPR could be passed off in the West as a “false flag” provocation by Russia, to muddy the distinction between a Ukrainian government escalation of the civil war and a “Russian invasion.”    

It’s unclear whether such plans would work, or whether they would simply divide NATO and Europe, with different countries taking different positions. Tragically, the answer might depend more on how craftily the trap was sprung than on the rights or wrongs of the conflict.  

But the critical question will be whether EU nations are ready to sacrifice their own independence and economic prosperity, which depends partly on natural gas supplies from Russia, for the uncertain benefits and debilitating costs of continued subservience to the U.S. empire. Europe would face a stark choice between a full return to its Cold War role on the front line of a possible nuclear war and the peaceful, cooperative future the EU has gradually but steadily built since 1990. 

Many Europeans are disillusioned with the neoliberal economic and political order that the EU has embraced, but it was subservience to the United States that led them down that garden path in the first place. Solidifying and deepening that subservience now would consolidate the plutocracy and extreme inequality of U.S.-led neoliberalism, not lead to a way out of it.        

Biden may get away with blaming the Russians for everything when he’s kowtowing to war-hawks and preening for the TV cameras in Washington. But European governments have their own intelligence agencies and military advisors, who are not all under the thumb of the CIA and NATO. The German and French intelligence agencies have often warned their bosses not to follow the U.S. pied piper, notably into Iraq in 2003. We must hope they have not all lost their objectivity, analytical skills or loyalty to their own countries since then.

If this backfires on Biden, and Europe ultimately rejects his call to arms against Russia, this could be the moment when Europe bravely steps up to take its place as a strong, independent power in the emerging multipolar world. 

Nothing happens

This would be the best outcome of all: an anti-climax to celebrate. 

At some point, absent an invasion by Russia or an escalation by Ukraine, Biden would sooner or later have to stop crying “Wolf” every day. 

All sides could climb back down from their military build-ups, panicked rhetoric and threatened sanctions. 

The Minsk Protocol could be revived, revised and reinvigorated to provide a satisfactory degree of autonomy to the people of the DPR and LPR within Ukraine, or facilitate a peaceful separation. 

The United States, Russia and China could begin more serious diplomacy to reduce the threat of nuclear war and resolve their many differences, so that the world could move forward to peace and prosperity instead of backwards to Cold War and nuclear brinkmanship.

Conclusion 

However it ends, this crisis should be a wake-up call for Americans of all classes and political persuasions to reevaluate our country’s position in the world. We have squandered trillions of dollars, and millions of other people’s lives, with our militarism and imperialism. The U.S. military budget keeps rising with no end in sight–and now the conflict with Russia has become another justification for prioritizing weapons spending over the needs of our people.

Our corrupt leaders have tried but failed to strangle the emerging multipolar world at birth through militarism and coercion. As we can see after 20 years of war in Afghanistan, we cannot fight and bomb our way to peace or stability, and coercive economic sanctions can be almost as brutal and destructive. We must also re-evaluate the role of NATO and wind down this military alliance that has become such an aggressive and destructive force in the world. 

Instead, we must start thinking about how a post-imperial America can play a cooperative and constructive role in this new multipolar world, working with all our neighbors to solve the very serious problems facing humanity in the 21st Century.

*

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

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from commons.com.ua/

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Tyrants living in their ivory tower echo chambers are panicking as they have no idea how to interact with actual human beings organizing themselves around such non-mathematical principles as “freedom”, “justice” and “rights”.

No, there is a limit to the tyrant’s power!
When the oppressed man finds no justice,
When the burden grows unbearable, he appeals
With fearless heart to Heaven,
And thence brings down his everlasting rights,
Which there abide, inalienably his,
And indestructible as stars themselves.

-Friedrich Schiller, Wilhelm Tell’s Rutli Oath

Who would have thought that Canada would ever be a spark plug for a freedom movement against tyranny?

As the editor of a Canadian geopolitical magazine for over 10 years and author of four books on Canadian History, I am a bit embarrassed to say that I certainly didn’t think that Canadians had this in them.

The “monarchy of the north” certainly isn’t something that exudes revolutionary sentiment- having been founded on such non-revolutionary principles as “Peace, Order and Good Governance” which have stood in stark contrast to the significantly more inspiring “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” enshrined in the founding documents of our southern cousins. Even our founding 1867 document (drafted over a champagne fueled month of hedonism in 1864) explicitly calls out the purpose of confederation not as a means of “supporting the general welfare” as was the case of the USA’s constitution in 1787, but rather “to promote the interests of the British Empire”.

But here it is.

Countless thousands of patriots have driven across the country to bunker down in Ottawa in peace and high festive spirits which I had to see with my own eyes to believe demanding something so simple and un-tainted by ideology: freedom to work, provide for families and a respect for basic rights as laid out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a 1982 upgrade to the embarrassingly oligarchical British North America Act of 1867).

Mainstream media and political hacks have been working overtime to paint the Freedom convoy that converged on Ottawa on January 29 as an “insurrectionist movement” full of “white supremacists”, “Russian stooges”, and “Nazis” out to “overthrow the government”. Even the Bank of England’s former governor (and World Economic Forum Trustee) Mark Carney chimed in on February 7 stating that “this is sedition” and that “those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of the law”. Carney, the perennial financial darling of Goldman Sachs and the City of London (and Prime Ministerial hopeful) called for a targeting of all those who donated money to this domestic terror operation.

Faced with an organic civil rights movement of blue-collar truckers, farmers and tens of thousands of supporters who have convened on Canada’s capital to demand a restoration of their basic freedoms, the current Liberal government has failed to show even an ounce of humanity or capacity to negotiate. This shouldn’t be a surprise for those who have seen the hypocrisy of neo-liberal “rules-based” order ideologues in action over the past few years who are quick to celebrate the “liberty” of citizens of Ukraine, Hong Kong, or Xinjiang when the outcome benefits the geopolitical aims of detached technocrats hungry for global hegemony. The moment genuine self-organized labor movements arise demanding basic rights be recognized, then the masks comes off and the rage of tyrants show their true faces.

So instead of negotiation and discussion around principled constitutional issues as the protestors have requested, we have instead seen only threats, slander and more threats ranging from cutting off $10 million of funding raised on GoFundMe on February 4, and then another $8 million raised on GiveSendGo on February 10. We have seen the government impose a state of emergency first in the city of Ottawa followed by a full province wide state of emergency on February 11 justifying cutting off vital supplies of fuel to those truckers and their families who have been camped out in -22 degree Celsius temperatures. Edicts making it illegal to provide supplies to the protestors under threat of fines ranging up to $100 thousand dollars and one year in prison have been drafted and the patriotic citizens who have organized for their right to not live under a dictatorship have been stigmatized by the media relentlessly as “insurgents”.

Emergency Measures Act invoked

Then on February 14, Justin Trudeau, followed by Deputy Prime Minister and WEF-Trustee Chrystia Freeland took turns announcing the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act which itself had formerly been known as “The War Measures Act” last invoked nearly 50 years earlier by Justin’s father Pierre Elliot Trudeau as a “solution” to the RCMP-directed terror cells deployed across Quebec and culminating in the month-long ‘October Crisis’ of 1970. The name was changed in 1988 although it is in function entirely identical.

Under the Emergency Measures Act, the Deep State of Canada managing Trudeau has adopted the Mark Carney program outlined on February 7 of targeting bank accounts of all Canadians either involved with the convoy directly or having supported the convoy via online donations or cryptocurrencies. What might those individuals suffer for the crime of having offered support or participation in the protests? Those ‘deplorable insurgents’ are facing the threat of seeing their bank accounts indefinitely frozen, and if they own businesses, having their insurance policies cancelled. The ‘big 5’ banks of Canada have thus been “deputized” and given full legal protections from being sued by those whose lives will be damaged by the shutdown of bank accounts.

One thing has become apparent thus far: the threats are not working with truckers and other protestors renewing their commitments to remain in place and even four Provincial Premiers (from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Manitoba) denouncing the emergency measures.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has also loudly denounced the Act saying

“the federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the emergencies act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: The act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes… Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation ‘seriously threatens the ability of the government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada’ and when the situation ‘cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”.

Fissures Across the Establishment

Due to the inflexible Borg-like inability to negotiate with an organic civil rights movement suffered by all technocratic Davos-creatures, major fissures have begun to break throughout the political establishment of Canada.

Already two members of the Liberal Party have gone renegade breaking with Canada’s holy system of whips and loyalty to party above conscience demanding that Trudeau repeal the immensely unpopular and useless covid measures. On February 8, Liberal MP Joel Lightbound commented that Trudeau’s vile generalizations of the protestors have only served to “wedge divide and stigmatize” Canadians making the point that he has only seen a wide diversity of races attend the freedom convoy in Ottawa and across the provinces. One day later, a second Liberal MP Yves Robillard broke party ranks re-emphasizing his support for Lightbound’s statements and warned that many others within the party share these dissenting views and will soon speak out if changes are not effected soon.

In the Conservative Party, a coup of sorts took place on February 3 when opposition leader Erin O’Toole was ousted by his own caucus for sounding too much like a World Economic Forum ghoul and for the first time in over two years, an actual counter voice of opposition can be heard in the halls of parliament with demands by every single Conservative member of parliament to end the lockdown mandates and support the nation-wide protest movement.

On provincial levels, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and PEI have announced a repeal of their covid mandates including vaccination passports, while Quebec has stepped back from the anti-vaccination tax which was threatened by Premier Legault until only a week ago.

Even NDP head Jagmeet Singh who had labelled all protestors white supremacists just a few days ago reversed his tune- perhaps due to the overwhelming presence of Sikhs in the federal and provincial convoys.

Freedom Convoy Nightmares for Technocrats in USA and Europe

Meanwhile the Biden Administration has given its full support to Justin Trudeau to use the full force of federal power to shut down the protests (conflagrating the blockade of US-Canada trade in Windsor and Manitoba as being tied directly to the Ottawa protests… which it isn’t).

Perhaps Biden is concerned that the example of the convoy has spread not only across nations of the Trans Atlantic Community and Five Eyes cage, but also to the USA itself where a parallel American freedom convoy will leave Southern California for Washington D.C. on March 5 involving tens of thousands of American truckers.

Former Obama Asst. Sec. of Homeland Security and frequent CNN commentator Juliette Kayyem delivered her disturbing comments to this festering problem which must be stopped at all costs saying:

“Trust me, I will not run out of ways to make this hurt: cancel their insurance; suspend their drivers licenses’ prohibit any future regulatory certification for truckers etc. Have we learned nothing? These things faster when there are no consequences”

How this process will unfold in the coming days and weeks is impossible to determine. The illusion of liberal democracy which fueled self-aggrandizing virtue signaling technocrats lecturing “bad” authoritarian states of Eurasia how freedom should work has collapsed.

One thing is certain.

Those tyrants living in their ivory tower echo chambers demanding the world to conform to their ideal post-nation state utopias are panicking as they have no idea how to interact with actual human beings organizing themselves around such non-mathematical principles as “freedom”, “justice” and “rights” which are inalienable to all citizens- even if they live under a monarchy.

*

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

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation .

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The other day I asked, “What is Washington up to?”  It is already time to ask that question again. 

While writing my article suggesting that only a judicious use of Russian force would sober up the West, Washington doubled down on its anti-Russian position, predicting in two news venues–the Secretary of State’s UN speech and the State Department spokesman’s press briefing–that Russia was about to launch a false flag attack that Russia would use as the excuse to invade Ukraine. 

The State Department claims are pure fantasy.  Why after just rejecting the Russian’s proposal for a mutual security agreement does the Biden regime keep fanning the flames of war?

It makes no sense for the State Department to predict something that is not going to happen. As there is no aerial or satellite evidence or evidence of any kind except assertions that “US intelligence has concluded” of a constellation of attack forces on Ukraine’s border, the only way the State Department could know of a false flag event would be if it is a US false flag attack for which Russia is being set up for blame.

We have heard excessively about 150,000 invasion troops allegedly assembled on Ukraine’s border with Russia. We have not heard about 150,000 British and US trained Ukrainian troops on the border of the Donbass republics.  We have not heard about the massive arms that the West has sent to Ukraine or about the CIA trained neo-Nazi militias. If we hear anything, we hear that these Ukrainian forces are there to protect against a Russian invasion, a statement that is nonsensical.  Why would the Ukrainian forces be concentrated on the Donbass border? The Russians would simply come in behind them, and the Ukrainians would be trapped between the Russians and the Donbass forces.  How is it possible that US and UK military advisers would make such a mistake?

The Saker reports that the latest information from Donbass is that the Ukrainians are using UR-77 mine clearing vehicles to clear mines from the Donbass border.  This is the operation that is conducted just prior to a ground attack.  

It would seem that if any invasion is planned, it is a Ukrainian invasion of Donbass calculated to bring the Russians in.  The report of an invasion of Donbass would be labeled a Russian false flag attack, and the Russian intervention would become the predicted invasion.  If anything happens, I think I have described it.

Washington has prepared the narrative with Blinken’s UN address today and with the State Department spokesman’s press briefing.  NATO and the Western media know the narrative and would repeat it endlessly.  No actual facts would enter the story. Those who challenge the new narrative would be accused of being Russian agents.  Sanctions would be imposed. The military/security complex’s budget would be increased. Europe would be pressured off Russian natural gas. US/NATO military presence on Russia’s border would be beefed up.

The growing burden of deceit and frustration will one day make Russia dangerous.  To forestall an explosion of fury, Russia needs to enforce its red lines now.  Washington needs to be taught a lesson before Washington goes too far.

Update:  The scenario I sketched appears to be unfolding. In an “intelligence update” the British defense minister stated that reports from Donbass of “alleged abnormal military activity by Ukraine in Donbas are a blatant attempt by the Russian government to fabricate pretexts for invasion.”  The incompetent British Defence Ministry has prepared a map with arrows drawn of the lines of advance of the Russian forces.  As the Ukrainian army is concentrated on the Donbass border, there are no forces for the Russians to encounter in their advance along 9 lines of invasion imagined by the British. See this.

*

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

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.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Russia’s security proposals ought to be welcomed in the West, writes John Pilger. But who understands their significance when all the people are told is that Putin is a pariah?

Marshall McLuhan’s prophecy that “the successor to politics will be propaganda” has happened.  Raw propaganda is now the rule in Western democracies, especially the U.S. and Britain.

On matters of war and peace, ministerial deceit is reported as news. Inconvenient facts are censored, demons are nurtured. The model is corporate spin, the currency of the age. In 1964, McLuhan famously declared, “The medium is the message.” The lie is the message now.

But is this new? It is more than a century since Edward Bernays, the father of spin, invented “public relations” as a cover for war propaganda. What is new is the virtual elimination of dissent in the mainstream.

The great editor David Bowman, author of The Captive Press, called this “a defenestration of all who refuse to follow a line and to swallow the unpalatable and are brave.” He was referring to independent journalists and whistle blowers, the honest mavericks to whom media organizations once gave space, often with pride. The space has been abolished.

The war hysteria that has rolled in like a tidal wave in recent weeks and months is the most striking example. Known by its jargon, “shaping the narrative,” much if not most of it is pure propaganda.

The No-Evidence Rule

The Russians are coming. Russia is worse than bad. Putin is evil, “a Nazi like Hitler,” salivated the Labour MP Chris Bryant. Ukraine is about to be invaded by Russia – tonight, this week, next week. The sources include an ex CIA propagandist who now speaks for the U.S. State Department and offers no evidence of his claims about Russian actions because “it comes from the U.S. Government.”

The no-evidence rule also applies in London. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who spent £500,000 of public money flying to Australia in a private plane to warn the Canberra government that both Russia and China were about to pounce, offered no evidence. Antipodean heads nodded; the “narrative” is unchallenged there. One rare exception, former Prime Minister Paul Keating, called Truss’s warmongering “demented.”

Truss has blithely confused the countries of the Baltic and Black Sea. In Moscow, she told the Russian foreign minister that Britain would never accept Russian sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh – until it was pointed out to her that these places were not part of Ukraine but in Russia. Read the Russian press about the buffoonery of this pretender to 10 Downing Street and cringe.

Dangerous Farce 

This entire farce, recently starring U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson in Moscow playing a clownish version of his hero, Winston Churchill, might be enjoyed as satire were it not for its wilful abuse of facts and historical understanding and the real danger of war.

Vladimir Putin refers to the “genocide” in the eastern Donbass region of Ukraine. Following the coup in Ukraine in 2014 – orchestrated by former U.S. President Barack Obama’s “point person” in Kyiev, Victoria Nuland – the coup regime, infested with neo-Nazis, launched a campaign of terror against Russian-speaking Donbass, which accounts for a third of Ukraine’s population.

Overseen by CIA Director John Brennan in Kyiev, “special security units” coordinated savage attacks on the people of Donbass, who opposed the coup. Video and eyewitness reports show bussed fascist thugs burning the trade union headquarters in the city of Odessa, killing 41 people trapped inside. The police are standing by. Obama congratulated the “duly elected” coup regime for its “remarkable restraint.”

In the U.S. media the Odessa atrocity was played down as “murky” and a “tragedy” in which “nationalists” (neo-Nazis) attacked “separatists” (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine). Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal damned the victims —”Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says.”

March 4, 2015: OSCE monitoring the movement of heavy weaponry in eastern Ukraine. (OSCE, Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Professor Stephen Cohen, acclaimed as America’s leading authority on Russia, wrote,

“The pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during World War II. [Today] storm-like assaults on gays, Jews, elderly ethnic Russians, and other ‘impure’ citizens are widespread throughout Kyiv-ruled Ukraine, along with torchlight marches reminiscent of those that eventually inflamed Germany in the late 1920s and 1930s …

“The police and official legal authorities do virtually nothing to prevent these neo-fascist acts or to prosecute them. On the contrary, Kyiv has officially encouraged them by systematically rehabilitating and even memorializing Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi German extermination pogroms, renaming streets in their honor, building monuments to them, rewriting history to glorify them, and more.”

Today, neo-Nazi Ukraine is seldom mentioned. That the British are training the Ukrainian National Guard, which includes neo-Nazis, is not news. (See Matt Kennard’s Declassified report in Consortium News, Feb. 15). The return  of violent, endorsed fascism to 21st-century Europe, to quote Harold Pinter, “never happened … even while it was happening.”

On Dec. 16, the United Nations tabled a resolution that called for “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism.” The only nations to vote against it were the United States and Ukraine.

Almost every Russian knows that it was across the plains of Ukraine’s “borderland” that Hitler’s divisions swept from the west in 1941, bolstered by Ukraine’s Nazi cultists and collaborators. The result was more than 20 million Russian dead.

Russian Proposals

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, left, and President Vladimir Putin, center, in 2017. (The Russian Presidential Press and Information Office, CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

Setting aside the manoeuvres and cynicism of geopolitics, whomever the players, this historical memory is the driving force behind Russia’s respect-seeking, self-protective security proposals, which were published in Moscow in the week the U.N. voted 130-2 to outlaw Nazism. They are:

• NATO guarantees that it will not deploy missiles in nations bordering Russia. (They are already in place from Slovenia to Romania, with Poland to follow)
• NATO to stop military and naval exercises in nations and seas bordering Russia.
• Ukraine will not become a member of NATO.
• the West and Russia to sign a binding East-West security pact.
• the landmark treaty between the U.S. and Russia covering intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be restored. (The U.S. abandoned it in 2019.)

These amount to a comprehensive draft of a peace plan for all of post-war Europe and ought to be welcomed in the West. But who understands their significance in Britain? What they are told is that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a pariah and a threat to Christendom.

Russian-speaking Ukrainians, under economic blockade by Kiev for seven years, are fighting for their survival. The “massing” army we seldom hear about are the 13 Ukrainian army brigades laying siege to Donbass: an estimated 150,000 troops. If they attack, the provocation to Russia will almost certainly mean war.

In 2015, brokered by the Germans and French, the presidents of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France met in Minsk and signed an interim peace deal. Ukraine agreed to offer autonomy to Donbass, now the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The Minsk agreement has never been given a chance. In Britain, the line, amplified by Boris Johnson, is that Ukraine is being “dictated to” by world leaders. For its part, Britain is arming Ukraine and training its army.

Since the first Cold War, NATO has effectively marched right up to Russia’s most sensitive border having demonstrated its bloody aggression in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and broken solemn promises to pull back.  Having dragged European “allies” into American wars that do not concern them, the great unspoken is that NATO itself is the real threat to European security.

In Britain, a state and media xenophobia is triggered at the very mention of “Russia.” Mark the knee-jerk hostility with which the BBC reports Russia. Why? Is it because the restoration of imperial mythology demands, above all, a permanent enemy? Certainly, we deserve better.

*

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

John Pilger’s 2003 film, Breaking the Silence, about the “war on terror” is available to view here.

Featured image: Oct. 8, 2014: U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland at a Ukrainian State Border Guard Service Base in Kiev. (U.S. Embassy Kyiv, 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Gerald Feierstein makes a very weak case for designating the Houthis as terrorists. First, he acknowledges that he previously opposed the designation when the Trump administration did it, but now claims that it is worth doing:

The letter, which was ultimately signed by nearly 100 former U.S. diplomats and military officers, argued that a designation would do little harm to the Houthis but would endanger the well-being of millions of innocent Yemeni civilians. Unfortunately, things have changed. The past year has demonstrated that the Houthis will not return to the negotiating table until they accept that there is no alternative to a political resolution.

There may have been some changes in the military situation over the last year, but nothing has changed as far as the effects of the designation are concerned. It is still true that a designation would do little harm to the Houthis but would endanger millions of innocent Yemeni lives, so how can a designation be any more justified now than it was then? Put bluntly, why is it somehow acceptable to cause a massive famine in the name of “leverage” now when it was not in 2021?

There is something particularly perverse about the debate over designating the Houthis. For almost seven years, the U.S. has aided and abetted the Saudi coalition as it bombs and starves the people of Yemen, and during that time none of the coalition’s members has faced any penalties for their myriad war crimes. The Saudi coalition has plunged Yemen into the abyss of mass starvation, and they have done this with U.S. backing and protection. The U.S. refuses to use the influence it has with the Saudi coalition to rein in their many abuses, but for the sake of creating supposed “leverage” with the Houthis there is serious consideration of a policy that would cause even more starvation and deprivation than the coalition’s intervention has already caused. Everyone knows in advance that terrorism sanctions won’t alter the Houthis’ behavior or compel them to negotiate. The whole of Yemen—and not just the parts that the Houthis control—will suffer terribly if the designation goes through.

Feierstein says that it is “imperative” that the U.S. and U.N. “do more to end the suffering,” but he is calling for a terrorism designation that will drastically increase the suffering for tens of millions of people. We are already seeing the economic collapse in Afghanistan that comes when a country is effectively cut off from the outside world. The same will happen to Yemen if the U.S. does this, and it will be our policy that kills huge numbers of people.

It seems that Feierstein has taken this position for lack of “viable” alternatives, and he says “it would be foolhardy not to consider the possible use of a terrorist designation as a tool in America’s kit.” When we know very well that the “tool” is nothing more than a weapon for killing innocent people, it is madness to consider using it. The pro-designation side of the debate pretends that there is some pressure that can be brought to bear on the Houthis that will force them to negotiate, but experience teaches us that sanctions do not force the target to make deep concessions when its security and survival are at stake. Even if the designation applied some pressure on the Houthis, it would be insufficient, but it would come at a staggering cost in lives needlessly lost. There is no possible justification for using famine as a weapon.

Feierstein imagines that terrorism sanctions can be “crafted in a way to minimize unintended consequences,” but there will be no getting around the intended consequences of cutting Yemen off from the rest of the world. Financial institutions and importers will not want to take the risks associated with doing business in Yemen. Overcompliance is always a problem with broad sanctions, and that is certain to happen in a case where the de facto government of a large part of the country has been labeled a terrorist organization. The devaluation of the currency and inflation that have already been wreaking havoc on Yemen’s economy will only get worse. You cannot starve an import-dependent country of trade and aid and expect anything less than mass starvation. There is no amount of clever “crafting” that will stave off disaster.

What good will this designation do? The best that Feierstein can come up with is that “it would nevertheless send a powerful, symbolic message that delegitimizes the Houthi movement.” You could not ask for a better example of destructive “do-somethingism.” Even its own advocates don’t think it will achieve anything real. It will at best have symbolic value, and that symbolism will quickly vanish when U.S. sanctions are responsible for causing a famine. Meanwhile, the millions dying from hunger and disease will be all too real. Since this is all obvious to anyone who has given it much thought, how is this even being debated?

The U.S. has been deeply implicated in the wrecking and starvation of Yemen. If the Biden administration does what supporters of a Houthi designation want, it will be responsible for one of the biggest man-made famines on record. It is bad enough that U.S. policy has helped bring Yemen to its current state. To worsen conditions in Yemen further in the vain pursuit of “leverage” would simply be evil.

*

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

Featured image is from The Progressive

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

U.K. football legend and sports commentator, Matt Le Tissier, has been speaking out about the large number of athletes who have collapsed or died on the field, and has lost his job as a result

Le Tissier says he has never seen anything like it in the 17 years he played football; he is calling for an investigation into the events and says ignoring it is a “massive dereliction of duty” by the officials

Fact-checkers and government officials are trying to negate or discredit information that supports the theory that mRNA injections are behind the sudden onslaught of injury and death, and they are studiously ignoring investigating the allegations

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) reflects injuries to athletes in the general population, but it’s possible that the reports are nowhere near current

*

With every passing day, the list of people suffering tragic consequences from the COVID mRNA shots grows longer. Data¹ show 23,149 people have died after a COVID jab as of January 28, 2022. There also are 13,575 reports of people with Bell’s palsy, 41,163 who are permanently disabled, 31,185 with myocarditis, 11,765 who have had heart attacks and 3,903 women who have lost their babies after getting the shots.

Many of these people and their stories have remained hidden from public view. YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and other social media platforms have censored the personal stories and videos of individuals documenting their injuries and permanent disabilities, so those who only read mainstream media are unaware of the overwhelming damage being done in the name of science.

However, there is a population of people whose injuries and death have been made public. In the past six months, a slew of professional and amateur athletes have collapsed and died on the field. Yet, mainstream media appear to take this in stride, acting as if what is happening is completely normal.

But, as described by Matt Le Tissier in the first seconds of the video above, this is far from normal. Le Tissier was a soccer legend² (a sport called football in the U.K.). His prowess on the field earned him the nickname “Le God”³ before leaving the sport to become a sports commentator, most recently with Sky Sports.

As he describes in the interview, he lost that job for speaking out and bringing attention to the large number of unexplained sudden cardiac deaths happening to professional and amateur athletes around the world.

Athletes Are Dying on the Field in Large Numbers

Red Voice Media asks in a headline, “400 Athletes Collapsing & Dying Just in the Last 6 Months?”⁴then mentions “small stories coming out about perfectly healthy athletes mysteriously dying.” During the interview, Le Tissier is asked about his thoughts on the surge of cardiac events in the sporting world, to which he responds:⁵

“I’ve never seen anything like it. I played for 17 years. I don’t think I saw one person in 17 years have to come off the football pitch with breathing difficulties, clutching their heart, heart problems …

The last year, it’s just been unbelievable how many people, not just footballers but sports people in general, tennis players, cricketers, basketball players, just how many are just keeling over. And at some point, surely you have to say this isn’t right, this needs to be investigated.”

Le Tissier acknowledges there may be other factors that have caused this massive rise in cardiac events in athletes. He mentions that the athletes may have had COVID, and this could be a consequence of the illness, or it could be the vaccine. But the point he makes is that it should be investigated and it’s not.

This may cause you to wonder why health experts are not placing blame on the infection, but are in fact ignoring the issue completely. It begs the question: Do they already know the answer?

Le Tissier goes on to talk about player safety and how the sport protects the players from playing too long or too many games, yet they are watching players collapse on the field and apparently are content acting as if this is normal. He calls it a “massive dereliction of duty” that no one in a position of power is calling for an investigation.⁶

“It’s absolutely disgusting that they can sit there and do nothing about the increase in the amount of sports people who are collapsing on the field of play. And it’s not just what I’ve noticed this season as well. Again, in my career, I don’t remember a single game being halted because of an emergency in the crowd, a medical emergency in the crowd …

I would like somebody to look into that and go well, hang on a minute, can we go back for the last 15 or 20 years and … have a look and see how many times it happened 10 years ago and then how many times it happened in the last year. I’ve been watching a lot of sports and a lot of reports on football, and I’ve never seen anything like it, the amount of games that have been interrupted because of emergencies in the crowd.”

The interviewer pointed out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, to which Le Tissier agreed, but stressed that an investigation is required to find out if it does. “To my naked eye, this is happening a lot more than it has in the past. I can’t be the only one who is seeing this.”⁷

Who Are These Athletes?

Click here to watch the video.

While an overwhelming number of professional and amateur athletes have collapsed on the field, they are not just numbers. They all have a high probability of having one thing in common — they took the COVID shot. This four-minute video features a compilation of athletes who “suddenly” collapsed within a six-month period.

Kyle Warner is one of those athletes.⁸ He’s 29 years old and at the peak of his career as a professional mountain bike racer. After getting a second dose of Pfizer’s mRNA jab in June 2021, he suffered a reaction so severe that by October he was still spending many of his days in bed.

In an effort to get the word out that COVID-19 shots are not always as safe as you have been led to believe, Warner shared his experience with retired nurse educator John Campbell in November 2021. Warner, in his 20s and in peak physical condition, was still severely harmed by the shot.

“I believe where there is risk, there needs to be choice,” he says.⁹ But right now, people are being misled. “People are being coerced into making a decision based on lack of information versus being convinced of a decision based on total information transparency.”¹⁰

Warner’s story is not unlike many others’: As Campbell learned in this interview, many doctors are unwilling to acknowledge that the COVID-19 shots might be related to patients’ injury complaints. While health officials have begun to acknowledge that myocarditis may be related to the injections, they continue to ignore other adverse events.

Vaccine Injured Unlikely to Get Help

Fact-checkers are quick to negate the possibility that an overwhelming number of deaths and injuries in professional and amateur athletes is not related to the COVID shots,¹¹ but embalmers are telling¹² a different story.

Funeral director Richard Hirschman has been a professional, board-certified embalmer since 2004 and currently travels to several funeral homes to embalm bodies. He appeared on the “Dr. Jane Ruby” show to share some shocking findings he’s been seeing in his work the past few months.¹³

In mid-2021, he began noticing some individuals who died of heart attacks and strokes had strange clots in their veins and arteries. He showed images of fibrous-looking clots he’d pulled out of the patients’ bodies, some of which are the length of a person’s leg, and explained that normal clots usually fall apart when handled. These fibrous clots — which he said he’s seeing more and more of — maintain their integrity and can be manipulated without disintegrating.

Unfortunately, whether they die or not, when it comes to getting help for someone who believes they’re injured by the COVID shots, it’s unlikely that they get it without intensive efforts. One reason is because, while people are increasingly calling for support for the vaccine-injured, the only way to get recompense is through the obscure Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).¹⁴

To give a little background, injury claims for regular vaccines go through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP).

Initially set up as a “no-fault” system to resolve injury claims, this U.S. law ultimately protects drug companies with a complete liability shield, and if you win through this vaccine “court,” payouts come from a special fund set up just for that purpose, sparing vaccine makers, their insurance companies and vaccine providers from costly payouts for vaccine injuries and deaths.¹⁵

However, if you believe you’ve been injured by a COVID shot, and you want compensation for it, you have to go through a different vaccine “court” run by what Fortune describes as an “obscure office within the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.” And, this system not only protects manufacturers and health care providers from liability, but has hoops to jump through and limits to it that make compensation much more difficult than going through the NVICP.

The bottom line is, even if you can prove you were injured by a COVID shot, you can’t sue the drug company and the compensation you receive from the program is capped at $50,000 for lost wages and $370,376 for wrongful death.¹⁶

Officials Try to Discredit VAERS

The law that protects Big Pharma from regular vaccine injury claims is the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.¹⁷ The CICP claim process for COVID shots is conducted under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, passed in 2005,¹⁸ which authorizes the government to take countermeasures against a public health emergency. The latest declaration under this Act was issued March 17, 2020, that provided:¹⁹

“… liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct” as defined in the PREP Act.”

In other words, unless willful misconduct can be proven, any person covered by the act also has indemnity against claims from citizens. This is not limited to manufacturers and Big Pharma, but can also include government officials. The thing is, both claims systems are actually at the tail end of the process and don’t reflect all the possible injuries that might be occurring.

So how can you tell how many actual injuries may be occurring with a certain vaccine? That’s where another system kicks in: the National Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²⁰ As I’ll explain later, anyone can make a report to VAERS, and it’s this key component that critics use to claim that VAERS can contain errors and even false claims.

While the system has a mechanism to help weed out false reports, top government officials, such as NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci and CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, have attempted to discredit it. Most notably, this occurred during a Senate hearing when both individuals implied that if a person had been vaccinated and was then killed in a car accident, it’s possible it could be recorded in VAERS as a vaccine injury.²¹

It is important to note that the VAERS system is coadministered by the CDC and the FDA.²²However, as David Martin, whose self-described work involves ethical engagement and stewardship of community and commons-based value interests,²³ points out in an interview excerpt posted on Twitter:^24,25

“The fact is, that as much as the CDC and the FDA try to hide behind what they reportedly say is an error in the VAERS database, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, what they don’t seem to realize is that by saying that there are errors they are violating the 1986 Act …

If you go back and read that [the ACT] what you’ll find is that manufacturers of vaccines are required to keep VAERS accurate. That’s actually a statutory requirement. So, if they are telling you that it is not accurate, they are admitting to violating the law.”

By law, VAERS²⁶ is a mandatory reporting system for health care professionals. The system is not set up to analyze causation, but may be used as raw data for detecting unexpected adverse events that may indicate a safety signal.

In total, the system must be maintained by health care professionals and drug manufacturers as a statutory requirement for maintaining indemnity against vaccine injury. Martin points out:²⁷

“And that’s the quid pro quo in getting the immunity. If VAERS is wrong, then the immunity is pierced because it’s the manufacturer’s legal responsibility to make sure VAERS is accurate.”

VAERS Is Overwhelmed With Reports

Anyone can make a report to VAERS — both patients and health professionals can use this system to report health concerns they suspect may be connected to any vaccine, including the COVID shots. But since the system is passive, whether the reports get filed depends entirely on each individual living up to that responsibility.

The reports must contain all hospital records and any other relevant medical information. Unfortunately, as Brittany Galvin, a young woman who says she was injured by a COVID shot, succinctly notes in a video,²⁸ the system is not efficient, and the data may be woefully out of date. This has a significant impact on monitoring the effects of the COVID inoculation program since it’s possible what you see on any given day in the VAERS database isn’t anywhere near current.

Galvin has created several videos talking about the journey she’s been on trying to report her adverse events to VAERS. In a video posted in January 2022,²⁹ she recorded her phone conversation with an investigator from VAERS to discuss why her report filed in late May 2021 had not yet been counted in the system.

In one conversation she learned that the process takes many steps through different departments. The first stop for the VAERS reports is in a department with only 50 employees.³⁰ Once the package of information is completed by this department, it is sent to a team of nurses who read and review every page.

If the staff have any concerns or if they feel they need more information, the package will be sent back to the first department for further information gathering.³¹ Galvin expressed her concern that there were hundreds of thousands of people like her and just 50 VAERS employees trying to process these reports.³²

“Meanwhile the whole government is trying to force everyone to get this thing. Lying to the people telling them that “no one has gotten GBS from it” but here I sit barely able to walk and my case isn’t going to be ‘technically’ reported because the CDC hasn’t investigated yet because the hospitals are dragging their feet … it’s like a revolving crazy door and all of us humans on this planet and in this country are being lied to, and it’s unfair.”

At the end of the conversation with the investigator, Galvin learned that while her report was filed in May 2021, it wasn’t assigned to someone at VAERS until September or November 2021.³³ It could be many months before the CDC receives the report of her vaccine injuries that can be published.³⁴

*

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

Notes

¹ Open VAERS, COVID-19 Data

² YouTube, July 17, 2019

³ The Desert Review, February 7, 2022

⁴ Red Voice Media, January 14, 2022

⁵ Rumble, February 1, 2022, Minute 23:30 – 24:35

⁶ Rumble, February 1, 2022, Minute 25:25 & 26:38

⁷ Rumble, February 1, 2022, Minute 27:25

⁸ YouTube, Dr. John Campbell, Kyle’s Vaccine Complication October 21, 2021

⁹ YouTube, Dr. John Campbell, Kyle’s Vaccine Complication October 21, 2021, 1:01

¹⁰ YouTube, Dr. John Campbell, Kyle’s Vaccine Complication October 21, 2021, 41:51

¹¹ Reuters, November 29, 2021

¹² Rumble, January 26, 2022

¹³ Rumble, January 26, 2022, 00:48

¹⁴ Fortune, May 3, 2021

¹⁵ Health Resources & Services Administration January 2020

¹⁶ Congressional Research Service, October 20, 2021

¹⁷ Public Law 99-660

¹⁸ Health and Human Services, Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act

¹⁹ Federal Register, March 17, 2020

²⁰ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

²¹ YouTube, January 11, 2022, Min 2:49:30

^22, 26 VAERS, About

²³ About David Martin

²⁴ Twitter, January 5, 2022, Min 00:27

²⁵ Public Law 99-660  Title XXI. Subtitle 1, Sec. 2102(a)(3)

²⁷ Twitter, January 5, 2022, Min 1:40

²⁸ BitChute, December 18, 2021

²⁹ Odysee, January 20, 2022

³⁰ Odysee, January 20, 2022, Min 6:40 & 7:50

³¹ Odysee, January 20, 2022, Min 12:50

^32, 34 Odysee, January 20, 2022, Minute 19:30

³³ Odysee, January 20, 2022, Minute 20:45

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

New Zealand scientists found that there is an undeclared nanotechnology in Pfizer’s Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines that assemble into microchip circuit boards – which can be used to track people – when exposed to heat over time.

The SGT Report channel on Brighteon.com shared a video of Hope and Tivon from Fix the World Project Morocco discussing the technology in the Pfizer vaccines. The video showed small, basic shapes of rectangles, squares and circles that are floating within the company’s vaccine samples, which were found to form more complex structures when put in a car and exposed to heat.

Ricardo Delgado of La Quita Columna previously mentioned that there’s graphene oxide in Pfizer’s shots, which is necessary to convert the frequencies to form self-assembling microchips. These microchips can perform different functions, such as controlling and tracking humans.

There are also images that show how the vaccine reacts when mixed with human blood. The white blood cells get annihilated and the red blood cells become heavily damaged.

What happens next is that vaccinated humans are emitting Bluetooth codes. There is a phenomenon going on called the “Bluetooth challenge” videos. Normally, Bluetooth devices have names on them, but what’s happening now is that when someone goes into a crowded room full of vaccinated people, there are anonymous Bluetooth addresses that show up. They’re anonymous addresses from vaccinated individuals who are emitting a signal.

A French research team confirmed this when they stopped random volunteers in a park. The team separated the groups into vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals and tested their gadgets. The team found that the vaccinated registered an unnamed MAC address.

To be clear, the MAC address is a machine dress code, all electronic hardware that makes them identifiable wirelessly. It’s a unique address to the device, so it’s just a hexadecimal number that identifies particular hardware, and each vaccinated person is disseminating a separate and unique code. (Related: Wuhan co-conspirator Charles Lieber convicted of numerous crimes involving Wuhan, nanotechnology and the CCP.)

The video also covered the theory of the “Mark of the Beast.”

“It’s in this vaccine. It’s emitting codes that you can’t by yourself. We’re getting towards that time. So with it, they’re already doing it. We’re seeing evidence that it’s already being done in human beings,” Hope said.

Hope and Tivon also talked about gene editing and DNA collection, which could be the other reasons why governments are rolling out vaccine programs.

Immortal organisms found in vaccines

Moreover, a polyp called the Hydra vulgaris, was found in the vaccine. These organisms are small, freshwater invertebrates that look like fleshy palm trees with swaying fronds of tentacles. They have stem cells that exist in a continuous state of renewal and may hold within their genomic code the key to biological immortality as these organisms renew themselves every 20 days.

According to Celina Juliano of the University of California Davis Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, these organisms neither age nor die. “You can cut little pieces out of the animal and it will regrow and maybe the most amazing thing is that you can dissociate the animal into single cells, mix them all up, put them back in a ball and a new Hydra will just grow out of it.” (Related: Fast-tracked covid-19 vaccine alters human DNA, turns people into genetically modified property.)

In the vaccines, these organisms were genetically modified. Dormant eggs are also present in the vaccine, where they become active, grow and multiply when exposed to graphite tape or graphene. With heat, graphene oxide acts like Miracle-Gro. “But what these vaccine manufacturers are trying to do is make their own new species and change and edit our DNA,” Hope said.

*

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

Featured image is from Vaccines.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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

A state appeals court judge has reversed a lower state court’s ruling that upheld Boston’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for city workers. The policy required municipal employees get vaccinated against COVID-19 or risk termination, and it eliminated an earlier provision that allowed unvaccinated workers to instead undergo weekly testing.

Mayor Michelle Wu announced the policy on Dec. 20, less than two weeks after striking an agreement with city worker unions Dec. 7 that continued the testing opt-out provision.

Three unions — the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation, the Boston Police Detectives Benevolent Society and the Boston Firefighters Union Local 718 — argued Wu had violated their Dec. 7 agreement and state collective bargaining law. They filed for a preliminary injunction to pause the policy and lost when the lower court ruled against them.

Justice Sabita Singh on Tuesday issued an 18-page ruling that sided with the unions and overturned that decision. Singh also put in place a preliminary injunction that prevents Boston from acting on this policy “until final resolution of this matter.”

In the decision, Singh said the lower court judge failed to properly weigh several factors that were relevant to a request for preliminary injunction.

The ruling came hours after Wu said at a press conference that the remainder of the vaccine mandate policy, which currently requires people aged 12 and up to present proof of vaccination to enter most indoor recreation venues, could be rescinded in a matter of days as Boston’s critical COVID-19 metrics trend downward.

The mayor’s administration said it is “disappointed” in the decision and is carefully reviewing the ruling.

“To protect communities and workplaces against COVID-19, courts across the country have repeatedly recognized the rights of state and local governments to require public employees to be vaccinated,” a spokesperson for the mayor said in a statement. “More than 95 percent of the City’s workforce is vaccinated because of the policy we enacted. Our workers and residents who rely on city services deserve to be protected.”

*

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

Saraya Wintersmith covers Boston City Hall for GBH News. Before that, she covered the Dorchester, Roxbury and Mattapan neighborhoods, focusing on how people live and the issues that shaped those communities. Prior to joining GBH News, Saraya worked as a statehouse reporter, producing radio and television stories for WCVE, now VPM, in Richmond, Va. Saraya lives in Dorchester and holds a journalism degree from Howard University.

Featured image: Wu campaigning for mayor in September 2021 (Licensed under CC BY 3.0)

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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Scotland is one of the most transparent countries about Covid vaccines.

Whoops!

I mean Scotland WAS one of the most transparent.

The country just said mRNA shots work so well that the raw data showing how well they work will no longer be released.

Because they work so well.

“Misrepresented” means screenshotted for everyone to see (though, sigh, I am not an anti-vaxxer anymore than someone who investigated thalidomide in 1965 is an “anti-mediciner.”)

Here’s the final chart we’ll ever have.

Rates of death remain lower in people who were not vaccinated than those who received two doses, as they have for months:

Now let’s look at the whole chart, including boosters – no misinformation here!

SOURCE

13 out of the 104 people who died of Covid in Scotland in the week ending Feb. 4 were unvaccinated. In the 4 weeks ending Feb. 4, 61 of the 478 people were unvaccinated. (That’s equivalent to about 30,000 deaths in the United States.)

In other words, almost 9 out of 10 of the people who die in Scotland are vaccinated, and the vast majority of those are boosted. And deaths remain stubbornly high, even though Omicron is far milder.

Scotland was among a handful of countries to publish data at this level of detail. I suspect the others will follow its lead.

The novel Covid vaccine experiment is over. It’s ending. It’s failed.

The authorities know the truth as well as anyone else.

They are taking their only possible course of action: end the mandates, hide the raw numbers, and hope there are no long-term problems and everyone forgets.

Oh yeah, and try to censor anyone who won’t.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The Iron Curtain of the 1940s and ‘50s was ostensibly designed to isolate Russia from Western Europe – to keep out Communist ideology and military penetration. Today’s sanctions regime is aimed inward, to prevent America’s NATO and other Western allies from opening up more trade and investment with Russia and China. The aim is not so much to isolate Russia and China as to hold these allies firmly within America’s own economic orbit. Allies are to forego the benefits of importing Russian gas and Chinese products, buying much higher-priced U.S. LNG and other exports, capped by more U.S. arms.

The sanctions that U.S. diplomats are insisting that their allies impose against trade with Russia and China are aimed ostensibly at deterring a military buildup. But that cannot really be the main Russian and Chinese concern. They have much more to gain by offering mutual economic benefits to the West. So the underlying question is whether Europe will find its advantage in replacing U.S. exports with Russian and Chinese supplies and the associated mutual economic linkages.

What worries American diplomats is that Germany, other NATO nations and countries along the Belt and Road route understand the gains that can be made by opening up peaceful trade and investment. If there is no Russian or Chinese plan to invade or bomb them , what is the need for NATO? What is the need for such heavy purchases of U.S. military hardware by America’s affluent allies? And if there is no inherently adversarial relationship, why do foreign countries need to sacrifice their own trade and financial interests by relying exclusively on U.S. exporters and investors?

These are the concerns that have prompted French Prime Minister Macron to call forth the ghost of Charles de Gaulle and urge Europe to turn away from what he calls NATO’s “brain-dead” Cold War and beak with the pro-U.S. trade arrangements that are imposing rising costs on Europe while denying it potential gains from trade with Eurasia. Even Germany is balking at demands that it freeze this coming winter by going without Russian gas.

Instead of a real military threat from Russia and China, the problem for American strategists is the absence of such a threat. All countries have come to realize that the world has reached a point at which no industrial economy has the manpower and political ability to mobilize a standing army of the size that would be needed to invade or even wage a major battle with a significant adversary. That is why Russia has carefully refrained from retaliating against NATO adventurism prodding at its western border trying to incite a military response.

America’s rising pressure on its allies threatens to drive them out of the U.S. orbit. For over 75 years they had little practical alternative to U.S. hegemony. But that is now changing. America no longer has the monetary power and seemingly chronic trade and balance-of-payments surplus that enabled it to draw up the world’s trade and investment rules in 1944-45. The threat to U.S. dominance is that China, Russia and Mackinder’s Eurasian World Island heartland are offering better trade and investment opportunities than are available from the United States with its increasingly desperate demand for sacrifices from its NATO and other allies.

The most glaring example is the U.S. drive to block Germany from authorizing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to obtain Russian gas for the coming cold winter. Angela Merkle agreed with Donald Trump to spend $1 billion building a new LNG port to become more dependent on highly priced U.S. LNG. (The plan was cancelled after the U.S. and German elections changed both leaders.) But Germany has no other way of heating many of its houses and office buildings (or supplying its fertilizer companies) than with Russian gas.

The only way left for U.S. diplomats to block European purchases is to goad Russia into a military response and then claim that avenging this response outweighs any purely national economic interest. As hawkish Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, explained in a State Department press briefing on January 27: “If Russia invades Ukraine one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” The problem is to create a suitably offensive incident and depict Russia as the aggressor.

Nuland expressed who was dictating the policies of NATO members succinctly in 2014: “Fuck the EU.” That was said as she told the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine that the State Department was backing the puppet Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Ukrainian prime minister (removed after two years in a corruption scandal), and U.S. political agencies backed the bloody Maidan massacre that ushered in what are now eight years of civil war. The result devastated Ukraine much as U.S. violence had done in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not a policy of world peace or democracy that European voters endorse.

U.S. trade sanctions imposed on its NATO allies extends across the trade spectrum. Austerity-ridden Lithuania gave up its cheese and agricultural market in Russia, and is blocking its state-owned railroad from carrying Belarus potash to the Baltic port of Klaipeda. The port’s majority owner complained that “Lithuania will lose hundreds of millions of dollars from halting Belarus exports through Klaipeda,” and “could face legal claims of $15 billion over broken contracts.” Lithuania has even agreed to U.S. prompting to recognize Taiwan, resulting in China refusing to import German or other products that include Lithuanian-made components.
Europe is to impose sanctions at the cost of rising energy and agricultural prices by giving priority to imports from the United States and foregoing Russian, Belarusian and other linkages outside of the Dollar Area. As Sergey Lavrov put matters: “When the United States thinks that something suits its interests, it can betray those with whom it was friendly, with whom it cooperated and who catered to its positions around the world.”

America’s sanctions on its allies hurt their economies, not those of Russia and China

What seems ironic is that such sanctions against Russia and China have ended up helping rather than hurting them. But the primary aim was not to hurt nor to help the Russian and Chinese economies. After all, it is axiomatic that sanctions force the targeted countries to become more self-reliant. Deprived of Lithuanian cheese, Russian producers have produced their own, and no longer need to import it from the Baltic states. America’s underlying economic rivalry is aimed at keeping European and its allied Asian countries in its own increasingly protected economic orbit. Germany, Lithuania and other allies are told to impose sanctions directed against their own economic welfare by not trading with countries outside the U.S. dollar-area orbit.
Quite apart from the threat of actual war resulting from U.S. bellicosity, the cost to America’s allies of surrendering to U.S. trade and investment demands is becoming so high as to be politically unaffordable. For nearly a century there has been little alternative but to agree to trade and investment rules favoring the U.S. economy as the price of receiving U.S. financial and trade support and even military security. But an alternative is now threatening to emerge – one offering benefits from China’s Belt and Road initiative, and from Russia’s desire for foreign investment to help modernize its industrial organization, as seemed to be promised thirty years ago in 1991.

Ever since the closing years of World War II, U.S. diplomacy has aimed at locking Britain, France, and especially defeated Germany and Japan, into becoming U.S. economic and military dependencies. As I documented in Super Imperialism, American diplomats broke up the British Empire and absorbed its Sterling Area by the onerous terms imposed first by Lend-Lease and then the Anglo-American Loan Agreement of 1946. The latter’s terms obliged Britain to give up its Imperial Preference policy and unblock the sterling balances that India and other colonies had accumulated for their raw-materials exports during the war, thus opening the British Commonwealth to U.S. exports.

Britain committed itself not to recover its prewar markets by devaluing sterling. U.S. diplomats then created the IMF and World Bank on terms that promoted U.S. export markets and deterred competition from Britain and other former rivals. Debates in the House of Lords and the House of Commons showed that British politicians recognized that they were being consigned to a subservient economic position, but felt that they had no alternative. And once they gave up, U.S. diplomats had a free hand in confronting the rest of Europe.

Financial power has enabled America to continue dominating Western diplomacy despite being forced off gold in 1971 as a result of the balance-of-payments costs of its overseas military spending. For the past half-century, foreign countries have kept their international monetary reserves in U.S. dollars – mainly in U.S. Treasury securities, U.S. bank accounts and other financial investments in the U.S. economy. The Treasury-bill standard obliges foreign central banks to finance America’s military-based balance-of-payments deficit – and in the process, the domestic government budget deficit.

The United States does not need this recycling to create money. The government can simply print money, as MMT has demonstrated. But the United States does need this foreign central bank dollar recycling to balance its international payments and support the dollar’s exchange rate. If the dollar were to decline, foreign countries would find it much easier to pay international dollar-debts in their own currencies. U.S. import prices would rise, and it would be more costly for U.S. investors to buy foreign assets. And foreigners would lose money on U.S. stocks and bonds as denominated in their own currencies, and would drop them. Central banks in particular would take a loss on the Treasury’s dollar bonds that they hold in their monetary reserves – and would find their interest to lie in moving out of the dollar. So the U.S. balance of payments and exchange rate are both threatened by U.S. belligerency and military spending throughout the world – yet its diplomats are trying to stabilize matters by ramping up the military threat to crisis levels.

U.S. drives to keep its European and East Asian protectorates locked into its own sphere of influence is threatened by the emergence of China and Russia independently of the United States while the U.S. economy is de-industrializing as a result of its own deliberate policy choices. The industrial dynamic that made the United States so dominant from the late 19th century up to the 1970s has given way to an evangelistic neoliberal financialization. That is why U.S. diplomats need to arm-twist their allies to block their economic relations with post-Soviet Russia and socialist China, whose growth is outstripping that of the United States and whose trade arrangements offer more opportunities for mutual gain.

At issue is how long the United States can block its allies from taking advantage of China’s economic growth. Will Germany, France and other NATO countries seek prosperity for themselves instead of letting the U.S. dollar standard and trade preferences siphon off their economic surplus?

Oil diplomacy and America’s dream for post-Soviet Russia

The expectation of Gorbachev and other Russian officials in 1991 was that their economy would turn to the West for reorganization along the lines that had made the U.S., German and other economies so prosperous. The mutual expectation in Russia and Western Europe was for German, French and other investors to restructure the post-Soviet economy along more efficient lines.

That was not the U.S. plan. When Senator John McCain called Russia “a gas station with atom bombs,” that was America’s dream for what they wanted Russia to be – with Russia’s gas companies passing into control by U.S. stockholders, starting with the planned buyout of Yukos as arranged with Mikhail Khordokovsky. The last thing that U.S. strategists wanted to see was a thriving revived Russia. U.S. advisors sought to privatize Russia’s natural resources and other non-industrial assets, by turning them over to kleptocrats who could “cash out” on the value of what they had privatized only by selling to U.S. and other foreign investors for hard currency. The result was a neoliberal economic and demographic collapse throughout the post-Soviet states.

In some ways, America has been turning itself into its own version of a gas station with atom bombs (and arms exports). U.S. oil diplomacy aims to control the world’s oil trade so that its enormous profits will accrue to the major U.S. oil companies. It was to keep Iranian oil in the hands of British Petroleum that the CIA’s Kermit Roosevelt worked with British Petroleum’s Anglo-Persian Oil Company to overthrow Iran’s elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1954 when he sought to nationalize the company after it refused decade after decade to perform its promised contributions to the economy. After installing the Shah whose democracy was based on a vicious police state, Iran threatened once again to act as the master of its own oil resources. So it was once again confronted with U.S.-sponsored sanctions, which remain in effect today. The aim of such sanctions is to keep the world oil trade firmly under U.S. control, because oil is energy and energy is the key to productivity and real GDP.

In cases where foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia and neighboring Arab petrostates have taken control, the export earnings of their oil are to be deposited in U.S. financial markets to support the dollar’s exchange rate and U.S. financial domination. When they quadrupled their oil prices in 1973-74 (in response to the U.S. quadrupling of its grain-export prices), the U.S. State Department laid down the law and told Saudi Arabia that it could charge as much as it wanted for its oil (thereby raising the price umbrella for U.S. oil producers), but it had to recycle its oil-export earnings to the United States in dollar-denominated securities – mainly in U.S. Treasury securities and U.S. bank accounts, along with some minority holdings of U.S. stocks and bonds (but only as passive investors, not using this financial power to control corporate policy).

The second mode of recycling oil-export earnings was to buy U.S. arms exports, with Saudi Arabia becoming one of the military-industrial complex’s largest customers. U.S. arms production actually is not primarily military in character. As the world is now seeing in the kerfuffle over Ukraine, America does not have a fighting army. What it has is what used to be called an “eating army.” U.S. arms production employs labor and produces weaponry as a kind of prestige good for governments to show off, not for actual fighting. Like most luxury goods, the markup is very high. That is the essence of high fashion and style, after all. The MIC uses its profits to subsidize U.S. civilian production in a way that does not violate the letter of international trade laws against government subsidy.

Sometimes, of course, military force is indeed used. In Iraq, first George W. Bush and then Barack Obama used the military to seize the country’ oil reserves, along with those of Syria and Libya. Control of world oil has been the buttress of America’s balance of payments. Despite the global drive to slow the planet’s warming, U.S. officials continue to view oil as the key to America’s economic supremacy. That is why the U.S. military is still refusing to obey Iraq’s orders to leave their country, keeping its troops in control of Iraqi oil, and why it agreed with the French to destroy Libya. Closer to home, President Biden has approved offshore drilling and supports Canada’s expansion of its Athabasca tar sands, environmentally the dirtiest oil in the world.

Along with oil and food exports, arms exports support the Treasury-bill standard’s financing of America’s overseas military spending on its 750 bases abroad. But without a standing enemy constantly threatening at the gates, NATO’s existence falls apart. What would be the need for countries to buy submarines, aircraft carriers, airplanes, tanks, missiles and other arms?

As the United States has de-industrialized, its trade and balance-of-payments deficit is becoming more problematic. It needs arms export sales to help reduce its widening trade deficit and also to subsidize its commercial aircraft and related civilian sectors. The challenge is how to maintain its prosperity and world dominance as it de-industrializes while economic growth is surging ahead in China and now even Russia.
America has lost its industrial cost advantage by the sharp rise in its cost of living and doing business in its financialized post-industrial rentier economy, but additionally, as Seymour Melman explained in the 1970s, Pentagon capitalism is based on cost-plus contracts: The higher military hardware costs, the more profit its manufacturers receive. So U.S. arms are over-engineered – hence, the $500 toilet seats instead of a $50 model. The main attractiveness of luxury goods after all, including military hardware, is their high price.

This is the background for U.S. fury at its failure to seize Russia’s oil resources – and at seeing Russia also break free militarily to create its own arms exports. Today Russia is in the position of Iran in 1954 and again in 1979. Not only do its sales rival those of U.S. LNG, but Russia keeps its oil-export earnings at home to finance its re-industrialization, so as to rebuild the economy that was destroyed by the U.S.-sponsored shock “therapy” of the 1990s.

The line of least resistance for U.S. strategy seeking to maintain control of the world’s oil supply while maintaining its luxury-arms export market via NATO is to Cry Wolf and insist that Russia is on the verge of invading Ukraine – as if Russia had anything to gain by quagmire warfare over Europe’s poorest and least productive economy. The winter of 2021-22 has seen a long attempt at U.S. prodding of NATO and Russia to fight – without success.

U.S. dreams of a neoliberalized China as a U.S. corporate affiliate

America has de-industrialized as a deliberate policy of slashing production costs as its manufacturing companies have sought low-wage labor abroad, most notably in China. This shift was not a rivalry with China, but was viewed as mutual gain that would see American banks and investors secure control and profits o Chinese industry as it was marketized. The rivalry was between U.S. employers and U.S. labor, and the class-war weapon was offshoring and, in the process, cutting back government social spending.

Similar to the Russian pursuit of oil, arms and agricultural trade independent of U.S. control, China’s offense is keeping the profits of its industrialization at home, retaining state ownership of significant corporations and, most of all, keeping money creation and the Bank of China as a public utility to fund its own capital formation instead of letting U.S. banks and brokerage houses provide its financing and siphon off its surplus in the form of interest, dividends and management fees. The one saving grace to U.S. corporate planners has been China’s role in deterring U.S. wages from rising by providing a source of low-priced labor to enable American manufacturers to offshore and outsource their production.

The Democratic Party’s class war against unionized labor started in the Carter Administration and greatly accelerated when Bill Clinton opened the southern border with NAFTA. A string of maquiladoras were established along the border to supply low-priced handicraft labor. This became so successful a corporate profit center that Clinton pressed to admit China into the World Trade Organization in December 2001, in the closing month of his administration. The dream was for it to become a profit center for U.S. investors, producing for U.S. companies and financing its capital investment (and housing and government spending too, it was hoped) by borrowing U.S. dollars and organizing its industry in a stock market that, like that of Russia in 1994-96, would become a leading provider of finance-capital gains for U.S. nd other foreign investors.

Walmart, Apple and many other U.S. companies organized production facilities in China, which necessarily involved technology transfers and creation of an efficient infrastructure for export trade. Goldman Sachs led the financial incursion, and helped China’s stock market soar. All this was what America had been urging.
Where did America’s neoliberal Cold War dream go wrong? For starters, China did not follow the World Bank’s policy of steering governments to borrow in dollars to hire U.S. engineering firms to provide export infrastructure. It industrialized in much the same way that the United States and Germany did in the late 19th century: By heavy public investment in infrastructure to provide basic needs at subsidized prices or freely, from health care and education to transportation and communications, in order to minimize the cost of living that employers and exporters had to pay. Most important, China avoided foreign debt service by creating its own money and keeping production facilities in its own hands.

U.S. demands are driving its allies out of the dollar-NATO trade and monetary orbit

As in a classical Greek tragedy, U.S. foreign policy is bringing about precisely the outcome that it most fears. Overplaying their hand with their own NATO allies, U.S. diplomats are bringing about Kissinger’s nightmare scenario, driving Russia and China together. While America’s allies told to bear the costs of U.S. sanctions, Russia and China are benefiting by being obliged to diversify and make their own economies independent of reliance on U.S. suppliers of food and other basic needs. Above all, these two countries are creating their own de-dollarized credit and bank-clearing systems, and holding their international monetary reserves in the form of gold, euros and each other’s currencies to conduct their mutual trade and investment.

This de-dollarization provides an alternative to the unipolar U.S. ability to gain free foreign credit by the U.S. Treasury-bill standard for world monetary reserves. As foreign countries and their central banks de-dollarize, what will support the dollar? Without the free line of credit provided by central banks automatically recycling America’s foreign military spending back to the U.S. economy (with only a minimal return), how can the United States balance its international payments in the face of its de-industrialization?
The United States cannot simply reverse its dependence on Chinese and other Asian labor by bringing production back home. It has built too high a rentier overhead into its economy for its labor to be able to compete internationally, given the U.S. wage-earner’s budgetary demands to pay high and rising housing and education costs, debt service and health insurance, and for privatized infrastructure services.

The only way for the United States to sustain its international financial balance is by monopoly pricing of its arms, patented pharmaceutical and information-technology exports, and by buying control of the most lucrative production and potentially rent-extracting sectors abroad– in other words, by spreading neoliberal economic policy throughout the world in a way that obliges other countries to depend on U.S. loans and investment.

That is not a way for national economies to grow. The alternative to neoliberal doctrine is China’s growth policies that follow the same basic industrial logic by which the United States, Germany and France rose to industrial power during their own industrial takeoff with strong government support and social spending programs.

The United States has abandoned this traditional industrial policy since the 1980s. It is imposing on its own economy the neoliberal policies that de-industrialized Pinochetista Chile, Thatcherite Britain and the post-industrial former Soviet republics, the Baltics and Ukraine since 1991. Its highly polarized and debt-leveraged prosperity is based on inflating real estate and securities prices and privatizing infrastructure.

This neoliberalism has been a path to becoming a failed economy and indeed, a failed state, obliged to cope with its debt deflation, rising housing prices and rents as owner-occupancy rates decline, as well as its exorbitant medical and other costs resulting from privatizing what other countries provide freely or at subsidized prices as human rights – health care, education, medical insurance and pensions.

The success of China’s industrial policy with a mixed economy and state control of the monetary and credit system has led U.S. strategists to fear that Western European and Asian countries – even Taiwan, not just Japan and South Korea – may find their economic advantage to lie in integrating more closely with China and Russia. The U.S. response to such a global rapprochement with China and Russia seems to have no other leverage except economic sanctions and military belligerence. That New Cold War stance is expensive, and other countries are balking at bearing the cost of a conflict that has no benefit for themselves and indeed, threatens to destabilize their own economic growth and political independence.

Without subsidy from these countries, especially as other countries de-dollarize their economies, how can the United States maintain the balance-of-payments costs of its overseas military spending? Cutting back that spending, and indeed recovering industrial self-reliance and competitive economic power, would require a transformation of American politics. Such a change seems unlikely, but without it, how long can America’s post-industrial rentier economy manage to force other countries to provide it with the economic affluence (literally a flowing-in) that it is no longer producing at home?

*

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

Featured image is by Kaboompics.com from Pexels

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Sometimes the hypocrisy of the US government, especially when it comes to foreign affairs, it just too much to let pass.

The latest example of this is the Ukraine crisis, where the US pretty much stands all alone (unless you count Britain’s embattled and embarrassed Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who parrots US policy like a trained bird), accusing Russia not just of preparing for an “imminent invasion’ of Ukraine, but of violating international law and “rules-based international order,” as Secretary of State Antony Blinken likes to put it.

The Biden administration’s top diplomat has  repeatedly blasted both Russia for threatening Ukraine with an invasion by moving troops and equipment to its border and to the border between Ukraine and Belarus, Russia’s ally to the west, and China for its threats to Taiwan and for a rights crackdown in Hong Kong, a Chinese Special Administrative Region that had been promised 50 years of “no change” but was put under new vastly stricter national security laws following violent student protests and university occupations in 2019-20.

But how can the US make such accusations against the Russians and the Chinese governments when the US for nearly eight years, has been bombing, launching rocket and drone attacks, and sending troops, under both CIA and Pentagon control, against both ISIS and Syrian government troops and aircraft — even attacking and killing Russian mercenary troops at one point, who, unlike the US, were in Syria at the request of the Syrian government.

US military actions in Syria are completely outside of any “rules-based international order.”  They are the actions of a lawless rogue nation.

International rules, when it comes to warfare, are crystal clear, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which is an international treaty signed and ratified by the US government along with most other nations of the world and incorporating all the laws of war. The primary law, violation of which is described as the gravest war crime of all “because it contains with in it all other war crimes,” ia called a Crime Against Peace. That law states that no nation may attack another except if that nation faces an “imminent threat” of attack.

There are no codicils expanding on or getting around that proscription.

The US has committed that  Crime Against Peace countless times over the years since the establishment of the UN Charter. It did so in Vietnam, in Laos, in Cambodia, in Yemen, in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, in Somalia, in Sudan, in Haiti, in the Dominican Republic, in Nicaragua, in El Salvador, in Cuba, in Niger, in the Congo, in Panama, in Grenada — indeed in so many places I can’t hope to name them  all. Suffice to say that my whole life (I was born in 1949), my country has been a violator of the UN Charter’s ban on launching illegal wars.

Rules-based order? What the F**k is Blinken talking about? The US makes its own rules. In fact, whenever the US launches some illegal invasion, Special Forces raid or air attack against a country, the biggest complaint we hear in the US is that the president has ordered up and launched a war “without Congressional approval.”

The implication is that if Congress approves an illegal war or act of war, that makes it legit.

It doesn’t. It doesn’t even make it Constitutional, because the Constitution by law, every treaty that the US agrees to becomes a part of the US legal code, and that includes the UN Charter, which was largely written by the US, and was ratified by the Senate.

What makes it worse when the US makes such accusations against Russia and China is that it is accusing two countries which, as objectionable as their actions or threats might be,  at least have a better argument for the legality of their actions than does the US.

Let’s start with China. The government in Beijing stands accused by Blinken and the US government under a series of presidents, with threatening Taiwan, an island that historically was a part of China, then, from 1985 to 1945 a colony of Japan, then briefly part of China following World War II, but which became functionally independent in 1949 when the Chinese Communist Party won its revolution on the mainland, founding the People’s Republic of China, and the remnants of the Nationalist Party and its army fled to Taiwan, murdering tens of thousands of local Taiwanese and Hakka Chinese people, and establishing a brutal dictatorship under Nationalist leader and major domo Chiang Kai-Shek. China has never acknowledged the independence of Taiwan, and Taiwan’s government, at least until the 70s, was claiming to be the “real” government of all of China.

The US initially recognized Taiwan, after the Chinese Communist revolutionary victory in 1949, as an independent country, but Richard Nixon, in a slick realpolitik maneuver masterminded by his National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in order to recognize China and drive a wedge between that country and the Soviet Union, agreed to cease recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation, downgraded the US embassy from the island to the status of a consulate, with the Embassy in Beiing.  In other words, at that point, from the US point of view at least, Taiwan’s leal status became an internal affair of China’s, not an international affair subject to the protections of the UN Charter.

The same applies to the Chinese crackdown on rights in Hong Kong. Since July 1997, Hong Kong ceased to be a British colony, and reverted to being part of China. Now it’s true there were negotiations between the Beijing government and departing British government in the years preceeding that handover.  During those years of transition, Hong Kong’s appointed colonial Governor Chris Patten, former head of the British Conservative Party, carefully avoided allowing Hong Kongers to gain long-sought universal suffrage to elect all members of the territory’s legislative council, Legco, before the British departure (a move which would at least have left the Beijing facing a local government that actually represented all the people of Hong Kong, instead of Legco representatives representing various business sectors like banking, the legal profession, the retail industry, property owners, etc).

China agreed during those negotiations to gradually increase the number of Legco members elected from geographic constituencies, and to leave basic freedoms of speech, press, etc. untouched “for 50 years.” But when students rose up to protest the arrests of Hong Kong residents and their deportation to face trials in China, it set in motion a confrontation between democracy advocates in Hong Kong and authoritarians in Beijing, and ultimately to a new Beijing-imposed national security law for Hong Kong that has turned the city into essentially just another bit of China. But again, while it was certainly a draconian over-reaction to legitimate local protests, that action by China is not a violation of international law — just violation of an agreement between a departing (and loathed) colonial power, a legacy of the European Opium War against China, and a new vastly more powerful China. It’s a bit like the US’s brutal crackdown on immigrants at the Mexican border or on Native defenders of water rights in North Dakota. Disgusting, and perhaps criminal under US law, but hardly a violation of some kind of “rules-based international order.” Indeed, Native American nations that had treaties with the US and were promised soverign lands forever in those treaties actually have a better ground to challenge US abuses before the UN than people do people in Hong Kong or Taiwan, where the issues are clearly, from an international law perspective, would appear to be internal Chinese domestic ones.

As for Russia,  in the 204 plebiscite in Crimea following the coup in Kiev, some 97% of the population there voted that they wanted to leave Ukraine and return to being part of Russia, as the peninsula had been until 1954, when new Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, as a gift to the region he had grown up in, transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet to the Ukrainian Soviet. The US has criticized that plebiscite  as somehow fraudulent (Crimea is about 85% ethnic Russian). With 85% of eligible people voting, that plebiscite provided Russia with wht it considered to be the justification for reclaiming  jurisdiction over Crimea. Russia’s action, criticized by the US as “aggression,” was in fact less of a violation of democratic norms though than the massive disenfranchisement of blacks and other people of color in Republican-run “red” states of the US — a process that is now being accelerated to warp speed with the approach of the 2022 off-year Congressional elections. If the Biden administration really cared about justice and democracy it would be laser-focused on defending voter rights in the US, not on shipping deadly weapons to Ukraine.

If the US government cared about following a “rules-based international order,” the it would pull all US military forces out of Syria, pull the US Navy out of the Persian Gulf, stop using drones to kill people in Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere, stop sending US Special Forces wherever the president wants to send them, and rejoin the World Court, agreeing to respect its adjudication of violations of international rules and laws.

Then we wouldn’t have to listen to all the hypocritical crap uttered by Biden, Blinken and their ilk.

Someday, I’m sure there will come a reckoning, when US leaders will finally be held to account for their long record of crimes against humanity. Until then, we will have to endure all this epic hypocrisy.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from an RT News 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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

An unprecedented number of public statements from Western spies insisting that Russia may be about to launch an invasion of Ukraine are likely to be based more on what analysts thought Moscow was about to do, rather than evidence that it was about to do it, in an information campaign designed to counter the Kremlin’s own narratives, Britain’s former top spy has suggested.

In an interview with the NATO and weapons industry-funded lobby group The Atlantic Council on Wednesday, former British foreign intelligence service chief Sir John Sawers was asked whether he thought Western governments’ publication of declassified material was helpful for countering Russia, or if it might have been planted to diminish the credibility of the officials who ended up releasing it.

“I think, in general, what you point to is the fact that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s Russia has been rather skillful at shaping narratives, at using their arguments and at times their propaganda in order to shape opinion, partly in their own country, but even more so in the West,” Sawers replied.

“I think that what the US administration in particular has been quite adept at in this crisis has been, first of all, corralling the West, coordinating and orchestrating a common Western response,” he continued. “And second of all, not allowing Putin to have it all his own way on the airwaves.”

The former MI6 chief then went on to say that he thinks the Western intelligence briefings “are not gems from deeply sensitive agent reporting. What has been released, the idea that Putin might want to dislodge [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky and replace him with a puppet government, or that he’s going to contrive a pretext for Russian intervention in the east of Ukraine, these are based on a growing understanding, an analysis of Putin, rather than deep, secret intelligence reports.

“And I think wrapping them up as intelligence and adding a few juicy names to the reporting just gives some good stories for the media, and helps push back against the narrative,” he continued. “It’s a skillful use of information and analysis to turn the tables on Putin and his own ability to dominate the airwaves.”

Western leaders have been voicing fears of a possible Russian attack on Ukraine for months, and in recent days they have claimed that an invasion could take place at any moment, with some media outlets naming February 16 as the date. These reports have been fueled partly by selective American and British declassifications of intelligence alleging various Russian plans to stage coups in Ukraine or to stake “false flag” operations as a pretext for aggression.

However, Moscow has consistently denied that it ever planned to invade, and some have questioned both the accuracy of the Western reports and the wisdom of the strategy to periodically leak accusations with no evidence to prove them.

Earlier this month, when US State Department spokesperson Ned Price was asked for proof following an allegation that Russia had planned to stage a propaganda video as a pretext for invading Ukraine, he replied, “If you doubt the credibility of the US government, of the British government, of other governments, and want to find solace in the information the Russians are putting out, that is for you to do.”

*

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

Featured image: Russian Navy Raptor anti-saboteur boats are seen during an amphibious assault exercise along the coast held by army corps and naval infantry units of the Russian Black Sea Fleet at the Opuk training ground near Kerch, Crimea, Russia. © Sputnik / Konstantin Mihalchevskiy

World Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders” Revealed

Jacob Nordangard, February 12, 2022

Johns Hopkins University Confirms: You Can be “Vaccinated” with a PCR Test, Even Without Knowing

Weaver, February 16, 2022

Video: Whistleblower Canadian Army Major Breaks Ranks and Spills the Truth on Covid-19 Mandates

Major Stephen Chledowski, February 11, 2022

The Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It’s About Germany

Mike Whitney, February 15, 2022

Graphene COVID Kill Shots: Let the Evidence Speak for Itself

Dr. Ariyana Love, February 16, 2022

Klaus Schwab’s WEF “School for Covid Dictators”, a Plan for the “Great Reset”

Michael Lord, February 13, 2022

Colossal Financial Pyramid: BlackRock and The WEF “Great Reset”

F. William Engdahl, February 13, 2022

Trudeau Threatens Canadians Who Uphold the Charter and the Basic Tenets of Democracy

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 13, 2022

The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 18, 2022

Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 13, 2022

UK Government Data Proves the COVID-19 Injections Cause Damage to the Innate Immune System that Worsens by the Week

The Daily Expose, February 14, 2022

“The Truth Of COVID-19: The India Statement.”

Walter Gelles, February 13, 2022

The COVID Mandates Are Leaving Europe. Is Freedom Winning?

Joanna Miller, February 16, 2022

The Vaccine Death Report: Evidence of Millions of Deaths and Serious Adverse Events Resulting from the Experimental COVID-19 Injections

David John Sorensen, February 6, 2022

A National Emergency AGAINST Trudeau’s “COVID Mandates” Which “Seriously Endanger the Lives, Health or Safety of Canadians”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 15, 2022

The COVID Narrative and “Conspiracy Theories”: A Physician’s Perspective

Michael C, February 12, 2022

Video: Grand Jury Day 1: Attorney at Law Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Germany, for the “PCR Plandemic Trial” Before a Grand Jury

Reiner Fuellmich, February 11, 2022

Worldwide Freedom Movement against Covid Mandates, QR Codes and Restrictions: The Global Elite’s Technological Coup d’État Against Humanity

Robert J. Burrowes, February 14, 2022

Video: Up to Seven Years in Prison for Four Year-old Facebook Posts?

Resistance GB, February 14, 2022

Video: World Awakening – Freedom Convoys

Marcel Irnie, February 15, 2022

Video: Breaking News: Justin Trudeau Accuses Jewish Member of Parliament for Supporting Nazis

By Jamie Schmale, February 18, 2022

Instead of answering questions, he resorted to accusing Melissa Lantsman, a Jewish Member of Parliament and a descendant of Holocaust survivors, of supporting those waving swastikas. There were many on the opposition side of the House who immediately came to her defence. However, the Liberal benches were silent on the Prime Minister’s demeaning comments.

Video: Dr. Charles Hoffe Speaks Out to the World

By Dr. Charles Hoffe, February 18, 2022

Dr. Charles Hoffe is a family physician in British Columbia. “I have been horrified to see what the COVID shots have done to my own patients. I have a small country practice with about 2,000 patients and amongst those people, I now have 12 in my own practice who are disabled since their COVID shots.”

Video: #FreedomConvoy2022 to Veterans and Civilians: “Please Come. Your Country Needs You.”

By Bridge City News, February 18, 2022

They addressed a narrative circulating around mainstream media regarding the removal of a fence around the National War Memorial. They also asked for other veterans and civilians to come support the Freedom Convoy, saying “Please come. Your country needs you.”

The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 18, 2022

The latest developments suggest that the COVID-19 narrative is crumbling amidst major protests worldwide. A mass movement against the COVID mandate is unfolding coast to coast across Canada in solidarity with cross-border truck drivers. Tens of thousands of people have joined the truck drivers in Ottawa.

Justin Trudeau’s Swastikas. “Democracy with Neo-Nazi Characteristics”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 18, 2022

Justin Trudeau is unceasingly referring to swastikas intimating that the Freedom Convoy organizers are not only supportive of  Nazi symbols but are anti-Semitic. And on February 16, he directed these wild accusations against the Conservative Party of Canada.

NATO Insists on Russian Invasion Narrative to Justify New European Battlegroups

By Paul Antonopoulos, February 17, 2022

The predicted February 16 Russian invasion of Ukraine came and passed without incident. In fact, not only did Russian soldiers begin demobilization on February 15 with the end of defense exercises, but Russian officials even took the opportunity to mock the West for their bold announcement on when exactly the supposed invasion of Ukraine would begin.

Video: War with Ukraine Cancelled Due to Bad Weather

By South Front, February 17, 2022

Russian General Staff officers woke up on Wednesday morning and were surprised to find that their tanks were not yet in Kharkov, and the troops were not in Odessa. It turned out that the United States decided to cancel Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 16.

Video: Fired 20-year Global News, News Director Anita Krishna Speaks Out

By Anita Krishna, February 17, 2022

Anita Krishna tells everyone how things changed in 2020…when Justin Trudeau’s Liberals handed out 600M dollars to “news” organizations, calls out some specific bad actors, her former news rivals/colleagues and more.

Canada’s Emergency Act — We All Need to Contact Our MPs and Senators Now

By Shirley Guertin, February 17, 2022

It’s essential that every one of us telephones their MP (BOTH offices – local & Ottawa) and as many other MPs and senators (105, so suggest to begin with Independent — they listen and read) as possible now to protest the Emergencies Act.

Pfizer, BioNTech Seek COVID Biologic Emergency Use Authorization for Infants as Young as Six Months Old

By Natasha Hobley, February 17, 2022

A statement from Pfizer states that the “rolling submission” application was submitted on Feb. 1, 2022 at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “in response to the urgent public health need in this population.”

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Truck driver James Doull discusses the fate of the Canadian trucker ‘Freedom Convoy’ as PM Justin Trudeau vows to freeze protesters’ bank accounts, arguing he doesn’t see the PM’s efforts ‘making any difference.’

*

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

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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

During question period, the Conservative Party upheld their parliamentary obligation to hold the Prime Minister accountable for enacting the Emergencies Act.

Instead of answering questions, he resorted to accusing Melissa Lantsman, a Jewish Member of Parliament and a descendant of Holocaust survivors, of supporting those waving swastikas. There were many on the opposition side of the House who immediately came to her defence. However, the Liberal benches were silent on the Prime Minister’s demeaning comments.

Prime Minister Trudeau should immediately apologize and focus on unifying the nation rather than stoking divisions for political gain.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video