In Kathmandu, a Struggle for Water Amid Worsening Floods
January 18th, 2022 by Johan Augustin
Notre site en Français: mondialisation.ca
Nuestro sitio en español: GlobalizacionJanuary 18th, 2022 by Johan Augustin
January 18th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci
Soldati in assetto di guerra e veicoli corazzati da combattimento sono stati schierati dalla Svezia su Gotland, l’isola nel Mar Baltico a 90 km dalle sue coste orientali. Il ministero della Difesa dichiara che lo ha fatto per difendere l’isola da minacciose navi da sbarco russe che incrociano nel Mar Baltico. Così anche la Svezia contribuisce, in veste di partner, alla frenetica campagna Usa-Nato che, rovesciando la realtà, presenta la Russia quale potenza aggressiva che si prepara a invadere l’Europa. A 130 km a est di Gotland, la Lettonia è in stato di allerta, insieme a Lituania ed Estonia, contro il nemico inventato che starebbe per invaderla. Quale «difesa contro la minaccia russa», la Nato la schierato nelle tre repubbliche baltiche e in Polonia quattro battaglioni multinazionali.
A quello in Lettonia partecipa l’Italia, con centinaia di soldati e mezzi corazzati. L’Italia è inoltre l’unico paese che ha partecipato a tutte le missioni di «polizia aerea» della Nato, da basi in Lituania ed Estonia, e il primo che ha usato caccia F-35 per intercettare aerei russi in volo nel corridoio aereo internazionale sul Baltico. Gli F-35 e altri caccia, schierati in questa regione a ridosso del territorio russo, sono aerei a duplice capacità convenzionale e nucleare. Le tre repubbliche baltiche non si sentono però abbastanza «protette dalla presenza avanzata rafforzata della Nato».
Il ministro lettone della Difesa, Artis Pabriks, ha richiesto una presenza militare Usa permanente nel suo paese: le forze Usa – spiegano gli esperti in base a uno scenario da film hollywoodiano – non farebbero in tempo ad arrivare dalla Germania per fermare le forze corazzate russe che, dopo aver travolto le tre repubbliche baltiche, le taglierebbero fuori dall’Unione europea e dalla Nato, occupando il corridoio di Suwalki tra Polonia e Lituania. L’Ucraina, partner ma di fatto già membro della Nato, ha il ruolo di primo attore quale paese aggredito. Il governo denuncia, in base alla sua parola d’onore, di essere stato colpito da un cyberattacco, attribuito ovviamente alla Russia, e la Nato si precipita, insieme alla Ue, ad aiutare l’Ucraina a combattere la guerra cibernetica.
Washington denuncia che l’Ucraina è ormai circondata da tre lati dalle forze russe e, in previsione del blocco delle forniture di gas russo all’Europa, si prepara generosamente a sostituirle con massicce forniture di gas naturale liquefatto statunitense. L’attacco russo – informa la Casa Bianca sulla base di notizie la cui veridicità è garantita dalla Cia – sarebbe preparato da una operazione false flag: agenti russi, infiltrati in Ucraina orientale, compirebbero sanguinosi attentati contro gli abitanti russi del Donbass, attribuendone la responsabilità a Kiev quale pretesto dell’invasione. Non ricorda la Casa Bianca che in dicembre il ministro russo della Difesa, Sergei Shoigu, aveva denunciato la presenza in Ucraina orientale di mercenari Usa con armi chimiche.
Gli Stati uniti – riporta il New York Times – hanno comunicato agli Alleati che «qualsiasi rapida vittoria russa in Ucraina sarebbe seguita da una sanguinosa insurrezione simile a quella che costrinse l’Unione Sovietica a ritirarsi dall’Afghanistan» e che «la Cia (segretamente) e il Pentagono (apertamente) la sosterrebbero». Gli Stati uniti – ricorda James Stavridis, già Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa – sanno come farlo: alla fine degli anni Settanta e negli anni Ottanta armarono e addestrarono i mujahidin contro le truppe sovietiche in Afghanistan, ma «il livello di sostegno militare Usa a una insurrezione ucraina farebbe apparire come un’inezia quello che demmo in Afghanistan contro l’Unione Sovietica».
Quale sia il disegno strategico di Washington è evidente: far precipitare la crisi ucraina, volutamente provocata nel 2014, per costringere la Russia a intervenire militarmente in difesa dei russi del Donbass, finendo in una situazione analoga a quella afghana in cui si impantanò l’Urss. Un Afghanistan dentro l’Europa, che provocherebbe uno stato di crisi permanente, a tutto vantaggio degli Usa che rafforzerebbero la loro influenza e presenza nella regione.
Manlio Dinucci
January 18th, 2022 by Planet Today
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.
***
International trial lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich said on Dec. 31 that the latest “bombshell” about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines will dismantle the big pharmaceutical companies that have pocketed billions of dollars during the pandemic.
In a video presented by OVAL Media-Prevent Global Genocide channel and shown on Brighteon.com, Fuellmich discussed with Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg the latest game-changing findings by researcher Craig Paardekooper of Kingston University London.
(Article by Kevin Hughes republished from NaturalNews.com)
*
Vaccine batches marked by varying toxicity
According to Wodarg, a German medical doctor and epidemiologist specializing in lung diseases and environmental medicine, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data shows vaccine batches are sequentially marked by varying toxicity.
He added that this has now been statistically graphed out and will prove that the COVID vaccine manufacturers have worked in a coordinated fashion with the intent to purposely kill and maim people who have taken their vaccines.
“It’s not the vaccinations. It’s not true that there is the same stuff in each in each shot. And we have a very hard evidence with the batches that are different, shaped differently, have different effect,” Wodarg explained.
Wodarg took note of the lots and batches in the U.S. where there were no cases, while other batches showed many people dying. He explained that in some batches you can see that something is happening and this is where cases of toxicity expressed in deaths are seen. The German doctor added that the Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have a horrible accumulation of cases in certain batches.
Fuellmich pointed out that once “intent” has been proven, there is no immunity or liability protection for anyone or any organization involved in these crimes against humanity.
“If you look at the totality of the evidence, there’s more than enough evidence. A very recent presentation done by [former Pfizer vice president] Dr. Mike Yeadon shows precisely how they use these different batches in order to have an experiment within an experiment in order to try out what kind of dosage is needed in order to kill people and maim people,” said Fuellmich, who has successfully indicted big companies like Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank.
“And it is inescapable evidence of premeditation and once you have premeditation, there is no immunity for anyone anymore. Not even in the United States.”
Wodarg: Vaccines made to kill thousands intentionally
Wodarg said the vaccines were a planned, obscure trial and were made to kill thousands of people intentionally.
Fuellmich added that it was done in a coordinated effort and synchronized way with Pfizer taking the lead and followed by Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. He noted that these pharmaceutical companies all knew about this mass serial killing.
“This is a legal problem. But this [graph] makes it a whole lot easier for any lawyer in this world to show intent. There is an inescapable conclusion from these graphs,” Fuellmich said. “You can show intent. They are deliberately using different dosages coordinated with each other so that they won’t interfere with each other in order to try and find out what kills the best or what maims the best.”
Dr. Sam White, a doctor from the United Kingdom who was suspended by the National Health Service (NHS) in June 2021 for raising concerns about the safety of the COVID injection, said that everything has been done to disguise the true figures and that the reporting systems were never robust enough for an outright clinical trial of millions or even billions of people.
“If we can prove criminal intention, or even gross negligence, manslaughter, it may well be that those who’ve been harmed, or those who’ve lost a loved one can actually get some form of compensation,” White said.
“At the moment, it’s basically impossible in the U.K. and worldwide. And that’s been the case with vaccines for a long, long time. It’s almost like unbelievable, that there’s some sort of synchronized effort.”
Fuellmich said that the findings will have immense legal repercussions when it is proven that the vaccines were deliberately and intentionally done to harm people.
“You have to draw the legal conclusion and the legal conclusion is its intent. And from its intent, you can get punitive damages. You can go up to 21 times the actual damage, which is added on top of the actual damage. In these cases, I would think you can go up to thousand times because these people got so badly injured. I think this is going to be enough to dismantle the entire industry,” Fuellmich concluded.
Watch the video below to learn more about the latest bombshell regarding the COVID-19 vaccines.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
January 18th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
It might not be quite within the bounds of good taste to compare military calculations of a bridge too far – the title used in Cornelius Ryan’s work on the disastrous Allied airborne operation during the Second World War – with the latest foolish, mendacious and buffoonish efforts of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but on some level, the analogy works.
Throughout the COVID-19 lockdowns of 2020, the Prime Minister was pressing his own assault on the pandemic fortifications developed in response to SARS-CoV-2.
He had already shown himself incapable of understanding, let alone following health directions, shaking hands with infected patients, and furnishing the British public with inscrutable information.
But then came those libation, food-ladened parties held during the lockdown phases, gatherings which often eschewed social distancing.
The interest last December was initially on Christmas gatherings that had taken place in 2020. The Mirror first noted that a Christmas Party had taken place at 10 Downing Street on December 18, 2020 under lockdown conditions that prohibited indoor social and household mixing. The rest of the UK was told at the time that Christmas lunches or parties were deemed primarily social activities and “not otherwise permitted by the rules in your tier.”
The party was the subject of discussion in a clip released by ITV featuring a former spokesperson for Johnson, Allegra Stratton, who, giggles and all, is found conducting a mock press conference with colleagues. The video’s release pushed Stratton to a tearful resignation, but few others walked the plank. Johnson was certainly not going to be one of them, concluding “that guidelines were followed at all times”.
Evidence of more parties in government offices emerged, resulting in the establishment of an investigation led by Cabinet Secretary Simon Case. This mild effort, designed to distract and dissuade any investigations that might be conducted by the Metropolitan Police, went awry with revelations that the investigator had held two events in his own private office last December. Chase’s replacement, Sue Gray, once described by Labour MP Paul Flynn as “deputy God”, has been given more room to wander.
In the new year, Johnson finds himself facing a threat that promises to be graver to him than others, as if that was possible. It concerns yet another 2020 festive gathering that took place at Downing Street. Taking place in May that year in the Downing Street garden, the drinks gathering was held during the first lockdown and described by Johnson as a “work event”. This implausible understanding was reached after the PM’s Principal Private Secretary Martin Reynolds invited more than 100 Downing Street staff to “make most of the weather”. No. 10 has also claimed that it was “untrue” to claim that Johnson was “warned about the event”.
This is not deemed credible by Johnson’s former top advisor, Dominic Cummings, himself a seasoned breaker of lockdown rules and a master of the elaborate fib. Opining ever darkly, and with keen malice, he is of the view that Johnson “knew he was at a drinks party cos he was told it was a drinks party and it was actually a drinks party.” In his blog, Cummings claims that both he and one other advisor warned that such a gathering would “be against the rules and should not happen.”
At the start of prime minister’s questions in parliament, Johnson tried to sound contrite. “I want to apologise. I know that millions of people across this country have made extraordinary sacrifices over the last 18 months.” He claimed to know “the anguish they have been through”, acknowledging that there were things “we simply did not get right.”
Other parliamentarians were incredulous. Labour’s Keir Starmer called Johnson a “man without shame” and asked whether the PM could “see why the British public think he’s lying through his teeth”. Chris Bryant, also of the Labour Party, proved cuttingly unsympathetic. “So the prime minster didn’t spot that he was at a social event? Come off it. How stupid does the prime minister think the British people are?”
The PM’s reactive strategy to being found out is one born in the cribs of privilege. Why take the blame for your own actions when you can find the locus elsewhere? According to the veteran news reporter Robert Peston, a scorched earth policy is being considered against certain allegedly culpable civil servants. Once they have been cleared out, Johnson intends to “live securely ever after at No. 10.” Little wonder that Whitehall is both outraged and suffering a decline of morale.
Any hope of placing Johnson’s head on the block, politically speaking, will have to come from within the Conservative Party. So far, six Tories have publicly made their case that they lack confidence in the PM. In a functional sense, any leadership contest can only feasibly take place if 54 Tory MPs write to the chairman of the 1922 Committee, the powerful backbench body chaired by Sir Graham Brady. Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross is one MP who has promised to do so.
Despite the Tory rumbles, Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi is strumming the tune of “he’s human and we make mistakes.” To BBC Radio 4’s Today program, Zahawi claimed that Johnson had done enough. “He came to the despatch box and apologised and said he will absolutely submit himself to Parliament, because that’s our parliamentary democracy.”
Much stock will be placed on Gray’s report and how it goes down among the Tory faithful. Downing Street has chosen to neither confirm nor deny a Daily Telegraph account that Johnson has been interviewed by Gray.
As a former minister told Peston, the findings by the civil servant will define “the rest of her life”. She will hardly be remembered well for sacrificing her own colleagues to avoid the scalping of Johnson. The PM’s response then is bound to be something he has adopted during the entire course of his public life: apologise and hope it all vanishes.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
Featured image is from InfoBrics
January 18th, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
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 article entitled: US promises ‘robust response’ to Russia if it invades Ukraine – White House
If Russia invades Ukraine, the US will move strongly to damage Moscow’s strategic position and employ measures that take aim at the country’s economy, a top White House official threatened on Sunday.
… Just last week, [National Security Advisor] Sullivan accused Moscow of preparing to “fabricate a pretext” for justifying a military incursion into Ukraine, following accusations that Russia has placed more than 100,000 troops on the border to prepare for war. Later, a CNN report citing anonymous sources in the US intelligence community suggested that operatives have been placed in eastern Ukraine to stage a false-flag operation.
The Russians called a security conference with Washington and NATO. The Russians explained that security is a joint undertaking and that security only exists if every country feels secure. The CIA responded with accusations against Russia handed to the CIA-puppet Biden regime and the CIA-puppet US media. The national security advisor read the script to us peons: Russia intends a false flag attack on its own troops so that it will have an excuse to invade Ukraine.
The national security advisor is so stupid that it does not occur to him that if Russia wants to invade Ukraine Russia will. Russia needs no excuse, and there is no one in Washington or NATO who can do anything about it.
The Russians explained that they do not feel secure. They are constantly demonized, sanctioned on the basis of accusations in the Western press, and their president insulted.
Military maneuvers are conducted on their borders, and the US Navy is in the Black Sea where it has no purpose to be. Washington broke its word given to Gorbachev and has not only moved NATO to Russia’s borders but also established missile bases in Poland and Romania.
Washington has overthrown the Ukraine government in an attempt to evict Russia from her Black Sea naval base, established a puppet Ukrainian government hostile to Russia and to the Russian population of eastern Ukraine, and is gradually invading Ukraine economically and militarily with Americans on the ground training Ukrainians in the use of the American supplied arms.
On top of all of this, Washington and NATO are talking about making Ukraine, formerly a province of Russia, and another former province of Russia, Georgia, members of NATO which shows indications of ringing Russia with bases in preparation for war.
Russia explained that the situation is so threatening that it is unacceptable. During the long Cold War the two powers tried to reduce tensions by stabilizing the relationship, but in the 21st century Washington has disavowed all the arms control agreements that were accomplished in the 20th century, and has behaved aggressively toward Russia.
Russia explained that she will no longer tolerate the implied threat of US/NATO bases on her borders and most certainly will not permit Ukraine and Georgia to be members of NATO. Any move by the West in this direction will result in “dire consequences.”
As an old cold warrior as a member of the anti-Soviet Committee on the Present Danger and as a member of a secret presidential committee that helped Reagan end the Cold War, I can tell you that I am astonished that Washington has not heard what the Russians have, in all frankness, told them.
If the Committee on the President Danger had heard the Russians say this in the 1980s, we would have told President Reagan to acknowledge their concern and reduce the tension.
Today the situation is so different that to an experienced cold warrior such as myself it is extremely scary. But the idiots in Washington, who face a far more powerful Russia armed with weapons that Washington can only dream about, have no fear. Washington, the collection of the most stupid and arrogant people in the world, is exposing human life to untold risk on the sole basis of Washington’s belief in its own omnipotence.
Washington is so lacking in omnipotence that its belief in it is a sign of insanity.
According to Russian news reports, Russia is moving four entire armies from the far east to the Western fount. These four armies, even without those already present in western Russia, are sufficient to instantly destroy any force NATO and the US can muster and overrun all of Europe in a few days.
Moreover, Russia can likely mobilize 10 million troops quickly, and China, whose president has stated publicly that China has more than a treaty agreement with Russia, can mobilize 50 million soldiers. NATO, for all the bluster of its idiot Secretary General, has zero prospect of withstanding Russia in non-nuclear war.
This means, and the Kremlin knows this, that to save face Washington would have to go nuclear. This would mean the total destruction of the US and Europe. They would cease to exist.
For Russia with its extensive anti-missile defenses and nuclear bunkers for 40-50% of targeted populations, the war would be disastrous, but Russia would survive.
Russia does not want such a war. Russia doesn’t want to destroy anyone, not even Ukraine. Russia has asked for a security guarantee. That is all.
If we experience Armageddon, it will be only because Washington refused a security guarantee to Russia.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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.
January 18th, 2022 by Michael Nevradakis
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.
***
As protests grow in EU countries and worldwide against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and so-called “vaccine passports,” some countries appear to be backtracking or at least harboring second thoughts about enforcing such measures, while others are digging in their heels and moving forward with punitive restrictions on the unvaccinated.
As protests grow in EU countries and worldwide against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and so-called “vaccine passports,” some countries appear to be backtracking or at least harboring second thoughts about enforcing such measures.
Some policymakers point to evidence COVID is here to stay and we need to live with it, since Omicron is similar to the common cold or seasonal flu. Others appear more willing to accept natural immunity in lieu of vaccination.
Still, other governments are digging in their heels and moving forward with punitive restrictions on the unvaccinated.
Here’s a look at the latest shifting policies outside the U.S.
Austria, citing ‘technical complications,’ won’t enforce mandates until at least April
Austria garnered much attention in November 2021 when it became the first country in the world to impose an all-encompassing vaccine mandate for its entire adult population and minors 14 years old and up.
This mandate, set to take effect in February, would be accompanied by fines of up to 3,600 euros per quarter. To that end, Austria recently reportedly began hiring “headhunters” to track down those who continue to remain unvaccinated.
The mandate has resulted in frequent large-scale protests against the mandate, as well as a political movement opposing this policy.
An open letter recently sent to Austria’s Interior Minister, Gerhard Karner, signed by 600 police officers, also expressed opposition to mandatory vaccination.
This opposition may be having an impact. Recently, the firm responsible for the technical implementation of the mandate announced that due to “technical complications,” the mandatory vaccination law cannot be enforced until at least April.
This news came amidst calls in Austria that the mandate should be reevaluated in light of the spread of the Omicron variant.
Germany struggling with mandate implementation; support not unanimous
Similar concerns over the feasibility of rapid implementation of a vaccine mandate have been raised in Germany, which has also mulled the implementation of compulsory vaccinations and has already approved such a mandate for healthcare workers.
In December 2021, Germany’s Ethics Council also gave its stamp of approval for vaccine mandates.
Nevertheless, concerns have been raised in Germany that parliamentary debate and subsequent technical implementation of a vaccination database cannot be completed before June at the earliest, calling into question the feasibility of the mandate in light of rapidly changing conditions.
Such hesitation comes despite renewed calls from German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier for an immediate full parliamentary debate on a potential vaccine mandate, and from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for COVID vaccines to be mandated.
Similarly, German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach recently suggested vaccine mandates, not natural herd immunity stemming from the rapid spread of the Omicron variant — which he described as “dirty vaccination” — represent the only way “out” of the crisis.
In November 2021, Lauterbach’s predecessor, Jens Spahn, publicly predicted that by the end of the coming winter, everyone would be “vaccinated, recovered, or dead” — due to the Delta variant.
Soon thereafter, in December 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden made a similar warning, predicting a winter of “severe illness and death” for the non-vaccinated.
Despite these public proclamations from German politicians though, recent reports suggest support for a vaccine mandate in Germany’s three-party governing coalition is far from unanimous.
Nevertheless, some localities in Germany are moving ahead with their own innovative means of confirming individuals’ vaccination status.
The city of Saarbrücken will soon launch a system where individuals who received a COVID vaccine or who have recovered from infection can voluntarily wear a colored wristband to indicate their status.
Greece pushes ahead with age 60+ mandate policy, threatens fines for unvaxxed
Greece was one of the first countries in Europe to implement a vaccine mandate for a portion of its general population when, in December 2021, it imposed such a policy for everyone age 60 and over.
The policy is set to take effect Jan. 16, with fines of 100 euros per month levied against anyone who doesn’t comply.
Despite this policy, which has received broad and highly sensational media attention in Greece, and despite the burden the policy would place on pensioners in a country where the average pension is just over 700 euros per month, a significant number of individuals 60 and older appear to have opted to remain unvaccinated.
In late December 2021, it was reported that 400,000 people in this age group had not received the COVID vaccine.
In a televised appearance on Jan. 11, Greek government spokesperson Giannis Oikonomou stated that 200,000 people aged 60 and over had gotten vaccinated as a result of this mandate, touting this as a “big success.”
However, this would suggest approximately half of the relevant population in question had chosen to remain unvaccinated, despite the looming threat of a financial penalty.
It is perhaps, for this reason, the Greek government reportedly “froze” any further discussion of expanding the mandatory vaccination policy to those aged 50 and over, while it has been suggested the measure is unconstitutional and may eventually be struck down judicially.
However, despite rumors that the enforcement of fines against individuals 60 and older who have not been vaccinated would be postponed, Greece’s far-right Interior Minister Makis Voridis announced the policy would be enforced as originally planned.
Nevertheless, the Greek government will now extend existing measures, which include a midnight curfew and ban on music for dining and entertainment venues, and a 1,000-spectator capacity limit at sporting events, for at least an additional week past the original sunset date of Jan. 16.
In Balkans, protests lead to standstill on mandates
Major protests against the so-called “Green Pass,” or vaccine passport, took place recently in both Bulgaria and Romania.
In Bulgaria, protesters on Jan. 12 stormed the parliament building in opposition to the “Green Pass” and other restrictions. Attempts to enter parliament resulted in clashes with police and multiple arrests.
Similar events transpired recently in Romania, where on Dec. 21, 2021, protesters attempted to enter Romania’s parliament as part of a protest against proposed legislation making the “Green Pass” mandatory for workers.
Disagreements that have since followed between the parties which comprise Romania’s governing coalition have resulted in talks on this proposed policy coming to a standstill.
Notably, Bulgaria and Romania have the lowest and second-lowest COVID vaccination rate in the EU as of this writing.
Herd immunity as official policy?
As attempted moves toward wide-ranging vaccine mandates and broader implementation of vaccine passports appear to be floundering in Europe, such hesitation has increasingly been accompanied by ever more vocal suggestions that a form of herd immunity, via natural infection stemming from the rapid spread of the milder Omicron variant, should be considered at the policymaking level.
In Israel, for instance, a country that was among the first to move forward with a mass vaccination and booster campaign against COVID, health officials are mulling a “mass infection model.”
On Jan. 11, EU regulators, who had previously supported the administration of COVID booster shots every three months, had a sudden about-face, warning about the dangers the continued administration of boosters could pose for the human immune system.
That same day, the World Health Organization issued a remarkably similar warning, stating that “a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”
Just one day prior, on Jan. 10, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez suggested European officials should move towards treating COVID as an endemic illness, calling for a debate on the issue and for a move away from the detailed pandemic case tracking system in place since early 2020.
Dr. Clive Dix, former chairman of the UK’s vaccine task force, Nick Moakes, chief investment officer of the Wellcome Trust (Britain’s largest independent funder of medical research) made similar remarks. Moakes suggested coronavirus be treated like the common cold.
Meanwhile, certain European countries appear to be shifting away from considering a mandatory vaccination policy for their populations. Irish Prime Minister Michael Martin said his country will maintain a system of voluntary vaccination, while Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said his intention to give people a “free choice” on the matter.
This shift is occurring despite remarks made on Dec. 1, 2021, by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU Commission, who said it is time to “potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union” and to have a “discussion” about this possibility.
Punitive measures continue elsewhere
The gradual shift away from vaccine mandate policies in Europe and elsewhere is far from uniform, with punitive restrictions and policies continuing to be implemented in several countries.
In Italy, for instance, mandatory vaccination was expanded on Jan. 5 to everyone age 50 and older. The unvaxxed will face a potential fine ranging from 600 to 1,500 euros.
French President Emmanuel Macron made waves in an interview with the Le Parisien newspaper on Jan. 4, justifying the implementation of his country’s “Green Pass” by stating “I really want to piss them off, and we’ll carry on doing this — to the end” and that “irresponsible people [the unvaccinated] are no longer citizens.”
Despite uproar and protests that his comments generated, Macron later doubled down on these remarks.
On Jan. 11, the premier of the Canadian province of Quebec, Francois Legault, stated adults who refuse the COVID vaccine will face a “significant” financial penalty.
This statement came on the heels of remarks made on Jan. 7 by Canadian Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos. When asked whether mandatory vaccination was on the horizon in Canada, Duclos stated, “I personally think we will get there at some point.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau previously stated, in May 2021, that “[w]e’re not a country that makes vaccination mandatory.”
Other countries have resorted to more extreme, albeit “temporary,” measures.
Non-vaccinated individuals in one Australian state, the Northern Territory, were recently required to stay home for a four-day period, with limited exceptions. The conclusion of this four-day ban coincided with the launch of vaccine passports in the territory.
And in the Philippines, the country’s president, Rodrigo Duterte, called for the arrest of non-vaccinated citizens who venture outside their homes, in light of what he described as the “galloping” spread of the coronavirus.
This nevertheless may represent a milder stance on the part of Duterte, who in April 2020, empowered the police and military with shoot-to-kill orders against lockdown violators.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.
Featured image is from CHD
January 18th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Once again, the West seems to be creating arguments to justify the implementation of coercive measures against Russia. A cyberattack against Kiev allegedly occurred last week has been making headlines around the world. Now, the Ukrainian government claims to have proof that the attack has Russian involvement – although no details have been provided so far as to what such “proof” would be. Apparently, NATO and Kiev are ready to turn cyberspace into a new focus of their anti-Russian campaigns.
An alleged cyberattack against Ukraine took place in the early hours of Friday last week, leaving several official government systems inaccessible. For a few hours, the websites of several Ukrainian ministries were absolutely offline. On some of the hacked sites, some messages appeared warning Ukrainians to “expect the worst”. In addition to ministries, virtual databases of many government offices were hacked, but according to information published by the Ministry of Digital Transformation, there was no leakage of personal data of government officials, being the damage limited to the operability of the websites.
The alleged “attack” generated immediate worldwide repercussions. Governments and international organizations around the world have published notes repudiating the hackers’ attitude. The European Union, the US, pro-Western governments, and NATO reinforced their desire to “help” Kiev to strengthen its cyber defense system.
NATO’s Secretary Jen Stoltenberg published the following words about the case:
“I strongly condemn the cyber attacks on the Ukrainian Government. NATO has worked closely with Ukraine for years to help boost its cyber defenses (…) In the coming days, NATO and Ukraine will sign an agreement on enhanced cyber cooperation, including access to NATO’s Ukrainian malware information sharing platform. NATO’s strong political and practical support for Ukraine will continue”.
In the same sense, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki also commented on the case, saying:
“We are also in touch with Ukrainians and have offered our support as Ukraine investigates the impact and nature and recovers from the incident”.
In Europe, on the other hand, the comments were more aggressive and tried to blame Russia. EU top diplomat Josep Borrell said:
“We are going to mobilize all our resources to help Ukraine to tackle this cyber attack. Sadly, we knew it could happen (…) It’s difficult to say (who is behind it). I can’t blame anybody as I have no proof, but we can imagine”.
By saying “we can imagine”, Borrell was certainly referring to Russia. Also, something similar has been said by Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Lind, who commented directly on the possibility of Russian involvement, saying words in a threatening tone:
“we have to be very firm in our messages to Russia: that if there are attacks against Ukraine, we will be very harsh and very strong and robust in our response”.
Later, on Sunday, Kiev definitively adopted the rhetoric that had been previously promoted by Europeans, blaming Russia. Ukrainian digital transformation ministry Mykhailo Fedorov said that “all the evidence points to Russia being behind the cyber-attack”. Evidently, this is a suspicion that could arise at any moment, considering that the attack took place amid tensions between Russia and Ukraine and that cyber operations are a common military tactic in contemporary warfare. The problem in this case is that no details were provided on what such “evidence” would be. Kiev simply believes that Moscow operated the attacks because it is a “plausible” suspect, considering the fact that these are rival countries, but no material evidence has been presented so far, which makes the narrative very weak.
If Kiev and the West accuse Russia of involvement in the attack, it is up to them to prove the allegations. The burden of proof for the accuser is a universal principle of justice that cannot be ignored in diplomatic relations. Furthermore, in the same way that cyber-attacks are common practice in contemporary warfare (which would make the Russian involvement narrative plausible), self-sabotage operations and “false flag attacks” are also constantly practiced in current conflicts between states, which makes it plausible that Kiev or some other western government operated the hacking attack in order to blame Russia and tighten security measures against Moscow – and the fact that there was no data leakage in the attack can be considered an evidence in this regard, as such leakage would not be of interest in a false flag operation.
Indeed, there are many possibilities, and it would be wrong to accuse either side without prior investigations. However, unfortunately, what we can expect going forward is that the anti-Russian narrative, despite being weak, will be considered sufficient for NATO to harden the measures against Russia and start a campaign of cyber warfare. Increasingly, cyberspace can be considered a new battlefield, as important as land, sea, air, and outer space.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
January 18th, 2022 by Michael Snyder
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Did anyone out there actually expect things to turn out differently? When the federal government kept borrowing and spending trillions upon trillions of dollars that we did not have, we were warned that this day was coming. And when the Federal Reserve kept pumping trillions upon trillions of fresh dollars into our financial system, we were warned that this day was coming. So why is anybody surprised by what is happening at this point? On Wednesday, it was being reported that in December the U.S. consumer price index rose at the fastest pace in nearly 40 years…
Inflation rose at the fastest pace in nearly four decades in December, as rapid price gains fueled consumer fears about the economy and sent President Biden’s approval rating tumbling.
The consumer price index rose 7% in December from a year ago, according to a new Labor Department report released Wednesday, marking the fastest increase since June 1982, when inflation hit 7.1%. The CPI – which measures a bevy of goods ranging from gasoline and health care to groceries and rents – jumped 0.5% in the one-month period from November.
They keep telling us that the consumer price index was actually increasing at a faster rate back in 1982, but whenever the corporate media makes such a claim they are not being honest.
The way that the consumer price index is calculated has been changed more than two dozen times since 1980, and every single time it has been changed the goal was to make the rate of inflation look smaller.
According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, if the consumer price index was still calculated the way it was back in 1990, the official rate of inflation would be above 10 percent right now.
And if the consumer price index was still calculated the way it was back in 1980, the official rate of inflation would be above 15 percent right now.
But 7 percent sounds a whole lot better than 15 percent, doesn’t it?
We can get a better picture of what is really going on out there when we start looking at individual categories. The following category numbers were posted earlier today by Citizen Free Press…
Unfortunately, it looks like the price of gasoline will soon go even higher.
In fact, Reuters is telling us that some analysts are projecting that the price of oil could soon exceed 100 dollars a barrel…
Oil prices that rallied 50% in 2021 will power further ahead this year, some analysts predict, saying a lack of production capacity and limited investment in the sector could lift crude to $90 or even above $100 a barrel.
It takes energy to transport virtually all of the goods that we purchase on a regular basis, and so a higher price for gasoline will cause inflationary pressure throughout our entire economy.
Some companies are responding to this crisis by giving their customers less for the same price that they were charging before.
For example, if you order chicken wings from Domino’s Pizza you will only get a package of eight from now on…
Domino’s Pizza customers ordering chicken wings will soon get fewer of them for the same price.
The pizza chain said it’s cutting the number of wings in its $7.99 carry out offer from 10 pieces to just eight because of rising food and labor costs. Wings will also become an online exclusive, meaning customers can no longer order them via phone.
All around us, there is evidence that our standard of living is rapidly going down.
The cost of living is increasing much, much faster than paychecks are, and that is an extremely alarming trend. According to Zero Hedge, real average hourly earnings have now declined for 9 months in a row…
Finally, and perhaps most importantly for Main Street, real average hourly earnings fell (down 2.4% YoY) for the 9th straight month…
So the next time a politician tries to tell you to be grateful that your wages are going up or you can move to a new higher paying job, just remind him that the surge in the cost of living is outpacing wage gains, thanks to The Fed’s money-largesse and Congress’ lockdown policies and helicopter money have crushed the quality of life for millions.
In other words, most Americans are getting poorer.
Meanwhile, the appalling nationwide shortages that have erupted continue to make headlines all over the nation.
According to USA Today, the following are some of the most severe shortages that we are witnessing right now…
And it turns out that fear of Omicron has also sparked a really bad shortage of cold medicine…
Stores in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are facing cold medicine shortages as flu season picks up and the omicron variant of the coronavirus continues.
“The new toilet paper shortage,” an employee at an East Dallas pharmacy told Fox 4 of the empty shelves.
One pharmacist at a CVS location in East Dallas said that customers with symptoms appearing to be the coronavirus or flu have been buying up cold medicine and cough syrup, while others are coming in to just stock up.
So if you were thinking of stocking up on Benadryl for some reason, I would go out and grab some while you still can.
The corporate media seems absolutely stunned that our politicians in Washington and the magicians at the Federal Reserve have lost control of our economy.
But we were warned for years that what they were doing would kill the U.S. dollar, and the death spiral that we have now entered is going to become exceedingly painful.
What we are experiencing now is not just another short-term economic crisis.
This truly is the beginning of the end for the U.S. economy, and I would recommend that you prepare accordingly.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Michael Snyder has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, which are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.
Featured image is from TEC
January 18th, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
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. Paul Craig Roberts was interviewed by GEOFOR on US-Russia talks.
GEOFOR: Dear Mr. Roberts, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. So, the Russian-American diplomatic marathon, which lasted for a whole week, is over. And as many, including yourself, predicted, the bilateral meeting and negotiations in the format of NATO and the OSCE ended in nothing. The parties simply fixed their positions. However, some Russian analysts believe that the only result of these contacts was that the united West and, first of all, the United States, for the first time in thirty years, still “condescended” or were forced to condescend to talk with Russia on equal terms. What, in your opinion, prompted Washington and its satellites to do this?
Paul Craig Roberts: Russians are always looking for a silver lining, this time that the US condescended to talk with Russia on equal terms. The US did no such thing. Washington used the talks to elevate the propaganda against Russia as, for example, Undersecretary of State Nuland’s denunciation of Russia.
The talks did not end in nothing. The talks confirmed the Kremlin’s belief that Washington would not accommodate Russia’s security concern and that Russia would be forced to look for solutions outside of diplomacy.
GEOFOR: It seems that the world is no longer preparing to enter, but is entering a new geopolitical reality, where Russia has learned to quickly resolve crises in different parts of the world, be it Syria, Belarus or Kazakhstan. What do you think is the reason for such transformations – is it a consequence of Moscow’s “muscle building” or the result of a reduction in the capabilities of the United States?
Paul Craig Roberts: It is a consequence of the Kremlin awakening to the fact that Russia’s role for Washington is to serve as the necessary enemy for the profits of the US military/security complex and as the threat that guarantees Washington’s control over Europe. For too long Russians believed all the nice democratic slogans that Washington expresses but does not believe.
GEOFOR: Although Russia has made its position public well in advance, moreover, it has made available a draft document listing Moscow’s demands point by point, as well as the obligations that it is ready to assume, it seems that the United States and its NATO partners have not taken the trouble to familiarize themselves with them. At least, judging by the statements for the press, instead of discussing security issues on the European continent, the American side tried with all its might to reduce the discussion to the issue of Ukraine’s accession to the alliance and the deployment of offensive weapons on its territory. What is the reason for this, if we may say so, misunderstanding? Is it the desire to delay negotiations? If so, for what purposes? Or is the problem something else?
Paul Craig Roberts: It most certainly is not a misunderstanding. It was a propaganda opportunity for Washington and its NATO puppets. Russia is the necessary enemy. Therefore, Washington will never acknowledge that Russia has a valid case about anything.
GEOFOR: Speaking of the Ukraine, which was the top priority topic for American negotiators. Do you rule out that Washington is playing out a scenario under which Kiev would decide on a military conflict in the Donbas or Crimea, and Moscow would be forced to respond with the use of force? In this case the United States and its allies, on the one hand, would increase the volume of military assistance (this week the Congress authorized the allocation of an additional $ 500 million), but at the same time they have declared that neither the United States nor NATO would go to war for the Ukraine. For the current Ukrainian leadership, with the country going through a deep economic and political crisis, an armed conflict might be the last chance to retain power and regain the favor of the West. Moreover, regardless of who would unleash the conflict, Russia would immediately be declared an “aggressor”.
Paul Craig Roberts: For Washington Ukraine is a tool to be used against Russia. Whether Ukraine becomes a member of NATO and hosts missile bases on Russia’s border or whether Ukraine invades Donbass and causes Russian intervention makes little difference to Washington. If the former, then Washington has more ability to intimidate Russia. If the latter, Washington has a result that proves its propaganda and solidifies its hold on Europe and strengthens Americans’ belief that Russia is a dangerous threat.
GEOFOR: And now on the background against which the Russian-American discussion took place. Speaking politely, Washington was not shy in their expressions. We are not talking about the press and political pundits, the Lord is their judge. But some officials were not inferior to them. For example, after the talks in Geneva, Victoria Nuland blamed Moscow for fomenting the crisis between Russia and the United States, simultaneously accusing it of lying and misinforming. And after the Brussels meeting, the same lady, who holds the post of Under Secretary of State, said that Washington was working with Germany and the EU to slow down the commissioning of Nord Stream 2. But this did not seem enough for her, so she said that the United States was ready to discuss with Finland and Sweden the issue of their accession to NATO, which, judging by the reaction of Helsinki and Stockholm, caused some consternation in these countries. Why and who needs it? Raising the stakes on the eve of negotiations is a common thing for politicians and diplomats. But why do it when negotiations have already begun? Or is it just a deficit or lack of professionalism and, we are sorry to say, culture and education?
Paul Craig Roberts: Washington cannot make it any clearer that Russia is in the way of US hegemony and that Washington intends to remove the Russian constraint on US hegemony via intimidation and destabilization. It seems that this has finally been realized by the Kremlin if not by the Russian media.
GEOFOR: Currently, the Russian leadership is waiting for a written response from the American side to its proposals, which, as promised, should be provided next week. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the members of the same party as President J. Biden have prepared a draft of new sanctions, including ones against President Vladimir Putin, as well as the Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs, major banks, etc. As the Russian Ambassador to the United States Mr. Antonov noted in this regard, if they are adopted, it will mean the rupture of diplomatic relations between our countries. In these circumstances, what could be the response from the White House and the State Department? Is it possible to expect at least something constructive in it, giving a reason to continue the dialogue that has begun?
Paul Craig Roberts: No dialogue has begun. Washington used the talks to make completely clear to Russia that Washington could not care less about Russia’s security concern, that Washington wants and intends Russia to be insecure and will be working to make Russia more insecure.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on GEOFOR.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, and is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from magyarhirlap.hu
January 18th, 2022 by WholeHearted Media
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.
***
Thank you all for your love and prayers, they are working! Please keep them coming.
It took some time but we finally finished editing the “Knowledge is Liberating” course put on in the summer time with Rocco. The course is jam packed with info and real life scenarios. Many people were asking where they could access it. Pls go to WholeHeartedmedia.ca and click on courses for more info or follow this link.
Lastly, thank you for the concern. Please refrain from worrying and sending us personal DM’s asking about Rocco’s condition. That info is private. Keep in mind medical privacy is a large part of what is and has been fought for the last 2 years.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
January 18th, 2022 by Jeremy Kuzmarov
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.
***
Everyone knows that James Earl Ray shot Martin Luther King, Jr., right? The U.S. government says so. All the school textbooks say so. And it is enshrined as unquestioned gospel in the pages of Wikipedia.
But the official story is full of holes. Instead, mounting evidence suggests that King may have been murdered as part of a conspiracy planned and/or abetted by the FBI in coordination with local Memphis police personnel. In this scenario, Ray served as a patsy, like critics allege Lee Harvey Oswald was in the JFK assassination. The real shooter, according to these accounts, struck King not from the boardinghouse bathroom—allegedly from where Ray shot him—but from bushes behind the Lorraine Motel—the King assassination’s version of the grassy knoll.
This article lays out that evidence—as it may soon be laid out in court and a congressional committee—if the King family’s demands to reopen the murder investigation continue to gain traction. What follows is a reconstruction of the events leading up to King’s murder, and the subsequent purported attempts by local and national government officials to cover up their involvement and pin it on a patsy named James Earl Ray.
At 6:01 p.m. on April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr., was struck in the face by a bullet as he was leaning over the balcony of his room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee.
An hour later he was declared dead at nearby St. Joseph’s Hospital.
King had come to Memphis as part of his poor people’s campaign to support a sanitation workers strike. The civil rights leader was increasingly promoting socialist views, had become more outspoken in criticizing the war in Vietnam and had been running for president on an anti-war ticket with Benjamin Spock.[1]
King marching with striking sanitation workers in Memphis on March 28, 1968. [Source: ratical.org]
After King had given a speech denouncing the Vietnam War at New York’s Riverside Church one year before his assassination, U.S. Army spies recorded Black radical Stokely Carmichael warning him: “The man don’t care you call ghettos concentration camps, but when you tell him his war machine is nothing but hired killers, you got trouble.”
Carmichael, unfortunately, was right.
Lone Assassin?
Police authorities fingered James Earl Ray—a career criminal from Alton, Illinois, who had escaped from the Jefferson City, Missouri, penitentiary in April 1967—as the lone assassin.[2]
On May 6, 1968, syndicated columnist Drew Pearson wrote that the FBI was conducting “perhaps the most painstaking, exhaustive manhunt ever before undertaken in the United States. Its G-men have checked every bar ever patronized by James Earl Ray, every flop house he ever stopped at, every cantina in Mexico, he ever visited. It has collected an amazing array of evidence, all linking Ray with the murder.”[3]
Ray was supposedly motivated by race hate. He allegedly began stalking Dr. King on the weekend of March 17 in Los Angeles, arriving in Memphis on April 3 with the murder weapon and booking into a seedy rooming house owned by Bessie Brewer above Jim’s Grill right across from the Lorraine Motel.[4]
Photo of rooming house above Jim’s Grill. [Source: tpaak.com]
Just before 6:00 p.m., Ray barricaded himself in a communal bathroom from where he pointed his rifle outside the window and shot King.
Afterwards in haste, Ray neglected to eject the spent cartridge. Back in his room, he wrapped his rifle along with an overnight bag in a bedspread and ran outside.
Ray was then spotted by another tenant in the rooming house, Charles Quitman Stephens—the state’s chief prosecution witness—who said that he saw Ray running out.
When Ray saw a stream of police cars rushing to the scene, he panicked, and dropped the bedspread with the rifle in the doorway of the Canipe Amusement Company on South Main Street.
Bedspread with rifle dropped by Ray allegedly in panic outside the Canipe Amusement Company. [Source: tpaak.com]
He then fled in a white Mustang, making his way first to Atlanta, where he ditched the car, and then to Toronto, where he hid for a month, and then to Portugal and England, where he was apprehended two months later by authorities trying to board a flight to Brussels.
Ray’s fingerprints had been found on the gun that allegedly killed King, scope, binoculars, beer can, and a copy of the Memphis Commercial Appeal dropped in the bundle.
At his trial, Ray pled guilty and was sentenced to 99 years in prison.
House Select Committee on Assassinations and 1999 Civil Trial
The 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)—which was convened to investigate the King and Kennedy assassinations—alleged that Ray carried out the killing to collect a bounty from two St. Louis racists, both dead at the time.
House Select Committee on Assassinations. [Source: wikiwand.com]
In 2012, G. Robert Blakey, staff director to the HSCA, said, however, that he had been deceived by the CIA—which had failed to inform him that a government liaison to the HSCA, George Joannides, had a CIA background. Blakey told the Jackson, Mississippi,Clarion-Ledger that “thoughtful people today, not just nuts, think that more people than James Earl Ray were involved [in King’s killing].”[5]
In 1999, a mixed-race jury presiding over a wrongful death civil suit by the King family in Memphis reached a unanimous verdict that King was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy involving the U.S. government.
King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, said afterwards that “there is abundant evidence of a major, high-level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband.” The jury found that the mafia and various local, state, and federal government agencies “were deeply involved in the assassination…. Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame.”[6]
Case Not Closed
Three days after his sentencing, Ray fired his mob-connected attorney, Percy Foreman, and said that he was pressured into pleading guilty and had been set up as a patsy.[7] Foreman was given 60% royalty rights on a book about Ray by William Bradford Huie, which would not have sold if it were about a non-assassin.[8]
The FBI was never able to match the bullet that killed King with the rifle allegedly left by Ray on the steps of the Canipe Amusement Company.
Remington rifle that allegedly killed King; the bullets, however, were never matched to the fatal one that killed King. [Source: gunsamerica.com]
Ray’s fingerprints were also never identified in the room he had rented at the rooming house.
A well-known crime scene investigator determined that the shot from the rooming house bathroom could not have struck King unless Ray had hung out the window or smashed a ten-inch-deep hole in the wall for his rifle to fit into—the angles were all wrong.[9]
Memphis police officer Vernon Dollahite said that he arrived on Main Street within one minute and fifty seconds of King’s shooting and did not see a fleeing Mustang or hear screeching tires, raising doubt that Ray could have gathered his stuff, dropped it in front of the Canipe Amusement Company—a detour from his car—and gotten away to escape notice by Dollahite.[10]
Ray’s decision to drop the bedsheet supposedly resulted from his panic at seeing a parked police car after exiting the boarding house. However, the car would have been blocked by a hedge which was cut down the day after King’s death.[11]
According to Guy Canipe, the bedsheet was dropped on the steps of Canipe Amusement Company approximately two to five minutes before King was shot. Canipe described the person dropping the bundle as having a “chunky build”—which did not match Ray.[12]
Ray’s old prison radio—which could be seen outside the bundle—supposedly fell out when the bundle was tossed in the doorway; however, it was not on its side, visibly cracked or broken.[13]
The rifle was also packed tightly—which a panicked killer in a hurry to get away could not have done.[14]
The prosecution’s main witness, Charles Quitman Stephens, had been arrested 155 times mostly for alcoholism and was dead drunk at the time of the shooting, according to his wife, landlady, a homicide detective who interviewed him (Tommy Smith) and a cab driver who picked him up.[15]
He was looking to obtain a $100,000 reward for identifying the slayer of King. Later, when shown a photo of Ray by a CBS journalist, Stephens said that he was not the man he had observed running out of the boarding house.[16]
Stephens’s cab driver, James McCraw, said the hall bathroom was open and bathroom empty as he approached and left Stephens’s room—indicating that the shots did not come from there.[17]
Stephens’s common-law wife, Grace Walden, also said that she heard the shot come from outside her window in the rooming house, which opened onto the bushy area between the rooming house and motel.[18] The only man she saw coming out of the rooming house was short with “salt and pepper hair,” wearing an open army jacket and plaid sports shirt—which did not fit Ray.[19]
Two Mustangs and Ray’s Alibi
When he was picking up Stephens, James McCraw said he noticed a delivery van and two white Mustangs parked within 50 yards of each other, one in front of Jim’s Grill, the other just south of the Canipe Amusement Company.[20]
Another witness, Charles Hurley, told Ray attorney William Pepper that, after arriving to pick up his wife at the rooming house at 4:45 p.m., he pulled up behind a Mustang with Arkansas plates parked in front of the rooming house and south of the Canipe amusement store.
Ray’s Mustang had Alabama plates and was parked north of the Canipe store.[21]
Ray said that he got into the car between 5:45 and 5:50 p.m. and went to a local service station to have a spare tire repaired—meaning that he was not at the rooming house when King was killed.
However, his brother, John Larry Ray, said that James lied and was waiting in his Mustang for his handler Raoul at the time King was shot, believing he was to be the getaway driver for some job.
Shortly after he heard the shot that killed King, Raoul jumped into the backseat of his vehicle and put a sheet over his head, and Ray drove off. After a few blocks, Raoul jumped out of the car and fled and Ray drove all night to Atlanta.[22]
After making his way to Canada, Ray was assisted financially by a mysterious “fat man,”who provided him with money in Toronto. Researcher Peter Dale Scott suggests that it was planned for Ray to be apprehended after Robert Kennedy’s assassination to enable a restoration of confidence in the government in the wake of such a tragic event and the rioting that had followed King’s killing.
An Unlikely Assassin
Ray did not have a clear motive for killing King apart from a possible financial one. He could never have survived on the lam after his prison escape and in the two months after the King assassination without outside support. Ray had received money not only for travel and lodging, but also for fake identities, plastic surgery, and even dance and bartending classes and hypnosis.
A strong anti-communist who was otherwise apolitical, Ray was painted in the media as a racist. However, people close to him said he had had a Black girlfriend, and that evidence was planted by police to make him appear to be a racist when he was not.[23]
Most significantly, Ray had no expertise in firearms. During a stint in the Army, he was trained with an M-1 and obtained only the lowest level of ability.[24] The salesman who sold him the alleged murder weapon in Birmingham—which he had been told to buy by the mysterious Raoul (discussed below)—said that Ray “did not seem to know anything at all about firearms, I mean nothing.”[25]
Shot from the Bushes
King’s chauffeur Solomon Jones and Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) attorney Chauncey Eskridge, who were both looking at King when he died, said they saw King’s body lurch upwards when he was shot—and not downward—indicating that the shot could not have come from the rooming house bathroom.
Instead, it must have come from the bushes behind Jim’s Grill and between the rooming house and motel.
View from Lorraine Motel balcony that shows brush area from where witnesses claimed the shots were fired. [Source: tpaak.com]
Ray’s first lawyer, Arthur Hanes, Sr., noticed tree branches that would have been a formidable obstacle to shooting King from the rooming house bathroom—though these branches were cut down the next day by police to try to cover this up.[26]
Several eyewitnesses reported seeing a man crouching in the bushes and running away afterward, and a sound like a firecracker coming from the bushes.[27]
Harold “Cornbread” Carter, who was drinking wine in the bushes, told investigators that he saw a man wearing a high-necked white sweater run away after with a long gun in his handafter he had heard a loud bang from the bushes.[28]
Olivia Catling said that she saw a fireman standing near the wall below the bushes yelling at the police that the shot came from the clump of bushes above the area where he was standing—but the police ignored him.[29]
Source: muckrock.com
Reverend James Orange said that he saw smoke “rise from the bushes right by the fire station” seconds after the shot.[30] The smoke was most likely sonic dust rising from the bushes caused by the firing of a high-powered rifle in the heavily vegetated area.[31]
Orange and a reporter, Kay Black, also alleged that the brush area was cut and cleared back the morning after the shooting, along with the inconveniently placed tree branch that blocked a clear shot from the rooming house.
The pre-dawn clean-up request, according to Maynard Stiles, deputy director of the Memphis City Public Works Department in 1968, came from the Memphis Police Department early on the morning of April 5.[32]
Suspicious Happenings
The night before King’s killing, the only two Black firemen in the Memphis Fire Department (MFD), Norvell E. Wallace and Floyd E. Newsum, were ordered not to report the next day to their posts at Fire Station No. 2 overlooking the Lorraine Motel.[33]
The Memphis Police Department (MPD) failed to form the usual security squad of black detectives for Dr. King and withdrew other key police security units to a position five blocks away from the Lorraine Motel on April 4—a key factor that enabled the assassin(s) to get away.[34]
Black detective Ed Redditt was removed from his surveillance post about an hour before King’s shooting and placed in home confinement after the FBI had warned MPD of an assassination attempt directed against him—by the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party—which proved to be phony and served as a diversion.[35]
Just before King was shot, someone else called in a hoax from downtown that drew police attention to the northeastern side of the city.[36]
This hoax indicated an organized plot and that Ray could not have been a lone assassin.
Loyd Jowers and Jim’s Grill.
Taxi driver James McCraw told William Pepper that, on the morning after the shooting, Loyd Jowers, the owner of Jim’s Grill, showed him a rifle in a box on a shelf under the counter, which he said he had “found out back after the killing.”
This account was corroborated by Betty Spates, a young Black waitress at Jim’s Grill who implicated Jowers, her former lover, in the murder.
Spates said that, after hearing what sounded like a shot, she saw him run into the kitchen from the brush carrying a rifle. His hair was in disarray, and the knees of his trousers were wet and muddy as though he had been kneeling in the soggy grass or brush areas.[37]
Jowers then wrapped his rifle in a tablecloth, put it under his apron, and slipped into the café behind the counter where he discreetly placed the rifle under a shelf and then asked customer Harold Parker, a taxi driver, if he heard anything.
The shooting had only happened one minute earlier. Subsequently, a sheriff’s deputy came in and ordered Jowers to lock Jim’s Grill and keep everyone inside.
Jowers later admitted to Willie Akins, his right-hand man, that he was the figure in the bushes—though he said someone else was the shooter.[38] Akins said that his job was to kill this shooter who ran off to Florida before he could “pop him.”[39]
Jowers had been a Memphis police officer from 1946 to 1948 who went into business running clubs and then bars and restaurants.
Bill Hamblin, James McCraw’s roommate, testified at the 1999 civil trial that McCraw had told him that Jowers had not only showed him the rifle that killed King but told him to get rid of it. McCraw in turn said that he drove on to the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge and threw it off.[40]
Frank Liberto and Carlos Marcello
John McFerren, a civil rights leader in 1968, told William Pepper how he heard Frank Liberto from the back of his store before King’s death say, “I told you not to call me here. Shoot the son of a bitch when he comes on the balcony.”[41]
Liberto—a member of the Carlos Marcello crime family—told the caller he should collect his money—$5,000 was mentioned—from Liberto’s brother in New Orleans.
Frank Holt, a Black produce truck unloader whom Jowers had falsely tried to blame at one point for the murder, heard Liberto say to one of the “big-wheels” at the M.E. Carter Produce Company during the sanitation strike that “King is a trouble-maker and he should be killed. If he is killed, then he will cause no more trouble.”[42]
Lavada Whitlock Addison, the manager of a pizza parlor near Liberto’s home, said that, one day between 1976 and 1982, Liberto leaned forward and told her, “I had Dr. Martin Luther King killed.”[43]
Earl Clark and Marrell McCollough
Jowers identified the assassin as Memphis Police Lieutenant Earl Clark—who was regarded as the best shot on the MPD and was close to Liberto.[44] Afterwards, Clark allegedly scaled down a wall adjacent to the Lorraine Motel before jumping into an escape vehicle.[45]
Clark was involved in planning sessions at Jim’s Grill to prepare for the assassination with five other men, only two of whom Jowers could identify.
One of the men, unbeknownst to Jowers, was an undercover police officer and agent provocateur, Marrell McCollough, who was assigned to the MPD from the 11th Military Intelligence Group.
Born in Mississippi, McCollough had served in the military police in Vietnam and went on to work for the CIA in Central or South America. At the time of King’s slaying, McCollough was posing as a member of the Invaders, a militant Black political group, which gave him access to King and his circle. He was identified as the mysterious figure kneeling over Dr. King after he was shot.[46]
Frank Strausser
In April 2003, Lenny Curtis, a custodian at the MPD shooting range, identified King’s killer to William Pepper as MPD patrolman Frank Strausser. Curtis said that about four or five months before King’s death, he heard Strausser—a Vietnam veteran with a reputation for beating up Black people—say in the lounge of the rifle range that “somebody was going to blow [King’s] motherfucking brains out.”
Curtis identified Strausser as being in the gun range firing a rifle all day the day before and day of King’s assassination. At around 2:30 p.m., Memphis Mayor Henry Loeb (D), MPD Chief Frank Holloman (discussed below) and a number of MPD officers including Earl Clark—whom Curtis identified as the spotter in King’s shooting—went into a meeting in a room in the rifle range. Strausser then left around 3:30 p.m. wearing a white shirt and pair of sunglasses carrying the assassination rifle in a red Chevrolet convertible.[47]
After the killing, investigators identified a size 13 shoe print in the bush behind the Lorraine Motel. In October 2013, Pepper interviewed Strausser and got him to admit that he wore a size 13 shoe.[48]
Ray’s Intelligence Background
Ray’s brother John Larry believes that his brother’s role as a patsy in the King killing had been planned for many years and originated with his Army service at the end of World War II.
After enlisting in 1946 at the age of 17, Ray served in the 7892nd Infantry Regiment and as a military policeman with the 382nd Military Police Battalion in Nuremburg, Germany. Subsequently, Ray was recruited into the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He told John Larry that, “when you join the OSS, it’s like joining the Mafia, you never leave.”[49]
Researcher Lyndon Barsten was told by an intelligence officer that four-digit Army units like the 7892nd Infantry Regiment were “often used for cover.”[50] The unit was based in Frankfurt, Germany—the European headquarters of the CIA, housed in the old I.G. Farben building which had been spared during the Allied bombing. Ray was given two serial numbers—which further indicated he was involved in something secret.[51]
According to John Larry, James was haunted by an incident when he was in the military police when he shot a Black soldier named Washington who was accused of beating up Jews and raping an officer’s family member—which was not true. James had been given lumbar punctures (or spinal taps) by Army doctors which can be used to administer drugs.
Gaps in Ray’s military record further lead to suspicion that he was an unwitting victim of mind-control drug experiments carried out under the CIA’s MK-ULTRA—which may have caused him to shoot the Black soldier.
FBI documents show that Ray saw two hypnotists in Los Angeles after his Army service was completed, one of whom, Xavier von Koss, had been an Army intelligence officer and was likely brought over under Operation Paperclip (which brought Nazi scientists to the U.S.).[52]
James had told his family that the Feds were “messing with his mind,” and his father felt that he had been drugged.[53]
Between 1949 and 1952, James served as an undercover operator for FBI investigations into communists in Chicago, earning him the nickname “the Mole.”[54]
When Ray was arrested after committing a robbery, an intelligence operative was spotted in the rooming house where he was staying. There is a possibility that he was there because the government wanted Ray locked up so they could use him in a later operation—knowing he was a controllable personality.[55]
Jeff City Escape
There is no better patsy than an escaped prisoner because he cannot go to the police for assistance and is dependent on his contacts for survival.
On April 23, 1967, Ray escaped from the Missouri State Penitentiary at Jefferson City, where he was serving a 20-year sentence, by hiding in a breadbox in the back of a bakery truck.
The director of the Missouri State Prison system at the time, Fred T. Wilkinson, was a U.S. intelligence operative who handled the famous May 1960 spy exchange between U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers, whose plane had been shot down over the Soviet Union, and a Soviet Colonel, Rudolf Abel, who had been imprisoned for setting up a spy network in the U.S.[56]
The warden at Jeff City, Harold Swenson, also had an intelligence background. His predecessor, E.V. Nash, was said to have committed suicide—though the gun that killed him was found in a separate room in his house than his body.[57]
After a failed escape attempt, Ray was seen by Dr. Donald B. Peterson, head of psychiatry for the Army’s Far East Command during the Korean War, the height of the brainwashing era. Peterson prescribed Ray with Librium, a drug listed in government documents as one used to strengthen narco-hypnosis.[58]
Gene Barnes, a former inmate at Jeff City, signed an affidavit in the late 1970s which said that he had been told by Warden Donald Wyrick that Wyrick, Wilkinson and Swenson had allowed James to escape Jeff City so that the feds could later use him as the fall guy in King’s assassination.[59]
The fingerprints the prison sent out after James’s escape were not his; they had been switched by Wilkinson and Swenson with another man’s—meaning that if Ray had been captured, the police would have had to set him free.
When Wilkinson retired, the inmate who talked Ray into escaping, Ronnie Westberg, committed “suicide” by hanging himself, though he was discovered with broken arms and legs, pointing to foul play.[60]
The Mystery of Raoul
After James’s escape, he came in contact with a mysterious figure named Raoul, who provided Ray with phony documents in Montreal, Canada, after the two met at the Neptune Bar.
In exchange for the documents, Raoul had Ray assist him in smuggling contraband across the border and then sent Ray to Birmingham, Alabama, where he purchased a 1966 white Mustang and a telescopic rifle that appears to have served as the fake murder weapon.[61]
In Montreal, Ray was given the identity of Eric St. Vincent Galt—who happened to be a highly placed Canadian operative of U.S. Army intelligence.[62]
Galt ran a warehouse for Union Carbide which housed a top-secret munitions project funded by the CIA, the U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center, and the Army Electronics Research and Development Command.[63]
At 3 p.m. on April 4, Ray met Raoul at Jim’s Grill where he was told to go to the rooming house next to the Lorraine Motel. He then waited for him after the shooting and helped him flee from the scene, before Raoul jumped out of the car and abandoned him to his fate.[64]
Raoul’s real name may have been J.C. Harden, a man Ray had been in contact with and was believed to be an FBI snitch, or Raoul Coelho, a Portuguese immigrant identified by Glenda Grabow, or Raoul Esquivel whose number Ray called.
Esquivel was tracked by a Los Angeles Times reporter to a Louisiana State police barracks in the New Orleans-Baton Rouge area, a well-known staging ground for CIA-sponsored guerrilla operations against Fidel Castro.[65]
Jules Ricco Kimble, a convicted killer who worked for organized crime, the Klu Klux Klan and CIA in the French separatist struggle in Quebec, told investigators that he flew Ray to Montreal and brought him to a CIA identities specialist who provided Ray with his aliases.
A retired CIA agent later said that the CIA identities specialist in Montreal was named Raoul Miora.[66]
Ewen Cameron and MK-ULTRA
While serving as Ray’s handler in Montreal, Kimble said that the two were ordered to go to McGill University’s Memorial Institute to undergo hypnosis.[67]
The Memorial Institute was the home of subproject 68 of the CIA’s MK-ULTRA brainwashing program run by Dr. Ewen Cameron—the lead CIA mind-control expert in Canada.[68]
An Inside Job
Kimble said that the assassination was carried out by a team of covert intelligence operatives who had an unmarked van with sophisticated electronic radio equipment that could oversee the crime scene and monitor and broadcast on police radio channels.
Two snipers with the team used rifles identical to Ray’s, while other members obtained Memphis Police Department uniforms. The two snipers concealed themselves in the bushes behind the boarding house; one was a backup, the other shot King. The rifles were then concealed in a prearranged hiding place behind the boarding house where they were retrieved by other operatives.
The two snipers afterwards jumped down onto the sidewalk from the bushes and mingled with the other uniformed officers who were rushing about. A voucher had been established for the police imposters. If anyone asked who they were, they were told to call a certain police captain who would vouch for the “new men on the force.”[69]
Secret Army Intelligence Team
The 902nd Military Intelligence Group under the command of Colonel John W. Downie—LBJ’s CIA Vietnam briefer—had been deployed to Memphis at the time of King’s visit with orders to shoot to kill him and aide Andrew Young [later mayor of Atlanta] on command.[70] King was considered “a Negro who repeatedly preached the message of Hanoi and Peking.”
The 902nd Military Intelligence Group had been involved in gun-running with mobster Carlos Marcello; weapons stolen from Army bases were delivered to Marcello and the proceeds were used to help fund black operations.[71] According to two sources, the 902ndincluded “Klan guys who hated niggers.” A Green Beret said that nobody in it had “any hesitancy about killing the two sacks of shit [King and Young].”[72]
Another Green Beret who participated in a clandestine training course in riot control and surveillance identified a CIA/NSA agent whom he had recognized from his time in Vietnam climbing down a wall behind the Lorraine Motel just after King was shot.[73]
A contact in the CIA had given Downie’s team a detailed area of operations map, pictures of cars used by the King group and Memphis police radio frequencies. It carried camera equipment and took up positions overlooking the Lorraine Motel and monitored King’s telephone conversations from Room 306 and other communications. They obtained pictures that caught the shooter as he was lowering his rifle and Jowers running back toward the rooming house. These were given to Colonel Downie and never revealed publicly.[74] The secret agent who snapped the photos said that the shooter was not Ray.[75]
Ties to Dallas ’63?
In the days after King’s killing, FBI agent Don Wilson came across a 1966 Mustang with Alabama plates in Atlanta and opened the car door. An envelope and some papers fell out, which he kept hidden for the next 29 years.
One piece came from a 1963 Dallas telephone directory. The telephone numbers on the page included those of the family of H.L. Hunt and had the name Raul, the letter J, and a Dallas telephone number, which turned out to be the number of the Vegas Club which, at the time, was run by Jack Ruby, the killer of Lee Harvey Oswald.
The second paper was a payoff list and included Raul’s name and a date for payment. A third piece of paper had a telephone number and extension of the Atlanta FBI field office.[76]
FBI’s War Against King
Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg swore in an affidavit that, during a 1978 conversation with Brady Tyson, then an aide to UN Ambassador Andrew Young, Tyson said that a group of off-duty and retired FBI officers, including a sharpshooter, working under the personal direction of J. Edgar Hoover, killed King and then covered it up.[77]
According to Ron Adkins, Hoover’s right-hand man, Clyde Tolson—who allegedly was routinely given money by Hoover to perform criminal deeds including local contract killings—planned King’s assassination beginning in May 1964 on a cruise to Southampton, England, with Russell Adkins, Sr., Ron’s father and a Memphis city engineer, Klansman, and fixer for the Dixie mafia.[78]
Part of the plot involved Tolson’s providing envelopes of money to be paid to informants and $25,000 to the warden of the Missouri state prison, Harold Swenson, to arrange for Ray’s escape.[79]
Hoover had considered King an enemy of the state. In December 1963, less than a month after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI officials had met in Washington to explore ways of “neutralizing King as an effective Negro leader.”[80]
Hidden microphones were placed in Dr. King’s hotel rooms in an attempt to pick up evidence of extramarital sexual activity, break up his marriage, or blackmail him.
The Bureau also engaged in surreptitious activities and burglaries against Dr. King and SCLC.[81] In a letter sent to King in 1964 calling King a “colossal fraud,” the FBI even encouraged him to commit suicide.
FBI-MPD Links
The FBI enjoyed very close connections with the Memphis PD.
E.H. Arkin founded MPD’s intelligence unit in 1967 under the tutelage of FBI agent William Lawrence, who headed the FBI Memphis Field Office’s domestic intelligence operations which surveilled King.[82]
The head of the MPD at the time of King’s assassination, Frank Holloman, was a 25-year FBI veteran from Mississippiwho was in charge of director J. Edgar Hoover’s Washington office from 1952 to 1959. In the mid-1960s, Holloman headed the FBI’s Atlanta office when it was the nerve center of surveillance and skullduggery directed against King.[83]
A law-and-order conservative who railed against “long-haired, foul-smelling hippies” and “hostile forces in Black Memphis,” Holloman promoted aggressive police tactics against Blacks during the sanitation workers strike whom he accused of adopting “guerrilla warfare” and oversaw an expansion of MPD’s internal security division.[84] The Tri-State Defendercalled Holloman an “advocator of genocide of Black people,” and included a cartoon depicting him firing his pistol under the shelter of hooded Klansmen.[85]
Holloman said that his first priority as police chief was to ensure that “there was always a ‘two-way street in terms of the flow of information’ between the MPD and FBI.”[86] He was the one to move the Black firemen and pull Black detective Ed Redditt away from protecting King—and, according to witnesses interviewed by William Pepper, was involved in numerous other aspects of the planning of King’s death.[87]
FBI Gets King to Stay at the Lorraine Motel—and Switch His Room
On March 29, 1968, the FBI issued from headquarters a COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program) memorandum, written by G.C. Moore, chief of the racial intelligence section, to William C. Sullivan, Assistant Director in charge of the intelligence division, that was designed to influence King to stay at the Lorraine Motel when he returned to Memphis on April 3.
The memo recommended placement of a news item with the Bureau’s friendly sources which would read as follows:
The fine Hotel Lorraine in Memphis is owned and patronized exclusively by Negroes but King didn’t go there after his hasty exit [from] the demonstration of March 28. Instead, King decided the plush Holiday Inn Motel, white-owned, operated and almost exclusively white patronized, was the place to “cool it.” There will be no boycott of white merchants for King, only for his followers.[88]
The FBI made sure that King stayed at the Lorraine Motel during his visit to Memphis so that the assassination plot against him could be consummated. [Source: civilrightsall.com]
A retired New York Police detective later uncovered that King was initially supposed to stay in a secluded room in the motel, #202, but was moved to Room 306 with an exposed balcony after the concierge received a call supposedly from SCLC in Atlanta asking for the change in room. According to William Pepper and Phillip Nelson, the caller was actually an FBI infiltrator inside SCLC who acted under the orders of police chief Holloman and had been paid through an intermediary. The infiltrator or possibly infiltrators also had the task of getting King out of his room onto the balcony before 6 PM and making sure he was wearing a tie so he could be identified by the assassin.[89]
Coverup
After King’s death, the FBI took charge of the investigation from the MPD, even though the murder was a state and not federal crime. There was an inexplicable 30-minute delay—which enabled the killers to get away. Obvious leads and significant witnesses were subsequently ignored or dismissed, and the Bureau’s files sanitized.[90] An autopsy of King—amazingly—was never conducted.[91]
To help convince the public of Ray’s guilt, the FBI had William Bradford Huie—editor of The American Mercury[92] literary magazine—write a book on Ray that depicted him as a deranged lone gunman.
A conservative Alabaman, Huie had known J. Edgar Hoover since the 1930s. He claimed that Ray was a vicious southern racist who had stalked King, which was untrue. Huie was given access to Ray by his first lawyer, Arthur Hanes, Sr.– a former FBI and CIA agent and the mayor of Birmingham when Eugene “Bull” Connor ordered the use of police dogs and fire hoses against civil rights protesters.[93]
Cartha DeLoach, the FBI agent placed in charge of the investigation, had written a memo to J. Edgar Hoover suggesting that the FBI “quietly sponsor a book” that would tell the “true story of the King case” and “advise friendly newsmen” on a “strictly confidential basis” that Coretta Scott and Ralph Abernathy “were deliberately trying to keep King’s assassination in the news by pulling the ruse of maintaining the King murder was definitely a conspiracy and not committed by one man in order to keep the money coming to Ms. King.”[94]
Captain Ed Atkinson, an aide to Memphis PD chief Frank Holloman, said that he overheard the discussion of two FBI agents at the bathroom window at the rear of the rooming house after the killing in which one of the agents said that the tree branch would have to be cut because no one would ever believe that a shooter could make the shot from that point with the tree in the way.
After undergoing hypnosis, Atkinson identified Memphis police Captain Earl Clark as the one who called for the cutting down of the tree branch.
Drawing King to Memphis
The sanitation workers strike in Memphis started after two Black sanitation workers, Echol Cole and Robert Walker, were crushed to death in the back of a garbage truck on February 1st after taking temporary shelter from a hard rain by kneeling inside the back of the truck.
According to Ron Adkins, whose father Russell ran the Memphis city garbage dump, Cole and Walker did not die because of an accident; “somebody pulled the hammer, pulled the lever on the truck and mashed them up in there.”[95]
The motive behind the killings was to precipitate the strike that would draw King to Memphis—the ideal place for him to be killed. Memphis was ideal because of the close connection between J. Edgar Hoover and Memphis police Chief Holloman and the hostility toward King exhibited by Memphis Mayor Henry Loeb—a segregationist whose family had made a fortune in the dry-cleaning business exploiting Black labor.
Furthermore, Tennessee’s governor, Buford Ellingtone, was a close friend of President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Hoover ally who also wanted King dead.[96]
Ellington’s involvement in the coverup was demonstrated when he fired the state’s commissioner of corrections, Harry S. Avery, after he had begun to investigate King’s death when he came across a letter to Ray typed on McGill University letterhead, which Avery believed might have been related to how Ray was able to obtain his aliases and some Canadian passports.[97]
Ghouls in White Smocks
After more than four decades, Johnton Shelby came forward relaying the story of his mother, Lula Mae, who was a surgical aide at St. Joseph’s Hospital that took part in Dr. King’s emergency treatment.
The morning after King’s death she had gathered her family to tell them that, as doctors were working to save King, one of the orderlies, John Billings, following doctors instructions, left the room to “find the men in charge.” When he returned with them, the doctors said there was nothing more they could do to save King and then instructed the rest of the staff to leave the room and not talk about what had occurred.
According to Lula Mae, who was the last to leave the room, King was still alive at that time. As she made her way out of the room, the head of surgery—Dr. Breen Bland, a pioneer in blood transfusions and polio vaccinations—and a couple of men in suits told the doctors to “stop working on that nigger and let him die.”
She also heard spitting sounds and turned around just in time to see doctors spitting on King and removing his ventilator tube while putting a pillow over his face to ensure that he died.
Ron Adkins, under oath, stated that he had been with his father, and after he died, his older brother Russell Adkins Jr., when his father and brother discussed the plan with Dr. Bland and Frank Holloman regarding the need to take King to St. Joseph’s Hospital if he had not been killed. Ron recalled that Dr. Bland was prepared to give King a certain lethal injection if it became necessary.[98]
Poor Buddy
On the night of April 4, cab driver Louis Ward went straight to the airport after hearing of King’s shooting and met a fellow driver he knew as Buddy, who said he had gone to the Lorraine Motel shortly before 6 p.m. to pick up a passenger with an enormous amount of luggage.[99]
As they finished loading up his taxi in the Lorraine parking lot, Buddy—who was in his early sixties—turned to look to the area of dense brush and trees opposite the motel. The passenger then punched him on the arm to distract him and told him to look up at King on the balcony where he appeared to be a sitting duck for any would-be assassin.
At that precise moment, King was struck by the fatal bullet, Buddy saw a man [thought to be Earl Clark] come down the wall from the balcony empty handed and get into a black and white Memphis PD car which was stopped at the middle of the intersection between Mulberry and Huling.
The passenger at this time became irritable, saying he had to leave immediately because otherwise the ambulance and other cars would box them in, and he had a plane to catch.
When Ward asked about Buddy a few days later, three or four other drivers in the main taxi office told him they understood he had fallen or been pushed from a speeding car from Route 55 on the other side of the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge late in the evening of April 4 and was dead.[100]
A Pile of Corpses
John Larry Ray—who spent 18 years behind bars after being framed for a crime he says he did not commit—wrote that “the coverup of the King assassination left a pile of corpses in its wake.”[101]
Three months after Jimmy Hoffa’s lawyer, Z.T. Osborn, Jr., decided to help James Earl Ray with his case, he abruptly committed “suicide”—which his wife did not believe.[102]
Two judges considering Ray’s request for a retrial—W. Preston Battle and William E. Miller—died of suspicious heart attacks.[103] Just before he died, Battle had received a request for a new trial from one of Ray’s new attorneys, Richard J. Ryan, which was refused by Battle’s successor, Judge Arthur Faquin, Jr., in contradiction to existing Tennessee law.[104]
The Church Committee hearings later revealed that the CIA had developed a “heart attack gun” which could deliver a tiny frozen needle that, upon entering the body, would deliver a toxin that induced a heart attack but then became undetectable at autopsy.[105]
In July 1969, King’s brother, the Reverend Alfred Daniel King, was found dead in his home after an apparent swimming pool accident (“accidental drowning”). By all accounts, he was a fantastic swimmer.[106]
The emergency responders said upon arrival, “Ain’t no water in his lungs, he was dead before he hit the water.” King’s wife, Naomi, said “Absolutely, he was murdered. He was an excellent swimmer. There was no water in his lungs. He was in the fetal position. He had a bruised forehead. Rings around his neck. And he was in his underwear. He was murdered.”
In 1971, Bill Sartor, a 32-year-old writer for Life and Look magazines on the trail of the Marcello/Liberto organized crime connection to King’s death, was murdered in Waco, Texas, the night before he was to interview a nightclub owner linked to Marcello. Sartor was given a lethal dose of methaqualone—slipped into his drink.[107]
Six years after Sartor’s death, former FBI assistant director of intelligence William Sullivan was shot and killed by a man (Robert Daniels) who mistook him for a deer while deer-hunting. The killing occurred shortly before he was scheduled to testify before the HSCA about his former boss, J. Edgar Hoover’s, hatred of King.[108]
Getting Away with Murder
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination was a major negative turning point in American history.
It sparked riots that played into Richard Nixon’s call for law and order, deprived the civil rights and Vietnam anti-war movements of its greatest leader, and destroyed prospects for an inter-racial movement of the poor. Afterwards, two U.S. Army brigades were until 1971 stationed on permanent standby to deal with domestic unrest as part of Operation GARDEN PLOT.
King had prophesied that a world starved of love—in which human caring and the spiritual dimension are de-emphasized—would become one of material scarcity, massive inequality, overly stressed environmental systems, and social disintegration.
The men who killed King were very clearly starved of love. The evidence indicates that they continue to enjoy impunity for their crime because the U.S. government will never admit that it was behind the killing of a national treasure.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].
Notes
Featured image: MLK as target. [Source: biography.com] Right: J. Edgar Hoover firing a rifle. [Source: theguardian.com] Artwork courtesy of Steve Brown.
January 18th, 2022 by Snejana Farberov
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. Meryl Nass is an outstanding medical doctor.
She is a regular contributor to Global Research. To consult her articles click here.
This is a report by London’s Daily Mail presents the facts in a biased way, intimating (without a shred of evidence ) that Dr. Meryl Nass was involved in malpractice and misinformation regarding Covid-19.
The truth is that she has courageously confronted Big Pharma and the vaccine mandate.
To see her detailed response, click here
What is featured below are the first three paragraphs of the Daily Mail article.
***
A medical board in Maine has suspended the license of an MIT-educated doctor and ordered a psychiatric evaluation after she was accused of treating some of her patients with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and spreading misinformation about COVID-19.
Maine’s Board of Licensure in Medicine voted last week to conduct a deeper investigation into Dr Meryl Nass, from Ellsworth. The board also voted to suspend her license for 30 days and have her undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
The board stated in its January 12 order that allowing Nass to continue practicing medicine ‘constitutes an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public who might receive her medical services.’
Nass, 70, is an internist who is active in Children’s Health Defense, a group that agitates against vaccines and vaccine mandates.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Facebook via DMO
January 18th, 2022 by Megan Redshaw
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.
***
VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,033,994 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 21,745 deaths and 170,446 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 7, 2022.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,033,994 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 1, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
The data included a total of 21,745 reports of deaths — an increase of 363 over the previous week — and 170,446 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 3,840 compared with the previous week.
Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 723,042 adverse events, including 9,936 deaths and 64,406 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 7, 2022.
Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 9,936 U.S. deaths reported as of Jan. 7, 19% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 24% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 516 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Jan. 7, including 303 million doses of Pfizer, 197 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
The most recent death involves a 7-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1975356) from Minnesota who died 11 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when she was found unresponsive by her mother. An autopsy is pending.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
The most recent death involves a 15-year-old girl from Minnesota (VAERS I.D. 1974744), who died 177 days after receiving her second dose of Pfizer from a pulmonary embolus. An autopsy is pending.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:
26-year-old man dies from myocarditis caused by Pfizer COVID vaccine
A 26-year-old South Dakota man died Nov. 12, 2021, of myocarditis, just four days after receiving a booster dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. Joseph Keating had no idea he was experiencing a rare and supposedly “mild” heart problem after the shot.
His only warning signs were fatigue, muscle soreness and an increased heart rate, family members said.
In an exclusive interview Jan. 11 with The Defender, Joseph’s father, mother and sister said the CDC had not investigated Joseph’s death, nor did the agency contact the pathologist who performed the autopsy or request the documents which confirmed Joseph’s death was caused by the Pfizer vaccine.
According to the autopsy report and certificate of death, Joseph died from severe heart damage from “myocarditis in the left ventricle due to the recent Pfizer COVID-19 booster vaccine.”
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Joseph Keating’s mother said her son’s only warning signs were fatigue, muscle soreness and an increased heart rate, yet an autopsy confirmed he died of myocarditis directly caused by Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.https://t.co/Htk7GHXz6o
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) January 11, 2022
Supreme Court strikes down OSHA mandate, allows healthcare mandate to proceed
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued two opinions on the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandates on whether to stay or to grant temporary injunctions requested by plaintiffs in a number of lawsuits challenging the emergency mandates for millions of Americans.
First, the justices rejected the Biden administration’s mandate requiring employees of large businesses to be vaccinated against COVID or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask indoors while working.
The court’s conservative majority said the administration overstepped its authority by imposing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) vaccine-or-test rule on U.S. businesses with at least 100 employees.
In a second ruling, the justices said the mandates for workers in healthcare facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding could stay in place while the lawsuits work their way through the lower courts.
The mandate is estimated to affect 10.3 million healthcare workers in the U.S., but allows for religious and medical exemptions.
Pfizer CEO says 2 shots offer ‘very limited protection, if any’ against COVID
During an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Monday, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said two doses of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — initially referred to as a full regimen — “offers very limited protection, if any” against the Omicron variant.
When a third, or booster dose, is administered the vaccine offers only “reasonable protection” against hospitalization and death from Omicron and “less protection against infection,” Bourla said.
Bourla previously claimed a two-dose regimen was “100% effective.”
EU regulators, WHO call for end of boosters
European Union drug regulators on Tuesday warned frequent COVID boosters could risk overloading the immune system and said there are currently no data to support repeated doses.
This comes a month after the regulators said it made sense to “administer COVID-19 vaccine boosters as early as three months after the initial two-shot regimen,” amid concerns over the Omicron variant.
The World Health Organization’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition on Jan. 11 also warned, “a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”
The group said giving additional doses of already existing vaccines as new strains of the virus emerge is not the best way to fight a pandemic, as currently available COVID vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission and the current composition of COVID vaccines need to be updated.
Djokovic’s visa canceled second time over unvaccinated status
Australian authorities today revoked Novak Djokovic’s visa due to his unvaccinated status, in the latest twist in the ongoing battle over whether the nine-time Australian Open champion will be allowed to defend his title.
As The Defender reported, Australian Minister Alex Hawke used his ministerial discretion to cancel the No. 1 ranked Tennis player’s visa citing “health or good order grounds,” just three days before the Australian Open begins and four days after a federal judge ordered Djokovic be released from hotel detention when his visa was revoked the first time.
Djokovic’s lawyers are contesting the visa cancellation in court, in an attempt to allow him to play in the prestigious tennis tournament. If unsuccessful, Djokovic will face deportation.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
Featured image is from CHD
January 18th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Day after day, the tensions worsen in Yemen. Recently, the Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for a series of explosions that hit the capital of the United Arab Emirates, damaging places of great strategic value, such as Abu Dhabi airport. In response, a new coalition’s offensive began, with violent bombings being operated in Sanaa.
The Arab coalition has launched a major bombing campaign in the Yemeni capital. The attack, according to information provided by the alliance’s spokespersons, is “in response to threat and military necessity”. Such “necessity” refers to recent attacks operated by the Houthis against targets outside the Yemeni territory.
The numbers of dead and injured people so far are imprecise, but it is known that many people have been hurt during the coalition’s maneuvers. According to information provided by Al Masirah, a pro-Houthi Yemeni TV channel, four people died and five were injured during the alliance’s operations. Later, some sources began to report that more than ten people had already died, including women and children. As expected, the pro-coalition media channels point to data in the opposite direction, emphasizing the number of dead left by the Houthis attacks in Abu Dhabi and ignoring the victims of the military actions carried out by the Arab group.
In an official statement this week, coalition’s spokespersons wrote the following words about the attacks: “The coalition air force is conducting a round-the-clock operation in the skies over Sanaa (…) We urge civilians to stay away from military camps and Houthi gatherings for their safety”. Some details about the targets hit by the maneuvers were also provided. Apparently, coalition’s F-15 fighters hit “two ballistic missile launchers that were used on Monday to strike the territory of the UAE”.
Following the coalition’s operations, UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah Bin Zayed contacted his US counterpart Antony Blinken in order to ask the Biden administration to reestablish US recognition of the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization. This type of measure would help those interested in tightening actions against the Yemeni rebels as it would allow the US government to treat the Houthis as terrorists both in American territory and abroad, making it possible to establish, for example, joint actions between American military and the coalition.
No response has been given on the case so far, and the matter is unlikely to have any relevance to the US government at the present time. Washington revoked the Houthis’ “terrorist organization” status to improve the system for the sending of humanitarian aid to Yemen. Until last year, it was difficult for the US to send humanitarian aid to the country as the Houthis benefited from part of that aid while being considered terrorists. In 2021, Biden revoked terrorist status for the Houthis and improved the humanitarian support system, reinforcing the US image as a humanitarianly committed nation. This measure was very positive for both the US and the Yemeni population and is unlikely to be reversed now.
In fact, the anti-Houthi coalition has a common interest with the West in Yemen: to stop the growth of Iranian influence. Considering that the Houthis are an ethnic minority of Shia faith, their victory in Yemen would represent an immediate alliance with Tehran – which is why Western governments support the coalition. But this support has become increasingly limited. For the pro-humanitarian image that Biden tries to express in his government, it is very serious that the country maintains ties to a conflict that is considered the greatest humanitarian crisis of recent times. European governments follow a similar trend in this regard. And, with that, the coalition loses more and more strength internationally, becoming an isolated group of little global relevance.
The Yemen conflict needs an immediate end as the humanitarian situation in the country has escalated out of control. The civil war has already left almost 400 thousand dead, four million internally displaced and more than twenty million people in need of humanitarian aid. The imminence of a humanitarian collapse is evident, and this creates discomfort for all governments with some degree of involvement in local disputes.
Recommendations from all sides are for the crisis to be resolved as fast and pacifically as possible. Contributing to a humanitarian disaster is extremely harmful and (at least publicly) out of discussion for the West.
Certainly, international coercion through sanctions would be a viable way for the coalition to accept to reduce its incursions, respecting the Yemeni right to self-determination. But that would mean opening the way for an Iranian advance, which the West is also unwilling to deal with. Therefore, the Western position on the coalition’s maneuvers is likely to remain the same that has been so far: a veiled, discreet, and masked support with a humanitarian discourse whose function is to hide the real interest in undermining Iranian expansion in every possible way.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
January 18th, 2022 by Paul Anthony Taylor
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 recent Letter to the Editor published on the Journal of Hepatology website adds to the growing evidence that the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19 can cause severe liver damage. Entitled ‘Immune-mediated hepatitis with the Moderna vaccine, no longer a coincidence but confirmed’, the letter – written by four hospital doctors from the UK – summarizes the case history of a patient who received two doses of the vaccine. The doctors say the case provides “conclusive evidence” that the first dose led to immune-mediated hepatitis, with a rapid onset of liver injury. A second dose resulted in the development of acute severe autoimmune hepatitis. The patient was previously completely well with no other health problems.
The letter describes how the patient, a 47-year-old Caucasian man, received his first dose of the Moderna vaccine in April 2021. He noted malaise and jaundice three days later. Blood tests showed abnormal liver function, with his serum bilirubin around ten times normal and alanine aminotransferase more than twenty times normal. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) and alcohol use were ruled out as potential causes.
The patient’s jaundice and liver function tests had improved by late June but were still abnormal. He was subsequently given a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in early July, despite reporting the jaundice to the vaccination center. A few days later he became deeply jaundiced, with a bilirubin level approaching twenty times normal and numerous other liver abnormalities. The doctors say the pattern of injury was consistent with acute hepatitis, with features of autoimmune hepatitis or possible drug-induced liver injury, triggering an autoimmune-like hepatitis.
As the doctors point out in their letter, the onset of jaundice associated with the vaccine was unusually rapid. Significantly, therefore, and as they also acknowledge, this case is hardly the first in which COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have been associated with liver damage. Even prior to the publication of their letter, the doctors say at least seven cases of immune-mediated hepatitis linked to mRNA vaccines had already been reported in the scientific literature. Three of these cases related to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and four to the Moderna vaccine.
The doctors say they reported this latest case in order to encourage vigilance for such reactions, as well as to raise awareness for vaccination centers to incorporate them into their routine checks before administering second doses of mRNA vaccines. They stress that long-term follow up of affected individuals will be essential in determining the prognosis of this type of immune-mediated liver injury.
Ultimately, of course, the fact is that liver damage is only one of many serious side effects reported in connection with the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19. Others include very low platelet counts (thrombocytopenia); high rates of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions (anaphylaxis); inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis); blood clots (thrombosis); and even death.
Twenty-four centuries ago, the Greek physician Hippocrates is said to have exhorted the medical practitioners of his time to “first, do no harm.” While in conventional medicine this principle was already widely flouted in the pre-COVID era, with the ultrarapid authorization of mRNA vaccines it has essentially been almost completely abandoned. The time has come for political leaders and medical authorities to suspend the use of these experimental injections, pending a full and independent investigation into their dangers.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.
Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul Anthony Taylor is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings.
Featured image is from DRHF
January 18th, 2022 by Abayomi Azikiwe
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
In January 1965, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) intervened in the voting rights struggle in Selma, Alabama after years of work already carried out by local activists along with organizers from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
These momentous efforts led to a series of confrontations with Dallas County deputy sheriffs and Alabama state troopers which culminated on Bloody Sunday March 7 at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. By the end of the month the political atmosphere in the United States had shifted in favor of the federalizing of the National Guard to provide protection for the thousands who marched from Selma to Montgomery.
Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy and James Foreman during Selma to Montgomery March (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
Later that year in August, the then President Lyndon B. Johnson was compelled to sign into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This represented the first comprehensive voting rights legislation since the era of Reconstruction during the late 1860s to the mid-1870s, and the Civil Rights Act of 1957, involving the role of the Justice Department in protecting access for African Americans to the franchise.
In the aftermath of the mass demonstrations, voting registration drives and vigorous debates on the nature of racial oppression in the U.S. during 2020, there was a sense of a democratic breakthrough in regard to the large turnouts in states around the country against the previous administration of President Donald Trump. The ascendancy of the current administration of President Joe Biden and the election of two new Democratic Senators from the State of Georgia, where voting restrictions have been well documented since the gubernatorial race of 2018, were realized as a direct result of grassroots political advocacy and organizing.
False charges of massive voter fraud by the Trump administration and its followers did not succeed in the post-election period from November 2020 to the inauguration of the new presidency and Congress nearly a year ago. The January 6 attempted coup by anti-democratic and neo-fascist elements at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. provided a clear view of a right- wing threat to the social interests of the masses of African Americans, Latin Americans, Asian Americans, Indigenous nations and other progressive and genuine working-class segments of the population.
Although the coup failed to overturn the 2020 elections, efforts have been underway since this time period to reverse the capacity of oppressed, working-class and democratic forces to participate in the electoral process. At least 19 state legislative bodies and their governors have passed and signed into law restrictions on the right to vote, the open and objective counting of ballots and the certification of all elections from local institutions to the offices of the federal government.
The failure of the Senate to pass several voting rights bills that would in effect nullify the restrictive laws which were upheld by the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court, must be met with mass action. All antiracist and mass democratic forces have no alternative than to organize to meet the challenges of the coming months. We as the Detroit MLK Committee are appealing to all of those within our listening and viewing audience to join in this renewed effort to halt the reinstitution of legalized segregation and the denial of fundamental democratic rights for the rapidly emerging majority population within the U.S.
Dr. King and the Struggle for a Just Society
Today we are facing one of the most serious crises in the history of the U.S. and the world. In regard to the compounding economic, social, political, cultural and educational downturns, the public health disaster prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated clearly the contradictions within western capitalist society.
Although the administrations of former President Trump and his successor Joe Biden supported legislation to provide a modicum of relief to those tens of millions of families impacted by the pandemic, these programs have ground to a screeching halt with the inability to pass social spending legislation. The passed infrastructure bill cannot address the social needs of the masses of nationally oppressed peoples and the working-class.
Moreover, here in the city of Detroit and undoubtedly in other regions of the U.S., the funds allocated to assist working families as it relates to housing, utilities, water costs and supplemental funds for households with children, are often not spent on the purposes for which they were allocated. In addition, the bureaucratic structures in many municipal areas have failed to properly disperse these funds to the people in the greatest need.
Even in situations where the administration of American Rescue Plan (ARP) Funds and COVID Emergency Relief Assistance (CERA) have been more efficient, the agencies responsible have run out of resources since the need is so enormous. We call upon the Congress to revisit its own inability to foster legislation which is critical in maintaining social stability.
As Dr. King said during 1968 just prior to his assassination:
“The nation waited until the Black man was explosive with fury before stirring itself even to partial concern. Confronted now with the interrelated problems of war, inflation, urban decay, white backlash, and a climate of violence, it is now forced to address itself to race relations and poverty, and it is tragically unprepared. What might once have been a series of separate problems now merge into a social crisis of almost stupefying complexity. I am not sad that Black Americans are rebelling; this was not only inevitable but eminently desirable. Without this magnificent ferment among Negroes, the old evasions and procrastinations would have continued indefinitely. Black men have slammed the door shut on a past of deadening passivity. Except for the Reconstruction years, they have never in their long history on American soil struggled with such creativity and courage for their freedom. These are our bright years of emergence; though they are painful ones, they cannot be avoided.”
Within the tradition of this commemoration of MLK Day, we seek to continue the actual legacy of Dr. King in the linking of the struggles against racism, poverty and militarism. The speakers and cultural workers all speak to this historical trajectory in which Dr. King was inextricably involved.
The current spiral of inflation which has forced many people into deeper impoverishment, should be immediately addressed by the federal government. An initiative launched by municipal retirees in Detroit to provide a “pension booster” shot for those impacted by the more than 7% annual inflation during 2021, is a relevant demand to be advanced which has national implications. These deteriorating social conditions for broad sectors of the society will not be resolved without political education, mobilizations and organizing.
MLK Day for 2022 should serve as a focal point for the renewed movements seeking the end to racial oppression, class exploitation, gender discrimination, environmental degradation, the collapse of public education and other social ills. Our willingness to study, organize and act will be the most outstanding tribute we can pay to the legacy of Dr. King, the Civil Rights Movement and all campaigns for the betterment and liberation of humanity.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Note:
These remarks were prepared and delivered in part to the 19th Annual MLK Day virtual webinar held in the city of Detroit. The event has been held online for the last two years due to the pandemic and its impact on the city and its environs. This webinar was organized by the Detroit MLK Committee chaired by Dorothy Aldridge, veteran Civil Rights and Human Rights activist. Presenters for the webinar included co-host Aurora Harris, poet, lecturer and community organizer; Sarah Torres, musician and MLK Committee member; keynote speaker Catherine Coleman Flowers of Alabama, environmental and Civil Rights organizer; Bilal, spoken word artist and musician; Wardell Montgomery, poet and songwriter; Joe Kidd and Sheila Burke, musicians and songwriters; One Single Rose, poet and singer of the Black National Anthem; Jorge Parra, member of the GM injured workers organization of Bogata, Colombia; Jesus Rodriguez Espinoza, former Counsel General to the United States in Chicago for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; John Kelly, Museum of Free Derry, Northern Ireland; Iman Saleh, Yemeni Liberation Movement; Darryl Jordan, environmentalist and former Director of EMEAC; Rev. Bill Wylie-Kellerman, author and retired pastor at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church; Lloyd Simpson, Detroit Will Breathe and People Against Corporate Theft (PACT); Toyia Watts, President of the Charlevoix Village Association (CVA); Rev. Edward Pinkney, organizer and former political prisoner in Berrien County, Michigan; BWard, poet and activist; Yasmine Suliman, organizer of the Detroit Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), Frank Hammer, veteran union leader and community activist, provided translation for the Colombian injured GM workers, John Harvey and TJ, American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters; among others.
Featured image is from BelovedSyria
January 18th, 2022 by Global Research News
By
, January 18, 2022Behind its development is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – with support of the Rockefeller Foundation – and others belonging to the sinister all-digitization, depopulation and eugenics agenda. It is an alliance of public-private partners, including UN agencies and civil society.
By
, January 18, 2022Very few Americans are aware of the truth behind the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Few books have been written about it, unlike other significant assassinations, especially JFK’s. For almost fifty years there has been a media blackout supported by government deception to hide the truth.
By
, January 18, 2022A diabolical process is underway which consists in “identifying” all those who are opposed to the governments’ management of the coronavirus pandemic. According to ongoing psychological studies, these opponents are categorized as anti-social psychopaths.
Redefining the Meaning of Life and Death
By
, January 17, 2022We need to redefine the meaning of life and death. Re-examine the true significance of their power within our day to day activities on this ever generous planet Earth. Because that significance has been almost entirely lost.
Video: US Space Militarization Plans Are Same Old “Gunboat Diplomacy”
By
, January 17, 2022Investigative reporter Dirk Pohlmann says that far from the Star Trek vision of a cooperative federation of space dwellers, current US plans for militarizing space are the same old gunboat diplomacy of being in charge by being the biggest military threat in space and on earth to other nations also moving into space, and that individual players like Bezos and Musk could be used by intelligence services to bypass international laws and treaties governing the activities of nations in space to ensure American supremacy.
10 Reasons OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro Has to Go
By
, January 17, 2022The Organization of American States (OAS) has never been a friend to the peoples of the Americas. This institution, ostensibly a space for multilateralism, has instead always been a tool for the U.S. Department of State. As Fidel Castro said in 1962, it is nothing but the U.S. Ministry of Colonies.
By
, January 16, 2022Most unconscionable is the fact that the United Nations Secretary-General is mandating this untested and often lethal vaccination for United Nations staff, in violation of every human rights declaration produced by the United Nations in its entire history.
Video: The 2021 Worldwide Corona Crisis. “The Worst Crisis in Modern History”
By
, January 15, 2022We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred. Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”. “Planet Lockdown” is an encroachment on civil liberties and the “Right to Life”.
Count-Down to Apocalypse: Are the US and Russia Finally on Course toward World War III?
By
, January 15, 2022As a meeting of rival delegations came to a close this week, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued an ultimatum to the United States demanding that the West provide a concrete answer to it’s security concerns. These include the threat of NATO embracing Ukraine and of the military alliance moving closer to the Russian border.
The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity. Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society
By
, January 15, 2022In the case of certain infections, particularly viral infections, we use the RT-PCR technique to confirm a diagnostic hypothesis suggested by a clinical picture. We do not routinely perform RT-PCR on any patient who is overheated, coughing or has an inflammatory syndrome!
January 18th, 2022 by US Department of Justice
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).
***
First posted on Global Research on July 19, 2021
.
Introductory Note
This text originally published by the US Department of Justice in September 2009 is of utmost relevance in assessing the current actions of Big Pharma in promoting pharmaceutical products which are detrimental to people’s health.
Pfizer is currently involved in marketing its experimental mRNA vaccine. The FDA in an ambiguous statement has provided an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, while underscoring that the vaccine is “an unapproved product”. There is something “contradictory” in the FDA statement. The experimental Pfizer mRNA vaccine is “unapproved” by the FDA, yet it is “permitted”.
In recent developments, a Confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) procedure provides data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namely a very short period (at most two and a half months).
The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine was launched in the US on the 14th of December after the granting of Emergency Use Authorization on December 11, 2020.
In a twisted irony, the data revealed in this “insider report” refutes the official vaccine narrative peddled by the governments and the WHO. It also confirms the analysis of numerous medical doctors and scientists who have revealed the devastating consequences of the mRNA “vaccine”.
What is contained in Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth” can now be used to confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.
These revelations are beyond “fraudulent marketing”: they point to crimes against humanity.
Global Research, December 27, 2021
***
Below the text of the US Department of Justice 2009 Settlement with Pfizer, Inc.
Of relevance, the DoJ judgment required that Pfizer Inc. enter into a so-called “corporate integrity agreement” with the Office of the Inspector General of the DHHS.
The integrity agreement included procedures to ensure that Pfizer’s “conduct” would not happen again.
American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together “Pfizer”) have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.
Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called “off-label” uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.
In addition, Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company.
As part of the settlement, Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. That agreement provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter. (emphasis added)
To read the entire DoJ document, click here
*
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.
January 18th, 2022 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Note: All Global Research articles are now accessible in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website Drop Down Menu on the top banner of our home page.
First published on August 26, 2020.
***
Author’s Note
This article was written in August 2020 (several months prior to the launching of the Covid-19 vaccine) under the title
And now we have entered a new phase. The “Vaccine Passport” is being imposed in a large number of countries.
The non-vaccinated are confined to their homes, prevented from travelling, fired from their jobs, prevented from attending schools and universities. They are accused of being extremists and psychopaths.
What is unfolding is a despicable political process which consists in creating a social divide between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
These social divisions are creating conflicts within families and local communities, literally contributing to the disruption of social life, with devastating impacts on economic activity.
Supported by media propaganda, the campaign is proceeding unabated. Those who refuse to get the killer “vaccine” are categorized as “anti-social psychopaths”.
What prevails is a “divide and rule” scenario which is being applied simultaneously in numerous countries.
Both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated are the victims of a Worldwide criminal agenda which is endorsed by the United Nations and most of its 193 member states.
Our first task is to immediately halt and cancel the so-called Covid-19 “vaccine” which has triggered a wave of mortality and morbidity Worldwide.
Worldwide Solidarity and Human Dignity is the Driving Force
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 8, 2022
This article has been published in my E-Book (Chapter XI) entitled:
A diabolical process is underway which consists in “identifying” all those who are opposed to the governments’ management of the coronavirus pandemic. According to ongoing psychological studies, these opponents are categorized as anti-social psychopaths.
The unspoken objective is to shunt the emergence of an organized protest movement pertaining to social engineering and the decision taken Worldwide at a political level to close down the national economies of more than 190 members states of the United Nations.
Peer reviewed psychological “studies” are currently being carried in several countries using sample surveys.
Accept the “big Lie” and you are tagged as a “good person” with “empathy” who understands the feelings of others.
Protest against the official truth (“big lie”), criticize government guidelines, express reservations regarding the closing down of the global economy, social distancing and the wearing of the face mask, and you will be tagged (according to “scientific opinion”) as a “callous and deceitful psychopath”.
Psychology: Empirical Studies
A so-called peer reviewed “empirical report” describes those who refuse to wear the face mask or abide by social distancing as having “anti-social personality disorders”.
Those who “do not adhere to measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19” are tagged as “anti-social”.
The findings of the Brazilian study involving a “sample” of 1578 adults was published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences. under the title:
COVID-19 pandemic over time: Do antisocial traits matter?
“Empathy” versus “Anti-social Traits”
The statistical “methodology” of this study is straightforward. It is intended to serve as a model.
It consists in categorizing a so-called sample of adults from all major regions of Brazil into two distinct groups. It examines:
“..the relationships between antisocial traits and compliance with COVID-19 containment measures. The sample consisted of 1578 Brazilian adults aged 18–73 years … and a questionnaire about compliance with containment measures.
Latent profile analyses indicated a 2-profile solution: the antisocial pattern profile which presented higher scores in Callousness, Deceitfulness, Hostility, Impulsivity, Irresponsibility, Manipulativeness, and Risk-taking, as well as lower scores in Affective resonance;
and the empathy pattern profile which presented higher scores in Affective resonance …
The antisocial and empathy groups showed significant differences. … Our findings indicated that antisocial traits, especially lower levels of empathy and higher levels of Callousness, Deceitfulness, and Risk-taking, are directly associated with lower compliance with containment measures. These traits explain, at least partially, the reason why people continue not adhering to the containment measures even with increasing numbers of cases and deaths. (emphasis added)
The research methodology is built around 3 main questions:
“Do you think it is necessary to avoid approaching people as much as possible until the coronavirus situation is controlled?” (social distancing),
“Do you think it is necessary to wash your hands and/or use alcohol gel as many times a day until the coronavirus situation is controlled?” (hygiene),
“Do you think it is necessary to use facemask (that protects nose and mouth) in Brazil?” (facemask).
Yes/No Categorization
The study refers to the practice of “collective narcissism”, namely a common belief and practice by a so-called ‘In-Group” (aka protest movement, collective of dissident medical doctors, scientists) directed against the official corona virus “truth” (aka the Big Lie). Collective narcissism is embedded in what psychologists call the Dark Triad.
“the relationships between the Dark Triad traits (i.e., psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism) and collective narcissism (i.e., agentic and communal) … Participants characterized by the Dark Triad traits engaged less in prevention … The results point to the utility of health beliefs in predicting behaviors during the pandemic, explaining (at least in part) problematic behaviors associated with the dark personalities (i.e., Dark Triad, collective narcissism). …
The traits, such as the Dark Triad (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) and collective narcissism … may have implications for how one copes with the virus… For example, individuals characterized by the Dark Triad traits may be less likely to follow governmentally-enforced restrictions related to COVID-19
The Term “Agentic” quoted above refers to “goal-achievement”.
And here is the Methodology
We measured the Dark Triad traits (Wave 2) … [also with reference to] the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010). The scale consists of four items assessing individual differences in psychopathy (e.g., “I tend to lack remorse”), narcissism (e.g., “I tend to seek prestige or status”), and Machiavellianism (e.g., “I tend to manipulate others to get my way”). Participants indicated their agreement with each item (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). We averaged responses to create indices of each trait.
Sounds scientific. What are the conclusions?
We advanced the scope of the model by illustrating the relevance of dark personality traits in predicting both adaptive and maladaptive behaviors in response to the pandemic by person-focused (i.e., the Dark Triad traits) and group-focused (i.e., collective narcissism) personality traits.” The read the full report click here emphasis added)
The psychological definition of Dark Triad Traits comprises the combined personality traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. “They are called “dark” because of their malevolent qualities.”
The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) consists of a broader “personality inventory” which assesses and measures the three personality components of the Dark Triad. (see image right)
In substance, what this “scientific report” confirms is that people who question the covid-19 official narrative have “malevolent personality disorders”. They are said to suffer from the Dirty Dozen “Dark Triad Traits” (DTDD).
When they act contiguously within a In-Group or a Protest movement (E.g. The August Mass Rally in Berlin), they are tagged as applying “collective narcissism”.
The framework of the above study is also envisaged for other countries in partnership (with the Warsaw group). Another related study is entitled: “Who complies with the restrictions to reduce the spread of COVID-19?: Personality and perceptions of the COVID-19 situation”
Strong words. “Peer Reviewed”?
Psychology is being used in a pernicious way to provide legitimacy to a Police State with a mandate to “go after” those who allegedly have Dark Triad “malevolent personality disorders”.
It’s an inquisitorial doctrine, which could eventually evolve towards a digital witch hunt, far more sophisticated than the “Spanish Inquisition”.
“In contrast to the Spanish Inquisition, the contemporary inquisitorial system has almost unlimited capabilities of spying on and categorizing individuals.
People are tagged and labeled, their emails, telephones and faxes are monitored, detailed personal data is entered into giant Big Brother data banks. Once this cataloging has been completed, people are locked into watertight compartments. Their profiles are established and entered into a computerized system.
Law enforcement is systematic. The witch hunt is not only directed against presumed “terrorists” through ethnic profiling, etc., the various human rights, affirmative action, antiwar cohorts are themselves the object of the anti-terrorist legislation and so on.
Needless to say, converting or recanting by antiwar heretics is not permitted.
Meanwhile war criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting rulers, “committed to their safety and well-being”, “who are going after the bad guys.” (Michel Chossudovsky, The Spanish Inquisition, “Made in America”, Global Research, December 2004)
Francisco Goya: The Spanish Inquisition (1812-1819) Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, Madrid
“Economic Genocide”
These empirical psychology studies are meant to be used against citizens who are opposed to the instructions of their respective governments. In turn these governments obey orders from higher up.
While ordinary citizens are tagged, what is increasingly obvious is that the billionaires, “philanthropists”, corrupt politicians, et al., who are the unspoken architects of the global economic lockdown are psychopaths in their own right.
While their personality traits are not the motive of scientific investigation, the corrupt billionaires who are behind the corona lockdown and closure of the global economy are mentally deranged. Money and enrichment is the driving force.
However, tagging politicians and financiers as “psychopaths” is in an understatement. What is a stake is an outright crime against humanity. Calling for the simultaneous closing down of the national economies of 193 member states of the UN is an act of economic genocide.
Economic and social decision-making is criminalized. The legitimacy of Wall Street, the World Economic Forum (WEF), Big Pharma and the billionaire foundations which ordered the closure of the global economy on March 11, 2020 must be forcefully addressed.
Social distancing has devastating consequences.
At this juncture it is being used to justify the closure of schools, colleges and universities, which deliberately derogate the right to education.
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.
January 17th, 2022 by Barbara Nimri Aziz
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.
***
“Mahteen” [Martin], she said, meeting my eyes for the first time while she attended to the papers that I’d set on her desk. I was in Oran, Algeria, being assisted by a clerk in a neighborhood office where I’d come to pay my electricity bill.
She was gazing fondly at the snapshot there of our African American leader. It was the iconic photo of him with Malcolm X taken sometime in the early sixties, before they both left this world.
The woman said nothing else. She asked me nothing about Martin Luther King Jr, nor about the taller man beside him, nor offered her opinion of them.
She would have known Algeria provided succor and inspiration to America’s Black Panther leaders in the 60s. She would have known of Africa’s profound influence on Malik al-Shabazz.
***
On a 2008 visiting professorship in this unattractive but popular seaside city, having rented my own apartment, I had to deal with utility issues myself. My lodging was on Rue d’Hasan ……(a name I’ve since forgotten)– one of Algeria’s tens of thousands of streets, buildings and squares named for martyrs of its painful and costly, never-forgotten and never-recovered-from 1954-1962 war of independence.
I’d placed my daybook on the desk between us as I offered my ID to the woman. Until that remark—the whispered single word, “Mahteen” [Martin]– she hadn’t spoken to me.
Like any underpaid government employee we might encounter anywhere, this lady appeared indifferent to my presence. I had waited in that gloomy place for an hour already and was not in a cheerful mood myself. She made no eye contact with me when I approached her and she seemed uninterested in my visitor status. Algeria is unlike any other Arab place where I’d lived. Here, I had learned to accept the indifference and briskness of Algerians, their caution in public. Some explained this as a lingering aftermath of the decade-long terror war that had ended only seven years earlier.
I said nothing to the clerk as she glanced at my papers. She must be weary of dealing with questions over petty sums and complaints day after day, I thought.
It hadn’t been an easy year for me in Algeria. Relations between the U.S. and Algeria were minimal although cooperative gas exploitation was ongoing. American citizens were advised against visiting here and the U.S. office overseeing my appointment hadn’t laid the groundwork with the university authorities for my stay. If my fellow professors were so unaccommodating, what could I expect from a bureaucrat in a dreary billing office?
This clerk would have known I wasn’t French—few were seen here, although they doubtless lurked behind the scenes and stayed at classy hotels. Other foreigners I occasionally came across were Chinese workers. They kept a low profile. I encountered them only on the train traveling between the capital and Oran as they headed for their outposts.
In the course of my subdued exchange with the clerk, I’d left my daybook open on the desk between us, unconscious of photos exposed on the inside cover. These included a small black and white picture I’d pasted there.
She hadn’t yet looked me in the eye, so when I heard her say “mahteen’, I was puzzled. I looked up to discover her smiling warmly. She looked directly at me, then led my eyes to the open page. “Mahteen”, she repeated.
She was gazing fondly at the snapshot there of our African American leader. It was the iconic photo of him with Malcolm X taken sometime in the early sixties, before they both left this world.
The woman said nothing else. She asked me nothing about Martin Luther King Jr, nor about the taller man beside him, nor offered her opinion of them. She would have known Algeria provided succor and inspiration to America’s Black Panther leaders in the 60s. She would have known of Africa’s profound influence on Malik al-Shabazz.
That whispered name said all that was necessary.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon.
She is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All images in this article are from the author
By Barbara Nimri Aziz
A century ago Yogmaya and Durga Devi, two women champions of justice, emerged from a remote corner of rural Nepal to offer solutions to their nation’s social and political ills. Then they were forgotten.
Years after their demise, in 1980 veteran anthropologist Barbara Nimri Aziz first uncovered their suppressed histories in her comprehensive and accessible biographies. Revelations from her decade of research led to the resurrection of these women and their entry into contemporary Nepali consciousness.
This book captures the daring political campaigns of these rebel women; at the same time it asks us to acknowledge their impact on contemporary feminist thinking. Like many revolutionaries who were vilified in their lifetimes, we learn about the true nature of these leaders’ intelligence, sacrifices, and vision during an era of social and economic oppression in this part of Asia.
After Nepal moved from absolute monarchy to a fledgling democracy and history re-evaluated these pioneers, Dr. Aziz explores their legacies in this book.
Psychologically provocative and astonishingly moving, “Yogmaya and Durga Devi” is a seminal contribution to women’s history.
January 17th, 2022 by Julian Rose
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 need to redefine the meaning of life and death. Re-examine the true significance of their power within our day to day activities on this ever generous planet Earth. Because that significance has been almost entirely lost.
Let’s take Life as our starting point, because we are (most of us) participants in life, so it makes sense to consider what it ‘is’ to be alive.
Well some might say “That’s obvious; it’s the opposite of being dead.” However we can’t know this unless we have experienced ‘being dead’. We can’t assume that ‘to be dead’ is the opposite of ‘to be alive’. We can only safely say that the human body, nerves and brain have ceased to function; while when one is alive, they do function.
But when we set life and death in the greater context of existence – in the macrocosmic setting which is their true home – a completely different dimension emerges. Suddenly ‘life’ means something dynamic that is moving, exploring, creating, evolving. Whereas ‘death’ alludes to the lack of these qualities, their non-existence.
To be alive, in the mostly three dimensional earthly sense of this experience, is to feel the emotions of love, happiness, joy as well as pain, sadness and various other forms of sensitivity.
Whereas Life, in the deeper/broader holistic meaning of this word, covers the whole spectrum of cosmic expressions. Universal energy in full flow. The true expression of cosmic consciousness taking form as the vast myriad of exigencies that constitute the sum total of all that ‘IS’.
So if this omnipotent exigence is ‘Life’ what can death be?
Once again, explored on the broad cosmic level/dimension, death – defined as a lack of the exigences described above – has no meaning. Since the great cycle that we call life contains within it the process of decay, transformation and rebirth. They are integral to the great wheel of existence.
One cannot describe ‘the lack’ or non-existence of all this, since that implies a state of absolute void. Was there ever a state of absolute void? A state of total ‘non-existence’?
We can conclude that death does not actually exist, because there can be no opposite of life once we recognise that the life process simply integrates dying as a phase of living – not as its opposite – not as an end to life.
Thus the cosmic truth reveals itself. There is no ‘end’. There is no death. The concept ‘death’ was invented so as to cause fear and to thereby facilitate control. Absolute control.
Now I’m going to bring us back to earth, whose evolution has been entrusted in our hands. We are trustees of this planet, gifted this role by the Supreme Creator.
Here on earth, a condition that fits the common but false understanding of the word ‘death’, does exist. It is a distortion – a reversal of the cosmic truth, which as I have said, recognises ‘passing’ as a phase of life, not as a ‘lifeless’ condition.
The green leaves of Spring turn brown and fall to the ground in Autumn, enriching the soil in which their seeds will sprout again during the following Spring. This is the life cycle in action. Universal, eternal and always in transformative movement.
But a large number of people have displayed blindness to this truth and have unquestioningly accepted the opposite state of affairs. The completely illogical and irrational idea that there is no further evolution of our spirit/soul upon transitioning beyond the aged body.
No transformation of the autumn leaves into fecund soil. Even if we can see it happening in our own garden compost heap, most can’t relate this life cycle to be a mirror of our own soul’s transformative evolutionary onward voyage.
It is because of this same blindness that we accept being governed by those totally unfit to govern. Our failure to accept – and recognise – our own lives as mirrors of universal life causes us to fall for the fake version of reality. A version now imprisoning much of humanity in a web of deception about the true nature of reality.
Thus we choose leaders who have no qualities of leadership. Those who do not in any way represent the ‘living universe’ – but something else. Something totally lacking the vibrant energy and higher aspiration which is the true hallmark of being ‘alive’.
So it seems that after all there is something which fits the description of death. Something that is not alive, yet moves and breathes as though it were. This is a strange phenomenon. Here we have something that actually fits the criteria of being ‘dead’. The only thing in the universe that I can qualify as fitting this description: joyless, emotionless, soul-less – yet existing – and having the general outward appearance of a living human being.
What is this creature? A creature for which ego is all and all is ego – which believes that life belongs to it – not that it belongs to life. This entity has a strange hold over much of humanity today; and it has the ambition to turn all life into a replica of its own state of cyborgian numbness. To rid itself, and the rest of humanity, of any vestige of the life-force – of Life – is its unbending ambition.
Humans have been allowing such a diabolical ambition to play an ever more influential role in setting the direction of life on earth. We humans have been taking instruction from the dead.
We have mistakenly thought that the dead are alive. And this can only be because the majority haven’t yet experienced ‘life’ in its fullness – as it is – and therefore don’t recognise the difference between themselves and those who manifest an anti-life, demonic state of existence.
Humanity is learning this lesson the hard way. The demonic is amongst us right now, on the surface, in full view. It expresses itself as ‘Covid’ which has people wrapped in fear. Its close cohorts on earth turn up the volume so that the fear becomes ‘the pandemic’. And the “demons” feed on this death/fear vibration. Then the silent weapons, devised and designed by the anti-life element, are deployed to play their role in the anti-life depopulation agenda.
But life is unvanquishable. When ignored and spurned for decade after decade it finally reveals to its sleeping subjects exactly what their continual ignoring of it is doing. It manifests the divine shock doctrine!
The Covid demons, it reveals, are sleeping man’s own invention. The anti-life fake leaders who push-on with their ‘new variants’, are nothing more or less than the ghouls that emerge to show humanity what its denial status actually makes manifest. And how things will only get worse until it sees the error of its ways and wakes up out of its self inflicted nightmare.
To put an end to the parade of death, humanity will have to learn to recognise the difference between truth and lie, between reality and deception. And realise that by following the lie for decade after decade after decade, it caused that lie to physically manifest itself right in front of their eyes.
So now humanity is finally witnessing – emerging out of all the main institutions of governance on this planet – exactly what their largely selfish, self centred materialistic life-style has made manifest.
Truth is an uncompromising actor. If one won’t learn by choice, one will have to learn the hard way.
Here we are.
A core element of humanity is on the brink of absorbing this cardinal truth, thereby acquiring the wisdom necessary to alter the entire trajectory of this planet and beyond. An event which will consciously reunite man with his creator and blow the demons into the furthest depths of the universe.
It behoves us, the trustees of life on earth, to grasp this truth and to thereby trigger this great tipping-point. The event so profoundly anticipated by all who have – against the odds – understood and nurtured the great gift of Life.
In this essay I have tried to show how what’s commonly – and wrongly – called ‘death’ is not an ending of our existence, because there is something ‘live’ which carries-on as soul/spirit: our soul ‘I’. Our ‘soul I’ is something which emerges in us once ‘ego’ is finally given a back seat.
In answering the question “What is death?” I conclude that it uniquely applies to those expressing an anti-life position in all words and actions. The true opposition to the flowering of humanity.
By transforming the dominating power of the ego, and by acting according to the direction uniquely provided by that force called ‘intuition’, our deeply subtle and direct connection with the source of all life can be cemented. The one event which will finally open us to the fullness of creation and bring into true perspective the meaning of the word ‘life’ and of the verb ‘to live’.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. He is President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
January 17th, 2022 by Dirk Pohlmann
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.
***
Investigative reporter Dirk Pohlmann says that far from the Star Trek vision of a cooperative federation of space dwellers, current US plans for militarizing space are the same old gunboat diplomacy of being in charge by being the biggest military threat in space and on earth to other nations also moving into space, and that individual players like Bezos and Musk could be used by intelligence services to bypass international laws and treaties governing the activities of nations in space to ensure American supremacy.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on The Whistleblower Newsroom.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
January 17th, 2022 by Kim Petersen
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 14 January, a breaking news story from the New York Times informed its readers: “U.S. Says Russia Sent Saboteurs Into Ukraine to Create Pretext for Invasion.”
Unsurprisingly, Washington “did not release details of the evidence it had collected.” Why did the NYT not question the withholding of evidence? Why even deign to report what so easily could be dismissed, by definition, as hearsay? Is that because the White House is a paragon of truth-telling? Did its erroneous reporting by disgraced writer Judith Miller that Iraq possessed weapons-of-mass-destruction precipitating a US-led invasion not teach NYT a lesson?
Screenshot from the New York Times
Nevertheless, the NYT chooses to lend credence to the anti-Russia accusation. It sources Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, who “said the Russian military planned to begin these activities several weeks before a military invasion, which could begin between mid-January and mid-February. She said Moscow was using the same playbook as it did in 2014, when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula, a part of Ukraine.”
What does it say about the NYT when it unquestioningly quotes a person or entity? One might well surmise that the NYT has accorded its imprimatur that what has been said is an unquestionable fact. What about relevant background information that is omitted by the NYT?
Since when does a referendum in which 97% of the population chose to join Russia rather than remain a part of Ukraine? Why does this expression of the democratic will constitute an annexation? The US tried to have the referendum ruled illegal in the United Nations Security Council but this was, predictably, quashed by a Russian veto. China abstained noting that Crimea is not a superficial consideration and that there is a “complex intertwinement of historical and contemporary factors.” And how could the UN go against self-determination for Crimea when that principle is enshrined in Article I of the UN Charter? UN secretary-general António Guterres said the principle of self-determination “remains both a source of pride for the Organization and a crucial pillar of its work going forward.
Why does the NYT not mention how Crimea became a part of Ukraine in the first place? Is it not pertinent that Crimea became a part of the Ukraine as result of a transfer from Russia by the USSR in 1954? When Ukraine departed the USSR did it still merit keeping Crimea and the Sevastopol Naval Base important for Russian security?
Is it not crucial to mention that the Crimean referendum only took place after a US-instigated coup that toppled the elected government in Ukraine and saw Neonazis assume governmental office in Kyiv?
Is it journalism to quote a Pentagon official as saying the intelligence about the operation is “very credible”?
The NYT relates that the refusal to reveal evidence is “for fear of alerting the Russian operatives whose movements are being tracked”? What kind of excuse is that? If indeed any of this “intelligence” is true, then the operatives must now know that they were tracked?
Despite all the aforementioned, the NYT seems cocksure about their reporting: “The American allegations were clearly part of a strategy to try to prevent an attack by exposing it in advance.” Those clever Americans thwarting a Russian attack and saving Ukraine without having to fire a shot. Cough, cough.
Among the Russian demands from the nugatory Brussels talks, the NYT notes, without further comment: “Russia has also demanded that the United States remove all of its nuclear weapons from Europe, and that Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia, three surrounding states that once were part of the Soviet empire, never join NATO.”
The current editors at the NYT should know well the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet the NYT did not connect the dots to Soviet nukes in Cuba and American nukes in Europe. Why were American concerns about nukes across the pond in Cuba a grave security threat while nukes in Europe on Russia’s front porch are not a security threat to Russia?
As a matter of principle, the US-NATO side ought best to consider the security concerns of all actors. And while all the actors are considering, a suggestion: consider declaring continental Europe a nuclear weapon-free zone. It should help anxious Europeans sleep a bit easier.
January 17th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Australia’s treatment of Novak Djokovic, the tennis world number one, has been revelatory. Unintentionally, this has exposed the seedier, arbitrary and inconsistent nature of Australia’s border policies. The approval by the Australian Federal Court of the Immigration Minister Alex Hawke’s decision to re-cancel the prominent Serb’s visa left the country a heaving precedent that will be invoked, in future, with relish.
Djokovic had originally entered the country under the assumption that he had been granted a legitimate vaccine exemption. As the former Australian Tennis Open director Paul McNamee explained to the ABC, “every player and support member fills in a form, visa 408, and everyone does that, you are guided through it by Tennis Australia, every step of the way, and then you get approval, that is the process.”
On December 30, 2021, Djokovic received a letter from the Chief Medical Officer of Tennis Australia explaining that he had been granted a “Medical exemption from COVID vaccination” on the grounds that he had recently recovered from COVID-19. The exemption certificate had been furnished by an Independent Medical Review panel commissioned by Tennis Australia and approved by the Victorian state government’s independent Medical Exemptions Review Panel.
To cap things off, the Department of Home Affairs informed Djokovic that his Australia Travel Declaration has also been given the nod. His “responses [i]ndicated that [he met] the requirements for a quarantine-free travel into Australia where permitted by the jurisdiction of your travel.”
The story turned out rather differently. Such documentation proved insufficient for Djokovic on entering Australia on January 5. A delegated officer of the Australian Border Force hastily cancelled his visa, giving Djokovic insufficient notice to prepare his explanation on the morning of January 6. It was this procedural blunder that led to the Serb’s victory in the Federal Circuit Court, where Judge Anthony Kelly stated the following with some pungency: “Here, a professor and a physician have produced and provided to (Djokovic) a medical exemption. Further to that, that medical exemption and the basis on which it was given was separately given by a further independent expert specialist panel established by the Victorian state government […] The point I am agitated about is, what more could this man have done?”
The Commonwealth, for its part, rejected claims that any deferral of vaccination should not have been read as an excuse not to get vaccinated. The Tennis Australia exemption letter did not constitute sufficient information for the purpose of entering the country unvaccinated.
Exercising ministerial discretion
The Commonwealth’s defeat in the Federal Circuit Court did not end matters. Hawke was left to exercise his vast executive discretion in a none-too Solomonic way. The federal Labor opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, wondered whether the government was conducting a focus group in order to receive “the answer before it responds to the issue”.
As Hawke dithered, Djokovic was ritually torched in media and social media circles for incorrectly filling out the travel declaration. Much of the kindling had been provided by the tennis player himself. He had, it transpired, been in Spain; his agent had made a “human error” in stating that he had not travelled abroad in the 14 days prior to arriving in Australia on January 5.
He had also breached Serbian pandemic restrictions by avoiding isolating for 14 days after receiving a positive PCR result on December 16. Instead, on December 17, he breezily attended a tennis event in Belgrade where he presided over the giving of awards to children and, on the following day, conducted an interview with French journalist Franck Ramella of L’Equipe. “The instructions were clear,” Ramella subsequently wrote on realising that the tennis star had done the interview after testing positive for COVID-19. There were to be “no questions about vaccination.”
This was all a bit much even for the otherwise supportive Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabić, who told the BBC that, “If you’re positive you have to be in isolation.” She did, however, leave it to Djokovic to explain the matter. “I do not know when he actually got the results, when he saw the results, so there is some grey area… the only answer to this can be provided by Novak.”
This growing resume of seeming shiftiness did not augur well for Djokovic’s already anaemically thin chances. The Minister had been furnished with fuel and duly ignited it. The cancellation came, timed with brutal effect, on January 14. It had been made“on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so.” The Australian Open, for which Djokovic had started training for on court, was to commence on January 17.
The threat inflation factor
Within hours, the legal team began proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in a speedy effort to overturn Hawke’s cancellation. The government submission was telling, consciously magnifying the Djokovic threat. He had “indicated publicly that he was opposed to becoming vaccinated against COVID-19”. He had “acted inconsistently with certain COVID-19 restrictions in the past.”
The second ground drew more attention to the first point, with the Minister insisting that Djokovic was stirring an anti-vaccination insurrection: “[T]here are some media reports that some groups opposed to vaccination have supported Mr Djokovic’s presence in Australia, by reference to his unvaccinated status.” The ground was barely credible, given that his reservations about vaccination were already known before entering Australia. As is often the case Down Under, the Australian public is treated as a potentially wayward child who might be tempted by anti-institutional contrarianism.
The third ground followed on from the first: that encouraging such resistance against COVID-19 vaccinations and restrictions “would present a problem for the health of individuals and the operation of Australia’s hospital system”. What a revolutionary monster the Serbian player was being made out to be.
Djokovic’s submission
The defence outlined, plausibly, that Hawke had engaged in a crude bit of threat inflation. It was one thing to deport an individual who, posing an individual health risk, had entered Australia lacking a medical exemption and inconsistently with the guidelines of ATAGI (Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation). It was quite another to do so to a person “who poses negligible individual health risk, enter with an exemption, and consistently with ATAGI guidelines, etc.”
Such reasoning, it followed, was “perverse, illogical, or irrational” and distinctly “out of keeping with the proper exercise of a power the purpose of which is to reduce risk to health”. This also ignored that the cancellation “creates a much larger health risk (or good order risk).”
The Minister had also not addressed “in express terms” what those dangerous consequences to health and good order Djokovic posed might be. This was a “counterfactual” that the Minister did not consider. The “anti-vaccination sentiment” approach was also at odds with the original delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs.
In attempting to hole Hawke’s argument, emphasis was placed on the Minister’s one-sided approach in considering the consequences of Djokovic’s presence, rather than absence. It might very well be that the visa cancellation, the Serb’s detention and deportation, rather than the player’s presence in Australia, could cause unrest. “Mr Djokovic’s point is that that material [suggesting that anti-vaccination groups were upset at the cancellation and his detention] is not referred to or considered in the Minister’s reasons.”
Valiantly, the defence also argued that Hawke’s discretion to cancel the visa could not be undertaken “on an evidence-free figment of his imagination.” The point on whether there was evidence supporting the contention that Djokovic’s presence “may foster sentiment against vaccination” was not addressed. The media reports cited by the Minister to supposedly show anti-vaccination support by groups in Australia failed to even mention Djokovic.
The mess became even more elaborate with the defence salvo that the Minister did not himself know what Djokovic’s actualviews on vaccination were. This was despite claiming that his anti-vaccination stance was a “well-known” one. “This,” the submission bluntly states, “is illogical.” Djokovic’s statement for the record should, the argument went, lead one to an inference that his public views had been “taken out of context” and that he did “not accept the depiction by the ‘international media’ of his views on vaccination”.
All it would have taken was a request by Hawke that Djokovic furnish him with material on the issue. As the player had previously pointed out in other media reports, he was “no expert” on vaccinations and was keeping an “open mind” on the issue; he simply wanted to have “an option to choose” what was “best” for his body.
Dark consequences, sinister precedents
On Sunday, January 16, the decision of the full court of the Federal Court was handed down. (Full reasons are yet to be published.) In finding for the Commonwealth, Chief Justice James Allsop affirmed the traditional reservation shown by Australian judges to challenging exercises of executive power. The grounds made by Djokovic “focus on whether the decision was, for different reasons, irrational or legally unreasonable. It is not part or function of the court to decide upon the merit or wisdom of the decision.”
The Djokovic precedent presents the authorities with a large tarring brush, one to be used against other notable figures of certain opinions seen to pose a risk to Australia’s public interest. Hypotheticals will suffice, given that the Minister need only be satisfied that the person might be a risk to health, safety and good order.
Such latitude also grants authorities a heavy hand to target future dissent and protest. The Australian government will be able “to justify,” barrister and president of Liberty Victoria Mike Stanton warns, “the suppression of legitimate political expression because others might engage in unrest.”
With a stunning lack of imagination, the Djokovic precedent promises that the executive will not be accountable for the disorder and disruption arising from deporting individuals who might command a following. Oppression promises to be twinned with unpardonable stupidity.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
Featured image is from Flickr
January 17th, 2022 by Nicholas Wansbutter
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.
***
2022 seems to be starting right where 2021 left off now we have Prime Minister Justin Trudeau coming out with comments calling people who are unvaccinated racists and misogynists, people who don’t believe in science, and then his Health Minister Mr. Duclos saying that it’s time for “compulsory vaccination”.
So I’m going to take a look at these, frankly, insane pronouncements today on Don’t Talk TV.
Click here to watch the video.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
January 17th, 2022 by Edward Curtin
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.
***
Two of the greatest speeches ever delivered by an American president bookend this extraordinary documentary film. It opens with President John F. Kennedy giving the commencement speech at American University on June 10, 1963 and it closes with his civil rights speech to the American people the following day. It is a deft artistic touch that suggests the brevity of JFK’s heroic efforts for world peace and domestic racial equality and justice before he was assassinated in a public execution in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.
In the former anti-war speech, he called for the end to the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the halt to the arms race, and the abolishment of war and its weapons, especially nuclear. He said:
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children – not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women – not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
In the latter address to the American people, having just sent National Guard troops to the University of Alabama to make sure two black students were admitted despite the racist objections of Governor George Wallace, his words transcended the immediate issue at the university and called for the end to the immoral and illegal discrimination against African Americans in every area of the nation’s life. He said:
One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.
Having framed the documentary thus, Oliver Stone and the screenwriter James DiEugenio do a masterful job of explaining what really happened in the years of Kennedy’s short presidency, why he was such a great threat to the CIA and the military industrial complex, what really happened when they killed him, and how the Warren Commission, the CIA, and the corporate media have worked hand-in-hand to this day to cover up the truth. The current two-hour version of JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass will be followed in a month or so by a more detailed four-hour version.
The importance of this film is twofold: It establishes an updated historical record since the Assassination Records Review Board (AARB) was established as a result of Stone’s 1991 breakthrough film, JFK, which forced the release of previously hidden documents, and, more importantly, it emphatically shows why JFK’s assassination is crucial for understanding the United States today. For without a clear and unambiguous accounting of why he was killed and by whom (I do not mean the actual shooters), and who in the government and media has covered it up, we are doomed to repeat the past as this country has been doing ever since.
Because JFK Revisited assiduously documents the essential claims of Stone’s 1991 film and adds to it with the latest factual material released since the ARRB required the release of the previously secret documents, the film, like the JFKfilm before it, will be denounced by the same media/intelligence forces that slammed the earlier movie. Back then the bogus critiques claimed Stone’s imagination had gone wild and he distorted history, so now the best way for those critics to rip this evidence-filled documentary is to omit mentioning its contents and to continue calling him a conspiracy obsessed guy still intent on promoting his fantasies.
Once it was his “fictions” that were ridiculous; now it is his facts, despite his research colleague and screen writer James DiEugenio’s exhaustive confirmation of the facts that will be released later this year when the annotated script is published. JFK Revisited proves with facts that Stone was right in 1991. Even then, but little known, is that JFK was also accompanied by a book of the film that included copious research notes. But facts don’t seem to matter to Stone’s critics, then or now. They are too damning.
So let’s examine the documentary.
It opens with Kennedy speaking at American University and quickly switches to a montage of condensed news reports of the shooting in Dallas, Kennedy’s death, people’s reactions, Oswald’s arrest, his claim that he’s a “patsy,” Ruby’s killing of Oswald, JFK’s funeral, reports that Kennedy was shot from the front and the rear, the formation of the Warren Commission and the naming of its members, including most significantly the former Director of the CIA Allen Dulles whom Kennedy had fired, the Commission’s finding that Oswald alone killed the president, that there was no conspiracy, the Zapruder film, and NBC’s Chet Huntley saying that the assassination is thoroughly documented (in the Warren Commission Report) and it’s all there for anyone who would like to pursue it.
Huntley’s ironically false statement is followed by a jump cut to Oliver Stone in Dealey Plaza telling how it wasn’t all there at all, that The Warren Report was a sham, and how in the intervening years plenty of new information and evidence has been revealed by the Church Commission Hearings in 1975 that uncovered the CIA and FBI’s machinations in assassination plots at home and abroad; followed a decade later by the public showing of the Zapruder film and the subsequent House Select Committee on Assassinations’ (HSCA) finding that there was probably a conspiracy in Kennedy’s murder.
Although the Warren Report came under questioning during these years, the HSCA sealed half a million “dangerous records” until 2029. But as a result of Stone’s JFK film in 1991, the government was pressured to pass The John F. Kennedy Records Collection Act with its Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). The ARRB ordered the release of the secret documents within four years. Over two million pages were released and they are housed at the National Archives, although certain documents are still being withheld.
One could argue that the truth about the assassination was obvious from the start and that only elements within the U.S. government could have carried out this crime and covered it up. That only simple logic was needed to solve the crime because from the start the Warren Commission made no sense with its magic bullet explanation, and that only national security operatives could have withdrawn the president’s security protection, etc. That new documents are not needed. That arguing any of this is just a pseudo-debate and a waste of time.
There is cogency to that argument, but Stone prefers to take a different route and use the released records to bolster his argument and establish a cinematic record for future generations. He is making accessible in a two-hour movie a powerful historical lesson that should be seen by everyone; it is one absent from the history books students read in school.
That his enemies will try to dissuade the public from viewing the film is not surprising, for doing so with the supporting testimonies of so many experts and the presentation of the suppressed official documents make these critics look like fools, or simply the tools they are. For while this film relies on many documents forced out of the government’s own vaults and therefore hoists the critics with their own petard, it is also a reminder that the media is deeply infiltrated with CIA plants and assets, as has been shown by the revelations of Operation Mockingbird, a program that surely never ended but has only intensified today’s propaganda.
One glance at the headlines of reviews of this film since its release two months ago reveals the vituperative personal nature of the attacks on Stone, showing that the film’s evidentiary content is of no interest to the reviewers. Ad hominem attacks will suffice. Even the one review I read previous to writing this – sent to me by someone who considered it to be positive – was a sly piece of disinformation disguised as praise. The enemies of truth are not just vulgar morons but very sophisticated tricksters.
Let me break down the evidence presented in the film in order of appearance. First, the so-called three bullets and the magic bullet. Second, the alleged rifle and new evidence confirming that Lee Oswald was not on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Third, the autopsy, its faked photographs, and the pressure placed on the Parkland Hospital doctors to change what they saw with their own eyes. Fourth, Oswald’s history working with the CIA and FBI, his fake defection to the Soviet Union, the coverup of the intelligence agencies’ use of Oswald from start to finish, and the other plots to assassinate Kennedy in Chicago and Tampa that follow the same template as Oswald in Dallas. Fifth, why Kennedy was murdered.
None of these issues are analyzed in some half-assed theoretical way, but are supported by documentary facts – evidence, in other words. As Stone says, “Conspiracy theories are now conspiracy facts.” Nevertheless, those writers whose review headlines I mentioned prefer to call Stone “looney,” a “conspiracy quack,” etc. as they ignore the facts, new and old.
The Magic Bullet
The Warren Report claimed that since three empty shells were found on the floor of the sixth floor of The Texas Book Depository that only three bullets were fired, and from that spot. The FBI claimed that all three bullets hit inside the car, two hitting Kennedy and one Gov. Connolly. But evidence showed that one bullet missed the car, striking an underpass.
This forced the Commission into a dilemma, and so Arlen Specter, the future long-standing senator, conjured up the so-called Magic Bullet Theory, claiming that one bullet hit and passed through Kennedy only to hit Connolly, zigzagging absurdly and causing seven wounds. It was ridiculous but conveniently avoided admitting that there had to be more shots and therefore a conspiracy. The Magic bullet – CE 399 – was said to have been found in pristine condition on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital. This bullet was foundational to the Warren Commission’s case, but Stone shows with released documents that there was no chain of custody for this bullet and that lies were told about it. He further shows how this magically found pristine bullet could not have passed through two men and emerge like new.
The film immediately demolishes the Warren Commission’s basic premise.
The “Rifle” with No Oswald on the Sixth Floor
And then this: the film shows that the rifle Oswald is alleged to have used and ordered through the mail with its paper trail (he could have walked into a store and bought one without leaving evidence) does not look like the famous highly questionable photos of Oswald posing with a rifle in the back yard. But more importantly than various other anomalies concerning the rifle(s-?), such as the absence of Oswald’s hand prints, is the new evidence the film documents about Oswald’s non-presence on the sixth floor.
Researcher Barry Ernest went to the National Archives to find the original testimony of Victoria Adams who worked on the fourth floor and knew Oswald. He discovered that it was missing and that the Warren Commission had destroyed the tapes. So he went and found Adams, and what she told him contradicted the Commission’s findings. It was claimed that after shooting Kennedy, Oswald quickly went down the back stairs to the second floor lunch room. Adams told Ernest that immediately after the assassination she went down the back stairs from the fourth floor and saw no one. Ernest found corroborating evidence from two other women, Sandra Styles who accompanied Vicki Adams down the stairs and Vicki’s supervisor Dorothy Garner who saw them descend, to back Adams’ testimony, about which the Warren Commission lied. Further proof that Oswald could not have shot Kennedy from the sixth floor window since he wasn’t there.
The Head Wound and the Autopsy Coverup
With video testimonies from Doctors Perry, Clark, and Crenshaw from Parkland Hospital, Stone shows how the original testimonies placed the neck and head wounds to Kennedy coming from the front, but that pressure was applied to Perry to recant, which he did, only to later to admit his recantation was a lie and that the wound in Kennedy’s neck was an entrance wound.
Then with the autopsy, we learn how it was controlled not by forensic pathologists experienced in doing autopsies on gunshot victims, but by shadowy military and intelligence figures. We learn of another magic bullet that allegedly was found in Parkland Hospital where it was claimed it fell out of a back wound of the president. But this bullet later turns out to be The Magic Bullet after further legerdemain by Warren Commission member Gerald Ford.
This stuff is highly comical if it weren’t so sinister, and it is surely “unbelievable” as the eminent forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht tells the viewer. That one of the autopsy doctors burned his notes and another had his disappear might not be new knowledge, but to learn that two honest FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy and were not called as witnesses by the Warren Commission – James Sibert and Francis X. O’Neill, Jr. – were shown the autopsy photos in depositions taken by the Assassinations Record Review Board in 1997 and claimed that Kennedy’s head had been doctored to conceal his gaping rear head wound is startlingly new evidence.
As is the important diagram Sibert drew of a large head wound in the back of the head supporting a shot from the front.
As is the ARRB’s declassification of forty witnesses’ testimony that they saw a gaping hole in the back of the President’s head consistent with a shot from the front.
As is the White House photographer Robert Knudsen’s admission thirty-years later that the photos he took were after the head had been doctored to conceal the wound.
As is the evidence that the autopsy photos of JFK’s brain in the National archives are fakes.
Thus, the film emphatically shows that the new forensic evidence proves that there were multiple shooters and that Oswald, who was not on the sixth floor, was not one of them. Oswald, because he was killed by the F.B.I. affiliated Jack Ruby two days later, never had a trial, but if he did, in light of all we know now, he would never be convicted, yet the media, led by The New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc., have spent decades covering up the truth and claiming Oswald killed Kennedy, just as they have with their equally bogus claim that Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK. They can not be so ignorant not to know they are spouting absurdities, so one can only conclude they are lying to protect the killers. That they are accomplices after the fact.
Oswald the Patsy and his Connections to the CIA and FBI
This section contains much evidentiary information about Oswald that is in the 1991 film. That he was associated with David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, and Clay Shaw (alias Betrand), all of whom were FBI and CIA affiliated. That he was a provocateur playing multiple roles, one day an anti-Castro protester and the next day a Castro supporter. That he was trained as a Marine at a top secret Military base in Japan that ran U-2 spy flights run by the CIA over the Soviet Union. That his defection to the Soviet Union was likely a part of a CIA defector program. That after marrying a Russian wife, he was welcomed back into the U.S. by the government he “betrayed” and greeted upon his arrival by an intelligence asset who got him to Dallas to hook up with another CIA operative, George de Mohrenschildt.
Everything we learn about Oswald makes it clear he was working for the CIA and FBI while simultaneously being on their watch list for years. The CIA denials that this was true were lies. We learn that the ARRB had a hard time getting the CIA to hand over documents on Oswald, that both the FBI and CIA lifted flashes on Oswald in early October 1963 which allowed him access to the Dallas parade route without attention. We learn that the Secret Service destroyed their threat sheets for 1963, those being reports of JFK’s prior trips and threats associated with them.
Essentially, we learn again with documentation what was in the earlier film, JFK, and more; all of which proves that Oswald was being run by the CIA and that he was used as a patsy after the assassination. We see the similarities to the earlier plots on the President’s life in Chicago (see JFK and the Unspeakable by James W. Douglass re the Chicago plot) and Tampa that are eerily alike to that in Dallas. We learn everything essential, and yet this is just the two-hour version of the film.
Why Was Kennedy Killed, Who Benefited, and Who Had the Power to Cover it Up?
In the conclusion of the film, we are told all the things that Kennedy did that made him an arch-enemy of the CIA and the military. Kennedy, who was hated by the CIA even before the Bay of Pigs disaster, afterwards fired the CIA Director Allen Dulles and his subordinates and promised to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after he realized that they tricked him with the Bay of Pigs.
In 1961, they also killed those Kennedy greatly admired and was working with on issues of decolonialization: Patrice Lumumba of the Congo and the Secretary General of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjöld. Less than eleven months into office, JFK was faced with a savage enemy from within that he didn’t control. He told the French ambassador that he was in no way involved in the CIA’s attempts to assassinate French President Charles de Gaulle, his ally, and that he had no control over the CIA.
After JFK’s assassination, Allen Dulles told journalist Willie Morris that Kennedy “thought he was a god.” This from the man who had his henchmen kill with impunity and loved the Nazis with whom he worked and brought into the U.S. government (see David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard). In a document uncovered by the ARRB called the Northwoods Document, the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to Kennedy that he approve a false flag operation to start a war with Cuba by blowing up an empty plane over Cuba and blaming it on Castro and setting off bombs in American cities killing Americans for the same purpose. Of course, Kennedy refused, only intensifying their hatred of him. Then when he wouldn’t bomb Cuba during the missile crisis in October 1962, gave his American University speech the following June, sought reconciliation with the Soviet Union, and decided to withdraw from Vietnam, the die was cast: He had to die.
Who has benefited from his death?
The war manufacturers first and foremost, for they have been reaping their bloody profits ever since. The war against Vietnam was just the start, for the wars and alarms of war have never stopped.
And the CIA, working as the leading edge for the military around the world, continuing the Pax Americana for Wall St. and the power hungry millionaires and billionaires who hate democracy.
And of course, the media companies that are stenographers for the CIA, the politicians who pimp for them, and the vast interconnected power elites who cash in while playing innocent.
Finally, without having to explicitly say it, JFK Revisited makes it emphatically clear by presenting evidence that the criminals who committed this terrible crime, together with their media accomplices, were the only ones able to cover it up.
Of course, there is more to this powerful and important film than I have mentioned here, all carefully laid out and documented. Those who criticized Stone’s earlier movie and continue to hurl insults at him rather than consider the evidence he and DiEugenio present are the worst kind of anti-intellectual sycophants. If they were forced to dispute the content of this film step-by-step, that would simply expose their agendas, something they must keep hidden to safeguard their establishment credentials.
JFK Revisited ends with an important reminder from David Talbot that the truth of this film about an event that took place long ago is so essential to understand because of its contemporary relevance. It is not dead history. The “horror show” we are now experiencing has its roots in JFK’s public execution on the streets of Dallas, when the killers sent the most obvious message:
Obey or you will suffer the same fate.
The United States is still controlled by the forces that killed President Kennedy – the CIA and those who comprise the national security state that wage war at home and abroad in contradistinction to everything JFK was trying to accomplish. Their cowardly allies in the media are everywhere.
There is a reason why, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. tells the viewer near the film’s end, that all across the world there are streets named and statues erected to honor President Kennedy: for people know that he was a brave man of peace and human reconciliation and that he died at the hands of scoundrels intent on stopping his work.
With JFK Revisited, Oliver Stone has truly honored this fallen hero. Like Jim Garrison in JFK, he offers this film as his closing statement to the jury, which is all of us. Here is the evidence. Consider it closely. Render your verdict.
By doing so, we may yet take back the country from the forces of evil.
Bravo to Stone and DiEugenio! They have created a tour de force.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.
Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image is from the author
January 17th, 2022 by Dr. Gustavo Porras Cortés
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.
***
Comrade Daniel Kovalik interviews Dr. Gustavo Porras Cortés, president of the National Assembly of Nicaragua a few days after the takeover of President Commander Daniel Ortega and the companion Vice President Rosario Murillo on Monday, January 10 2022.
In Spanish and English
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
January 17th, 2022 by The Expose
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 investigation of Office for National Statistics data has revealed that since the Covid-19 vaccine began to be rolled-out to teenagers there has been a 53% rise in the number of deaths due to all-causes among males aged 15-19, and each spike in deaths correlates perfectly with a spike in administration of the first, second, and third doses of the Covid-19 injection to this age group.
Further investigation has also found that whilst Covid-19 deaths remained low among this age group following Covid-19 vaccination, they were still considerably higher than the negligible amount of deaths that had occurred before the Covid-19 vaccination was introduced.
Suggesting Covid-19 vaccination may have in fact had a negative effect on the immune systems of the teenage boys, or deaths may have been misattributed as Covid-19 deaths, as has been so easily done since March 2020, to cover up the fact that the Covid-19 injections may have played a roll in the deaths.
The above graph has been plotted from data found within the 2020 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales’, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here, and the 2021 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here.
The graph shows the number of deaths registered each week throughout 2020 and 2021 among teenage boys aged 15-19, and we can clearly see that from week 18 onwards in 2021 there was a noticeable rise in deaths due to all causes among teenage boys compared to 2020, with things taking a turn for the worse from week 23.
For instance in week 26, despite the Covid-19 virus allegedly reaking havoc throughout the UK, there were just 2 deaths registered among male teens aged 15-19 in England and Wales. But fast forward one year and we can see that there were 19 deaths registered among male teens aged 15-19 in England and Wales during week 26. That represents a 850% increase.
The reason the increase in deaths among male teens occurring from week 18 onwards is concerning is because according to the following chart provided by the UK Health Security Agency in the Vaccine Surveillance reports, this is the point where a spike in vaccinations of 18 and 19 year-olds began, and around the same time some 16 and 17-year-olds began to be given the Covid-19 injection.
Overall, according to the ONS reports there were a total of 434 deaths due to all causes among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales between week 1 and week 52 in 2020. However, between week 1 and week 52 in 2021 there were a total of 577 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales.
But what’s concerning here is that the number of deaths between week 1 and 17 in both years are almost identical, with 170 deaths occurring in 2020, and 172 deaths occurring in 2021.
The concerning difference in deaths only occurred after the Covid-19 vaccine was introduced to this age group. With 264 deaths occuring among males aged 15-19 between week 18 and week 52 in 2020, but 405 deaths occuring among males aged 15-19 between week 18 and week 52 in 2021.
This means deaths among males aged 15-19 increased by 53% following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this age-group compared to the same period in 2020.
Many people may try to shoot this statistic down by claiming Covid-19 was actually to blame, so we also analysed the number of Covid-19 deaths registered weekly among Males aged 15-19 in England and Wales throughout the whole of 2020 and 2021.
The following graph has again been plotted from data found within the 2020 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales’, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here, and the 2021 edition of ‘Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, which can be downloaded here, and accessed on the ONS website here.
As we can see the number of Covid-19 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales has been pretty scarce over a period of two years. No more than 3 deaths have been registered in a single week. So therefore we can clearly see that Covid-19 does not play a major part in the 53% increase in deaths between week 18 and week 52 in 2021.
But this data does show something rather concerning, in that whilst Covid-19 deaths remained low they did actually increase significantly following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this population.
Between week 12 (start of Lockdown 1 in 2020) and week 17 in 2020 there were a grand total of 4 Covid-19 deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales. During the same period in 2021 there was only a single death registered.
However, look at the difference between week 18-52 in 2020 and in 2021.
There were 2 Covid-19 deaths registered between week 18 and week 52 during 2020, but there were 11 Covid-19 deaths registered between week 18 and week 52 during 2021, despite the Covid-19 vaccination being introduced to this age group.
Therefore, following Covid-19 vaccination, Covid-19 deaths increased 450% compared to the number of Covid-19 deaths during the same time-frame in 2020 when there was no Covid-19 vaccine available.
This data therefore suggests that the Covid-19 vaccines have either had a negative effect on the immune systems of 15-19-year-old males, or deaths among this age-group have wrongly been misattributed as Covid-19 to cover-up the fact the Covid-19 vaccine may have had a roll in the deaths, and we can safely conclude that the Covid-19 vaccine is to blame for those deaths because of the following correlation we have unearthed.
The following three charts are taken from the UK Health Security Agency’s Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 1 – 2022, and they show the cumulative weekly vaccine uptake by age for dose 1, dose 2, and dose 3 of the Covid-19 vaccine.
What we can see here is that there was a clear spike in 1st doses administered among 18 and 19 year-olds between week 22 and week 27, and a clear spike in 1st doses administered among 16 and 17-year-olds between week 31 and week 36.
What we can see here is that there was a clear spike in 2nd doses administered to 18 and 19-year-olds between week 31 and week 37, as well as the start of 2nd doses being administered to vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds from week 18 onwards.
We can also see a clear spike in 2nd doses being administered to 16 and 17-year-olds between week 39 and 46, and between week 46 and 51.
What we can see here is a clear spike in 3rd doses being administered to 18 and 19-year-olds, between week 49 and 51, as well as the start of 3rd doses being administered to 16 and 17-year-olds from wek 49.
This is concerning because of the fact there were clear spikes in deaths among males aged 15-19 in England and Wales between week 23-30, week 33-36, week 39-46, and week 48-51.
Therefore the spikes in doses of Covid-19 vaccine being administered correlate perfectly with the spikes in deaths among males aged 15-19 during 2021, as we have shown in the following chart –
We’re sure there will be those who argue that correlation does not equal causation, but if you are going to argue that then please explain in as much depth as we have why deaths among teenage boys were virtually the same between week 1 and 17 in 2020 and 2021 but then increased by 53% between week 18 and 52 following the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccine to this age group.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from The Last Refuge
January 17th, 2022 by Pepe Escobar
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
The year 2022 started with Kazakhstan on fire, a serious attack against one of the key hubs of Eurasian integration. We are only beginning to understand what and how it happened.
On Monday morning, leaders of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) held an extraordinary session to discuss Kazakhstan.
Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev framed it succinctly. Riots were “hidden behind unplanned protests.” The goal was “to seize power” – a coup attempt. Actions were “coordinated from a single center.” And “foreign militants were involved in the riots.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin went further: during the riots, “Maidan technologies were used,” a reference to the Ukrainian square where 2013 protests unseated a NATO-unfriendly government.
Defending the prompt intervention of CSTO peacekeeping forces in Kazakhstan, Putin said, “it was necessary to react without delay.” The CSTO will be on the ground “as long as necessary,” but after the mission is accomplished, “of course, the entire contingent will be withdrawn from the country.” Forces are expected to exit later this week.
But here’s the clincher: “CSTO countries have shown that they will not allow chaos and ‘color revolutions’ to be implemented inside their borders.”
Putin was in synch with Kazakh State Secretary Erlan Karin, who was the first, on the record, to apply the correct terminology to events in his country: What happened was a “hybrid terrorist attack,” by both internal and external forces, aimed at overthrowing the government.
The tangled hybrid web
Virtually no one knows about it. But last December, another coup was discreetly thwarted in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek. Kyrgyz intel sources attribute the engineering to a rash of NGOs linked with Britain and Turkey.
That introduces an absolutely key facet of The Big Picture: NATO-linked intel and their assets may have been preparing a simultaneous color revolution offensive across Central Asia.
On my Central Asia travels in late 2019, pre-Covid, it was plain to see how western NGOs – Hybrid War fronts – remained extremely powerful in both Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.
Yet, they are just one nexus in a western nebulae of Hybrid War fog deployed across Central Asia, and West Asia for that matter. Here we see the CIA and the US Deep State crisscrossing MI6 and different strands of Turkish intel.
When President Tokayev was referring in code to a “single center,” he meant a so far ‘secret’ US-Turk-Israeli military-intel operations room based in the southern business hub of Almaty, according to a highly placed Central Asia intel source.
In this “center,” there were 22 Americans, 16 Turks and 6 Israelis coordinating sabotage gangs – trained in West Asia by the Turks – and then rat-lined to Almaty.
The op started to unravel for good when Kazakh forces – with the help of Russian/CSTO intel – retook control of the vandalized Almaty airport, which was supposed to be turned into a hub for receiving foreign military supplies.
The Hybrid War west had to be stunned and livid at how the CSTO intercepted the Kazakh operation at such lightning speed. The key element is that the secretary of Russian National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, saw the Big Picture eons ago.
So, it’s no mystery why Russia’s aerospace and aero-transported forces, plus the massive necessary support infrastructure, were virtually ready to go.
Back in November, Patrushev’s laser was already focused on the degrading security situation in Afghanistan. Tajik political scientist Parviz Mullojanov was among the very few who were stressing that there were as many as 8,000 imperial machine Salafi-jihadi assets, shipped by a rat line from Syria and Iraq, loitering in the wilds of northern Afghanistan.
That’s the bulk of ISIS-Khorasan – or ISIS reconstituted near the borders of Turkmenistan. Some of them were duly transported to Kyrgyzstan. From there, it was very easy to cross the border from Bishek and show up in Almaty.
It took no time for Patrushev and his team to figure out, after the imperial retreat from Kabul, how this jihadi reserve army would be used: along the 7,500 km-long border between Russia and the Central Asian ‘stans’.
That explains, among other things, a record number of preparation drills conducted in late 2021 at the 210th Russian military base in Tajikistan.
James Bond speaks Turkish
The breakdown of the messy Kazakh op necessarily starts with the usual suspects: the US Deep State, which all but “sang” its strategy in a 2019 RAND corporation report, Extending Russia. Chapter 4, on “geopolitical measures”, details everything from “providing lethal aid to Ukraine”, “promoting regime change in Belarus”, and “increasing support for Syrian rebels” – all major fails – to “reducing Russian influence in Central Asia.”
That was the master concept. Implementation fell to the MI6-Turk connection.
The CIA and MI6 had been investing in dodgy outfits in Central Asia since at least 2005, when they encouraged the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), then close to the Taliban, to wreak havoc in southern Kyrgyzstan. Nothing happened.
It was a completely different story by May 2021, when the MI6’s Jonathan Powell met the leadership of Jabhat al-Nusra – which harbors a lot of Central Asian jihadis – somewhere in the Turkish-Syrian border near Idlib.
The deal was that these ‘moderate rebels’ – in US terminology – would cease to be branded ‘terrorists’ as long as they followed the anti-Russia NATO agenda.
That was one of the key prep moves ahead of the jihadist ratline to Afghanistan – complete with Central Asia branching out.
The genesis of the offensive should be found in June 2020, when former ambassador to Turkey from 2014 to 2018, Richard Moore, was appointed head of MI6.
Moore may not have an inch of Kim Philby’s competence, but he does fit the profile: rabid Russophobe, and a cheerleader of the Great Turania fantasy, which promotes a pan-Turk confederation of Turkic-speaking peoples from West Asia and the Caucasus to Central Asia and even Russian republics in the Volga.
MI6 is deeply entrenched in all the ‘stans’ except autarchic Turkmenistan – cleverly riding the pan-Turkist offensive as the ideal vehicle to counter Russia and China.
Erdogan himself has been invested on a hardcore Great Turania offensive, especially after the creation of the Turkic Council in 2009.
Crucially, next March, the summit of the Confederation Council of Turkic-speaking States – the new Turkic Council denomination – will take place in Kazakhstan. The city of Turkestan, in southern Kazakhstan, is expected to be named as the spiritual capital of the Turkic world.
And here, the ‘Turkic world’ enters into a frontal clash with the integrating Russian concept of Greater Eurasia Partnership, and even with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that, crucially, does not count Turkey as a member.
Erdogan’s short term ambition seems at first to be only commercial: after Azerbaijan won the Karabakh war, he expects to use Baku to get access to Central Asia via the Caspian Sea, complete with Turkey’s industrial-military complex sales of military technology to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
Turkish companies are already investing heavily in real estate and infrastructure. And in parallel, Ankara’s soft power is on overdrive, finally collecting the fruits of exercising a lot of pressure, for instance, to speed up the transition in Kazakhstan from Cyrillic script to the Latin alphabet, starting in 2023.
Yet both Russia and China are very much aware that Turkey essentially represents NATO entering Central Asia. The organization of Turkic states are cryptically called the Kazakh operation ‘fuel protests’.
It’s all very murky. Erdogan’s neo-Ottomanism – which comes with massive cheerleading by his Muslim Brotherhood base – essentially has nothing to do with the pan-Turanic drive, which is a racialist movement predicating domination by relatively ‘pure’ Turks.
The problem is that they are converging while becoming more extreme, with Turkey’s right-wing Grey Wolves deeply implicated. That explains why Ankara intel is a sponsor and, in many cases, a weaponizer of both the ISIS-Khorasan franchise and those Turan racists, from Bosnia to Xinjiang via Central Asia.
The Empire handsomely profits from this toxic association, in Armenia, for instance. And the same would happen in Kazakhstan if the operation is successful.
Bring on the Trojan Horses
Every color revolution needs a ‘Maximum’ Trojan Horse. In our case, that seems to be the role of former head of KNB (National Security Committee) Karim Massimov, now held in prison and charged with treason.
Hugely ambitious, Massimov is half-Uyghur, and that, in theory, obstructed what he saw as his pre-ordained rise to power. His connections with Turkish intel are not yet fully detailed, unlike his cozy relationship with Joe Biden and son.
A former Minister of Internal Affairs and State Security, Lt Gen Felix Kulov, has weaved a fascinating tangled web explaining the possible internal dynamics of the ‘coup’ built into the color revolution.
According to Kulov, Massimov and Samir Abish, the nephew of recently ousted Kazakh Security Council Chairman Nursultan Nazarbayev, were up to their necks in supervising ‘secret’ units of ‘bearded men’ during the riots. The KNB was directly subordinated to Nazarbayev, who until last week was the chairman of the Security Council.
When Tokayev understood the mechanics of the coup, he demoted both Massimov and Samat Abish. Then Nazarbayev ‘voluntarily’ resigned from his life-long chairmanship of the Security Council. Abish then got this post, promising to stop the ‘bearded men,’ and then to resign.
So that would point directly to a Nazarbayev-Tokayev clash. It makes sense as, during his 29-year rule, Nazarbayev played a multi-vector game that was too westernized and which did not necessarily benefit Kazakhstan. He adopted British laws, played the pan-Turkic card with Erdogan, and allowed a tsunami of NGOs to promote an Atlanticist agenda.
Tokayev is a very smart operator. Trained by the foreign service of the former USSR, fluent in Russian and Chinese, he is totally aligned with Russia-China – which means fully in sync with the masterplan of the BRI, the Eurasia Economic Union, and the SCO.
Tokayev, much like Putin and Xi, understands how this BRI/EAEU/SCO triad represents the ultimate imperial nightmare, and how destabilizing Kazakhstan – a key actor in the triad – would be a mortal coup against Eurasian integration.
Kazakhstan, after all, represents 60 percent of Central Asia’s GDP, massive oil/gas and mineral resources, cutting-edge high tech industries: a secular, unitary, constitutional republic bearing a rich cultural heritage.
It didn’t take long for Tokayev to understand the merits of immediately calling the CSTO to the rescue: Kazakhstan signed the treaty way back in 1994. After all, Tokayev was fighting a foreign-led coup against his government.
Putin, among others, has stressed how an official Kazakh investigation is the only one entitled to get to the heart of the matter.
It’s still unclear exactly who – and to what extent – sponsored the rioting mobs. Motives abound: to sabotage a pro-Russia/China government, to provoke Russia, to sabotage BRI, to plunder mineral resources, to turbo-charge a House of Saud-style ‘Islamization’.
Rushed to only a few days before the start of the Russia-US ‘security guarantees’ in Geneva, this color revolution represented a sort of counter-ultimatum – in desperation – by the NATO establishment.
Central Asia, West Asia, and the overwhelming majority of the Global South have witnessed the lightning fast Eurasian response by the CSTO troops – who, having now done their job, are set to leave Kazakhstan in a couple of days – and how this color revolution has failed, miserably.
It might as well be the last. Beware the rage of a humiliated Empire.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from The Cradle
January 17th, 2022 by Dr. Martin Luther King
One day,
Youngsters will learn words they will not understand,
Children from India will ask: “What is hunger?”
Children from Alabama will ask: “What is racial segregation?”
Children from Hiroshima will ask: “What is the atomic bomb?”
Children at school will ask: “What is war?”
You will answer them, you will tell them: “Those are words not used any more,
Like ‘stage-coaches’, ‘galleys’ or ‘slavery’,
Words no longer meaningful,
That is why they have been removed from dictionaries.”
Martin Luther King
January 17th, 2022 by Leonardo Flores
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 Organization of American States (OAS) has never been a friend to the peoples of the Americas. This institution, ostensibly a space for multilateralism, has instead always been a tool for the U.S. Department of State. As Fidel Castro said in 1962, it is nothing but the U.S. Ministry of Colonies. That is truer now than ever before under the leadership of Secretary General Luis Almagro, who has been at the helm since March 2015. He is quite possibly the worst leader since the OAS was founded in 1948.
Here are ten reasons Almagro has to go:
1. Almagro and the OAS lit the fuse for the 2019 coup in Bolivia. They falsely claimed the presidential results showing Evo Morales being re-elected were “inexplicable”, which set off unrest and activated a plot that overthrew him. These claims were so thoroughly debunked that members of the U.S. Congress requested an investigation into the OAS’s role in the coup. Almagro immediately recognized the coup government, which committed “summary executions and widespread repression” during its year in power. After saying nothing about the coup regime’s victims, the OAS issued a statement condemning Bolivia’s judicial system the day after coup leader Jeanine Añez was arrested. This blatant interference in the domestic affairs of a member state runs counter to the OAS charter and led Mexico to chastise the OAS for its behavior towards Bolivia.
2. Almagro’s cravenness helped legitimize four more years of the Honduran narco-dictatorship led by Juan Orlando Hernández. The 2017 elections in Honduras were actually riddled with fraud, and initially, Almagro and the OAS did the right thing: they denounced the fraud and called for new elections. But the Trump administration was happy with the results and recognized the elections. Within a month, Almagro backtracked, which “called his own credibility into question” according to diplomat Sir Ronald Sanders. Despite the documented crimes of the Juan Orlando Hernández regime, Almagro embraced and legitimized the Honduran government.
3. Almagro continued the OAS’s long history of interfering in Haiti. In 2020, when President Jovenel Moïse ruled without a parliament and gave himself an extra year on his term, the OAS issued a press release telling Haitians they should “comply.” Almagro, acting without the approval of OAS member states, sent a delegation to Haiti (which was in the country for just five hours) to prop up the Moïse government in the face of intensifying protests. Just before Moïse’s assassination in 2021, the OAS recommended that he appoint a new prime minister and set elections before the end of the year – precisely what the majority of Haitians did not want.
4. Almagro embraced the 2016 coup and the Temer regime in Brazil. Right after a meeting with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff before her impeachment, Almagro denounced the proceedings against her as politicized and without merit. But once the coup happened, he had nothing to say about it and was quick to accept the Temer regime, visiting his government less than two months after the coup. When wildly popular former President Lula da Silva was arrested in 2018 and barred from upcoming elections, Almagro and the OAS did nothing. This paved the way for right-wing extremist Jair Bolsonaro to win the presidency. Almagro has had little to say about Bolsonaro’s horrible treatment of Indigenous peoples, Afro-Brazilians, peasants and the environment, among others.
5. Almagro ignored human rights abuses by security forces during massive protests in Haiti, Honduras, Ecuador, Colombia and Chile. Almagro visited Ecuador in 2019 to congratulate the government of Lenin Moreno for its handling of protests that left 11 dead, over a thousand injured and hundreds arrested. He would later say that Chilean President Sebastián Piñera “efficiently defended public order” – the same Piñera who declared war on his country’s protesters and whose police forces targeted their eyes. Regarding the protests in Colombia that left at least 80 dead, dozens disappeared and thousands assaulted by police, Almagro limited his criticism to a tweet condemning both the excessive use of force by police and protester violence, drawing a false equivalence between extrajudicial killings and vandalism. Almagro has yet to say anything about the 171 social leaders murdered in Colombia or the 96 massacres the country had in 2021 alone. While ignoring violations in member countries, Almagro and the OAS condemned the Cuban government over the July 2021 protests, despite the fact that Cuba isn’t a member of the OAS.
6. Almagro is waging a hybrid war against Venezuela. Under his watch, the OAS violated its own charter and procedures time and time again to attempt to intervene in Venezuela. He tried to invoke the Inter-American Democratic Charter against Venezuela, a tool meant to be used as a response to coups, not to spur coups. He immediately recognized fake “interim president” Juan Guaidó and accepted his fake diplomats into the OAS, although Venezuela had formally left the organization by then. Almagro also tried to invoke the Rio Treaty, a defense pact that could have opened a path for a regional invasion of Venezuela, and has said “all options” should be considered for overthrowing the Venezuelan government. He told former Spanish President José Luis Zapatero “Don’t be stupid” when Zapatero pushed for a negotiated solution to the crisis in Venezuela.
7. Almagro is also one of the main drivers behind the attempts at regime change in Nicaragua. Almagro and the OAS strongly supported the attempted coup in 2018, in which the U.S. was heavily involved. The violence of the protesters (who killed at least 60 people, including 22 police as well as government officials and supporters) was deliberately ignored to frame a narrative around government human rights abuses and justify intervention. Almagro smeared Nicaragua’s presidential elections as part of a campaign to delegitimize President Daniel Ortega. Just like in Venezuela, he has been a cheerleader for illegal U.S. sanctions meant to cripple the economy.
8. Similar to Trump and Bolsonaro, Almagro lashes out at the media and punishes those who criticize him. In response to questions raised about OAS allegations of fraud in Bolivia’s 2019 elections, Almagro published a bizarre rant that invoked Nazis, attacked scholars and made absurd allegations against the New York Times. He failed to respond to letters sent by members of Congress, demonstrating a total lack of accountability. Almagro denounced two OAS electoral observers as “spies” for disagreeing with his false claims of fraud in the 2019 Bolivia elections. He essentially fired Paulo Abrão, the head of the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights (IACHR), because under Abrão the IACHR denounced the Añez regime’s human rights abuses in Bolivia.
9. Plus, he’s likely corrupt. In 2018, Juan Jiménez Mayor, spokesperson for the Mission to Support the Fight against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (Maccih), resigned from his post because of lack of institutional support from Almagro and alleged corruption in the anti-corruption campaign. Prosecutor Julio Arbizu also resigned from the commission, claiming that “conversations between Almagro and [President Juan Orlando] Hernández” were about using the Maccih to divert criticism from Hernández. The Mission lined the financially broke OAS’s pockets with millions of dollars in dedicated aid from the U.S. and EU. Arbizu alleges that Almagro had “arbitrary use” of these funds and that he hired two unqualified friends to work at the Maccih, one of whom was openly racist and classist towards Maccih staff. Almagro promised to serve only one term as OAS Secretary General, but his reelection in 2020 prompted an anonymous source to publish a widely-circulated letter that detailed cronyism and conflicts of interest in Almagro’s hires for important OAS positions, as well the deep divisions within the OAS caused by Almagro’s decisions.
10. Almagro apparently has nothing to say about the statue of Queen Isabella in front of the OAS. At a time when governments all over Latin America are taking down statues that pay tribute to perpetrators of genocide, racism and colonialism, Almagro has ignored a July 2021 request from CODEPINK to meet to discuss removing this symbol of the centuries-long holocaust unleashed on the indigenous people of the Americas. He will also likely ignore an upcoming open letter from prominent figures throughout the Americas calling for the statue’s removal.
Have more reasons why Almagro has to go? Post them on Twitter with #AlmagroRenuncia #AlmagroResign.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Leonardo Flores is a Latin American Campaign coordinator with CODEPINK. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from the author
January 17th, 2022 by B.N. Frank
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 opposition to expensive, hazardous, and privacy invasive utility “Smart” Meters (electric, gas, and water) has been ongoing since companies first started deploying them. A free online documentary was produced about these horrible devices in 2013 and then updated in 2017. Adding insult to injury, the high costs associated with purchasing, installing, and replacing them are usually passed on to customers (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21).
Despite all the problems associated with these meters – including fires, explosions (see 1, 2, 3) and health risks to humans and pets (see 1, 2, 3) – smart meter deployment has already reached 65% in the U.S. Over the years, the state of Virginia had repeatedly rejected smart meter deployment (see 1, 2). That seems to have changed.
From Utility Dive:
Virginia okays Dominion’s plan to deploy 1.1M smart meters
Published Jan. 11, 2022
Dive Brief:
Dive Insight:
Dominion Energy Virginia’s 10-year Grid Transformation Plan, designed in response to Virginia’s 2018 Grid Transformation & Security Act, envisions a broad restructuring of the electricity grid in order to integrate more solar, wind and battery storage technology. The company had argued that as more distributed energy resources come online in response to state and federal policy, it will be necessary to create a more nimble distribution system with responsive rates in order to ensure reliability and cut down on costs.
The second phase of the plan approved by the SCC covers $666.5 million in capital spending for 2022 and 2023, which the company can seek recovery of in a future proceeding. The plan will allow Dominion to spend $194.4 million in grid technologies, including intelligent grid devices and fault location, isolation and service restoration projects targeted at grid segments with below-average reliability. It also includes $27.7 million on grid infrastructure spending for corridor improvements and voltage island mitigation.
As we bring more renewable energy onto our grid to build a cleaner future, and focus on increasing resiliency, we must modernize the way the system works,” said Charlene Whitfield, senior vice president of Power Delivery at Dominion Energy Virginia, in a statement. Whitfield added that the decision “ensures that we can remain agile as a company to deliver the reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean energy that our customers want and expect.”
SCC had denied the smart meter proposal in previous filings, saying it was based on speculation and would impose heavy costs on Dominion’s customers. However, the modified proposal includes incentives for customers to reduce electricity use at times of high demand and a timeline to implement those rates system-wide. Dominion had installed roughly 715,000 smart meters by the end of 2020 and envisions full deployment of smart grids for its 2.3 million residential customers by 2024.
However, environmental and consumer advocate group Appalachian Voices continued to argue against the plan, saying in a November filing that the request “falls woefully short of a reasonable and prudent standard.” The group said that smart meter approval should have been conditioned on a requirement “to implement a universal peak-time rebate” as well as inclusion of the Connect-My-Data standard required in five other states, which enables standardized data collection.
In August 2021, Dominion Energy filed a $1.5 billion clean energy investment, including up to 1,100 MW of solar, in Virginia, part of a planned $26 billion in spending on emissions reduction technology over five years. The Virginia Clean Economy Act requires Dominion to procure a combined 16 GW of solar and onshore wind by the end of 2035.
Activist Post reports regularly about utility “Smart” Meters and other unsafe technology. For more information, visit our archives and the following websites:
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
January 17th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Anniversaries for detention centres, concentration camps and torture facilities are not the relishable calendar events in the canon of human worth. But not remembering them, when they were used, and how they continue being used, would be unpardonable amnesia.
On January 11, 2002, the first prisoners of the absurdly named “War on Terror”, declared with such confused understanding by US President George W. Bush, began arriving at the newly constructed Camp X-Ray prison at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay. Structurally crude, it was intended as a temporary facility, remote and out of sight. Instead, it became a permanent and singular contribution of US political and legal practice, withering due process and civil liberties along the way.
After two decades, 779 prisoners have spent time there, many of whom were low level operatives of minimal importance. Prior to being sent to the camp, the detainees endured abductions, disappearances, and torture in US-operated centres in allied countries. The previous director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gina Aspel, had more than a nodding acquaintance with this process, having overseen operations at a black site in Thailand specialising in interrogating al-Qaeda suspects.
Guantánamo Bay was a mad, cruel experiment about how legal limbos and forged purgatories of the law can function to dehumanise and degrade. It was developed by people supposedly versed in a liberal legal tradition but keen to make exceptions in battling a supposedly novel enemy. The detainees were deemed “unlawful enemy combatants” – as if there was such a thing – thereby placing them outside the formal protections of humanitarian law. They were subjected to sleep deprivation, forced feeding, lengthy detainment, beatings, stress positions and an assortment of other torture methods.
In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney sneered at suggestions that the inmates were being mistreated. “They’re living in the tropics. They’re well fed. They’ve got everything they could possibly want. There wasn’t any other nation in the world that would treat people who were determined to kill Americans the way we’re treating these people.”
The closure of the facility has been constantly urged with minimal return. It was one of the electoral messages of the presidential campaign in 2007. Barack Obama and his rival, Hillary Clinton, endorsed the idea. As did the Republican contender for the White House, John McCain. As Obama declared at the time, “In the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantánamo, we have compromised our most precious values.”
A joint US-European Union statement from June 15, 2009 noted, with welcome, the decision by President Obama to affect a closure by January 22 the following year. But it also acknowledged what has been a persistent problem: returning detainees to their countries of origin or a third country that might be willing to accept them.
In the dying days of the Obama administration, the facility, despite a reduction in the inmate population, remained functional. Congress proved recalcitrant and obstructive on the issue but there was also opposition to the closure from various arms of government, including the Pentagon. Lee Wolosky, formerly Obama’s Special Envoy for Guantánamo Closure, could only marvel darkly at this seemingly indestructible piece of legal infrastructure. “In large part,” he wrote, this mess had been “self-inflicted – a result of our own decisions to engage in torture, hold detainees indefinitely without charge, set up dysfunctional military commissions and attempt to avoid oversight by the federal courts.”
In 2016, Donald Trump, the eventual victor of that year’s presidential contest, repeatedly insisted that he would “load it with some bad dudes”. In 2018, he signed a new executive order keeping the military prison open, reiterating the line that terrorists were not merely “criminals” but “unlawful enemy combatants”. Releasing any such individuals from Guantánamo had been, he observed gravely, a mistake. “In the past, we have foolishly released hundred and hundreds of dangerous terrorists only to meet them again on the battlefield, including the ISIS leader, [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi, who we captured, who we had, who we released.”
On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the camp’s opening, Agnès Callamard, secretary-general of Amnesty International, was yet another voice to urge its closure. “President Joe Biden, like President Barack Obama before him, has promised to close it, but so far has failed to do so.” She insisted that each detainee’s case be resolved, be it through transfer and release, or via “a regularly constituted federal court without recourse to the death penalty.”
Despite being an enduring blot on the country’s credibility, the facility remains ingloriously open, a reminder that there are legal provinces where the US is willing to detain people indefinitely, without trial or scrutiny. Thirty-nine men remain, thirteen of whom are in indefinite detention. This is despite the latter having had their transfers out of the facility approved a decade ago. The calls for the military prison’s closure reach occasional crescendos, but these eventually diminish before the machinery of stifling bureaucracy. Tragically, there is every risk that the Guantánamo experiment will be replicated rather than abolished. Such creations, once brought into being, can prove deathless.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
January 17th, 2022 by Colin Todhunter
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 early 2020, we saw the beginning of the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’. The world went into lockdown and even after lockdowns in various countries had been lifted, restrictions continued. Data now shows that lockdowns seemingly had limited if any positive impacts on the trajectory of COVID-19 and in 2022 the world – especially the poor – is paying an immense price not least in terms of loss of income, loss of livelihoods, the deterioration of mental and physical health, the eradication of civil liberties, disrupted supply chains and shortages.
The mortality rate for COVID-19 patients is linked to their comorbid conditions. In the US, the Center for Disease Control provides a list of comorbid conditions in COVID-19 patients, which includes cancer, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, Down syndrome, obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Research conducted in a German hospital shows that for those who died after SARS-CoV-2 infection the median number of chronic comorbidities was four and ranged from three to eight. Arterial hypertension was the most prevalent chronic condition (65.4%), followed by obesity (38.5%), chronic ischemic heart disease (34.6%), atrial fibrillation (26.9%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (23.1%). Of all patients, 15.4% had diabetes type II and chronic renal failure was noticed in 11.5%. The data suggests severe chronic comorbidities and health conditions in the majority of patients that had died after COVID-19.
The meta-analysis Prevalence of comorbidities in patients and mortality cases affected by SARS-CoV2: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) found that hypertension was the most prevalent comorbidity (affecting 32% of patients). Other common comorbidities included diabetes (22%) and heart disease (13%). The odds ratio of death for a patient with a comorbidity compared to one with no comorbidity was 2.4. The higher the prevalence of comorbidities the higher the odds that the COVID-19 patient will need intensive care or will die, especially if the pre-existing disease is hypertension, heart disease or diabetes.
In 2020, just 1,557 people aged 1-64 with no underlying co-morbidities were listed as having died from COVID in England and Wales out of a population of about 59 million. For the tens of thousands who were categorised as dying with COVID, co-morbidities were a major factor. UK data for 2020 shows that for ages 1-64 years, those who died with COVID had on average 1.71 co-morbidities. For those aged 65 and over, the figure is 2.02.
Patients with rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases have a 54% increased risk for COVID-19 infection and more than twice the risk for COVID-19 death, versus the general population, according to data published in the journal Rheumatology (2021).
In the paper ‘COVID-19 in patients with autoimmune diseases: characteristics and outcomes in a multinational network of cohorts across three countries’ (2021), which also appeared in Rheumatology, researchers compared influenza with COVID-19 and concluded that the latter is a more severe disease for people with these conditions, leading to added complications and higher mortality.
Of deaths in England and Wales where COVID-19 is listed, official government data shows the most common pre-existing condition recorded on the death certificate is diabetes (July to September 2021). This was identified in almost a quarter (22.5%) of ‘COVID deaths’.
Emerging data also suggests that obesity is a big risk factor for the progression of major complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), cytokine storm and coagulopathy in COVID-19.
A paper posted on the Center for Disease Control website provides an overview of factors associated with Covid-19 deaths for a 12-month period. The study, Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized with COVID-19, March 2020–March 2021, looked at records of hospitalised adults and found that 94.9% had at least one underlying medical condition. The authors conclude that certain underlying conditions and the number of conditions were associated with severe COVID-19 illness. Hypertension and disorders of lipid metabolism were the most frequent, whereas obesity, diabetes with complication and anxiety disorders were the strongest risk factors for severe COVID-19 illness.
Based on the findings, Dr Peregrino Brimahdata (a molecular biologist, medical doctor, college professor and a published researcher) notes that obesity by itself gave a 30% increased death risk, anxiety disorders gave a 29% increased risk of death and diabetes led to a 26% increased risk of death.
Brimahdata concludes that about two thirds of ‘COVID deaths’ were patients who may be regarded as grossly unhealthy.
From the data presented above, it is clear that the vast majority of ‘COVID deaths’ (dying with COVID) are people who has serious, ongoing health conditions, the prevalence of which among the population has been rising year on year for decades and accelerating.
Food system
Although hereditary factors are involved, scientists at the Francis Crick Institute in London believe the growing popularity of Western-style diets is a major reason why autoimmune diseases are rising across the world by around 3% to 9% a year.
Professor James Lee from the institute recently told The Observer newspaper that human genetics has not altered over the past few decades, so something is changing in our environment that is increasing predisposition to autoimmune disease. His research team found that Western-style diets based on processed ingredients and with a lack of fresh vegetables can trigger autoimmune diseases.
Lee says that numbers of autoimmune cases began to increase about 40 years ago in the Western countries but are now also emerging in countries that never had such diseases before. These diseases include rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes, celiac disease, lupus, inflammatory bowel disease and multiple sclerosis.
It is estimated that approximately four million people in the UK have an autoimmune disease.
A Western-style diet is characterised by highly processed and refined foods with high contents of sugars, salt, and fat and protein from red meat. It is a major contributor to metabolic disturbances and the development of obesity-related diseases, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease – the top comorbidities where ‘COVID deaths’ are concerned.
But it goes beyond that because a lot of the health-related problems we see can also be traced back to modern farming methods and how food is cultivated, not least the toxic agrochemicals used. Michael McCarthy, writer and naturalist, says that three generations of industrialised farming with a vast tide of poisons pouring over the land year after year after year since the end of the Second World War is the true price of pesticide-based agriculture, which society has for so long blithely accepted.
Professor Carola Vinuesa, who heads another research team at the Francis Crick Institute, argues that fast-food diets can negatively affect a person’s microbiome – gut microorganisms which play a key role in controlling various bodily functions.
The gut microbiome can contain up to six pounds of bacteria and agrochemicals and poor diets are disturbing this ‘human soil’. Many important neurotransmitters are located in the gut. Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, these transmitters affect our moods and thinking.
Findings published in the journal ‘Translational Psychiatry’ provide strong evidence that gut bacteria can have a direct physical impact on the brain. Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression and Parkinson’s Disease. Gut bacteria are also important for cognitive development in adolescence.
Changes to the gut microbiome are also linked to obesity. Increasing levels of obesity are associated with low bacterial richness in the gut. Indeed, it has been noted that tribes not exposed to the modern food system have richer microbiomes. Environmental campaigner Rosemary Mason lays the blame squarely at the door of agrochemicals, not least the use of the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate.
Mason has written to the two professors from the Francis Crick Institute mentioned above, making it clear to them that it would be remiss to ignore the role pesticides play when it comes to the worrying rates of disease we now see. She brings their attention to concerning levels of glyphosate in certain cereals in the UK.
Based on an analysis of these cereals, Dr John Fagan, director of Health Research Laboratories, has concluded:
“The levels consumed in a single daily helping of any one of these cereals… is sufficient to put the person’s glyphosate levels above the levels that cause fatty liver disease in rats (and likely in people).”
Mason also refers the two academics to the paper Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America in Journal of Organic Systems (2014).
It notes:
“The herbicide glyphosate was introduced in 1974 and its use is accelerating with the advent of herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered (GE) crops. Evidence is mounting that glyphosate interferes with many metabolic processes in plants and animals and glyphosate residues have been detected in both. Glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, it damages DNA and is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer.”
The researchers searched US government databases for GE crop data, glyphosate application data and disease epidemiological data. Correlation analyses were then performed on a total of 22 diseases in these time-series data sets. The Pearson correlation coefficients were highly significant between glyphosate applications and a wide range of diseases, including hypertension, stroke, diabetes prevalence, diabetes incidence, obesity, Alzheimer’s, senile dementia, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, intestinal infections, end stage renal disease, acute kidney failure and various cancers. The Pearson correlation coefficients were also highly significant between the percentage of GE corn and soy planted in the US and most of the conditions listed above.
In 2017, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes, Baskut Tuncak, said:
“Paediatricians have referred to childhood exposure to pesticides as creating a ‘silent pandemic’ of disease and disability. Exposure in pregnancy and childhood is linked to birth defects, diabetes and cancer. Because a child’s developing body is more sensitive to exposure than adults and takes in more of everything – relative to their size, children eat, breathe and drink much more than adults – they are particularly vulnerable to these toxic chemicals.”
Consider that little is being done to address the food-related public health crisis which, according to the data on co-morbidities, seems to be a major contribution to increased risk where COVID is concerned. Then consider that governments are going all out to vaccinate children for a virus that poses minimal or virtually no risk to them. There is no logic to this approach.
While there is currently much talk of the coronavirus placing immense strain on the NHS, the health service was already creaking due to spiralling rates of disease linked to the food we eat. But do we see a clampdown on the activities or products of the global agrochemical or the food conglomerates? Instead, we see that successive governments in the UK have worked hand in glove with them to ensure ‘business as usual’.
The UK government is going out of its way under the guise of a health crisis to undermine the public’s rights in order to manage risk and to ‘protect’ the NHS but is all too willing to oversee a massive, ongoing health crisis caused by the chemical pollution of our bodies.
The unvaccinated are being cast as irresponsible or much worse if we listen to the recent reprehensible outbursts from leaders like Macron or Trudeau for having genuine concerns about vaccine safety, waning efficacy and the logic behind mass vaccination across all ages and risk groups.
Given that underlying health conditions substantially increase risk where COVID-19 is concerned, it is clear where the real irresponsibility lies – with government inaction for decades in terms of failing to tackle the corporations behind the health-damaging food they produce.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.
Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook
January 16th, 2022 by Carla Stea
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.
.
First published by global Research on August 31, 2021
***
People are dying from the mMRNA Covid Vaccine.
There is a worldwide upward trend in vaccine deaths and injuries.
The latest official figures (August 30, 2021) point to approximately:
These are the official figures. Less than 10% of deaths and injuries are reported. For vaccine adverse events approximately one percent of the injuries are registered and reported.
The order of magnitude of vaccine related deaths is AT LEAST 380,000 for a combined population (EU, UK, US) of 830 Million.
Most unconscionable is the fact that the United Nations Secretary-General is mandating this untested and often lethal vaccination for United Nations staff, in violation of every human rights declaration produced by the United Nations in its entire history.
***
August 25, 2021 more than three thousand hospital workers, sanitation workers, MTA workers, teachers, artists and police rallied at New York’s City Hall to protest the mandate for Covid-19 vaccine, which has been proven unsafe, with many horrific long-term “side-effects” of the vaccine, multiple deaths, deadly, often chronic heart damage, a “vaccine” which it is feared changes both the dna of the vaccinated, and as the future will demonstrate, may cause sterility. Yes, this vaccine will reduce the population.
This mandate changes the relationship between the state and the individual, as the slogan “no jab, no job” threatens the livelihood and the lives of workers throughout the United States and all countries mandating a vaccine generating enormous profits for the “Big Pharma,” now guaranteed immunity from liability for the often lethal consequences of the vaccine. According to British legal authority Francis Hoar, this mandate violates the Nuremberg Code, International Human Rights Law, the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights, and, of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The United Nations Secretary General is Co-opted
Most unconscionable is the fact that the United Nations Secretary-General is mandating this untested and often lethal vaccination for United Nations staff, in violation of every human rights declaration produced by the United Nations in its entire history.
United Nations Staff members refusing the vaccination are threatened with six months leave WITHOUT pay! On August 13, the UN Secretary-General issued mandated requirements, which included:
“Vaccination requirement for certain categories. Vaccinations will be mandated for staff performing certain tasks and/or certain occupational groups at UNHQ whose functions do not allow sufficient management of exposure…Those staff who will be required to be vaccinated must receive the final dose of a vaccine no later than 19 September 2021……All staff at UNHQ in consideration of the need to protect one another will be required to report their vaccination status including through EarthMed with immediate effect.”
Whatever happened to medical privacy?
Although there is massive “major” media attempt to obscure the often lethal consequences of this vaccine, the enormous significance of the issues involved is indicated by the fact that every major media outlet in New York City was present at the August 25 demonstration, and quoted and televised many of the protest speeches by New York City teachers, sanitation workers, MTA workers, and other professional and non-professional employees of public and private organizations.
CBS, NBC, AP, Channel 1, the New York Post, News 4, are among the many media covering this historic protest, the awakening of the public conscience that those citizens and workers upon whom the actual functioning of society depends are infuriated that they are reduced to chattel servitude by the so-called government, and their lives are wantonly put at risk by those government officials whose salaries are paid by the taxes of these workers: teachers, sanitation workers, police, artists, and all those indispensable categories of workers without whom society will collapse. Government workers are public servants, and should not be permitted to dictate the lives of those whom they serve. This is forgotten by these so-called “public servants” who behave like a combination of parasites and dictators.
Obscured in this grotesque travesty of government “concern” for public health is the infamous “revolving door,” the fact that the government agencies obligated to guarantee the safety of this vaccine are often instead, obsequiously guarding the profits of the lucrative pharmaceutical industries, the “big pharma,” signing into laws protections for the profits of “big pharma,” (which provides vast campaign contributions to many of these government workers) and when the government staff of the NIH, FDA, WHO, and the other alphabet soup of government agencies tasked with protecting the public, (whose taxes pay their salaries), retire from government “service,” they are then guaranteed enormous salaries working for the private pharmaceutical companies. Obviously, these government staff have huge incentive to ensure the profits of “big pharma,” upon whom their enormous future salaries will depend.
This unconscionable arrangement is not unknown by the public at large, who are now revealing distrust and disgust at the grossly hypocritical motives of this government mandate which risks causing irreparable damage to their lives, and possibly their untimely deaths.
School teacher Katherine Class of Brooklyn told
“CBS Cory James she quit her job day ago because she refuses to be forced into getting the vaccine.”
Further discrediting the Mandate requirement which attempts to justify this dictate with the fraudulent argument that the person vaccinated is protecting others, is the absolutely contrary and now acknowledged fact that the spike protein of the vaccination has a “scatter” component which in fact SPREADS the infection to others, and does NOT protect either the vaccinated person from a virulent “break through” of the covid virus infection, but, in fact endangers the healthy people who are not vaccinated, and often infects them with the disease. The vaccine is a super-spreader. But perhaps that is the underlying intention.
On August 23, 2021, The New York Times published an article entitled: “A Hospital Finds an Unlikely Group Opposing Vaccination: ITS Workers”
“New York – Their movement started discreetly—just a handful of people communicating on encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Signal. But in just days, it had ballooned tenfold. And within two weeks, it had turned into a full-blown public protest, with people waving picket signs to denounce efforts to push them to receive coronavirus vaccines. But these were not just any vaccine resisters. They were nurses, medical technicians, infection control officers and other staff who work at a hospital in Statin Island, which has the highest rate of Covid-19 infection of any borough in New York City. Outside Staten Island University Hospital last week, as passing cars and fire trucks honked supportively, employees chanted ‘I am not a lab rat!’” “Yolanda Mozdzen, 43, a medical assistant, was eager to be one of the first among staff to get the vaccine. But less than five minutes after getting a shot of the Moderna vaccine in December, a rash spread across her body, and she started having a seizure. The adverse reaction triggered an autoimmune disorder, according to a letter from her doctor, and eight months after receiving the vaccine, Mozdzen said she still suffers ailments including short-term memory loss and vertigo. Mozdzen said she had to fight to get properly compensated. ‘I was left penniless,’ she said………..Last week, Mozdzen quit her job.”
On Saturday, August 28, there was a huge peaceful demonstration against the vaccine mandate at Columbus Circle in New York City, and participants marched downtown past Times Square, Herald Square and toward Battery Park.
On August 28 huge peaceful public demonstrations throughout TWO HUNDRED cities in France denounced the vaccine mandate, and demanded autonomy for their body and their lives.
In Berlin on August 28, a huge peaceful demonstration against the vaccine mandate was met with police brutality.
In Athens, an enormous peaceful protest demonstration against the vaccine mandate was met by police violence.
This evening another huge demonstration at City Hall protesting the vaccine mandate is scheduled to be held.
“Workers Rally for Medical Freedom #NO MANDATES”
On September 1, 2021 another extremely important rally is scheduled from 11:00AM to 1:00PM at New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, entitled: “Heroes to Zeroes.” This rally, at 1300 York Avenue, East 69 Street @newyorkfreedomrally is extremely significant, because it signals that the outrage against vaccine mandates is reaching the core of the medical establishment, Cornell Medical Center, which trains the most elite medical students and health care professionals in the United States, and is one of the most prestigious medical centers in the world. (Indeed, Anthony Fauci was a graduate of Cornell Medical School).
It indicates that skepticism, the essence of science, is now, we can hope, reaching the hitherto dogmatic attitudes toward Covid, and its so-called “vaccines” about which no adequate testing has been done, nor the often deadly consequences of vaccination studied, or ultimately even known or anticipated. The United Nations is also, to its shame, guilty of this dogmatic attitude, and recalls the Vatican, 500 years ago when Galileo challenged religious dogma, for which he was threatened to be tortured to death. Shortly before, Giordano Bruno had been burnt alive at the stake by order of the Pope, for contradicting Vatican dogma that the sun revolved around the earth. 500 years later, the Vatican acknowledged the falsity of their dogma.
Two days ago two people in Japan died immediately after being vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, causing the Japanese government to demand the recall of huge doses of the Pfizer vaccine contaminated with a metal substance, and probably other toxic components. A Ukranian man died of myocarditis immediately after being vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine. And the big pharma companies have been guaranteed and insured from any liability as a result of injury resulting from their vaccines. They are protected by rulings by US government agencies, and other organizations, and big pharma cannot be held responsible or liable for anything.
One can only hope that the burgeoning worldwide outrage against vaccine mandates continues and escalates to a point where it is sufficiently powerful to force retreat by the vaccine dictatorship endangering the human species with its ignorance- and arrogance – and greed.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York.
All images in this article are from the author
January 16th, 2022 by Global Research News
It has been two years since people worldwide were dragged into this whole COVID-19 cult. Up until now, many countries implement universal health protocols such as social distancing and wearing of face mask in public spaces. Draconian measures have also been executed such as prolonged lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
Several reports of courageous people blowing the whistle on COVID vaccines and vaccine deaths surface online, sending a hopeful message worldwide that resistance is key to ending this totalitarianism.
Protests against forced vaccinations are also happening globally, blasting the medico-establishment for curtailing informed consent and medical freedom. Are these events directing us toward mass awakening from COVID hypnosis and stand in the truth against disinformation?
Send this selection to your friends, family and community. Spread the word.
***
Lawmakers Blast Biden Pandemic Response, Experts Question Vaccine Mandates Strategy
By
, January 14, 2022Lawmakers on Tuesday attacked what some called the Biden administration’s “confusing” messaging and disastrous rollout of COVID booster shots. Meanwhile scientists raised questions about the administration’s mandates strategy.
Parents of College Kids Fed Up with ‘Shut Up and Comply’ Mandates
By
, January 13, 2022In an interview Wednesday with “Fox & Friends,” parents of university students expressed growing concerns that mandatory vaccines, facemasks and discriminatory practices far outweigh the risks of getting COVID.
By
, January 13, 2022In an ideal world, we expect societies and organizations that have been the vanguard of the medical profession to hold true to the ideals of medicine. In reality, we find many of these organizations to be compromised, having significant undisclosed conflicts of interest which bring their impartiality into question.
By
, January 12, 2022Collete went on to say that vaccine-injury report databases like VAERS are so little used that most doctors and nurses don’t even know that it exists, let alone how to file a report.
By
, January 12, 2022We are students, parents, alumni, faculty, and staff of Cornell University. We are grateful for Cornell’s efforts at keeping students and the Ithaca community safe during this pandemic. As concerned members of the global Big Red family, we write this open letter to express our strong opposition to Cornell’s Covid-19 booster mandate.
“Bastille 2022”: Building a Worldwide Movement Against “Corona Tyranny”
By
, January 11, 2022Our intent is to confront the powerful actors behind this criminal endeavor which is literally destroying people’s lives Worldwide, while creating divisions within society. The impacts on mental health on population groups Worldwide are devastating.
4,000 Health Freedom Advocates Tell New York Lawmakers: ‘We Will Not Comply’
By
, January 10, 2022The “We Will Not Comply Rally” marked the kickoff of the People’s Coalition of New York, a coalition of more than 40 groups that oppose medical mandates and are working to restore the civil liberties of all New Yorkers.
Video: The Corona Crisis: Is the Tide Turning? Reiner Fuellmich on Nuremberg 2.0
By
, January 09, 2022In this latest and perhaps so far most revealing and comprehensive – and foremost – hopeful interview with Maria Zeee on Rumble (MUST SEE – 57 min. video), Dr. Fuellmich of the German Corona Investigative Committee explains in detail what the Committee’s first lawsuit will do.
January 15th, 2022 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
First released on February 22, 2021
We bring to the attention of our readers this Global Research Video documentary produced by Ariel Noyola Rodriguez, featuring Prof. Michel Chossudovsky.
We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history.
We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred.
Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”.
“Planet Lockdown” is an encroachment on civil liberties and the “Right to Life”.
click the bottom right hand corner to view in full screen
.
.
Entire national economies are in jeopardy. In some countries martial law has been declared.
Small and medium sized capital are slated to be eliminated. Big capital prevails.
A massive concentration of corporate wealth is ongoing.
Its a diabolical “New World Order” in the making.
Red Zones, the facemask, social distancing, the closing down of schools, colleges and universities,
no more family gatherings, no birthday celebrations, music, the arts: no more cultural events,
sport events are suspended, no more funerals, no more weddings, “love and life” is banned outright.
January 15th, 2022 by John C. A. Manley
First published by Global Research on January 23, 2021
1. Cavities: New York dentists are reporting that half their patients are suffering decaying teeth, receding gum lines and seriously sour breath from wearing masks. “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before,” Dr. Rob Ramondi told FOX News.
2. Facial Deformities: Masking children triggers mouth breathing which as been shown to cause “long, narrow faces, narrow mouths, high palatal vaults, dental malocclusion, gummy smiles, and many other unattractive facial features,” according to the Journal of General Dentistry.
3. Acne Vulgaris: Moisture and germs collecting in the mask cause “facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis… or worsening acne” (according to Public Health Ontario) which stresses the immune system, can lead to permanent scarring and has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts (according to the Journal of Dermatologic Clinics). Children also develop impetigo, a bacterial infection that produces red sores and can lead to kidney damage (according to the Mayo Clinic).
4. Increased Risk of COVID-19: “Mask use by the general public could be associated with a theoretical elevated risk of COVID-19 through… self-contamination,” states Public Health Ontario in Wearing Masks in Public and COVID-19. “By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain,” theorizes nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD (in an article at The Centre for Research on Globalization).
5. Bacterial Pneumonia: At an Oklahoma Press Conference, Dr. James Meehan, MD testified: “Reports coming from my colleagues all over the world are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise” as a result of moisture collecting in face masks.
6. Immune Suppressing: Masks are often worn by criminals trying to hide their identity while perpetuating an offence (theft, violence, rape, murder, etc.). They produce subconscious anxiety and fear. Fear and anxiety activate the fight-or-flight nervous system which down-regulates the immune system, as shown in a study by the American Psychological Association.
7. Germophobia: Masks create an irrational fear of germs and a false sense of protection from disease, leading to antisocial (or even hostile) behaviour towards those not wearing a mask. (See the paper in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders titled “COVID-19, obsessive-compulsive disorder and invisible life forms that threaten the self”).
8. Toxic: Many (if not most) masks and face coverings (including cloth) are made with toxic and carcinogenic chemicals including fire retardant, fibreglass, lead, NFE, phthalates, polyfluorinated chemicals and formaldehyde that will outgas and be inhaled by the wearer. (See “5 main hazardous chemicals in clothing from China named” by Fashion United).
9. Psychologically Harmful: “I believe the real threat right now is what we’re doing to sabotage the mental, emotional and physical health of… our children, whose development is dependent on social interactions, physical contact and facial expressions,” writes Dr. Joseph Mercola of Mercola.com. “Between mask wearing and social distancing, I fear the impact on children in particular may be long-term, if not permanent.”
1. Insubstantial: A CDC-funded review on masking in May 2020 came to the conclusion: “Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza… None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group.” If masks can’t stop the regular flu, how can they stop SAR-CoV-2?
2. Unreasonable: “Evidence that masking as a source [of] control results in any material reduction in transmission was scant, anecdotal, and, in the overall, lacking… [and mandatory masking] is the exact opposite of being reasonable,” ruled a hospital arbitrator in a dispute between The Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Toronto Academic Health Science Network.
3. Ineffective: “Oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections,” write Belgian medical doctors in an open letter published in The American Institute of Stress, September 24, 2020.
4. Unsanitary: “It has never been shown that wearing surgical face masks decreases postoperative wound infections,” writes Göran Tunevall, M.D. in the World Journal of Surgery. “On the contrary, a 50% decrease [in bacterial infection] has been reported after omitting face masks.”
5. No Protection: “There were 17 eligible studies.… None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza infection,” concludes a research review in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses.
6. Unproven: Dutch Minister for Medical Care, Tamara van Ark, asserted that “from a medical perspective there is no proven effectiveness of masks” after a review by the National Institute for Health on July 29, 2020 (according to Reuters).
1. Reckless: “By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle,” writes Denis Rancourt, PhD in his 2020 paper Masks Don’t Work.
2. Manipulative: Dr. Andreas Voss, member of the World Health Organization expert team and head of microbiology at a Dutch hospital in Nijmegen, on July 24, 2020, told I Am Expat that masks were made mandatory “not because of scientific evidence, but because of political pressure and public opinion.”
3. Fear-Mongering: “In fact, there is no study to even suggest that it makes any sense for healthy individuals to wear masks in public,” write Drs. Karina Reiss, Phd and Dr. Sucharit Bakdi, MD in Corona, False Alarm? “One might suspect that the only political reason for enforcing the measure is to foster fear in the population.”
4. Totalitarian: “If you look at the history of totalitarian regimes… they all do the same thing, which is they try to crush culture, and crush any evidence of self-expression…” explains Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in an interview regarding face masks. “And what is the ultimate vector for self-expression? It’s your facial expressions…. [Yet] we’ve all been told to put on the burqa and be obedient.”
5. Virtue-Signalling: “Masks are utterly useless,” testified Dr. Roger Hodkinson, a pathologist, certified with the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, at a city council meeting. “…masks are simply virtue-signalling… It’s utterly ridiculous seeing these unfortunate, uneducated people — I’m not saying that in a pejorative sense — walking around like lemmings, obeying without any knowledge base, to put the mask on their face.”
You can download, print and distribute a two-page printable handout of this article here.
Special thanks to artist Allen Forest for use of his Masked Mona Lisa cartoon.
John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, naturopaths and chiropractors. Since March 2020, he has been writing articles that question and expose the contradictions in the COVID-19 narrative and control measures. He is also completing a novel, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story. You can visit his website at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca.
January 15th, 2022 by World Council for Health
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.
First published by Global Research on January 8, 2022
***
A. Consensus of World’s Foremost Experts
Globally renowned experts, including Dr. Paul Alexander, Dr. Byram Bridle, Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, Prof. Dolores Cahill, and Drs. Sucharit Bhakdi, Ryan Cole, Richard Fleming, Robert W. Malone, Peter McCullough, Mark Trozzi, Michael Yeadon, Wolfgang Wodarg, and Vladimir Zelenko, among many others, consistently warn the world about the adverse effects resulting from Covid-19 experimental injections; they also warn about their longterm effects, which cannot be known at this time since most clinical trials will be not completed until 2023, and some as late as 2025.
In June 2021, Dr. Tess Lawrie, co-founder of the World Council for Health and member of the Council’s Steering Committee, courageously described the global crisis and called for urgent action: “There is now more than enough evidence on the [UK] Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans. Preparation should be made to scale up humanitarian efforts to assist those harmed by the COVID-19 vaccines and to anticipate and ameliorate medium to longer term effects.”
B. Declaration
The World Council for Health declares that it is time to put an end to this humanitarian crisis. Further, the Council also declares that any direct or indirect involvement in the manufacturing, distribution, administration and promotion of these injections violates basic principles of common law, constitutional law and natural justice, as well as the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration, and other international treaties.
C. Uncensored Facts
We now know that children are over one hundred times more likely to die from these experimental injections than Covid-19.
Injected athletes, globally, are collapsing before our very eyes.
In spite of the fact that reporting systems are limited and passive, millions of adverse effects have been recorded, which include death, paralysis, blood clots, strokes, myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, spontaneous miscarriage, chronic fatigue and extreme depression.
See: coronavirus-yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk
See: vaers.hhs.gov
See: ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/researchdevelopment/pharmacovigilance/eudravigilance
See: vigiaccess.org (search covid-19 vaccine)
D. Victim Testimonies
The World Council for Health acknowledges and respects the experiences and testimony of the victims of this worldwide medical experiment. We also declare and confirm that safe, effective and affordable treatments for Covid-19 exist and should be made available to all who need them.
See: wewanttobeheard.com
See: nomoresilence.world
E. Not Safe, Not Effective
Recent studies confirm the risks associated with Covid-19 experimental injections. Emerging research establishes that the injections are neither safe nor effective, and, in fact, are toxic. While some of the known ingredients of the injections cause biological harm, it is even more concerning that the unknown and undisclosed ingredients may present an even greater threat to human health.
F. Cease and Desist
The World Council for Health is ethically and lawfully bound to issue this Declaration, demanding that governments and corporations cease and desist from direct or indirect participation in the manufacturing, distribution, administration or promotion of Covid-19 experimental injections.
The Council declares that every living man and woman has a moral and legal duty to take immediate and decisive action to halt this unprecedented medical experiment, which continues to cause unnecessary and immeasurable harm.
G. Notice of Liability
The right of bodily integrity and the right to informed consent are inalienable and universal human rights, which have been trampled by government mandates and corporate imperatives.
Thus, the World Council for Health declares that any person or organization directly or indirectly participating in the manufacturing, distribution, administration or promotion of Covid-19 experimental biologics will be held liable for the violation of principles of justice grounded in civil, criminal, constitutional and natural law, as well as international treaties.
Signed November 29, 2021
Charles Kovess
Dr. Jennifer Hibberd
Dr. Naseeba Kathrada
Dr. Robert J McLeod
Dr. Vince Vicente
Dr. Tess Lawrie
Dr. Mark Trozzi
Dr. Maria Hubmer Mogg
Michael Alexander
Dr. Tracy Chandler
Dr. Zac Cox
Dr. Stephan Becker
Karen McKenna
Shabnam Palesa Mohamed
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
Annex: Document
January 15th, 2022 by Arjun Walia
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.
First published by Global Research on January 5, 2022
***
An alliance of more than 500 independent Canadian doctors, professors, scientists and health care practitioners have come together to form the Canadian COVID Care Alliance. Throughout this pandemic they’ve been committed to providing an evidence-based approach with regards to informing the Canadian public about all things COVID.
Their list of representatives include PhDs in Immunogenetics, Immunology, Molecular Virology, Viral Immunology, Pharmacology, Biomedical Research, Biochemistry, Bioanalytics, practicing family doctors, MDs and more.
The alliance recently released a PDF showing that, according to them, the Pfizer 6 month data shows that their COVID inoculations “cause more illness than they prevent.” The PDF is called “The Pfizer Inoculations For COVID-19: More Harm Than Good”
They also released a video summarizing the PDF, which is embedded at the end of this article if you’d like to scroll down and watch.
The PDF contains all of the data and reasoning as to how these academics came to their conclusion. It’s very detailed and goes into several different important factors that are not adequately addressed within the mainstream despite the fact that they are so important.
As you know, data is interpreted differently, but it’s important in this day in age to be able to share the work of these academics openly and transparently. Fact-checkers who work with Facebook and other organizations should recognize this, even if they have academics who interpret the data differently. Science is about transparency, discussion and the freedom to share information. Censorship doesn’t help. There is existing data showing that vaccines can prevent the severity of illness and chances of death for a period of time, especially in older and more vulnerable populations.
The PDF shows that the data from Pfizer’s six month report showed that vaccinated people experienced an increase in illness and deaths compared to the placebo group. There is no benefit to a reduction in cases if it comes at the cost of increased sickness and death.
The report also showed that “3 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 2 in the original placebo group who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died.” Furthermore, Approximately 50 percent of vaccine injuries reported to VAERS in the last 30 years are all from COVID vaccines.
What’s not mentioned in the report is the fact that the FDA is refusing to release specific data from Pfizer regarding their COVID inoculations. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, also an independent group of many doctors and scientists, allowed them to get their hands on a fraction of the documents so far.
The documents reveal that Pfizer was aware of more than 50,000 serious adverse reactions that may have been a result of their vaccine within the first 90 days of its rollout. The FDA is currently fighting the group of academics to allow until 2096 to release all the data, which is comprised of nearly half a million pages.
Why don’t independent scientists have access to this data? Why has it not been made transparent?
It was good to see the Canadian COVID Care Alliance bring up the fact that on November 2nd, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) released an article about their investigation into Ventavia, one of the research companies Pfizer hired to conduct the trials. The BMJ received dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails showing the falsification of data.
Facebook actually censored the story and their “fact-checkers” even labelled it a “false news.” The editor-in-chief of The British Medical Journal (BMJ), Fiona Godlee, and soon to be editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi have criticized Facebook and their “fact-checkers” for labelling the BMJ investigation as false news, and referred to them as “incompetent.”
I first became aware of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance alliance through the work of members Dr. Bryam Bridle, PhD, a viral immunologist and professor at the University of Guelph as well as Dr. Steven Pelech, a professor of neurology and immunology at the University of British Columbia.
Pelech is currently petitioning the Canadian government to stop the rollout of COVID inoculations in Canada.
Below is the video summarizing the PDF put together by the Canadian COVID Care Alliance.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from 123RF
January 15th, 2022 by Press For Truth
On Parliament Hill, John Brassard, the Conservative critic for ethics and accountable government discussed the Public Health Agency of Canada’s decision to collect data from millions of mobile devices to understand travel patterns during the COVID-19(84) pandemic.
This is being done without parliamentary approval and also unbeknownst to the Canadian people.
In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth proves that this agenda to track trace and database everyone during Covid-19(84) is nothing new and that the big brother surveillance control grid has been the plan all along while also most importantly explaining what you can do right now to help mitigate the presence of big brother in your life.
Video
January 15th, 2022 by Prof. Anthony J. Hall
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 @crg_globalresearch.
***
First published on December 21, 2021
Lockdowns, mandates and passports are the major issue of the day with millions of people protesting against them worldwide. In fact, what has become known as the “medical freedom” movement is arguably the biggest and most diverse international movement in world history.
Vaccine mandates and vaccine passports are among the most vile, unconstitutional, immoral, unscientific, discriminatory and outright criminal policies ever enforced upon the population and goes against everything GPUS stands for under social justice.
These policies are coming from an out-of-control government at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry.
The mainstream media and social media are also working in lock-step to censor any and all doctors, scientists and investigative journalists who have an opposing view or who even question the current mainstream media orthodoxy.
Workers are being forced out of their jobs, many with medical exceptions from their doctors, students are being denied entrance to educational institutions, needed medical treatment is being denied, medical privacy is being violated, constitutionally protected rights to movement and assembly (including the right to travel) are being threatened, rights to normal societal participation are being decimated.
It has taken a while, but more recently many medical professionals, elected officials and federal judges have come out fully against lockdowns, vaccine mandates, vaccine passports and of course massive censorship.
There is a growing clarity among many that these measures have nothing to do with health and everything to do with a power-grab at levels never before seen in the history of the world.
The National Black Caucus of the GPUS adheres to the principle that informed consent in all personal health and medical decisions is an inalienable human right.
Under no circumstances shall any medical treatment or procedure — including psychotropic medications, vaccines and/or other injectable treatments — be mandated or coerced.
Individuals should be allowed to protect/heal themselves in a manner that best supports their medical and spiritual beliefs.
(National Black Caucus of the US Green Party, 16 December, 2021 )
The wellbeing of society has taken many disastrous dives for the worse since the fateful instruction almost two years ago that we should shelter in place in order to “lower the curve of hospitalizations.” Since then, most of our governments have morphed into demented tyrannies. In recent months their thuggishness has been expressed by giving dubious forms of legal backing to nonsensical systems of mandatory injections pressed coercively on entire categories of recipients.
Many groups of workers are being pushed into taking pathogenic clot shots in order to keep their jobs and all the good things that come from paid employment. Millions of college and university students are facing similar Faustian bargains if they want to gain and retain access to higher education. In the United States, however, the draconian jobs-for-jabs tradeoff is starting to lose some ground. This same pattern, however, is not yet readily ascertainable in Canada, at least so far.
The vaccine obsessives in the Biden plutocracy have run into a wall of judicial non-compliance with the determination that the number of forced injections must be increased towards the point of universality. A federal judge in Missouri began the process by pulling the legal rug out from beneath a federal executive order directing healthcare workers to submit to mandatory vaccines in a number of states.
This ruling was upheld without comment by the 8th Circuit court of Appeals.
More recently a federal judge in Georgia, R. Stan Baker, put the brakes on the Biden government’s attempt to compel all federal contractors to press gene-modifying clot shots on all their employees.
Judge Baker’s ruling caused a stampede of corporate leviathans away from the federal infatuation with mandatory shots. For instance General Electric, Verizon, 3 M, Oracle and Boeing began to distance themselves from the US Executive branch’s pathological preoccupation with forcing jabs into as many American arms as possible.
The judicial blocks put in place by the federal courts in Georgia and Missouri are part of a larger pattern of politics and litigation that seems to be turning the momentum against mandatory vaccines.
The hostility to federally-mandated injections is growing even in Congress where a majority of Senators, including some Democrats, voted 52 to 48 against the principle of inflicting jabs on workers in companies with more than 100 employees.
Outside of Washington DC the governments of 27 states, some of them with Democratic Party Governors, are lining up to oppose vaccine mandates through policy, statute, and litigation. They are mobilizing to protect the provisions outlined in the1st amendment of the US Constitution. They are mobilizing to safeguard freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and bodily autonomy.
Canada is not yet subject to anything like the political firestorms ignited by US Officialdom’s hot interactions with both sides on the issue of mandatory injections. In Canada the introduction of mandatory vaccines by both levels of government did not immediately arouse harsh antagonisms in either Parliament or in federal-provincial interactions. Indeed, in Canada the manufactured COVID crisis has generated a pretty pervasive brain freeze reflected most conspicuously in the intellectual complacency of most politicians, judges, and academics.
By and large, most of the leading practitioners in these professional fields have opted not to conduct independent research on their own but to take their signals instead from the bought-and-paid-for media. The consistent uniformity of the deceptive messaging conveyed by the censorious media is at the forefront of the most aggressive and traumatizing saga of psychological warfare ever mounted.
The steady stream of seriously inaccurate and unbalanced reports emanating from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation forms an especially irritating reminder that, in Canada, there no longer exists any credible venue of national public broadcasting. See this.
The boast of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that he successfully pays off the media in return for softball questions and consistently positive coverage has resonated as very applicable to this propaganda-driven plandemic.
Video: Just Trudeau Braging About Bribing the Media
Video: Justin Trudeau on the Need to Violate Fundamental Rights
In the United States, in Canada and many other countries, the main consortium pushing the COVID Con sees mandatory vaccines as necessary steps along the way to so-called vaccine passports. These “passports” are meant to provide new domestic keys for the participation of vaccine-compliant individuals in the mainstream of social, commercial and cultural interactions.
How are we to interpret the denial of permission to engage in “permitted” interactions in the arbitrary tyranny being imposed on us all in the name of vaccine passport systems? How are we to interpret the exclusion of the so-called “unvaccinated” from a broad array of freedoms and civil liberties that were, until recently, assumed to be integral to citizenship? What is to become of the controlled demolition of our supposed liberal democracies now that the ideals of citizenship are being vanquished? This obliteration of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship is to make way for arbitrary rule by secretive cartels run ultimately by international bankers along with their multi-billionaire protégés?
The extent of wreckage wrought in Europe through the proliferation of mandated systems of vaccine passports is now becoming clear. Dr. Mike Yeadon, the former Vice-President of Pfizer Corporation, has highlighted the subject. He has observed
“Europe is all but gone. The lights are going out. Austria and Germany now subject their unvaccinated to house arrest. In Greece, the unvaccinated are subject to escalating fines, non-payment of which is converted into prison time. In Lithuania, the unvaccinated are excluded from society. The booster campaigns are running full-pelt everywhere.” See this.
From the introduction of the celebrity virus in early 2020, the plandemic’s main promoters have aimed at the goal of imposing universalized injections on all of humankind. The promoters prominently include Bill Gates and his longtime friend, Justin Trudeau. According to cybersecurity expert, David Hawkins, the famous fathers of both Justin Trudeau and Bill Gates Jr. were also friends and collaborators in their shared advocacy of eugenic approaches for the control of human reproduction.
The vaccine obsessives driving the exploitation of the manufactured COVID crisis engaged large-scale academic fraud to advance their opposition to all natural remedies for coronavirus infection. Remedies like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin have been lied about and defamed by the COVID Officialdom, with Anthony Fauci as its chief point person.
For more than a generation Fauci has been a chief promoter of “public-private partnerships” that integrate the federal government and the military-industrial complex with the pharmaceutical companies. Chrystia Freeland, the real behind-the-scenes, hands-on leader of the federal Liberals, has accelerated Canada’s adoption of the US model of political economy over many jurisdictional spheres including “health care.”
The crackdown on alternative remedies for coronavirus infection has been intense. One revealing illustration of the severity of the crackdown highlights a fraudulent study of Hydroxychloroquine by a fake company named Surgisphere. The incident illustrated the deep corruption of the academic peer review system when it comes to the process of assessing pharmaceutical products. The journals, Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, were exposed as dishonest publishing venues as corrupt as the tainted industry that contains them.
As Robert F. Kennedy Jr has documented in great detail, government regulators including the NIH, the FDA, and the CDC have been captured by businesses to do the bidding of the drug companies. The government as personified by Fauci makes it a priority to help makers of pharmaceutical products priorize the making of money over the protection of public health.
This corporatist bias in governance is epitomized by the grant of legal immunity to vaccine makers. Since 1986 the companies in this commercial sector cannot be sued for damages caused by faults in their products.
This immunization of the makers of vaccines exempts them by law from being held responsible for causing death and injury with their sometimes toxic and improperly-tested products. This exemption from the normal requirements of doing business highlights a deep systemic problem in the proliferation of public-private partnerships that dominate the US pharmaceutical industry.
The federal government has extended to vaccine makers the kind of sweetheart deal removing the incentive for companies to take the required time and expense to make their injections truly safe and effective. The consequent breakdown in standards has given rise to a flood of illness-inflicting results that show up in the meteoric increases in chronic disease that have swept over the United States since 1989. See this.
The preferential treatment directed by the federal regulators at their favorite vaccine companies is reflected in the unfounded prohibitions sidelining cheap natural cures for coronavirus illnesses. As Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has emphasized, these politically-motivated prohibitions have resulted in many hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. See this.
The cheap, unpatented and readily-available natural remedies have been banned or defamed to preserve the emergency measure approvals for the much-anticipated Warp Speed shots. From what has been published about the flagrantly incompetent and dishonest medical experiment still-underway, the emergency measure shots have been shown to be far too deadly and injurious to qualify as being anywhere near safe and effective.
One important incentive that has been shown to be driving the attempt to universalize COVID injections, is to bring about the global universalization of a bio-digital database more powerful, comprehensive and adaptable than any previously-existing platform. The strategic importance of this objective should help explain the pathological push to demonize and even criminalize those that refuse to allow themselves to be injected with the gene-altering jabs.
Dr. Mike Yeadon was one of the first major scientists to blow the whistle on the deeper implications of the data-collecting initiative that is integral to the manufactured COVID crisis. See this.
For months Dr. Yeadon has been warning that one of the main purposes of the COVID scam is to empower and enrich those seeking to become the proprietors of a new system of data collection, transmission and manipulation. The envisaged database would encompass many different categories, themes, topics, vectors, and searches.
Dr. Yeadon explains how the real agenda of the promoters of vaccine passports goes far beyond a means of recording the vaccination histories of individuals. Rather, the envisaged objectives are far more broad-ranging, extending to information in individuals’ finances, police records, contact lists, travel histories, sexual proclivities as well as collections of detailed digital data on the distinct genetic characteristics of every human on the planet.
Many human genomes are already being mapped. This vast new fund of bio-digital data is susceptible to being archived, monitored, shipped and analyzed through elaborate networks devoted to the Internet of people, things and services on the fast-expanding frontiers of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
The proliferation of well-funded entities like Bill Gates’ GAVI form a big part of these developments, including on the engineered interfaces linking human biology and digital technology. One of the motives driving Gates in bringing about the mass vaccination of children, is depopulation. See this.
It is also to incorporate the survivors early into systems of mass digital surveillance. See this.
In 2009 the government of Switzerland recognized in GAVI a long list of state-like powers and jurisdictions. Describing itself as a public-private partnership, “the Geneva-based GAVI Alliance enjoys privileges and immunities similar to those enjoyed by other intergovernmental organizations [including the UN] in Switzerland.” See this.
The Frankenstein-esque projects being pushed by promoters of transhumanism figure prominently among those engaged in engineering the COVID crisis. These would-be makers of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution are deadly serious in their quest to implement and exploit massive schemes for unlimited bio-digital experiments in the process of transforming humans into transhumans.
The goal is nothing less than to alter the very form and genetic character of Homo sapiens. See this.
The goal of transhumanism is to marry mechanical devices and computational capacity with the natural attributes that humanity has inherited from God and from millions of years of evolution. In this way the survivors of the so-called “Great Reset” currently underway would be made to integrate more readily into the robotization of society through the secretive and sometimes competitive operations of many different initiatives in AI. See this.
Presently obstacles are being removed to the aggressive reconstitution of human beings including through the genetic modification of human attributes. See this.
The way is being prepared for new forms of experiment on human subjects that go far beyond the atrocities currently being committed in this round of forced mass injections. The way is being cleared, it seems, for laissez-faire approaches to conducting medical research on human stand-ins for the role once assigned to rats and guinea pigs. This spectacle of degradation exposes that the value of human life is being subjected to a precipitous decline that might very well prove to be more draconian than anything we have seen so far in history.
How else are we to interpret the future implications of the decisive blow against constitutionally guaranteed protections for bodily autonomy and for the security of the person? Once governments have backed the act of compelling individuals to accept the coercive injection of known pathogens into their bodies as conditions for keeping their jobs, what can we expect next? Is there any facet of human rights that will continue to be respected as sacrosanct after the imposition on large population groups of mandatory injections?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Anthony Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at the 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 frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Edmonton police are among the city employees fighting against COVID-19 shot mandates.
Kaytoo / Shutterstock.com
January 14th, 2022 by André Pratte
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.
***
This article was published in the National Post under the title Controlling COVID (and Us) Is “Mission Impossible”.
Below are relevant excerpts with a link to the complete National Post article, emphasis added. Our thanks to renowned Canadian journalist and former Senator André Pratte.
***
In recent days, the government of Québec has had to backtrack on some of the measures it had announced in its campaign against COVID. For instance, after insisting for weeks that people who think they may be infected get tested, Québec announced on Tuesday that PCR tests would from now on only be available for specific groups, amongst them health-care workers.
Those changes have led to very critical comments in the press. Star columnist Patrick Lagacé, in La Presse, wondered if there was a pilot on the plane. A headline in the Journal de Montréal asserted: “Quebec is playing with our nerves.” There is a sense, increasingly shared, that the provincial government has lost control of the pandemic.
While all this is happening, I am reading Why Liberalism Works, by distinguished American economist Deirdre Nansen McCloskey. Quote:
“A complicated economy far exceeds the ability of even a government-sized collection of human intellects to govern it in detail. … Governing in great detail from the capital the trillions of plans shifting daily by the nearly 330 million individuals in the American economy is a fool’s errand …”
I wonder if the same applies to the unprecedented attempts by governments, in Canada and elsewhere, to control their citizens’ private lives in the hopes of containing the COVID-19 pandemic. Isn’t there a point where such attempts are so fastidious, arbitrary and rights-infringing that they become futile, counterproductive even? More importantly, if we accept this extent of state intervention in our private lives now, what will prevent governments from doing it again to contain another crisis, real or apprehended? What if this becomes the new normal?
What if this becomes the new normal?
I am not advocating that governments lift all the restrictions that have been put in place since the beginning of the pandemic. Contrary to Ms. McCloskey, I have always been convinced, and I think that history bears that out, that there are things that only a government can do; dealing with a public health emergency is one of them.
…
if we are to draw the line between proper and excessive government intervention in our lives. As John Stuart Mill wrote in 1859:
“There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.”
….If COVID-19 is to stay amongst us for years to come, we cannot allow governments to interfere with our basic rights forever, to submit our society to those ruinous stop-and-go exercises, to try to control our lives up to minute details. At some point, we will have to learn to live with the virus. This means that governments will need to rely less on restrictive measures and more on peoples’ discernment. This also means that each of us shall act as a responsible citizen, as is required in a liberal democracy.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: Montreal police question a woman while enforcing curfew orders on Dec. 31, 2021. PHOTO BY PETER MCCABE/THE CANADIAN PRESS
January 14th, 2022 by Joel S. Hirschhorn
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 key question repeatedly coming up among people who are so angry about government pandemic management is this: Why are there so very few medical professionals who see the many pandemic management failures but do nothing to challenge the medical and public health establishment? Why do they remain silent? Why do they keep working in institutions that unquestioningly follow failed government policies and mandates?
On one side of their health profession brain is recognition of all the failures of the systems they work in. Because they are so evident. Like the general public, they see endless COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths and the failure of vaccines. They see historic levels of pain and suffering among the population that they previously saw themselves serving and helping. They know that much is being withheld from the public.
On the other side of their brain, they see that they personally are failing their original commitment to save lives and make patients better by practicing personalized medicine. They know that there is so much medical research that is not being used.
This is classic cognitive dissonance: a profound and fundamental clash of real-world information. An internal mental conflict that is not easily resolved.
I want to emphasize that I am NOT talking about truly evil people like Fauci and so many other leaders in the medical and public health establishment. Evil people cannot escape what they intentionally do that is not in the best interests of the public that they profess to serve. Understanding the suffering of professionals because of cognitive dissonance is not meant as any kind of excuse for the evil, destructive actions of powerful people like Fauci.
Stuck in the middle: What are normal medical and public health professionals to do?
Most try and live with their cognitive dissonance. They go along with the government and medical/public health establishment, but not because they unquestionally support it.
If they can block or tamper down information about the failures of what they do, of what their profession is doing, of what government agencies are doing, then they minimize their cognitive dissonance. This minimizes their pain. These are the medical professionals who do not rebel, who do not reject vaccines and who do not tell the truth about what is going on in their hospital or practice. Who do not tell their patients what is wrong with what their employer demands of them.
In contrast, are the fewer medical professionals who choose to eliminate their cognitive dissonance by rebelling, by becoming truth-tellers, by risking their jobs and sometimes losing them because they refuse the jab or openly tell the truth about the failures of pandemic management. These are risk-takers serving the public.
In contrast, living with cognitive dissonance makes the lives of medical professionals difficult and painful. They have had to face a difficult existential choice: Either reduce their pain by blocking out many facts and truths about what is really happening, or let all that in and change their behavior.
Changed behavior explains why a large number of nurses and physicians have rejected vaccines, and often leave their loved jobs to live up to their basic beliefs. They are the ones who free themselves of painful cognitive dissonance.
For those of us who are not medical professionals caught in the middle between what is really happening and what is supposed to be done, we should understand why we are being let down and disappointed by the vast majority of medical professionals.
We can and should condemn the medical and public health establishment for so many failures and harm to the public and society.
But we need to have compassion for the medical professionals suffering with cognitive dissonance. And we need, more than ever, to embrace and respect the fewer numbers who escaped cognitive dissonance by being truth-tellers and medical practitioners offering people COVID treatments (such as ivermectin) not supported by government agencies. And who do not support unsafe and ineffective COVID vaccines.
Some of you (non-medical professionals) may also be suffering with cognitive dissonance. You may be torn between what you are have been hearing and reading from truth-tellers, medical rebels and anti-government patriots versus what your personal physicians and the medical/public health and mainstream media establishments keep forcing on you.
Is your behavior changed to minimize painful cognitive dissonance? Choices include getting jabbed or not, taking new Pfizer/Merck drugs versus generics like ivermectin, wearing a mask when it is not required, believing what Fauci and the leftist media say or not. Staying friends with those who have bought into all the propaganda, misinformation and government mandates and actions, or concluding it is too painful to having those people who reject and oppose your beliefs remaining close to you.
Your choice on how to manage mental stress. And always your choice to keep fighting the evil powers that are the root cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths.
renowned Medical doctor and author Dr. Joel Hirschorn is a regular contributor to Global Research
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Mises Wire
January 14th, 2022 by Dr. Naomi Wolf
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 recently spoke at a gathering for medical freedom advocates in a little community center in the Hudson River Valley. I cherish this group of activists: they had steadfastly continued to gather throughout the depths of the “lockdown,” that evil time in history — an evil time not yet behind us — and they kept on gathering in human spaces, undaunted. And by joining their relaxed pot-luck dinners around unidentifiable but delicious salads and chewy homemade breads, I was able to continue to remember what it meant to be part of a sane human community.
Children played — as normal — frolicking around, and speaking and laughing and breathing freely; not suffocating in masks like little zombies, or warned by terrified adults to keep from touching other human children. Dogs were petted. Neighbors spoke to one another at normal ranges, without fear or phobias. Bands played much-loved folk songs or cool little indie rock numbers they had written themselves, and no one, graceful or awkward, feared dancing. People sat on the house’s steps shoulder to shoulder, in human warmth, and chatted over glasses of wine or homemade cider. No one asked anyone personal medical questions.
(While I believe that all decisions about how you live your life vis a vis an infectious disease are intensely personal, and I would never recommend to others to assume any specific level of risk or to pursue any specific strategy of risk reduction; I think it’s worth noting, by the way, that to my knowledge, they had gone through the last two years without having lost a soul to COVID.)
Meanwhile, what had been human community outside of that little group, and outside other isolated normal communities — and outside of a handful of normal states in America — became more and more surreal, terrifying and unrecognizable.
The rest of the world, at least on the progressive side in the United States, became increasingly cult-like and insular in its thinking, since March of 2020.
As the months passed, friends and colleagues of mine who were highly educated, and who had been lifelong critical thinkers, journalists, editors, researchers, doctors, philanthropists, teachers, psychologists — all began to repeat only talking points from MSNBC and CNN, and soon overtly refused to look at any sources – even peer-reviewed sources in medical journals — even CDC data — that contradicted those talking points. These people literally said to me, “I don’t want to see that; don’t show it to me.” It became clear soon enough that if they absorbed information contradictory to “the narrative” that was consolidating, they risked losing social status, maybe even jobs; doors would close, opportunities would be lost. One well-educated woman told me she did not want to see any unsanctioned information because she was afraid of being disinvited from her bridge group. Hence the refrain: “I don’t want to see that; don’t show it to me.”
Friends and colleagues of mine who had been skeptical their whole adult lives of Big Agriculture — who only shopped at Whole Foods, who would never let their kids eat sugar or processed meat, or ingest a hint of Red Dye No 2 in candy, or eat candy itself for that matter in some cases — these same people lined up to inject into their bodies, and then offered up the bodies of their dependent minor children for the same purpose, an MRNA gene-therapy injection whose trials would not end for two more years. These parents announced on social media proudly that they had done this with their children. When I pointed out gently that the trials would not end til 2023, they yelled at me.
The progressive, right-on part of the ideological world — my people, my tribe, my whole life — became more and more uncritical, less and less able to reason. Friends and colleagues who were wellness-oriented, and who their whole adult lives had known the dangers of Big Pharma — and who would only use Burt’s Bees on their babies’ bottoms and sunscreen with no PABAs on themselves— lined up to take an experimental gene therapy; why not? And worse, it seemed, they crowded around, like the stone throwers in Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery,” to lash out at and to shun anyone who raised the most basic questions about Big Pharma and its highly compensated spokesmodels. Their critical thinking, but worse, their entire knowledge base about that industry, seemed to have evaporated magically into the ether.
Whole belief systems were abandoned painlessly and overnight as if it these communities were in the grip of a collective hallucination, like the witch craze of the 15th to 17th centuries in Northern Europe. Intelligent, informed people suddenly saw things that were not there and were unable to see things that were incontrovertibly before their faces.
Feminist health activists, who surely knew perfectly well the histories of how the pharmaceutical and medical industries had experimented ad nauseam on the bodies of women with disastrous results, lined up to take an injection that by March of 2021 women were reporting was wreaking painful havoc on their menstrual cycles. These same feminist health activists had spoken out earlier, as they should have, about Big Pharma’s and Big Medicine’s colonization of women’s reproductive health processes, and had spoken out about issues ranging from women’s access to safe contraception to abortion rights, to the rights of mothers to a midwifery delivery or to a birthing room, or to the right to labour or the right to store milk at work or the right to breastfeed in public.
But these formerly reliable custodians of well-informed medical skepticism and of women’s health rights, were silent, silent, as such voices as former HHS official Dr Paul Alexander warned that spike protein from MRNA vaccines may accumulate in the ovaries (and testes), see this, and as vaccinated women reported hemorrhagic menses — double digit percentages in a Norwegian study reported heavier bleeding (see this). Many women also reported blood clotting, and women even reported post-menopausal bleeding — and mothers reported their vaccinated twelve year olds suddenly getting their periods; but it was two periods a month some girls endured.
Almost no one out of the luminaries of feminist health activism who had spent decades speaking out on behalf of women’s health and women’s bodies, raised a peep above the parapet. Those two or three of us who did were very visibly smeared, in some cases threatened, and in many ways silenced.
When I broke this story of menstrual dysregulation post-vaccination on Twitter in Spring of 2021, I was suspended. Matt Gertz works at CNN and Media Matters. The former is a channel on which I had appeared for decades; the latter, a group whose leadership members I’ve known for years, and in one instance, with whom I’ve worked.
In spite of both of his employers having sought out professional association with me, Matt Gertz publicly and repeatedly called me a “pandemic conspiracy theorist” upon my first having reported on menstrual dysregulation, and elsewhere accused me of “crack-pottery”, see this.
Shame on me for doing journalism. I broke the post-vaccination menstrual dysregulation story by doing what I always do: by using the same methodology that I used in writing The Beauty Myth (about eating disorders) and Misconceptions (about obstetrics), and Vagina (about female sexual health): I listened to women, that radical act.
The New York Times just re-broke my story of menstrual dysregulation, ten months later, January 2022, in a different year, see this, after perhaps millions of women readers may have been physically harmed by their lack of decent reporting and their uncritical acceptance of soundbites from captured regulatory authorities. There has been no retraction or apology from Mr Gertz, from The New York Times, or from other news outlets such as DailyMail.co.uk, who all then called me crazy but are now reporting my story as if it is their own — now that it’s clear that, once again, sadly, I was right.
Feminist health advocates who know about routine hysterectomies at menopause, about vaginal mesh that has to be removed, about silicone breasts implants that leaked or burst and had to be recalled or replaced, about Mirena that had to be removed, about Thalidomide that deformed babies’ limbs in utero, about birth control pills at hormonal doses that heightened heart attack risks and stroke risks and that lowered the female libido; about routine c-sections to speed up turnover at hospitals, about the sterilization of low income women and girls and women and girls of color without informed consent — were silent about the unproven nature of MRNA vaccines, and about coercive policies that violated the Nuremberg code and other laws, as a whole generation of young women who have not yet had their babies, was forced to take an MRNA vaccine (and sometimes second vaccine, and booster) with unproven effects on reproductive health, in order simply to return to campus or to get or to keep a job.
The Our Bodies Ourselves collective? Nothing on vaccine risks and women’s health as a subject category: see this. NARAL? Where were they? Crickets. Where were all the responsible feminist health activists, in the face of this global, unconsenting, uninforming, illegal experimentation on women’s bodies, and now on children, and soon, on babies?
People who had been up in arms for decades about eating disorders or about the coercive social standards that led to — horrors — leg shaving, were silent about an untested injection that was minting billions for Big Pharma; an injection that entered, according to Moderna’s own press material, every cell in the body, which would thus include involving uterus, ovaries, endometrium.
The sudden amnesia extended to feminist legal theory. Feminist jurists such as Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan debated President Biden’s vaccine mandates on January 7 — as if they had never heard of the legal claims for Roe v Wade: privacy law. As Politico reported of Justice Kagan, “The Supreme Court’s ruling on privacy rights served as a basis for its later decision, Roe v Wade” and as former Sen. Barbara Boxer had stated, “I have no reason to think anything else except that [Kagan] would be a very strong supporter of privacy rights because everyone she worked for held that view.” See this.
Except…now they seemingly don’t, and now Justice Kagan magically doesn’t. With medical mandates, there are no privacy rights for anyone ever.
But Justice Kagan seemed suddenly, after decades of this view, not to see a contradiction. Her career-long philosophical foundation that resulted in a consistent view, when it came to abortion rights, that citizens had a right to physical privacy in medical decision-making — “My body, my choice” — “It is between a woman and her doctor” — vanished, along with her expensive education and all of her knowledge of the Constitution.
Justice Sotomayor, for her part, said, in an article reported on Dec 10 2021, that it was “madness” that the state of Texas wanted to “substantially suspend[ed] a constitutional guarantee: a pregnant woman’s right to control her own body.” Her tone was, rightly, one of high dudgeon at the thought that anyone might override this right. But when it came to Justice Sotomayor’s discussion on Jan 7 2022, less than four weeks later, of President Biden’s vaccine mandates, that clear Constitutional right was now nowhere to be seen; it too had vanished into the ether. A part of Justice Sotomayor’s brain seems to have simply shut down at the word “vaccines” — though it was the same woman in the same Court, with the same Constitution before her, the Justice could no longer manage the Kantian imperative of consistent reasoning. See this.
Lifelong activists for justice and inclusion, for the Constitution and human rights and the rule of law — friends and colleagues of mine who are LGBTQ rights activists; the ACLU itself; activists for racial inclusion and equality; Constitutional lawyers who teach at all the major universities and run the law reviews; activists who argue against excluding anyone from any profession or access based on gender; almost all of them, at least on the progressive side of the spectrum (almost all: hello, Glenn Greenwald) — were silent; as a comprehensive, systematic, cruel, Titanic discrimination society was erected in a matter of months in such cities as New York City, formerly the great melting pot, the great equalizer; and as whole states such as California adopted a system pretty much like the apartheid systems based on other physical characteristics, in regimes that these same proud advocates for equality and inclusion had boycotted in college.
And yet now these former heroes for human rights and for equal justice under law, stood by calmly or even enthusiastically as the massive edifice of discrimination was constructed. And then they colluded. Without even a fight or a murmur.
And they had their “vaccinated-only” parties, and their segregated fashion galas, and their nonprofit-hosted discussions in nice medically-segregated New York City midtown hotels over expensive lunches served by staffers in masks — lunches celebrating luminaries of the civil rights movement or of the LGBTQ rights movement or the immigrants’ rights movement, or the movement to help girls in Afghanistan get access to schools which they had been prevented from attending— invitations which I received, but of which I could not make use, because — because I was prevented from attending.
And these elite justice advocates enjoyed the celebrations of their virtues and of their values, and did not seem to notice that they had become — in less than a year — exactly what they had spent their adult lives professing most to hate.
I could go on and on.
The bottom line, though, is that this infection of the soul, this abandonment of classical Liberalism’s — really, it’s not even partisan; modern civilization’s — most cherished postwar ideals, this sudden dropping of post-Enlightenment norms of critical thinking, this dilution even of parents’ sense of protectiveness over the bodies and futures of their helpless minor children, this acceptance of a world in which people can’t gather to worship, these suddenly-manifested structures themselves that erected this demonic world in less than two years and imposed it on everyone else, these heads of state and heads of the AMA and heads of school boards and these teachers; these heads of unions and these national leaders and the state level leaders and the town hall level functionaries all the way down to the men or woman who disinvite a relative from Thanksgiving due to social pressure, because of a medical status which is no one’s business and which affects no one — this edifice of evil is too massive, too quickly erected, too complex and really, too elegant, to assign to just human awfulness and human inventiveness.
Months before, I had asked a renowned medical freedom activist how he stayed strong in his mission as his name was besmirched and he faced career attacks and social ostracism. He replied with Ephesians 6:12: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” See this.
I had thought of that a lot in the intervening time. It made more and more sense to me as the days passed.
I confessed at that gathering in the woods with the health freedom community, that I had started to pray again. This was after many years of thinking that my spiritual life was not that important, and certainly very personal, almost embarrassingly so, and thus it was not something I should mention in public.
I told the group that I was now willing to speak about God publicly, because I had looked at what had descended on us from every angle, using my normal critical training and faculties; and that it was so elaborate in its construction, so comprehensive, and so cruel, with an almost superhuman, flamboyant, baroque imagination made out of the essence of cruelty itself — that I could not see that it had been accomplished by mere humans working on the bumbling human level in the dumb political space.
I felt around us, in the majestic nature of the awfulness of the evil around us, the presence of “principalities and powers” — almost awe-inspiring levels of darkness and of inhuman, anti-human forces. In the policies unfolding around us I saw again and again anti-human outcomes being generated: policies aimed at killing children’s joy; at literally suffocating children, restricting their breath, speech and laughter; at killing school; at killing ties between families and extended families; at killing churches and synagogues and mosques; and, from the highest levels, from the President’s own bully pulpit, demands for people to collude in excluding, rejecting, dismissing, shunning, hating their neighbors and loved ones and friends.
I have seen bad politics all of my life and this drama unfolding around us goes beyond bad politics, which is silly and manageable and not that scary. This — this is scary, metaphysically scary. In contrast to hapless human mismanagement, this darkness has the tinge of the pure, elemental evil that underlay and gave such hideous beauty to the theatrics of Nazism; it is the same nasty glamour that surrounds Leni Riefenstahl films.
In short, I don’t think humans are smart or powerful enough to have come up with this horror all alone.
So I told the group in the woods, that the very impressiveness of evil all around us in all of its new majesty, was leading me to believe in a newly literal and immediate way in the presence, the possibility, the necessity of a countervailing force — that of a God. It was almost a negative proof: an evil this large must mean that there is a God at which it is aiming its malevolence.
And that is a huge leap for me to take, as a classical Liberal writer in a postwar world, — to say these things out loud.
Grounded postmodern intellectuals are not supposed to talk about or believe in spiritual matters — at least not in public. We are supposed to be shy about referencing God Himself, and are certainly are not supposed to talk about evil or the forces of darkness.
As a Jew I come from a tradition in which Hell (or “Gehenom”) is not the Miltonic Hell of the later Western imagination, but rather a quieter interim spiritual place (See this). “The Satan” exists in our literature (in Job for example) but neither is this the Miltonic Satan, that rock star, but a figure more modestly known as “the accuser.”
We who are Jews, though, do have a history and literature that lets us talk about spiritual battle between the forces of God and negative forces that debase, that profane, that seek to ensnare our souls. We have seen this drama before, and not that long ago; about eighty years ago.
Other faith traditions of course also have ways to discuss and understand spiritual battle taking place through humans, and through human leaders, and here on earth.
It was not always the case that Western intellectuals were supposed to keep quiet in public about spiritual wrestling, fears and questions. Indeed in the West, poets and musicians, dramatists and essayists and philosophers, talked about God, and even about evil, for millennia, as being at the core of their understanding of the world and as forming the basis of their art forms and of their intellectual missions. This was the case right through the nineteenth century and into the first quarter of the 20th, a period when some of our greatest intellectuals — from Darwin to Freud to Jung — wrestled often and in public with questions of how the Divine, or its counterpart, manifested in the subjects they examined.
It was not until after World War Two and then the rise of Existentialism — the glorification of a world view in which the true intellectual showed his or her mettle by facing the absence of God and our essential aloneness — that smart people were expected to shut up in public about God.
So – it’s not wacky or eccentric, if you know intellectual history, for intellectuals to talk in public about God, and even about God’s adversary, and to worry about the fate of human souls. Mind and soul are not in fact at odds; and the body is not in fact at odds with either of these. And this acceptance of our three-part, integrated nature is part of our Western heritage. This is a truth only recently obscured or forgotten; a memory of our integrity as human beings that had been, only for the last seventy years or so, under attack.
So — I am going to start talking about God, when I need to do so, and about my spiritual questions in this dark time, along with continuing all of the other reporting and nonfiction analysis I always do. Because I have always told my readers the truth of what I felt and saw. This may be why they have come with me on a journey now of almost forty-three years, and why they keep seeking me out — though I have in the last couple of years — after I wrote a book that described how 19th century pandemics were exploited by the British State to take away everyone’s liberty, hm — been pulped, deplatformed, cancelled, re-cancelled, deplatformed again, and called insane by dozens of the same news outlets that had commissioned me religiously for decades.
It is time to start talking about spiritual combat again, I personally believe. Because I think that that is what we are in, and the forces of darkness are so big that we need help. Our goal? Perhaps just to keep the light somehow alive – a light of true classical humane values, of reason, of democracy, inclusion, kindness – in this dark time.
What is the object of this spiritual battle?
It seems to be for nothing short of the human soul.
One side seems to be wrestling for the human soul by targeting the human body that houses it; a body made in God’s likeness, so they say; the temple of God.
I am not confident. I don’t have enough faith. Truth is, I am scared to death. I just don’t think just humans alone can solve this one, or can win this one on their own.
I do think we need to call, as Milton did, as Shakespeare did, as Emily Dickinson did, on help from elsewhere; on what could be called angels and archangels, if you will; on higher powers, whatever they may be; on better principalities, on whatever intercessors may hear us, on Divine Providence — whatever you want to call whomever it is you can hope for and imagine. As I often say, I’ll take any faith tradition. I’ll talk to God in any language — I don’t think forms really matter. I think intention is everything.
I can’t say for sure that God and God’s helpers exist; I can’t. Who can?
But I do think we are at an unheard-of moment in human history — globally — in which I personally believe we have no other choice but to ask for assistance from beings — or a Being — better armed to fight true darkness, than ourselves alone. We’ll find out if they exist, if He or She exists, perhaps, if we ask for God’s help.
At least that’s my hope.
Which I guess is a kind of a prayer.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons
January 14th, 2022 by Vasko Kohlmayer
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.
***
There is a tectonic shift underway in the medico-scientific establishment: they are starting to walk back boosters.
The first indication of this dramatic change of attitude came from the United Kingdom last week.
On January 7, Reuters ran a wire titled UK Says 4th COVID Jabs Not Needed for Now As Booster Effect Lasts. That piece featured the following sentence in its opening paragraph: “there is no need for now for people to have a fourth shot, British health officials said on Friday.”
Three days later, the UK Mirror published a piece titled What Is ‘Living With Covid’? Boris Johnson Drawing Up Plans ‘To Be Rolled Out In March. The article quoted Dr. Clive Dix, the former head of the UK’s vaccine task force, who said:
“It is pointless keeping giving more and more vaccines to people who are not going to get very ill. We should just let them get ill and deal with that.”
A mere day later, Bloomberg put out an article titled Repeat Booster Shots Spur European Warning on Immune-System Risks. The piece opened as follows:
European Union regulators warned that frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune system and may not be feasible. Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune system and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency.
The piece goes on to quote Marco Cavaleri, the Head of Biological Health Threats and Vaccines Strategy at the European Medicines Agency (EMA), who said that boosters “can be done once, or maybe twice, but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly.”
Cavaleri then went on to say something we had not yet heard from a high-level public health official:
“We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting.”
Around the same time, the World Health Organization (WHO) put out a statement which included this astounding sentence:
“[A] vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”
This was a truly startling development since until a week before medical authorities world over were speaking about the need for the fourth (and even subsequent) shots. In fact, some countries like Britain and Israel have already started their administration.
This sudden change of course indicates that there is something in the data that has the powers that be seriously worried. When it came to the Covid vaccines, the medical authorities have displayed an astonishing level of tolerance for side effects and collateral damage. So much so that they were even willing to let some children die unnecessarily for the sake of their vaccine agenda.
Their abrupt reversal indicates that they must have recognized that there is something very dangerous in dealing out successive doses of the vaccines. Publicly admitting that “frequent Covid-19 booster shots could adversely affect the immune system,” very likely means that the injections have already damaged many people’s health.
That Covid jabs may undermine the immune system has been glaringly indicated by the rise of Omicron. It has been observed that the vaccines have “negative efficacy” vis-à-vis this strain, which means that the vaccinated and boostered are getting infected at higher rates than the unvaccinated. In Ontario, for example, the vaccinated get Omicron at three times the rate of their unvaccinated counterparts.
Why would this be? The obvious explanation is that the vaccines weaken their recipients’ immune defenses and hence they are more prone to getting infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The vaccinators were defending this debacle by claiming that even though the vaccinated are succumbing to infection, they are not dying at high rates. But this is not due to the vaccines but to the fact that Omicron appears to be less virulent than its predecessors because the death rate among the unvaccinated is also low. Omicron has been so mild that in South Africa, where this variant seems to have originated and where it quickly infected a large portion of the population – most of which is unvaccinated – the Covid mortality dropped.
But it is not only SARS-CoV-2 that the vaccinated are vulnerable to. They seem to be prone to all kinds of viruses and infections. There have been many reports of the vaccinated being unable to shake off colds and flu.
Last week it was reported that EU Parliament president David Sassoli died due to serious immune system dysfunction. Sassoli was an ardent advocate of Covid passports, and it is almost certain that he was vaccinated and boostered. One cannot but think that this may have something to do with his demise – although if it does, the authorities will never admit this.
A weakened immune system, however, is not the only adverse side effect of these inadequately tested experimental injections. Blood clots, cardiac arrest, neurological problems are among some of the other serious reported side effects of the Covid shots.
As the evidence has been accumulating about just how harmful and dangerous the Covid injections may be, the authorities tried their best to sweep it under the rug and pretend that everything was fine. But now the critical mass has been apparently reached and the establishment has realized that successive boosters are simply too dangerous to tolerate. Hence their change of mind.
This means that the dark era of forced boostering is coming to a close. It may take some time for the booster machine to stop grinding but its days are numbered.
The booster has been busted.
It was about time.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Our thanks to Dr. Gary G. Kohls, a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization, for bringing this article to our attention.
Vasko Kohlmayer was born and grew up in former communist Czechoslovakia. You can follow his writings by subscribing to his Substack newsletter ’Notes from the Twilight Zone’. He is the author of The West in Crisis: Civilizations and Their Death Drives.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
January 14th, 2022 by Pepe Escobar
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.
***
Washington will not consider Russian proposals on no expansion of NATO, and has no intention of even discussing the idea. So much for “dialogue”.
It was the first high-level Russia-NATO meeting since 2019 – coming immediately after the non sequitur of the U.S.-Russia “security guarantee” non-dialogue dialogue earlier in the week in Geneva.
So what happened in Brussels? Essentially yet another non-dialogue dialogue – complete with a Kafkaesque NATO preface: we’re prepared for dialogue, but the Kremlin’s proposals are unacceptable.
This was a double down on the American envoy to NATO, Julianne Smith, preemptively blaming Russia for the actions that “accelerated this disaster”.
By now every sentient being across Eurasia and its European peninsula should be familiar with Russia’s top two, rational demands: no further NATO expansion, and no missile systems stationed near its borders.
Now let’s switch to the spin machine. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s platitudes were predictably faithful to his spectacular mediocrity. On the already pre-empted dialogue, he said it was “important to start a dialogue”.
Russia, he said, “urged NATO to refuse to admit Ukraine; the alliance responded by refusing to compromise on enlargement”. Yet NATO “welcomed bilateral consultations” on security guarantees.
NATO also proposed a series of broad security consultations, and “Russia has not yet agreed, but has not ruled out them either.”
No wonder: the Russians had already noted, even before it happened, that this is noting but stalling tactics.
The Global South will be relieved to know that Stoltenberg defended NATO’s military blitzkriegs in both Kosovo and Libya: after all “they fell under UN mandates”. So they were benign. Not a word on NATO’s stellar performance in Afghanistan.
And then, the much-awaited clincher: NATO worries about Russian troops “on the border with Ukraine” – actually from 130 km to 180 km away, inside European Russian territory. And the alliance considers “untrue” that expansion is “an aggressive act”. Why? Because “it spreads democracy”.
Bomb me to democracy, baby
So here’s the NATO gospel in a flash. Now compare it with the sobering words of Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko.
Grushko carefully enounced how “NATO is determined to contain Russia. The United States and its allies are trying to achieve superiority in all areas and in all possible theaters of military operations.” That was a veiled reference to Full Spectrum Dominance, which since 2002 remains the American gospel.
Grushko also referred to “Cold War-era containment tactics”, and that “all cooperation [with Russia] has been halted” – by NATO. Still, “Russia honestly and directly pointed out to NATO that a further slide of the situation could lead to dire consequences for European security.”
The conclusion was stark: “The Russian Federation and NATO do not have a unifying positive agenda at all.”
Virtually all Russophobic factions of the bipartisan War Inc. machine in Washington cannot possibly accept that there should be no forces stationed on European states that were not members of NATO in 1997; and that current NATO members should attempt no military intervention in Ukraine as well as in other Eastern European, Transcaucasian, and Central Asian states.
On Monday in Geneva, Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov had already stressed, once again, that Russia’s red line is unmovable: “For us, it’s absolutely mandatory to make sure that Ukraine never, never, ever becomes a member of NATO.”
Diplomatic sources confirmed that in Geneva, Ryabkov and his team had for all practical purposes to act like teachers in kindergarten, making sure there would be “no misunderstandings”.
Now compare it with the U.S. State Department’s Ned Price, speaking after those grueling eight hours shared between Ryabkov and Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman: Washington will not consider Russian proposals on no expansion of NATO, and has no intention of even discussing the idea.
So much for “dialogue”.
Ryabkov confirmed there was no progress. Referring to his didacticism, he had to stress, “We are calling on the U.S. to demonstrate a maximum of responsibility at this moment. Risks related to a possible increase of confrontation shouldn’t be underestimated.”
To say, in Ryabkov’s words, that “significant” Russian effort has been made to persuade the Americans that “playing with fire” is not in their interests is the euphemism of the young century.
Let me sanction you to oblivion
A quick recap is crucial to understand how things could have derailed so fast.
NATO’s not exactly secret strategy, from the beginning, has been to pressure Moscow to directly negotiate with Kiev on Donbass, even though Russia is not mentioned in the Minsk Agreements.
While Moscow was being forced to become part of the Ukraine/Donbass confrontation, it barely broke a sweat smashing a coup cum color revolution in Belarus. Afterwards, the Russians assembled in no time an impressive strike force – with corresponding military infrastructure – in European Russia territory to respond in lightning quick fashion in case there was a Ukrainian blitzkrieg in Donbass.
No wonder an alarmed NATOstan had to do something about the notion of fighting Russia to the last impoverished Ukrainian. They may at least have understood that Ukraine would be completely destroyed.
The beauty is how Moscow turned things around with a new geopolitical jiu-jitsu move. Ukro-dementia encouraged by NATO – complete with empty promises of becoming a member – opened the way for Russia to demand no further NATO expansion, with the withdrawal of all military infrastructure from Eastern Europe to boot.
It was obvious that Ryabkov, in his talks with Sherman, would refuse any suggestion that Russia should dismantle the logistical infrastructure set up in its own European Russia territory. For all practical purposes, Ryabkov smashed Sherman to bits. What was left was meek threats of more sanctions.
Still, it will be a Sisyphean task to convince the Empire and its NATO satrapies not to stage some sort of military adventure in Ukraine. That’s the gist of what Ryabkov and Grushko said over and over again in Geneva and Brussels. They also had to stress the obvious: if further sanctions are imposed on Russia, there would be severe blowback especially in Europe.
But how is it humanly possible for seasoned pros like Ryabkov and Grushko to argue, rationally, with a bunch of amateur blind bats such as Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland and Sherman?
There has been some serious speculation on the timeframe ahead for Russia to in fact not even bother to listen to the American “baby babble” (copyright Maria Zakharova) anymore. Could be around 2027, or even 2025.
What’s happening next is that the five-year extension of the new START treaty expires in February 2026. Then there will be no ceiling for nuclear strategic weapons. The Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline to China will make Gazprom even less dependent on the European market. The combined Russia-China financial system will become nearly impervious to U.S. sanctions. The Russia-China strategic partnership will be sharing even more substantial military tech.
All of that is way more consequential than the dirty secret that is not a secret in the current “security guarantees” kabuki: the exceptionalist, “indispensable” nation is congenitally incapable of giving up on the forever expansion of NATO to, well, outer space.
At the same time, the Russians are very much aware of a quite prosaic truth; the U.S. will not fight for Ukraine.
So welcome to Instagrammed Irrationalism. What happens next? Most possibly a provocation, with the possibility, for instance, of a chemical black ops to be blamed on Russia, followed by – what else – more sanctions.
The package is ready. It comes in the form of a bill by Dem senators supported by the White House to bring “severe costs” to the Russian economy in case Moscow finally answers their prayers and “invades” Ukraine.
Sanctions would directly hit President Putin, Prime Minister Mishustin, Foreign Minister Lavrov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Gen Gerasimov, and “commanders of various branches of the Armed Forces, including the Air Force and Navy.”
Targeted banks and financial institutions include Sberbank, VTB, Gazprombank, Moscow Credit Bank, Alfa-Bank, Otkritie Bank, PSB, Sovcombank, Transcapitalbank, and the Russian Direct Investment Fund. They would all be cut off from SWIFT.
If this bill sounds like a declaration of war, that’s because it is. Call it the American version of “dialogue”.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
January 14th, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
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 a schizophrenic ruling on January 13, the US Supreme Court ruled against the Biden regime’s Covid vaccine mandate for private businesses but not for the mandate for health care workers.
Ordinary Americans might wonder why the Justices protected some people from undergoing a coerced medical procedure but not others.
The obvious inconsistency in their position probably has not occurred to the Justices. As they see it, in the case of private businesses OSHA was exercising power not conveyed to it by Congress, but Congress did give authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, from whence came the mandate for health care workers, to promulgate rules as the Secretary “finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services” by Medicare and Medicaid Services.
So for the mindless Justices, the Nuremberg Laws do not enter the decision, only whether the authority imposing a Josef Mengele policy of coerced medical intervention has the OK from Congress to do so.
This thinking, or lack thereof, indicates the completeness with which the rule of law has collapsed in the United States.
Employees of private companies are protected against orders by OSHA to undergo illegal coerced medical interventions, but employees of companies that deliver Medicare and Medicaid services are not protected from the same mandate if issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
What we have is the complete separation of law from justice and the violation of the US Constitution that requires equal treatment under law. The Justices have, again, delivered unequal treatment.
As I have noted on many occasions, the United States is the Constitution. If the Constitution is dead, so is the United States.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
January 14th, 2022 by Corey Lynn
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.
***
Not only were Pfizer’s trials a fraud, but the FDA knowingly approved it, putting millions of people at high risk. This report will show how autopsies reveal that the Covid-19 jabs are in fact killing otherwise healthy people, how there were intentional lethal batches released, and provide an incredible tool showing Pfizer trial fraud and the FDA’s negligence, so that people are armed with some of the most critical data to date in order to fight against this tyranny.
I spoke with a medical examiner who I’ve been communicating with for two years, to get a sense of what they are seeing during autopsies, as well as how tracking of deaths from the Covid jab are being handled, and how death certificates are being recorded. It was quite an informative discussion, and included much of what I have suspected.
There is a major flaw in the system. It is not setup to catch “vaccine” injury, for several reasons:
1) In many cases, jurisdiction has to essentially be waved by the medical examiner in the case of hospice and nursing homes, which means the medical examiner never gets to see the medical records, but still have to sign the death certificates.
2) There are investigators in the medical examiners office that contact the facilities where the death took place, and simply get a short narrative about the descendant’s past medical diagnoses from whomever answers the phone, and these investigators don’t dare ask about the “vaccine.” If a patient had Covid at the time of death, that will be added, but there is never any mention of complications after receiving the jab. So when the documents are passed on to the medical examiner to sign, they have no way of knowing if the person had been vaccinated.
3) In cases of deaths outside of nursing homes and hospice, such as from hospitals or residences, many families don’t even think to mention that their loved one recently received the jab because they believe it to be safe, so once again, when the documents reach the medical examiner, they would have to physically call the family with follow up questions and ask that specific question.
Quite frankly, none of this surprises me. I recently communicated with an individual whose job included the responsibility of logging adverse event reports for a large hospital network. However, any death-related cases were held by the higher-ups, and only adverse events were handed down to be entered. I imagine that is likely the process at most networks. But that all came to a halt when this person was told in early November to no longer enter the data, and without explanation. How many other hospitals and networks were given the same instructions, and are the deaths even being reported?
How do they control the narrative and push propaganda to stoke fear? A perfect example is the article in The Times of Israel that just published on January 10, 2022, headlined ‘First case reported in Israel of heart inflammation linked to Omicron infection.’ They state that a “previously healthy 43-year-old man who received a booster shot in August, hospitalized at Tel Hashomer in intensive care unit; doctors call it a worrying development.” But the “worry” is over the alleged variant Omicron, not the Covid jab. Dr. Shlomi Matetzky, head of the ICU at Sheba Medical Center (Tel Hashomer Hospital) told Channel 12 news about this man being treated for myocarditis, claiming “this is the first time we have seen this with Omicron. This is a worrying development that we need to think about.”
Completely disregarding the fact that this man has received the jabs and booster, they immediately sound the alarm that Omicron is the cause. Israel is the first country in the world to roll out a fourth booster. Many, including Corey’s Digs, has long warned that they would create false variants and allege how deadly they are so as to create a cover story for those really dying from the Covid jab itself. Sadly, we are seeing this all roll out in real time now.
So how do you push this propaganda out? Coincidentally, a 60-second search reveals that Bill Gates happens to have a connection with Sheba Medical Center, in Israel, through joint investments. Is this a stretch? Absolutely not. When you understand the reach, the pull, and the control these elite globalists have in place to coordinate such propaganda, this sort of connection becomes very relevant, especially when their false narrative against the science, is what’s coming out of this hospital.
Cases of deaths have significantly increased and it is clear that the Covid jab is having an impact:
1) Between 2015-2019 the total number of deaths in this specific location held at a steady rate each year, with minimal discrepancy, all with varying causes. In 2020, the year Covid hit, they saw a 15% increase in the total number of deaths. In 2021, after allegedly 62% of the U.S. had received the Covid jab and become “fully vaccinated”, they saw an additional increase of 12% over and above what they saw in 2020. That is substantial, especially when the FDA and CDC insist that the jab will prevent deaths.
2) The majority of nursing homes, and even hospice, are all injecting their patients with the Covid jab, and there has been a significant increase in deaths at these locations in the central part of the U.S. where the medical examiner works, but has also been reported on in many other areas of the country.
3) This medical examiner made it a point to contact 15-20 families who had lost a loved one. Some cases were obvious suicide or specific causes of death that wouldn’t raise a red flag for the Covid jab playing a role. But a few were quite telling, and so the medical examiner asked if they had received the Covid jab and what date they had received it. Three individuals ranging between the ages of their mid-30s to mid-50s had all received the jab within weeks of their death, one who had suffered a great deal immediately following the injection.
To illustrate one case, this person had developed mild myocarditis/pericarditis. Despite cases of myocarditis and pericarditis in children after receiving the Covid jab, the FDA and CDC insist on injecting children when they aren’t even at risk of dying from Covid-19.
Small area of myocarditis/pericarditis. The pink area is the myocardium, and the white area is the epicardial fat. The purple cells are the lymphocytic inflammation.
This isn’t what killed this otherwise healthy person – a heart attack was. It is likely that either the spike protein made its way into the heart and lining of the blood vessels, which ultimately caused the ruptured coronary artery or, a recent study also shows that “vaccines” based on mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are highly inflammatory, and led to a high mortality rate in mice. Another recent study shows an increase in protein inflammatory biomarkers.
Ruptured and occluded by a blood clot. The bright pink in the middle is the clot.
This one shows the inflammation and particularly the inflamed endothelial lining.
”The mortality rate is up to 20% at 6.5 years.”
The FDA isn’t concerned, according to their December 8, 2021 decision.
The medical examiner did their job and included the Covid “vaccine” as cause of death on the death certificates. But the question is – how many other medical examiners are doing their job? How many other investigators are refusing to do theirs? Is there any level of tracking of deaths by Covid jab taking place, because it seems our government and other “health” officials are doing everything they can to bury this information, and those that should be documenting it are too afraid to do so.
Critical Evidence and Resources Pertaining to Autopsies
Below are critical resources for both the public and for medical examiners so they know exactly what to be looking for, and going forward – could become the voices who put an end to this genocide. There are additional resources at the end of this article.
“The facts are damning. All gene-based vaccines, independent of manufacturers, produced the same result in the vaccines. In the organs of these people, in 90% he found clear evidence for autoimmune self attack by killer lymphocytes on the tissues. The main ones being the heart, the lung, then other tissues such as liver, etc…these vaccines are killing the young and the old.” – Dr. Bhakdi speaking about the evidence from one of Europe’s most experienced pathologists, Dr. Burkhardt’s
The FDA Approved Pfizer Covid-19 Jab Knowing Full Well The Rushed Trials Were a Fraud
The Canadian Covid Care Alliance, a group of 500 independent Canadian doctors, scientists, and health care practitioners produced an incredible, evidence-based presentation of the Pfizer trials submitted to the FDA, breaking it all down with precision and charts, and showing the timeline of the process leading to the FDA’s approval, and statistics that followed. It is an eye-opening, easy-to-follow, short video that must be watched and shared by the world.
The claim was that the inoculations were safe and showed 95% efficacy 7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95% was actually Relative Risk Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%.
The FDA is not only complicit, but are the most instrumental player in committing genocide because they gave the green light, and THEY KNOW what they did. Everyone needs to hold the FDA accountable and keep the heat on them through mail, email, and phone calls, until the Covid jabs are halted altogether. The Covid jab AND the vaccine ID passports both need to be stopped to prevent genocide, and a human enslavement system for those who managed to survive.
The FDA approved an experimental gene therapy produced by a company that has paid over $10 billion in fines since 2000, for lying, safety-related offenses, manipulated studies, bribing doctors, false claims, and people dying from their drugs. Paying fines and a slap on the wrist still keeps big pharma in business, when any other company would have been shut down and the owners serving time in prison. Instead, the FDA wants them to inject your children.
Pfizer has made over $33.5 billion in 2021 alone. They hold no liability for the Covid-19 jabs.
They know exactly what they’ve done, and yet on January 3, 2022 their press release is headlined: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Takes Multiple Actions to Expand Use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, which includes adding a third primary series dose for immunocompromised children ages 5 through 11.WHY would they inject a child with toxins who is already immunocompromised, and has no real threat of adverse events or death from Covid?
How many people have already suffered from the FDA withholding treatment from Covid patients? How many people died by being given lethal Remdesivir and put on ventilators when it didn’t have to happen? Why did the CDC change the definition of a “vaccine” after decades? Because, the Covid jab is gene therapy, does not prevent infection, does not prevent transmission, and most certainly does not prevent death – quite the opposite.
What Does The Injury and Death Data Tell Us?
In just one year, the death toll from the Covid jab has far exceeded all other “vaccines” combined, for all time in the U.S. alone, according to the CDC’s VAERS underreported system.
The FDA would have you believe that “side effects are uncommon” and these Covid jabs are “safe and effective. Given what we’ve already learned above in regards to the lack of reporting adverse events and deaths, the current numbers reflected in the CDC’s VAERS system are a mere fraction of the actual cases. That said, there are currently over 1.8 million adverse events reported, with over 113,000 hospitalizations from the jab, plus 21,382 Covid jab deaths, which is totally underreported. Many scientists and medical professional estimate the number of deaths to be upwards of over 400,000 in the U.S. alone.
Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Dr. Mike Yeadon confirmed that 90% of vaccine side effects came from less than 10% of the batch lots, which is documented and calculated directly from CDC’s VAERS, and means the batches do not contain the same ingredients. This shows solid evidence of foul play that was done intentionally, and is the biggest smoking gun to date.
The entire introduction to this is a must listen to, for those who are beginning to understand the bigger agenda being rolled out. The specific details regarding the different batches begins at 40 min. This is an absolute must watch and MUST SHARE.
Below are three very significant charts explained by Dr. Yeadon in the above video that must be shared with the world.
Why haven’t all of the Covid jabs been pulled from distribution? It should be obvious by now. Who is paying to assist those who are having adverse events? Who is capable of treating those adverse events to an experimental gene therapy? Who is paying for the funerals of those who have died, and assisting the families left behind? Everyone, including big pharma, hospitals, and healthcare workers, are all exempt from any liability. The only avenue is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program which happens behind closed doors, through our government. To date, they have paid out over $4.7 billion in injury and death claims, with a total of 8,504 awards and 11,996 dismissed claims, none of which indicates a single Covid-19 related payout thus far because it’s a lengthy process. That said, 2,057 petitions were filed in 2021, the largest number since 2003, and already 245 petitions have been filed in 2022, on their document that is dated January 1, 2022. Everyone who has suffered from these jabs or lost a loved one to them, should file a petition, if for nothing else – to get it documented and on the record.
According to the WHO’s Global Database of Reported Potential Side Effects (which excludes deaths), there has been nearly 3 million reports, which is clearly “the short list” when one begins reviewing adverse events on a country to country basis.
In September 2021, ABC News posed a question on Facebook, asking people, “After the vaccines were available to everyone, did you lose an unvaccinated loved one to Covid-19? If you’re willing to share your family story, please dm us your contact information. We may reach out to you for a story that we are working on.” They wanted to build a propaganda piece, and instead, were absolutely hammered with over 194,000 comments of angry people sharing their stories about themselves and family members who were harmed by the so-called “vaccine,” and loved ones that died from the “vaccine.” It was a pivotal and incredible sight to see the comments come in, in real time. This is how much damage the jabs are doing. (video from September 2021)
Just last week, the CDC Director stated that “over 75% of deaths had at least 4 comorbidities.”
The CDC Director has repeatedly stated that the Covid jab “does not prevent transmission.” Why the need for a vaccine ID passport? You know why.
Federal Judge Rejects FDA’s Request To Hide Pfizer Covid Jab Documents for 75 Years
Why would the FDA want to hide the documents submitted by Pfizer to license its Covid-19 jab, for 75 years, if their main concern is truly about the health of human beings, as opposed to protecting big pharma and the globalists?
Through a FOIA request, Siri & Glimstad LLP had requested that the FDA produce all of the data Pfizer had submitted to them, but the FDA asked the court for permission to only be required to produce 500 pages per month, which would have taken over 75 years to release all of the documents – long after people have suffered adverse events and death by Pfizer’s jab.
On January 6, 2022, the federal judge ordered the FDA to produce 55,000 pages per month, beginning with the first lot of 12,000 pages by January 31, and production of the first set of 55,000 pages beginning March 1, and continue at that rate of production every 30 days, taking 8-9 months overall. This a big a win, but does allows for redaction of privilege, exemption, or exclusion as asserted, of course.
So What is This Really About?
Simply put: the pandemic is to mandate an experimental gene therapy that the CDC and FDA like to refer to as a “vaccine.” That “vaccine” is for purposes of getting everyone onto a vaccine ID passport. The passport is to force everyone into the new global social credit system. That system is to bring the global population to full obedience, as the globalists control everyone’s access and spending to anything and everything in life, through the use of the new CBDC (central bank digital currency) system they are building toward. And, the icing on the cake for the globalists who orchestrated this – is depopulation.
The survival rate from Covid-19 is 99.98%, and that is based on recorded deaths of people “with” Covid, not “from” Covid. The CDC Director has already stated that 75% of all Covid-related deaths were in people with at least 4 comorbidities. Hospital networks, medical examiners offices, nursing homes, hospice, and healthcare workers are being told and intimidated to not report to VAERS, not to question whether a deceased person had recently received the jab, and not monitor deaths from the jab. The FDA and CDC have done everything in their power to inform hospitals and physicians that they should not treat Covid patients unless they “can’t breathe.” They have refused to suggest or prescribe zinc, quercetin, vitamin C, vitamin D, Ivermectin, or hydroxychloroquin, all of which are well known to work. They have gone so far as to discredit brilliant scientists and doctors from Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, and others, while trying to destroy doctors’ livelihoods and strip them of their medical licenses. When all of this is factored in, who is really dying from alleged “Covid?”
We have so many smoking guns with irrefutable evidence that this is genocide and if people do not stop complying, entire countries will crash and burn, and there will be nothing left to fight for beyond the ashes.
For all of those in the scientific and healthcare communities who are fighting to expose this genocide, and doing everything in your power to stop it, including treating patients – the world owes a great deal of gratitude to you all, and you should know how much you are appreciated.
If you are confused as to why the Media continues to push false data and news around the Covid-19 topic, this might clue you in:
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
January 14th, 2022 by Dr. Gary G. Kohls
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.
***
Here is an Announcement from the American Academy of Pediatrics website (May 4, 2021): (see this)
“Children ages 2-11 could potentially be eligible for (the still-experimental) COVID-19 vaccine this fall. Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla, D.V.M., Ph.D. (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine), said on a quarterly earnings call Tuesday he expects to request (experimental) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September. Under his plan, an EUA request for ages six months to 2 years would follow in the fourth quarter.
“Pfizer and its partner BioNTech currently are waiting for an FDA decision on an EUA for adolescents ages 12-15 years.”
And here is a list of lawsuits related to sixteen Pfizer drugs that were FDA-approved before long-term safety studies were completed: (And the CDC wonders why there is such a thing as “Big Pharma/Big Vaccine-hesitancy”)
Pfizer is one of the largest multinational drug companies on the planet – and one of the five largest vaccine manufacturers (the other four are Sanofi, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson $ Johnson. AstraZeneca is # 10). Pfizer has faced thousands of lawsuits for fraudulent marketing and medical injuries caused by some of its most profitable, drugs.
Pfizer has also set a record for the largest fine paid for a health care fraud lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. Pfizer paid $2.3 billion in fines, penalties, and settlement for illegal marketing claims.
Pfizer’s criminal record (2009) with the US Department of Justice on charges of “fraudulent marketing”.
As part of the 2009 DoJ settlement, Pfizer was put on parole:
“Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement … [which] provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.”
Here is a partial list of 13 of Pfizer’s most dangerous, most litigated, most potentially lethal drugs. (NOTE: If any reader had adverse effects to any of the following Pfizer drugs, he/she might want to consult an attorney).
Prizer promoted its two COX-2 pain relievers Celebrex and Bextra which generated 7000 lawsuits and a $894 million settlement. Both medications were me-too drugs similar to Merck’s infamous Vioxx, which caused 50,000 lawsuits because of cardiovascular deaths and injuries. Merck settled most of the cases with a $4.85 billion settlement.
Pfizer paid $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications.
Pfizer paid out $142 million for committing racketeering fraud in the marketing of Neurontin.
As part of a larger group of proton pump inhibitor lawsuits, Pfizer faced a number of Protonix lawsuits after it acquired drug company Wyeth who had been accused of marketing the drug for unapproved uses. In 2013, Pfizer agreed to pay $55 million to settle illegal marketing claims but the company may still be facing lawsuits for kidney injuries caused by the medication.
Nearly 10,000 Prempro lawsuits were filed by women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer. The lawsuits were largely settled by 2012 for about $1 billion.
Pfizer faced about 3,000 Chantix lawsuits filed by people who claimed they experienced suicidal thoughts and psychiatric disorders after using Chantix for smoking cessation. Pfizer set aside about $288 million and at least some of the cases were settled.
Thousands of cases of medical injury due to testosterone replacement therapy have been filed. Other drug companies have paid $ billions to settle their cases, however some Pfizer testosterone lawsuits were dismissed.
About 250 Zoloft lawsuits were filed, claiming Pfizer actively promoted the use of Zoloft to pregnant women despite knowledge of birth defect risks from their research. These cases were largely dismissed in 2016 when a judge concluded that there was not enough evidence to prove a link between birth defects and Zoloft use.
Effexor was a medication originally produced by Wyeth which has also been the cause of multiple lawsuits. People who filed Effexor lawsuits claimed that it caused birth defects, and separately, suicidal thoughts and behaviors. In September 2015, Effexor lawsuits were dismissed but may have been eligible to refile.
Pfizer’s drug that lowers cholesterol (but only minimally decreases heart attack risk) but causes serious muscle damage, diabetes and other unforeseen health defects has generated billions of dollars of lawsuits.
Pfizer’s arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug was only belatedly acknowledged by Pfizer to cause cancer, serious cardiovascular events and venous thromboembolism (such as pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis). Many lawsuits are in progress.
Environmental Pollution
In 1971 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked Pfizer to end its long-time practice of dumping industrial wastes from its plant in Groton, Connecticut in the Long Island Sound. The company was reported to be disposing of about 1 million gallons of waste each year by that method.
In 1991 Pfizer agreed to pay $3.1 million to settle EPA charges that the company seriously damaged the Delaware River by failing to install pollution-control equipment at one of its plants in Pennsylvania.
In 1994 Pfizer agreed to pay $1.5 million as part of a consent decree with the EPA in connection with its dumping at a toxic waste site in Rhode Island.
In 1998 Pfizer agreed to pay a civil penalty of $625,000 for environmental violations discovered at its research facilities in Groton, Connecticut.
In 2002 New Jersey fined Pfizer $538,000 for failing to properly monitor wastewater discharged from its plant in Parsippany.
In 2003, shortly after Pfizer acquired Pharmacia, the company (along with Monsanto) agreed to pay some $700 million to settle a lawsuit over the dumping of known-to-be-carcinogenic PCBs in Anniston, Alabama.
In 2005 Pfizer agreed to pay $22,500 to settle EPA claims that the company failed to properly notify state and federal officials of a 2002 chemical release from its plant in Groton that seriously injured several employees and necessitated a major emergency response.
Also in 2005, Pfizer agreed to pay $46,250 to settle charges that its Pharmacia & Upjohn operation had violated federal air pollution rules at its plant in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
In 2008 Pfizer agreed to pay a $975,000 civil penalty to resolved federal charges that it violated the Clean Air Act at its former manufacturing plant in Groton, Connecticut in the period from 2002 to 2005.
Environmental groups in New Jersey have criticized as inadequate a clean-up plan devised by Pfizer and the EPA for the American Cyanamid Superfund site in Bridgewater, which is considered one of the worst toxic waste sites in the country. Pfizer inherited responsibility for the clean-up through its 2009 purchase of Wyeth.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr Gary G. Kohls lives in the USA and writes articles that deal with the dangers of fascism, corporatism, totalitarianism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, and Big Pharma’s over-drugging and over-vaccinating agendas. In addition, his columns deal with cultural movements that threaten democracy, war, civility, health, freedom, the future of the children and the sustainability and livability of the planet.
Dr Kohls is a past member of Mind Freedom International, the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology and the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. He is a signatory to and/or an advocate of the principles of the Great Barrington Declaration, the World Doctors Alliance and Americas Front Line Doctors.
Dr Kohls practiced holistic medicine and preventive psychiatry for the last decades of his medical career, largely helping the psychologically-wounded, over-medicated survivors of psychiatry that had often been mis-diagnosed and over-medicated with cocktails of neurotoxic, frequently addictive psychiatric drugs that had never been tested for safety when used in combinations.
His Duty to Warn columns have been re-published around the world for the last decade. Dr Kohls frequently writes about Big Vaccine’s over-vaccination agendas and Big Medicine’s over-screening, over-diagnosing and over-treating agendas.
He is a Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Many of Dr Kohls’ columns have been archived at a number of websites, including:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;
http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national;
https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-g-kohls/?ptype=article; and
https://www.transcend.org/tms/author/?a=Gary%20G.%20Kohls,%20MD
Featured image is from Zero Hedge
January 14th, 2022 by Kim Petersen
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.
***
For decades, Hollywood has produced a plethora of films extolling American military prowess in warfare. Aside from Oliver Stone films and a few others, e.g., Casualties of War, usually these Hollywood films depict the United States as a force for good defeating fascists and other evildoers. Never-ending US militarism has provided a cornucopia of potential war scripts for Hollywood. Currently designated bête noires have already featured in Hollywood war films. In 1984, Hollywood made Red Dawn about an invasion of the US by the Soviet Union. In 2012, Red Dawn was updated to the other source of US demonization, China. However, capitalism and the lust for profits caused a switcheroo. The Chinese market is very lucrative for Hollywood. Consequently, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) bogeyman was substituted in as invading the American homeland.
The Soviet Union and Russia have produced a number of war films, albeit to little fanfare in the West. In the western world, Hollywood has been ruling the movie roost. Recently, however, Chinese film production has grown by major leaps and bounds, and blockbusters have been among the film fare. China is now the world’s largest cinema market, and it is expected to continue to grow.
The major Chinese film of 2021 was a war epic, The Battle at Lake Changjin. It was produced at a cost of $200 million and grossed $905 million worldwide. It was commissioned by the Communist Party of China for its 100th anniversary in 2021. (It is currently available on Youtube with English subtitles.)
Trailer
Complete Film (English subtitles)
The year previously, 2020, China honored the 70th anniversary of its People’s Volunteer Army (PVA) that made the sacrifice to fight the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea. This war is encapsulated in The Battle at Lake Changjin.
A basic outline of what preceded China’s entry into the war on the Korean peninsula is that the DPRK and the Republic of Korea (ROK) in the south were engaged in a civil war, a war precipitated by the US splitting the country in two. The DPRK had advanced throughout the ROK except for a small southern pocket when the US decided to interpose itself into the war on the side of the ROK. The US would also manage to bring the United Nations on board, bringing other countries to its side. This massively tipped the scales, and the war pushed north over the 38th parallel. China had warned the US on numerous occasions to stay away from the Yalu River that delineates the Korean border with China. (For detailed and footnoted substantiation read A.B. Abrams’ Immovable Object: North Korea’s 70 Years at War with American Power. Review.)
Near the beginning of the movie, viewers see US planes strafing the environs of the Yalu River. China was very reluctant to enter the war, having not so long ago emerged from its own civil war. At the time China was a poor country looking to get back on its feet. But as pointed out in the film, that generation had to fight to spare a future generation from having to fight the war.
Thus, the 9th Army of the PVA is sent across the Yalu River during the frigid winter of 1950. The PVA was ill equipped, and they were going up against the best equipped and most formidable army of that epoch. At Changjin Lake temperatures plunged to -30°C. The film depicts ferocious fighting, numerous casualties, gore, and deaths on both sides. The remnants of the fleeing UN army made it to the port in Hungnam and escaped on vessels. The UN-US military would retreat back over the 38th parallel.
China had won that battle, but jingoism is muted.
Despite warnings from the Chinese side, the US breached the Yalu River, and China responded. Nowadays, a scenario plays out in Europe where Russia has warned the US against further eastward expansion.
The US ought to have drawn some lessons from the debacle of losing to “Mao Zedong’s peasant army.” But history reveals the US was forced to withdraw from Afghanistan by peasants with AK-47s; to flee from peasant fighters in Viet Nam; told to leave from war-ravaged Iraq; and it is still mired in the abject embarrassment it helped cause in Syria, reduced to being a thief of oil and wheat.
The Battle at Lake Changjin also commits Hollywood-style theatrical excesses. However, there is no glorification of warring in the film. The sensitive viewer can only conclude that war as a means to settle differences or to impose oneself on another is barbaric and immoral. But when one side resorts to violence, the other is forced to fight back or to submit. As Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata put it: a choice of dying on one’s feet or living on one’s knees.
The film’s obvious message is that warring must be rejected by the peoples of all countries. But not only that: violence in all its forms must be rejected by humanity. The violence of oppression, brutality, inequality, poverty, racism, intolerance, etc all carry the seeds of greater violence that leads to all-out war.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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 Wikimedia Commons
January 14th, 2022 by Jan Oberg
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.
***
To deceive, telling half-truths, or a complete lie is nothing new in politics, particularly security politics. But until some 20-30 years ago, I would – perhaps naively – see it as an exception. Tragically – and perhaps to many readers’ surprise – it is now the rule. At least in U.S. and NATO circles, and that is particularly regrettably since The West professes to be a democratic system with specific values and even a moral leader to The Rest.
Lying systematically about facts – historical facts – and other countries and cultures should be incompatible with The West’s perception of itself. But, today, it isn’t.
Lies are widespread in so-called security politics when some militarist project doesn’t make any (common) sense to intelligent people when the real motives have to be covered up and war is being prepared or when the sociological cancer called the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC, and the elites it consists of, try to obtain even larger military expenditures from their taxpayers.
You lie to manufacture an enemy that can justify what you will do and enrich yourself. With 40+ years of experience in security politics in general and NATO/US policies in particular, I know too much – sorry for the arrogance – and have become too cynical to believe that what goes on goes on for the sake of self-defence, security or peace.
Some quick examples of gross empirically revealed lying to the word – all the liars still at large:
You may continue on your own.
A recent lie is particularly nasty because it is not about some limited event or pretext. It is a cynical attempt to rewrite contemporary history to justify (even further) NATO expansion and intimidate Russia.
The lie is this:
The West’s leaders never promised Mikhail Gorbachev and his foreign minister Edvard Shevardnadze not to expand NATO eastward. They also did not state that they would take serious Soviet/Russian security interests around its borders. And that, therefore, each of the former Warsaw Pact countries has a right to join NATO if they decide to freely.
It is this lie I am going to deal with below, and you can hear these lies presented by Antony Blinken and Jens Stoltenberg – in slightly different versions – with crystal clarity in the following two videos.
Before I start, let me say that it has never been my style to focus on or attack individuals. I’ve always been more interested in structures and processes and in how they shape people. But there comes a time when leaders must be held accountable because they choose to lie repeatedly, although they do have the choice not to.
And because lies have often been war crimes in the making.
Antony Blinken
First, US Secretary-of-State, Antony Blinken on January 7, 2022 – scroll the video below to 38:30 where he begins to speak and distorts the Ukraine conflict history and then, at 43:00-45:00, continues to say that Russia is driving the false narrative that the West had given assurances to Russia/Gorbachev about not expanding NATO back in 1989-90. It wouldn’t and couldn’t, he says. And all the claims Russia makes are false and shall not permit “us” to be diverted from the main thing: Russia’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine.
Right after (45:40) comes another lie – Russia also invaded Georgia. Anyone who has studied the U.S. Congressional Research Service’s analysis of 2009, “Russia-Georgia Conflict in 2008: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests“, knows that this issue was vastly more complex and that it was Georgia – led by hotheaded U.S. friend Mikheil Saakashvili whose political life ever since has resembled a tragicomic farce – that had occupied the larger part of South Ossetia before Russia intervened massively. The responsibility for the war and violence can not seriously be placed on the Russian side alone.
And he continues his self-righteous accusations. Blinken’s list is long, and he reads his accusation list with a submachinegun speed, sometimes so stumbling and unclear that one must wonder whether he is uncomfortable because he is subconsciously aware that he lies, deceives and omits to make his psycho-political projections of the U.S.’s own dark sides sound intelligent, logical and truthful.
This U.S. Secretary of State can’t be bothered by facts or nuances. Neither could his predecessor, Mike Pompeo, who was proud to say that at the CIA, he directed “We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole. We had entire training courses…“. Mr Blinken continues reading his obsessive, hateful listing of all the sins of Russia. As if the US/NATO did not exist and, therefore, there was no conflict which normally takes a least two parties. In his comprehensive conflict illiteracy, this conflict has only one party: Russia.
The intellectual level is deplorable. NATO allies and mainstream media have no public opinion or critical views on any of it. One must assume that they agree and can make no better analyses themselves.
Now, take a look – at least at the sequences, I’ve mentioned above. Then, I show you how Mr Blinken is lying deliberately under the video.
Now, how can Mr Blinken flatly deny that assurances were given to Gorbachev?
The only source I have been able to find is an article by Steven Pifer from 2014, which argues that Gorbachev himself denies that NATO expansion was ever discussed, “Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No” which refers to an interview with Gorbachev in Russia Beyond.
But this is a piece of citation fraud.
Steven Pifer quotes from it but stops right before the well-known statement in the interview article by then U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker, that “NATO will not move one inch further east.” He also omits these words by Gorbachev himself:
“The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed.”
Can this really be interpreted to mean that Gorbachev says that no assurances were ever given?
We get a key to why Blinken uses a fake analysis: Because it fits his posturing as a paragon of truth and because Mr Pifer is a senior fellow at Brookings but also a former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine and adviser to one of the most hawkish think-tanks, Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington.
A slight twist, omission or interpretative casuistry isn’t that important, is it? Well, if you are not yet convinced that Mr Blinken lies deliberately, I ask you to now go to the authoritative National Security Archive at George Washington University. It’s an incredible source of facts, and we should thank it for making the truth available through comprehensive documentation on so many security-related issues.
TFF has reproduced two essential pieces from that archive of irrefutable documentation that Gorbachev indeed was given such assurances – “cascades” of them! as is stated in the article – by all the most influential Western leaders at the end of 1989 and into 1990:
Read them, and you’ll be shocked.
You’ll find that they have lots of notes and, in sum, no less than 48 original historical documents. For instance, here is just one of the 48 informing us about then NATO Secretary-General Manfred Woerner’s view and statement:
“Woerner had given a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990 in which he argued: “The principal task of the next decade will be to build a new European security structure, to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will have an important role to play in the construction of such a system. If you consider the current predicament of the Soviet Union, which has practically no allies left, then you can understand its justified wish not to be forced out of Europe.“
Now in mid-1991, Woerner responds to the Russians by stating that he personally and the NATO Council are both against expansion – “13 out of 16 NATO members share this point of view” – and that he will speak against Poland’s and Romania’s membership in NATO to those countries’ leaders as he has already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Woerner emphasizes that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.”
This is just one of the “cascades” of statements and assurances given to the Russians at the time. Over 30 years ago, 13 out of 16 members were against NATO expansion because they respected Russia’s crisis and legitimate security interests! Today – 2022 – NATO has 30 members.
Is the U.S. Secretary of State, his advisors and speechwriters unaware of the next-door National Security Archives and what is in them concerning one of contemporary history’s most important events: the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact? Are we really to believe that they have no clue about the conditions and dialogues at the end of the first Cold War? If so, they ought to resign or be fired for their unbelievable incompetence.
If not so – if they know the content of these historical documents – Mr Blinken, his advisors and speechwriters know that they lie.
Their words, therefore, should never be trusted. Neither should the media that avoid highlighting these lies and thereby become complicit. The task of a supposedly free press is to reveal the power abuse of democratically elected people who deliberately fill their constituencies with lies.
Simple as that.
Jens Stoltenberg
In this press conference video from January 7, 2022, NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg states some of the same rhetoric, distortions, simplifications and lies. Not to mention platitudes accompanied by an almost funny body language of bombastic gestures to compensate for his weak content, mantras and repetitions.
Listen at around 19:00 minutes how he maintains that NATO enlargement has been “extremely important for stability and peace and freedom and democracy in Europe” where it can indeed be argued that that enlargement is the main reason that Europe is now in a situation which can reasonably be called the 2nd Cold War.
Why else has NATO not created the desired and stipulated peace and stability since it was created in 1949? So, no, Mr Stoltenberg, you cannot continue – like your masters in Washington – to argue that the present war risks are caused by Russia and Russia alone? If that’s what they order you to say, you have the option to choose decency and resign.
The NATO Secretary-General repeats that each state has a sovereign right to decide its own course and choose its own security arrangements. And that NATO has not dragged in anybody, and they have all just decided democratically to become a member.
That is simply not true.
NATO as an alliance has enormous resources to influence opinions in potential member states. Contrary to his open door talk, NATO’s Charter speaks only about inviting new members, not about holding a door open for anyone who might want to join.
It should be well-known by now – but isn’t – that in the late 1990s, Vladimir Putin asked to join NATO – but it didn’t happen, did it, Mr Stoltenberg? And why not? Because Putin – Russia – wanted to be invited as an equal partner and not sit and wait till Montenegro had become a member, to put it bluntly. NATO decided to close the door at Putin’s request.
This – fantastic – story is told by a former NATO Secretary-General, George Robertson; there is no reason to assume that is not credible or just a rumour. Or, for that matter, that Putin was not serious.
And what an exciting thought: Russia in NATO! Who would Mr Stoltenberg and Mr Blinken – and all the rest of the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC, then have to put all the blame on? How then legitimate NATO’s permanent armament and 12% higher military expenditures than Russia’s?
Mr Stoltenberg must know that he lies when saying NATO has an open door. It doesn’t for Russia. It doesn’t even have open ears for Russia’s security concerns (which each and every NATO member, the U.S. in particular, would consider reasonable if a Russian military alliance incrementally crept close to their borders).
And he must know that he lies when he acts as though he does not know that Russia has been against that very NATO enlargement that he fakes has been so positive for all of Europe during no less than 30 years.
Funnily, Stoltenberg first emphasises (around 19:30) that all new NATO members have freely decided to join. Then he boasts about all NATO does to train, help, support candidates and how important Ukraine is as a NATO partner while not a member. As he says, candidates need to carry through reforms to meet NATO standards. And NATO gives them “practical and political support” so they can – later – meet NATO standards and become members.
What an extraordinary altruism NATO radiates! Are we really to believe that NATO certainly drags in no one, as he maintains?
NATO set up an office in Kyiv, Ukraine, already in 1994, and here you can see how – incrementally – Ukraine has been dragged in, seduced, and promised a great Euro-Atlantic future in one document after the other.
And here you’ll see how Olga Stefanishyna, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, standing at NATO’s H.Q. with Stoltenberg, consistently talks about NATO as Ukraine’s “allies,” expect all kinds of guarantees and – in Foreign Policy of course – argues that Ukraine Needs a Clear Path to NATO Membership in the face of Russian aggression.
And now, the integration process has probably gone so far that neither NATO nor Ukraine would be able to see any other alternative but full membership at some point. Being fiancées, why not marry through a formal membership – as has been said about Sweden?
In its Russia-humiliating policies, NATO has not even seen it coming: That with all the promises, structures and processes accumulating and creating expectations, the alliance would, at some point, run into serious conflict with Russia. If so, the entire alliance suffers from conflict illiteracy and a tremendous lack of foresight.
An that is why you have to construct Russia as a huge militarily aggressive state with an unsympathetic leader – one “we” can freely demonise and don’t even have to listen to.
Now, listen then to this Stoltenberg statement about the – real – importance of NATO’s help (20:45): “…It also makes the societies of Ukraine and Georgia stronger. So resilient, well-functioning societies are also less vulnerable from interference from Russia.”
Just a welcoming open NATO door to countries that decide freely and democratically that they want to knock on it?
It’s time for a reality check in NATO Realpolitik’s – outdated – world. If you do not manifestly want to provoke and increase war risks, you would do it completely differently every day since 1989.
The NATO expansion basis is obvious: Get as many as possible into NATO, demonise Russia and Putin and make it impossible for Russia to have any influence in Europe and on its future.
How strange, indeed, that Russia perceives the Alliance’s expansion right up to its borders as a deliberate military threat and a politically motivated undermining of its status and power!
How surprising that it thinks its security interests in its near-abroad should be respected, just because it has been invaded historically from the West and contained all along its borders since the Second World War in which, by the way, it lost some 24 million people!
It is tragic beyond words that the West has not a single politician today like Willy Brandt, Egon Bahr, Olof Palme or any of the real statesmen who gave Gorbachev cascades of assurance because theypossessed two essentially important qualities: intellectual competence and empathy, a wish and ability to try to live themselves into the situation of “the other” and thereby think in terms of common security at lower military levels.
They were mature personalities basing their policies on analysis and consultations. They knew that you can only achieve security with and not against “the other”.
Instead, NATO has only anti-intellectual, self-centred and -aggrandising militarists running the self-defeating “know-everything-listen-to-nobody” show foolproven by history to lead to war.
And it is tragic beyond words that the peoples of Europe do not debate these issues and that all alternatives to militarism have been deprived of all their resources while NATO militarism costs trillions of dollars what are desperately needed in all other sectors of Western society.
In summary, the US/NATO world threw away the most significant and precious opportunity to create peace in Europe after 1945, when it decided to take advantage of Russia’s weakness. As suggested by Gorbachev and many security and peace intellectuals at the time, the members of the old blocs could have joined forces and created an entirely new all-European security and peace architecture.
We are now facing the tragic consequences of the arrogant winner-takes-it-all policy manifested by the US Clinton administration’s decision to ignore all the assurances and begin expanding NATO eastward in 1994, helped by submissive European allies that had neither the intellectual capacity nor political will to manifest their own interests.
That is why they have to lie to us today.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Prof. Jan Oberg, Ph.D. is director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFF and a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment. CV: https://transnational.live/jan-oberg
https://transnational.live
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from Masking the truth © Jan Oberg 2022
January 14th, 2022 by Dr. Peter McCullough
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. Peter McCullough speaks about COVID prevention, early treatment, vaccine mandates, vaccine injuries, and how to stop this COVID pandemic non-sense.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
January 14th, 2022 by Dr. Jack Rasmus
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 US govt’s most recent inflation report shows consumer prices rising past 12 months at 7% rate, up from prior report that showed 6.8%. (Really both over 10% for reasons I’ve stated before). The worst since 1981.
Biden admin. spokespersons say it’s ‘slowing’. Yet prices rising first week of January twice as fast as last week of December; and 7% is more than 6.8%.
Inflation will cut into 1st Quarter 2022 real US GDP, dampening consumer spending. Also, the end of child care benefit will have same effect on real consumption. Then there’s the general fall of disposable income for millions of US households due to failed Build Back Better plan, which is now not only dead but buried.
Continuing problems of production and exports from China/Asia will further add to US real economic slowdown this quarter.
Ditto as Omicron slows business investment and adds to workers shortages; and as Fed raises interest rates as well. Focus will be on Fed raising rates as means to slow inflation.
However, Fed rate hikes depress demand which is not the problem behind inflation. That problem is in part supply side issues (US and global trade) and even more so problems of US monopoly corps price gouging.
Fed rate hikes can’t effect either supply or monopoly causes. It can make households pay for inflation by rate hikes that result in layoffs in housing, autos, other big ticket purchases–just as the Fed did in 1981-82 when it raised rates to 18%. It provoked recession as solution to dampen inflation–when the real cause was OPEC and Saudi supply side cause. Will the Fed repeat 1981 in 2022? If it tries it will fail. US economy is far more fragile today. Should Fed raise rates beyond 3% (10 yr. US bond rate now at 1.5%), it will provoke major real economic contraction–i.e. double dip recession in 2022. So it won’t and will back off, I predict.
In summary, more chronic inflation coming 2022. More slowing US real economy this quarter. And growing fragility in global/US financial markets as China property developers default pressures spread, contagion potential rises, US dollar rises and emerging market economies’ currencies deflate (and their economies slow). The fiscal stimulus phase of Great Recession 2.0 is now over. There’ll be no further fiscal stimulus for households, as Fed monetary policy turns contractionary as well with rate hikes.
Longer run conclusion: whereas Great Recession 1.0 (2007-10) was precipitated by financial markets crash that pulled down the real economy in its wake, today’s Great Recession 2.0 (2020-22) may experience a similar cause-effect but in reverse: real contraction 2020-22 followed by financial markets’ contraction (late 2022-2023).
Read my commentary of the past week below on twitter noting the key developments for prices in wake of government’s latest inflation report:
#Fed rate hike in March all but certain, as all Fed governors now lined up for it. Before rates drift up. Auto prices (new & used), houses, etc. to rise more next 2 months. Ditto as exports from China slow & US monopoly corps continue price gouging. Result: inflation continuing
#Inflation Republicans say its excess Demand from too generous stimulus. But stimulus ended in Aug-Sept. Inflation surged after. Dems say its supply. But oil, meat, grain, etc. corps have no supply problem. So what is it? It’s monopoly corps price gouging to recover 2020 profits
#Inflation there’s no shortage of domestic US oil supply. Yet US oil corps raised prices 29.6%! So not even supply supply driving oil, gas, energy inflation. So what is? Price gouging by oil corps (and other monopolies like meat producers, cereal-bread corps, etc. etc.)
#Inflation report today = 7% Dec CPI rise, so it’s accelerating from Nov 6.8%. Big driver is oil/gas up 29.6% over year. So oil corps = biggest cause of supply side inflation today, just as in 1981 when OPEC oil supply shock caused inflation. Monopolies price gouging = main cause
#Fed raising Fed interest rates will actually exacerbate & worsen supply side driven inflation. It will mean less business investment, more worker layoffs and lost wage income to spend & more labor supply shortages–all of which will add to supply side inflation in coming months
#Fed using interest rate hikes to slow inflation is like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. Powell knows rate hikes won’t check supply driven inflation. It won’t take 18% Fed rate to provoke another recession in 2022. US economy more fragile. A 3% 10 Yr. Treasury rate will do it
#Inflation Biden & media saying inflation is abating. Another lie. Govt own data show inflation rising first week of January twice as fast as during last week of December. There’s so much lying going on, from both wings of capitalist party–radical right/Republicans & Biden/media
#Inflation In 1981 inflation 10% due to supply side issues with global oil imports, caused by OPEC & Saudis. US response: get Fed to raise rates to 18%. Autos, housing, crashed. Investment & wages fell. Recession. Demand was used to address Supply cause. Fed planning same 2022.
#Inflation CPI up 7% again December-most since 1981. Inflation not slowing. So what’s Biden proposing? More competition for monopolies like meat producers. When asked by nat’l media today what’s being done about supply driven inflation, Biden’s Director of CEA ducks the question
#Fed As inflation accelerated in 2021 Fed refused to raise rates. Now as wages try to catch up to prices, Fed says will soon raise rates =Fed trying to protect profit margins of corps & businesses, not really to stop inflation which is supply driven & rate hikes can’t slow
#Wages Govt & Media hyping 4.7% wage gains past 12 mos. Say compares to 3% pre-covid. But inflation pre-covid 2%-2.5%. Inflation now almost 7%. So now Real Wages less than pre-pandemic.(Also 4.7% is ‘average’, so higher paid managers, tech, professionals getting > & others <4.7%)
#Fed signals will raise rates maybe as early as March, not next fall. Rate hikes to address supply side inflation work instead by depressing demand, jobs, wages, consumer spending–i.e. make workers pay for what is corp. driven supply inflation. Fed made same error in 1980-81
#Inflation Biden’s says today: “We must get to the bottom of why farmers and ranchers continue to receive low payments while families across America endure rising meat prices”. ‘Get to the bottom’? Really? Biden means let’s study & bury it. It’s obvious food corps price gouging.
#Inflation Biden’s answer to monopoly price gouging by food industry: govt give more $ to smaller capitalists to create more competition. Translated: Inflation is just an excuse for govt to provide more subsidies to corporations. Real solution: price controls + tax big food corps
#Inflation meat & food prices up 20% so far. Biden says due to lack of competition: “Capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism. It’s exploitation” (wall st. journal 1-4-22). Since all food industry is near-monopoly, it’s all capitalist exploitation.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jack Rasmus blogs at http://jackrasmus.com and hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern time. Join him at twitter for daily updates at @drjackrasmus.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
January 14th, 2022 by Brian Shilhavy
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.
***
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Anthony Fauci appeared before a Senate Committee Hearing this week regarding the “Omicron Response,” and both of them lied under oath.
They both claimed that they “didn’t know” how many deaths were recorded in VAERS following COVID-19 vaccines, and Walensky stated the COVID-19 vaccines are “incredibly safe” and “protect us against Omicron, they protect us against Delta, they protect us against COVID.”
She also stated that all reported COVID-19 vaccine deaths have been “adjudicated,” when in fact not a single COVID-19 vaccine injury, let alone a death, has been tried in the Government CounterMeasures Injury Compensation Program, the only place where a vaccine death or injury following a COVID-19 shot can be “adjudicated.”
Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville either displayed his complete ignorance regarding VAERS, or colluded with Walensky and Fauci to ask them a meaningless question which then gave them the opportunity to control the narrative.
Tommy asked:
Dr. Walensky, it has been reported by some virologists and scientists that this year around 170 people have died from taking the regular flu vaccine.
The Vaccine Adverse Reporting System reported that the number of people dying after or following the COVID vaccine is actually in the thousands.
Now this is what I am hearing. I’ll give you a chance to refute that or confirm it here. Is this true?
Are we having that many people die after taking one of these vaccines?
This is a meaningless question because the answer is already public knowledge!
The VAERS database is open to the public, and anybody can search it. You don’t need a “virologist” or “scientist” to tell you how many deaths there are following COVID-19 shots. Anyone can make that search, and it takes less than 60 seconds to find the answer.
As of this recorded Senate Hearing, the total deaths following COVID-19 shots in VAERS was 21,382. (Source.)
So what he should have asked was:
Dr. Walensky, VAERS is reporting 21,382 deaths following the emergency use authorized COVID-19 vaccines for the first year, which is more deaths than following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 31 years combined, since VAERS started recording deaths following vaccines in 1990.
Why are we still injecting these experimental products into Americans?
But instead, he questioned whether or not VAERS was actually reporting this, which led to a canned response by both Walensky and Fauci that VAERS is not reliable, because someone can get the vaccine and then walk outside and get hit by a car, and that is recorded as a vaccine death.
Here is the clip from our Bitchute channel (also available on our Telegram channel for easy download):
So let’s fact check this new narrative that people getting hit by a car after getting a COVID-19 shot are being entered into VAERS.
VAERS does have a “symptom” that is called “Road traffic accident.”
So if we search for “Road traffic accident” following COVID-19 vaccines that result in a death, we get 20 listed deaths out of the current 21,382 deaths recorded following COVID-19 shots that are associated with a “Road traffic accident.” (Source.)
Of those 20 cases, two of them appear to have listed “Road traffic accident” by mistake because nothing in the description mentioned a traffic accident.
Of the remaining 18, it appears that most, if not all of them, happened with the person driving the car (or motorcycle), not being hit by a car.
Here is one example from VAERS ID 1028476:
She started having breathing problems/heart attack appearance. on 1/22/21 and went to the ER. Upon admittance was told it was an anaphylactic shock from the Covid shot. They kept her in ICU and released her 1/23/21. At 12:45 am on 1/24/21 she passed out and we called the ambulance. Hospital admitted her and worked through multiple organ failure issues and thought her numbers were under control. She was released on 1/27/21 and was driving on 1/28/21 around 4:15 pm and appears to have had heart failure and had a wreck. She passed away that day.
People having heart attacks while driving their vehicles shortly after getting injected and then crashing doesn’t quite fit the new narrative that Walensky and Fauci are claiming regarding “getting hit by a car,” does it?
Everyone in the U.S. Federal Government is Now Guilty of Being an Accessory to Mass Murder
Senator Tommy Tuberville and all of his colleagues in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House are now complicit with mass murder, for not acting to arrest these criminals and force them to face charges.
Senator Rand Paul has been the most vocal against Anthony Fauci, claiming that Fauci is responsible for thousands of deaths.
He recently appeared on his father’s Ron Paul Liberty Report show, where he stated that he would bring Fauci to justice if the GOP wins back the Senate. (Source.)
Really Rand? You admit that Fauci is guilty of mass murder, but you will only act to bring him to justice if the GOP wins back the Senate when you can head a Senate Committee where you can shame him publicly and further your own political career, but until then he is free to go on murdering people through his policies?
What a joke! With both Ron Paul and Rand Paul being medical doctors, I doubt they have any intention of taking on the Big Pharma cartel, and both of them have stated in the past that they are pro-vaccine, just not pro-COVID19 vaccines.
Politicians are the problem, not the solution.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from HIN
January 14th, 2022 by Ricardo Delgado
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 November we spoke with Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid, a professor of chemical sciences at Spain’s University of Almeria.
Doctor Campra is affiliated with La Quinta Column, or “The Fifth Column,” a group of dissident researchers who have dedicated themselves to investigating the vaccines the government is trying to force us all to take. Doctor Campra says that through his analysis of vaccines he’s discovered graphene oxide structures within vaccine samples.
But Doctor Campra isn’t the only member of the Fifth Column.
Another member is Dr. Ricardo Delgado. Dr. Delgado joins us.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is a screenshot from the video
January 14th, 2022 by 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.
***
As schools weigh COVID vaccine mandates for children as young as 5 years old, former Pfizer exec warns injections “are toxic by design” and it seems obvious “criminal acts are being committed.”
In late October and early November, the self-serving members of two committees advising the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) without a second thought endorsed experimental COVID vaccines for children as young as 5 years old.
Ignoring the 99.995% COVID survival rate for those age 17 and under, the 31 pharma-servile “experts” also appeared unconcerned by reams of damning data about COVID-vaccine-related disabilities and fatalities already occurring in the 12–17 age group — unnecessary tragedies being acknowledged that very instant in a panel discussion convened by U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).
Predictably, adverse event data and urgent frontline healthcare provider testimony began pouring in almost immediately after the FDA-CDC go-ahead, with 5- to 11-year-olds experiencing the same kinds of “terrifying” vaccine reactions as adolescents — including blood clots, strokes and other brain and heart problems previously almost unheard-of in young people.
In the lead-up to the FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization of experimental COVID jabs for younger children, state politicians and municipal school districts also started to grease the skids to mandate COVID injections for in-person school attendance.
To date, the number of states and school systems announcing or adopting coercive plans, either for K-12 students or students ages 12 or 16 and up, is still small. However, the symbolic weight of the “early adopters” is significant.
These include states like California and Louisiana (and soon New York); major cities like Washington, D.C. (and probably New York City); and large school districts such as those in Oakland, California, and Los Angeles.
In addition, the New York City and Washington, D.C. school districts, and some or all districts in California, Hawaii and Maryland, require students involved in sports and other extracurricular activities to get jabbed.
In what sounds like good news, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) confirmed 17 states — Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah — have enacted laws or issued executive orders that ban COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students.
However, most of the bans are limited to certain circumstances, with some applying only to higher education and some only to vaccines authorized under emergency use — meaning the ban would not apply to COVID vaccines that in the future gain full FDA approval for children.
Most dangerous ever
For decades, vaccines have been wreaking havoc on children’s health. For instance, consider the following:
So, when observers familiar with COVID injection data pronounce them “the most dangerous vaccines in human history,” that is saying something.
Dr. Joseph Mercola warned the COVID jabs are setting up children for “potentially lifelong health problems,” including serious heart problems resulting from myocarditis. As he wrote in early January:
“[T]he recent push to inject children with a genetic experiment may be one of the worst public health offenses perpetrated on a population of people who are unable to speak for themselves, do not have a legal voice and depend on adults to protect them.”
California ‘leads’
California spent the past half-dozen years systematically eliminating personal-belief vaccine exemptions and gutting medical exemptions.
Not content with those assaults on health freedom, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced in early October — apparently reading the minds, weeks in advance, of the FDA and CDC committee members who subsequently rubber-stamped the COVID shots for 5- to 11-year-olds — that his state would impose a K-12 mandate in both public and private schools, making California the first state to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for in-person school attendance.
The mandate hinges on the vaccines “receiving full licensure from the FDA for children,” which the state expects in July 2022.
Seeking to normalize his COVID mandate, Newsom compared it to the existing school requirements for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination.
However, in light of the strong, statistically significant relationship between MMR vaccines and autism — and given California’s status as the state with the highest autism prevalence — Newsom’s comparison is scarcely reassuring.
Louisiana ignores
In mid-December, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards added COVID vaccines to the list of required school shots, overturning a bipartisan vote against such a mandate by the state’s House Health and Welfare Committee.
The push for the mandate originated with the Louisiana Department of Health. The House Health Committee then voted 13-2 to reject the department’s recommendation, stating that COVID vaccination “should be the parents’ decision,” a common-sense view shared by legislators and parents around the nation.
However, the governor vetoed the committee vote — and the wishes of citizens who packed the committee meeting to protest mandates — dismissively characterizing their objections as “overheated rhetoric.”
Louisiana’s governor and health officials also ignored remarks delivered at the health committee hearing by experienced Louisiana nurse Collette Martin, R.N. Martin provided testimony about serious adverse reactions in children and their widespread underreporting. She told the committee:
“We are not just seeing severe acute reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long-term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.”
Louisiana’s mandate, which goes into effect in fall 2022, currently applies only to students ages 16 and up, “but could expand as the vaccines get the highest level of approval” from the FDA.
School districts (try to) impose
In early January, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki asserted that decisions on school vaccine mandates “are up to local school districts.”
However, the U.S. Department of Education has been working with school districts, Psaki said, “to provide resources, connect school officials with testing providers, and set up vaccine clinics….”
Last September, Maryland’s health secretary disingenuously made similar comments, telling the press that the state prefers “not to be intentionally overbearing” or “interventionist” and instead encourages school systems “to take the lead in their individual jurisdictions.”
In California, school board members in several large school districts showed, as early as September, they were willing to “take the lead” in imposing mandates for in-person instruction.
The plans of school boards in Los Angeles (the nation’s second-largest school district), Oakland and San Diego have been undermined, however, by the large number of unvaccinated students and other apparently unforeseen pitfalls.
The Los Angeles school district, for example, pushed back its initial Jan. 10 deadline to the fall of 2022, because tens of thousands of uninjected students would have “overwhelmed the district’s independent study program.”
L.A. students ages 12 and up are supposed to upload proof of vaccination into a “Daily Pass” system. The L.A. district already requires students to undergo weekly testing (regardless of vaccination status) and subjects them to other measures such as “daily health checks,” masking and contact tracing and isolation of cases.
Three out of ten students failed to show up on the first day of school following winter break, “having tested positive for the coronavirus.”
Oakland’s school district will not enforce its mandate until Jan. 31, a month later than originally planned. When the school board voted (5-1-1) in favor of mandating COVID shots for in-person instruction for students 12 and up, it apparently did not bargain on nearly two-fifths of students in that age group (38%) remaining unvaccinated.
Casting the lone “no” vote, Oakland school board member Mike Hutchinson stated, “I don’t think we should be rolling out at midnight on a not very publicized meeting, talking about mandatory vaccinations when there’s nothing wrong with taking our due time to deliberate to make sure that we get it right.”
In December, however, Hutchinson indicated he would be comfortable deferring to the state-level mandate.
In late December in San Diego, a judge struck down the school district’s COVID vaccine mandate for students 16 and older, arguing the state legislature has not given individual school districts the authority to mandate vaccines for school attendance.
Not timid
An Oakland pediatrician who egged on her city’s school board to vote in favor of COVID mandates argued last fall, “This is not the time for timidity.”
However, as evidence accumulates about the injections’ outsized risks for children, it seems increasingly clear that a number of so-called public servants do not have a problem with timidity, having shown themselves perfectly willing to harm — and kill — children.
For former Pfizer executive Dr. Mike Yeadon, who has argued for months that the COVID injections “are toxic by design” and “were always going to harm people,” it seems obvious “criminal acts are being committed.”
Now is the time to push back against criminality and coercion — including COVID vaccine mandates and “vaccine passports” — in whatever ways we can. Our children’s lives, and our own lives, depend on it.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from CHD
January 14th, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
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 opening remarks of Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland prior to her friendly “press conference” with well-tamed US “journalists” reveals the unreality of the world in which Washington exists.
The Russians have told Washington as frankly as it can be stated that the expansion of NATO to her borders, with US missile bases in countries on Russia’s borders, US plans to include Ukraine in NATO, Ukraine’s failure to abide by the Minsk Agreement, massive US arms deliveries to Ukraine, and constant other provocations and insults have made Russia uncomfortable about her security and unwilling to accept any longer the tension and uncertainty created by hostile US and NATO policies. Russia has stated without qualification that unless the West cooperates in removing the threat to Russian security, Russia will remove the threat with dire consequences to the West.
This is clear honest talk.
But no one in Washington or NATO heard.
Victoria Nuland is an evil neoconservative warmonger, but she is no different from the other deluded fools in Washington. The US is unable to deal seriously with a most serious issue, because Washington is a victim of its belief in its own anti-Russian propaganda. Nuland’s beginning remarks are representative of the unreality of American policymakers:
UNDER SECRETARY NULAND: Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. .
This is, as you all know, a very important week. We have three sets of diplomatic talks ongoing: the U.S.-Russia Strategic Stability Dialogue yesterday; the NATO-Russia Council meeting tomorrow, both of which are led for us by Deputy Secretary Sherman; and the Permanent Council meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on Thursday – all of this in an effort to resolve through diplomacy the crisis that Russia has created for Ukraine, for European security, and for global stability.
So before I go into some of the diplomatic substance, let’s remember how we got here.
It is Russia that created this crisis out of whole cloth.
It is Russia that has amassed 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders.
It is Russia that has prepared internal sabotage, destabilization, and false flag options for Ukraine.
And it is Russia that has spewed disinformation and lies about Ukraine, about the United States, and about NATO to justify its own actions.
These and the rest of Nuland’s remarks constitute a packet of lies and a complete evasion of the issue.
The issue is not a Russian invasion of Ukraine. The issue is whether Washington can acknowledge that its missile bases on Russia’s border constitute a threat to Russia’s security.
Russia did not invade Ukraine in 2014. Washington did when the US overthrew the democratically elected government and put in its place a US puppet state hostile to Russia.
One of the main goals of Washington’s coup in Ukraine was to deprive Russia of her Black Sea naval base. Russia forestalled this by accepting the 97% vote in Crimea to return to Russia of which Crimea had been a constituent part for three centuries.
When an Undersecretary of State feels secure standing in front not only of the US media, but also the world media, and spewing obvious blatant lies, we have all the proof needed that Washington lives in its own make-believe world.
Consequently, Washington is going to be bitten very hard by the real world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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.
January 14th, 2022 by Jonathan Cook
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on August 2022
***
In what should have been an extraordinary television confession this month, John Bolton, national security adviser in the previous administration of President Donald Trump, admitted to CNN in passing that he had helped to plot the overthrow of foreign governments while in office.
Dismissing the idea that Trump had attempted a coup at the Capitol with the January 6 riots, Bolton told anchor Jake Tapper:
“As somebody who has helped plan coups d’etat, not here [in Washington] but, you know, other places, it takes a lot of work.”
It was an admission that he and others in the administration had committed the “supreme international crime”, as the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War defined an unprovoked attack on the sovereignty of another nation. But Tapper treated the comment as largely unremarkable.
Washington can do out in the open what is denied to other countries only because of an exceptional assumption that the normal constraints of international law and the rules of war do not apply to the global superpower.
The US is reported to have carried out “regime change” in more than 70 countries since the Second World War.
In recent years, it has been involved either directly or indirectly in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Bolton himself has boasted of his involvement in efforts through 2019 to oust Nicolas Maduro’s government in Venezuela, trying to install as president Washington’s own preferred candidate, Juan Guaido.
The Pentagon outspends the next nine countries combined and maintains some 800 military bases dotted across the globe. And yet, Congress is poised once again to add tens of billions of dollars to the defence budget.
A new documentary suggests why western publics remain so docile both about the US being in a state of almost permanent war, and about it expending ever-vaster sums on its war machine.
According to Theaters of War, the US Department of Defense does not just subtly influence Hollywood’s depiction of US wars to present them in a more favourable light. The Pentagon actively demands script oversight and dictates storylines. In practice, it has been waging a full-spectrum propaganda war against western audiences to soften them up to support aggressive, global US militarism.
The documentary, based on data uncovered by recent Freedom of Information requests from UK investigative journalist Tom Secker and academic Matthew Alford, reveals the astonishing fact that the Pentagon has been the secret, guiding hand behind thousands of films and TV shows in recent decades.
Many more movies never reach the screen because the Defense Department’s entertainment liaison office refuses to cooperate, believing the wrong messages are being promoted.
Pentagon objections – usually the kiss of death – relate to any suggestion of military incompetence or war crimes, loss of control over nuclear weapons, influence by oil companies, illegal arms sales or drug trafficking, use of chemical or biological weapons, US promotion of coups overseas, or involvement in assassinations or torture. In fact, precisely the things the US military is known to have been doing.
How does the Defense Department exert so much control on film productions?
Because expensive blockbusters are far more likely to recoup their budget and turn a profit if they feature the shiniest new weapons. Only the Pentagon can supply aircraft carriers, helicopters, fighter jets, pilots, submarines, armoured personnel carriers, military extras and advisers. But it does so only if it is happy with the dramatic messaging.
As one academic observes in Theaters of War, propaganda works most effectively when it can be passed off as entertainment: “You’re more open to incorporation of those ideas because your defences are down.”
How many viewers would take seriously a film if it was preceded by a sponsorship logo from the Defense Department or the CIA? And for that reason, Pentagon contracts usually specify that its role in a film be veiled.
This is why few know that the Defense Department and the CIA have had a controlling hand in such varied projects as Apollo 13, the Jurassic Park and James Bond franchises, the Marvel movies, Godzilla, Transformers, Meet the Parents and I Am Legend. Or how the military regularly gets involved in baking and quiz shows.
The reality, Theaters of War argues, is that many Hollywood movies are little more than advertisements for US war industries.
This summer, Hollywood released the long-awaited sequel to Top Gun, a Tom Cruise movie about ace airforce pilots that came to define back in the 1980s how to sell war and make killing look sexy.
Top Gun’s makers got access to US navy aircraft carriers, a naval airbase and a host of F-14s and other jets. As the Washington Post reported: “It’s unlikely the [original] film could have gotten made without the Pentagon’s considerable support. A single F-14 Tomcat cost about $38 million.” The film’s entire budget was $15m.
The Pentagon got plenty in return. Its database records that the film “completed [the] rehabilitation of the military’s image, which had been savaged by the Vietnam War”. It stationed recruitment desks outside cinemas to take advantage of that new credibility.
Top Gun was so successful in marketing war machismo that it was implicated in the Tailhook scandal a few years later, in which more than 80 servicewomen were sexually assaulted by fellow officers at a convention in Las Vegas. That scandal delayed the follow-up, Top Gun: Maverick, for 36 years. Nonetheless, the Pentagon’s conditions for approving the new film were even stricter.
The agreement explicitly stated that the Defense Department would be able to oversee the script, “weave in key talking points”, and censor scenes it did not like. The US military also demanded a veto over actors appearing in the film and an official screening before Maverickcould be approved for release.
The Pentagon could punish any violations of the agreement by deleting footage involving its hardware, thereby killing the film. It could also deny “future support”, effectively killing the careers of Maverick’s filmmakers.
There is nothing unusual about Top Gun’s treatment. It is, argues Theaters of War, standard for US blockbusters, the films likely to have the most impact on popular culture and western perceptions of war.
The premise of one of the most popular franchises, Marvel’s Iron Man, was rewritten following Pentagon intervention. The main character, Tony Stark, played by Robert Downey Jr, was originally an outspoken opponent of the arms industries, reinventing his father’s empire so that Iron Man technology could stop wars.
But after Pentagon rewrites, Stark became the ultimate evangelist for the weapons industries: “Peace means having a bigger stick than the other guy.” In one early scene, he makes a fool of a young female reporter who criticises his business empire – before bedding her to underscore that she is also a hypocrite.
The Pentagon has been particularly sensitive to portrayals of the US military following a fiasco in 1993 in which one of its helicopters was downed in Mogadishu. That led to a prolonged firefight that killed more than a dozen US soldiers and hundreds of Somalis.
The following year, the Defense Department insisted on major revisions to the Harrison Ford vehicle Clear and Present Danger – especially in a scene where a Colombian militia overwhelms US special forces. As documents unearthed by Theaters of War show, US officials worried that the Mogadishu events had made the US military “look ridiculous” and officials refused to “cooperate in a movie that does the same thing” in a different combat zone. It demanded changes to make the film “more of a ‘commercial’ for us”.
When in 2001, Hollywood turned its attention to the book Black Hawk Down – specifically about the Mogadishu incident – the Pentagon insisted on heavy script changes that transformed the drama. Just eight years after the actual events depicted, the Defense Department had turned a story of its own incompetence into an all-American tale of military valour in the face of overwhelming odds at the hands of a savage, faceless enemy.
Similar deceptions were achieved with Argo (2012), a film about the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. In fact, according to Theaters of War, it was the CIA that hawked the book to Hollywood five years earlier on its website in the section “Inspirations for future storylines”. The tale was so appealing to the CIA because it focused on its sole success following the Iranian Revolution. The agency smuggled a handful of US hostages out of Tehran by pretending they were a visiting Canadian film crew.
Censored documents presented by Theaters of War show the CIA’s public relations office reviewing multiple versions of Argo’s script before finally agreeing: “The agency comes off looking very well.”
That is because of what Argo ignores: the CIA’s long-running meddling in Iran, including its overthrow of the elected government in 1953 to install a US puppet, which ultimately provoked the 1979 revolution; the CIA’s intelligence failures that missed the looming revolution; and the fact that the six hostages the CIA freed were overshadowed by a further 52 who spent more than a year imprisoned in Tehran. A story of the CIA’s crimes and gross incompetence in Iran was reinvented as a tale of redemption.
The CIA managed a similar public relations coup the same year wth Zero Dark Thirty, after the Obama administration had lost the battle to conceal its routine use of torture in Iraq and elsewhere.
The filmmakers had to acknowledge that the CIA resorted to waterboarding, a torture technique that by then was in the public domain, but under pressure, they agreed to conceal the less well-known fact that the agency also used dogs to torture detainees.
Nonetheless, waterboarding was falsely presented as a vital tool in the CIA’s battle to extract needed information to supposedly keep Americans safe and help hunt down and kill the author of the 9/11 terror attacks, Osama bin Laden. That was such a distortion of the historical record that even the right-wing politician John McCain, a decorated war hero, went public to disparage the film.
The Pentagon has such sway over Hollywood that it has even managed to turn around the anti-war message at the heart of a monster movie staple, Godzilla.
Back in the 1950s, it was an allegory about the horrors unleashed by the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan at the end of the Second World War. But in the 2014 version, Defense Department meddling meant a reference to Hiroshima was excised and Cold War dynamics introduced instead: a lost Russian nuclear submarine triggers a confrontation with Godzilla.
Even more astonishingly, in both the 2014 and 2019 versions, the story is switched 180 degrees. Nuclear weapons become mankind’s salvation rather than a threat; the only possible way Godzilla can be destroyed. Nuclear proliferation sponsored by the Pentagon is no longer a problem. In Godzilla, it is integral to human survival.
Theaters of War also makes a plausible case that the Pentagon has been an important driver behind Hollywood’s move into sci-fi and fantasy territory.
The imaginary worlds of the Marvel universe, for example, offer a pristine showcase, demonstrating the need for the Pentagon’s shiniest weapons against implacable, other-worldly foes. Hollywood and the Pentagon can sweep aside real-world concerns, like the value of human life, the commercial motives behind wars, and the battlefield failures of military planners.
The challenge of superhuman enemies with superhuman powers has proved the perfect way to normalise extravagant, ballooning military expenditures.
That is why the Pentagon regularly insists on product placement rewrites, such as the Incredible Hulk riding an F-22 in the 2003 Hulk film, Superman flying alongside an F-35 in 2013’s Man of Steel, and the glorification of a Ripsaw armoured vehicle in 2017’s eighth instalment of the Fast and Furious franchise.
Theaters of War concludes that the promotion of US militarism pays dividends. It means bigger budgets for the Pentagon and its contractors, greater prestige, less oversight and scrutiny, more wasteful wars, and more profiteering.
Donald Baruch, the Pentagon’s special assistant for audio-visual media, has noted that the US government “couldn’t buy the sort of publicity films give us”. In laundering the US military’s image, Hollywood encourages not only western publics, but the Pentagon itself, to believe its own hype. It leaves the US military more confident in its powers, less critically aware of its vulnerabilities, and more eager to wage war, even on the flimsiest of pretexts.
With Hollywood’s stamp of approval, the Pentagon also gets to define who are the bad guys. In Top Gun: Maverick, it is a barely disguised Iran supposedly trying to develop a covert nuclear bomb. Russia, China and generic Arab states are other template baddies.
The constant dehumanisation of official enemies, and contempt for their concerns, makes it easier for the Pentagon to rationalise wars that are certain to lead to death and displacement – or to impose sanctions that wreak suffering on whole societies.
This gung-ho culture is part of the reason there has been no public debate about the consequences of the US pouring billions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia, even at the risk of nuclear conflagration.
As Theaters of War convincingly argues, the Pentagon’s covert influence over popular culture can have a decisive role in raising support for divisive wars, such as the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. It can make the difference between public approval and rejection.
How different things might be if Hollywood was ring-fenced from Pentagon influence is illustrated by a case study.
The Day After was a 1983 Cold War film made for US TV over Defense Department objections. The Pentagon rejected the script after it depicted a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia following a series of misunderstandings. According to Theaters of War, the Defense Department demanded that Moscow be squarely blamed for starting the fictional war. Unusually, the filmmakers held their ground.
The Day After was watched by nearly half the US population. The president at the time, Ronald Reagan, recorded in his diary that the film had left him “greatly depressed”. It created political momentum that drove forward nuclear disarmament talks.
A single film that stepped outside the Pentagon’s simple-minded “US good guy” narrative generated a debate about whether the use of nuclear weapons could ever be justified.
The Day After was widely credited with slowing down the build-up of the two military superpowers’ nuclear arsenals. And it treated Russians not simply as a foe, but as people facing the same existential threat from the bomb as ordinary Americans. In a small way, The Day After made the world a safer place.
Theaters of War leaves audiences with a question: What might have been possible had the Pentagon not meddled in 3,000 movies and TV shows to promote its pro-war messages?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Jonathan Cook is the the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at: www.jonathan-cook.net
Featured image is from MEE
January 14th, 2022 by Megan Redshaw
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 U.S. Supreme Court today rejected the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandate for large businesses, but ruled separately that a mandate for healthcare workers can move forward.
The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected the Biden administration’s mandate requiring employees of large businesses to be vaccinated against COVID or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask indoors while working.
The court’s conservative majority said the administration overstepped its authority by imposing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) vaccine-or-test rule on U.S. businesses with at least 100 employees.
At the same time, the court allowed to move forward a separate rule mandating COVID vaccines for workers in healthcare facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid.
The Supreme Court on Jan. 7 heard oral arguments pertaining to both of the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandates. The focus of the hearing was whether to stay or to grant temporary injunctions requested by plaintiffs in a number of lawsuits challenging the emergency mandates for millions of Americans.
At the time, the rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), was stayed for 24 states that initiated lawsuits, but the OSHA stay was lifted by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court’s decision today reversed the lower court rulings, imposing a stay on the OSHA mandate and allowing the CMS rule to proceed.
Today’s rulings came three days after the OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard went into effect, targeting more than 84 million workers and two-thirds of the nation’s private-sector workforce.
The conservative justices wrote in an unsigned opinion:
“OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here.”
The conservative majority also expressed concerns over the implications of allowing OSHA to implement a widespread mandate without congressional authorization.
“Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life — simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock — would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” the opinion stated.
A majority of the Supreme Court’s justices concluded the applicants challenging OSHA’s mandate were likely to succeed in the merits of their claim and the secretary of labor lacked authority to impose the mandate, resulting in a stay while the case works its way through the 6th Circuit Court.
“Administrative agencies are creatures of statute,” the justices wrote. “They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.”
In a joint dissent of the OSHA ruling, the court’s three liberal justices argued the court was overreaching by substituting its judgment for that of health experts.
“Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis, the Court displaces the judgments of the Government officials given the responsibility to respond to workplace health emergencies,” Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a joint dissent.
The justices contended OSHA’s mandate is comparable to a fire or sanitation regulation imposed by the agency, while the majority said a vaccine mandate is strikingly unlike the workplace regulations that OSHA has typically imposed as a vaccination “cannot be undone at the end of the workday.”
SCOTUS allows CMS rule to move forward
In a separate opinion, the court allowed a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to take effect.
The mandate is estimated to affect 10.3 million healthcare workers in the U.S., but allows for religious and medical exemptions. The rule was previously blocked by two lower courts for the 24 states that challenged the rule.
Source: CHD
The opinion stated:
“Vaccination requirements are a common feature of the provision of healthcare in America: Healthcare workers around the country are ordinarily required to be vaccinated for diseases such as hepatitis B, influenza, and measles, mumps, and rubella. As the Secretary explained, these pre-existing state requirements are a major reason the agency has not previously adopted vaccine mandates as a condition of participation.”
The opinion went on to suggest healthcare workers and public health organizations “overwhelmingly support” the CMS rule.
“Indeed, their support suggests that a vaccination requirement under these circumstances is a straightforward and predictable example of the […] regulations that Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose,” the opinion states.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, dissented.
“Neither CMS nor the Court articulates a limiting principle for why, after an unexplained and unjustified delay, an agency can regulate first and listen later, and then put more than 10 million healthcare workers to the choice of their jobs or an irreversible medical treatment,” Justice Alito wrote.
“The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not conferred upon it. At the same time, such unprecedented circumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has long been recognized to have,” Justices Alito and Thomas wrote, stating the “latter principle governs” in the healthcare cases.
Mary Holland, president of Children’s Health Defense (CHD) said in an email to The Defender:
“CHD is delighted to see that the Supreme Court, 6-3, has upheld the preliminary injunction in the OSHA case, deciding that the administration lacked the authority to impose a COVID injection mandate on corporations with more than 100 employees.
“We are concerned, however, that the Supreme Court upheld the administration’s CMS mandate for healthcare workers. This mandate of an experimental, unapproved pharmaceutical product with only an ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ designation violates federal law and the Nuremberg Code, prohibiting coercion for participation in experimental medicine. We will continue to fight for true informed consent for all people.”
Scientists submit brief to SCOTUS on ineffectiveness of COVID vaccines
Drs. Luc Montagnier, co-winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine, Harvey Risch, a Yale Professor of Epidemiology and Robert Malone, co-inventor of mRNA concepts and processes used in the existing COVID vaccines filed two briefs (first brief, second brief) as amici curiae in support of the applicants’ application for a stay or preliminary injunction of the OSHA and CMS mandates.
The briefs were designed to “highlight critical facts concerning Omicron — facts not addressed in the administrative record,” while “correcting an important false statement of fact in an amicus brief submitted by the American Medical Association et al. so that the court is not led into error.”
In their briefs, Montagnier, Rische and Malone argued neither OSHA nor CMS did any analysis of vaccine effectiveness against the COVID virus as it now exists and there is no evidence to suggest vaccination “will curb the spread of the virus we now face.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.