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

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.

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

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.

• 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.
• Death by Covid jab is not being tracked through to medical examiners. The deaths aren’t even being questioned or documented as Covid-jab-related. One U.S medical examiner took the time to trace 3 deaths between the ages of mid-30s to mid-50s that died from the Covid jab, and the autopsies verify this.
• Top German pathologist Dr. Arne Burkhardt’s autopsy research shows clear evidence that all gene-based vaccines, independent of manufacturers, produced the same result in the vaccines. In the organs of these people, in 90% he found autoimmune self attack by killer lymphocytes on the tissues. The main ones being the heart, the lung, then other tissues such as liver, etc. Dr. Bhakdi confirms these vaccines are killing the young and the old.
• In one central U.S. state, all-cause deaths didn’t fluctuate between 2015-2019. In 2020, it increased by 15%, and AFTER over 62% of Americans received the jab in 2021, the total deaths jumped a whopping 12% over and beyond 2020s 15% increase.
• Pfizer has paid out over $10 billion in fines for false claims, bribing doctors, manipulating studies, as well as deaths due to their drugs – and their Covid-19 trials were a complete fraud. The Canadian Covid Care Alliance put together a brilliant video presentation breaking this all down and provides an illustrative pdf as a tool.
• The claim by Pfizer 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%.
• A Federal judge refused the FDA’s request to keep Pfizer documents from the public. Instead of the 75 years the FDA requested to produce all documents submitted by Pfizer to receive the Covid-19 jab approval, the judge ordered 55,000 pages be released each month, which should be completed within 9 months.
• The CDC Director admits that 75% of all Covid-related deaths have at least 4 comorbidities, and that the jab does not prevent transmission.
• According to CDC’s VAERS reporting system, In under one year, more people have died from the Covid jab than all other vaccines put together, for all time, and they still haven’t shut it down.

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

• On Covid vaccines: why they cannot work, and irrefutable evidence of their causative role in deaths after vaccination – Dr. Bhakdi and Dr. Burkhardt
• Dr. Bhakdi video on pathology results by Dr. Burkhardt
• Dr. Bhakdi and Dr. Palmer video summary on autopsy reports – Doctors for Covid Ethics
• Notes and recommendations for conducting post-mortem examination (autopsy) of person deceased in connection with Covid vaccination – Dr. A. Burkhardt

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.

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).

• Celebrex and Bextra

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.

• Geodon, Zyvox, and Lyrica

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.

• Neurontin

Pfizer paid out $142 million for committing racketeering fraud in the marketing of Neurontin.

• Protonix

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.

• Prempro

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.

• Chantix

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.

• Depo-Testosterone

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.

• Zoloft

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

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.

• Lipitor

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.

• Xeljanz

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.

• Feldene; Viagra, Zithromax, etc

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

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

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:

• In the 1990s, Yugoslav President Milosevic was Europe’s new Hitler (Bill Clinton) and planned a genocide on the Albanians in Kosovo.
• Saddam Hussein’s soldiers threw babies out of their incubators in Kuwait City.
• Afghanistan had to be destroyed because of 9/11.
• Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
• The US-led Global War On Terror – GWOT – has been about reducing terrorism.
• The US/NATO orchestrated regime-change attempt in Syria from 2011 to 2016 was exclusively about Dictator al-Assad’s sudden sadist “killing of his own.”
• Gaddafi was just about to murder all who lived in Benghazi.
• The conflict around Ukraine was started by Putin’s “aggression” on Crimea, nothing preceded it.
• Iran has always plotted and lied to acquire nuclear weapons.
• There are only bad things to say about Russia and China and…

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:

• “NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev heard” – and
• “NATO Expansion: The Budapest Blow Up 1994”

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

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.

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.

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

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

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:

• The 400 adverse events listed in the package inserts of licensed childhood vaccines
• The epidemic of chronic health problems in American children — including 1 in 16 boys with autism in California, the state with the highest autism rate in the nation
• The precipitous decline in sudden infant deaths that coincided with the disruption of “routine” vaccination during the 2020 lockdowns.
• The superior health of far less heavily vaccinated Japanese children.

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

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.

see Nuland Twitter  

 

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.

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.

Secret guiding hand

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.

Selling war

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.

Military fiasco

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.

Product placement

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.

Paying dividends

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

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.

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 Japanese government, led by Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, has been militarizing the country since October last year in violation of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution. Article 9 states that “[Japan aspires] sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained.”

To achieve this goal, Japan never built up a serious military fitting of the country’s global importance, nor other means of war as the right to wage war is not recognized by the Constitution. Kishida continues the line of previous prime ministers and members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party though, who have violated the peace clause in the constitution in many ways.

Japan has long had a Self-Defense Force of 300,000 soldiers – that is more than the 240,000 active and reserve personnel of the French military (not including paramilitary forces) and the 231,000 active and reserve personnel of the British military. This is in addition to weapons that are comparable to many Western European armies. The Japanese Navy goes far beyond national waters, especially when we recall that a Japanese warship sailed off the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea recently, an issue that Japan is not a disputant of.

In a statement, Kishida acknowledged the possibility of missile strikes against military targets in neighbouring countries, but he did not specify whether he meant North Korea, China or Russia. By alluding to threats, without specifying what the exact threat is, the Kishida government is planning an unprecedented increase in defense spending in the 2022/2023 fiscal year. The Japanese defense budget, usually not exceeding 1% of the country’s GDP, will now double to rise to 2% of GDP. Scarily, this budget increase will be used to modify cruise missiles so that the range can reach neighbouring countries.

In the new year, Tokyo hosts the 4th QUAD Summit (USA, Australia, India and Japan). The QUAD organization can be seen as a precursor to an Indo-Pacific NATO aimed against China in particular, but potentially also against Russian interests in the region. It is for this reason that the Kishida government has particularly strengthened military ties with the US, Australia and India.

In late 2021, Washington and Tokyo agreed to cooperate in the development of hypersonic weapons. Only last week, Kishida and his Australian counterpart Scott Morrison signed a document to significantly strengthen and facilitate military cooperation between the two countries. The Reciprocal Access Agreement provides for the interoperability of the Australian and Japanese armed forces and the ability to share each other’s military infrastructure. Japan also has such an agreement with the US, but Tokyo wants to sign similar agreements with other NATO/NATO-aligned countries, particularly Britain.

Tokyo wants world leaders to believe that Japan’s current militarization is a natural and legitimate process. Washington and NATO countries encourage Japan’s militarization in the hope of weaponizing the country against its traditional rival, China.

However, whether intentionally or not, and most likely the latter, by Japan militarizing and opening up to NATO-aligned forces, it is bringing the bloc to Russia’s eastern shores. Japan still disputes Russian sovereignty over the four southernmost Kuril Islands and it is recalled that although Japan and the Soviet Union ended their formal state of war with the Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956, they did not sign a peace treaty. As the Russian Federation is the successor state of the Soviet Union, this means that there is still no peace treaty between Moscow and Tokyo.

Although it is unlikely that Japan and Russia will go to war over the islands in the current situation, by Tokyo changing the regional status quo by opening up to NATO-aligned navies, the country could be coerced into becoming openly hostile to Russia. If Kishida continues down this path, he risks turning Japan into a NATO staging ground used to challenge and antagonize Russia for no gains or advantages, but rather only negatives, much in the same way as has happened to Ukraine, Lithuania and Georgia.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from ruptly.tv/

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, rumors about the existence of a Russian plan to invade Ukraine are prompting American lawmakers to implement radical measures against Moscow. This time, a new bill threatens to impose even more US sanctions on Russia in the name of defending Ukrainian sovereignty. The project comes at a very delicate moment in relations between the US, Russia and Ukraine, being able to significantly worsen the search for a peaceful solution to the crisis in Eastern Europe.

Recently, Democrat lawmakers introduced a new bill in the US Senate aimed at imposing “crippling sanctions” on Russia – predominantly the Russian financial sector – in the event of a violation or hostile activity against Ukrainian national sovereignty. The bill was titled “Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022”, and was introduced by Bob Menendez, the New Jersey’s Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The project basically consists of proposing measures that completely disable Russian financial activity, affecting the banking sector, large companies and, on a personal level, military, politicians, and prominent bureaucrats. Measures would also be imposed on Russian industry, with the aim of undermining exports and causing the country’s economic collapse. International bank transactions would also be affected, damaging the use of the SWIFT system in Russia. In other words, the new bill has the public objective of completely crippling economic and financial activities in Russia, if Moscow violates Ukrainian sovereignty.

In addition to trying to harm Russia in every way possible, the bill also establishes a provisional measure for the provision of 500 million dollars in “supplemental emergency security assistance” in the event of a Russian invasion. Some measures are also proposed for Washington to act more actively in the fight against “Russian disinformation”, as well as to strengthen ties with US regional partners in Ukraine that fight the alleged “Russian aggression”.

In fact, this bill can be described as a bold and bellicose proposal for the US to definitely take Ukraine’s side in the regional rivalries between Kiev and Moscow. The Democrats seem to want their country to bet on a policy of total and unrestricted opposition to Russia. It is a step for Washington to abandon its current policy on the Ukrainian issue, which consists of “using” Kiev as a destabilizing agent in Eastern Europe and adopt a more radical policy in defense of Ukraine and in complete opposition to Russia, not open for dialogue. Undoubtedly, this is the result of the growth of an extremely dangerous and anti-diplomatic Russophobic mentality, which could begin to have negative effects on American foreign policy soon.

The project came just a day after talks between Russian and American representatives in Switzerland. Considering that the attempt to resolve the Ukrainian case through diplomatic dialogue has not been productive, the Democrats seem to be taking advantage of the moment in order to advance an agenda of tightening anti-Russian measures. Some recent words by Menendez support this argument:

“As the Biden administration seeks a diplomatic path forward this week in Europe to avoid another bloody escalation in Ukraine, I find little reason to believe that Putin is negotiating in good faith nor do I believe he has any newfound respect for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity (…) That is precisely why we are coming together to send a clear message – Putin need not collapse his entire economy nor does he need to sacrifice the lives of his own people in a futile attempt to rewrite the map of Europe.”

What appears to be happening here is not an attempt on the part of the Democrats to pressure Russia to accept NATO’s terms, but rather an attempt at a non-peaceful and non-diplomatic resolution of the demand. The lawmakers who proposed this bill simply want to pressure the US government to consider a coercive and bellicose solution to the Ukrainian crisis. The aim is simply to make Washington openly try to provoke economic and social collapse in Russia.

If the bill is interpreted honestly and the measures proposed therein are only implemented in a possible scenario of Russian invasion, its meaning will be practically null, since, obviously, such an “invasion plan” does not exist and Moscow would be, in this case, immune to coercive measures. However, recently NATO has regarded Moscow’s activities within Russian territory itself as a “threat” to Ukraine – and this raises a serious concern. The problem here is what the Americans will interpret as a “violation of Ukrainian sovereignty” – and whether Russian domestic activities near the western border will be viewed that way.

Indeed, it is not surprising that such a bill is proposed by the Democrats, which are the political party that has historically been most tied to ideological agendas in defense of American global hegemony. Biden, even though being a Democrat, is forced to take more realistic actions because of the current material situation in the US, but the pressure from his party is for him to use all possible means to suffocate Russia and all geopolitical enemies of the US. There is not much strategic value in that, just ideological commitment. It remains to be seen whether Biden will give in to the pressure.

*

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.

20 Facts about Vaccination Your Doctor Forgot To Tell You

Dr. Vernon Coleman, January 8, 2022

 

57 Top Scientists and Doctors Release Shocking Study on COVID Vaccines and Demand Immediate Stop to All Vaccinations

Dr. Roxana Bruno, January 6, 2022

 

High Recorded Mortality in Countries Categorized as “Covid-19 Vaccine Champions”. The Vaccinated Suffer from Increased Risk of Mortality

Gérard Delépine, January 11, 2022

 

Video Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi: “These Vaccines are Killing the Young and the Old, They are Killing our Children”

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, January 2, 2022

 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Covid Pandemic: A “Truth Bomb” Explodes to Illuminate the War on Humanity

Prof. Anthony J. Hall, January 12, 2022

 

Video: Experimental Injections. “Biggest Crimes Against Humanity Ever Committed.” Anna de Bouisseret Explains Who Will be Held Liable Under the Law

Anna De Buisseret, January 8, 2022

 

Video: The Corona Crisis: Is the Tide Turning? Reiner Fuellmich on Nuremberg 2.0

Peter Koenig, January 9, 2022

 

“The Numbers Killed by these Vaccines is Much Worse than What We Thought”. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Dr. Mike Yeadon

Dr. Mike Yeadon, January 2, 2022

 

“Bastille 2022”: Building a Worldwide Movement Against “Corona Tyranny”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 11, 2022

 

Louisiana Nurse Blows the Whistle: “We Have Had More Children Die from the COVID Vaccine Than of COVID Itself”

The COVID World, January 12, 2022

 

Austria Demotes Some 3.8 Million Double-jabbed to ‘Unvaccinated’

Free West Media, January 7, 2022

 

Bombshell: CDC No Longer Recognizes the PCR Test As a Valid Method for Detecting “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”?

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 31, 2021

 

Uncovering the Corona Narrative: Was Everything Carefully Planned? Analysis by Ernst Wolff

Ernst Wolff, January 6, 2022

 

The Corona Crisis: Is the Tide Turning? “A Rapid General Awakening”?

Peter Koenig, January 6, 2022

 

Video: Dr. Shankara Chetty Testifies before the German Corona Investigative Committee

Dr. Shankara Chetty, January 11, 2022

 

New Big Data Study of 145 Countries Show COVID Vaccines Makes Things Worse (Cases and Deaths)

Steve Kirsch, January 10, 2022

 

A List of People Who Had Their Leg Amputated Shortly after Receiving COVID-19 Vaccine

The COVID World, January 12, 2022

 

What War with Russia Would Look Like

Scott Ritter, January 11, 2022

 

Video: A Final Warning to Humanity from Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Michael Yeadon

Dr. Mike Yeadon, January 12, 2022

 

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 11, 2022

 

“Covid Ethnic Cleansing”: The Vaccinated vs. the Unvaccinated: Those Who Refuse the Vaccine and the “Official” Covid-19 Narrative are Categorized as “Psychopaths”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 8, 2022

 

Now People Are Dying from the Vaccine. “All Vaccinations Must be Stopped”

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 5, 2022

 

The Real Reason They Want to Give COVID Jabs to Kids. “Vaccine Makers Want Zero Liability”

Dr. Joseph Mercola, January 10, 2022

 

Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 8, 2022

 

World Council for Health Calls for an Immediate Stop to the COVID-19 Experimental “Vaccines”

World Council for Health, January 8, 2022

 

Why the Kazakhstan Crisis Is a Much Bigger Deal than Western Media Is Letting On

Zero Hedge, January 10, 2022

 

PCR Tests Have Served Their Purpose in the COVID “Crisis”, They’re Now Being Cancelled – Everywhere

Rhoda Wilson, January 10, 2022

 

The COVID-Omicron Crisis: The Roadmap Towards a Worldwide Financial Crash, Inflation, Digitization

Peter Koenig, January 12, 2022

 

Evidence: No Vials Are Safe, Full Stop: Terminate COVID Injection Program Now

Dr. Jane Ruby, January 9, 2022

 

Video: Dr. Robert Malone on the Vaccine Mandate, mRNA Vaccine Technologies and Hydroxychloroquine

Madhava Setty, January 7, 2022

 

Bill Filed in Washington State Would Authorize ‘Strike Force’ to ‘Involuntarily Detain’ Unvaccinated Families

Alicia Powe, January 10, 2022

Video: Reiner Füellmich and 50 Lawyers: “Different Batches” and “Lethal Doses”, ”The Vaccines Are Designed to Kill”

By Reiner Fuellmich and Perspektiv, January 13, 2022

After hearing the witness statements to the German Corona Investigative Committee by former vice president of Pfizer Dr Mike Yeadon who has been a scientist for 36 years, lawyers with Reiner Füllmich draw the same conclusion: The injections normally called Corona vaccines are designed to experiment on the human race and to find out what dosage of a yet unknown toxin is needed in order to kill people.

The Covid-19 Pandemic Does Not Exist

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 13, 2022

At the outset of the corona crisis, the number of so-called confirmed positive cases was abysmally low, starting with 83 positive cases outside China (6.4 billion people). These ridiculously low numbers were nonetheless used to justify the launching on January 30th 2020 of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency leading up six weeks later to the official declaration of a Worldwide Pandemic on March 11, 2021 (44,279 covid positive cases outside of China).

Covid-19 Vaccines Lead to New Infections and Mortality: The Evidence is Overwhelming

By Gérard Delépine, January 13, 2022

This article demonstrates unequivocally that mortality and morbidity has increased dramatically as a result of the vaccine. The incidence of Covid positive cases has also increased.

Why Do NATO States Commit “Energy Hara Kiri”? Green Zero Carbon Madness. Industrial Collapse?

By F. William Engdahl, January 13, 2022

There is a great paradox in the increasingly aggressive US and NATO military stance towards Russia, and China, when measured against the clearly suicidal national Green Agenda economic policies of the USA as well as the EU NATO states. An astonishing transformation of the economies of the world’s most advanced industrial economies is underway and gaining momentum.

By Refusing Security to Russia, Washington Has Opened the Door to War

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 13, 2022

I regard Washington’s refusal to accommodate Russia’s security concerns as totally irresponsible. By denying security guarantees to Russia, Washington essentially told the Kremlin that the U.S.  intends to locate nuclear missiles on Russia’s borders and to use color revolutions among former Russian provinces to destabilize the Russian Federation.

2021: COVID Deaths Increase, Flu Deaths Disappear, 400,000+ More Total Deaths than 2020

By Brian Shilhavy, January 13, 2022

At the end of 2020, we reported how the CDC was caught manipulating the death statistics to make “COVID deaths” appear to be much higher than they actually were.

US-Japan Joint Operation Plan: Nansei Island Chain “Attack Base” Will Roil China, Russia

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, January 13, 2022

A Kyodo News agency report on Friday cited Japanese government sources to the effect that Tokyo and Washington have drawn up a draft joint operation plan that would enable the setup of an attack base along the Nansei island chain in Japan’s southwest in the event of a Taiwan contingency. 

Parents of College Kids Fed Up with ‘Shut Up and Comply’ Mandates

By Megan Redshaw, January 13, 2022

From vaccine and booster mandates to restricting what students can do off-campus, a growing number of universities are forcing students to jump through hoops in hopes of avoiding an increase in COVID cases.

“Political Power to Silence and Penalize Physicians who Question Certain Views on COVID-19”: Open Letter to Dr. Harmon and the American Medical Association (AMA)

By Dr. Shibrah Jamil, January 13, 2022

The very essence of traditional medical practice is open discourse and debate. Years of education and experience grant physicians the right to analyze data, question it and demand answers. Any attempt to silence practitioners who are true to their profession, is an egregious assault on their autonomy and undermines the doctor-patient relationship.

Colonial History and African Enslavement: Implications of the Expanded “New Origin Story: 1619 Project”

By Abayomi Azikiwe, January 13, 2022

African American woman journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones has released a nearly 600-page hardcover book entitled “A New Origin Story: The 1619 Project” as a continuation of the work which began with the release of a New York Times Magazine special issue during the Summer of 2019.

History of World War II: The Soviet Red Army’s Winter Campaign 80 Years Ago

By Shane Quinn, January 13, 2022

Six weeks into the Soviet Army’s counteroffensive, on 15 January 1942 Adolf Hitler at last agreed that German Army Group Centre could make a gradual, fighting withdrawal to a straighter and shorter line slightly further west of Moscow.

Video: Every Canadian Needs to Push Back Against Forced Vaccinations

By True North, January 13, 2022

Canada continues to creep into unventured territory with regards to the powers we’ve given our government in the last two years. What was a conspiracy theory only a few months ago is now becoming reality – the CBC and the Trudeau government are suddenly talking about forced vaccine policies.

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.

***

Lawmakers 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.

In a Senate Health Committee hearing Tuesday, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the ranking Republican, blasted the Biden administration for failing to coordinate policy on testing, boosters and quarantine recommendations, even as medical and legal experts questioned the legitimacy of Biden’s COVID vaccine mandates.

“This administration has time and again squandered its opportunities and made things worse in the decisions you’ve made on testing and treatments and most crucially in communicating with the American people,” Burr said.

“I’m hoping that you’ll understand that my criticism comes from a place of concern,” he added, “because your communication efforts are a mess and have only made things worse.”

Burr called the rollout of boosters a “disaster” and said the recent update of information about quarantine periods left people “confused.”

Burr also complained of unclear messaging regarding quarantines from Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In late December, the CDC shortened the time for self-quarantining from 14 to 10 days. Fauci suggested a negative COVID test might be required to end this shorter quarantine, but Walensky did not agree, stating only that people should test and/or continue to quarantine only if they still felt ill.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration on Tuesday announced new rules to begin Feb. 15 requiring all unvaccinated federal health employees to be tested weekly.

This decision comes despite mounting evidence vaccination itself has little to no effect on transmission of the Omicron variant.

As Dr. Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize laureate in 2008 for discovering the human immunodeficiency virus, wrote in Monday’s Wall Street Journal:

“As of Jan. 1, Omicron represented more than 95% of U.S. COVID cases, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Because some of Omicron’s 50 mutations are known to evade antibody protection, because more than 30 of those mutations are to the spike protein used as an immunogen by the existing vaccines, and because there have been mass Omicron outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations, scientists are highly uncertain the existing vaccines can stop it from spreading.”

The scientific basis for the administration’s vaccine mandate policies are now obsolete, according to Montagnier and his co-author, Jed Rubenfeld, a constitutional scholar, since the legal standard can no longer be met.

That standard, enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), establishes that the right to refuse medical treatment can be overcome only if society needs to curb the spread of a contagious epidemic.

For Omicron, said the authors, “there is as yet no such evidence” the vaccines curb the spread.

With even CNN’s Jake Tapper questioning the administration’s pandemic data now and the president’s approval rating for his handling of the pandemic dropping, some observers wonder when the administration will realize its pandemic playbook is obsolete.

There’s a reason CNN’s @jaketapper is intent on branding me a “menace” and “a liar,” and why he refuses to debate me on the merits of facts and scientific evidence. Here’s the back story.https://t.co/saP2FMTra2

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) January 6, 2022

*

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.

David Charbonneau, Ph.D. is a fellow for The Defender.

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

A Kyodo News agency report on Friday cited Japanese government sources to the effect that Tokyo and Washington have drawn up a draft joint operation plan that would enable the setup of an attack base along the Nansei island chain in Japan’s southwest in the event of a Taiwan contingency. 

According to the report, the forthcoming “2+2” ministerial of foreign and defence chiefs of the US and Japan on January 7 in Washington is expected to “formalise” the operation plan. 

The report details that under the plan, “US Marines will set up a temporary attack base” on the Nansei Islands (also known as Ryukyu Islands) initially in a chain stretching southwest toward Taiwan, with around 40 “candidate sites” amongst around 200 islands, including uninhabited ones. 

The report comes in the wake of the recent remarks by Japan’s hawkish former PM Shinzo Abe that any Taiwan contingency would also be an emergency for Japan and for the Japan-US security alliance. 

This report comes only a day after the approval by the Japanese Parliament on Friday to approve the countries biggest ever increase in defence spending since World War 2.

What remains to be seen is whether the Japanese government will now push ahead with a constitutional amendment that will allow Japan to wage war. The existing pacifist constitution, a legacy of the World War 2, forbids Japanese armed forces waging wars except strictly in self-defence. 

Seven decades ago, the US imposed a pacifist constitution on Japan — which was drafted over the span of just a week by a small team of Americans led by Gen. MacArthur, the supreme commander for the Allied powers. Ironically, the US is now actively encouraging Tokyo to jettison the restrictions and be a “normal” country so as to recruit it as a fill-fledged participant in its alliance system in waging wars in the Asia-Pacific.

Japanese militarism is a fact of modern history. The Great Depression affected Japan by a great amount, and led to a rise in militarism. Succinctly put, Japan wanted to expand in order to gain more natural resources and to create its own economic empire in the Pacific. Its genesis can be traced to the period of rapid militarisation to modernise quickly and keep up with the Western world. 

Circumstances then and now have similarities and dissimilarities. The main difference in the early 20th century was that Japan was unhappy with the massive wave of modern globalisation by the Western powers, which resulted in the colonisation of numerous countries around the world whose ramifications were felt especially in Asia. In sum, Japan protected itself against colonisation from western powers. 

To protect itself from what it perceived as the possibility of war with Western powers, Japan developed a National Defense State, which was effectively a highly militarised government in which the political establishment made the militaristic decisions with strength of the nation’s economy tied with that of its military. 

Of course, an ideological revitalisation went hand in hand whereby the Japanese nation came to believe in serving the militant, ultra-nationalistic state as a sacred duty. Thus it was that Japan turned into an imperialist type power of Asia with its rapid industrialisation and invasions in China, Korea and Manchuria.

Beijing and Moscow do not seem overly worried about Japan’s moves right now. But they are watching closely, given the geopolitical reality that any revival of Japanese militarism will now be also anchored on the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy against China and Russia. They may yet be waiting to see if Japan makes its biggest move yet — actually amending its antiwar constitution for the first time. 

Russia’s tensions with the US over Ukraine also has a Far East vector. Second, Russia and Japan are yet to sign a Peace Treaty bringing their World War 2 hostilities to a formal end. Russia increasingly sees a congruence of interests with China.  

On November 23, Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu told his Chinese counterpart Wei Fenghe that US air patrols near Russia’s eastern borders had increased, with a total of 22 strategic flights over the Sea of Okhotsk in 2020 – up from three the previous year – which he said posed a threat to both Russia and China. “Against this background, Russian-Chinese coordination is becoming a stabilising factor in world affairs,” Shoigu said. 

This conversation took place on the sidelines of the signing of “a road map” for military cooperation by the two defence ministers. Only three days earlier, Chinese and Russian air forces conducted a joint strategic air patrol over the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea. China sent two H-6K aircraft to form a joint formation with two Russian Tu-95MC aircraft.

This was the third joint strategic air patrol by the Chinese and Russian militaries aimed at enhancing “the level of strategic coordination and joint operational capabilities, and jointly maintain global strategic stability,” according to a Chinese readout.

A month before that, after wrapping up a joint naval exercise in the Sea of Japan on October 17, ten powerful Chinese and Russian warships undertook an unprecedented mission to sail through the Tsugaru Strait into the Pacific Ocean in their first joint maritime patrol encircling Japan. 

Russia’s defence ministry said, “The tasks of the patrols were the demonstration of the Russian and Chinese state flags, maintaining of peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and guardianship of the subjects of maritime economic activities of the two countries.”

Quite obviously, Moscow’s line has hardened in the recent months on the Kuril Islands problem with Japan. President Putin unveiled a new proposal in September to establish a special economic zone in the disputed islands under Russian law. Evidently, Russia plans to intensively and rapidly develop the Kuril and strengthen its integration. Tokyo has protested.

Moscow fears possible deployment of US missile systems on the islands if they are returned to Japan, creating a direct military threat to Russia. The Russian Defense Ministry announced on December 2 the deployment of advanced mobile coastal defense missile system Bastile on the Kuril Islands. 

The Russian Defence Ministry also announced on December 21 a plan to hold two strategic command-and-staff exercises, headlined Vostok and Grom, next year. The Vostok (East) drills in the Russian Far East are planned as a key combat training event for all Russian troops. 

The disclosure by Kyoto of a joint US-Japan joint operation plan to set up an attack base along the Nansei island chain will most certainly draw a backlash from Moscow. The Kyodo report said the US deployment will include “high mobility artillery rocket system”. Russia has repeatedly warned the US against the deployment of intermediate range missiles in Japan. (here and here) China too has a similar position and has warned that it would “not stand idly by” if the US deployed ground-based missiles to Asia. 

*

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.

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.

***

Ankara is seemingly more emboldened than ever as early signs show that the bloody unrest that engulfed Kazakhstan had significant Turkish involvement, not only through its intelligence services, but also through Kazakhstan’s Turkey-oriented politicians and business community.

The Kazakh elite, led by its leader Nursultan Nazarbayev, expedited the development of multilateral relations and established an alliance with Ankara. This alliance was cultivated under the formula of a “multi-vector course”, with inspiration of a supranational entity called “Great Turan.”

“Great Turan” is a relatively new concept born out of fringe nationalist movements that opposed the Russian Empire and Soviet Union. It was also propelled in Turkey by Kemalist ideology to Turkify Anatolian Muslims and Christians alike. Today, one of the greatest champions of a “Great Turan” – the ideology of unifying Turkic-speaking people from the Balkans to Siberia and Xinjiang, is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

It is recalled that when speaking to the Organization of Turkic States, Erdoğan said:

“Turkistan is our ancestral home, our main hearth. We are a very large family of 300 million people who speak the same language, believe in the same religion, have the same history, culture, share the same civilization. I know that our Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Tajik and Turkmen brothers look at Turkey the same way we do. They consider Turkey their home.”

Turkey has consistently worked towards this “Great Turan” project since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire left the country as a rump state in Anatolia. First was the 1939 grab of Liwa Iskenderun, now Hatay Province, from Syria. Then there was the 1974 invasion of northern Cyprus. The 2010’s saw more areas of northern Syria occupied by Turkey. Next was Turkey’s direct assistance to Azerbaijan’s 2020 invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh as the two country’s share the ideology of “one nation, two states. ”Azerbaijan is important for Turkey as it is the country’s gateway to Central Asia and its riches, especially Kazakhstan with its innumerable natural resources. Uranium ore deposits alone, as an example, are estimated at more than 40% of the world’s total.

For Ankara to become a dominant force in Central Asia, it must break Russia’s influence, and in this way has been engaged in a number of projects to propel this. This includes encouraging Kazakhstan’s switch from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet. Also, about a hundred mosques and madrasahs have been built in Kazakhstan with Turkish funding to Islamize the country and break it from its Soviet-era secularism.

More than 200 officers of the Kazakh army graduated from Turkish military institutions. Annually, hundreds of Kazakh military personnel, including the highest echelon of the military leadership, are sent to Turkey to improve their professional training for short-term courses. In recent years, Kazakhstan has actively purchased Turkish-made infantry fighting and armored vehicles, and is keen to purchase bayraktar drones.

Erdoğan had no choice but to express formal support for the Kazakh decision to request peacekeeping assistance from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The Turkish leader was hoping that President Kasym-Zhomart Tokayev would be undecided and delay requesting CSTO assistance so that pro-Turkish-minded local politicians and major businessmen could be activated. This was in the hope that they would create enough pressure to demand Turkish troops be deployed in order to stabilize the country.

Albeit, this is far from what actually happened as the Kazakh president acted decisively.

Tokayev said there was a “single center” coordinating the uprising in Kazakhstan. Acording to geopolitical analyst and journalist Pepe Escobar, Tokayev was referring to a ‘secret’ US-Turk-Israeli military-intel operations room based in the southern business hub of Almaty. Escobar reported that there were 22 Americans, 16 Turks and 6 Israelis in the center and were coordinating sabotage gangs – trained in West Asia by the Turks – and then rat-lined to Almaty. However, their operation unravelled 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.

Escobar speculated that “the Hybrid War west had to be stunned and livid at how the CSTO intercepted the Kazakh operation at such lightning speed” and that the Secretary of the Russian National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, was able to prepare for a potential Color Revolution as he “saw the Big Picture eons ago.”

Despite this setback, Erdoğan will not abandon his attempts to return to Kazakhstan and will continue to pursue a “Great Turan.” Time will tell whether Kazakhstan will be able to solve internal problems of national security, but the continuation of the “multi-vector course” is unlikely to ensure consistent stability in the Central Asian country.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

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 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.

From vaccine and booster mandates to restricting what students can do off-campus, a growing number of universities are forcing students to jump through hoops in hopes of avoiding an increase in COVID cases.

But some parents say these restrictions are unwarranted and are negatively impacting their child’s college experience.

In 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.

Click here to watch the video.

Dr. Dwayne Dexter, the father of a sophomore at the University of Delaware, said every student was required to get a COVID test before starting the winter session whether they were vaccinated or not — and now the university is mandating all students receive a booster before the spring semester.

“He’s under a tremendous amount of stress trying to understand what the booster shot means, is the school going remote,” Dexter said. “He’s really trying to deal with the restrictions that have been in place for the past year and a half.”

Dexter said he feels parents are “standing in the woods shouting at nobody” that these “shut up and comply mandates” are starting to impact the social and emotional well-being of kids. “They really aren’t having that college experience,” he said.

Dexter explained:

“If you look at the data out there today, are any of these mandates really impacting the infection and transmission rate of COVID, and they’re not. Our kids are in an age group where the impact of COVID on their health is very very minimal and I don’t think anybody is measuring or evaluating what is the psychological toll on these kids versus what the mandates are doing to impact their health against COVID.”

Greg Luttrell, the father of a junior at the University of Memphis, said his daughter transferred from the University of Tennessee when learning was moved online.

“For her to have to pay for housing on campus, to having to go to the cafeteria to get takeout food and to wear a mask everywhere outside of her room, she just didn’t feel that was the college experience,” Luttrell said. “They weren’t even sure there would be football games or whether they could have any social [interaction] or spend any time together.”

Although the University of Memphis does not require COVID vaccinations, masks are mandated and the school uses COVID daily symptom monitoring.

Kristina Kristen is the mother of a freshman at the University of California Irvine where COVID vaccines, booster shots and wearing facemasks indoor are mandatory. The university also requires weekly COVID testing for unvaccinated students.

“[My son] has been subjected to what can only be described as discriminatory protocols, having to be tested weekly and being subjected to different isolation protocols from those who are vaccinated,” Kristen said. “In addition to that, I think the strict masking protocols in their dorms are kind of reaching these absurd levels where they have to cite each other if the mask is slightly under the nose and get these citations.”

Kristen said it is a living situation that is far less than the experience a parent would hope their child would have during their college years.

Kristen, a Children’s Health Defense board member, said from the beginning everybody knew, and data showed, students are the lowest-risk population on the planet.

She explained:

“It’s a stratified risk all around, you have basically virtually zero risk to the students between the ages of 16 to 25 of COVID, but you have massive risks from the adverse effects from the vaccines where they are showing that they’re having myocarditis, pericarditis, thrombocytopenia — all these pretty serious adverse effects from vaccines — and on top of that, they’re showing the highest vaccinated countries in the world such as Israel, Iceland, Gibraltar have in fact the highest cases and death rates.

“So this is very very alarming that as the global data is showing what is happening with the vaccinations, they’re going on with this agenda.”

Kristen said she is puzzled that institutions of higher learning are supposed to be holding science in high esteem, but she is not “seeing this laying out on the ground.”

Students, parents, faculty urge colleges to drop booster mandates

As The Defender reported Jan. 10, more than 325 students, parents, alumni, faculty and staff at Cornell University signed an open letter to the university’s president and board of trustees asking Cornell to drop its COVID vaccine booster mandate.

The authors of the petition argued Cornell’s own data highlights that vaccination, even with the booster, has very limited capability in stopping virus transmission.

325+ students parents alumni faculty + staff of Cornell University signed open letter to university’s president + board opposing Cornell’s COVID booster mandate, warning university would have to bear responsibility for death/disability caused by vaccines.https://t.co/mJ4t1gVDC4

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) January 11, 2022

As of last December, the school had identified more than 1,600 COVID positive cases with every case of the Omicron variant to date found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot.

The petition raised concerns that Cornell is ignoring natural immunity in favor of mandating a booster “based on older variants, which Cornell knows is ineffective at stopping the spread of Covid-19 in the Cornell community.”

In addition to Cornell, more than 300 Boston College parents, students, alumni, faculty and staff signed a petition on Jan. 3 to the college’s president, Fr. William Leahy, opposing the college’s one-size-fits-all COVID booster mandate because it fails to recognize natural immunity.

This new mandate was issued even though more than 97% of the campus was fully vaccinated by mandate — and despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not changed the definition of “fully vaccinated” to include a booster shot.

The petition requests the college create rational “off-ramps” to the policy to protect individuals with “hybrid immunity” and those with serologically verifiable evidence of robust COVID-19 antibody immunity.

Cornell and Boston College are just two of many elite universities and colleges now mandating indiscriminate COVID vaccine boosters across the board.

*

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 a screenshot from the video

Screenshot, Forbes, July 1, 2021

“affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time”

Based on the above definitions, as well as data released by the Chinese health authorities pertaining to positive cases, there was an Outbreak of the Disease in Wuhan, Hubei Province in late December 2019.

A review of the data leading up to the official WHO decision to declare a Pandemic on March 11, 2020 confirms the following:

• no evidence of a pandemic, characterized by an outbreak of  Covid-19 “over a wide geographic area such as multiple countries or continents”
•  The official published data of the WHO pertaining to the alleged spread of  Covid-19 do not confirm the existence of either an epidemic nor a pandemic. 

The Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC)

The first step towards building a fake consensus on the potential spread of the disease was initiated on January 30, 2020 with the decision by the WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

Under the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), the member states of the WHO have “a legal duty to respond promptly to a PHEIC”.

Without a shred of evidence, the Director General of the WHO declared the PHEIC, pointing to

“a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response”.

This warning pointed to the possible occurrence of a pandemic.

A Global Health Emergency based on 83 Covid-19 Positive Cases Outside  China

The January 30 2020 PHEIC intimates the possibility of a pandemic. In an advisory published on December 19, 2019 (barely two weeks before the Wuhan outbreak), the WHO reconfirmed the definition of the PHEIC: 

“a situation that is:

• serious, sudden, unusual or unexpected;
• carries implications for public health beyond the affected State’s national border;
• may require immediate international action.”

The calling of a PHEIC was a fraudulent decision on the part of the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Why? Because on the 30th of  January 2020 there were 83 Covid positive cases outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people.

83 cases in 18 countries, and only 7 of them had no history of travel in China. (see WHO, January 30, 2020).

The “Evidence” Points to Fraud

In the week preceding this historic WHO decision, the PHEIC was the object of “consultations” at the World Economic Forum (WEF), Davos (January 21-24). The WHO Director General Dr. Tedros was present at Davos. Were these consultations instrumental in influencing the WHO’s historic decision to declare a PHEIC on January 30th.

Was there a Conflict of Interest as defined by the WHO? The WHO’s largest donor is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which together with the WEF and CEPI had already announced in Davos the development of a Covid-19 vaccine prior to the historic January 30th launching of the PHEIC.

The WHO Director General had the backing of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Big Pharma and the World Economic Forum (WEF). (See Michel Chossudovsky, E book, Chapter II)

“Divisions” Within the WHO

There are indications that the decision of the WHO Director General to declare a PHEIC was taken on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos (January 21-24) overlapping with the Geneva January 22 meeting of the WHO emergency committee on 22 January, 2020. According to the minutes of this meeting (excerpt below), there were divisions within  the Emergency Committee regarding the calling of a PHEIC:

On 22 January, the members of the Emergency Committee expressed divergent views on whether this event constitutes a PHEIC or not. At that time, the advice was that the event did not constitute a PHEIC, but the Committee members agreed on the urgency of the situation and suggested that the Committee should be reconvened in a matter of days to examine the situation further.

“Divergent views” is an understatement. There was firm opposition to the implementation of the PHEIC. 83 positive cases on January 30th “does not constitute a PHEIC”. 

I should mention that the first PHEIC goes back to 2009. It was inaugurated by the WHO in relation to the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, which turned out to be a fraud.

On January 29, 2020, the day preceding the launching of the PHEIC (recorded by the WHO), there were 5  cases in the US, 3 in Canada, 4 in France, 4 in Germany. 

January 31, 2020:  President Trump’s Decision to Suspend Air Travel with China

The next step of the COVID-19 saga unfolds on February 20, 2020.

February 20-21, 2020. Dr. Tedros Intimates that the Pandemic is Imminent. 1073 Covid Positive Cases Outside China

At a press conference on Thursday the 20th of February afternoon (CET Time) in a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General. Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that he was

A quarantine had been imposed on the cruiser See NCBI study. Many passengers fell sick due to the confinement on the boat. All the passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess undertook the PCR test. Without the Diamond Princess data, the so-called confirmed cases worldwide outside China on February 20th 2020 were of the order of 452, out of a population of 6.4 billion.  (See the graph below indicating International Convenience (Diamond Princess))

Needless to say, this so-called data was instrumental to spearheading the fear campaign and the collapse of financial markets in the course of the month of February 2020.

What can be observed in the diagram below is that the recorded Covid positive cases were exceedingly low prior to the official declaration of a pandemic on March 11, 2020: 44,279 cases outside China. There was absolutely no justification to launching the lockdown as a means to combating a non-existent “pandemic”.

As of March 11, 2020, following the lockdown,  national governments were urged to implement the PCR-RT test on a massive scale, with a view to pushing up the numbers of covid positive cases Worldwide.

Test, Test, Test: The numbers started to climb with a view to generating more and more fake statistics.

Look at the table below. A very small number of positive cases in early March. And then, Covid positive cases going fly high as of April, May June 2020.

***

In Part II, we will examine  the role of the flawed PCR-RT Test and how it has been applied to sustaining the illusion of a Worldwide pandemic.

See Michel Chossudovsky’s E-Book, 13 Chapters:

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

***

About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),  UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)

He is the author of thirteen books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

 

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on Global Research

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The years-long war in Yemen sees no end, and 2022 is not an exception. The year began with a large-scale operation, dubbed Southern Storm aimed to expel the Houthis (Ansar Allah) from Yemen’s central-southern province of Shabawah. The operation is mainly led by the UAE-backed Giant Brigades, a force of an estimated 15,000 fighters, with support from the Yemeni Armed Forces and backed by air cover from Coalition warplanes.

The operation took the Houthis by surprise and resulted in significant gains since its first days.

On January 2, the Giants Brigades managed to capture the center of Usaylan district. On January 3 and 4, the group’s fighters captured the mountain of Bin Aqil and the key town of al-Nuqub.

The Giants Brigades managed to enter the district of Bayhan on January 5. On the same day, the group’s fighters seized the 163rd Infantry Brigade Camp.

On the next day, the Giant Brigades imposed fire control over the al-Sa’di junction, cutting the Houthis main supply line between Bayhan and the district of Harib in the neighboring province of Ma’rib.

The second phase of the operation was also a success. On January 7, Yemeni forces captured the district center of Bayhan in the western part of Shabawah, while, fighters of the Giant Brigades took control over the area of al-Hanou and managed to reach the outskirts of the town of al-Ulya.

The third and final phase of the operation began on January 9, when Yemeni forces kicked off a large-scale offensive in the district of Ain. A few hours into the third phase, the Houthis were expelled from the areas of Taraf as Saq and Qarn al-Mujajib in Ain. The Giants Brigades later stormed the center of the Noaman district in Al-Bayda.

On January 10, the Giants Brigade announced in a statement that all the districts of the province of Shabawah had been totally liberated from Huthi control after a 10-day assault.

The Houthis likely opted to withdraw their remaining fighters in Shabawah to more fortified positions in the neighboring province of Ma’rib, but important supply lines to this province are now cut down.

The operation resulted in significant losses on both sides. On January 8 alone, the Coalition claimed the killing of 435 Houthi fighters in one day in Marib and Shabawah.

Amid the important military gains, the Saudi-led coalition failed in the field of propaganda.

A coalition spokesman was caught using footage from an old US documentary film “Severe Clear” during a press briefing on January 9. Showing an abandoned Iraqi missile factory, he claimed that it was a ballistic missile workshop of the Houthis in the western Yemeni province of al-Hudaydah.

The poorly thought-out propaganda stunt should damage the coalition’s credibility, but any “major scandal” was avoided, as the MSM traditionally ignored the truth.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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 readers are aware, I regard Washington’s refusal to accommodate Russia’s security concerns as totally irresponsible. By denying security guarantees to Russia, Washington essentially told the Kremlin that the U.S.  intends to locate nuclear missiles on Russia’s borders and to use color revolutions among former Russian provinces to destabilize the Russian Federation. In other words, Washington has shown that the US represents a life-threatening hostility to Russia.

Russia is not going to sit and wait for that to happen. Ukraine most certainly will not be permitted to be a member of NATO. Russia would reincorporate Ukraine into Russia rather than permit that to happen. No US or NATO missile bases will be permitted in Ukraine. If they are there or are put there, they will be destroyed.

The existing US missile bases in Romania and Poland will be destroyed. Russia can achieve this by air or missiles and has no need to invade. It would be pointless for NATO to mobilize as its conventional forces are small compared to Russia and incapable of putting up any kind of fight against Russian armies. Russia could overrun Eastern Europe long before the US could mobilize enough forces to put up a fight.

Stratfor, which provides geopolitical intelligence information to corporate clients says that the four armies in Russia’s Eastern Military District are in the process of being moved to the Western front. I have no opinion about the reliability of Stratfor’s information or any knowledge of who might be behind the organization.

The Stratfor report perhaps is an indication that the Kremlin expected the talks with the West to be unsuccessful and is positioning Russia to roll back NATO as the Russian deputy foreign minister indicated. Unless Russia’s security problems are resolved, he said, there will be dire consequences.

Prior to using force, Russia is likely to position nuclear missiles 200 miles off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the US as a constraint on Washington turning a low-key conventional action into nuclear war in order to save face. Washington in its arrogance and stupidity has set itself up for a defeat that it will find difficult to accept, especially as Washington will have brought it on itself.

Putin has expressed his despair many times that Washington cannot accept the sovereignty of other countries and learn to live together in the world. To maintain peace, all Washington needed to do was to demilitarize the NATO members that border Russia and cease adding countries to NATO. Instead, an over confident Washington drowning in hubris made a bad decision.

It is possible that nuclear war will be the result. But it would require more stupid decisions in Washington. It is not Russia’s intent.

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told reporters on Wednesday that Russia and NATO failed to find common ground. He summed up Wednesday’s meeting: “By NATO’s decision, all practical cooperation between Russia and the alliance in areas of common interest have been suspended. Today we do not have any unifying positive agenda, none at all.” He said that the West has presented Russia with an “unacceptable threat” that Russia will have to counter.

In other words, neither Washington nor its NATO arm heard the Russians tell them that military bases on Russia’s borders are unacceptable. As the Kremlin has found reason and diplomacy to be useless in dealing with the West, the prospect of building common European security is no longer in the picture. Russia has “no choice but to implement a policy of counter-containment and counter-intimidation.”

Having refused Russia security, the idiot West can expect 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.

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 OneWorld

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

At the end of 2020, we reported how the CDC was caught manipulating the death statistics to make “COVID deaths” appear to be much higher than they actually were.

In November of 2020, we published an article with the above chart showing that based on the CDC’s own statistics from January through September of 2020, the total projected deaths for the year were on pace to be about the same as the previous three years, 2017 – 2019. See: Statistics Show that the Number of People who Died in the U.S. in 2020 will be the SAME as Previous Years, in Spite of COVID

When word got out that the flu season seemed to vanish in 2020, the CDC proceeded to stop tracking influenza statistics.

Here is a screenshot from the CDC website of the page that announced this, but I do not believe this page is found on the CDC website anymore:

See: In Unprecedented Move CDC Stops Tracking Influenza for 2020-21 Flu Season

On February 3, 2021, we published an article highlighting a study published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy & the Law that claimed the CDC violated federal law by inflating COVID-19 fatality statistics.

The study is titled “COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective.”

In that same article that we published, we published a screenshot of a page that existed on the CDC website on December 30, 2020 that showed the total deaths in the U.S.  from all causes as of December 30, 2020, as being 2,902,664 deaths. See: Study: CDC Broke Federal Law by Manipulating COVID Death Statistics

Just after the first of the year in 2021, however, this page disappeared from the CDC website, and an entirely new section was put up on the CDC’s website that tracked deaths, and the total deaths for 2020 were revised to be 3,389,094, a difference of 486,430 deaths.

Now, one year later, it appears that those additional deaths attributed to 2020 were basically being pre-added to cover up the deaths that were going to be caused by the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines” for 2021.

Here is what the CDC is currently reporting today, at the time of publication of this article:

Source. (Click on “Yearly” at the bottom of the table.)

As you can see, according to the CDC, flu deaths have all but disappeared, as they dropped from their already record low number of 8,785 in 2020, to only 932 in 2021.

And in spite of the fact that hundreds of millions of the American population were injected with the experimental gene-therapy shots for COVID-19 in 2021, COVID deaths, according to the CDC, increased from 385,443 in 2020 to 444,951 in 2021.

And if we use the CDC’s number of total deaths for 2020 on December 30, 2020 before they revised their numbers, we have an increase in total deaths in the U.S. in 2021 that is an increase of over 400,000 deaths that occurred in 2020.

And we have to conclude that the majority of those were COVID-19 vaccine injury deaths.

According to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), if we exclude the foreign reports, VAERS shows 9,778 reported deaths following COVID-19 injections in 2021. (Source.)

Dr. Jessica Rose, PhD. has determined that the VAERS under-reporting multiplier for COVID-19 vaccine reports is 41X. See: Determining the VAERS Under-Reporting Multiplier

When we multiply the reported 9,778 deaths following COVID-19 injections for 2021 by 41, we get 400,898 deaths following COVID-19 shots.

Bingo!

This evidence is further corroborated by the recent admission that life insurance claims death rates skyrocketed an unprecedented 40% among those between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2021. See: Crisis in America: Deaths Up 40% Among Those Aged 18-64 Based on Life Insurance Claims for 2021 After COVID-19 Vaccine Roll Outs

We are watching the world’s population be reduced right in front of our eyes, while the masses continue to think it is all a “conspiracy theory.”

*

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 NaturalNews.com

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Lebanese parliamentary elections are set for March 27.  While the social, political, and economic crisis which has caused the collapse of Lebanon is far from over, the various political factions are jockeying for position and making promises.

One political party leader has emerged and is a very old face on the scene.  Samir Geagea, the leader of the Lebanese Forces (LF) since 1986.   The LF is a political party that began as an armed militia, with no connection to the national army, the Lebanese Army.  Geagea still makes promises that he has 15,000 armed and trained fighters in the LF, and has suggested to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) that his Christian militia is capable of fighting Hezbollah, which has 100,000 armed members. Geagea, though representing a Christian sect, is, in fact, the agent of the KSA in Lebanon, while his bitter rival is President Michel Aoun and his Free Patriotic Movement, who are the country’s largest representatives of Christians.

In a recent interview, Geagea defended KSA and tried to distance KSA from connection to ISIS.  It was the US administration of President Obama who created the Free Syrian Army, which later evolved into Al Qaeda, and finally ISIS.  It wasn’t until 2017 that President Trump cut the funding on the CIA program which supported terrorists following Radical Islam.  KSA, UAE, and Qatar all had bankrolled the US program for regime change in Syria, which failed, but succeeded in destroying Syria.

Trump famously stated it was the US who kept the King on his throne in Riyadh.  The oil-rich Gulf states were used to following orders dictated by Washington. The US Embassy in Lebanon is similarly seen as issuing orders in Lebanon.  For example, the head of the Lebanese Central Bank, Riad Salameh, has been protected from corruption charges by the order of the US Ambassador, who said Salameh is a “red line”.

During the Lebanese civil war, 1975-1990,  Geagea and his fighters all received their training in Israel, and with various Arab countries now making relationships with the occupiers of Palestine, this positions Geagea as a conduit between shared interests. The Syrian Social National party called for the dissolution of the LF, originally an Israeli surrogate militia which later transformed into a political party after the 2005 release of Geagea from prison.

Geagea will be remembered most for his brutal war crimes.  He massacred all sects, even going so far as to blow up a church full of Christians.  He spent 11 years in jail and was pardoned in 2005.

In the past, it was Rafik Hariri, and then his son Saad Hariri who represented the Saudi interests in Lebanon.  Both were Saudi citizens, with Saad having been born and raised in KSA.  However, the current de-facto leader of KSA, Muhamed bin Salman (MBS), held Saad Hariri against his will in a shake-down and caused Hariri to announce his resignation while in captivity.  MBS was furious that Hariri had managed to work with Hezbollah in the political arena, even though his party was opposed to the group. It took French President Emmanuel Macron personally to gain the release of Hariri, where he returned to Beirut and rescinded his resignation.

Saad Hariri, like his father, was Prime Minister but was unable to form a government in 2021, and he left Lebanon to take up residence in the UAE.  Now, with parliamentary elections on the horizon, Hariri has announced he will return to Beirut in January 2022, and at that time will announce if he will participate in the parliamentary elections for his Future Party.

Some analysts predict Saad Hariri will not participate in the upcoming elections but will defer to his older brother’s campaign.  Bahaa Hariri, the eldest son of Rafik Hariri, and a successful businessman who has developed a unique style of citizen-activism in Lebanon in response to the Lebanese crisis.

Bahaa has taken a tough stance on Hezbollah, which will be enticing to the US and KSA.  His current campaign list “Sawa Li Lubnan” is raising billboards across Beirut, and has 10 offices in Lebanon, with a supporting TV campaign as well.  The platform is secular, appealing to all Lebanese, and has a modern reform base ideology, which emphasizes national unity in the face of corruption reforms.

The road back to stability in Lebanon may take years and may hit bumps along the way, but it would appear the March elections may be a starting place to build upon.  The age-old political players remain the KSA and USA, each trying to call the shots in a tiny country best known for its geographical position, and it’s 18 different religious sects all living side by side in the Middle East.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Julian Assange has now been in the maximum-security facilities of Belmarsh prison for over 1,000 days.  On the occasion of his 1,000^th day of imprisonment, campaigners, supporters and kindred spirits gathered to show their support, indignation and solidarity at this political detention most foul.

Alison Mason of the Julian Assange Defence Committee reiterated those observations long made about the imprisonment at a gathering outside the Australian High Commission in London on that day.  The WikiLeaks founder was wrongfully confined “for publishing the war crimes of the US military leaked to him by whistleblower Chelsea Manning.”  She, along with supporters, had gathered before the High Commission “because Julian’s country could save him with a simple phone call.”   Mason’s admirably simple reasoning: that Australia had “a bargaining chip with AUKUS and trade deals.”  If only that were true.

The continued detention of Assange in Belmarsh remains a scandal of kaleidoscopic cruelty.  It continues to imperil his frail health, further impaired by a stroke suffered in October last year and the ongoing risks associated with COVID-19.  It maintains a state of indefinite incarceration without bail, deputising the United Kingdom as committed gaolers for US interests. “Julian,” stated his fiancée Stella Moris, “is simply held at the request of the US government while they continue to abuse the US-UK extradition treaty for political ends.”

A report drawn from unannounced visits to Belmarsh by the Chief Inspector of Prisons last July and August did not shine glorious light upon the institution.  “The prison has not paid sufficient attention to the growing levels of self-harm and there was not enough oversight or care taken of prisoners of risk of suicide.  Urgent action needed to be taken in this area to make sure that these prisoners were kept safe.”

The next gruelling stage of Assange’s confinement is being marked by an appeal against the High Court’s unfathomable, and even gullible overturning of the lower court decision against his extradition to the United States.  The US Department of Justice (DoJ) continues to seek the extradition of the WikiLeaks founder to face 18 charges, 17 based on that relic of state paranoia and vengeance, the US Espionage Act of 1917.  A successful prosecution could see him face a 175-year sentence.

The original decision, shoddy as it was for the cause of journalism, accepted that the extradition would be oppressive within the meaning of the US-UK Extradition Act.  District Court Justice Vanessa Baraitser accepted the defence contention that such oppression arose from Assange’s “mental condition”.  Despite relentless prosecution attacks on the neuropsychiatric evidence adduced by the defence, the judge accepted that Assange was autistic and would be at serious risk of suiciding in the US prison system. The prosecutors also failed in convincing the court that Special Administrative Measures would not be applied that would restrict his access to legal counsel and family, and ensure solitary confinement. They also failed to show that he would not, on being convicted, serve his time in the vicious supermax prison, Colorado’s ADX Florence.

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Ian Burnett, and Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde, were having none of that.  In their December ruling, the High Court accepted the prosecution appeal that the US could easily make assurances for keeping Assange in better conditions despite not doing so at the original trial.  The Lord Justices also proved crotchety at the fact that Baraitser had not gone out of her way to seek those assurances in the first place.  Besides, Britain could trust the good diplomatic undertakings of the United States.

So it came to pass that muddle headed judicial reasoning prevailed on the bench.  There was no mention of the fabricated evidence being relied upon by the prosecution, or the discomforting fact that operatives in the US Central Intelligence Agency had contemplated kidnapping and poisoning Assange.  Nothing, either, about the US-sanctioned surveillance operation conducted by the Spanish security firm, UC Global, during his time in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Work on the appeal began immediately.  Solicitors Birnberg Peirce, in a statement, outlined the importance of the application.

“We believe serious and important issues of law and wider public importance are being raised in this application.  They arise from the court’s judgment and its receipt and reliance on US assurances regarding the prison regimes and treatment of Mr Assange is likely to face if extradited.”

The wider public importance of the case is hard to measure.  Authoritarian governments and sham democracies the world over are gleefully taking notes.  Liberal democratic states with increasingly autocratic approaches to media outlets are also going to see promise in the way the United States is using extradition law to nab a publisher.  Black letter lawyers will err in assuming that this matter is narrow and specific to the wording of a treaty between two countries.

Having already done untold damage to the cause of publishing national security information that exposes atrocities and violations of law domestic and international, the US is making the claim that the Extradition Act, in all its nastiness, has tentacled global reach.  A phone call from Australia’s insipid Prime Minister Scott Morrison will hardly matter to this.  He, and other members of Washington’s unofficial imperial court, will do as they are told.

*

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 21st Century Wire

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.

***

African American woman journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones has released a nearly 600-page hardcover book entitled “A New Origin Story: The 1619 Project” as a continuation of the work which began with the release of a New York Times Magazine special issue during the Summer of 2019.

The year represented the 400th anniversary of the kidnapping and importation of approximately 20 Africans from Angola stolen from a Portuguese vessel and transported to the British colony of Virginia.

In August of 1619 the British settlers had occupied sections of what later became known as the State of Virginia for more than a decade. After the introduction of enslaved Africans in the colony, the plantation system accelerated through the production of tobacco and other agricultural commodities which required the acquisition of more human laborers who would never be paid for their work.

By the time of the separation between the British Crown and its possessions, there were 13 colonies extending from the southeast to the northeast of the territories. The formation of the United States of America during the latter decades of the 18th century did not end African enslavement or the confiscation of Indigenous land.

In fact, Hannah-Jones advances the argument made by other scholars that the unprecedented Somerset v. Stewart case of 1772 in Britain, where it was ruled by Lord Mansfield that, “ The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, more or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory”, served to undermine the economic status of the Europeans colonized by London in North America. Many interpreted the Somerset ruling as the beginning of the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade. (See this)

Therefore, the political leadership of the colonial territories which later became the U.S., were motivated not by the ideals of freedom, due process, and electoral representation. They were compelled to break from the British monarchy in order to exert their own economic interests within the expanding world system based upon the Atlantic Slave Trade and the super-exploitation of African people throughout the Western Hemisphere.

African enslavement and tobacco production (Source: Alamy)

The purported ideals of 1776 did not extend to the liberation of enslaved Africans across the country. For nearly a century after the Declaration of Independence from Britain, enslavement continued until the Civil War (1861-1865) within the U.S.

Hannah-Jones points out in Chapter I of the book that:

“Indeed, when the South seceded from the Union, white Confederates believed they were the inheritors of the founders’ revolutionary legacy and upholders of the true Constitution. Jefferson Davis gave his second inaugural address as president of the Confederate States of America on George Washington’s birthday, vowing that the Confederacy would ‘perpetuate the principles of our Revolutionary fathers. The day, the memory, and the purpose seem fitly associated…. We are in arms to renew such sacrifices as our fathers made to the holy cause of Constitutional liberty.’”

Even after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments along with other Civil Rights Acts from 1866 through 1875, the overthrow of Reconstruction beginning in 1877 resulted in the reimposition of forced labor through peonage, sharecropping, tenant farming and the penal system. By the conclusion of the 19th century, the fallacious concepts of “separate but equal” had been firmly entrenched in U.S. Constitutional law requiring a decades-long struggle in the 20th century to claim the humanity of African people and other oppressed communities.

The new book is an interesting mix of historical essays and literary works. The poetry chapters are based upon significant historical conjunctures.

A variety of issues are discussed in the book including the role of the sugar industry in enslavement and colonialism; Black music; capitalism and its growth spawned by the Atlantic Slave Trade; the contradictions within democratic practice; the importance of fear; healthcare; the Black Church; punishment and the criminal justice system; etc.

Significance of the 1619 Project in the Present Period

The publication of the book comes at a time of contentious debate and political struggle over the status of African Americans and other oppressed peoples within the framework of the U.S. political and social system. Writers such as Hannah-Jones have come under attack by conservatives and liberals for the arguments made in both the New York Times Magazine and photographic supplement of 2019 and the subsequent popularity and praise.

In response to the Hannah-Jones and the New York Times publications, the former administration of President Donald J. Trump, commissioned the “1776 Project” in a hostile attempt to refute the work of African American journalists, artists and scholars who have developed alternative paradigms to the fictional narratives promoted by the educational system and popular culture.

Trump was not acting alone in his release of the “1776 Project” just days prior to his exit from office in 2021. The conservative movement in the U.S. views the ideological struggle over the contours of historical studies and other social sciences as a means to justify the censoring of African American studies, including the banning of books by Black and other people of color authors.

An article published by Derrick Clifton of NBC News in January 2021 says of the conservative effort:

“During the closing days of the Trump administration, the outgoing president fulfilled a promise to issue a report that promotes a ‘patriotic education’ about race and the birth of the nation. The ‘1776 Report,’ released on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, followed Donald Trump’s September announcement to form a commission to refute teachings on systemic racism, critical race theory, and deeper examinations of how slavery has affected American society. The ‘crusade against American history is toxic propaganda, ideological poison, that, if not removed, will dissolve the civic bonds that tie us together, will destroy our country,’ he said at the time.”

Yet this report does not complete the refutation of the 1619 Project. There is also the “1776 Project Political Action Committee” which has declared its intentions saying:

“We are a political action committee dedicated to electing school board members nationwide who want to reform our public education system by promoting patriotism and pride in American history. We are committed to abolishing critical race theory and ‘The 1619 Project’ from the public school curriculum.”

Then another effort called “1776 Unites” is a program by conservative scholars, many of whom are African American, to contradict the views advanced in the 1619 Project that the growth of African enslavement during the 17th century is the underlying historical conjuncture which has shaped the political, economic and cultural life of the U.S. The 1776 Unites approach is to emphasize the professional and business accomplishments of African Americans.

According to their website: “We are building a positive movement in response to the overwhelming narratives of oppression, grievance and ignorance to America’s history — and its promise for the future.” However, despite the professional, athletic, scientific, cultural, economic and intellectual contributions made by people of African descent in the U.S. since the 17th century, the statistics related to impoverishment, educational attainment, incarceration, healthcare, victimization by law-enforcement and the criminal justice system cannot be denied by those seeking to literally “whitewash” history and social studies.

These attacks on antiracist education have extended to public libraries which provide avenues for enhancing literacy through books and other learning materials that are often not available in schools. The enemies of the 1619 Project falsely characterize all education methods that are based upon the actual history and social dynamics of the U.S. and the world as “Critical Race Theory.”

Nonetheless, CRT was developed by scholars such as Derrick Bell at Harvard Law School during the 1980s and 1990s. Its tenets are based upon the institutional nature of racial oppression in the U.S. These concepts are usually not taught in a K-12 educational settings.

As Hannah-Jones has stated in several interviews, that no one has produced a fifth-grade teacher who is writing lesson plans based upon the legal concepts within CRT. Obviously, the use of CRT as a wedge political issue by conservatives is part and parcel of the arsenal deployed to halt the further democratization of U.S. society.

These attacks extend into the state legislative campaigns to restrict voting rights all across the U.S. through the passage of bills which prohibit early voting, same-day registration, mail-in ballots, the delivery of water and food to people waiting in line to vote, among other measures. Consequently, with the failure of the Supreme Court and the Congress to uphold the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the midterm elections of 2022 will serve as a measurement of the impact of these right-wing assaults on nationally oppressed communities and their allies.

This updated and expanded 1619 Project book makes an important contribution to the debate and discussion over the history, contemporary situation and indeed the future of the U.S. and the world. The outcome of this struggle against racism and capitalism will not necessarily be determined within the realm of academic discourse, it requires a continuation of the mobilization and organization of the masses for the total liberation of the people.

*

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.

All images in this article are from the author

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Dear Dr. Harmon,

The very essence of traditional medical practice is open discourse and debate. Years of education and experience grant physicians the right to analyze data, question it and demand answers. Any attempt to silence practitioners who are true to their profession, is an egregious assault on their autonomy and undermines the doctor-patient relationship. The danger of creating a top-down authoritarian practice of medicine, such as the AMA, in collusion with the FSMB, is advocating, would mean the end of a noble profession.

In 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. To use the trust built up over many years to declare that medical and scientific knowledge belongs only to them is an abuse of their position and a betrayal of their great responsibility.

Misinformation and disinformation are nebulous terms created to cause confusion among lay people. In the world of science there are facts, genuine opinions and disingenuous lies. In the practice of medicine, lying is a crime; especially lying that results in harm. 

Your article, “Flow of damaging COVID-19 disinformation must end now” published on the American Medical Association (AMA) website December 14, 2021 (1), feigns concern for the harm false information causes, not just to the health of the patients, but also to the doctor-patient relationship. This harm has been pre-defined as any concern, skepticism, challenge or contradiction to official government narratives. However, many independent scientists and physicians, worldwide, analyzing real-time raw data, are coming to conclusions which are not in alignment with the current agenda of medical and political authorities. We have a legal and ethical duty to speak out.

In the article, you state:

“The COVID-19 pandemic continues to spawn falsehoods that are spread by a whole host of people such as political leaders, media figures, internet influencers, and even some health professionals—including by licensed physicians”.

The undersigned argue that organizations such as the AMA and the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) are using their Read the rest of this entry »

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.

***

Now that we have a full year of injecting people with an experimental gene altering shot for COVID-19, we can conclusively state that this is most definitely a weapon of mass destruction, as it not only kills and cripples people in the present, but it destroys unborn children in the womb as well, and is most likely making an entire generation of child-bearing aged females infertile.

And the facts that support this statement are found in the government’s own database of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), as incomplete as that data set is.

I have basically employed two methods of analyzing the data in VAERS in my reports for the past year, and that is by comparing what is published by the government for the experimental COVID-19 shots with all the FDA-approved vaccines for the past 32 years, since VAERS began in 1990.

This gives us a true “apples to apples” approach using only the data that they supply.

The other method is to determine the “under-reporting multiplier” as everyone admits, including the government health authorities, that VAERS is a passive system that is vastly under reported.

I have used Dr. Jessica Rose’s analysis done on the under-reporting multiplier that is published here, and she determined that based on her analysis, the COVID-19 reporting in VAERS needs to be multiplied by a factor of 41X.

To arrive at the number of fetal deaths recorded in VAERS I had to test several different searches on listed “symptoms” and then see if the search results documented fetal deaths, since there is no demographic for “fetal deaths.”

The following is the current list of “symptoms” in VAERS that reveals fetal deaths:

• Aborted pregnancy
• Abortion
• Abortion complete
• Abortion complicated
• Abortion early
• Abortion incomplete
• Abortion induced
• Abortion induced incomplete
• Abortion late
• Abortion missed
• Abortion of ectopic pregnancy
• Abortion spontaneous
• Abortion spontaneous complete
• Abortion spontaneous incomplete
• Ectopic pregnancy
• Ectopic pregnancy termination
• Ectopic pregnancy with contraceptive device
• Foetal cardiac arrest
• Foetal death
• Premature baby death
• Premature delivery
• Ruptured ectopic pregnancy
• Stillbirth

This list may not be exhaustive. But using this list with the last update in VAERS that contains data through December 31, 2021, I have found 3,147 fetal deaths recorded following the COVID-19 shots into pregnant women, or into women of child-bearing age who became pregnant shortly after receiving one of the experimental COVID-19 injections (such as ectopic pregnancies). (Source.)

Using the under-reporting multiplier of 41X, the truer number of fetal deaths following COVID-19 injections becomes 129,027 fetal deaths.

Please note that these deaths would be in addition to the recorded deaths of people already born, which as of the December 31, 2021 VAERS data release is 21,382 (source).

Using the under-reporting multiplier of 41X, we have 876,662 deaths after the COVID-19 shots, and that is in addition to the 129,027 fetal deaths.

THAT’S OVER 1 MILLION DEATHS IN JUST THE FIRST YEAR OF THE COVID-19 “VACCINES”!

You don’t believe it? Just look around you at the so-called “supply chain” bottlenecks that are getting worse, not better, and understand that there is NOT a shortage of products, but a shortage of HUMAN LABOR!

Using the “apples to apples” analysis of the VAERS data, I performed the exact same search on the symptoms listed above for all FDA-approved vaccines in the database prior to December, 2020, which is the month the first two COVID-19 shots were issued emergency use authorization.

That search returned a value of 2,479 fetal deaths following ALL vaccines for the previous 31 years, or an average of about 80 fetal deaths per year. (Source.)

• Fetal deaths following FDA-approved vaccines: 80 per year
• Fetal deaths following experimental COVID-19 shots in first year: 3,147

That’s a 3,834% increase in fetal deaths, using just the government data reported in VAERS.

And if someone like myself just sitting at home behind a computer searching the U.S. Government’s VAERS database can see this, you can be sure that all the scientists and doctors who work for the government that also have access to this data see it too.

Here is a video report on this atrocity that we published in October last year.

Stop calling this a “conspiracy theory” and wake up!

This is population reduction planning. This is genocide. These are crimes against humanity.

THIS IS PURE EVIL!

God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well.

This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.

He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)

*

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

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.

***

 

Canada continues to creep into unventured territory with regards to the powers we’ve given our government in the last two years. What was a conspiracy theory only a few months ago is now becoming reality – the CBC and the Trudeau government are suddenly talking about forced vaccine policies.

The Trudeau government continues to demonize the unvaccinated and claim that the only way out of this pandemic is through vaccinations. But as hospitals fill up with vaccinated and unvaccinated Canadians, it’s clear this is no longer the pandemic of the unvaccinated.

As Candice Malcolm explains on The Candice Malcolm Show, this must be our red line. Every Canadian needs to push back against this insane and radically authoritarian idea.

*

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.

Louisiana Nurse Blows the Whistle: “We Have Had More Children Die from the COVID Vaccine Than of COVID Itself”

By The COVID World, January 12, 2022

Collette Martin, a practicing nurse of seventeen years, spoke at a Louisiana Health & Welfare hearing earlier this month about what she has seen in the hospital system during the COVID pandemic.

A List of People Who Had Their Leg Amputated Shortly after Receiving COVID-19 Vaccine

By The COVID World, January 12, 2022

As the vaccination train rolls on, tales of horrifying side effects continue to pile up. The mainstream media reports only on these cases in isolation, if at all, deliberately ignoring the wider pattern of serious blood clots directly linked to vaccination.

Will the Federal Reserve Crash Global Financial Markets As a Means to Implementing Their “Great Reset”?

By F. William Engdahl, January 12, 2022

It’s looking increasingly likely that the US Federal Reserve and the globalist powers that be will use the dramatic rising of inflation as their excuse to bring down the US financial markets and with it, crash the greatest financial bubble in history.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Covid Pandemic: A “Truth Bomb” Explodes to Illuminate the War on Humanity

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, January 12, 2022

For almost two years we have been experiencing the onslaughts of a brand new form of warring aggression. For all but a tiny percentage of the global population, we have become the targeted enemy. The we that is being attacked extends to most of the global population.

December 17th 2021: “Pax Americana” is Dead? The End of U.S. Hegemony, Officially Announced?

By Prof. Ivaylo Grouev, January 12, 2022

It is unnecessary to analyze the extent to which the tectonic rupture between the empire in which the sun never sets, Pax Britannica, and the arrival of Pax Americana has influenced the global geopolitical processes of the 20th century. An American global hegemony is an indisputable fact.

International Finance Leaders Hold ‘War Game’ Exercise Simulating Global Financial Collapse. Should We be Worried?

By Michael Nevradakis, January 12, 2022

High-level international banking officials and organizations gathered last month for a global “war game” exercise simulating the collapse of the global financial system. The tabletop exercise was reminiscent of “Event 201,” the pandemic simulation exercise that took place just before COVID-19 entered the global scene.

Kazakhstan: NATO’s New Frontier? Attempted Coup? History and Analysis of “Color Revolutions”

By Peter Koenig, January 12, 2022

Just for the record, the 1991 agreement between Europe and the new Russia, stipulated that there would be no new NATO bases further to the east (of Berlin), was never respected by the west. That’s why President Putin is drawing red lines, and rightly so.

The Age of Intolerance: Cancel Culture’s War on Free Speech

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, January 12, 2022

Cancel culture—political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance—has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance, policed by techno-censors, social media bullies, and government watchdogs.

Pfizer Scandal: CEO Albert Bourla Reveals Two COVID Vaccine Shots Offer ‘Very Limited Protection, If Any’ after Claiming Shot Was ‘100% Effective’

By Rada Mateescu, January 12, 2022

Pfizer is making headlines again after the CEO of the controversial company Albert Bourla made a recent statement about the efficiency of the COVID shot. He recently said in a video that’s all over Twitter that two shots of the covid vaccine offer limited protection against covid 19, “if any.”

Canada to Announce Mandatory COVID Vaccinations Soon

By Kelen McBreen, January 12, 2022

Highly vaccinated nations such as Israel have all but proven this to be true as they continue to see record numbers of Covid deaths, cases and hospitalizations despite being the first country on Earth to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens.

US-Russia Talk About “Where Not to Place Missiles”

By Ray McGovern, January 12, 2022

“Impasse, Deadlock” says The Washington Post describing the outcome of the high-level U.S.-Russia talks Monday, with a tone of self-congratulation (we told you so), tinged with wishful thinking.

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 Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) concludes that the full responsibility for the dangerous crisis unfolding in Ukraine has its genesis in the illegal policies of the U.S./EU/NATO “Axis of Domination” beginning in 2014. As the corporate press presents a one-sided presentation of event in Ukraine as part of a massive propaganda effort to mobilize public opinion to support the reckless positions of the Biden administration, BAP believes that the public must be presented with a counternarrative of the chronology of events in Ukraine. BAP National Organizer; Ajamu Baraka summarizes some of those events: 

“During the latter part of 2013 until February 2014, the Obama/Biden administration gave material support and encouragement to anti-democratic right-wing elements in Ukraine to execute “regime change” against the democratically elected government of Victor Yanukovych. This plunged Ukraine into crisis because substantial sectors of Ukrainian society did not support the coup, especially sections of predominantly Russian speaking Ukrainian citizens in the Eastern portions of the nation. Those Ukrainian citizens rejected the legitimacy of the coup government and began to voice support for independence from the neo-Nazi government that took power. And what was the response from the illegal coup regime? It attacked their citizens in the East. In other words, they attacked their own citizens – a crime that the Obama administration pretended was the excuse for U.S. subversion in Syria. “

The conflict that ensued as a result of the invasion of Eastern Ukraine by the Ukrainian government with the full support of right-wing paramilitary forces like the neo-Nazi Azon battalions, did not succeed in forcing the republics that subsequently referred to themselves as the Donbas Peoples’ Republic to submit to the coup government.  An agreement between Donbas and the coup government was arrived at that became known as the Minsk II agreement. Terms of the agreement included a commitment to a ceasefire along with relative autonomy for Donbas. The agreement avoided all-out war and provided some degree of “stability” until the Biden administration came back to power.

Back in power, Biden and the democrats who have now become the party of war, begin to encourage Ukraine authorities to ignore Minsk and to forcefully take back control of Donbas. Even more dangerously, the U.S. and some European powers began to indicate that Ukraine might be invited to become a member of NATO. That could allow NATO with its nuclear weapons to be positioned right on the borders of Russia and with its nuclear arsenal.

BAP regards NATO as an illegitimate offensive force in the service of Western imperialism. Therefore, we call on all social forces committed to peace to join us in demanding that NATO be dismantled. In the meantime, and specifically on Ukraine, BAP is calling on the international Anti-war movement to demand that the U.S. and NATO deescalate the situation. Concretely this means demanding that:

1. All parties to the conflict adhere to the provisions reflected in the Minsk II agreement

2. And that the Ukrainian situation is taken up by the United Nations Security Council, the only body by international law tasked with the responsibility to address international threats to peace – not the arbitrary and illegal activities of the United States and its allies.

The undermining of international law by the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination committed to maintaining Western imperialist hegemony by operating outside the framework of international law, is now seen by much of the non-European world as the primary threat to international peace, security, and human rights.

BAP shares that assessment and pledges to continue to oppose U.S. policies, understanding that today as it was more than fifty years ago when Dr. King first uttered these words – “the U.S. is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”

No Compromise, No Retreat!

*

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.

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.

***

Kazakhstan is amid a political crisis today after the escalation of violent protests. It is very likely the situation was exploited by foreign actors in the manner of some of the so-called “velvet revolutions”of the last few years. Such turmoils often start with protests pertaining to legitimate issues – in Kazakhstan’s case, a rise in gas prices. Not much is talked, though, about how the issue of cryptocurrencies “mining” factors into this equation – this country became last year the world’s second-largest centre for such mining. In fact, Kazakhstan’s crisis also shows us the geopolitical and strategic importance of the digital currencies’ issue.

Cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin being the most famous, are a kind of online digital currency and as such they are basically collections of binary data employed as a medium of exchange as a digital asset – that is, a fiat currency, generally speaking. The records about ownership of individual “coins”’ are stored in a digital database, and through certain transactions additional “coins” are created. Usually they are not issued by any central authority. The whole sector has raised concerns about money laundering, scams, taxation matters, and other issues, and so some regulations have been pushed by several governments especially in 2021.

In cryptocurrency networks, “mining” is the validation of transactions and also the very process by which new digital coins are created or “minted”, by updating new blocks of data to a blockchain (thereby serving the purpose of exchanging “labor” for payment). By doing so, “miners” get new cryptocoins as a reward, which decreases transaction fees and creates incentives. The labor however is performed by computers. This industry created a kind of arms race for cheaper and more efficient machines capable of running complex algorithms required for such difficult operations.

Cryptocurrency mining might appear to be a quite “abstract” issue, taking place under the sign of immateriality in the virtual or digital world but in fact it consumes large amounts of energy and thus indirectly impacts the environment and the natural resources, just like the traditional mining of minerals. It requires a lot of computer power, which means a lot of electricity – and more global emissions, for that matter, not to mention electronic waste due to the rapid obsolescence of the hardware needed.

The Chinese province of Sichuan was a major cryptocurrency mining hub, being home to several centers equipped with countless computer processors. This was so due to the large number of hydroelectric power plants there, which allow for cheaper electricity.

But things have changed. China, once a global hub for mining, quite unexpectedly banned Bitcoin mining in June 2021 and making all transactions illegal. As a result, the US became the leading ground for it. Kazakhstan embraced it, too, and cryptocurrency mining boom ensued. It grew so rapidly that already in October 2021 there were reports according to which the practice took its toll on the electricity levels in some towns. Most Kazakhstani energy is generated from fossil fuels, the country being home to coal mines which provide a cheap supply of energy.

It is not far-fetched at all to say that mega Bitcoin mining overloaded the country’s energy system and might have played a role in the current crisis. The internet shutdown during the turmoil, in its turn, has been a major blow to crypto miners: an estimated 15% of the global Bitcoin miners went offline, and Bitcoin dropped in trade below $43,000 (last Thursday) for the first time since September. This situation could generate a huge influx of crypto miners into the US and no one knows if that country can absorb it. There are concerns about bottlenecks, congestion, and host capacity, not to mention environmental concerns. So, it should become a hot topic. Meanwhile, it is about time further regulations are discussed regarding online currencies, and the internet, too.

The very topic of cryptocurrencies is part of the larger theme of digital currencies in general, including central bank (digital) currencies. These are centralized unlike most cryptocurrencies and thus allow for tax collection, the prevention of illicit activities, the avoidance of seigniorage income’s reduction plus many other advantages. Beijing may have banned Bitcoins, but it has also created its own digital currency, the cyber yuan, a kind of money that is not linked to the dollar-dominated financial system.

Different states are interested in controlling not only digital currencies, but the internet itself too, a related topic – and this is not necessarily a bad thing. The very history of the internet is intertwined with government agencies and it will always be so. Of course, the World Wide Web itself (the Internet) dates back to the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), which was established by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

In 2013, then Brazilian President Dilma Roussef wanted to route internet traffic away from Washington, in an attempt to counter American National Security Agency espionage: the bold plan involved creating an undersea fiber-optic cable system that would basically funnel all internet traffic between the South American continent and Europe, thereby bypassing entirely the US, but it did not follow through. So, in our age both the realm of digital currencies and the very realm of the internet become an arena for geopolitical dispute.

Regarding the latter, Russia for instance has already advanced towards such a goal with the development of its own (under construction) internal internet (national intranet) called RuNet, and so have other countries: much is talked about the Iranian National Information Network, the North Korean Kwangmyong network, and the so-called Chinese Great Firewall, but not so much is talked about Washington’s plans to create its own national quantum internet, as announced by the US Department of Energy, following the National Quantum Initiative Act, signed into law by then President Donald Trump in December 2018.

We live in an age of online piracy, espionage, child pornography, terrorism, hacker attacks, and sophisticated money laundering operations. In the same way the chaotic internet zone must eventually be circumscripted under the sign of law and order, digital currencies too eventually shall be further regulated. And the recent events in Kazakhstan have certainly brought attention to these themes.

*

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.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image is from Hacker Noon

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.

***

“Impasse, Deadlock” says The Washington Post describing the outcome of the high-level U.S.-Russia talks Monday, with a tone of self-congratulation (we told you so), tinged with wishful thinking.

Yes, wishful thinking. Given the very high stakes, the media is a huge part of the problem, since they keep millions in the dark about the real world and hinder progress toward reducing U.S.-Russian tensions. This should come as no surprise, since the corporate media are part – indeed the linchpin of – the MICIMATT (Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex that profiteers on war. The Post and other Establishment media are doing their level best – against growing odds – to be consistent.

Consistent: A more ‘charitable’ explanation for media misfeasance can be seen in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s dictum: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Emerson was writing about people who allow their ideas and opinions to be dictated by what they used to think. He noted that little minds are too afraid of change – even when contradictory data suggests a better, more accurate idea.

So, after Monday’s talks in Geneva, little minds at The Washington Post, for example, were happy to run this headline: Russia-U.S. talks hit impasse over NATO expansion, but Moscow says the situation is not ‘hopeless’. In my view, those little (and/or warmongering) minds miss the the significance of what just happened in Geneva. Here’s how the headline should have read: Geneva: Agreement to Discuss Where Missiles Can Be Emplaced.

As Emerson reminded us, hobgoblins don’t find it necessary to keep up on significant events. This is made still easier for U.S. media stenographers who, in normal circumstances, can rely on “The Memo” from Washington with the needed guidance. What has been abundantly clear since Dec. 25, 2021 is that “mainstream” corporate media have not been fed the guidance without which they simply do not know how to spin major stories.

They were at a loss, for example, to explain Moscow’s announcement on Dec. 25, that 10,000 Russian troops had been pulled back from areas near Ukraine. And editors who depend on credulousness among their readers/watchers apparently considered it too much of a stretch to take this one off the shelf: “There is always someone who doesn’t get the word” – this time 10,000 troops ended up going the wrong way for the ‘planned invasion’ of Ukraine.

The Dec. 30 Telephone Call

Then out of the blue came President Vladimir Putin’s urgent request for a telephone conversation with President Joe Biden. That took place on Dec. 30 and set the dates and – now we know – at least one highly important term of reference for the bilaterals yesterday in Geneva. On Dec. 30, one could only guess at the reasons behind Putin’s abrupt request, but those who took the trouble to look at the Kremlin’s immediate readout could figure it out without super-analytical skills:

[Excerpt]

On December 30, Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of the United States of America Joseph Biden. The conversation focused on the implementation of the agreement to launch negotiations on providing Russia with legally binding security guarantees, reached during their December 7 videoconference. … [at this point come a few standard, boilerplate sentences] … The presidents agreed to personally supervise these negotiating tracks, especially bilateral, with a focus on reaching results quickly. In this context, Joseph Biden emphasised that Russia and the US shared a special responsibility for ensuring stability in Europe and the whole world and that Washington had no intention of deploying offensive strike weapons in Ukraine. [Emphasis added.]

The media apparently did not get the customary guidance Memo on this, and so they ignored it. So did the pundits who feed only on mainstream media, even though Putin’s top adviser on these matters, Yuri Ushakov, immediately told the Russian media: “Biden made it clear that the US does not intend to deploy offensive strike weapons in Ukraine.”

Let It Be the US’s Idea: No Problem

According to The NY Times Monday afternoon, “The American side raised ideas about where US and Russian intermediate-range missiles are located, Ms. Sherman said, and the United States made clear that it is open to discussing “ways we can set reciprocal limits on the size and scope of military exercises and to improve transparency about those exercises.”

Earlier, we had suggested that the Biden promise to talk about locations for offensive missile emplacement was an opening “Quid” for the talks. It seems now that this turned out to be the case. In due course, one can expect a sizable Russian troop withdrawal from areas near Ukraine. (And, in all likelihood, this time corporate media will receive guidance as to how to play it.)

Wendy Sherman on the Outlook

US chief negotiator, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman gave remarks to reporters after the Monday talks: “If Russia stays at the table and takes concrete steps to de-escalate tensions, we believe we can achieve progress,” Sherman said. …Sherman also said the US told Russia that it is open to discussing the future of certain missile systems in Europe related to the former Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF).

Sherman added the US is ready to continue discussions on bilateral issues and said her Russian counterpart, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, agreed that “negotiations on complex topics like arms control cannot be completed in a matter of days or even weeks …”

Impasse, Deadlock? I don’t think so.

*

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.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

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.

***

Again in 2021, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly passed 14 resolutions aimed at criticizing Israel (and supporting the Palestinians). On every resolution, only a handful of countries (among them the USA, Canada and a sprinkle of small Pacific island nations) stood with Israel. Some others abstained.

The assembly debates the SAME (or nearly the same) motions every year, and all of them denounce Israel’s repeated violations of UN General Assembly resolutions.

Example:

• Condemning the settlements
• Affirming Palestinian right to self determination
• Rejecting Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem
• Support for Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA)

Since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the UN General Assembly has passed more resolutions criticizing Israel than ALL OTHER STATES COMBINED!!

WHY??

Palestinians: “Israeli human rights abuses are well documented”

For Palestinian activists and human rights supporters around the world, the answer is obvious.

Israeli human rights abuses of Palestinians are flagrant and well documented.

Reports from a wide range of organizations including the UN, the International Court of Justice, B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, leave no doubt that Israel’s actions deserve condemnation. Repeated reports from the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories have highlighted abuses in the West Bank, in Jerusalem and in Gaza.  Even Israeli organizations like the Association for Human Rights in Israel (ACRI) and Breaking the Silence are critical of Israeli actions. So it’s not surprising that the UN is vocal in its condemnation.

Israelis: “This is Israel bashing. Why only Israel?”

Israel’s defenders are indignant. “Why so much focus on Israel when there are many other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere whose human rights abuses are at least as bad as those in the West Bank?”, they ask. ”Surely Saudi Arabia’s public floggings and beheadings, Egypt’s feared prisons and Jordan’s secret police deserve as much criticism as Israel.”

Furthermore, point out Israel’s supporters, many of the countries voting against Israel are themselves serial human rights offenders. So why the double standard?

The underlying suspicion of course, sometimes stated, sometimes only hinted at, is that the UN applies a double standard, perhaps revealing an underlying antisemitism.

UN Resolution in December 2021, on “UNRWA”. All of Israel’s New “Abraham Accord” Partners Voted to Support UNRWA over Israeli Objections. Only 4 Countries Supported Israel. Source: UN Watch

Yet there are reasons for the special focus. Let’s explore them.

The global south: “It’s European colonialism”

There are 193 member states in the United Nations. Three quarters of them were still colonies in 1947 when the decision was made to give part of Palestine to European Jewish refugees to form a state of their own. The global south does not feel any responsibility for the Holocaust, nor does it share the European guilt. The UN General Assembly is the biggest forum where the global south gets to present its anti-colonial case to the world. It sees Israel as a prime case of European colonialism and feels justified in opposing it.

The UN perspective is clear: “Israel has obligations to the UN and the UN has obligations to the inhabitants of former Palestine”.

As the UN General Assembly stated a year ago:

“The United Nations has a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy.” 

Israel has a unique relationship to the UN. UN General Assembly resolution 181 of 1947 proposed carving a new Jewish state out of historic Palestine. It was passed by 33-13, with 10 abstentions. Israel quickly embraced UN resolution 181. Its own Declaration of Independence cites UN 181 as recognition of its right to exist.

While “awarding” 55% historic Palestine to the new Jewish State, resolution 181 also included provisions for the protection of minorities inside each of the two new states. These included:

• “No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.”
• “All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.”
• “No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (or by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes.”

But it rapidly became clear to the international community that Zionist forces had no intention of respecting many of UN’s provisions. In fact, by its Independence Day on May 14, 1948, Zionist militias had already seized more land than had been allotted under the UN plan and had driven out over 350,000 Palestinians.

The UN General Assembly responded by voting through another resolution (194) in December 1948 affirming that those refugees have the right to return and to compensation. (The vote was 35-15 with 8 abstentions.)

When Israel sought membership in the UN a few months later, it promised to respect all relevant UN resolutions. The UN was divided on whether Israel should in fact be admitted, but US and European domination of the UN awarded Israel UN membership.

But while Israel adopted the part of the UN proposal giving it a Jewish state, Israel defied the UN proposal in that it:

• Seized much more land than proposed in the partition plan (78% vs. 55% of historic Palestine)
• Took over Jaffa and seized West Jerusalem
• Expelled over 750,000 Palestinians
• Confiscated their property
• Destroyed over 400 villages
• Prevented refugees from returning
• Restricted the civil rights of the Palestinians who remained in Israel

As former General Secretary Kofi Annan said in remarks after leaving the UN in 2006, Israel’s defiance of UN provisions is a painful and festering sore for the UN.

“The failure to achieve an Arab-Israeli peace remains for the UN a deep internal wound as old as the organization itself, (…) a painful and festering sore consequently felt in almost every intergovernmental organ and Secretariat body.”

“No other issue carries such a powerful symbolic and emotional charge affecting people far from the zone of conflict.”

(Kofi Annan, Interventions (2011), p. 254)

Conclusion: both principle and posturing

The repeated UNGA votes condemning Israel and supporting the Palestinians are not based on the claim that Israel is the worst abuser of human rights in the world. There are others that are just as bad or perhaps worse.

Nor is it because the whole world is antisemitic. Many of the countries which vote to support Palestinian rights have never had any significant Jewish communities.

The fundamental reason is that Israel, a UN member, continues to ignore the commitments it made to the UN when it was admitted in 1949 and repeated UN warnings about the occupation of 1967.

But there is also a significant element of political posturing. The annual spate of UN resolutions on “The Question of Palestine” gives the global south a forum for brandishing their opposition to the effects of European colonialism. Even some rather reactionary regimes, like Saudi Arabia and the other Abrahamic Accord states, voted to support the Palestinians in the UNGA resolutions.

Politics is often a mixture of principle and posturing. But if Israel continues to ignore UN resolutions, it can expect mounting frustration in the international community and a continuation of world criticism every year at the UNGA.

*

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.

Peter Larson is Chair of the Ottawa Forum on Israel/Palestine. He blogs regularly at www.CanadatalksIsraelPalestine.ca

Featured image: The U.N. General Assembly Votes on the Partition Resolution in 1947. Public Domain. (Posted by The Center For The Humanities.)

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 recent interview, a former CIA agent reported that his country is opening a military base in Albania in order to contain China. A unit of American special forces in the Balkan country has as its main objective to stop any form of rapprochement between Tirana and Beijing, turning Albania into a mere regional satellite of Washington’s interests.

Last Friday, the US European Command (better known by the acronym, EUCOM) announced that it was establishing a new headquarters in the Balkans – a special operations unit based in Albania, which would form part of an overall US government effort to increase the capacity of Western forces to guarantee stability in that region, commonly strained by various conflicts with historical roots. The unit would be responsible for ensuring the interoperability between US and Albanian forces, as well as the strategic access to key Balkan military centers.

Commenting on the case during an interview with Sputnik, former CIA agent Ray McGovern stated that the US government decided to open a military base in the region “because they [the US] just learned that Albania is a tight ally of the Chinese Communists”. In this sense, the purpose of this new unity would be to undermine Chinese influence in the region and prevent the rapprochement between Tirana and Beijing, with little or no real interest on the part of Washington in guaranteeing stability and peace for the Balkans.

Analyzing the recent history of cooperation between China and Albania, it is really possible to see a significant increase in bilateral partnership. In a recent report by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (a pro-Western Balkan NGO), were identified at least 135 cooperation projects between China and Albania whose value exceeds US$36 million. The projects work in the most diverse areas, including high technology, computing, metallurgy, mining, energy, transport, infrastructure, security, among others. One of the projects that most dislikes the West is cooperation in technology with Huawei, a Chinese company that has been the target of conspiracy theories and fake news promoted by Washington, which accuses it of spying and stealing data in favor of Beijing.

In addition to economic cooperation, Beijing and Tirana have also expanded cultural cooperation ties, with an increase in mutual educational and scientific projects. Indeed, cultural and scientific cooperation is a key element of Chinese diplomacy, with Beijing trying to communicate with other states through the exchange of knowledge and academic professionals – and this is no different in the current Albanian case. In the same sense, it should be mentioned that the Chinese government also invests heavily in health diplomacy with the Balkan country, sending vaccines and medical equipment at low cost, which has been fundamental for Albania to deal with the new coronavirus pandemic.

All these measures are no surprise considering the Chinese project to create a global development platform for emerging nations. The search for acquiring new partners among emerging states has already become a central aspect of Chinese foreign policy, boosting cooperation projects within the scope of the Belt and Road Initiative. China is not doing any “kindness” or “charity” with this type of attitude, but a real investment: for Beijing, it is profitable that as many emerging countries as possible develop, integrating the BRI, so that in the future China can reduce part of its industrial production (fulfilling its ecological goals) and take advantage of foreign goods that will arrive in the country through the platform.

In October, Albanian President Ilir Meta and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi met at an important summit in which they emphasized the great potential of bilateral cooperation and agreed to boost international trade, with the aim of integrating Albania more and more to the BRI. It is clear that these ties have increased even more in the last three months due to this summit’s results – and this is precisely what worries Washington: the arrival of the BRI in the Balkans.

Faced with this scenario, the American attitude seems simple: to inaugurate a special forces unit in Albania in order to intimidate the Albanian government to abdicate its ties with the Asian country. The US appears to act hurriedly and is unwilling to deal with any signs of growing Chinese influence, responding at the military level to a peaceful partnership. Washington seems determined to make Tirana to conform to a role of regional satellite of American interests.

On the one hand, the American attitude seems even irrational, as it is not common for a country to open a military base abroad just to undermine economic cooperation between two other states. On the other hand, this is consistent with recent US incursions against China. Washington seems desperate to stop Chinese growth in any way possible. And for that, it is willing even to extreme attitudes like this.

In this scenario, for China, nothing changes. The Chinese international attitude usually ignores political and military factors, focusing on economic cooperation. Beijing will continue to try to integrate Tirana into the BRI and it will be up to the Albanian government to decide whether to accept foreign impositions or limit American attitudes and ensure the fulfillment of its own national strategic interests.

*

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 Science sat the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

First published on Global Research on January 1st, 2022

***

Collette Martin, a practicing nurse of seventeen years, spoke at a Louisiana Health & Welfare hearing earlier this month about what she has seen in the hospital system during the COVID pandemic.

Collette says she and her colleagues have witnessed “terrifying” reactions to the COVID shots, but their concerns about the vaccines are being ignored and dismissed.

Collete 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.

“The Majority of our nurses, nurse managers, and some doctors do not even know what VAERS is. I’ve spoken to our chief medicine managers and other nurses on why we’re not reporting to VAERS, and the most common response is: ‘What is VAERS?‘.”

As if this were not bad enough already, she then said that none of the hospitals are reporting any data, meaning that even if someone was investigating, there would be no data to investigate.

“This is not just where I work. I know many nurses, friends and other local hospitals in Southeast Louisiana that say the same thing.”

However, what she says about the potential long-term effects of the jabs is shocking.

“We are not just seeing severe acute [short term] reactions with this vaccine, but we have zero idea what any long term reactions are. Cancers, autoimmune [disorders], infertility. We just don’t know.

We are potentially sacrificing our children for fear of maybe dying, getting sick of a virus, a virus with a 99% survival rate.”

Collete concludes by saying that these vaccine side-effects are being covered up as being caused by the new variant.

“As of now, we have more children that died from the COVID vaccine than COVID itself. And then for the Health Department to come out and say the new variant has all the side effects of the vaccine reactions we’re currently seeing now.

It’s maddening, and I don’t understand why more people don’t see it. I think they do, but they fear speaking out and, even worse, being fired.”

Watch her full testimony here:

*

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 COVID World

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 went into overdrive in propagating against the short Russian-led peacekeeping operation in Kazakhstan under the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) mechanism. The Wall Street Journal speculated whether “the Crisis in Kazakhstan [was] the Rebirth of the Soviet Union” and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Friday that “one lesson of recent history is that once Russians are in your house, it’s sometimes very difficult to get them to leave.”

Blinken’s statement ended up being humiliated in yesterday’s announcement by Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev that the CSTO troop pull-out would begin on Thursday. As a whole, the withdrawal will take less than two weeks since the peacekeepers already restored order in the Central Asian country in a swift manner.

In a tit-for-tat, the Russian Foreign Ministry said on its Telegram social media channel that

“If Antony Blinken loves history lessons so much, then he should take the following into account: when Americans are in your house, it can be difficult to stay alive and not be robbed or raped.”

It is recalled that the new year began in Kazakhstan with protests over rising LPG prices, leading to a dissolved government, destruction of infrastructure and 164 people reportedly killed, including one police officer that was beheaded. Stability and peace were only restored in Kazakhstan when CSTO finally intervened. The mission was so successful that it achieved its aims in only a few days and is already being decommissioned.

Despite the success of the intervention and Blinken still obviously angered by the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Saturday statement, he said on Sunday that the US has “real questions [to Kazakhstan] about why they felt compelled to call this organization that Russia dominates.” He added that “[Kazakhstan] should be able to deal with the protests peacefully. We’re asking for clarification on that.”

This is of course hypocritical considering that Kazakhstan called upon a bloc for assistance in which it is a member of and does not need to respond to the condescending demands made by the US’ top diplomat. Blinken’s statement reeks of contradictions when we consider how the US is conducting missions and occupying areas of Syria without permission from Damascus, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan without a UN mandate, and has troops deployed in Taiwan – an island that Beijing considers a “rebel province” and is recognized as a part of “One China.”

Rather, Washington attempted to piggyback off the unrest in Kazakhstan as the North American country wields very little influence in the region, especially after last year’s troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. In this way, the US could only resort to cheap propaganda tricks as there is not much they can do on the ground to force a Color Revolution in Central Asia like they did in Eastern Europe and the southern Caucasus.

Despite the misinformation emanating from the US to demonize Russia and CSTO, Kazakh authorities announced on Wednesday that 1,678 people were detained in the past 24 hours over their alleged participation in the violence that rocked the country, the worst since Kazakhstan gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The additional 1,678 people being detained now brings the total number to about 12,000. More than 300 criminal investigations into mass unrest and assaults on law enforcement officers, including a brutal beheading, have been opened.

There is little doubt that the US would have preferred to see widespread chaos in Kazakhstan continue, especially as it would open a new pressure point on a large swathe of Russia’s border. Kazakhstan is also Russia’s main access point to the Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. By removing a Russia-friendly government, the US would block Russia from reaching the resources and markets of Central Asia.

The US believed that the crisis in Kazakhstan would be an opportunity to overthrow a Russia-friendly government and install a liberal government that would be friendly to the West, or an Islamist Emirate like Afghanistan that would be a constant source of terrorism and instability for Russia. As said though, the US wields no real influence in Central Asia, and for this reason, it is left red-faced after audaciously predicting “a return of the Soviet Union” and that “Russian troops will never leave”.

This ultimately turned out to be false.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

First published on December 16, 2021

It’s looking increasingly likely that the US Federal Reserve and the globalist powers that be will use the dramatic rising of inflation as their excuse to bring down the US financial markets and with it, crash the greatest financial bubble in history.

The enormous inflation rise since the malicious political lockdowns and the trillions of dollars in emergency spending by both Trump and Biden, coupled with the continuation of the Fed’s unprecedented near-zero interest rate policies and asset purchases of billions in bonds to keep the bubble inflated a bit longer– have set the stage for an imminent market collapse. Unlike what we are told, it is deliberate and managed.

Supply chain disruptions from Asia to normal truck transport across North America are feeding the worst inflation in four decades in the USA. The stage is set for the central banks to bring down the debt-bloated system and prepare their Great Reset of the world financial system. However this is not an issue of inflation as some mysterious or “temporary” process.

The context is key. The decision to crash the financial system is being prepared amid the far-reaching global pandemic measures that have devastated the world economy since early 2020. It is coming as the NATO powers, led by the Biden Administration, are tipping the world into a potential World War by miscalculation. They are pouring arms and advisers into Ukraine provoking a response by Russia.

They are escalating pressures on China over Taiwan, and waging proxy wars against China in Ethiopia and Horn of Africa and countless other locations.

The looming collapse of the dollar system, which will bring down most of the world with it owing to debt ties, will come as the major industrial nations go fully into economic self-destruction via their so-called Green New Deal in the EU, and USA and beyond.

The ludicrous Zero Carbon policies to phase out coal, oil, gas and even nuclear have already brought the EU electric grid to the brink of major power blackouts this winter as dependency on unreliable wind and solar make up a major part of the grid. On December 31, the “green” new German government oversees the forced closing of three nuclear power plants that generate the electricity equivalent of the entire country of Denmark. Wind and solar can in no way fill the gaps. In the USA Biden’s misnamed Build Back Better policies have driven fuel coats to record highs. To raise interest rates in this conjuncture will devastate the entire world, which seems to be precisely the plan.

The Fake US Inflation Data

Ever since the early 1970s when President Nixon asked his pal, Arthur Burns, then head of the Federal Reserve, to find a way to get rid of politically damaging consumer inflation monthly data that reflected soaring oil prices along with grain, the Fed has used what they called “core inflation” which means consumer price rises MINUS energy and food. At the time energy made up a significant 11% of inflation data. Food had a weight of 25%. Presto by 1975 a 400% OPEC rise in oil prices and a 300% global grain price rise owing to harvest failures in the Soviet region, “core inflation” fell significantly. This, despite the fact that American consumers had to pay far more for gasoline and bread. Very few real people can live without energy or food. Core inflation is a scam.

By 1975 the Burns Fed had eliminated major costs of housing and other factors leaving a Consumer Price Index that was a mere 35% of the original basket of commodities measured. By then real everyday inflation was out of control. In the real world, USA gasoline today is 58 percent more expensive than in 2020 and over the last 12 months, food prices have gone up by more than 6 percent on average. Today the US Consumer Price Index does not include the cost buying and financing houses, and also not of property taxes or home maintenance and improvement. These factors have been soaring across America in the past year. Now all that is lacking is a statement by the Fed that inflation is more alarming than they thought and required aggressive rate hikes to “squeeze inflation out of the system,” a common central bank myth made dogma under Paul Volcker in the 1970s.

The Bloated US Stock Market

Wall Street markets, today with stocks at historic bloated highs, aided by near zero Fed rates and $120 billion of monthly purchases by the Fed of bonds as well, are at a point where a policy reverse by the Fed, expected now in early 2022, could begin a panic exit from stocks to “get out while the getting is good.” That in turn will likely trigger panic selling and a snowballing market collapse that will make the recent China Evergrande real estate and stock collapse look like nothing at all.

Since the global financial crisis of September 2008, the Federal Reserve and other major central banks such as the ECB in the EU and Bank of Japan have pursued unprecedented zero interest rates and often “quantitative easing” purchases of bonds to bail out the major financial institutions and Wall Street and EU banks. It had little to do with the health of the real economy. It was about the largest bailout in history of brain dead banks and financial funds. The predictable result of the Fed and other central banks’ unprecedented policies has been the artificial inflation of the greatest speculative bubble in stocks in history.

As President, Donald Trump constantly pointed to new record rises in the S&P 500 stocks as proof of the booming economy, even though as a savvy businessman he knew it was a lie. It was rising because of the Fed zero interest rate policy. Companies were borrowing at low rates not to expand plant and equipment investment so much as to buy back their own stocks from the market. That had the effect of boosting stocks in companies from Microsoft to Dell to Amazon, Pfizer, Tesla and hundreds of others. It was a manipulation that corporate executives, owning millions of their own company shares as options, loved. They made billions in some cases, while creating no real value in the economy or the economy.

How big is today’s US stock market bubble? In October 2008 just after the Lehman crisis, US stocks were listed at a total of $13 trillion capitalization. Today it is over $50 trillion, an increase of almost 400% and more than double the total US GDP. Apple Corp. alone is $3 trillion.

Yet with massive labor shortages, lockdowns across America and huge disruptions to trade supply chains especially from China, the economy is sinking and Biden’s phony “infrastructure” bill will do little to rebuild the vital economic infrastructure of highways, rains, water treatment plants and electric grids. For millions of Americans after the 2008 housing collapse, buying stocks has been their best hope for retirement income. A stock crash in 2022 is being prepared by the Fed, only this time it will be used to usher in a real Great Depression worse than the 1930’s as tens of millions or ordinary Americans see their life savings wiped out.

Stock Buyback Game

Over the past four quarters, S&P 500 companies bought back $742 billion of their own shares. Q4 of 2021 will likely see a record increase in that number as companies rush to pump their shares ahead of a reported Biden tax on corporate stock buybacks. Since the beginning of 2012, the S&P 500 companies have bought back nearly $5.68 trillion of their own shares. This is no small beer. The dynamic is so insane that amid a Microsoft decision last month to buy back ever more shares, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella dumped over 50% of his Microsoft stock in one day. But the stock barely budged because Microsoft itself was busy buying back shares. That indicates the level of unreality in today’s US market. The insiders know it’s about to crash. Tesla’s Elon Musk just sold $10 billion of his stock, allegedly to pay taxes.

Making the stock market even more vulnerable to a panic selloff once it is clear the Fed will raise interest rates, there is nearly $1 trillion in margin debt as of data from October, debt for those buying stocks on borrowed money from their brokers. Once a major market selloff begins, likely early in 2022, brokers will demand repayment of their margin debt, so-called margin calls. That in turn will accelerate the forced selling to raise the cash calls.

Taper?

There is much discussion about when the Fed will reduce its buying of US Treasury securities as well as government-linked home mortgage bonds. That buying has been huge. Since the start of the covid pandemic hysteria in February 2020, total Federal Reserve holdings of such securities have more than doubled from $3.8 trillion to $8 trillion as of end of October 2021. That has kept home mortgage rates artificially low and fueled panic home buying as citizens realize the low rates are about to end. That the Fed calls “taper”, reducing the monthly buying of bonds to zero at the same time it raises key interest rates, a double whammy. This is huge, and blood will flow from Wall Street beginning 2022 when the Fed taper picks up momentum early in 2022 combined with raising rates.

Already in November the Fed began reducing its monthly market supporting buying. “In light of the substantial further progress the economy has made toward the Committee’s goals of maximum employment and price stability,” the FOMC declared in its recent minutes. It announced that it is decreasing the amount of Treasury and Mortgage backed securities purchases in November and December.

Since the Vietnam War era under President Lyndon Johnson, the US Government has manipulated employment data as well as inflation numbers to give a far better picture than exists. Private economist John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics, estimates that actual USA unemployment far from the reported 4.2% for November, is actually over 24.8%. As Williams further notes, “The Inflation Surge Reflects Extreme Money Supply Creation, Extreme Federal Deficit Spending and Federal Debt Expansion, Pandemic Disruptions and Supply Shortages; It Does Not Reflect an Overheating Economy.” Federal Budget Deficits are running a record $3 trillion a year with no end in sight.

Raising rates at this precarious juncture will bring down the fragile US and global financial system, paving the way for a crisis where citizens might beg for emergency relief in the form of digital money and a Great Reset. It is worth noting that every major US stock market crash since October 1929 including 2007-8, has been a result of deliberate Fed actions, disguised under the claims of “containing inflation.”

This time the damage could be epochal. In September the Washington-based Institute of International Finance estimated that global debt levels, which include government, household and corporate and bank debt, rose $4.8 trillion to $296 trillion at the end of June, $36 trillion above pre-pandemic levels. Fully $92 trillion of that is owed by emerging markets such as Turkey, China, India and Pakistan.

Rising interest rates will trigger default crises across the globe as borrowers are unable to repay. This has been deliberately created by central banks, led by the Fed, since their 2008 crisis by pushing interest rates to zero or even negative.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics.

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

“Empires rise and fall like the abdomen of God. It’s just the universe breathing.” – Wes Nisker

“The truth of the matter is that the end of the American era had come much earlier.” – Francis Fukuyama, Тhe Economist, Nov.8, 2021

History: Truman 1947. Pax Britannica is Dead! Long Live Pax Americana!

On March 12^th 1947, the 33rd President of the United States, Harry Truman, delivered a live speech to the United States Congress announcing $400 million in financial assistance to the governments of Turkey and Greece.

How did this prosaic speech, in of itself, turn out to be the most important defining geopolitical trajectory of the 20th century? Truman states three fundamental sentences:

• Quote – “Great Britain finds itself under the necessity of reducing or liquidating its commitments in several parts of the world, including Greece.”
• At this moment, the USA is the only country capable of providing financial aid: Quote – “There is no other country to which democratic Greece can turn”.
• From this moment on, US foreign policy has been radically transformed: Quote – “The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms. If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world — and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation”.

What was Truman trying to convey using this diplomatic, yet unambiguously firm tone and language?

In French royal court lexicon, his words may sound akin to: Le Roi est mort! Vive le Roi!

Truman’s 1947 speech has one essential message: Pax Britannica is dead! Long Live Pax Americana!

It is unnecessary to analyze the extent to which the tectonic rupture between the empire in which the sun never sets, Pax Britannica, and the arrival of Pax Americana has influenced the global geopolitical processes of the 20th century. An American global hegemony is an indisputable fact.

December 17, 2021

But let’s go back to December 17^th, 2021. Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs published two documents that, I would say, have the same geopolitical significance for the current 21^st century.

In a very direct tone, to put it bluntly, Russia has issued an ‘ultimatum’ (despite Putin rejecting such formulation) to the United States and NATO: if you do not accept our terms, we will be forced to use military and military-technical means.

Obviously, it is not customary to speak of a hegemon, even more so of the global hegemon, who after the collapse of the USSR triumphantly declared not only the planet ‘American’, the so-called unipolar world, but also the 21st century the “American Century”, based on the famous doctrine of the “New American Century Project”.

What, actually happened on December 17^th 2021?

In the same way that the end of the British Empire was announced to the world, on that date the end of American hegemony was publicly announced.

Russia’s proposals in these two documents are numerous, but in summary, the main pitches are as follows:

• No more NATO expansion towards Russia’s borders.
• Retraction of the 2008 NATO Invitation to Ukraine and Georgia.
• Legally binding guarantee that no strike systems which could target Moscow will be deployed in countries next to Russia.
• No NATO or equivalent (UK, U.S., Pl.) ‘exercises’ near Russian borders.
• NATO ships, planes to keep certain distances from Russian borders.
• Regular military-to-military

Please note:

• Withdrawal of US and NATO military contingents and bases from Central and Eastern Europe, maintaining military parity since 1997, before Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria are accepted as members of NATO.
• No intermediate-range nukes in Europe.

Despite the inevitable shock in Washington and NATO to the tone of Russia’s peace proposals, this time Russia has decided to cross the Rubicon and dictate its terms to the collective West – and has done so from a position of strength.

Translated into lay terms, the meaning of this ultimatum is: meet “the new sheriff in town” either in a peaceful way, by meeting with Foreign Minister Mr. Lavrov, or in the painful way, as has already been expressed figuratively and unequivocally by an influential foreign policy analyst, by “meeting with Mr. Iskander, Mr. Caliber, Mr. Kinjal and Mr. Zircon”.

Is such a threat exaggerated?

The answer is probably not!

According to the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and First Deputy Minister of Defense General Valery Gerasimov, warned that  the confrontation will not be verbal which sentiment was echoed by the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko who bluntly said on Solovyov Live YouTube channel. “The moment of truth has come“

Such a tone would be completely unthinkable for Washington if we exclude the time of the 1962 Caribbean crisis, much less coming from a “gas station”, as the late Senator John McCain, described Russia. But this time, it seems, Washington is willing to negotiate.

Why?

Let us recall the categorical statement of the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Grushko:

“We only make it clear that we are ready to talk about the transition from a military or military-technical scenario to a political process that will strengthen security in all countries. The OSCE area, the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian regions. If that doesn’t work, we’ve signaled to them [NATO] that we’ll move on to creating counter-threats as well, but then it will be too late to ask us why we made these decisions and why we deployed these systems.“

The possibility of a new deployment of weapons systems, including hypersonic weapons, threatening the United States not only from Russia but also from Belarus, the Arctic, the Atlantic (including the Gulf of Mexico) and the Pacific would force the United States to seriously rethink these proposals. Why? One possible explanation… is the insufficiency of 5 minutes required to destroy strategic sites on US territory, including Washington, given the speed of the new Russian hypersonic attack systems: Zircon – Mach 9 (9,800-11,025 km / h or 3 km per second) and the Avangard 20-27 Mach (30,000 km / h or 8.5 km per second).

It should be noted that the new generation of hypersonic systems does not address the sole challenge of the new geopolitical reality that Washington should address at this time.

The China-Russia Alliance: “Rock Solid”

In addition, there is one particularly significant, unavoidable factor, which should not be ignored – China. Days before the publication of Russia’s ultimatums, Chinese President Xi Zing Ping described relations with Russia using a particularly enigmatic diplomatic lexicon: “We (understand) (Russia and China) are much more than allies“.

Whatever truly lies behind this statement, the Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijiang of China described relations between the two countries as “rock solid”.

In this sense, the United States will have to respond to the Russian ultimatum given the Moscow-Beijing axis – i.e. the absolute nightmare of the parent of modern geopolitics Halford Mackinder,  according to whom the only obstacle to global hegemony of the “collective West” is the creation of a union of two major Eurasian colossus – Russia and China.

It remains to be seen how the United States will accept this new geopolitical reality.

*

Prof. Ivalyo Grouev is a prominent author and geopolitical analyst, teaches political science at the University of Ottawa. 

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 author

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 are the latest COVID trends, following on from the COVID trends summarized in August, September, October, November and December last year in 2021. The news is a mix of good and bad, with COVID tyranny continuing but with more and more truth coming to light. Although some US courts are ruling in pro-freedom ways, the current mentality of some US Supreme Court judges leaves a lot to be desired. This month’s report features some of the deeper aspects of the NWO (New World Order) COVID operation: depopulation and microchipping. Here are the 13 current COVID trends as of January 2022.

COVID Trend #1: Depopulation Becomes Apparent? Life Insurance CEO says Mortality Rates for Working Age People Increased by 40%

In yet another moment when conspiracy theory became conspiracy fact (as been happening all the time since the COVID scamdemic began), people were shocked to learn that the mathematics is showing the reality of the depopulation agenda. After all, insurance companies are in the business of accurate mortality data. The CEO of OneAmerica, Scott Davison, announced that death rates for people aged 18-64 had increased by 40%:

“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica … The data is consistent across every player in that business … Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic. So 40% is just unheard of.”

OneAmerica is not a small player in the life insurance industry. It brings in about 2 billion dollars in revenue annually and it has been around for more than 140 years:

“OneAmerica is a major insurance company located in Indianapolis with annual revenue of around $2 billion and total assets of around $74 billion. This is not a fly-by-night internet “insurance” company. OneAmerica is the real deal, selling both individual and group life insurance, and it has data and actuarial tables that go back 145 years.”

The first-linked article actually states that “most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths” which lets the cat out of the bag.

This echoes the predictions of doctors like Dr. Michael Yeadon and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi who stated that the COVID vax would result in genocide or mass murder. Of course, the NWO (New World Order) controllers and architects of the scamdemic would have wargamed and simulated this scenario out.

They would have known very well this would happen.

They would have known that this scenario of mass death would eventuate, and they would have also known that many of these deaths would be attributed to different causes, thereby sparing the COVID fake-vaccine from blame. If someone gets a stroke from the COVID vax while driving and then crashes the car, it would be a traffic fatality. If someone loses their balance and falls off a ladder or down the stairs to die of head injuries, the vax would escape liability. If an athlete dies unexpectedly on the pitch or court, it could be chalked up to something else.

This entire sad and shocking scenario, unfolding right before our eyes, had been baked into the cake. Just how far it will go is still anyone’s guess. However, depopulation is only one of the agendas here, and I would suggest that the transhumanist agenda, i.e. the agenda to make a slave class of machine-like and controllable citizens, is a more prominent motivator for the NWO criminals than the desire to kill everyone. I would suggest that, to the NWO, those who don’t survive the clot shot and the transforming of their genes are more like collateral damage, eugenic weaklings, useless eaters and/or cannon fodder for the ultimate agenda.

COVID Trend #2: Company is Already Selling a COVID Passport Microchip

The article Covid passport microchip developer says chipping humans is happening “whether we like it or not” reports how a Swedish company Dsruptive Subdermals has developed a microchip installed under the skin that can be scanned to reveal COVID vaccination status. It quotes Hannes Sjobald, the company’s managing director, who spoke to Express:

“This technology exists and is used whether we like it or not.

I am happy that it is brought into the public conversation.

New technologies must be broadly debated and understood.

Smart implants are a powerful health technology.

That is what we are building at Dsruptive and our goal is to transform healthcare on a global scale.”

Sjobald said the technology makes the vaccine passports more “accessible.”

“This means it is always accessible for me or for anyone else, really, who wants to read me.

For example, if I go to the movies or go to a shopping center, then people will be able to check my status even if I don’t have my phone.”

Sweden seems to have been chosen as the place to first roll out human microchipping agenda. The fact that the COVID agenda has helped advance this more sinister, longstanding agenda is highly disturbing. This underscores the gravity of the situation humanity is in as 2022 begins and people worldwide fight for their rights and freedom.

COVID Trend #3: Some Nations Roll Out Digital Tech Combining State ID, Driver’s License and COVID Vaccine Status

The microchip or nanochip is the end goal, but there are stepping stones along the way. The COVID plandemic has always just been the vehicle for the NWO technocrats to push forward their deeper agendas. Chief among these is the all-encompassing social credit system with one system or form of ID that tells officials everything about you, including your so-called health status (not that these sociopaths have any idea what true health is). This article reveals that Greece is poised to introduce a full mobile version of its digital ID/driver’s license. This COVID trend is occurring worldwide.

COVID Trend #4: Numerous US Federal Officials Make Stunning Admissions that Contradict the Official Narrative

As the new year starts, some federal officials have made some surprising and embarrassing admissions which contradict the official narrative. Teleprompter-in-chief Joe Biden admitted that there was no federal solution to COVID, thus confirming the limitation of the US Federal Government to try to force things like vaccine mandates onto Americans.

Vaccine pusher-in-chief Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted that the mandates were just a mechanism to get more people vaccinated. Another vaccine pusher, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, admitted that the reason the CDC recently changed the quarantine period from 10 days to 5 days was that they thought people would tolerate it more. Hmmm … weren’t all these measures supposed to be based on science, not how much tyranny people would endure? Walensky also admitted that 75% of COVID deaths occurred in people with at least 4 comorbidities. Did you catch that? Talk about letting the cat out of the bag.

The CDC also just admitted that PCR positive results could last up to 12 weeks, way after supposed infection. The PCR technique was the standard used by governments worldwide to declare an emergency and a pandemic. It also led of course to the phenomenon of the casedemic. With the CDC now in 2022 withdrawing its request (to the FDA) for an EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) for the COVID PCR “test,” this essentially means the CDC is no longer endorsing the validity of the PCR technique as a legitimate COVID diagnostic tool. Based on this, it may be possible for more lawsuits pushing back against the tyranny to be successful. Patrick Wood writes:

“So, the CDC is pulling the experimental RT-PCR test while telling clinicians to find “authorized COVID-19 diagnostic methods” instead.You don’t need to be a PhD, MD or epidemiologist with a peer-reviewed study to figure this out. In fact, you don’t need any medical expertise whatsoever.

An unapproved experimental testing diagnostic was used to trick people into taking unapproved experimental mRNA injections.”

Here are the current list of tests the FDA approves for “COVID” (whatever you think that is): diagnostic tests (molecular tests and antigen tests), serology/antibody tests and tests for management of COVID patients. There is potential for there to be just as much fakery with the serology/antibody tests as with PCR, unfortunately: the exact same result could be interpreted differently, and antibodies are not a true measure of immunity.

COVID Trend #5: Authorities Intensify their Vitriol against the Unvaxxed

Another noticeable COVID trend of late has been the increasing tendency of those in power to dehumanize the unvaccinated – a trend I warned about in my February 2021 article The COVID Cult and the 10 Stages of Genocide. In that article, I discussed how a group of people could gradually be made the enemy of the state through isolation, discrimination, dehumanization and (eventual) murder. The rhetoric of 2 politicals leaders – French President Macron and Canadian PM Trudeau – is extremely disturbing, as is that of a German police officer.

Macron recently said that he really wants to piss the unvaccinated off and make life difficult for them. He actually said that “when my freedom threatens that of others, I become irresponsible. An irresponsible person is no longer a citizen,” which could imply that he thinks governments should regard the unvaccinated as non-citizens, or that he proposes stripping people of citizenship if they refuse to comply with vaccine mandates. Trudeau asked whether the unvaccinated should be tolerated. In Germany, a police officer called unvaccinated people indirect killers and said they were not human! This kind of rhetoric is not simply judgemental and aggressive; it is indicative of a mass hypnosis and psychosis I discussed in previous articles.

COVID Trend #6: Freudian Slips – Authorities Get a Little Too Honest

Those paying close attention to the words of our misleaders can sometimes find some startling admissions. The most recent egregious example was WHO head Tedros who admitted that “it’s better to focus on those groups who have risk of severe diseases and death, rather than as we see some countries are using to give boosters to kill children, which is not right.” His English is a little wobbly, but his meaning is clear enough. Why would he say that the COVID boosters kill children?

COVID Trend #7: Bills Introduced that, If Passed, Would Authorize Health Officers to Arrest and Detain the Unvaxxed

There are several proposed New York State (although A416 has now been stricken probably due to public outcry) and Washington State Bills which, if passed, would allow the State (via techniques like giving the Health Officer sheriff-like powers) to “involuntarily detain” unvaccinated people. In the case of Washington State, it would authorize a “strike force” to enter people’s homes. To say these kind of bills are unconstitutional and outrageous is a gross understatement. They absolutely gut the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments, among many others, and proceed on the assumption of guilty until proven innocent per the new bioterrorism model.

COVID Trend #8: Shocking Number of Athlete Heart Attacks

According to this article, as of January 2022, there have been 405 athlete cardiac arrests and 237 athletes who have died after COVID shot – an unprecedented pattern in the history of sport. How many more athletes need to die (which is very conspicuous after all) before more people put 2 and 2 together?

COVID Trend #9: More Research Shows Vaccines Ruin the Immune System Permanently

“You probably heard that the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Friday regarding the federal government’s vaccine mandate. Specifically, Hunter Biden’s dad told the Occupational Safety Health Administration, which regulates workplace safety, to require businesses across America with more than 100 employees to mandate vaccines in the workplace, or masking/testing. This order was almost immediately challenged, and the case was heard in two separate federal courts. One court ruled in favor of an injunction, the other ruled against it. And so the case landed rather quickly in front of the US Supreme Court …I listened to the entire 4+ hours of audio over the weekend, and frankly some of the Justices’ remarks were simply ridiculous. First, it’s worth pointing out that everyone in the room had to produce a negative COVID test before being allowed to enter. Everyone present was double vaccinated, and most were boosted. And almost everyone was wearing a mask. Yet Justice Sotomayor still refused to be in the room. She phoned it in from her private office down the hall. Clearly it doesn’t matter what protocols are in place; this person has chosen to be terrified no matter what. And unsurprisingly her remarks smacked of fear, paranoia, and ignorance. Sotomayor stated that, for example, that “over 100,000” children are in serious condition, i.e. hospitalized, “many on ventilators”. This is 100% patently false. Even the CDC had to refute her comments. Nevertheless, Sotomayor thinks that the OSHA mandate is a great idea and will save lives. Therefore she seems to have no problem with it, regardless of the legality. She even concluded that since Congress isn’t willing to pass a law requiring a nationwide vaccine mandate, that OSHA should do it.

Similarly, Justice Breyer was practically exasperated in citing all the death statistics and case numbers, and wondered how in the world could anyone possibly be against the OSHA order? Justice Kagan chimed in stating that “we all know” that OSHA has put forth “the best policy”. Apparently she speaks for all of us. These are all extraordinary comments. And their general nature was that these Justices like the OSHA mandate, therefore they’re in favor of it. This is a gross, despicable violation of their most sacred responsibility. Their personal opinion about the OSHA order is not relevant. The only thing that matters is whether or not it’s legal.”

Meanwhile, lower federal court judges have delivered some good results recently, including a judge who rejects the FDA’s proposed 75 year delay on vax data by ordering them to release all of it in 8 months.

COVID Trend #13: US Federal Court Decisions Uphold Religious Exemption

Another important COVID trend is the upholding of the religious exemption to the vaccine. Religious exemptions, like medical and philosophical exemptions, have been repeatedly under attack even before the scamdemic. Recently, a US Federal Judge ruled in favor of unvaccinated Navy SEALs and blocked the Pentagon from punishing them.

Final Thoughts: Remain Sane in an Insane World

I have often heard people over the years talk about the importance of being or remaining free in an unfree world, and giving advice on how to do that. I agree, but in today’s world, I would take it one step further: we need to remain sane in an insane world. The idea of mass formation psychosis (as discussed in previous articles months ago), that has developed since the scamdemic began, has began to spread. People are getting used to the idea that the world at large has been hypnotized. The key here is to remain sane by being aware of all the insanity that could penetrate your consciousness. This is no mean feat. However, unlike a supposed killer virus, sanity is contagious. The more people that can do this, the more it will spread to others.

*

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 Freedom Articles.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and Odysee/LBRY.

Sources

https://www.thecentersquare.com/indiana/indiana-life-insurance-ceo-says-deaths-are-up-40-among-people-ages-18-64/article_71473b12-6b1e-11ec-8641-5b2c06725e2c.html

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/01/people_are_dying_but_not_the_ones_you_think_for_the_reasons_you_think.html

https://reclaimthenet.org/covid-microchip-developer-says-chipping-humans-is-happening/

https://www.activistpost.com/2022/01/greece-to-introduce-full-mobile-version-of-digital-id-driving-licenses.html

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=62766

https://summit.news/2021/12/28/video-fauci-admits-mandates-are-just-a-mechanism-to-get-more-people-vaccinated/

https://kvia.com/coronavirus/2021/12/29/cdc-director-says-what-we-thought-people-would-tolerate-was-factor-in-quarantine-decision/

https://www.kusi.com/cdc-director-75-of-covid-deaths-occurred-in-people-with-at-least-four-comorbidities/

https://letsgobrandonews.org/cdc-director-walensky-says-testing-at-the-end-of-quarantine-no-longer-needed-because-pcr-tests-can-stay-positive-for-up-to-12-weeks-video/

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html

https://www.technocracy.news/rt-pcr-test-loses-fda-emergency-use-authorization-on-january-1-2022/

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics-euas

https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-antibody-tests-here-comes-more-trickery-fakery/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/antibodies-dont-equal-immunity-antibody-protection-paradigm/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/covid-cult-and-the-10-stages-of-genocide/

https://www.thelocal.fr/20220104/macron-causes-stir-as-he-vows-to-pss-off-frances-unvaccinated/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/w4AZQumOXTZj/

https://twitter.com/apexworldnews/status/1469991786886184960

https://thefreedomarticles.com/mass-hypnosis-psychosis-initiation-ritual-covid-cult/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ldl7RHyn1R9r/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/CJAIlBEQmCOk/

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a416

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/01/bill-filed-washington-authorize-strike-force-involuntarily-detain-unvaccinated-families-already-set-internment-camps/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/new-war-on-bioterror-everyone-suspected-carrier/

https://goodsciencing.com/covid/athletes-suffer-cardiac-arrest-die-after-covid-shot/

https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/05/covid-19-vaccines-damage-the-immune-system-permanently/

https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/02/german-gov-data-suggests-fully-vaccinated-developing-ade/

https://www.worldtribune.com/triple-vaxxed-face-masked-face-shielded-lloyd-austin-tests-positive-for-covid/

https://thefreedomarticles.com/being-fully-vaccinated-is-endless-destination-definition-trickery/

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/keeping-shots-date-replaces-fully-vaccinated-dr-fauci-says

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=62791

https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/last-friday-was-a-supreme-example-of-a-superpower-in-decline-34241/

https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/instead-of-fdas-requested-500-pages

https://thefreedomarticles.com/mandatory-vaccine-agenda-repeal-religious-philosophical-exemptions/

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/judge-backs-seals-vax-mandate-loss-religious-liberties-outweighs-any-forthcoming-harm-navy

Featured image is from NOQ Report

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.

***

Bribery is one of the serious factors hindering effective development of a state and is a huge social threat. How do those who deal with public finances on an everyday basis fight it?

Developing anti-bribery mechanisms becomes a significant and urgent problem in the development of modern society and the State. At that, the international community sees readiness to effectively combat it as a key indicator of civility and commitment to democratic values.

With this in mind, and given the growing popularity of anti-bribery programmes focusing on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, many countries are opting for greater protection in this area. The effective implementation of an anti-bribery course depends on many factors and touches on all areas, including the selection of reliable quality standards and trustworthy suppliers. This case concerns public authorities and their suppliers as well. Often, they deal with public money on a regular basis, which increases their risk of bribery. How exactly do they put anti-bribery measures into practice?

Complexity that pays off

One of the recognized benchmarks here is ISO 37001, the international standard for anti-bribery management systems. It prevents, detects and combats bribery and covers the issue in the public, private and non-profit sectors, including bribery by an organization or its suppliers. One of the distinguishing aspects of ISO 37001 is the difficulty of passing it: to be certified, an organization must show an implemented set of anti-bribery measures.

Thus, the Peruvian government had to introduce a range of measures to adopt the standard and make it work: a number of training programmes for both public- and private-sector stakeholders was carried, and a working group was established. “We have engaged government authorities and private institutions interested in implementing an anti-bribery system and their response has been most positive,” says Rosario Uría Toro, Director of the National Peruvian Directorate of Standardization. It turned out that the efforts paid off: the standard was introduced in late 2017, and the country’s Corruption Index by Transparency International has been climbing up ever since.  

The difference that will be noticed

The complexity of passing the test looks scary for many: “These [arguments against the certification] include the cost, the burdensome internal processes, and of course the burning question at the end of it all: What difference will an ISO certification make in the eyes of law enforcement?” asks the Basel Institute of Governance, offering an intra-industrial collective action initiative for the fiduciary industry instead.

Bank Al-Maghrib, the Central Bank of Morocco, disagrees. The institution has been ISO 37001 certified back in 2019, and, while the certification process should have been quite a challenge for the weighty and large organization, they carried it well. What is most important, the effort was highly regarded by the country’s law enforcement and overseeing agencies, such as the national anti-corruption agency, the authority regulating capital markets and the authority regulating the insurance sector. A praise like this definitely eliminates the question of difference posed above.

Public sector suppliers, and namely, suppliers in the financial sector, also recognise the importance of independent certification. For instance, French security printer Oberthur Fiduciaire opted for ISO standards even though it had already had other intra-industry certifications, such as the ECB certificate: “The ISO standards we have put in place, whether in terms of quality, respect of the environment, safety or the fight against corruption, with ISO 37001 for example, are, in my opinion, much more relevant arguments than any statements that we could make,” said Thomas Savare, CEO of the company. The fact that Oberthur is trusted by more than 70 central banks worldwide only confirms the high level of ISO certificates and their holders.

Reinforcing integrity

Speaking of trust, this is the last but not the least issue to be touched upon. ISO 37001 contains mandatory requirements and implies firm commitment of top chiefs. In this way, certification provides assurance to all concerned that the organisation is making every reasonable effort to avoid bribery. The voluntary nature of the certification only underlines the commitment and intention to cooperate in good faith, says the Government of Québec, which has also adopted the standard to be double sure : “In recent years, the government has put several measures in place to reinforce the integrity of public contracts… This pilot project [ISO 37001 certification – ed.] is another action aiming to keep Québec at the forefront of best practices.”  

Bribery is still a burning issue. Its risks vary across sectors and are particularly high in the financial industry, where organisations deal daily with money, one of the most powerful instruments of influence in human history.

Under these circumstances, anti-bribery measures become an essential factor in assessing the integrity and reliability of a public authority and its suppliers, and actions taken in this regard become a measure of trustworthiness. At the same time, the careful selection of a yardstick is important, which is why those public sectors and suppliers who want to show that their money is well-managed opt for the most reliable standards, such as ISO 37001.

*

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 Pix4Free.org

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Pfizer is making headlines again after the CEO of the controversial company Albert Bourla made a recent statement about the efficiency of the COVID shot. 

He recently said in a video that’s all over Twitter that two shots of the covid vaccine offer limited protection against covid 19, “if any.”

Check out the relevant tweet below:

Pfizer CEO: “Two doses of the vaccine offers very limited protection, if any. 3 doses with a booster offer reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths. Less protection against infection.”@US_FDA -Come get your boy!

pic.twitter.com/PPRJjbyKjY

— Tyler Carditis (@TyCardon) January 10, 2022

The controversial video triggered massive backlash considering the fact that back in 2021, the CEO of Pfizer was claiming that the vaccine his company created in 100% effective in preventing covid 19 cases. The has been taken off Twitter, but you can still see it on this website.

Check out his tweet from April 2021:

Excited to share that updated analysis from our Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing #COVID19 cases in South Africa. 100%! https://t.co/E2ksTJSopU

— Albert Bourla (@AlbertBourla) April 1, 2021

The internet is filled with a lack of trust these days, after such contracting affirmations.

New Omicron Pfizer vaccine will soon be out 

Earlier today, we revealed that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla on Monday said two doses of the company’s vaccine may not provide strong protection against infection from the Omicron Covid variant.

More than that, it’s been also revealed that the original shots have also lost some of their efficacy at preventing hospitalization.

He also stated the following:

“The third dose of the current vaccine is providing quite good protection against deaths, and decent protection against hospitalizations.”

He also made sure to explain the fact that this variant of the virus is a more difficult target than previous variants.

“Omicron, which has dozens of mutations, can evade some of the protection provided by Pfizer’s original two shots.”

FDA and Pfizer controversy

There has been a massive scandal involving the fact that the FDA asked for 75 years to produce Pfizer vaccine safety data. Now, it seems that things are changing, and you should check out the latest reports on the issue below.

It’s been just reported that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will have eight months — not the 75 years it requested — to release all documents related to the licensing of Pfizer’s Comirnaty covid vaccine. This is what a federal judge ruled a few days ago.

Also, make sure to check out the latest scandal involving the virus as we revealed earlier today. And take a look at an extremely interesting interview that Joe Rogan had with the mRNA inventor, Robert Malone. 

*

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.

Passionate about subjects from the science and health-related areas, Rada has been blogging for about ten years and at Health Thoroughfare, she’s covering the latest news on these niches.

Featured image is from Health Thoroughfare

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.

***

 

Kazakhstan reminds me of Armenia (September 2015), also energy price increases, Georgia (April 2009), opposition attempting to force pro-Russian President Mikheil Saakashvili from power; and even to some extent of Ukraine (2014) – Maidan riots supposedly because then President Viktor Yanukovych lured into negotiations with Europe for an association agreement with the European Union, behind which was – who else – NATO. The majority of Ukrainians had no idea about these ongoing negotiations and their background. So, the riots were planned by long hand and had nothing to do with the short-cut EU negotiations. Talks were eventually interrupted when Yanukovych received assurance from Russia for a “better deal”.

That’s when hell broke out on 21 February 2014 and the Maidan massacre took place. Its violent destruction was disproportionate to the cause. Western hired mercenaries were behind the merciless killing. The Maidan massacre murdered some 130 people, including some 18 policemen. That’s when it became clear – another Color Revolution was being instigated by the west and always, but always with NATO in the back.  NATO’s goal, was setting up one or several bases in Ukraine, the closer to Moscow, the better.

Just for the record, the 1991 agreement between Europe and the new Russia, stipulated that there would be no new NATO bases further to the east (of Berlin), was never respected by the west. That’s why President Putin is drawing red lines, and rightly so.

Perhaps, one of the first such Color Revolutions in recent history was Serbia, when in early 2000 Serbian youth chanted “Slobo, Save Serbia! Slobo Save Serbia!” Later that year, a “reform-minded” foreign-funded and trained group of young people infiltrated the Serbian pro-Milosevic youth and brought Milosevic, the president loved by most Serbs, to fall in October 2000. He was arrested immediately shipped to the ICC prison in The Hague where he awaited trial for highest treason and crimes against humanity, which he did not commit.

His lawyers accumulated enough proof for Milosevic to demonstrate that the west was behind this Color Revolution – and, indeed, the total dismantling of former Yugoslavia. If these documents would become known to the Court, the ICC, one of the most important interferences and destruction of a country in recent history would shed an irrevocable light on the crimes of the west, at that time by President Clinton et al. So, Milosevic had to be “neutralized’. On March 11, 2006, he was found dead in his prison cell, a so-called suicide. This, despite the fact that since June 2001, he was on constant suicide watch.

Well, these are the stories of Armenia, Georgia and Serbia – but back to Kazakhstan, which resembles in many details these preceding so-called Color Revolution stories. NATO having been unsuccessful under Russia’s strict red line – to advance further toward Moscow in Ukraine, or before in Belarus, is trying now on the southern front, with Kazakhstan.

This is clearly an attempted coup, no longer just protests about a gas price hike. It was engineered by the west – see this interview on Kazakhstan crisis of Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos with Kevork Almassian (video 46 min. 6 January 2022).

No chance of success with this new coup attempt – just more propaganda for the west.

President Putin will never allow these former Soviet republics to slide into the power base of the west, of NATO, especially now, since it is well known that over 90% of the population of all these former Soviet Republics want to stay firmly in Russia’s orbit.

The repeated protest pattern in Serbia, Armenia, Georgia, Belarus, and now in Kazakhstan are clearly indicative of western / NATO pressure to destabilize Russia and, ideally, so they keep dreaming since WWII – bring Russia into the “western influence base” – call it slavehood. In several of these cases the base reason for riots were massive energy price hikes, were just a pretext to heavy violent interference by western mercenaries under the guidance of NATO.

Never forget NATO is always the powerbase behind these moves, because the end game is one or several NATO bases in the countries they are trying to putsch. Yet, it doesn’t seem to be very smart, as the west ought to know that none of these former Soviet Republics will betray Russia – almost all the people, including all the higher-level politicians, want to remain firmly in Russia’s zone of influence. Kiev was an exception. Kiev since WWII has been a Nazi stronghold, something that doesn’t apply to the rest of Ukraine.

In Kazakhstan, after what appears as local rather peaceful riots, violent elements were introduced from “outside”, in the form of well-trained almost para-military protesters, out to kill. It is what has become known as an attempted “Color Revolution”.

In Kazakhstan the death toll far exceeds 30, including 18 policemen, at least two of whom were decapitated. Hundreds have been injured. While according to Kazakh President Tokayev, constitutional order was largely restored last Friday, 7 January, unrest continues and nearly 4000 people were arrested. The extreme violence took over government buildings and burnt them down; the airport was occupied. The level of violence was way disproportionate for a gas price hike. Clearly other motives are at stake.

The vast majority of the 19 million Kazakhs have not taken to the streets, because of the gas price increase, which was not as dramatic as the western mainstream media has you believe. The majority lives in rural areas and avoids violence.

These latest Kazakh upheavals could also be called a below-the-belt NATO approach to destabilize Russia, since NATO seems to have failed in Ukraine. In other words, undermining Russia’s position on Ukraine.

During the weekend, China’s President Xi Jinping called Kazakh President Tokayev, hinting at US interference, assuring Tokayev that China is backing Russia. He is also pledging direct support to Kazakhstan. See this Xi Jinping Calls Kazakh Pres Tokayev, Hints at US Interference, Backs Russia, Pledges Support.

Russian President Vladimir Putin held talks with member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) on Friday. Peacekeepers from Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan were deployed to Kazakhstan earlier last week. President Tokayev was saying they would stay “for a limited period of time” to support the local security forces.

Russia’s Ministry of Defense later clarified that the CSTO forces have also been tasked with the protection of important facilities and key infrastructure and were not supposed to participate in “operational and combat” activities. The EU, a typical undecided hypocritical agent, also offered the bloc’s assistance to help resolve the crisis with several countries calling on both the protesters and government forces to refrain from violence.

Yeah, right: calling on both parties to refrain from violence, when in fact the violent element was introduced clearly by NATO members, most of whom are Europeans. Once again, the trustworthiness of Europe is down the pits. All it will do is appease some ignorant western, mostly European citizen with a massive flood of pro-western propaganda.

The question in the room is – why Russian and Kazakh governments’ special services did not foresee this type of “Color Revolution” coming, especially after Russia’s drawing a red line on Ukraine? And after the west had lost her coup attempt in Belarus? Is it possible that the Ukraine distraction – hyped up by the western media with constant threats of a nuclear WWIII scenario – diverted President Putin’s attention from other vulnerable attack areas, such as Kazakhstan? And possibly Belarus? The latter is currently quiet. But to an outside eye, it looks like a temporary calm. And Ukraine is far from over.

As long as Russia is running after the problem, rather than taking an offensive surprise lead, Putin may remain in a defensive bind. Reacting, rather than being pro-active. That’s always a disadvantage and may deserve strategic rethinking.

Just imagine what a pro-active surprise move might be. For example, Russia setting up a military base in Mexico. And why not? Russia would certainly have the stature and standing in terms of a friendly relation with Mexico to do so. It would be a game changer. It would put a different spin on world geopolitics. Why not give it a try by starting talks with AMLO, Mr. Lopez Obrador, Mexico’s President.

The west’s / NATO’s intent has been since the 1990s to separate Kazakhstan from the orbit of the former Soviet Union and today’s Russia. So far unsuccessfully, for the reasons pointed out before. Kazakhstan exports 30% to and imports 60% from Russia and China. Today more than ever Kazakhstan is part of the Eurasian alliance. It is a de facto integrated nation and one in close partnership.

The Russians and Kazakhs have learned from Ukraine. It didn’t take President Kassym-Jomart Kemelevich Tokayev long to request assistance from Russia; and it didn’t take long for President Putin to respond, through the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO – Eurasian security organization; members: Russia (de facto leader), Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan).

The first Russian troops are already arriving in Almaty go help bring the situation under control. In addition to the CSTO troops, Russia is also sending air force troops to counter the militants. Chances are that his will not become a new Kiev, where Assistant Foreign Minister Victoria Nuland, so eloquently said “f*ck Europe!” since the US had already spent 10 million dollars over the past years to prepare this coup.….

What we see in Kazakhstan are very well trained and armed militants – not peaceful protesters, as would have been the case when protests started over gas price increases – it is clear that peaceful protesters do not take over government buildings and airports, they do not shoot police officers to kill – this is clearly foreign intervention.

Time will tell whether the CSTO troops will be able to stop the violence, or whether Russian troops need to be dispatched – and a new “red line” needs to be drawn by Moscow.

It is amazing – and sad – to watch how Europe plays along, letting NATO troops eventually ravaging the European territory – when Russia interferes. Only brainless European leaders (sic) will allow NATO playing war games that could turn anytime “hot” – hot again on the territories of Europe.

That’s what the European Union has become. She is led by an unelected lady, Madame Ursula von der Leyen, formerly Germany’s Defense Minister, but more importantly and much less visibly, she is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum. We know who calls the shots over the European Union – and most of the viciously dictatorial leaders (sic) of the EU member countries, stripped of their sovereignty are scholars from Klaus Schwab’s special courses for “Young Global Leaders”. This also applied for the most covid-tyrannical heads of states around the world.

They shall not prevail.

Back to Kazakhstan. The same people who scare (mostly) the western people to death for a virus that has never been isolated and identified, are also behind destroying Russia and China.

If they were to succeed in Kazakhstan – they would have managed to weaken Russia considerably and the next step would most likely be, NATO’s ignoring Moscow’s red line on Ukraine and with the aim of arming Ukraine and making it eventually a NATO country.

This is however still unlikely because Putin then would not hesitate invading Ukraine through the Donbass area, not hesitating in defending Russia’s interests. NATO and the US know that they have no chance against Russia’s newest defense systems. Would they let it happen and letting Europe being obliterated for the third time in a bit more than 100 years?

The fight for Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus, is a pivotal strategic chess game. Undoubtedly, Russia will win it. But at what cost for Europe – for Eurasia? The more severe the covid restrictions the west will impose, the higher the price for maintaining or regaining sovereign European and Eurasian countries.

*

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.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Dear President Pollack and Cornell Board of Trustees,

We 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. In light of new data available about both the vaccine and the virus, we urge you to change the “mandate” to a “recommendation” based on the factors outlined below. 

We appreciate that the booster mandate and new procedures for the spring term stem from the good intention to prevent severe illness. But as with any public health policy, many factors — scientific, ethical, and legal — must be considered and weighed. We are concerned that Cornell, in issuing this booster mandate, has overlooked recent and evolving scientific data regarding the vaccine and the virus that makes a booster mandate inappropriate and unnecessary, raising serious ethical and legal questions.

In December 2021, Cornell identified over 1,600 Covid-19 positive cases with “every case of the Omicron variant to date [being] found in fully vaccinated students, a portion of whom had also received a booster shot.” Cornell’s own data highlights that vaccination, even with the booster, has very limited capability in stopping virus transmission. A similar conclusion has been reached by CDC’s research: vaccinated people seem to transmit Covid-19 similarly to unvaccinated people. The virus will continue to be transmitted among our highly vaccinated campuses. In a recent campus-wide email, Cornell explicitly acknowledged the impossibility of containing or eliminating Omicron, the flu, or other respiratory illnesses, which is why it will “shift from counting positive cases.” Cornell is fully aware that vaccines and booster injections cannot stop the spread of Covid-19.

As so many students test positive, they are, in essence, receiving a natural booster based on the very latest variants of the virus. And yet, Cornell is ignoring the natural immunity in these students and mandating a booster injection based on older variants, which Cornell knows is ineffective at stopping the spread of Covid-19 in the Cornell community. This decision is counter to science and seems like it was made less to promote students’ health and more to achieve some other unstated goal of the administration. Otherwise, why require a booster injection that is ineffective, and potentially dangerous, for students who are naturally contracting and fighting off a virus that many scientists believe is becoming more endemic than pandemic?

Mounting evidence points to serious risks from exposure to the Covid-19 vaccines. The latest scientific research shows that Covid-19 vaccine side effects such as myocarditis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, and pericarditis are more common in young people than we think (see references 1-5 listed below). Recently, an Oxford-conducted study of men under the age of 40 demonstrated that the risk of myocarditis after one dose mRNA exceeds the risk of myocarditis from an actual Covid-19 infection. Even more alarmingly, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) indicates that there were over 15,000 Covid-19 vaccine related death cases in 2021, compared with the previous average of 158 vaccine related deaths per year (Pre-Covid-19), in the context of a yearly total of 280 million injections and 70 different vaccines. This data shows that, compared to other vaccines, Covid-19 injections carry around 100 times the risk of death.

Why force such risks on our students when the rate of severe Covid-19 illness in the 16 to 40 year age group is exceedingly low? Newer variants appear to pose a near-zero risk of death for college students. Data now shows that the vaccine itself can pose more risk to young people than the virus itself, and repeated injections only increase those risks without any discernible reduction in the spread of the virus.

All students are individuals, each someone’s child with unique medical, psychological, and emotional needs. Indeed, as the CDC has recognized, “people aged 18-64 years who are at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting may receive a booster shot of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine at least 6 months after their Pfizer-BioNTech primary series, based on their individual benefits and risks” (emphasis added). With its blanket mandate, Cornell seems to be interpreting eligibility as a directive, ignoring both the science and CDC’s own guidance regarding individual benefits and risks.

The power differential between the university and students, which Cornell briefly acknowledged last year, raises serious ethical issues. In addition to the risk of side effects and death, Cornell’s injection mandate can trigger generational trauma in some students from intrusive, experimental, and other medically questionable procedures. For many students, the coercive nature of a third injection, after being told that they needed only two injections to attend Cornell, is contributing to psychological distress and emotional disorientation about future academic, social, and professional potential. We are seeing staggering mental health problems on campus and beyond. At this point in the pandemic, after nearly two years of following constantly changing rules, we would do right by our students to give them control over whether they receive additional doses of the Covid-19 vaccine.

That is why we believe that the question of whether a student should receive a third (or fourth or fifth) booster must be answered individually by each student, in consultation with a medical professional or doctor, rather than by school administrators.

Considering new data on the virus and the vaccine, the university may very well cause disability or death by imposing further vaccine requirements, and it will have to bear the responsibility. Please do the right thing, and end this unnecessary and unethical mandate.

Members of the Cornell community, please sign HERE or click this link.

Add your name here, and we will update the list with your name and affiliation.

*

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.

Sources

1. Intravenous injection of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine can induce acute myopericarditis in mouse model (Clin Infect Dis 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nih.gov/34406358)

2. The S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 crosses the blood-brain barrier in mice (Nature Neuroscience 24, 368-378.)

3. SARS-CoV-2 spike impairs DNA damage repair and inhibits V(D)J recombination in vitro (Viruses 2021, 13 (10), 2056; https://doi.org/10.3390/v13102056)

4. Be aware of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: There is more than meets the eyes (J Biol Regul Homeost Agents May-Jun 2021)

5. Risks of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection (Nature Medicine 2021 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf)

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

High-level international banking officials and organizations gathered last month for a global “war game” exercise simulating the collapse of the global financial system. The tabletop exercise was reminiscent of “Event 201,” the pandemic simulation exercise that took place just before COVID-19 entered the global scene.

High-level international banking officials and organizations last month gathered in Israel for a global “war game” exercise simulating the collapse of the global financial system.

The tabletop exercise was reminiscent of “Event 201” — the pandemic simulation exercise that took place in October 2019, shortly before COVID-19 entered the global scene.

The “Collective Strength” initiative was held for 10 days, beginning Dec. 9, 2021, at the Israeli Finance Ministry in Jerusalem. It was relocated to Jerusalem from the Dubai World Expo over concerns about the Omicron variant.

Israel led a 10-country contingent that also included treasury officials from the U.S., Austria, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates.

Representatives from supranational organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and Bank of International Settlements (BIS), also participated.

Described as a simulated “war game,” the exercise sought to model the response to various hypothetical large-scale cyberattacks on the global financial system, including the leaking of sensitive financial data on the “Dark Web,” hacks targeting the global foreign exchange system, and subsequent bank runs and market chaos fueled by “fake news.”

However, the main theme of “Collective Strength” appears not so much the simulation of such cyberattacks but, as the name of the initiative implies, the strengthening of global cooperation in cybersecurity and the financial sector.

As reported by Reuters, participants in the simulation discussed multilateral responses to a hypothetical global financial crisis.

Proposed policy solutions included debt repayment grace periods, SWAP/REPO agreements, coordinated bank holidays and coordinated delinking from major currencies.

The idea of simulated delinking from major currencies raised some eyebrows because of its timing — on the same day participants gathered to launch “Collective Strength,” reports circulated that the Biden administration was considering removing Russia from the global electronic-payment-messaging system known as SWIFT, short for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication.

This measure would be part of a package of economic sanctions the U.S. would levy against Russia should it attack Ukraine.

However, what may raise even more eyebrows is the list of participants in the “Collective Strength” simulation, which includes: the IMF and World Bank, and indirectly, the World Economic Forum (WEF).

It was the WEF, along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which ran the simulated “Event 201” in October 2019.

As previously reported by The Defender, the WEF also supported the development of financial instruments, such as credit and debit cards, that would track “personal carbon allowances” on an individualized basis.

An executive summary issued in November 2020 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in collaboration with the WEF, provided a rundown of just the type of scenario that was simulated as part of “Collective Strength.”

The report’s authors, Tim Maurer and Arthur Nelson, described a world whose financial system is undergoing “an unprecedented digital transformation … accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic.”

In such a world, the authors argued, “cybersecurity is more important than ever.”

Describing protection of the global financial system as an “organizational challenge,” the report pointed out there is no clear global actor in charge of protecting the global financial system or its digital infrastructure.

The executive summary went so far as to describe a “disconnect between the finance, the national security and the diplomatic communities.”

The solutions identified by Maurer and Nelson included:

• The need for “greater clarity” regarding roles and responsibilities
• Bolstering international cooperation
• Reducing fragmentation and increasing “internationalization” among “siloed” financial institutions
• Developing a model that can then be used in unspecified “other” sectors.

But which “other” sectors?

This set of recommendations was classified by the authors in their report under “Digital Transformation: Safeguard Financial Inclusion.”

One such recommendation reads as follows:

“The G20 should highlight that cybersecurity must be designed into technologies used to advance financial inclusion from the start rather than included as an afterthought.”

Technology that is “used to advance financial inclusion from the start” would appear to include digital “health passports” and accompanying “digital wallets.”

It also seems to be aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals — in particular, Goal 16.9, which calls for the provision of a digital legal identity for all, including newborns, by 2030.

Goal 16.9 also brings to mind the European Union’s insistence that its vaccine passport, the so-called “Green Pass,” which is used in numerous European countries to bar the unvaccinated and those with natural immunity from all sorts of public and private spaces, protects individuals’ privacy.

In a further connection between two distinct issues — security of the global financial system and public health — the GAVI Vaccine Alliance called for “innovations that leverage new technologies to modernize the process of identifying and registering the children who are most in need of life-saving vaccines.”

However, the use of these technologies would not stop with registering childhood vaccinations. GAVI described potential uses of these “new technologies” as encompassing “access to other services,” including the broadly defined “financial services.”

The authors of the Carnegie Endowment executive summary mirrored their proposals in a spring 2021 article that appears on the IMF’s website, although issues of “financial inclusion” are left out.

While the two authors of the Carnegie report, and the participants in the “Collective Strength” initiative, emphasize the need for the financial system and its digital data to be better protected, it remains unclear how a continued transformation toward a fully digital, cloud-based environment can indeed be considered “secure.”

Consider, for instance, the following remark by Micha Weis, financial cyber manager at the Israeli finance ministry, in reference to “Collective Strength”: “[a]ttackers are 10 steps ahead of the defender.”

Such words don’t offer much comfort to those who are already wary of “FinTech,” or the increasing proximity between “Big Tech” and “Big Finance.”

Similarly, yet another “simulation” of a large-scale and destructive global catastrophe will, for some, bring back recollections of “Event 201” and what followed thereafter — infamously described on March 20, 2020, by then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as a “live exercise.”

*

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

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.

***

Currently on view at the Currier Museum, Philip Guston’s mural Pulpwood Logging (1941) is right beside its original partner, Musa McKim’s Wildlife in the White Mountains (1941). Both fourteen-foot murals were commissioned by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) — a federal program created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to combat the unemployment of the Great Depression — and were originally installed in the Forestry Building in Laconia, New Hampshire.

Guston’s mural is a vision of sustainable logging — and given the global pace of deforestation, it is as timely as ever. As a representational painter, the piece is the culmination of Guston’s work for he would soon go on to become one of the foremost Abstract Expressionists.

Wildlife in the White Mountains, 1941
oil on canvas
79 x 165 in.
Originally located in the Forestry Building, Laconia N.H.
Fine arts collection U. S. General services

Source: Currier Museum of Art

The mural is a depiction of four men working together – all but one of whom face the viewer. The one with his back to us is overseeing the day’s work. Interestingly, we see what he sees: as if he is showing us the logging process. To his left, a man uses a peavey to roll the logs into place, while another cuts a log with a crosscut handsaw. The leftmost figure is hunched over as he lays a link chain in place. Guston has made each worker distinct and in so doing, imbued each individual with a quiet dignity.

In 1937, Musa McKim and Philip Guston were married. Her mural, depicting the rich biodiversity of New Hampshire’s White Mountains, rewards one who pays close attention. She has rendered the grouse, deer, moose, bear, beaver, raccoon, chipmunk, wood duck, great egret, and belted kingfisher with a simple and loving fidelity. In the lower right corner, a family of three visitors to the National Forest — presumably a mother, and her two children – resonates with the mother bear and her two cubs in the lower right corner.

Pulpwood Logging, 1941
oil on canvas
79 x 165 in.
Originally located in the Forestry Building, Laconia N.H.
Fine arts collection U. S. General services Administration

Source: Currier Museum of Art

Through January 16, these two murals will be happily reunited at the Currier Museum in Manchester, NH — and the timing is significant. These great works were the fruit of The New Deal and the efforts of the WPA which hired over ten thousand artists from across the country to create works of art.

Today, many Americans desperately need to see a similar initiative from the Federal Government — and yet, even relatively modest efforts in that direction have been stalled indefinitely. These murals are a reminder of what can be done when America invests in its workers and its artists — that is, when it truly embraces and harnesses its powers of collective rebirth and reinvention.

*

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.

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Currier Museum of Art

Communing with Albert Camus in 2022. “The Past Two Years Have Been So Absurd, The Covid Propaganda So Consuming”

By Edward Curtin, January 11, 2022

The person with whom we are all most intimate is oneself.  It’s just the way it is.  I don’t mean that in some oracular Delphic “know thyself” way, or in any deep psychoanalytical sense, but very simply.  We have our own thoughts and feelings that come and go like breaths, most of which never get expressed in words.

“Bastille 2022”: Building A Worldwide Movement against “Corona Tyranny”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 11, 2022

Bastille 2022 pertains not only to the restoration of these fundamental rights. It seeks to reverse and disable the criminal Covid-19 agenda which in the course of the last two years has triggered economic, social and political chaos Worldwide in 193 member states of the United Nations, coupled with bankruptcies, unemployment, mass poverty and despair.

High Recorded Mortality in Countries Categorized as “Covid-19 Vaccine Champions”. The Vaccinated Suffer from Increased Risk of Mortality compared to the Non-vaccinated

By Gérard Delépine, January 11, 2022

Gibraltar (34,000 inhabitants) started vaccination in December 2020 when the health agency counted only 1040 confirmed cases and 5 deaths attributed to covid19 in this country. After a very comprehensive vaccination blitz, achieving 115% coverage (vaccination was extended to many Spanish visitors), the number of new infections increased five-fold (to 5314) and the number of deaths increased nineteen-fold.

What War with Russia Would Look Like

By Scott Ritter, January 11, 2022

Wendy Sherman thinks her aim in talks with Russian officials starting Monday is to lecture them on the cost of hubris. Instead she’s set to lead the U.S., NATO, and Europe down a path of ruin, warns Scott Ritter. If ever a critical diplomatic negotiation was doomed to fail from the start, the discussions between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine and Russian security guarantees is it.

Video: Dr. Shankara Chetty Testifies before the German Corona Investigative Committee

By Dr. Shankara Chetty, Reiner Fuellmich, and xelzbrod, January 11, 2022

Shankara Chetty could be called a second Zelenko. He is a medical doctor, a general practitioner in South Africa who has treated more than 7000 Covid patients successfully, without the need for extra oxygen or hospitalization. Through meticulous observation he was able to discern the nature of Covid-19 as a two-phase illness with a respiratory and an allergic phase, and to develop a treatment protocol which he describes in the first part of the interview.

Why Did US Deaths Shoot Up 40% Above Normal Last Year?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, January 11, 2022

As we’ve seen over the past two years, data and statistics can be manipulated and skewed in a wide variety of ways. COVID cases, for example, have clearly been overinflated by including people with no symptoms (likely false positives) and diagnosing anyone entering the hospital for an unrelated issue as a COVID patient if they test positive (again, falsely) for SARS-CoV-2.

NATO Secretary General Says the Western Alliance Is Prepared for “A Situation of War in Europe”

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, January 11, 2022

Despite the dialogue, NATO continues to maintain an aggressive rhetoric towards Russia, promising a new armed conflict if current negotiations fail to reach a consensus. In a interview, the Secretary General of NATO stated that the Western military alliance is prepared for a situation of war in Europe if Russia does not collaborate towards a resolution of the Ukrainian issue.

Where Are the Realists? US Foreign Policy Endangers Americans without Delivering any Benefits

By Philip Giraldi, January 11, 2022

Putin and President Biden discussed the Russian proposals and other issues in a phone conversation on December 30^th, in which Biden called for diplomacy, and both he and Putin reportedly took steps to defuse the possible confrontation.

Russia’s Demands Challenge NATO’s Threats

By Sara Flounders, January 11, 2022

As U.S. policy grows more reckless, the corporate media perceives threats everywhere. After Putin and Biden spoke by zoom, Putin and President Xi Jinping of China had a New Year’s exchange Dec. 15. This conversation was headlined by The Hill as “‘Allies’ China and Russia Are Ganging Up on America.”

Blinken on CNN: Unrelenting Bellicosity, Full-court Offensive for Control of Former Soviet Territory

By Rick Rozoff, January 11, 2022

His accusation of Russia invading Crimea in 2014 is the standard Western characterization of Russia reclaiming the peninsula without firing a shot. His accusation of aggressive Russian actions against Moldova – a charge no one in the West has leveled until recent weeks – appears to be an allusion to the presence of 1,500 Russian troops in Transnistria, the continuation of a Russian peacekeeping deployment that began in 1992.

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.

***

Canadian Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos told the nation on Friday that he believes mandatory vaccinations will be announced soon.

Asked if the government would consider instituting mandatory Covid vaccination laws, Duclos said, “I personally think we will get there at some point. I see it coming personally. Not now. I don’t think we are there yet. But I think discussions need to be had about mandatory vaccinations because we have to get rid of Covid 19.”

Canadian Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said Friday he believes a mandatory vaccination policy for all citizens is necessary, and will likely be coming to Canada in the months ahead.

Help Us: https://t.co/oIPU6az6hO pic.twitter.com/nn719I23p8

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) January 7, 2022

He continued, “Our people are tired and the only way as we know through COVID–19, be it this variant or any future variant, is through vaccination.”

This sentence totally contradicts previous comments made by Fiji Public Health Professor Michael Baker, who told the world in October that “you can’t vaccinate your way out of a epidemic that is this intense.”

Highly vaccinated nations such as Israel have all but proven this to be true as they continue to see record numbers of Covid deaths, cases and hospitalizations despite being the first country on Earth to fully vaccinate a majority of its citizens.

The federal health minister noted that the decision to mandate Covid vaccines will be left up to the provinces, saying, “Provinces and territories will continue to take decisions that are within their jurisdiction. As a government, we will continue to do everything we can within our federal authority to keep Canadians safe.”

Canadians lashed out at the idea on Twitter.

Fascist Liberal minister is preparing the ground for draconian violation of our fundamental rights and bodily autonomy.

MY BODY DOES NOT BELONG TO THE STATEhttps://t.co/yFD5TbTQe7

— Maxime Bernier (@MaximeBernier) January 7, 2022

Bullshit, Trudeau cant give the order as his Federal Employees only have to say they are vaccinated, he wants Premiers to start the war while he hides at home…

Mandatory vaccinations coming to Canada, say health minister Jean-Yves Duclos https://t.co/OYECVnq3yD #cdnpoli

— Rex Glacer (@rexglacer) January 7, 2022

"Provinces are likely to introduce mandatory vaccination policies in the coming months to deal with surging COVID-19 caseloads, Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos said "

If you're not engaged yet, now is the time.

Stand up, wake up, Canada. https://t.co/d2TvFRXjb4

— Free to Fly (@f2fweb) January 7, 2022

MANDATORY VACCINATION OVER MY FOOKING DEAD BODY!!!https://t.co/T4nMAMPXfz

— Nancy Mercier – Liberty Patriot 🇨🇦 (@ArcadiaNancy) January 7, 2022

It seems millions of Canadians are about to become an enemy of the state. This may be the real reason for the recent calls to deploy military in QC/ON

🇨🇦 is about to discover the price of freedom.

There’s no one coming to help.

It’s up to you citizen.https://t.co/umzilWOTmp

— Yukon Strong (@YukonStrong) January 7, 2022

Dangerous rhetoric coming from our #Canadian minister of health Jean-Yves Duclos #cdnpoli #mandatoryvacinnation pic.twitter.com/cUySOHcEwP

— Nicholas Pereira (@cdn_nicholas) January 7, 2022

Check out Canadian mainstream media’s coverage of Duclos’ announcement in the video below:

*

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

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 2017 lawsuit alleging five pharmaceutical companies helped finance terror attacks against U.S. service members and other Americans in Iraq during the “War on Terror” was unanimously reinstated and remanded by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit against the five companies in question — Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Roche and GE Healthcare — was dismissed in July 2020 by a federal district court in Washington, D.C. before being reinstated last week.

The lawsuit claims the five companies regularly paid bribes, including free drugs and medical devices, to officials in Iraq’s Ministry of Health between 2005 and 2011, in their efforts to secure drug contracts.

In turn, the suit alleges, these companies’ contracts with the Iraqi health ministry helped “fund terrorism” perpetrated by a Shiite militia that killed Americans during that period.

The militia in question, Jaysh al-Mahdi, or the “Mahdi Army,” maintained control of the health ministry at that time.

The amended lawsuit was filed on behalf of 395 Americans who were killed or injured in Iraq during the six-year period.

The plaintiffs seek damages under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which states plaintiffs must demonstrate the terror attacks were conducted by an organization formally designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. government.

While the Mahdi Army has not been formally classified as a terrorist group, the lawsuit alleges the army’s attacks carried out in Iraq were “planned and organized” by Hezbollah, which the U.S. in 1997 labeled a terror group.

The initial lawsuit also prompted an investigation of the pharmaceutical companies by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), in 2018.

An alleged web of corruption and kickbacks

The allegations made in the lawsuit are based on information provided by 12 confidential witnesses, public and private reports, contracts, email communications and documents published by WikiLeaks.

Included in the lawsuit are 27 pages of itemized deaths and injuries sustained by U.S. service members in attacks by the Mahdi Army between 2005 and 2009, and claims of pain and suffering submitted by their family members and relatives.

One of the main planks of the lawsuit pertains to bribes and kickbacks the five companies named in the suit are alleged to have provided to the terrorists who controlled the Iraqi health ministry between 2005 and 2011.

The lawsuit alleges the five companies obtained contracts with the ministry through the illicit payments, which were then used to “aid and abet” terror attacks against Americans.

The central argument put forth in the original lawsuit is that the companies must have been aware that Iraq’s health ministry operated as a de facto terrorist organization, and this knowledge should have resulted in an insistence, on the part of the five companies, that any contracts with the ministry be structured to reflect this knowledge and to guard against potential corruption and misuse of funds.

This point is crucial, as it is illegal under U.S. law to knowingly fund terror groups.

In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the procurement budget for the Iraqi health ministry skyrocketed, from $16 million in 2003 to approximately $1 billion in 2004, due to U.S. financial assistance.

It was in 2004, according to the lawsuit, that the Mahdi Army took control of the Iraqi health ministry, at a time when various political factions in the country took over government ministries as the U.S. devolved power back to the Iraqis.

Having taken over the ministry, the Mahdi Army allegedly used it as a vehicle for financing terrorist acts, using local agents to deliver cash kickbacks to terrorists on the ground and selling medical supplies “off the books” on the black market, to further fund terror operations.

Indeed, many of the officials employed in the ministry at the time are said in the lawsuit to have been senior members of the Mahdi Army. This group maintained strongholds in parts of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad and in the south of the country, vying for control of cities such as Basra and Amara.

The Mahdi Army, in turn, was loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, a political figure described by The New York Times as a “firebrand” cleric who operated death squads targeting Iraqi Sunnis and Americans.

The group emerged in 2003, following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, operating as a security guarantor in neighborhoods dominated by al-Sadr. In 2004, the Mahdi Army fought U.S. forces in Najaf and Sadr City.

According to the lawsuit, the pharmaceutical companies financially supported the Mahdi Army in two ways. One way was through bribes that were paid in the form of “discounts” — which were offered by the companies not through reduced prices, but through the provision of “free” medical goods, often equalling up to 20% of the total value of the contract.

These bribes, the suit alleges, amounted to millions of dollars annually. It is noted that this form of bribery is commonplace in the Middle East because, unlike direct cash transfers, companies can claim these “free” goods were “charitable” contributions, in the event such transactions are discovered.

Another alleged means of financial support on the part of the five companies was through the hiring of local intermediaries to register their companies, receive government approval for the use of their products domestically, and negotiate contracts.

The lawsuit describes the payments made to these intermediaries as “thinly disguised bribes.”

Between 2004 and 2013, the companies in question also allegedly operated a “slush fund,” under the guise of paying for after-sales support and other services related to the products they sold.

These services were “illusory” and the funds instead went into the pockets of corrupt health ministry officials and local agents, the plaintiffs allege.

Goods said to have been sold to the Iraqi health ministry during this period include GE electrocardiogram machines; Johnson & Johnson catheters and anti-epilepsy drugs; Depo-Provera, a birth control shot produced by Pfizer; Seroquel, an anti-psychotic medication produced by AstraZeneca; and Herceptin, a breast cancer drug produced by Roche.

As a result of the “commissions” and “free” goods provided to members of the Mahdi Army, the militia became known among U.S. officials as the “Pill Army,” as its fighters often received prescription medications as medicines. These drugs could then be resold.

An August 2007 draft report prepared by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad accused the Iraqi health ministry of “operating a pharmaceutical diversion scheme” and operating “openly under the control of the Mahdi Army.”

Pharma money funded violent acts against Americans

The lawsuit alleges bribes facilitated the Mahdi Army’s acquisition of weapons, as well as training and logistical support.

Indeed, the lawsuit claims the Iraqi health ministry and the Mahdi Army were, at the time, essentially interchangeable, and by late 2004, the ministry was too dangerous for Americans to enter and “functioned more as a terrorist apparatus than a health organization,” with headquarters, as well as hospitals, plastered with posters of al-Sadr captioned with slogans declaring “death to America.”

Hospitals and ambulances are said to have been utilized as part of the terrorist acts perpetrated by the Mahdi Army, while the ministry is said to have employed approximately 15,000 armed men who were known as the “Facilities Protection Service,” using ministry supplies, such as vehicles and uniforms, for terrorism and other criminal activities, including kidnapping.

Numerous such incidents are detailed in the lawsuit.

In April 2006, for instance, U.S. forces arrested seven bodyguards of then-health minister Ali al-Shemari after a Sunni health official entered the ministry on the pretext of being interviewed for a ministerial post, never to be seen again.

Mass kidnappings repeatedly carried out in Baghdad in 2006 – 2007 were also blamed on the “Facilities Protection Service,” with victims frequently delivered to the health ministry’s basement for torture and, sometimes, murder.

The deputy health minister at the time, Hakim al-Zamili, was also arrested by U.S. troops at the time, charged in the disappearance of another deputy minister, Ammar al-Saffar, whose body was never located.

A report by global intelligence company Stratfor accused al-Zamili of “selling health services and equipment in return for millions of dollars that he later funneled to Shiite militias.”

In other incidents, mortars were fired at U.S. forces, and at Sunni neighborhoods, directly from the roof of the health ministry.

The violence originating from the health ministry was such that a 2006 State Department cable available on WikiLeaks described it as “The Ministry of Weapons Transportation.”

In reinstating the lawsuit, the D.C. Circuit judges noted:

“The complaint describes how Jaysh al-Mahdi controlled the ministry and used it as a terrorist headquarters.

“Accepting those allegations, defendants’ dealings with the ministry were equivalent to dealing with the terrorist organization directly. The ministry was therefore not an independent intermediary that broke the chain of causation, but a front for Jaysh al-Mahdi.”

Pharma companies will have to respond to reinstated suit

The lawsuit was filed following an investigation by the Washington, D.C. law firms of Sparciano & Andreson and Kellogg, Hasen, Todd, Figel & Frederick.

In the lawsuit, the firms allege the five named companies were aware their business practices were inappropriate and potentially illegal, based on settlements they reached previously for prior accusations where identical tactics and even some of the same intermediaries were used as part of a United Nations-sponsored oil-for-food program prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion.

After the reinstatement of the lawsuit, the companies in question issued a joint statement denying any wrongdoing.

In 2018, the DOJ launched a separate investigation against the companies, which came to light when AstraZeneca mentioned the lawsuit in a 2018 securities filing.

Pfizer, Roche, and Johnson & Johnson also acknowledged the investigation in SEC filings that year.

It is unclear what the current status of the DOJ investigation is, or why the lawsuit was reinstated, a year-and-a-half after its initial dismissal.

Settlements in cases of alleged overseas corruption are not new for at least some of the companies named in the lawsuit.

For instance, in 2011, Johnson & Johnson agreed to a $70 million settlement stemming from civil and criminal charges that its subsidiaries had paid bribes to officials in countries such as Greece, Poland and Romania, and as part of the Iraqi oil-for-food program.

And in 2010, GE paid a settlement exceeding $23 million to settle charges levied by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleging the company paid kickbacks in the oil-for-food program.

*

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

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.

***

“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.”—George Carlin

Cancel culture—political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance—has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance, policed by techno-censors, social media bullies, and government watchdogs.

Everything is now fair game for censorship if it can be construed as hateful, hurtful, bigoted or offensive provided that it runs counter to the established viewpoint.

In this way, the most controversial issues of our day—race, religion, sex, sexuality, politics, science, health, government corruption, police brutality, etc.—have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom of speech but only when it favors the views and positions they support.

“Free speech for me but not for thee” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.

This tendency to censor, silence, delete, label as “hateful,” and demonize viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite is being embraced with a near-fanatical zealotry by a cult-like establishment that values conformity and group-think over individuality.

For instance, are you skeptical about the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines? Do you have concerns about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election? Do you subscribe to religious beliefs that shape your views on sexuality, marriage and gender? Do you, deliberately or inadvertently, engage in misgendering (identifying a person’s gender incorrectly) or deadnaming (using the wrong pronouns or birth name for a transgender person)?

Say yes to any of those questions and then dare to voice those views in anything louder than a whisper and you might find yourself suspended on Twitter, shut out of Facebook, and banned across various social media platforms.

This authoritarian intolerance masquerading as tolerance, civility and love (what comedian George Carlin referred to as “fascism pretending to be manners”) is the end result of a politically correct culture that has become radicalized, institutionalized and tyrannical.

In the past few years, for example, prominent social media voices have been censored, silenced and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram for voicing ideas that were deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.

Most recently, Twitter suspended conservative podcaster Matt Walsh for violating its hate speech policy by sharing his views about transgendered individuals. “The greatest female Jeopardy champion of all time is a man. The top female college swimmer is a man. The first female four star admiral in the Public Health Service is a man. Men have dominated female high school track and the female MMA circuit. The patriarchy wins in the end,” Walsh tweeted on Dec. 30, 2021.

J.K. Rowling, author of the popular Harry Potter series, has found herself denounced as transphobic and widely shunned for daring to criticize efforts by transgender activists to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender. Rowling’s essay explaining her views is a powerful, articulate, well-researched piece that not only stresses the importance of free speech and women’s rights while denouncing efforts by trans activists to demonize those who subscribe to “wrongthink,” but also recognizes that while the struggle over gender dysmorphia is real, concerns about safeguarding natal women and girls from abuse are also legitimate.

Ironically enough, Rowling’s shunning included literal book burning. Yet as Ray Bradbury once warned, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

Indeed, the First Amendment is going up in flames before our eyes, but those first sparks were lit long ago and have been fed by intolerance all along the political spectrum.

Consider some of the kinds of speech being targeted for censorship or outright elimination.

Offensive, politically incorrect and “unsafe” speech: Political correctness has resulted in the chilling of free speech and a growing hostility to those who exercise their rights to speak freely. Where this has become painfully evident is on college campuses, which have become hotbeds of student-led censorship, trigger warnings, microaggressions, and “red light” speech policies targeting anything that might cause someone to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or offended.

Bullying, intimidating speech: Warning that “school bullies become tomorrow’s hate crimes defendants,” the Justice Department has led the way in urging schools to curtail bullying, going so far as to classify “teasing” as a form of “bullying,” and “rude” or “hurtful” “text messages” as “cyberbullying.”

Hateful speech: Hate speech—speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation—is the primary candidate for online censorship. Corporate internet giants Google, Twitter and Facebook continue to re-define what kinds of speech will be permitted online and what will be deleted.

Dangerous, anti-government speech: As part of its ongoing war on “extremism,” the government has partnered with the tech industry to counter online “propaganda” by terrorists hoping to recruit support or plan attacks. In this way, anyone who criticizes the government online can be considered an extremist and will have their content reported to government agencies for further investigation or deleted. In fact, the Justice Department is planning to form a new domestic terrorism unit to ferret out individuals “who seek to commit violent criminal acts in furtherance of domestic social or political goals.” What this will mean is more surveillance, more pre-crime programs, and more targeting of individuals whose speech may qualify as “dangerous.”

The upshot of all of this editing, parsing, banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language, what George Orwell referred to as Newspeak, which places the power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state.

Under such a system, language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use.

The end result is mind control and a sleepwalking populace.

In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used.

In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

The social shunning favored by activists and corporations borrows heavily from the mind control tactics used by authoritarian cults as a means of controlling its members. As Dr. Steven Hassan writes in Psychology Today: “By ordering members to be cut off, they can no longer participate. Information and sharing of thoughts, feelings, and experiences are stifled. Thought-stopping and use of loaded terms keep a person constrained into a black-and-white, all-or-nothing world. This controls members through fear and guilt.”

This mind control can take many forms, but the end result is an enslaved, compliant populace incapable of challenging tyranny.

As Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone, once observed, “We’re developing a new citizenry, one that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won’t be able to think.”

The problem as I see it is that we’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. And we’ve bought into the idea that we need the government and its corporate partners to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean. The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.

In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive, polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears.

As Nat Hentoff, that inveterate champion of the First Amendment, once observed, “The quintessential difference between a free nation, as we profess to be, and a totalitarian state, is that here everyone, including a foe of democracy, has the right to speak his mind.”

What this means is opening the door to more speech not less, even if that speech is offensive to some.

Understanding that freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society, James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

We haven’t done ourselves—or the nation—any favors by becoming so fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful or closed-minded that we’ve eliminated words, phrases and symbols from public discourse.

We have allowed our fears—fear for our safety, fear of each other, fear of being labeled racist or hateful or prejudiced, etc.—to trump our freedom of speech and muzzle us far more effectively than any government edict could.

Ultimately the war on free speech—and that’s exactly what it is: a war being waged by Americans against other Americans—is a war that is driven by fear.

By bottling up dissent, we have created a pressure cooker of stifled misery and discontent that is now bubbling over and fomenting even more hate, distrust and paranoia among portions of the populace.

By muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve to release the pressure, frustration builds, anger grows, and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

Be warned: whatever we tolerate now—whatever we turn a blind eye to—whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.

Eventually, “we the people” will be the ones in the crosshairs.

At some point or another, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes “hate” or “extremism, “we the people” might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other.

When that time comes, there may be no one left to speak out or speak up in our defense.

After all, it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth. Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

We are on a fast-moving trajectory.

In other words, whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now, for the sake of the greater good or because you like or trust those in charge, will eventually be abused and used against you by tyrants of your own making.

This is the tyranny of the majority against the minority marching in lockstep with technofascism.

If Americans don’t vociferously defend the right of a minority of one to subscribe to, let alone voice, ideas and opinions that may be offensive, hateful, intolerant or merely different, then we’re going to soon find that we have no rights whatsoever (to speak, assemble, agree, disagree, protest, opt in, opt out, or forge our own paths as individuals).

No matter what our numbers might be, no matter what our views might be, no matter what party we might belong to, it will not be long before “we the people” constitute a powerless minority in the eyes of a power-fueled fascist state driven to maintain its power at all costs.

We are almost at that point now.

Free speech is no longer free.

On paper—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—we are technically free to speak.

In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow.

The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

Orwell intended 1984 as a warning. Instead, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist and obedient to Big Brother.

The police state could not ask for a better citizenry than one that carries out its own censorship, spying and policing.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

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

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

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 May, within four months, the new nuclear bomb B61-12 large-scale production will begin in the United States: this announcement was made by the National Nuclear Security Administration of the United States Department of Energy (NNSA is part of the US Department of Energy). As they leave the factory, the new nuclear bombs will be delivered to the US Air Force, which will install them in US bases in Italy and other European countries replacing the B61s.

The B61-12 is a new nuclear weapon replacing three of the current B61 variants (3, 4, and 7). It has a nuclear warhead with four selectable power options according to the target to destroy. It does not drop vertically like the B61, but at distance from the target to which it is directed, and guided by a satellite system. It can penetrate underground, exploding deep to destroy command center bunkers to “behead” the enemy nation in a nuclear first strike. For this attack the US Air Force also has the fourth variant of the B61 bomb, the penetrating B61-11 was modernized in 2001. The B61-12, NNSA confirmed, can be launched from both B-2A stealth bomber and future B-21 aircraft, both conventional and nuclear dual-capable fighters. These aircrafts include the US F-16C / Ds deployed in Aviano and the Italian PA-200 Tornadoes deployed in Ghedi. The F-35A fighters, already operational in the Italian Air Force, are even more suitable for a nuclear attack with the B61-12.

NNSA announced that “all the needed production of B61-12s” will be completed in the fiscal year 2026. The program foresees the construction of 500 bombs at a cost of about 10 billion dollars (each bomb costing twice as much if it were built entirely of gold). Their actual number, however, remains secret as their geographical location is largely secret. It is the determining factor in the offensive capacity of the B61-12 nuclear bombs. If they were all located in US territory, ready to be transported with strategic bombers, this would not constitute a substantial modification of the current strategic assets. The B61-12 will instead be located in other countries, especially close to Russia, ready to be transported and launched with F-35s and other fighters.

Aviano and Ghedi bases have been restructured to accommodate the F-35A fighters armed with the new nuclear bombs. Thirty Italian F-35A fighters can be deployed in Ghedi, ready to attack under US command with 60 B61-12 nuclear bombs. It is not excluded that they will also be located in other bases on the Italian territory. In addition to being located in Germany, Belgium, and Holland, they could be also deployed in Poland, whose air forces have been participating for years in NATO nuclear warfare exercises. It is not excluded that they could be located in other Eastern countries. The NATO fighters located in the Baltic republics, close to Russia, can also be armed with the B61-12s. It is not excluded that the new nuclear bombs can also be deployed in Asia and the Middle East against China and Iran. Despite being classified as “non-strategic nuclear weapons”, close to target the B61-12 bombs have offensive capabilities similar to those of strategic weapons (such as the nuclear warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles). They are therefore destabilizing weapons, which will cause a chain reaction and accelerate the nuclear arms ra.

The 5 nuclear powers permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom – affirmed in a joint declaration (January 3, 2022), that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought ”and that “we remain committed to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of to nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament”.

The US should therefore commit not to deploy the new B61-12 nuclear bombs in other countries, even better not to produce them at all.

*

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 in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

Fra quattro mesi, in maggio, inizia negli Usa la produzione su larga scala della nuova bomba nucleare B61-12: lo annuncia la U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (L’Amministrazione per la sicurezza nucleare nazionale, NNSA, facente parte del Dipartimento Usa dell’Energia). Man mano che usciranno di fabbrica, le nuove bombe nucleari saranno consegnate alla US Air Force, che le installerà nelle basi in Italia e altri paesi europei al posto delle B61.

La B61-12 è una nuova arma nucleare polivalente che sostituisce tre delle varianti dell’attuale B61 (3, 4 e 7). Ha una testata nucleare con quattro opzioni di potenza, selezionabili a seconda dell’obiettivo da distruggere. Non viene sganciata in verticale come la B61, ma a distanza dall’obiettivo su cui si dirige guidata da un sistema satellitare. Può penetrare nel sottosuolo, esplodendo in profondità per distruggere i bunker dei centri di comando così da «decapitare» il paese nemico in un first strike nucleare. Per tale attacco la US Air Force dispone anche della quarta variante della B61, la B61-11 penetrante, ammodernata nel 2001. La B61-12, conferma la NNSA, può essere lanciata sia dal bombardiere stealth B-2A e dal futuro B-21, sia da caccia a duplice capacità convenzionale e nucleare.

Tra questi vi sono gli F-16C/D statunitensi schierati ad Aviano e i Tornado italiani PA-200 schierati a Ghedi. Ancora più idonei all’attacco nucleare con le B61-12 sono gli F-35A, già operativi anche nell’Aeronautica italiana. La NNSA comunica che «tutta la produzione necessaria di B61-12» sarà completata nell’anno fiscale 2026. Il programma prevede la costruzione di 500 bombe, con un costo di circa 10 miliardi di dollari (per cui ciascuna viene a costare il doppio di quanto costerebbe se fosse costruita interamente in oro). Il loro numero effettivo resta però segreto, come resta in gran parte segreta la loro dislocazione geografica.

Essa costituisce il fattore determinante della capacità offensiva delle bombe nucleari B61-12. Se fossero dislocate tutte in territorio statunitense, pronte ad essere trasportate con i bombardieri strategici, ciò non costituirebbe una sostanziale modifica degli attuali assetti strategici. Le B61-12 saranno invece dislocate in altri paesi a ridosso soprattutto della Russia, pronte ad essere trasportate e lanciate con gli F-35 e altri caccia.

Le basi di Aviano e Ghedi sono state ristrutturate per accogliere i caccia F-35A armati delle nuove bombe nucleari. A Ghedi possono essere schierati 30 caccia italiani F-35A, pronti all’attacco sotto comando Usa con 60 bombe nucleari B61-12. Non è escluso che esse vengano dislocate anche in altre basi sul territorio italiano. Non è escluso che, oltre ad essere dislocate in Germania, Belgio e Olanda, siano schierate anche in Polonia, le cui forze aeree partecipano da anni alle esercitazioni Nato di guerra nucleare, e in altri paesi dell’Est. I caccia Nato dislocati nelle repubbliche baltiche, a ridosso della Russia, possono essere anch’essi armati delle B61-12. Non escluso che le nuove bombe nucleari possano essere schierate anche in Asia e Medioriente contro Cina e Iran.

Nonostante siano classificate come «armi nucleari non-strategiche», le B61-12, avvicinate agli obiettivi, hanno capacità offensive analoghe a quelle delle armi strategiche (come le testate nucleari dei missili balistici intercontinentali). Sono quindi armi destabilizzanti, che provocheranno una reazione a catena accelerando la corsa agli armamenti nucleari.

Le 5 potenze nucleari membri permanenti del Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite – Stati Uniti, Russia, Cina, Francia e Regno Unito – affermano, in una dichiarazione congiunta (3 gennaio), che «una guerra nucleare non può essere vinta e non deve mai essere combattuta» e che «rimaniamo impegnati a portare avanti negoziati in buona fede su misure efficaci relative alla cessazione della corsa agli armamenti nucleari e al disarmo nucleare». Si impegnino allora gli Usa a non schierare in altri paesi, ancora meglio a non produrre, le nuove bombe nucleari B61-12.

Manlio Dinucci

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Sometimes it seems that when it comes to international relations Russian president Vladimir Putin might be the only head of state who is capable of any rational proposals. His recent negotiating positions conveyed initially by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov to step back from the brink of war between his country and the United States over Ukraine are largely eminently sensible and would defuse the possibility that Eastern Europe might become a future Sarajevo incident that would ignite a nuclear war. Per Putin,

“We need long-term legally binding guarantees even if we know they cannot be trusted, as the US frequently withdraws from treaties that become uninteresting to them. But…something [more is needed], not just verbal assurances.”

Putin and President Biden discussed the Russian proposals and other issues in a phone conversation on December 30^th, in which Biden called for diplomacy, and both he and Putin reportedly took steps to defuse the possible confrontation. In the phone call the two presidents agreed to initiate bilateral negotiations described as “strategic stability dialogue” relating to “mutual security guarantees” which have now begun on Sunday, January 9^th, in Geneva. That will be followed by an exploratory meeting of the NATO-Russia Council on Wednesday and another meeting with the Organization for Security and Cooperation on Thursday.

Pat Buchanan, who is somewhat skeptical about Russian overreach, has summed up the Putin position, which he refers to as an ultimatum, as “Get off our front porch. Get out of our front yard. And stay out of our backyard.” Putin has demanded that NATO cease expansion into Eastern Europe, which threatens only Russia, while also scaling back planned missile emplacements in those former Warsaw Pact states that are already members of the alliance. He also has called on the US to reduce harassing incursions by warships and strategic bombers along the Russian border and to cease efforts to insert military bases in the five ‘Stans along the Russian federation’s southern border. In other words, Russia believes that it should not have hostile military forces gathering along its borders, that it should have some kind of legally guaranteed and internationally endorsed strategic security zone such as the United States enjoys behind two oceans with friendly governments to north and south.

Buchanan concludes that there is much room for negotiating a serious agreement that will satisfy both sides, observing that the US now has through NATO untenable security arrangements with 28 European countries. He notes how “The day cannot be far off when the US is going to have to review and discard Cold War commitments that date to the 1940s and 1950s, and require us to fight a nuclear power such as Russia for countries that have nothing to do with our vital interests or our national security.”

Secretary of State Tony Blinken has been openly skeptical about the Russian proposals, arguing that Moscow is a threat to Europe, though the extent that the Biden administration will play hard ball over the details is difficult to assess. Blinken and NATO have already declared that they will continue their expansion into Eastern Europe and the White House is reportedly preparing harsh new sanctions against Russia if the talks are not successful. To be sure, Administration pushback may be a debating technique to moderate or even eliminate some of the demands, or there may actually be hard liners from the Center for New American Security who have the administration’s ear who want to confront Russia. Either way, both Blinken and Biden have warned the Russians “not to make a serious mistake over Ukraine,” also stating that there would be “massive” economic consequences if there were any attack by Russian troops. After a meeting with Germany’s new Foreign Minister, Blinken asserted last week that there would be no progress with in diplomatic approaches to the problem as long as there is a Russian “gun pointed at Ukraine’s head.” In reality, of course, Moscow is 5,000 miles away from Washington and the truly dangerous pointed gun has been in the hands of NATO and the US right on Russia’s doorstep.

To be sure, fighting Russia is popular in some circles, largely a result of incessant negative media coverage about Putin and his government. Opinion polls suggest that half of all Americans favor sending troops to defend the Ukrainians. The Republicans, notably Senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio, appear to be particularly enthusiastic regarding going to war over Ukraine as well as with China over Taiwan and openly advocate both admitting Ukraine into NATO as well as sending troops and weapons as well as providing intelligence to assist Kiev. They argue that it is necessary to defend American democracy and also to maintain the US’s “credibility,” the last refuge of a scoundrel nation, as Daniel Larison observes, since Washington frequently “goes back on its word.” And then there are the crazies like Ohio Congressman Mike Turner who says that US troops must be sent to Ukraine to defend American democracy. Or Republican Senator from Mississippi Roger Wicker who favors a possible unilateral nuclear first-strike to “rain destruction on Russian military capability,” leading to a global conflict that wouldn’t be so bad as it would only kill 10 to 20 million Americans.

Russia has a right to be worried as something is brewing in Kazakhstan right now that just might be a replay of the US-supported NGO-instigated successful overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014. The Collective Security Treaty Organization members Russia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Armenia, have sent soldiers responding to the Kazakh government’s request for help. Unfortunately, US foreign policy is not only about Russia. The Taiwan issue continues to fester with a similar resonance to the Ukraine crisis. China, a rising power, increasingly wants to assert itself in its neighborhood while the US is trying to alternatively confront and contain it while also propping up relationships that evolved after the Korean War and during the Cold War. The status quo is unsustainable, but US moves to “protect” Taiwan are themselves destabilizing as they make the Chinese suspicious of American intentions and will likely lead to unnecessary armed conflict.

And let’s not ignore America’s continued devastation by sanctions and bombs of civilian populations in Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Yemen to punish the governments of those countries. And, of course there, is always Israel, good old loyal ally and greatly loved by all politicians and the media, Israel, the Jewish state. Biden continues to waffle on reentry into the Iran nuclear non-proliferation agreement, which is good for the US, under pressure from Israel and its domestic “Amen chorus.” Just last month, speaking at a Zionist Organization of America Gala, former CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo intoned that “There is no more important task of the Secretary of State than standing for Israel and there is no more important ally to the United States than Israel.” Add to that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s unforgettable bleat about her love for Israel, “I have said to people when they ask me if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid…and I don’t even call it aid…our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are.”

You might ask how any American leader could so blatantly state that US interests are subordinate to those of a foreign country, but there we are. And it is tragic that our president is willing to sacrifice American military lives in support of interests that are completely fraudulent. The truth is that we have a government that in bipartisan fashion does everything ass backwards while the American people struggle to pay the bills and watch their quality of life and even their security go downhill. Again citing Vladimir Putin’s wisdom on the subject, one might observe that as early as 2007 at the Munich Security Conference, the Russian president said that the “lawless behavior” of the United States in insisting on global dominance and leadership did not respect the vital interests of other nations and undermined both the desire for and the mechanisms established to encourage peaceful relations. He got that right. That is the crux of the matter. There is neither credibility nor humanity to American foreign policy, and everyone knows that the United States and allies like Israel are basically rogue nations that obey no rules and respect no one else’s rights. This has been somewhat true since the Second World War but it has become routine practice in nearly all of America’s international relations since 9/11 and the real losers are the American people, who have to shoulder the burden of an increasingly feckless and hopelessly corrupt political class.

*

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 Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Andrey_Popov / Shutterstock

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Despite the dialogue, NATO continues to maintain an aggressive rhetoric towards Russia, promising a new armed conflict if current negotiations fail to reach a consensus. In a interview, the Secretary General of NATO stated that the Western military alliance is prepared for a situation of war in Europe if Russia does not collaborate towards a resolution of the Ukrainian issue. More than a warning, Stoltenberg’s attitude appears to be a true boycott against the negotiations and tends to make the pacification of Eastern Europe even more difficult.

Jens Stoltenberg, during a recent interview with the Financial Times, stated that his bloc is prepared for a new armed conflict on European soil in case bilateral negotiations fail. Stoltenberg’s words created an atmosphere of tensions and mistrust on the eve of one of the most important events in recent history between Moscow and NATO – in which terms for the peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian question will be discussed.

These were some of the Secretary’s words:

“I am aware of Russia’s history. For centuries they have experienced conflict with neighbors (…) [But] Russia has an alternative: to co-operate, to work with Nato (…) It is possible to find together a path, a political way forward, and also to address Russia’s concerns… But there continues to be a risk of conflict (…) Nato’s deterrence is credible and strong… We have to hope and work hard for the best, but be prepared for the worst.”

Stoltenberg and the pro-Western analysts justify this type of speech based on the movement of troops operated by the Russians in recent months, mainly in regions close to the border with Ukraine. It is estimated that around 100,000 troops were deployed on the western borders, in addition to military vehicles and other equipment. For months, Washington has been promoting the thesis that this troop movement would be an indication of an alleged Russian invasion plan against Ukraine, which is why tensions increased in 2021, leading to the need to schedule a summit. However, this kind of justification sounds fallacious and weak.

First of all, it must be remembered that at no time did the Russian government try to allocate troops outside its own territorial limits. The moves took place strictly within the Russian State’s sovereign space, which in no way can be interpreted as any kind of international threat. Every state has the right to distribute its military forces throughout its territory in the most convenient and strategic way possible, and it is absolutely normal that a tense zone such as the western border is receiving special attention from Moscow.

Also, the very reason why Russia is acting this way is due to NATO’s previous attitudes in the region. Western maneuvers in Ukraine have been a real threat to the integrity of western Russian territory and the entire Moscow’s strategic environment. And so, it has been the same process for years: NATO allocates troops on the Russian western border and makes threats, which are responded to with mere troop movement (which is an elementary security measure) by Moscow, within Russian territory itself – and then the West promotes the speech that the Russian government is preparing its troops for an invasion of Ukraine.

Considering these facts, Stoltenberg’s words can be interpreted in only one way: the condition for NATO to reach an agreement with Russia on the Ukrainian case is linked to the imposition of limits on Russian troops’ movements within Russian territory. Moscow must give “clear signals” that it does not plan to invade Ukraine – and these signals cannot be the repeated declarations of the Russian government that such a plan does not exist, but something more: a true self-limitation of its own military power. NATO wants Russia to keep its western border insecure, allowing eastern European space to become an arena of western occupation.

This is just another attempt by NATO to subvert the negotiations in order to impose abusive conditions on Russia, trying to make its interests prevail unilaterally, using the threat of war. The problem with this speech is that Stoltenberg’s threat will be interpreted as a bluff. It is very clear to both NATO and Russia that Ukraine is not such an important scenario for the West to the point of justifying the beginning of a war on European soil, with the confrontation of antagonistic nuclear powers.

Stoltenberg just tried, in a very unsophisticated way, to impose the interests of his bloc to intimidate Russia before and during the forthcoming talks. Even if his words are not a bluff and he personally defends the idea of war against Russia, his plans would be frustrated by the governments that are part of the alliance, which would never consider Ukraine a sufficient reason for a new war in Europe.

*

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.