All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Officers have fired rubber bullets and tear gas at anti-lockdown protesters, including children.
Pregnant women arrested.
Pastors thrown in jail.
Australia has unleashed such control that many are calling it a police state.
*
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.
As 2021 winds down to its last couple of days, I am writing to toot our horn a bit. You see, the Ron Paul Liberty Report has spent this year – and the previous year – in the trenches fighting what can only be described as the greatest assault on Americans’ civil liberties since slavery.
All of a sudden we saw that our house of liberty was built on sand – that the elites made billions with their boots on our necks while the rest of us suffered. Never again!
You have probably received many solicitations for end-of-year support from organizations that put their finger to the wind to see when it’s safe to come out in favor of liberty and freedom. As you know, Ron Paul has never played that game.
From the very first moment they started ramping up an authoritarian response to a virus, Ron Paul was calling their bluff. He published “The Coronavirus Hoax” on the Ron Paul Institute website in March, 2020, just as President Trump was following his malevolent covid advisors toward lockdowns and tyranny.
It certainly was not the “cautious” thing to say – and we received some nasty notes from a few supporters – but Ron Paul always speaks the truth regardless of whether it is popular at the time.
In this prescient March 2020 article he wrote:
Governments love crises because when the people are fearful they are more willing to give up freedoms for promises that the government will take care of them.
Did he call this whole thing or what? Governments use “crises” to frighten the people into submitting their liberties to the “authorities” in exchange for protections that governments never deliver.
And how well did the government protect us from illness and death from this coronavirus? About as well as it protected us against a terror attack on 9/11.
Senator Rand Paul said it best as a guest on a recent episode of the Ron Paul Institute’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
I would venture to say that thousands of people die in our country every month now because [Fauci] has deemphasized the idea that there are therapeutics.
The mainstream media is doing a great job amplifying Sen. Paul’s Liberty Report statements – of course with the intention of ridiculing the Senator.
But we’re past that. Their game is up.
We’ve travelled down this road together these past two years. Dr. Paul and I scouring the media every morning to try and bring the latest bit of truth to our growing viewership. As the mainstream media loses viewers by the millions, the Ron Paul Liberty Report GAINS viewers by the millions!
Our influence is growing thanks to your generous support. But we cannot continue to produce a top-quality news and analysis program every day without you. Behind the camera there are so many expenses that we must meet if we are to continue.
And we are not just the Ron Paul Liberty Report! This year the Ron Paul Institute held two sold-out conferences, in Houston and Washington, DC, including speakers like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Rep. Thomas Massie! We also held our second Ron Paul Scholars Seminar – a foreign policy boot camp for a terrific group of upper division undergrads and grad students! And don’t forget the thousand-plus articles we publish each year!
Without the Ron Paul Institute and the Liberty Report who would be left to tell the unvarnished truth?
Time is running out to get all the tax credit for your donation to the Ron Paul Institute – 501(c)3 Charity – for 2021! Please act NOW before midnight on December 31st to keep the Ron Paul Institute and Liberty Report alive and growing in 2022.
The bad guys are not giving in. They are not giving up. We can stop them in 2022…but we need your help!
Hope to see all of you at a future Ron Paul Institute event in 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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
A record number of journalists are imprisoned throughout the world, according to the annual prison index released by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). But that number excludes WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
CPJ, which is based in New York, opposes the United States Justice Department’s prosecution against Assange. However, for the third year, the press freedom organization declined to classify him as a jailed journalist.
In the organization’s press release on the 2021 index, it states, “No journalists were jailed in North America at the time of the census deadline.” That may be true, but it obscures what the U.S. government is doing to keep a journalist detained in the United Kingdom.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF), based in Paris, previously joined with CPJ on press freedom campaigns. They also keep an annual tally of journalists in detention, yet unlike CPJ, RSF included Assange in their 2021 round-up.
Screen shot from Reporters Without Borders’ Round-Up of Journalists Detained, Killed, or Held Hostage and Missing in 2021
“Held in London’s Belmarsh maximum-security prison since April 2019, the U.S. government continues to pursue Assange’s extradition on the basis of 18 charges connected with Wikileaks’ publication in 2010 of hundreds of thousands of leaked classified documents revealing war crimes and human rights violations that have never been prosecuted,” RSF acknowledged.
Assange is listed among other examples of detained journalists, including Zhang Zhan, Raman Pratasevich, and Pham Doan Trang.
CPJ was asked for comment on the continued exclusion of Assange from their annual index, and a press person replied, “CPJ has [previously] explained the reason for Mr. Assange’s absence from this particular list”—linking to a 2019 post on their website.
Seventeen charges under the Espionage Act were announced by the Justice Department in May 2019. One computer crime charge was announced in April 2019 as well—the same month Assange was expelled from the Ecuador embassy, arrested by British authorities, and detained at Belmarsh.
When Assange was first omitted from CPJ’s annual index in 2019, the organization referred reporters with questions to their methodology.
“CPJ defines journalists as people who cover news or comment on public affairs through any media—including in print, in photographs, on radio, on television, and online. We take up cases involving staff journalists, freelancers, stringers, bloggers, and citizen journalists.”
Robert Mahoney, CPJ’s deputy executive director, wrote a post in defense of the decision to exclude Assange.
“After extensive research and consideration, CPJ chose not to list Assange as a journalist, in part because his role has just as often been as a source and because WikiLeaks does not generally perform as a news outlet with an editorial process,” Mahoney argued.
Yet Assange is not a source. He did not work for any of the agencies, where employees or contractors had access to the materials. U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was the source.
John Goetz, who worked for German newspaper Der Spiegel when it partnered with WikiLeaks on the Afghanistan War Logs, submitted testimony for Assange’s defense during his extradition hearing in September 2020. He described “significant innovations in the field of investigative journalism” that he observed.
“Many of us at Der Spiegel [had] long wanted to publish to publish online documents, which proved the accuracy of our stories, yet before WikiLeaks, that was uncommon. It was WikiLeaks that first initiated large journalistic partnerships, something that is now almost common; for example, the ICIJ partnership around the ‘Panama Papers.’”
Goetz added, “At the time, the idea that major publications would work together violated much of what I had learned. WikiLeaks pioneered the online dropbox for submissions to newsrooms, which is now commonplace in media around the world.”
“The emphasis placed by WikiLeaks on secure communications in order to protect its materials and journalistic sources, which back in 2010 was unheard of, has since become the norm amongst investigative journalists.”
Clearly Assange and WikiLeaks had an editorial process for the documents at issue in this case. Unlike Mahoney, Goetz does not conflate the editorial process with the reporting process.
Mark Feldstein, a former CNN and ABC News correspondent who testified at the same extradition hearing, said, “Assange has engaged in the essence of journalism: gathering and publishing newsworthy information and documents for the public.”
Former New York Times general counsel James Goodale represented the Times when they published the Pentagon Papers. He is also a senior adviser to CPJ.
In his 2013 book, Fighting For the Press, Goodale wrote, “It should be clear Assange is carrying out the digital equivalent of editing and gathering news in the digital age.”
“Assange sought out secret information by setting up a private website for the anonymous transmission of information to him,” according to Goodale. “Journalists asking sources to reveal secrets is the essence of journalism. The only thing that has changed is that online chats and a digital submission system have replaced meeting over a cup of coffee and a P.O. Box.”
CPJ executive director Joel Simon has insisted for more than a decade that it is irrelevant whether Assange is a journalist. In fact, he believes that question is not “ultimately resolvable.”
“WikiLeaks has tried to suggest that it functions as a journalistic entity,” Simon wrote in his book, The New Censorship, which was published in 2015. “I’m skeptical. WikiLeaks is best described as an anti-secrecy advocacy group that uses journalistic strategies to advance its goals.”
While Simon waffles on the matter, U.S. intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, have had no trouble resolving the question in a manner that helps them justify targeting Assange as a “malevolent foreign actor” or an “information broker,” who does not deserve press freedom protections.
The chair of CPJ’s board of directors is Kathleen Carroll, who was the executive editor of the Associated Press when WikiLeaks obtained documents from Manning. AP objected to the terms of the arrangement offered by WikiLeaks and chose not to work on the documents with WikiLeaks.
At the Nieman Conference on Secrecy and Journalism on December 16, 2010, a little more than two weeks after the first diplomatic cables were published, Carroll told an audience AP passed on partnering with WikiLeaks. The AP was unwilling to grant WikiLeaks “control over where the documents were stored and who in our organization had access to them.”
Carroll also suggested, “Assange [was] an advocate, and those of you who are journalists understand what it’s like to deal with advocates. They’re advocating for a certain point of view.”
“One of the challenges that the AP has sometimes is because we are a U.S.-based organization—We’re a global organization. We have a good chunk of revenue and customers around the world and staff there, but we’re very often shorthanded as an American organization. And it’s possible that Mr. Assange thought that we were tainted by that in some way.”
Asked if Assange informed AP of why they were denied access to the documents, Carroll said he did not say. So what Carroll suggested was entirely conjecture.
Jacob Weisberg, former editor-in-chief of Slate Group, is the vice chair of CPJ’s board of directors. He opposed Assange and WikiLeaks in 2015 when they published emails from Sony Entertainment that were hacked. He published an opinion article at Slate, which he oversaw, under the headline, “Stop Publishing the Sony Hacks.”
“News outlets should obviously cover the story of the hack itself, the effect on Sony, the question of how it happened, and who’s responsible. This is a big and legitimate news story,” Weisberg declared. “But when it comes to exploiting the fruits of the digital break-in, journalists should voluntarily withhold publication.”
“They shouldn’t hold back because they’re legally obligated to—I don’t believe they are—but because there’s no ethical justification for publishing this damaging stolen material.”
Weisberg failed to disclose that he had ties to Sony Entertainment chief executive Michael Lynton, and emails he sent were in the archive that WikiLeaks published.
Washington Post columnist Erik Wemple contended Weisberg should have included a disclosure. Weisberg denied the existence of any conflict of interest and countered, “I continue to think that writing articles based on these emails is a massive violation of privacy—now including mine—without any compelling justification.”
In November 2020, CPJ executive director Joel Simon outlined some of the press freedom issues President Joe Biden needed to deal with after President Donald Trump’s administration fueled contempt for journalists. Remarkably, it contained no mention of the prosecution of Assange.
For what it’s worth, Assange has an International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) press card. Since 2010, he also has been a member of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), a trade union in Australia.
Every day that CPJ denies Assange a place in their jailed journalist index dilutes their credibility, as well as the ability of their advocacy to meaningfully contribute to an end to the U.S. government’s concerted attack on journalism.
*
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.
Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof, host of the “Dissenter Weekly,” co-host of the podcast “Unauthorized Disclosure,” and member of Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ).
Featured image: Committee to Protect Journalists executive director Joel Simon (Screen shot from CPJ promo video on YouTube)
This text was first published on April 4 2019 in the context of the Florence International Conference: No War, No NATO whichcentred on the key relationship between US-NATO military operations directed against targeted countries and the imposition of far-reaching neoliberal economic reforms both before and in the wake of US-NATO military interventions.
At the height of the Ukraine Crisis, a World War III Scenario Looms. Nuclear War is Contemplated. The Future of Humanity is Threatened.
What are the Solutions:
NATO Exit under Art. 13. Notice of Denunciation
A Worldwide Antiwar Movement
The Disabling of War Propaganda
Sanity in US Foreign Policy
Diplomacy and Peace Negotiations,
The Closing Down of the War Economy.
Michel Chossudovsky, February 25, 2023
***
This article addresses the dangers and consequences of a Third World War as well the nature of advanced weapons systems deployed by the broader US-NATO coalition.
Extensive war crimes have been committed by NATO member states.
The object of the 2019 Florence Venue is NATO-EXIT. The Dismantling of NATO and the closure of US military bases.
There is a (somewhat contradictory) clause within the Treaty of the Atlantic Alliance (Article 13) which enables withdrawal from NATO. This clause has to be examined and a strategy must be envisaged.
The request of a NATO Member State to withdraw from the Treaty rests with the Government of the United States of America. What are the legal implications of this clause?
In our conclusion we will address what types of actions are required by mass movements to reach this objective, bearing in mind that since the war on Iraq (2003), protest movements have been coopted and manipulated. While global warming makes the headlines, the dangers of nuclear war are barely mentioned. Why?
Introduction and Overview
Washington’s unspoken hegemonic objective is Worldwide militarization and economic conquest. This imperial design is carried out through acts of war, military intervention, coups d’Etat, regime change, US sponsored insurgencies, cyber-warfare, economic sabotage and destabilization. “All options are on the table”.
We are at an important threshold in our history
In relation to all previous wars, today’s advanced military arsenal includes nuclear, biological, chemical and electromagnetic weapons which have the ability to destroy human life on a Worldwide scale.
War Propanganda
This military agenda is supported by an extensive propaganda apparatus.
The dangers of a World War are casually dismissed. War is portrayed as a humanitarian endeavor. The Mainstream media contends that war is a peace-making undertaking and that NATO should be granted the Nobel Peace prize.
Propaganda sustains the war agenda.
It provides a human face to war criminals in high office. Without media disinformation which upholds war as a peacemaking endeavor, America’s military agenda would collapse like a house of cards.
The imminent dangers of modern warfare are not front page news.
War is portrayed as a Peace-making endeavour. War Becomes Peace, Realities are turned upside down.
When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no turning backwards. War criminals are portrayed as peace-makers.
War and Globalization. The Neoliberal Agenda
War and globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the imposition of macro-economic restructuring on targeted countries. It imposes military spending in support of the war economy at the expense of the civilian economy. It leads to economic destabilization and the demise of national institutions.
Military interventions are coupled with concurrent acts of economic sabotage and financial manipulation. The ultimate objective is conquest of both human and natural resources as well as political institutions.
Acts of war support a process of outright economic conquest. America’s hegemonic project is to transform sovereign countries into open territories. Debt conditionalities are imposed by foreign creditors. In turn, large sectors of the World population are impoverished through the concurrent imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms.
9/11 and the Invasion of Afghanistan. NATO and the “Global War on Terrorism”
The September 11, 2001 attacks (9/11) constitute an important and historical threshold. On the 12th of September 2001, the North Atlantic Council in Brussels invoking for the first time the doctrine of collective security (art. 5 of the Washington Treaty) adopted the following resolution:
“if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan] against “The North Atlantic area“, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”. (emphasis added)
This historic decision was supported by media propaganda. There was no attack against the US by a foreign power. There were no Afghan jet fighters in the skies of New York. There was a terror event. But it was not an act of war by a foreign power against the United States of America.
Without a shred of evidence, Afghanistan was tagged as the state sponsor of the 9/11 high-jackers, all of whom were Saudi nationals. Allegedly Afghanistan was “protecting” 9/11 terror mastermind Osama bin Laden (who was an “intelligence asset”, recruited in the early 1980s by the CIA ). Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts were known. On the 10th of September (as documented by Dan Rather CBS News) Osama had been admitted to the urology department of a military hospital in Rawalpindi, by America’s staunchest ally Pakistan.
Moreover, in the course of September and early October 2001, the Afghan Taliban government on two occasions contacted the US State Department through diplomatic channels and offered to extradite bin Laden to the U.S. This issue was not covered by the media.
Bush responded:” We do not negotiate with terrorists”.
Barely 4 weeks following the 9/11 attack on October 7, 2001, US-NATO invaded Afghanistan, invoking the doctrine of collective security. There was no evidence that “Afghanistan had attacked America” on September 11, 2001.
It is worth noting, confirmed by military analysts that you do not prepare a large scale theatre war in Central Asia, thousands of miles away in a matter of 28 days. This issue was casually dismissed by the mainstream media. The war on Afghanistan had been prepared PRIOR to 9/11.
US-NATO’s Role in Recruiting and Financing Al Qaeda Affiliated Terrorists
NATO has self-proclaimed mandate to go after the terrorists.
Yet there is ample evidence that NATO was involved in supporting as well as recruiting Al Qaeda affiliated mercenaries in Kosovo, Libya and Syria.(among other countries)
Video: NATO is Helping to Fight Terrorism Every Day (Source NATO)
In Syria, from Day One (March 17, 2011), the Islamist “freedom fighters” were supported, trained and equipped by NATO and Turkey’s High Command. According to Israeli intelligence sources (Debka, August 14, 2011):
NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command are meanwhile drawing up plans for their first military step in Syria, which is to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters spearheading the Assad regime’s crackdown on dissent. … NATO strategists are thinking more in terms of pouring large quantities of anti-tank and anti-air rockets, mortars and heavy machine guns into the protest centers for beating back the government armored forces. (DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011)
This initiative, which was also supported by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States involved a process of organized recruitment of thousands of jihadist “freedom fighters”, reminiscent of the enlistment of the Mujahideen to wage the CIA’s jihad (holy war) in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-89).
In NATO’s war on Libya in 2011, support was channelled to the Al Qaeda affiliated jihadist opposition to the Gadaffi government.
The Legitimacy of “Humanitarian Warfare”
The twisted justifications for US-NATO led wars are:
“The Just War” (Jus ad Bellum). NATO contends that all itswars are morally justifiable. This is tantamount to legitimizing extensive war crimes.
“The Global War on Terrorism”. The counter-terrorism campaign is fake. Amply documented, NATO is involved in supporting and recruiting jihadist mercenaries (Syria 2011).
“Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) with a view to instilling (Trump style) Western “democracy” Worldwide.
Pre-emptive war as a means of “self-defense”, Attack them before they attack us. This doctrine also pertains to nuclear weapons, i.e. blow up the planet as a means of ‘self-defense”
RussiaGate, “Self-defense” against Russia under the doctrine of collective security
Pivot to Asia, Targeting China.
Financing US-NATO led Wars
In recent developments, President Trump has proposed major spending cuts in health, education, social infrastructure “while seeking a large increase for the Pentagon”. At the outset of his administration, president Trump confirmed that he was increasing the budget for the nuclear weapons program launched by Obama from 1.0 trillion to 1.2 trillion dollars. The stated objective was to make the world safer.
Throughout the EU, extended military spending coupled with austerity measures is leading to the demise of what was called the “Welfare State”.
NATO is committed to increasing military spending. It is the right thing to do to “keep our people secure, according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
This favors the weapons producers at the expense of social programs. Mass movements against neoliberal economic policy and social inequality (Yellow Vests) cannot, therefore, be divorced from the anti-war movement.
Globalization and the Corporate Power Structures
Global warfare sustains the Neoliberal Agenda and vice versa.
Neoliberalism broadly defined is not limited to a set of economic paradigms and structural reforms. What we are dealing with is an imperial project broadly serving powerful global overlapping interests:
Wall Street and the Global Banking Apparatus
The Military Industrial Complex,
Big Oil,
the Biotech conglomerates, Bayer-Monsanto et al
Big Pharma,
The Global Narcotics Economy and Organized Crime,
the Media Conglomerates and the Information and Communication Technology Giants.
The military agenda is geared towards supporting and endorsing these powerful interests groups. There is of course within these sectors, mounting conflict between global conglomerates, each of which have their lobby groups.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
NATO and the De Facto US Military Occupation of Western Europe
70 years ago NATO was born. In April 1949, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) established what was designated as the doctrine of “Collective Security” under Art. 5 of the Washington Treaty.
NATO has a sordid history of aggression and war crimes:
Ever since its founding in April 1949, NATO has served as the vehicle to spur the arms race in the name of ‘peace through strength’. In that very same year, the Truman Administration in the United States secretly developed “Operation Dropshot’ to launch a devastating ‘first-strike’ against the former Soviet Union to completely obliterate that country. Throughout the ‘cold war’ years, the U.S. and its NATO allies always maintained an overwhelming military superiority over the USSR and the Warsaw Pact – a fact that they cynically concealed from public view at the time, but now readily admit. (Canadian Peace Congress)
The unspoken objective of NATO –which is of significance to our debate in Florence–, was to sustain under a different label, the de facto “military occupation” of Western Europe. The US not only continues to “occupy” World War II “axis countries” (Italy, Germany), it has used the NATO emblem to install US military bases throughout Western Europe, as well as in Eastern Europe in the wake of the Cold War, extending into the Balkans in the wake of NATO’s war on Yugoslavia.
Today, NATO consists of 29 member states, most of which have US military facilities on their territory, with the largest deployments of US forces in Germany and Italy. Bear in mind these are not NATO bases. The latter are limited to command and logistics: e.g. SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, Casteau, Belgium, NATO Allied Command Transformation, Norfolk, Virginia
12 founding member states in 1949 Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,
A number of other countries have established partnership agreements with NATO. Israel is a de facto member of NATO, based on an agreement reached in 2003. In turn, the US has established a host of military alliances on a regional basis.
Under the semblance of a multi-national military alliance, the Pentagon dominates NATO decision-making. The US controls NATO command structures, which are embedded into those of the US. The Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) as well as the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT) are Americans appointed by Washington. NATO current Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is essentially a bureaucrat. He does not call the shots.
Two other key command structures Allied Command Transformation (ACT) and Allied Command Operations (ACO), “responsible for the planning and execution of all NATO military operations” were added in 2002.
Under the terms of the military alliance, NATO member states are harnessed into endorsing Washington’s imperial design of World conquest under the doctrine of collective security.
In 1949, NATO became a Cold War instrument which prevented and undermined the development of trade, political, social and cultural relations between Western Europe and the Soviet block including Eastern Europe.
For Washington, with the Pentagon pulling the strings, NATO has become a convenient military “multi-state proxy”.
The strategic objectives of the US with regard to NATO are:
The de facto US Military Occupation of Western, Eastern Europe and Canada through the establishment of US military bases in most NATO member states
The imposition of US Foreign Policy, requiring the acceptance (under the doctrine of collective security) of all US war plans by NATO member states (including military deployments on Russia’s doorstep)
A mechanism whereby the Pentagon finances its wars and military operations through contributions by each NATO member state, at tax-payers expense;
The conduct of US-led wars under the emblem of the NATO military alliance, thereby obliging NATO member states to deploy their military capabilities as well as “do the dirty work for us”, i.e. killing and destruction on behalf of Washington.
The extension of US influence in the post war period into the former colonies of Western European countries (France, Belgium, Italy, Britain)
Military Occupation is tagged as “Protection” and the governments of NATO member states are actually “Paying the U.S. to Occupy their countries”. It is all for a good cause. “Make the World Safer”:
“The biggest indignity yet was the ludicrous demand that NATO allies pay to host the American troops permanently garrisoned there – to essentially bankroll their own occupations. Last week, it was reported the US would begin asking some of its most hospitable allies – those nations home to hundreds of thousands of soldiers – to foot the bill for the cost of keeping them “safe.”(H. Busyinzki),
I should mention that in addition to recommending NATO for the Nobel Peace Prize, the media relentlessly presents NATO as an instrument of peace-making.
US Military Bases and Global Military Alliances
The Pentagon’s grip extends well beyond the 29 NATO member states. It also includes partner countries as well as a broad system of military alliances in all major regions of the World including Latin America, North Africa and the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, South East Asia, East Asia (Japan, South Korea) and Oceania. Israel is a de facto NATO member state.
Military alliances and military occupation go hand in hand.
More generally the creation of military alliances has become a means to install US military bases in a large number of countries, including countries which were the victims of US led wars and military interventions. (eg Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iraq)
With the exception of NATO Strategic Command and its Logistics bases, there are no NATO military bases.
There are US bases located in host countries (including NATO member states) as well as national military bases under the jurisdiction of the NATO member states, often in a joint arrangement with the US.
Today there are approximately 39 US military bases in Germany (based on official sources), many of which are under a system of joint command with Germany and NATO.
Of significance, beyond the scope of this article, are the broad structures of military alliances of Russia and China under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Turkey (a member of NATO) is now collaborating with Russia as well as Iran. America’s staunchest ally Pakistan is now a full member of the SCO and is actively collaborating with China.
Geographic Combat Commands. US Military Bases Worldwide
America’s System of Geographic Combat Commands was established in the wake of World War II. It constitutes the foundations of global warfare, leading to the deployment of US Air, Navy and Land forces Worldwide, including the militarization of outer space and the deployment of nuclear weapons. In turn, all major theater wars are coordinated by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska,
The United States currently has more than 800 formal military bases in 80 countries. In turn, US-led military and economic alliances have played a key role in extending America’s sphere of influence.Once these military bases are established in countries, they remain. The host country becomes a de facto ally of the US.
From a strategic point of view with modern day warfare, the geographic combat commands are in some regards obsolete. They are largely geared towards controlling countries which host US military bases. They do not constitute an effective structure for waging strategic military operations against Russia or China.
800+ US Military Bases. Where are they Located
Joint Forces command agreements are signed between the US and its allies. The host countries must not only endorse US military doctrine, they also contribute sizeable financial resources which are used to fund US military operations. In this regard, NATO member states contribute financially to sustaining the US-led military apparatus.
The map below is incomplete. It does not include US bases under Joint Command
America’s allies are also caught in the nexus of sustaining the US weapons industry (“defense contractors”) through multibillion dollar purchase.
Nuclear War and Nuclear Weapons
“The Privatization of Nuclear War”
US Military Contractors Set the Stage
US-NATO interventions are presented as peacemaking endeavors. A new generation of “more usable” “low yield” nuclear weapons are categorized as “harmless to civilians”. This initiative was first formulated during the George W. Bush administration. The concepts are contained in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, adopted by the Senate in 2002.
Hiroshima Day 2003: Secret Meeting at Strategic Command Headquarters
On August 6, 2003, on Hiroshima Day, commemorating when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (August 6 1945), a secret meeting was held behind closed doors at Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.
Senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex were in attendance. This mingling of defense contractors, scientists and policy-makers was not intended to commemorate Hiroshima. The meeting was intended to set the stage for the development of a new generation of “smaller”, “safer” and “more usable” nuclear weapons, to be used in the “in-theater nuclear wars” of the 21st Century.
In a cruel irony, the participants to this secret meeting, which excluded members of Congress, arrived on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing and departed on the anniversary of the attack on Nagasaki. More than 150 military contractors, scientists from the weapons labs, and other government officials gathered at the headquarters of the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska to plot and plan for the possibility of “full-scale nuclear war”, calling for the production of a new generation of nuclear weapons – more “usable” so-called “mini-nukes” and earth penetrating “bunker busters” armed with atomic warheads.
According to a leaked draft of the agenda, the secret meeting included discussions on “mini-nukes” and “bunker-buster” bombs with nuclear war heads “for possible use against rogue states”:
Participants intimated:
“We need to change our nuclear strategy from the Cold War to one that can deal with emerging threats… The meeting will give some thought to how we guarantee the efficacy of the (nuclear) stockpile.”
The post 9/11 nuclear weapons doctrine was in the making, with America’s major defense contractors directly involved in the decision-making process.
The Hiroshima Day 2003 meetings had set the stage for the “privatization of nuclear war”. Corporations not only reap multibillion-dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.
The nuclear weapons industry, which includes the production of nuclear devices as well as the missile delivery systems, etc., is controlled by a handful of defense contractors with Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Northrop Grunman, Raytheon and Boeing in the lead. It is worth noting that barely a week prior to the historic August 6, 2003 meeting, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) disbanded its advisory committee which provided an “independent oversight” on the US nuclear arsenal, including the testing and/or use of new nuclear devices. (The above text is an excerpt from Michel Chossudovsky’s Towards a World War Three Scenario, The Dangers of Nuclear War. Global Research, Montreal, 2011)
Dangerous Crossroads: The Future of Humanity is Threatened
Needless to say, the World is at a dangerous crossroads. The future of humanity is threatened. Lies and fabrications permeate US-NATO military doctrine. Those who decide believe in their own propaganda. Not only do they believe that tactical nuclear weapons are peace-making bombs, they are now putting forth the concept of a “Winnable Third World War”. Taking out China and Russia is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.
We are at the juncture of the most serious crisis in World history. A Third World War using nuclear weapons is terminal. This is not an understatement.
Military interventions are not limited to conventional warfare. What is at stake is a process of global warfare using advanced weapons systems. The safeguards of the Cold War era have been scrapped. The concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction” pertaining to the use of nuclear weapons has been replaced by the doctrine of preemptive nuclear war.
The INF Treaty is defunct. Nuclear weapons are portrayed by the media as peace-making bombs. They are no longer tagged as Weapons of Mass Destruction. They are to be used in what the Pentagon calls “bloody nose” operations.
In the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) under the Bush administration, the Pentagon introduced the notion of pre-emptive nuclear war, namely the use of nuclear weapons on a first strike basis as a means of “self defense”.
The new generation of so-called tactical nuclear weapons (mininukes) has been been categorized as “low yield” and “more usable. The US Senate in 2002 approved their use in the conventional war theater. They are contemplated for use against North Korea and Iran.
They are tagged as “safe to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground.” These “low yield” tactical nuclear bombs have an explosive capacity between one third and twelve times a Hiroshima bomb.
“More Usable” “Low Yield Nuclear Weapons Deployed in Five Non-Nuclear Weapons States: Germany, Italy, Belgium,The Netherlands, Turkey
The “Official” Nuclear Weapons States
Five countries, the US, UK, France, China and Russia are considered to be “nuclear weapons states” (NWS), “an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)”. Three other “Non NPT countries” (i.e. non-signatory states of the NPT) including India, Pakistan and North Korea, have recognized possessing nuclear weapons.
It is worth noting that North Korea was the only declared nuclear weapons state which voted YES at the UN General Assembly, in favor of the prohibition of nuclear weapons under Resolution L.41.
Nobody knows about this. WHY: Because the mainstream media has not mentioned it (“Fake News” through Omission) or as in the case of The Guardian and Bloomberg, the DPRK was casually lumped together with the other nuclear weapons states which voted NO (against the resolution).
“Oops News”. “We made a mistake”. We did not really check the UN General Assembly documents.
Israel: “Undeclared Nuclear State”
Israel is identified as an “undeclared nuclear state”. It produces and deploys nuclear warheads directed against military and civilian targets in the Middle East including Tehran.
Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and Turkey: erroneously categorised as Non-Nuclear Weapons States”
The nuclear weapons capabilities of these five countries including delivery procedures are formally acknowledged. The US has supplied some 480 B61. thermonuclear bombs to five so-called “non-nuclear states”, including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. In recent developments the B61.11 mini-nukes are to replaced by the recently developed B61.12. Based on 2014 data Italy possesses 50 B61 tactical nuclear weapons at its Aviano base. It is unclear whether these bombs are under US or National Command.
Casually disregarded by the Vienna based UN Nuclear Watchdog (IAEA), the US has actively contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Western Europe. As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005) By the recognised definition, these five countries are “undeclared nuclear weapons states”.
The stockpiling and deployment of tactical B61 in these five “non-nuclear states” are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance with “NATO strike plans”, these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs (stockpiled by the “non-nuclear States”) could be launched “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran” ( quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe, February 2005)
Click to See Details and Map of Nuclear Facilities located in 5 European “Non-Nuclear States”
The stockpiled weapons are B61 thermonuclear bombs. All the weapons are gravity bombs of the B61-3, -4, and -10 types.2 . Those estimates were based on private and public statements by a number of government sources and assumptions about the weapon storage capacity at each base .(National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)
Germany: Nuclear Weapons Producer
Among the five “undeclared nuclear states”, “Germany remains the most heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster ] bombs” (Ibid). In accordance with “NATO strike plans” (mentioned above) these tactical nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East. While Germany is not categorized officially as a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads (made in America) and it has the capabilities of delivering nuclear weapons.
Moreover, The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company – EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish joint venture, controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe’s second largest military producer, supplying .France’s M51 nuclear missile. Germany imports and deploys nuclear weapons from the US. It also produces nuclear warheads which are exported to France. Yet it is classified as a non-nuclear state.
Fidel’s Message on the Dangers of Nuclear War
In 2010, October 12 to 15, 2010, I had extensive and detailed discussions with Fidel Castro in Havana, pertaining to the dangers of nuclear war, the global economic crisis and the nature of the New World Order.
Fidel Castro and Michel Chossudovsky, Havana, October 2010
These meetings resulted in a wide-ranging and fruitful interview which was subsequently published by Global Research.
Recorded on the last day of the Conversations, October 15, 2010, Fidel Castro made the following statement:
In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.
Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!
“The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. This was candidly foreseen by scientist Albert Einstein who was able to measure their destructive capability to generate millions of degrees of heat, which would vaporize everything within a wide radius of action. This brilliant researcher had promoted the development of this weapon so that it would not become available to the genocidal Nazi regime.
Each and every government in the world has the obligation to respect the right to life of each and every nation and of the totality of all the peoples on the planet.
Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbour the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.
The World’s peoples have an obligation to demand of their political leaders their Right to Live. When the life of humankind, of your people and your most beloved human beings run such a risk, nobody can afford to be indifferent; not one minute can be lost in demanding respect for that right; tomorrow will be too late.
Albert Einstein himself stated unmistakably: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”. We fully comprehend what he wanted to convey, and he was absolutely right, yet in the wake of a global nuclear war, there wouldn’t be anybody around to make use of those sticks and stones.
There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.
In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.
Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”
Fidel Castro Ruz, October 15, 2010
Flashback: The Unspoken History of Nuclear War
The Manhattan Project established in 1939 together with Britain and Canada developed the first atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What was the purpose of the Manhattan Project? The official explanation is that it was America’s response to Nazi Germany’s intent to develop the atomic bomb. Bear in mind, the Manhattan project was launched in 1939, two years prior to America’s participation in World War II.
What is never mentioned in the history of nuclear weapons is that the Manhattan Project had formulated a plan to use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union as early as 1942. In other words, the Nuclear Arms Race was not the product of the Cold War. It took it roots during World War II when the US and the Soviet Union were allies. And present US military doctrine is largely a continuation of the nuclear weapons program initiated under the Manhattan Project:
All major cities of the Soviet Union were included in the list of 66 “strategic” targets. The tables below categorize each city in terms of area in square miles and the corresponding number of atomic bombs required to annihilate and kill the inhabitants of selected urban areas.
Six atomic bombs were to be used to destroy each of the larger cities including Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent, Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa.
The Pentagon estimated that a total of 204 atomic bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”. The targets for a nuclear attack consisted of sixty-six major cities.
To undertake this operation the “optimum” number of bombs required was of the order of 466 (see document below)
The document outlining this diabolical military agenda had been released in September 1945, barely one month after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (6 and 9 August, 1945) and two years before the onset of the Cold War (1947).
Video produced by South Front
The secret plan dated September 15, 1945 (two weeks after the surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945 aboard the USS Missouri, see image below) , however, had been formulated at an earlier period, namely at the height of World War II, at a time when America and the Soviet Union were close allies.
War with Russia and China
Nuclear Weapons were contemplated to be used against Russia since 1942, and against China since October 1949
Currently, there are detailed plans by the US military (which are in the public domaine) to wage war against both Russia and China.
Four non-compliant countries including China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have been singled out.
At the outset of 2019, War against China and Russia is on the drawing board of the Pentagon. The use of nuclear weapons is contemplated on a preemptive first strike basis.
Recent reports (2015-2018) commissioned by the Pentagon confirm the details of Washington’s military agenda against China and Russia (see reports by the Rand Corporation’s War against China project and the 2018 National Defense Strategy Commission, War against China and Russia.
On March 1st, 2018 president Vladimir Putin unveiled an array of advanced military technologies in response to renewed US threats to wipe the Russian Federation off the Map, as contained in Trump’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review.
Below is a review of detailed war plans against Russia and China. These plans are in the public domaine. They are based on the premise that the US can win a nuclear war.
In May 2014, the Russian Aggression Prevention Act (RAPA) was introduced in the US Senate (S 2277), calling for the militarization of Eastern Europe and the Baltic States and the stationing of US and NATO troops on Russia’s doorstep:
Directs the President to: (1) implement a plan for increasing U.S. and NATO support for the armed forces of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and other NATO member-states; and (2) direct the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO to seek consideration for permanently basing NATO forces in such countries.
In 2018: the US National Defense Strategy Commission report entitled “Providing for the Common Defense” outlines the contours of a war with Russia
The thrust of the report is that “global peace and stability” and “America’s own security, prosperity, and global leadership” are threatened by Russia and China.
Across Eurasia, grayzone aggression is steadily undermining the security of U.S. allies and partners and eroding American influence. Regional military balances in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Western Pacific have shifted in decidedly adverse ways.
What the report recommends is the conduct of “preemptive” action against both China and Russia, with a view to sustaining US military superiority.
The United States needs more than just new capabilities; it urgently requires new operational concepts that expand U.S. options and constrain those of China, Russia, and other actors.
While the report does describe a possible war scenario with Russia or China, it recommends a sizeable increase in the US military budget. A recommendation which is currently carried out by president Trump.
War with China Scenario
In 2015, a detailed report by the Rand Corporation commissioned by the US Army outlines a war scenario with China
Whereas a clear U.S. victory once seemed probable, it is increasingly likely that a conflict could involve inconclusive fighting with steep losses on both sides. The United States cannot expect to control a conflict it cannot dominate militarily.
The report is notoriously ambiguous. It focusses on how a war can be avoided while analyzing the circumstances under which a preemptive war against China is a win for the US:
The presumption of this report is that China is threatening us, which justifies pre-emptive warfare. There is no evidence of a Chinese military threat. The purpose of the RAND report is that Chinese policymakers will read it. What we are dealing with is a process of military intimidation including veiled threats:
While the primary audience for this study is the U.S. policy community, we hope that Chinese policymakers will also think through possible courses and consequences of war with the United States, includ ing potential damage to China’s economic development and threats to China’s equilibrium and cohesion. We find little in the public domain to indicate that the Chinese political leadership has given this matter the attention it deserves.
The Report outlines “Four Analytic Scenarios” on how a war with China could be carried out:
The path of war might be defined mainly by two variables: intensity (from mild to severe) and duration (from a few days to a year or more). Thus, we analyze four cases: brief and severe, long and severe, brief and mild, and long and mild. The main determinant of intensity is whether, at the outset, U.S. and Chinese political leaders grant or deny their respective militaries permission to execute their plans to attack opposing forces unhesitatingly.
The concluding comments of the report underscore the potential weakness of China in relation to US-allied forces “…they do not point to Chinese dominance or victory.”
The report creates an ideological war narrative. It is flawed in terms of its understanding of modern warfare and weapons systems. It is largely a propaganda ploy directed against the Chinese leadership. It totally ignores Chinese history and China’s military perceptions which are largely based on defending the Nation’s historical national borders.
While the US, according to the report, does not contemplate the use nuclear weapons, the report examines the circumstances under which China might use nukes against the US to avoid defeat.The analysis is diabolical:
Thus, it cannot be entirely excluded that the Chinese leadership would decide that only the use of nuclear weapons would prevent total defeat and the state’s destruction. However, even under such desperate conditions, the resort to nuclear weapons would not be China’s only option: It could instead accept defeat. Indeed, because U.S. nuclear retaliation would make the destruction of the state and collapse of the country all the more certain, accepting defeat would be a better option (depending on the severity of U.S. terms) than nuclear escalation. This logic, along with China’s ingrained no-first-use policy, suggests that Chinese first use is most improbable. (p. 30)
In other words, China has the option of being totally destroyed or surrendering to the US. The report concludes as follows:
In a nutshell, despite military trends that favor it, China could not win, and might lose, a severe war with the United States in 2025, especially if prolonged. Moreover, the economic costs and political dangers of such a war could imperil China’s stability, end its development, and undermine the legitimacy of the state. (p 68)
Unconventional Warfare (UW)
Included in the Pentagon’s arsenal is the use of various instruments of subversion including the support of terrorist insurgencies as outlined the Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare manual (leaked by Wikileaks).
The emphasis is on using “surrogates”, namely irregular forces, non-state and paramilitary terrorist entities which will do the dirty work for us:
UW [Unconventional Warfare] must be conducted by, with, or through surrogates; and such surrogates must be irregular forces. Moreover, this definition is consistent with the historical reasons that the United States has conducted UW. UW has been conducted in support of both an insurgency, such as the Contras in 1980s Nicaragua, and resistance movements to defeat an occupying power, such as the Mujahideen in 1980s Afghanistan. UW has also been conducted in support of pending or ongoing conventional military operations (p. 1-2)
The stated purpose outlined in Army Field Manual is to use UW to support “insurgencies” and “resistance movements”. The “War on Terrorism” (WAT) is also defined as part of the UW arsenal:
“UW remains an enduring and effective means of warfighting and is recognized as a central effort in the WOT…
ARSOF namely Army Special Forces “support the WOT by providing forces trained and equipped”.
The report focusses on the use of special forces which are integrated into the fabric of the War on Terrorism (WOT). What this means in practice is the processing of embedding of US-NATO forces in Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist insurgencies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.
Unconventional Warfare (UW) also extends into the realm of financial manipulation, acts of sabotage, cyberwarfare etc. The Army Field Manual on UW also details and condones the instruments of Irregular Warfare (IW) which may resort to illegal activities such as the Iran-Contra:
“Transnational criminal activities, including narco-trafficking, illicit arms dealing, and illegal financial transactions, that support or sustain IW.”
The Anti-war Movement: How to Reverse the Tide
Pursuant to the Florence April 7, 2019 Stop NATO Conference, concrete actions would consist in:
demanding the withdrawal from NATO by the 29 member states leading to the abolition of NATO.
closing down of US bases and military facilities in all NATO member states
the withdrawal of all US military personnel from NATO member countries
the repeal of payments of NATO member countries for the financing of US military bases and facilities
freezing of military budgets, reallocating resources to civilian social programs.
The mass movement would integrate anti-war protest with the campaign against the gamut of neoliberal economic reforms.
To achieve these objectives, what is required is the development of a broad based grassroots network which seeks to disable patterns of authority and decision making pertaining to war and the economy. This is by no means an easy and straightforward undertaking. The NGOs funded by Wall Street control a variety of “protest movements”. Since the Iraq war(2003) the anti-war movement is virtually non existent.
This network would be established nationally and internationally at all levels of society, towns and villages, work places, parishes. Trade unions, farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, student unions, veterans associations, church groups would be called upon to integrate the antiwar organizational structure. Of crucial importance, this movement should extend into the Armed Forces as a means to breaking the legitimacy of war both within the command structure as well as among service men and women.
A related task (as a priority) would be to disable war propaganda through an effective campaign against media disinformation. (including support of the online independent and alternative media). This is no easy task given the wave of censorship against freedom of speech as well as the online manipulation of search engines and social media referrals.
What has to be achieved as a first priority is to dismantle the propaganda apparatus which sustains the legitimacy of war and neoliberalism. In that regard, the independent media has failed. The power structures behind the mainstream media, social media, etc, must be confronted.
Without this network of media disinformation, the war criminals in high office wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
Beware however of the flow of ideas emanating from several alleged progressive NGOs and “Left intellectuals” who are often financed by the establishment foundations. These are the entities which organize the so-called protest movements, generously funded by corporate foundations.
Intellectuals should not be the driving force of a Worldwide anti-war movement. What is required is a democratization of research and analysis, which serves to support a mass grass roots movement. The complexity of the global system (its military,economic, political dimensions) must be understood by the grassroots of the movement.
Changes within the Armed Forces, Security, Intelligence Law Enforcement apparatus are required with a view to eventually democratizing the command structures. Democratizing the decision-making apparatus of police and law enforcement is also something to be contemplated.
It is worth mentioning that while millions of people across the World have gathered under the banner of “Global Warming” and Climate Change, todays wars including Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela are not mentioned. Nor are the dangers of a Third World War.
The issue of poverty and Worldwide unemployment resulting from the imposition of neoliberal reforms is also sidetracked.
And the police apparatus is repressing the Yellow Vest movement.
There is also the unspoken issue pertaining to “Left intellectuals” who are often coopted into playing lip service in favor of US-NATO humanitarian wars including Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), not to mention Syria (2011) and Libya (2011).
While climate change is a legitimate concern, why are these protest movements limited to global warming. The answer is that many of the key organizations involved are generously funded by Wall Street foundations, including the Rockefellers, Tides, Soros., et al.
The Wall Street protagonists of war and neoliberalism are funding dissent against Wall Street. It’s what I would describe as “manufactured dissent”.
Challenging the Corporate Media
The corporate media would be directly challenged including major news outlets, which are responsible for channelling disinformation into the news chain. This endeavor would require a parallel process at the grass roots level, of sensitizing and educating fellow citizens on the nature of the war and the global crisis, as well as effectively “spreading the word” through advanced networking, through alternative media outlets on the internet, etc. It would also require a broad based campaign against the search engines involved in media censorship on behalf of the Pentagon.
The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the structures of political authority, requires a degree of solidarity, unity and commitment unparalleled in World history. It would require breaking down political and ideological barriers within society and acting with a single voice. It would also require eventually unseating the war criminals in high office, and indicting them for war crimes.
Abandon the Battlefield: Refuse to Fight
The military oath taken at the time of induction demands unbending support and allegiance to the US Constitution, while also demanding that US troops obey orders from their President and Commander in Chief:
“I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God”
The President and Commander in Chief Donald Trump [now Joe Bidenhas blatantly violated all tenets of domestic and international law. So that making an oath to “obey orders from the President” is tantamount to violating rather than defending the US Constitution.
“The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.” (Lawrence Mosqueda, An Advisory to US Troops A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders,
The Commander in Chief is a war criminal. According to Principle 6 of the Nuremberg Charter:
“The fact that a person [e.g. Coalition troops] acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
Let us make that “moral choice” possible, to enlisted American, and US-NATO Coalition servicemen and women.
Disobey unlawful orders! Abandon the battlefield! … Refuse to fight in a war which blatantly violates international law.
But this is not a choice which enlisted men and women can make individually.
It is a collective and societal choice, which requires an organizational structure.
Across the land in North America, Western and Eastern Europe and in all NATO coalition countries, the new anti-war movement must assist enlisted men and women to make that moral choice possible, to abandon military service at US military bases around the World, as well as in the battlefield in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in Syria and Yemen.
This will not be an easy task. Committees at local levels must be set up across the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Japan among other countries, which have troops engaged in US led military operations.
We call upon veterans’ associations and local communities to support this process.
US-NATO coalition servicemen and women including senior military officers are victims of internal propaganda. This movement needs to dismantle the internal disinformation campaign. It must effectively reverse the indoctrination of coalition troops, who are led to believe that they are fighting “a just war”: “a war against terrorists”, a war against the Russians, who are threatening the security of America. It must also, as mentioned earlier, “democratize” the command structures.
The legitimacy of the US military authority must be broken.
What has to be achieved:
Reveal the criminal nature of this military project,
Break once and for all the lies and falsehoods which sustain the “political consensus” in favor of a pre-emptive nuclear war.
Undermine war propaganda, reveal the media lies, reverse the tide of disinformation, wage a consistent campaign against the corporate media
Break the legitimacy of the war-mongers in high office.
Dismantle the US sponsored military adventure and its corporate sponsors.
Bring Home the Troops
Repeal the illusion that the State is committed to protecting its citizens.
Uphold 9/11 Truth. Reveal the falsehoods behind 9/11 which are used to justify the Middle East Central Asian war under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT)
Expose how a profit driven war serves the vested interests of the banks, the defense contractors, the oil giants, the media giants and the biotech conglomerates
Challenge the corporate media which deliberately obfuscates the causes and consequences of this war,
Reveal and take cognizance of the unspoken and tragic outcome of a war waged with nuclear weapons.
Call for the Dismantling of NATO
Implement the prosecution of war criminals in high office
Close down the weapons assembly plants and implement the foreclosure of major weapons producers
Close down all US military bases in the US and around the World
Develop an antiwar movement within the Armed Forces and establish bridges between the Armed Forces and the civilian antiwar movement
Forcefully pressure governments of both NATO and non-NATO countries to withdraw from the US led global military agenda.
Develop a consistent antiwar movement in Israel. Inform the citizens of Israel of the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israeli attack on Iran.
Confront the pro-war lobby groups including the pro-Israeli groups in the US
Dismantle the homeland security state, call for the repeal of the PATRIOT legislation
Call for the removal of the military from civilian law enforcement. In the US, call for the enforcement of the Posse Comitatus Act
Call for the demilitarization of outer space and the repeal of Star Wars
Call for the freezing of military budgets as well as a reallocation of resources in favor of the civilian economy
People across the land, nationally and internationally, must mobilize against this diabolical military agenda, the authority of the State and its officials must be forcefully challenged.
War can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, pressure their elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens on the implications of a nuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.
What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network which challenges the structures of power and authority, the nature of the economic system, the vast amounts of money used to fund the war, the shear size of the so-called defense industry.
What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called “Homeland Security agenda” which has already defined the contours of a police State.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US and its NATO allies have embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.
It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
We call upon people across the land, in North America, Western Europe, Israel, The Arab World, Turkey and around the world to rise up against this military project, against their governments which are supportive of US-NATO led wars, against the corporate media which serves to camouflage the devastating impacts of modern warfare.
The military agenda supports a profit driven destructive global economic system which impoverishes large sectors of the world population.
This war is sheer madness.
The Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.
It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.
It destroys families and people. It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow human beings.
It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and the police state as the sole avenue.
It destroys both nationalism and internationalism.
Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force.
This profit driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.
Let us reverse the tide.
Challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.
Break the American inquisition.
Undermine the US-NATO-Israel military crusade.
Close down the weapons factories and the military bases.
Bring home the troops.
Members of the armed forces should disobey orders and refuse to participate in a criminal war.
First published by Global research on November 28, 2017
Global Research has received from Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia (1981-2003, 2018-2020) an important message, addressed to Muslims in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Yemen.
This message, however, is also addressed to the U.S. and its indefectible British ally which have relentlessly supported Saudi Arabia’s war against the people of Yemen, a criminal act tantamount to genocide under international law.
The U.S. has been instrumental in supporting the naval blockade on the delivery of food and medicine to Yemen’s starving children. In turn, the corporate media has payed lip service to the inaction of Western governments and their self-proclaimed “international community”. Both the US and Britain have sold billions of dollars of weapons to Saudi Arabia, while also advising them on the conduct of military operations. In the words of Rep. Ron Paul
“[Why does] Washington support Saudi Arabia – a tyrannical state with one of the worst human rights record on earth – as it commits by what any measure is a genocide against the Yemeni people?”
Let us endorse this important message by Tun Mahathir who in the course of the last twelve years has sought to criminalize war as well as create the required legal conditions for the indictment of the political architects of modern warfare.
The Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War
In 2005, after having served as Prime Minister of Malaysia for 22 years, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad initiated a pathbreaking endeavor which consisted in criminalizing all acts of war. This historic initiative under the helm of Tun Dr. Mahathir resulted in the formulation of “The Kuala Lumpur Initiative to Criminalize War”:
“Killings in war are as criminal as the killings within societies in times of peace. Since killings in peace time are subject to the domestic law of crime, killings in war must likewise be subject to the international law of crimes. This should be so irrespective of whether these killings in war are authorized or permitted by domestic law.”
The full text of the December 2005 Declaration to criminalize war is included below.
Read the Declaration carefully. It is an important document.
Tun Mahathir “has a dream” that one day all wars will be abolished.
The signatories of the December 2005 Declaration share Tun’s resolve to criminalize war.
We call on our readers to share that dream, to send Tun Mahathir’s message far and wide, to change the course of history.
***
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 28 2017, January 4, 2022
***
Open letter from Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad to the Muslim community in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Yemen
The Kuala Lumpur Declaration to Criminalize War
Text of Declaration
15 December 2005
THE Kuala Lumpur Global Peace Forum of concerned peoples from all five continents
UNITED in the belief that peace is the essential condition for the survival and well-being of the human race,
DETERMINED to promote peace and save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,
OUTRAGED over the frequent resort to war in the settlement of disputes between nations,
DISTURBED that militarists are preparing for more wars,
TROUBLED that use of armed force increases insecurity for all,
TERRIFIED that the possession of nuclear weapons and the imminent risk of nuclear war will lead to the annihilation of life on earth.
From Left to Right: Francis A.Boyle, Helen Caldicott, Denis J. Halliday, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Hans-Christof Von Sponeck, Michel Chossudovsky, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
To achieve peace we now declare that:
Wars increasingly involve the killing of innocent people and are, therefore, abhorrent and criminal.
Killings in war are as criminal as the killings within societies in times of peace.
Since killings in peace time are subject to the domestic law of crime, killings in war must likewise be subject to the international law of crimes. This should be so irrespective of whether these killings in war are authorized or permitted by domestic law.
All commercial, financial, industrial and scientific activities that aid and abet war should be criminalised.
All national leaders who initiate aggression must be subjected to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
All nations must strengthen the resolve to accept the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and institute methods to settle international disputes by peaceful means and to renounce war.
Armed force shall not be used except when authorised by a Resolution passed by two-thirds majority of the total membership of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
All legislators and all members of Government must affirm their belief in peace and pledge to strive for peace.
Political parties all over the world must include peace as one of their principal objectives.
Non-Governmental Organisations committed to the promotion of peace should be set up in all nations.
Public servants and professionals, in particular in the medical, legal, educational and scientific fields, must promote peace and campaign actively against war.
The media must actively oppose war and the incitement to war and consciously promote the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
Entertainment media must cease to glorify war and violence and should instead cultivate the ethos of peace.
All religious leaders must condemn war and promote peace.
To these ends the Forum resolves to establish a permanent Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur to –
IMPLEMENT this Initiative.
OPPOSE policies and programmes that incite war.
SEEK the cooperation of NGOs worldwide to achieve the goals of this Initiative.
One of the things that happens to our immune systems with age is that a preponderance of naïve B-cells (in youth) gives way to a diverse body of memory B-cells (in older adults), each trained to respond to a specific pathogen from the past. (Valter Longo claims that fasting eliminates some of the memory B-cells, which are replaced by naïve B-cells upon re-feeding.)
We know that old and young people have very different responses to COVID and to the COVID vaccines. There is a link between the B-cell story and the differential responses of old and young if we look at a recently re-discovered phenomenon called original antigenic sin. (The term was coined in a 1960 article on influenza.)
The innate immune system is our first and best line of defense. It is strongest in youth. Neutrophils engulf and digest bacteria and viruses. In addition to neutrophils and natural killer cells, there are short proteins in mucus membranes that protect us.
The mucus layer also contains substances that kill pathogens or inhibit their growth. Among the most abundant of these are antimicrobial peptides, called defensins, which are found in all animals and plants. They are generally short (12–50 amino acids), positively charged, and have hydrophobic or amphipathic domains in their folded structure. They constitute a diverse family with a broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity, including the ability to kill or inactivate Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, fungi (including yeasts), parasites (including protozoa and nematodes), and even enveloped viruses like HIV. Defensins are also the most abundant protein type in neutrophils (see below), which use them to kill phagocytosed pathogens. It is still uncertain how defensins kill pathogens.
—Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th Edition
How do these simple, generic defenses distinguish invaders from self? There are certain molecules that are characteristic of bacteria and absent in eukaryotes.
The pathogen-associated immunostimulants are of various types. Procaryotic translation initiation differs from eucaryotic translation initiation in that formylated methionine, rather than regular methionine, is generally used as the first amino acid. Therefore, any peptide containing formylmethionine at the N-terminus must be of bacterial origin. Formylmethionine-containing peptides act as very potent chemoattractants for neutrophils, which migrate quickly to the source of such peptides and engulf the bacteria that are producing them….Short sequences in bacterial DNA can also act as immunostimulants.
—Mol Biol of Cell, 4th Ed
Innate immunity is based on inflammation. I’ve seen several sources that describe how the brilliant, all-purpose system of innate immunity turns to chronic, un-targeted inflammation with age, but no explanation as to how the inflammatory response loses its way and attacks the body generally.
The great resistance that young people have to the COVID virus seems to be due to a strong innate immune system; conversely, the second line of defense, the adaptive immune system, which older people rely on, seems to have more trouble with COVID.
Original antigenic sin (OAS): When the immune system first encounters a pathogen, a tiny subset of randomly-generated antibodies that happens to match a subregion (about 120 AA bases) of some protein in the invader is copied in an exponential process that leads to enormous amplification. Thereafter, the body has a memory of some protein fragments of the pathogen, but not others. When the same pathogen is detected months or years later, the immune system will favor its remembered response, rather than exploring its naïve cells for a new one.
The problem called “original sin” arises when the new invader is a related pathogen, not identical to the one first encountered. The immune system recognizes some subsequences, and figures, based on its memory, “we’ve got this one covered”. But sometimes the response that worked well with the original pathogen is sub-optimal for the new one. The body may fail to fight off a new virus simply because it has encountered a similar one in the past. This is the phenomenon that Thomas Francis dubbed “original sin”.
The relevance to present-day pandemic epidemiology is this: Coronaviruses are ubiquitous, and have been around longer than humans; we have all been exposed to many of them. When our bodies first encounter SARS-CoV-2, they are likely to yawn and say, “this looks a lot like something I’ve seen before”. And indeed, this seems to work well for a lot of bodies. No less a light than John Ioannidis has estimated that up to 80% of people cast off the COVID virus with symptoms so mild that they never know they had it. But there are other people for whom the remembered response to some generic coronavirus is not sufficient, and their immune systems get stuck in an obsolete paradigm. Original sin.
“Original sin” can apply to vaccines as well. The COVID spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor, and has this in common with spike proteins from many past coronaviruses. This makes it likely that parts of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein have similar regions to other common coronaviruses from the past, (including the original 2003 SARS). The spike protein, of course, is the element of the virus that was chosen by all Western vaccine manufacturers to induce with their vaccine products. So we see a possible reason why young people and old people have such different reactions to the vaccine: young people are responding to the vaccine from the innate immune systems, while older people are responding by selectively amplifying antibodies from their immune memory.
Age and Vaccine Side Effects
The current crop of mRNA vaccines have caused in 11 months about twice as many adverse reactions, including deaths, as the total of all previous vaccines in the 30-year history of VAERS. These post-vaccination events deserve to be counted and addressed. CDC is in denial.
Reported heart attacks (9,746 cases) and deaths (19,532) after vaccination are skewed toward older people. The average age for heart attacks is 62. [these numbers from OpenVAERS]
Myocarditis and pericarditis (15,403) are skewed toward the young, average age 32, and toward boys more than girls.
When adults do have myocarditis following the jab, it is equally likely to be after the first or second dose. But when young people (<20) get myocarditis, it is most likely to be after the second dose. My interpretation: Adults have been around the block, and they have seen spike proteins before. Their response to the vaccine is from memory B cells. Young people are more likely to be responding from naïve B cells. Something terrible (that I don’t claim to explain) happens when they see the same antigen 3 weeks later.
Neurological damage, including Bell’s Palsy, paralysis, and Guillain-Barre, peak in middle ages (average age 50)
Middle-aged people are also more likely than the young or old to have anaphylactic responses to the vaccines (8,301 total cases). This is surprising, not only in light of the elevated inflammatory response in older people, but also because the old are more likely to have a problem from original sin.
OVS?
A related phenomenon might be called original vaccination sin. It is peculiar to the newer, cheaper crop of vaccines that are based on a single protein extracted from the virus, rather than on a weakened whole virus, which had been the basis of classic vaccines.
When we develop a vaccine for a pandemic virus based on one small subset of the viral genome, quite predictably, the virus squirm its way out of this artificial barrier by mutating exactly that part of its genome that the vaccine targets. The new variant, with mutations in just the target part of its genome, expands in just a few months from a rare sub-species to become the dominant infection.
Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical manufacturers are geared up to mass-produce a vaccine that no longer targets the current version of the virus. A seasoned Dutch vaccine specialist predicted back in April that just this would happen. As the omicron variant emerges with 37 mutations in the spike protein, scientists who certainly know better feign surprise that so many mutations could arise so quickly, and in just the part of the virus that vaccinated individuals respond to. A high school student’s understanding of natural selection makes it obvious why the COVID virus is mutating in this way.
The good news is that these mutations are likely to make the virus less deadly. The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is not an ordinary, evolved spike protein which is evolved to bind well to a receptor and gain entrance to a host cell. This spike protein was engineered in a bioweapons lab to be toxic in multiple ways (in addition, of course, to binding to ACE-2), to break off and enter the bloodstream, spreading its damage far and wide. So when the spike protein mutates to avoid the vaccine, it is likely to become less toxic (while retaining the ability to bind to ACE-2, because that’s what helps the virus to transmit itself.)
OAS and ADE
ADE = antibody-dependent enhancement (or pathogenic priming) is much better known these days than OAS. ADE or PP refers to any situation in which having been exposed to a virus or bacterium once, the patient becomes sicker on the second exposure. It is much discussed now because of the fear that vaccines could induce ADE, so that some vaccinated people might have worse cases of COVID than if they had not been vaccinated. And indeed there is some evidence for this.
There is no agreement in the community about why ADE happens in some patients some of the time, and there is not even good agreement about how to define ADE. It is possible that the antibody binding to the virus can actually enhance its ability to infect, rather than marking it for destruction.
Some of the definitions of ADE are broad enough to encompass OAS. For example, here is a definition from AAAS. Derek Lowe describes ADE:
Dengue fever is a classic example, because it infects humans through four distinct serotypes. If you are infected with one of these and raise a successful immune response, you may well be at increased risk of serious infection with one of the other serotypes. The neutralizing antibodies for one of the types are often not neutralizing for the others, but instead allow that cell-antibody-receptor mechanism to kick in (easier infection of human monocytes), known as “extrinsic ADE”. There’s also an “intrinsic ADE” seen with dengue, which leads to greater viral replication inside infected monocyte cells before they burst and release their contents. The mechanisms for that are still being worked out, but seem to involve suppression of cytokine pathways.
Memory B cells producing antibodies of high affinity and specificity established following a primary exposure to one subset of antigens can prevent or significantly dampen responses by naive B cells to new antigens if they are part of a profile that includes antigens present during the primary exposure (5, 6). This is not a problem if the memory response produces neutralizing antibodies to antigens associated with the secondary exposure; however, problems do arise if memory B cells produce nonneutralizing antibodies to the antigens shared between primary and secondary exposures as reported recently in humans exposed to related human coronaviruses (hCoVs) and later infected with SARS-CoV-2 (7, 8). In such a scenario, not only can the memory response be ineffective, it can significantly attenuate the response of newly activated B cells that could have responded effectively to new antigens absent from the original priming event.
The bottom line
. Our immune systems are more complex than we understand. They are brilliantly effective most of the time, but respond to novel stimuli in ways we can’t predict. In general, it seems true that educating the immune system about a pathogen in advance adds protection when that pathogen is encountered later. But there are known and unknown mechanisms by which previous exposure can make a new infection worse.
Vaccine development is an experimental science. The immune system is modified in permanent ways, and there is no theory to tell us whether the benefits or the detriments of an intervention will play out over the years. There is no substitute for long-term trials.
I’ll save the best news for last
The Delta variant had significantly lower mortality than the Wuhan original SARS-CoV-2. Omicron is the up-and-coming strain of COVID, and it has a dramatically lower mortality. There is a simple explanation for this direction of evolution, and I think it’s something we can count on.
In general, viruses evolve to become more contagious and less harmful. It’s in the virus’s interest to co-exist with the host, doing no harm, so it can spread freely. In the case of COVID-19, this evolution has been more rapid and more dramatic than usual. Here’t why:
The spike protein is the part of the virus that is engineered as a bioweapon. The spike protein is responsible for damage to arteries, to nerves, and to the heart that make COVID a fearsome disease. But the spike protein is also the only part of the virus that is induced by the vaccines. Hundreds of millions of people have immunity to the spike protein and nothing else. The virus can continue to spread to the extent that it evades vaccine immunity, and the best way to evade vaccine immunity is via mutations to the spike protein. [recent survey from the SF bay area] These mutations tend to de-fang the spike protein, which was engineered by humans to have multiple toxic effects.
The vaccines are doing their job by guiding the evolution of the virus toward a more benign form. The end game will be that those of us who have not already lived through COVID will be exposed to omicron or something even more benign, and we’ll come through with a lifetime of immunity to all new COVID strains.
We bring to the attention of Global Research readers this outstanding article and carefully researched article by Linda Bonvie and Mary Beth Pfeiffer which is part of a publishing collaboration between Rescue and Trial Site News.
When a Texas cattleman, seventy-nine, died last September in New Mexico after contracting covid, his family never anticipated the worldwide headlines that would ensue. In a ballyhooed press conference, New Mexico Human Services Secretary Dr. David Scrase, the state’s top health chief, announced New Mexico’s first ivermectin “overdose,” soon adding a second fatality allegedly from “ivermectin toxicity.”
Now, Scrase has acknowledged that his repeated, what he called “offhand,” assertions were groundless. Two deaths were not caused by ivermectin, a long-used generic drug that was emerging as a covid treatment. Instead, he said that the pair died because they “actually just delayed their care with covid.”
That is a big difference.
Scrase backpedaled on December 1 in a little-noticed online press briefing and only after we pressed his agency to provide evidence for its claims of so-called “ivermectin deaths.” Officials had repeatedly said they were awaiting a toxicology report on the cattleman’s death. Yet we learned that the report was never even ordered or done, and, moreover, the man’s death was ruled by the state’s coroner as being from “natural” causes.
Not a single media outlet reported Scrase’s admission, even as dozens, including the The Hill and TheNew York Times, had eagerly covered his original assertions about ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2015. “I don’t want more people to die,” read one early headline, quoting Scrase. “It’s the wrong medicine for something really serious,” Scrase said in the Times article.
Doctors, scientists, and toxicologists worldwide were puzzled by the assertions, because ivermectin is an extraordinarily safe, FDA-approved drug. A fixture on the WHO’s list of 100 essential medicines all hospital systems are recommended to carry, nearly four billion doses have been given in four decades.
New Mexico became a key player in a broad pattern of governmental deception late last summer to portray ivermectin as dangerous, in tandem with three related developments. Research strongly supported the drug’s efficacy against covid; prescriptions were soaring; and public health officials were single-mindedly focused not on treatment but on vaccination.
We previously reported that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s tweeted warning last August against using ivermectin meant for livestock was prompted by incorrect—and unverified—information from Mississippi. Health officials there had posted an alert suggesting the state’s poison control center was deluged with hundreds of calls over ingestion of livestock ivermectin; in reality, we found, four reports were received.
But, fueled by bits of contorted evidence like this, the anti-ivermectin train was unstoppable. We have now learned that, in the rush to bury a drug described as “astonishingly safe” and long used globally to quell animal and human parasites, FDA was not alone.
Emails we obtained from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control show that an influential August 26 national health alert on ivermectin was spurred, like the FDA tweet, by a sliver of evidence: just three cases of alleged ivermectin side effects, two involving animal formulations. No patient died; one appeared to have been hospitalized, and one declined any medical help.
Nonetheless, those three reports, obtained by Atlanta-based CDC from the Georgia poison control center, sealed the decision to issue the nation’s highest-level health warning, according to the emails.
Shortly after learning of three cases, CDC’s Michael Yeh writes, “we have evidence of significant toxicity.”
That email was written seventy-two minutes after brief information on three reports arrived in a separate email.
While CDC’s intention might have been to protect people, the alert is emblematic of what had become a national obsession: Portray an early treatment for covid—whether in the animal or human form—as potentially toxic.
In an email later that day, Yeh laid out the evidence. The most serious case involved a man, seventy-seven, who had was said to have taken a dose of ivermectin “apparently meant for an 1800 lb. bovine.” He had “hallucinations and tremors, which improved but he was eventually diagnosed with COVID-19” for which he needed only supplemental oxygen, Yeh notes.
In two other cases, a woman who took the human form of the drug was said to have suffered “some confusion.” Another woman had “subjective visual disturbances” after taking “a product meant for sheep” but declined medical help. These side effects are in keeping with what the National Institutes of Health calls a “well-tolerated” anti-parasitic drug with such adverse effects as “dizziness, pruritis, nausea, or diarrhea.”
French researchers published a review last March of 350 ivermectin articles in the medical literature and found adverse effects to be “infrequent and usually mild to moderate.” The study, by the French drugmaker MedinCell, noted that no deaths were reported even after accidental overdoses or suicide attempts.
In view of ivermectin’s well-established safety profile, our request for CDC documents under the Freedom of Information Act sought the rationale for the health alert and specifically asked for the data CDC used from the American Association of Poison Control Centers, to which state centers report. (AAPCC had refused to provide it.)
In response to the FOIA request, CDC asserted, quite remarkably, that it “no longer possesses or has access to the data” because its “licensing agreement” with AAPCC had lapsed. The data might have specified, for example, just how many calls were related either to animal or human formulations; the alert instead lumps all reports together, making it difficult to fathom the extent of livestock ivermectin use.
The CDC asserts in a letter to us that it no longer possesses the data on which a national health alert was based.
This context, of course, was missing from CDC’s alert. Calls to poison control centers for use of animal and human ivermectin grew five- to eight-fold from “pre-pandemic levels,” the alert ominously reported. At the same time, it said, ivermectin prescriptions had soared twenty-four-fold—in a perfectly legal trend led by physicians but one the CDC clearly found unacceptable and alarming.
No distinction was made between animal and human formulations in the alert, whichwas peppered with phrases like “ivermectin misuse and overdose;” “seizures, coma, and death;” “sheep drench,” “severe illness,” and “rapid increase.” The message: Don’t use either form, even as seventy-one studies show 64 percent of 50,180 patients improved after taking ivermectin for covid.
Despite the alert and New Mexico’s unfounded pronouncements, no one has died from ivermectin poisoning among 2,112 cases logged by AAPCC from January 1 to December 14, 2021. Two percent of those reports, about forty-two, involved a “major” effect, an AAPCC bulletin states. Seventy percent were dismissed as having no effect, “nontoxic exposure,” and the like.
One category of those calls might rightfully have been classified as anti-ivermectin hysteria. New Mexico, for example, urged citizens to report any known ivermectin use to the state’s poison control center, even if “someone you know has taken it.”
“Ivermectin is one of the safest medications on this planet; far safer than aspirin or acetaminophen,” he said. “This is a fairy tale. Disney could not come up with a better fairy tale.”
But it was no kind of fantasy for the cattleman’s family when he got sick. It was a painful experience with a politicized health system.
A “Very Puzzling” Phone Call
It wasn’t a secret that a cattleman, who died while in New Mexico from covid, took an animal formulation of ivermectin. It is a drug he was well versed in using, having routinely administered it to his herds in Texas.
Others in the family also used Ivomec, a liquid formulation of ivermectin for cattle, since news spread of ivermectin’s effectiveness against covid. “Practically everyone I know takes it,” we were told by a close family friend and business associate of the Texan. (We are withholding the man’s name at the family’s request.)
Ivermectin is just one of 167 drugs tested for safety and approved by the FDA for both animals and humans. Yet those who take either form of ivermectin for covid have been characterized as being anti-science and influenced by “misinformation.”
The Texan is one of two individuals who, according to repeated statements from New Mexico officials, died from “ivermectin toxicity.” While their identities were not revealed by the department of health, a source familiar with the cases released them to us during this investigation.
Documents and interviews with those knowledgeable about the death of the rancher tell a different story than the narrative put forth by New Mexico health officials.
When the cattleman arrived at the ER on the evening of September 2 with his wife, he was soon diagnosed as suffering from acute dehydration as well as being covid positive.
His daughter arrived at the hospital several hours later.
In an interview, she told of the surprise eightieth birthday party for her dad the weekend before, where eight of the eleven family members attending ended up with covid. Everyone seemed to have mild symptoms, she recalled.
With her dad in New Mexico and not feeling well, she suggested he be checked out. “My father was not very good at keeping himself hydrated,” she said, and at that point he didn’t seem to be drinking at all.
He arrived at the hospital dehydrated to the point that his kidneys had become damaged, doctors told the family. Lacking a proper dialysis machine at the Lincoln County Medical Center, the family was told that they were trying to locate another hospital to send him to. Unfortunately, he never made it out of Ruidoso, dying on September 3.
But what happened while his wife and daughter anxiously waited outside the ICU, soon after being informed that the Texan was likely going to pass away, struck them as most peculiar.
His daughter recalled a “very puzzling” phone call her mother received—so disturbing, in fact, that she felt like “yanking the phone from her.”
An unknown man was on the line asking if her father took ivermectin. It was the only time she remembers that particular drug being discussed in the hospital. “I feel like they were pushing her. It was really irritating,” she said, adding, “it was not a doctor or nurse, but mom cannot remember who it was or what they represented.”
They were most interested, she recalled, in grilling her mother about her dad’s use of Ivomec.
At the very next press briefing, Dr. Scrase announced that a “reliable source” reported the state’s “first death” from someone who took ivermectin. While he hedged his bets about the role of ivermectin—and mentioned delayed care—he nonetheless repeatedly characterized the man’s death and one other as specifically being caused by ivermectin.
However, the cattleman’s death certificate, filed at the end of September, says otherwise. It stated he passed away from “natural” causes. His death was not listed as requiring any type of “pending investigation,” and the medical examiner’s office confirmed the fact that no autopsy or toxicology report was done.
But Dr. Scrase’s original tale proved to be very popular with the media. USA Today liked it so much the paper released several versions. “Two die of ivermectin poisoning,” it announced the same day the death certificate was officiated. Five days after that, a headline in The Hill trumpeted,“New Mexico reports two deaths from ivermectin.”
The New Mexico Department of Health has yet to respond to any questions about why a straightforward correction was not made to the media early on regarding the two deaths that were erroneously attributed to ivermectin. It is also not clear why at a recent press briefing the agency was continuing to perpetuate this fallacy even after admitting it was untruthful, rather than correcting the record—and why they have alleged another ivermectin-related death, again without offering any evidence to that effect.
The second supposed ivermectin death involved a thirty-eight-year-old woman from Cuba, New Mexico, reportedly of Navajo heritage. An autopsy was done, but the results have yet to be released.
While Scrase has acknowledged that the two deaths were from covid, not ivermectin, he nonetheless announced what he called yet a “third” ivermectin death at his December 1 briefing.
The new death, Scrase said, is a “60-year-old man who took a horse preparation. This gentleman took 150 milligrams, [suffered] liver failure, kidney failure and actually died from the ivermectin without the covid.”
As with the first two cases, the cause of death remains to be seen.
According to Dr. Marik, 150 milligrams of ivermectin can be safely tolerated. “I do not know of a single case of liver failure and organ failure due to ivermectin,” he wrote in an email.
Both the CDC and New Mexico Department of Health declined to answer questions for this article.
Despite ongoing requests by the New Mexico Department of Health for residents to report any ivermectin use, as this slide displayed during a December 1 press conference shows, only 29 calls came into the state’s poison control center for most all of 2021. The graphic also states that ivermectin caused three deaths in the state, despite the fact that during that very same press briefing it was acknowledged that the first two of the alleged deaths were due to covid, not ivermectin (with no evidence released to support the third claim).
Ivermectin dosages are missing or, in one case, described as “concentration unknown.” One woman “was sent to the hospital, but her baseline mental status was unclear.” Another woman was to be contacted for follow-up after declining aid, but there is no indication this was done.
These anecdotal bits are the threads from which a mythical tapestry about so-called “ivermectin toxicity” has been woven. This myth lives on in easily accessed online articles.
FDA claimed last March to have “received multiple reports” of injury and hospitalization after people took livestock ivermectin. In reality, the agency relied on four reports, a spokesperson said in an email. CDC officials referenced the FDA “consumer warning” when planning their own contribution to the myth of ivermectin harm.
It matters little that false Mississippi figures were corrected (at our behest) by The New York Times, twice, and The Washington Post. What matters is the hurricane of fear, whipped up by New Mexico, Mississippi, the FDA, and CDC—and abetted by media—made ivermectin into something it was not.
So where do we stand as vaccines fail and cases rise?
On October 28, WisPolitics.com reported the case of a family that failed to convince a court to give FDA-approved ivermectin to their dying loved one.
“There have been multiple reports nationally,” the website reported, “of people taking the version of the drug intended for animals to combat COVID-19 and sickening themselves in the process.”
Unsupported in the medical literature, the false image of ivermectin convinced doctors in that case to suggest that “the prescribed dosage may be lethal.”
Indeed, the invented peril, rather than promise, of ivermectin has become ingrained in the national media and consciousness.
It is no longer a conspiracy theory: In the course of this year’s World Health Summit, Stefan Oelrich, CEO of pharmaceutical giant Bayer, referred to the mRNA jabs as “cell and gene therapy” in his speech.
Mockingly, he explained that if one had asked people two years ago about their willingness to be “injected with gene therapy”, a “95 percent rejection rate” would have been likely. In his speech he also emphasized the good cooperation with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to achieve a “sustainable” world – working together to reduce birth rates and shrink the world’s population.
At the summit held from October 24 to 26, 2021, German Health Minister Jens Spahn, the EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Bayer manager Oelrich addressed the audience. The latter described the experimental mRNA injections as “cell and gene therapy”.
Oelrich also made other interesting statements that revealed his end goal.
The Bayer chief is a member of the Board of Management of Bayer AG and has been Head of the Pharmaceuticals Department since November 2018. Previously, he was on the board of directors of Sanofi. From 1989 to 2011 Oelrich held various management positions at Bayer AG. He is also a member of the supervisory board of the Charité University Hospital in Berlin. So he has decades of experience in the pharmaceutical industry.
“We’re really making this leap – we as a company, Bayer – with cell and gene therapies… ultimately, the mRNA vaccines are an example of this cell and gene therapy. I always like to say, if we had done a public survey two years ago– ‘would you be willing to inject gene or cell therapy into your body?’ – we would probably have had a rejection rate of 95 percent,” said Oelrich.
In addition to gene therapy, Oelrich also mentioned the role that his company, together with other prominent institutions and personalities, has played in the implementation of contraceptives.
“We also have to concentrate on what is socially responsible outside of Europe and ensure that we act sustainably there. Last year we made a commitment to give one hundred million women around the world additional access to contraceptives. We invested 400 million this year in new facilities to manufacture long-acting contraceptives for women […] Together with Bill and Melinda Gates we are working very closely on family planning initiatives,” Oelrich revealed, indicating that one of the ways to achieve a “sustainable” world is to reduce the number of births and therefore the world’s population.
Oelrich is in the service of the “Great Reset”, the radical plan to establish world dictatorship. This was designed under the leadership of Klaus Schwab and the globalist elite who meet once a year at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. In the announcement of the “Great Reset”, the WEF also wrote that the COVID-19 “pandemic” would be ideally suited to achieve this goal.
The Bayer chief added that the “silver lining” of the pandemic was that it “has shown how quickly we can radically change our lifestyle – almost immediately, the crisis forced companies and individuals to abandon practices that had long been considered indispensable, from frequent air travel to work in the office”.
The World Economic Forum also recently published two articles advancing the notion of eating insects. European member states have now certified house crickets, yellow mealworms, and grasshoppers as food fit to be sold at supermarkets. These items will be cheaper than traditional sources of protein and will be sold in frozen, dried, and powdered forms, according to Bloomberg.
The Biden administration is signaling that COVID-19, and all current and future variants therein, are part of the new and permanent way of life.
/
COVID-19 is being codified in the permanent regulatory state. The contracts for the continuance of the public health emergency supply procurements are coming through the Defense Department [Announcement Here]
Many people feared that various government agencies, those who used the pandemic to gain raw power over U.S. citizens, would never relinquish their new authorities. This latest announcement would indicate long term plans that are likely to end no sooner than when we stop taking off our shoes at the airport TSA checkpoints.
It’s a smart Machiavellian move to use the DoD as the regulatory mechanism for the permanent state of emergency, as their spending authorities carry wide discretion and are supported by both wings of the UniParty and permanent security state, ie. The Fourth Branch of Government.
(Via Daily Mail) – The Biden administration struck a $137 million deal to build a new factory in the U.S. to ramp up production of COVID-19 testing kits – but the new facility won’t be completed until late 2024 at the earliest.
MilliporeSigma, a brand formed by Germany’s Merck KGaA, will build a new factory in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, the Defense Department announced as the U.S. hit a high record of 489,267 COVID cases on Wednesday
While the contract gives the company three years to complete the facility, it is not immediately clear when it will ramp up to full production, which is expected to pump out 83.3 million tests per month.
‘Construction is expected to begin the second half of 2022 and initial planning and preparatory work is already underway,’ a MilliporeSigma spokesperson told DailyMail.com. ‘We estimate that the facility will be capable of providing lateral flow membranes in the latter part of 2024.’
The individual said that the production of lateral flow membrane is ‘critical for rapid diagnostic tests’ that will not only help with COVID-19 detection, but also with ‘any future public health emergencies.’ (read more)
Once we get on their Ronacoaster, we can’t get off until the ride’s over. And apparently, if we let the government keep going, the ride is never over.
Comments Off on Biden Administration Begins Building Infrastructure for Permanent Pandemic, DoD Signs $137 Million Deal for Test Strip Facility to Complete in Late 2024
If you are a lucky reader, you chance upon a book that makes your hair stand on end in wonder and sends a shiver down your spine. This book does that, for it is deft, digressive, and capricious in ways that leave you wondering what whim set the author’s mind so ablaze to dare to set this story to paper.
Was it a flight from reality or to reality? But what is reality?
There is no cage within which you can categorize this writing: no fable, mystery, novella, myth, etc. – they all fail to grasp its essence. Like a song or a wild bird, it flies free from all attempts to pin it down. Emanuel Garcia writes luminescent words that vibrate in the reader’s heart and soul, and set the mind on fire contemplating the strangeness of existence. It leads one to ask oneself: What do you desire? What is desire? Where does it lead us?
I had to read the book very slowly, a few pages at a time, and often before sleep and dreams. My passage from reading to sleeping felt like walking across a bridge in the twilight, crossing a river or a canal, and when dawn arrived, to cross back. I would often then reread those pages in the morning before proceeding to the next bridge that night. Sometimes I would get lost, but that lostness drew me into a waking dream state that the writing had conjured. It was eerie, but in the alluring way one hears a gypsy violinist’s haunting tune drifting from a twisting alley. A siren call.
Video: Readings from a New Novella
On its face, this brief jewel – 125 pages – is about Donato and Olympia and their enigmatic love affair in and about the environs of Venice, Italy, the city of masks, secrets, and labyrinthine ways.
The city called La Serenissima, The Most Serene Woman, whose nickname belies the tempestuous Olympia and the wildly sexed Donato, whose love and desire for women and what they represent snakes through the book. Only a eunuch would fail to understand Donato, who has written this book as a gift for Olympia, who, in her own way, makes Donato the writer seem pedestrian by comparison. But her passions are slightly different; she is a deeply wounded wild mystical woman, entrancingly beautiful and prone to drift out of this world for periods of time.
Her gypsy mother died when she was six-years-old and, although her life-long grieving father doted on her, she found solace in visitations from the angels Michael and Gabriel and Jesus’s mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. She would visit churches for the peace it brought her to sing with her beautiful bell-like soprano. A serene tigress is she, prone to despair and faith, strange sexual activities devoid of emotion, and intense love and insight.
Being a writer and not being sure why he writes or to what end, Donato takes twenty years to spin out this story for Olympia. It is what he calls a “caprice,” sudden motive-less writing done on a whim that he considers “the absolute jewel of literature.” In it, the mundane and imaginative mix, as do dreams and waking life. Perhaps living is whimsical and condenses the years when one steps out of the cage and just writes when possessed by language. For Donato discovers, of course, that in writing about Olympia, he is writing about himself, and in writing about another couple, Emilia and Marcello, and all their mutual interactions, both sexual and artistic, he is holding up a mirror to the multifaceted and complicated nature of everyone.
What are we doing with our lives and why? What does it mean to be yourself? What do we want? What is the nature of wanting? And prayer? Why write anything at all – my musings on this enchanting book or the book itself? Who is it all for? Does Emanuel/Donato/ me or you need an audience for our deepest caprices, our secrets, our deepest wishes? What’s it all about, Alfie?
If you wish to be transported out of this sorry world for a while to a place where you can wonder, read Olympia; it is a marvelous book. It will take you in circles, like the closed circle of infinity represented by a ring.
Such an exploration brought me back to where I started, and it felt as though I knew the place for the first time, this life where the seen, unseen, and the unforeseen meld into a work of art that we call literature, and life.
Emanuel Garcia is not just a wonderful writer but a medical doctor, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, and a brave and brilliant Renaissance man. Here he is interviewed by Tessa Lina.
***
Edward Curtin, prominent author, researcher and sociologist, Western Massachusetts, U.S. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
There is no doubt that the business model of today is driven by a fear campaign when it comes to the Covid-19 scamdemic. The corona virus hysteria drives people who are scared to death of the many covid-19 variants in existence today and in the future will to get tested the minute a new variant is reported by the mainstream media.
All of the key players from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Health (NIH), the World Health Organization (WHO) and other “health authorities” are all in on it.
Covid-19 testing or the RT-PCR tests is big business, make no mistake about it. It’s just like the face diapers (um…I meant face masks) where I see people setting up tables strictly selling boxes of face diapers on the street.
We can say, Covid-19 is a new industry of money-making opportunities of all sorts.
Hospitals are charging up to $650 for a simple, molecular covid test that costs $50 or less to run, according to Medicare claims analyzed for KHN by Hospital Pricing Specialists (HPS). Charges by large health systems range from $20 to $1,419 per test, a new national survey by KFF shows. And some free-standing emergency rooms are charging more than $1,000 per test
The article mentioned that there has been more than 400 million tests given since the Covid-19 was announced in 2020:
As the pandemic enters its second year, no procedure has been more frequent than tests for the virus causing it. Gargantuan volume — 400 million tests and counting, for one type — combined with loose rules on prices have made the service a bonanza for hospitals and clinics, new data shows.
Lab companies have been booking record profits by charging $100 per test. Even in-network prices negotiated and paid by insurance companies often run much more than that and, according to one measure, have been rising on average in recent months. Insurers and other payers “have no bargaining power in this game” because there is no price cap in some situations, said Ge Bai, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who has studied test economics. When charges run far beyond the cost of the tests “it’s predatory,” she said. “It’s price gouging”
Some hospitals, for example, New York-Presbyterian Hospital charges $440 for the PCR covid-19 tests although the national average is $159. So just imagine the profits money-hungry hospitals are making:
The listed charge for a basic PCR covid test at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles is $480. New York-Presbyterian Hospital lists $440 as the gross charge as well as the cash price. Those amounts are far above the $159 national average for the diagnostic test, which predominated during the first year of the pandemic, at more than 3,000 hospitals checked by HPS
By the way, this is not a new development, Reuters reported back in July 2020 ‘How U.S. made Covid-19 tests a profitable disaster’ suggested that Covid testing is pretty lucrative business given the fact that fear of a particular disease will play a long-term role in producing permanent customers. Here is an excerpt from Reuters that reported on the profits of certain companies who produce the test kits:
A U.S. patient with Covid-19 symptoms gets tested, then waits over a week for the results. The story is by now familiar and sometimes tragic. Yet the stock market is telling a different tale. Shares in companies like Quest Diagnostics and Laboratory Corporation of America are soaring. Quest’s Chief Financial Officer Mark Guinan said on Thursday that detecting Covid-19 brings “good margins.” In other words, testing has become a profitable disaster.
Commercial labs were hit hard by the pandemic, but their market values have recovered sharply. Within a month of its early March high of just over $15 billion Quest’s fell by around a third, but is now $17 billion. LabCorp too has recouped its pre-pandemic peak of $19 billion. Coronavirus diagnosis has more than filled the gap left as other procedures go on hiatus. Analysts polled by Refinitiv now predict Quest, which reported a 6.4% decline in quarterly revenue on Thursday, will earn $1 billion this year – over 10% more than they estimated six months ago.
No wonder: testing is lucrative. Last year Quest made on average $42 in revenue per procedure, based on numbers from its financial filings, and the average processing cost was $29. For Covid-19, the basic price set by government-backed insurer Medicare is $100. True, pandemic testing is unusually fiddly and more reliant on humans than some other types. But even with double the normal level of expense, to reflect the extra quirks and intricacies of the coronavirus, the company’s coronavirus-test margin would be one-third higher than it generates from its regular activities
One last important note to consider, the RT-PCR test is basically a fraud that has been consistently reported by the alternative media and other sources.
On November 27th, 2020, the Corman-Drosten Review Reportwhich was produced by the International Consortium of Scientist in Life Sciences (ICSLS) said that
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used(as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US),the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%. “
Bottom line, it is a fear campaign that created a steady stream of scared consumers every time a new variant is introduced to the public for a product that basically does not work. It’s all a health scam, a money-making machine, at the end of the day, it is business as usual.
Timothy Alexander Guzman is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on political, economic, media and historical spheres. He has been published in www.Globalresearch.ca, The Progressive Mind, European Union Examiner, News Beacon Ireland, www.whatreallyhappened.com, EIN News and a number of other alternative news sites. He is a graduate of Hunter College in New York City.
Beginning eight decades ago on 5 December 1941, the Soviet Army’s counterattack against the Wehrmacht, principally along the outskirts of Moscow, was a major event in the Second World War and a significant occurrence in modern history. The Red Army counteroffensive officially lasted from early December 1941 until 7 May 1942.
The counterattack was titled by the Russians as the Winter Campaign of 1941-1942, and it provided evidence, both to themselves and the watching world, that the Wehrmacht was not invincible. The failure of Operation Barbarossa further placed a serious question mark over whether the Germans could win the war at all.
Very thankfully indeed, Moscow, the Soviet Union’s largest and most important city, was saved from Nazi occupation. The commencement of the counterattack brought relief and hope to many people across Europe and beyond, who had despaired at the thought of a Nazi-dominated world.
.
.
Yet while the Soviet Army managed to drive the Wehrmacht back from the gates of Moscow, they were unable to turn the counteroffensive into a rout; which, in that event, would most probably have led to the German Army’s disintegration in the winter of 1941-42; and therefore the premature conclusion of the war, in Europe at least. French military leader Napoleon’s armed forces, after all, had crumbled within 6 months of their June 1812 invasion of Russia.
It was for reasons like these that the Russian Marshal Georgy Zhukov, the most celebrated commander of World War II, bluntly termed the Soviet counteroffensive to be a “failure”. Zhukov wrote in his memoirs, “The History of the Great Fatherland War still comes to a generally positive conclusion about the winter offensive of our forces, despite the lack of success. I do not agree with this evaluation. The embellishment of history, one could say, is a sad attempt to paint over failure. If you consider our losses and what results were achieved, it will be clear that it was a Pyrrhic victory”. (1)
Zhukov was not exaggerating; he was a frontline general who could see what was going on before his eyes, and he had the resolve to voice his thoughts. As Zhukov noted, Red Army personnel losses during the counteroffensive were heavy, much higher than German casualties in what is often considered a landmark Soviet triumph. Altogether, during the three months of January, February and March 1942, the Soviet Army lost 620,000 men (2). By comparison, in the same period the Germans lost 136,000 men, well under a quarter of Russian casualties. (3)
The experienced British historian Evan Mawdsley, who focuses for the large part on Russian history, has presented the above casualty figures in his study of the Nazi-Soviet War. Mawdsley also stated, “German losses on the Eastern front, in the three and a quarter months through to the end of September 1941, numbered 185,000” and that “All told, the Red Army lost 177 divisions in 1941, most of them in the June–September period. Soviet military losses, up to the end of September 1941, have been given as at least 2,050,000”. (4)
Joseph Stalin had said shortly after the Wehrmacht’s defeat of France in June 1940, “we would be able to confront the Germans on an equal basis only by 1943” (5). This prediction was a far-sighted and accurate one. The Red Army “would only show great progress with Operation Bagration in Belorussia in June 1944”, Mawdsley highlighted. (6)
Stalin is not recorded as mentioning why the Red Army was trailing the Wehrmacht by such a distance in the early 1940s; and considering that he was in charge of the USSR, for appreciably longer than Adolf Hitler was in power in Germany.
The Soviet military’s shortcomings were at least in part because, as Marshal Zhukov said after the war, of “the enormous damage Stalin had inflicted on the country by his massacre of the top echelons of the army command” (7).
.
Zhukov’s opinion is backed by others like Leopold Trepper, a leading Soviet intelligence operative and anti-Nazi Resistance fighter, who wrote that with the purges, “The Red Army, bled white, was hardly an army at all now, and it would not be again for years”. (8)
Meanwhile, as the Soviet counteroffensive began the Red Army, between December 1941 and March 1942, would receive 117 new divisions to bolster its ranks. The main opposing force, German Army Group Centre, was supplemented with a meagre 9 divisions during that time. (9)
By 26 November 1941 the Germans had suffered 743,112 casualties, not including the sick or frostbitten – and at the end of February 1942, total German losses on the Eastern front amounted to 1,005,636 men; this equates to about 31% of the original German invasion force, according to military scholar Donald J. Goodspeed, who has provided these various statistics (10). In comparison, the Soviet Army had suffered around 5.5 million casualties come the early spring of 1942.
Hitler placed immense store in the millions of casualties his divisions had inflicted on the Red Army (11). By late February 1942 he was again confident in ultimate victory. A jovial Hitler declared to his close colleagues at the Wolfsschanze headquarters, “Sunday will be the 1st of March. Boys, you can’t imagine what that means to me – how much the last three months have worn out my strength, tested my nervous resistance”. (12)
During December 1941 and in the months ahead, many German commanders in varying degrees continued to believe in victory. Goodspeed observed that the Wehrmacht hierarchy “reasoned that they were still better summer soldiers than the Russians, and that they should therefore fight in the summertime” in order to “build up their shattered armies for another great drive in 1942”. (13)
Hitler and the generals’ confidence would prove misplaced. The Soviets could afford far greater losses in personnel than the Germans, and this should have been no real surprise. The Soviet Union’s population in 1941 was about 193 million, that is 80 million or so more than the Third Reich’s populace. The Soviet counterattack grand strategy called for an assault along a broad front, 800 miles in width, from Leningrad in the north to the Crimean peninsula in the south (14). Its aim was to deliver a succession of blows that would gravely undermine the Germans and their Axis allies, resulting in the enemy’s swift collapse, or so it was envisaged.
This strategy was formulated with decisive input by Stalin, in conjunction with the Supreme High Command (Stavka). Zhukov was in firm disagreement with the counteroffensive’s strategic design. In his memoirs Zhukov wrote that he alone “dared to voice criticism” about the plan to Stalin and Stavka. (15)
For the counterattack, Zhukov favoured amassing their forces and directing them in a smashing thrust through the middle “against the enemy centre of gravity”. This strategy may well have inflicted a grievous hit, which the Germans would have struggled to recover from. Instead, with the dispersal of Soviet divisions across an extended front, the strength of the blow was diluted. Zhukov felt that he lacked the forces necessary to reach his goals.
Of the Russian counteroffensive strategy Mawdsley realised, “The Stavka made the same mistake that Hitler and his High Command had made in 1941, assuming the enemy to be exhausted and shattered. It also attempted, as the Germans did in Operation Barbarossa, to attack everywhere. Zhukov’s view was that it would have been much wiser to concentrate resources and get to the line Staraia Russa–Velikie Luki–Vitebsk-Smolensk-Briansk”. (16)
Zhukov’s favoured striking line was 350 miles in breadth, as opposed to the 800 miles which Stalin preferred. Despite Zhukov’s misgivings about Soviet strategy, his still significant role in the counterattack got off to an impressive start from 6 December 1941. Zhukov found himself in opposition to one of the Wehrmacht’s most prominent generals, Heinz Guderian, commanding the 2nd Panzer Army.
There was severe bloodshed on both sides but Zhukov’s divisions prevailed over those of Guderian, by forcing the latter to retreat over more than 50 miles of ground (17). Zhukov’s reputation, now already high in the Soviet Union, was deservedly enhanced further.
English historian Chris Bellamy revealed how Zhukov expounded, in a directive of 13 December 1941, that Soviet troops should force the enemy to retreat 130 to 160 kilometres (80 to 100 miles) west of Moscow (18). Once that was accomplished, Zhukov continued that the Red Army should thereafter “spend the rest of the winter driving the Germans back another 150 kilometres (93 miles) or so to the line east of Smolensk [230 miles west of Moscow] from which they had launched Typhoon in early October”. (19)
Zhukov’s scaled-down ambitions for the counteroffensive were realistic, but even then would fall a good distance short. Zhukov complained bitterly that many Soviet units elsewhere had been poorly led and “were continually trying to attack the Germans frontally, rather than being smart and working their way round the sides”. (20)
Mawdsley wrote, “In reality the Red Army was a very weak instrument in the winter of 1941-42, manned by untrained conscripts and poorly equipped. In January 1942, the whole Red Army had only 600 heavy tanks and 800 medium tanks, plus 6,300 light tanks; in contrast, the figure for January 1943 was 2,000 heavies [tanks], no fewer than 7,600 mediums, and 11,000 lights”. (21)
Hitler was aware that Napoleon’s Grand Armée had dissolved in full retreat 129 years before (22). Undeterred by this, in the face of Soviet counterattacks, some senior German commanders wanted a retirement far west of Moscow, to the Berezina or Niemen rivers (stretching across Belarus and Lithuania).
Such a retreat in mid-December, through knee and waist-deep snow, could have resulted in the destruction of the German Army. At a minimum, vast quantities of artillery and other equipment would undoubtedly have been lost – and during a season which “turned out to be one of the most severe winters on record”, a research study noted in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. (23)
By 20 February 1942, the Germans had suffered 112,627 frostbite casualties (24). This problem did not afflict the Russians to anything like the same degree; because the latter were warmly clad and had a working railway system right behind them, while they were used to fighting in winter conditions. Stalin said after the Soviets had finally overcome Finland in March 1940, “It is not true that the army’s fighting capacity decreases in wintertime… We are a northern country”. (25)
In the middle of December 1941 Hitler issued his standfast order. He demanded that German officers, from herein, compel the soldiers under them to hold their ground at whatever cost. Hitler went on that German troops in the field should ignore the danger, when enemy forces have “broken through on the flanks or in the rear. This is the only way to gain the time necessary, to bring up the reinforcements from Germany and the West that I have ordered”. (26)
Hitler had previously interfered fatally in German strategic planning, most notably by postponing the advance on Moscow by six weeks in August 1941; but his hold-at-all-cost order was in all likelihood the correct decision, and it may have rescued the Wehrmacht that winter. (27)
The Germans prudently made no attempt to retain a continuous line from Leningrad to the Crimea. Hitler and the German High Command (OHK) agreed on implementing a series of strongpoints, known as “hedgehogs” (28). These fortified positions were often erected beside large German supply depots, located from north to south, in such urban areas under Nazi occupation as Shlisselburg, Novgorod, Rzhev, Vyazma, Bryansk and Kharkov, etc. Subsidiary strongpoints were then constructed beside the principal strongholds.
The reality on the ground was more complicated than this; for the German hedgehogs were sometimes established in response to local Soviet tactical successes, rather than simply through the will of the Germans (29). Breakthroughs by Russian soldiers on the flanks were deemed acceptable by Wehrmacht commanders, since any Soviet division that proceeded too far was in danger of being cut off, and trapped behind German lines.
In early January 1942, Stalin came to the conclusion that total victory over the Nazis could be achieved that very year. On 10 January Stalin dispatched a directive to his generals outlining, “Our task is not to give the Germans a breathing space, to drive them westwards without a halt, force them to exhaust their reserves before springtime when we shall have fresh big reserves, while the Germans will have no more reserves; this will ensure the complete defeat of the Nazi forces in 1942”. (30)
As events would show, such directives were too ambitious and underestimated the Wehrmacht’s resilience. Mawdsley wrote, “Stalin’s January 1942 strategy of wearing down German reserves before the spring did not work… In fact, however, on much of the front the Germans were able to hold on to the territory they had reached in early December 1941. Even at Rostov and Moscow, they had only had to fall back 50 to 150 miles. They were still very deep in Soviet territory. In the north and centre they would hold this line until late 1943”. (31)
Remarkably, by May 1944 German Army Group Centre was still only 290 miles from Moscow at its closest point; whereas Soviet forces were 550 miles from Berlin in the early summer of 1944. (32)
.
Shane Quinn is a Journalist and renowned Historian, focussing on geopolitics and the history of World War II, based in Ireland.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
***
Notes
1 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 127
2 Ibid., p. 147
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid., pp. 85-86
5 Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Pan; Reprints edition, 16 April 2010) p. 406
6 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 148
7 Andrei Gromyko, Memories: From Stalin to Gorbachev (Arrow Books Limited, 1 Jan. 1989) p. 216
8 Leopold Trepper, The Great Game: Memoirs of a Master Spy (Michael Joseph Ltd; First Edition, 1 May 1977) p. 67
9 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) p. 407
10 Ibid.
11 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 110
12 Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk, New Foreword by Gerhard L. Weinberg (Enigma Books, 30 April 2008) p. 257
13 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 405
14 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 120
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid., p. 128
17 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 404
18 Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Pan; Main Market edition, 21 Aug. 2009) p. 332
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., p. 331
21 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 148
22 Ibid., p. 119
23 J. Neumann and H. Flohn, Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: Part 8, Germany’s War on the Soviet Union, 1941–45. Long-range Weather Forecasts for 1941–42 and Climatological Studies, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Jstor
24 John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography (Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 3 Feb. 2007) Part 8, The Fourth Horseman
25 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, pp. 107-108
26 Ibid., p. 121
27 Goodspeed, The German Wars, pp. 405-406
28 Ibid., p. 406
29 Ibid., p. 407
30 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (Yale University Press; 1st Edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 116
31 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 147
32 Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Hitler’s Field Marshals and Their Battles (Guild Publishers, 1988) p. 274
Yesterday I received the following notice from the University of California, effective immediately, where I have served for almost fifteen years as Professor at UCI School of Medicine and Director of the Medical Ethics Program at UCI Health:
This termination has been an opportunity for me to reflect on my time at UCI, especially my time there during the Covid pandemic. Two years ago I never could have imagined that the University would dismiss me and other doctors, nurses, faculty, staff, and students for this arbitrary and capricious reason. I want to share a bit of my story, not because I am unique but simply because my experience is representative of what many others—who do not necessarily have a public voice—have experienced since these mandates went into effect.
I worked in-person at the hospital every day during the pandemic, seeing patients in our clinic, psychiatric wards, emergency room, and hospital wards—including Covid patients in the ER, ICU, and medicine wards. As our chief ethics consultant, I had countless conversations with families of patients dying of Covid, and tried my best to console and guide them in their grief.
When our pregnant residents were worried about consulting on Covid patients, the administration reassured these residents that they had no elevated risks from Covid—a claim without any evidential basis at the time, and which we now know to be false. I saw the Covid consults for these worried residents, even when I was not covering the consult service.
I also remember in the early weeks of the pandemic when N-95 masks were in short supply and the hospital kept them under lock and key. Hospital administrators yelled at nurses for wearing surgical or cloth masks (this was before masks became all the rage after the CDC suggested, with little evidence, that they might help). At that early stage the truth was we didn’t know whether masks worked or not, and nurses were doing the best they could under pressure in a situation of uncertainty.
The administrators yelled and ridiculed them, not wanting to admit the real issue was that we simply did not have enough masks. So I called local construction companies and sourced 600 N-95s from them. I supplied some to the residents in our department and my attending colleagues in the ER, then donated the rest to the hospital. Meanwhile the University administrators—the same ones who fired me yesterday—were working safely from home and did not have to fret about PPE shortages.
In 2020 I worked nights and weekends, uncompensated, helping the UC Office of the President draft the UC policies for triaging scarce resources and allocating vaccines during the pandemic. Knowing that our ventilator triage policy was publicly sensitive, the Office of the President asked me and the chair of the drafting committee to serve as public spokespersons to answer questions about this policy and explain the principles and rationale to the public (they even provided me with media training).
I was the only faculty member at UCI who directed courses across all four years of our medical student curriculum, so I knew the students as well as anyone at the University. The Dean asked me to address the students when they were first sent home in the early days of the pandemic. While I disagreed with the decision to send them home—after all, what were they here for if not to learn to practice medicine, especially during a pandemic?—I nevertheless encouraged them to continue to engage with pandemic response efforts outside the hospital. I published those remarks to encourage students at other schools.
Our dean sent this to the deans at the other UC schools, one of whom suggested that I give the graduation speech at all the campuses that year. Three years ago, the UCI school of medicine deans asked me to give the White Coat Ceremony keynote address to the incoming medical students because, as they told me, “you are the best lecturer in the medical school.” For many years, the psychiatry clerkship I directed was the highest rated clinical course at the medical school.
Everyone at the University seemed to be a fan of my work until suddenly they were not.
Once I challenged one of their policies I immediately became a “threat to the health and safety of the community.” No amount of empirical evidence about natural immunity or vaccine safety and efficacy mattered at all. The University’s leadership was not interested in scientific debate or ethical deliberation.
When I was placed on unpaid suspension I was not permitted to use my paid time off—that is to say, I was ordered to stay off campus because I was not vaccinated, but I also could not take vacation at home because… I was not vaccinated. In violation of every basic principle of just and fair employment, the University tried to prevent me from doing any outside professional activities while I was on unpaid suspension. In an effort to pressure me to resign, they wanted to restrict my ability to earn an income not only at the University but outside the University as well. It was dizzying and at times surreal.
Now it’s officially over. I do not regret my time at the University. Indeed, I will miss my colleagues, the residents, and the medical students. I will miss teaching and supervising and doing ethics consults on some of the most challenging cases in the hospital. As I wrote to my colleagues at the University earlier this week:
While this is not how I pictured saying goodbye, I wanted to at least write to all of you before my access to your email addresses is shut down. It has been a pleasure and an honor to work with all of you during my fifteen years at UCI, and with many of you as far back as my four years of residency training at UCI. I love academic medicine and had hoped to stay at UCI until retirement, but that is not in the cards. Since being placed on leave on October 1, I have missed all very much and I hope that you all have been doing well. I apologize for any inconvenience that my absence has caused my fellow attendings who are covering my clinical/teaching duties or the residents that I was supervising.
To the residents, it’s been a tremendous privilege teaching and supervising you. Our program is fortunate to have such dedicated and talented residents, and I am confident that all of you will thrive in your careers. Thank you for your dedication to teaching our medical students. To the attendings, you are a tremendous group of colleagues and friends. I will very much miss working with all of you. I’ve learned a lot from every one of you, and I know that our department will continue to flourish as long as this group of attendings continues to anchor the clinical, teaching, and research enterprises. I write this literally with tears, and will maintain many fond memories of my time working with all of you. To the staff, you are terrific and so essential to everything we do. Thank you for all your dedicated work on behalf of our patients, students, residents, fellows, and attendings—and a for all the help you’ve provided to me every day.
I would have reached out to all of you sooner but was ordered by the University not to conduct any University-related business after being placed on leave on October 1, and I have not been allowed to return to campus since then (except to move out of my office). The University maintains that my termination is unrelated to my lawsuit challenging the UC vaccine mandate in federal court on behalf of covid-recovered individuals with infection-induced (natural) immunity. The decision to terminate me comes from the UC Office of the President and not from our department. I have nothing but gratitude and goodwill toward our department leadership and toward everyone at UCI. Indeed, I bear no resentment toward anyone at UC, including the people who twice denied my medical exemption or those who chose to fire me. Life is too short to bear a grudge.
I likewise want to thank all of you readers for your support and encouragement over the past several months. I trust that other doors and new opportunities will open up for me in the New Year as I transition into private practice and expand my work at the Zephyr Institute, where I direct the Health and Human Flourishing Program, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where I direct the Bioethics and American Democracy Program.
Now, since my university titles are gone I need to go update my bio on this site and on my website—where you can, by the way, find many of my old writings, interviews, and talks. I’ll be sending an update next week on my lawsuit and also on the Pfizer documents we recently received from the FDA, so stay tuned.
January 3rd, 2022 by Center For Biological Diversity
A judge has ruled decisively in favor of the Center for Biological Diversity’s ability to proceed with a suit over California’s oil and gas regulator committing widespread violations of environmental laws. The regulator and an oil-industry lobbying group had tried to dismiss the Center’s case, but on Wednesday the court rejected their arguments.
“The court saw right through these ridiculous delay tactics,” said Hollin Kretzmann, an attorney at the Center’s Climate Law Institute. “It’s time for Gov. Newsom and his regulators to face the music for greenlighting oil industry pollution. Rubberstamping thousands of oil and gas permits is illegal and dangerous to communities and the environment, and it needs to stop.”
The lawsuit, filed in February 2021, alleges that the California Geologic Energy Management Division, or CalGEM, has ignored its legal obligation to analyze environmental and health harms before issuing permits and approvals for oil and gas projects across the state. In 2020 alone regulators approved nearly 2,000 permits for new oil and gas wells without proper environmental review.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act — the state’s bedrock environmental protection and community right-to-know law — state and local agencies are required to disclose, analyze and mitigate a project’s environmental harms before approving oil and gas permits. But for years CalGEM has granted approvals for new oil and gas activity without conducting any such studies. As a result, regulators have approved thousands of permits that haven’t been reviewed for health and environmental risks.
“We applaud the court’s decision. CalGEM cannot continue to evade its responsibilities to protect Californians,” said Shaleen Shanbhag, partner at Hadsell, Stormer, Renick & Dai LLP, which represents the Center in the case. “Our goal is to stop the agency’s blatant disregard of the state’s most fundamental environmental laws.”
The case will proceed to discovery, where CalGEM and Western States Petroleum Association must turn over documents related to the case.
The Center is also represented in the case by Earthrights International, Stanford Environmental Law Clinic and Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris, Hoffman & Zeldes LLP.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.7 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
War spews hell in all directions. Just ask the guys at Talon Anvil, a secret U.S. “strike cell” recently exposed by the New York Times as a unit with a reputation for ignoring the rules of engagement and killing lots and lots of civilians with drone strikes as it plays war with ISIS.
Part of the problem, a source told the Times, is that “the daily demands of overseeing strike after strike seemed to erode operators’ perspective and fray their humanity.”
In other words, participating in the endless U.S. war on terror turned them into . . . terrorists, e.g.: Early one morning, as a Predator drone circled over the Syrian farming town of Karama, the operators focused on a particular building that they decided, with virtually no evidence, was an “enemy training center” and dropped a 500-pound bomb through the roof.
“As the smoke cleared,” a former officer told the Times, “his team stared at their screens in dismay. The infrared cameras showed women and children staggering out of the partly collapsed building, some missing limbs, some dragging the dead.
“The intelligence analysts began taking screen shots and tallying the casualties. They sent an initial battle damage assessment to Talon Anvil: 23 dead or severely wounded, 30 lightly wounded, very likely civilians. Talon Anvil paused only long enough to acknowledge the message, the former officer said, then pressed on to the next target.”
Oh, the frayed humanity! Here’s what did not occur: the operators looking at what they had just done from the viewpoint of the victims. That would have amounted to more than simply “dismay.” Doing so is almost incomprehensible. Imagine a bomb suddenly piercing your roof in the middle of the night. Imagine your children suddenly dead, your arm or leg missing
Oops. My point here is that war is a collective enterprise.
Multiply this incident by the size of the U.S. military budget — virtually half the country’s discretionary spending, around a trillion dollars annually, all told. And the money is always there, ready and waiting for the security state to consume. The unending lie is that it keeps us safe. Imagine, once again, “women and children staggering out of the partly collapsed building, some missing limbs, some dragging the dead,” and savor the safety you now have.
William Astore, pondering the defense budget’s endless growth despite the collapse of our official Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, three decades ago, asks: “Why, then, does each year’s (National Defense Authorization Act) rise ever higher into the troposphere, drifting on the wind and poisoning our culture with militarism? Because, to state the obvious, Congress would rather engage in pork-barrel spending than exercise the slightest real oversight when it comes to the national security state.”
The key words may well be these: poisoning our culture with militarism.
When we wage war, we dehumanize — then kill — a specific segment of humanity. In the process, we “fray” our own humanity . . . we become less human ourselves, and thus more in sync with the evil we claim to be obliterating. This is what’s happening to us right now. How is our culture being poisoned?
One obvious way is the rate of vet suicides: around 60,000 in the last decade. And of course there is the pretend militarism of lost — and armed — souls, who have made mass murder a recurring aspect of the daily news flow. Add in hate crimes. Add in the prison-industrial complex:
“The prison industry in the United States is massive and growing,” according to the American Friends Service Committee. “Since 1970, the number of incarcerated people in the U.S. has increased by 700 percent, to the point that the U.S. prison population is the largest in the world both per capita and in total numbers. As of 2019, there are an estimated 2.3 million people behind bars and 4.5 million people on probation or parole. The estimated cost of the U.S. mass incarceration system is $182 billion a year, with hundreds of private companies competing for government contracts.”
Our enemies are everywhere! They’re in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria. They’re massing at our southern border. And they’re here at home, packed into ghettos and poverty zones. As we wage war, we dehumanize the world, in the process shattering its complex interconnectedness. This does not make us safer.
Even the “good war” didn’t make us safer, though it’s the trophy cup that defenders of present-day militarism always hold up. Consider this observation by Paul Tritschler on just one of our late-in-the-game World War II bombing campaigns:
In March of 1945, he writes, “seemingly endless waves of B-29s roared across Tokyo, dropping one million bombs containing 2,000 tons of incendiaries. In under three hours, over 100,000 people lay dead and one million were homeless. The firebombing of 67 cities over the following five months resulted in the further deaths of at least half a million people — a deliberate policy of wiping out civilians living in the densely populated poorer districts. With no remorse, U.S. Air Force General Curtis LeMay openly declared,
‘They were scorched and boiled and baked to death.’ Although it didn’t dampen their enthusiasm, bomber crews said that the stench of burning flesh rose high into the air, forcing them to use oxygen masks to keep from vomiting. At the end of that five month period came atomic destruction.”
This is not about blame. This is not about shame. This is about change. .
Recently, I’ve been writing fiction, satire, parody, to expose the insanity of the pandemic scam. This article is not that. This article is fact. Buckle up.
Since the beginning of the so-called pandemic, I’ve been attacking the value of the PCR diagnostic test from many angles. The primary angle, as my readers know, is: SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated, never proved to exist.
However, I’ve also ventured into the bubble world where a few billion people blindly accept the existence of the virus—and I’ve shown that even within that world, the internal contradictions and lies abound.
One again, now, I’m entering that bubble world, since the powers-that-be are widely promoting the use of an at-home test for the “virus.” This test is self-administered. No doctor, nurse, or technician is present. What could possibly go wrong, as millions of people perform the test on themselves?
Here is the key quote: “The Reagent Solution [included in the test kit] contains a harmful chemical (see table below). If the solution contacts the skin or eye, flush with copious amounts of water. If irritation persists, seek medical advice…”
Then the FDA document lists that harmful chemical: sodium azide.
“Sodium azide is a rapidly acting, potentially deadly chemical that exists as an odorless white solid.”
Then there is this: “Sodium azide prevents the cells of the body from using oxygen. When this happens, the cells die. Sodium azide is more harmful to the heart and the brain than to other organs, because the heart and the brain use a lot of oxygen.”
Yes, as with all poisons, the degree of damage depends on the dosage, but you decide whether “potentially deadly,” as the CDC describes sodium azide, signifies a significant risk.
If you read the FDA document I referenced above, you’ll see that the reagent containing sodium azide is involved in the self-administered COVID test, and the whole test procedure is complex enough to allow fumbles and mistakes—such as a spill of the “deadly chemical.”
Don’t believe me? Try this FDA quote on for size: “To perform the test, an anterior nasal swab specimen is collected by the patient, then 6 drops of extraction reagent from a dropper bottle are added to the top hole of the swab well. The patient sample is inserted into the test card through the bottom hole of the swab well, and firmly pushed upwards until the swab tip is visible through the top hole. The swab is rotated 3 times clockwise and the card is closed, bringing the extracted sample into contact with the test strip. Test results are interpreted visually at 15 minutes based on the presence or absence of visually detectable pink/purple colored lines.”
See what I mean? Good luck.
Now let’s move on to the second problem with this at-home self-performed COVID test: it’s grossly misleading. The results are ambiguous.
The FDA document I’ve been quoting contains this gem: “The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Self Test does not differentiate between SARS-CoV and SARS…CoV-2.”
BOOM. In other words, a positive test, indicating infection, could mean nothing more than infection with the 2003 “SARS virus”—and that “epidemic” was a dud. But wait, there’s more:
“Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”
Double trouble. The person who tests positive could simply be housing bacteria in his body, AND whatever germ the test is detecting may not even be causing disease.
Other than that, the at-home test is perfect.
This Abbott BinaxNow at-home COVID test is the market leader. About 75% of all retail test-kit sales in the US come from Abbott.
Back in the early spring of 2020, I told you the test was the key to faking the pandemic. Now the government wants the population to perform the test-fakery on themselves. With, of course, the added danger of exposing themselves to a highly destructive chemical in the process.
But don’t worry, be happy. On many days of every week, little Tony Fauci will appear on television and inform you that testing is necessary, and he’ll omit grisly details. Trust him.
And then march forward, secure in the knowledge that lies and omissions keep us safe.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Coronavirus Fact-Check #14: No, 500 Children were NOT admitted to hospital with Covid this week.The press are reporting “worrying” figures in the headlines, but admit they are meaningless in the body of the text.
One of the older tricks in the book.
Two days ago Sky News reported that, in the week from December 20th to Boxing Day (December 26th, for our non-UK readers), over 500 British children had been admitted to hospital with Covid19.
the story has been picked up by other outlets too, with the Metro headlining:
More than 500 children admitted to hospital with Covid in Christmas week
More than 500 children admitted to hospital with Covid in week leading up to Boxing Day
Going on to say [our emphasis]:
A record number of new Covid infections were reported today with the easily transmissible Omicron strain being named as the driving force for the surge – now the variant is having an unprecedented impact on Britain’s younger population
Other publications cited “concerning data” that 50 babies had been admitted to hospital with Covid on Christmas day alone.
But is any of this true?
In short, no. It is a meaningless number created by deliberately misleading statistical definitions.
This is actually the easiest fact-check we’ve ever done, because Sky literally fact-checked themselves in their own subheading:
Let’s repeat that with some added emphasis:
The definition used to identify a hospital admission with coronavirus is that someone either tested positive for the virus in the 14 days before their admission, or during their stay in hospital. It could mean someone goes into hospital for a non-COVID reason and later tests positive.
So no, 512 children were not admitted to hospital for Covid infection, 512 children were admitted to hospital for potentially “non-COVID reasons”, and either tested positive while they were in hospital or had tested positive sometime in the previous two weeks.
We’ve gone over this many times before.
The official definition of a “Covid death” is death by any cause, in someone who tested positive in the month preceding their death.
The official definition of a “covid hospitalisation” is anyone who is admitted to hospital for any reason after testing positive, or tests positive while they are already in hospital for something else.
We don’t need to explain, yet again, how meaningless the resultant statistics will be if you use these definitions.
But if they keep lying about the figures, we will keep correcting them.
On November 23, while the general public was busy preparing for Thanksgiving, the WA State Department of Health (DOH) issued a press release disclosing they had launched a Digital COVID-19 Verification system.
Without any legislative oversight or approval, without any public comment period, the “DOH’s Office of Innovation and Technology, working closely with partners at MITRE, Microsoft, and the state of California, stood up WA Verify.”
Microsoft needs no explanation for its ties to global interests, but MITRE is far less well known. MITRE is a supposed nonprofit claiming to work for “public interests” but it is deeply tied to U.S. military and intelligence agencies and individuals and runs on federal funding.
Two of their board members, Halverson and Noseworthy, are connected to the World Economic Forum (WEF). WEF is a leading force behind the Great Reset that aims to eliminate personal property and put control of all aspects of life in the hands of corporate globalists. WEF supports governments implementing digital identification systems “To prepare for emerging regulation.“
The WA DOH says “The state will not be implementing a mandatory passport system” but that’s a misleading statement. A mandatory passport system is not necessary for vaccine mandates to be declared or enforced, as they already have been in WA State for many workers. The WA Verify system supports public and private vaccine mandates and makes it easier for mandates to be expanded and enforced.
With the DOH working closely with MITRE, the state’s system will coordinate with other systems set up in the U.S. and around the world, as they join others in VCI, the MITRE-affiliated coalition promoting the use of the SMART Health Card System that uses QR codes. A small sampling of other MITRE-connected systems in place:
Nothing COVID-19 related in WA State is being directed locally. From the early days of the Gates Foundation and IDMOD dictating the state’s response to today’s mandates issued through the governor, WA State is being controlled by outside global powers.
Representative government is non-existent.
As ICWA warned pre-COVID — the number one enemy to public health is the corporate-globalist captured PUBLIC HEALTH System.
What can YOU do?
Take Action Wherever You Are, join the Unity Project, and Support Those You Know Impacted by Mandates. Together united, we can rise up and peacefully reclaim our rights, our states and nation, our freedoms.
Be Prepared: Stay Out of the Hospital to End the Excuse Being Used to Perpetuate Tyranny and the Globalist Takeover.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
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.
***
Remember Event 201 of 18 October 2019 in NYC, hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, in partnership with the WEF (World Economic Forum) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation? Of course, WHO was also present, and so were all the Globalist players, including the World Bank, IMF and – of indeed the UN and many of its sub-organization. See this.
This was a “tabletop” simulation, as they call it – of a corona pandemic that may hit the entire world population “one of these days”…
It happened less than three months later. The rest is history.
*
Now, the same suspects, replacing officially the WEF by WHO as a key sponsor, used the Event of the Grand Challenges Annual Meeting in Brussels, Belgium, on October 23, 2022 for a similar “tabletop” exercise, this time called “Catastrophic Contagion” – see this.
Is it a coincidence that the venue of this Event is Brussels, Headquarters of the EU and NATO?
Strange that this surfaced only now. And be assured, the WEF was omni-present.
In fact, without the WEF nothing of this kind would happen. Because the WEF is the Executing Branch of Big Finance – the corporate finance-digito-military complex, that directs the world from the shadows of Washington.
It is strange that hardly anything surfaced from this event for almost two months. Why was it kept secret until now?
Well, instead of, or in addition to the vassalic UN organizations and Washington controlled financial institutions, like World Bank and IMF – they invited an extraordinary group of participants, consisting of 10 current and former Health Ministers and senior public health officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola, Liberia, Singapore, India, Germany. Of particular interest are African countries.
There are no coincidences. WHO’s behind closed doors Assembly of Health Ministers from around the world are debating the infamous Pandemic Treaty, as these lines are written. They will soon be voting on this nefarious “Treaty”. The Pandemic Treaty, as we know, if voted in favor by a two-thirds majority will override all national authorities on matters of health; and as of 1 January 2024 will have jurisdiction above the sovereign nation states of the 194 WHO member countries.
This means, we would have a worldwide health tyranny. See this brief video (5:45 min) from a WHO insider – Dr. Vincent Carroll (18 March 2022).
Why the African countries were invited to this simulation of this very-very scary and frightening Catastrophic Contagion? – An Africa block of countries are the strong holdout – they rejected so far the Pandemic Treaty. Africans know what it means. And they even better know what it means after having experienced the covid hoax, that for some of their Presidents ended deadly. Because they – some African and one Caribbean President – opposed the vaxx agenda, they ended up dying under strange circumstances.
Why Germany’s presence?
Germany has currently the most oppressive government in Europe. Germany a EU economic and intellectual superpower, has also Europe’s strongest resistance movements – resistance against the covid and the Green (fake) Climate Agenda narrative. Resistance against the EU-Brussels directorate’s suicide pact for Europe, leading with a planned collapse of the German economy.
The hard-core Dr. Karl Lauterbach was sworn in as Federal Minister of Health, about a year ago, on December 8, 2021. Will he convince the Africans, Singaporians and Indians of the Great Good of the Pandemic Treaty for their countries and for the rest of the world?
Will there be some special incentives in terms of “development money” be waiting in the wings for those African countries? Difficult to say. But all is possible. In our Orwell world, dystopian has long become the new normal.
One thing is sure, if the WHO Pandemic Treaty is approved, the world is in deep trouble. Mother Earth may convert into a sanitary prison; that coupled with central bank digital currencies – will be the end of what we once called “freedom”, and under the eagle’s eye and iron fist of the Green Agenda, it might mean permanent lockdown.
Exiting WHO will then be of the order – along with abandoning our western monetary system as we know it. Parallel, community-bound currencies have long existed – and they can grow again, and so can people- and nature-based health systems. There are plenty of good and honest medical doctors, practicing alternative medicine that will render humanity healthier.
It may sound like the endgame. But the endgame may be blowing in the wind – and from its dust may rise a new society.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Featured image is from The Liberation Institute
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
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 December 7, 2022
***
Abstract
India experienced a unique, sudden, unprecedented and extraordinarily large excess all-cause mortality event in April-July 2021, which is not adequately explained as a “second wave” or as being caused by a new variant of concern. After an overview of four recently published studies that have quantified the April-July 2021 excess all-cause mortality event, we give ten numbered arguments as to why we conclude that the extraordinary mortality event was caused by India’s vaccine rollout in its early stages. Therefore, it appears that the early rollout of the vaccine in India in April-July 2021 was devastating, causing the deaths of approximately 3.7 million residents, on administering approximately 350 million doses of the vaccine.
*
India experienced an extraordinary excess-mortality shock in April through July 2021, not seen in any other country in the world.
The mortality by week rose to almost 700% of its baseline value in April 2021, based on 90 municipalities in the state of Gujarat (Acosta et al. 2022; their Fig. 2), and the mortality by month rose to almost 400% of its baseline value in July 2021, based on 19 Indian states, 1.27 billion population (Leffler et al. 2022; their Fig. 1). To be clear, this represents all-cause mortalities that are 7-fold (by week) and 4-fold (by month) greater, respectively, than the pre-Covid (2019) all-cause mortalities in India.
This 4-month April-July 2021 excess mortality event in India is described in four independent studies published in leading medical journals (Acosta et al. 2022; Jha et al. 2022; Leffler et al. 2022; Lewnard et al. 2022); and it represents the great majority of excess all-cause deaths for the entire Covid period examined since a pandemic was declared by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020.
Given the extraordinary characteristics of the 4-month April-July 2021 excess mortality event in India, it is useful to reproduce key figures from the said studies, in order to grasp its significance and nature, as follows.
Figure 1: Leffler et al. (2022), using 19 Indian states, 1.27 billion population, their Fig. 1.
Figure 2: Jha et al. (2022), using 0.2 million health facilities nationally, their Fig. 3. This is essentially the same figure as Fig. 1 in Deshmukh et al. (2021).
Figure 3: Jha et al. (2022), using a survey study of 57 thousand adults, their Fig. 2.
Figure 4: Acosta et al. (2022), using death certificates from 90 municipalities in the Indian state of Gujarat, their Fig. 1.
Figure 5: Acosta et al. (2022), using death certificates from 90 municipalities in the Indian state of Gujarat, their Fig. 2. Based on mortality by week. (Upper) Full figure. (Lower) Selected enlargement.
Figure 6: Lewnard et al. (2022), in the Chennai district, India, their Fig. 1. (Red line: 14-day moving average estimates of daily mortality in 2020 and 2021 (observed deaths), corrected for lagged reporting based on 2019 observations.)
When such a large, unique, and sudden feature in mortality of all causes occurs in any jurisdiction, it demands thorough investigation, if the cause is not empirically obvious, such as a massive earthquake or a genocidal military attack. This holds even during a declared pandemic, given the unique, sudden, unprecedented and large-magnitude nature of the event in India.
All of the above-cited authors who have reported on the 4-month April-July 2021 excess mortality event in India have referred to the event as being India’s “second wave” and have used their all-cause mortality evaluations to infer that COVID-19 mortality is potentially largely underestimated by India’s official Covid-death statistics.
In this author’s opinion, if that was India’s “second wave” then, by comparison, India virtually did not have a “first wave”, and essentially did not have a death-causing pandemic prior to April 2021.
None of the above-cited authors who have reported on the 4-month April-July 2021 excess mortality event in India have mentioned the remarkable coincidence that the said excess mortality event coincides in time with India’s vaccine rollout, starting on 1 March 2021 with those 60 years and older and those over 45 years and having “comorbidities” (among 20 listed comorbidities) (The Economic Times, 24 February 2021; Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, 2021), extended to all residents over 45 years on 1 April 2021; and coinciding in time with the government’s 4-day Teeka Utsav (“Vaccine Festival”) from 11 to 14 April 2021, in which some 100 million vaccine doses were administered by its completion: “Elderly people or those who may not be much educated should be helped in getting the vaccine”, Prime Minister Modi said (Mint, 11 April 2021).
To appreciate India’s vaccine rollout, its official statistics are a reference, as follows.
Figure 7: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (2022): C+ WIN dashboard, by age as indicated. (Upper) Broad view. (Lower) Selected enlargement.
Figure 8: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (2022): C+ WIN dashboard, by dose type as indicated. (Upper) Broad view. (Lower) Selected enlargement.
For the following reasons (presented as numbered points), taken together, we conclude that the 4-month April-July 2021 surge in excess all-cause mortality in India may largely or predominantly have been caused by the vaccine rollout in its early stages.
1. The mortality event is unique to India, sudden, unprecedented, massive and synchronous with India’s vaccine rollout to the most elderly and most fragile (comorbidity) residents (Figures 1-8).
2. By comparison, in relative terms, there were no significant mortality events and there was no significant cumulative excess mortality prior to April 2021, during more than a year of the declared pandemic (Figures 1-6).
The declared pandemic would have had to spare India for more than a year, while it raged in many other places around the world, before it showed a dramatic many-fold increase in virulence, suddenly in April-July 2021, when vaccines coincidentally were being rolled out to the elderly and those having comorbidities.
3. The early rollout of the vaccine was not executed following the original ambitious plan but instead was at first delayed by implementation difficulties and then boosted by an ad hoc government intervention (Prime Minister Modi’s 11-14 April 2021 Teeka Utsav, “Vaccine Festival”), which encouraged accelerated blanket and penetrating delivery to the poor, uneducated, and those presumed to be most in need.
4. A similar synchronicity between increased vaccination associated with a government intervention to accelerate vaccine delivery and an anomalous surge (peak) in all-cause mortality is observed in connection with the so-called “vaccine equity” campaigns in the USA. An anomalous fall-2021 peak was interpreted as being caused by the vaccines, and is prominent in the 25-64 years age group in 21 states of the USA, most notably including Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana (Rancourt et al., 2022). The data for Mississippi is shown below (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Rancourt et al. (2022), their Fig. 11B. All-cause mortality by week (light-blue), cumulated number of people with at least one dose of vaccine (dark-blue), cumulated number of fully vaccinated people (orange) and cumulated number of people with a booster dose (yellow) by week from 2019 to 2022, for 25-64 years age group in Mississippi. Data are displayed from week-1 of 2019 to week-5 of 2022.
In the study by Rancourt et al. (2022), it was concluded that significant (detectable by all-cause mortality) vaccine-induced mortality occurred primarily among fragile groups, characterized by high degrees of poverty, disability, obesity, diabetes, and high medication rates. The vaccine injection was seen as an additional challenge, often accelerating and causing death in residents with comorbidities.
5. The magnitude of the April-July 2021 excess all-cause mortality event (normalized by population) is highly heterogeneous from region to region in India (above-cited references). This suggests that the net regional excess mortality is related to the underlying heterogeneity of health status, and to differences in health-status group selection, which were actually vaccinated in a region; rather than being due to a given infection fatality ratio (and its age profile) for the rapid spread of an infectious disease, applied to all regions similarly.
6. The April-July 2021 excess all-cause mortality event occurs simultaneously across India, as do the national vaccine rollout and Prime Minister Modi’s “Vaccine Festival” intervention, rather than showing any distribution of starting times, which would be compatible with a spreading infectious disease seeding different regions at different times and spreading at different rates depending on regional differences of social and health conditions.
7. The April-July 2021 excess all-cause mortality, at least initially, is significantly larger, on a mortality-baseline-percent basis for mortality by week, for 40-64 year old residents than for 65+ year old residents (~880% vs ~570%) (Figure 5). This is incompatible with controlled clinical studies and empirical observations, which find that infection fatality probability of COVID-19-assigned death is exponential with age (Bonanad et al., 2020; Goldstein and Lee, 2020; Santesmasses et al., 2020; Bauer et al., 2021; Elo et al., 2022; Sorensen et al., 2022). However, the age-dependence behaviour is similar to what is observed for the vaccination period of the Covid period compared to the pre-vaccination Covid period in the USA (Rancourt et al., 2022; see their Fig. 17).
8. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of the USA unambiguously shows excess all-cause deaths immediately following injections with each of the three types of COVID-19 vaccines used in the USA, with a prominent peak within 5 days of injection and an exponentially decaying excess mortality extending 2 months following injection (Hickey and Rancourt, 2022; see their Figs. S3 through S5). The integrated mortality by number of injections following injection (injection toxicity) increases exponentially with age, as does the batch to batch variability of toxicity (Hickey and Rancourt, 2022; see their Fig. S6). The latter observations of exponential increases with age mean that the injections represent fatal challenges in proportion to frailty of the subject.
9. Detailed histopathological and immunohistochemical autopsy studies have demonstrated that the COVID-19 vaccines are causes of death, both in otherwise healthy subjects and in elderly subjects with comorbidities (Choi et al., 2021; Schneider et al., 2021; Sessa et al., 2021; Gill et al., 2022; Mörz, 2022; Schwab et al., 2022).
10. We have not found any study establishing that there was a sudden rise (and fall) of any disproportionately virulent variant of concern that would have been synchronous with or swept through and caused the April-July 2021 excess all-cause mortality event. For example, Dhar et al. (2021) postulate that the April-July 2021 “second wave” event in Delhi (the capital city of India) was due to the Delta variant, which would have quickly swept Delhi to become predominant because it would have higher transmissibility and larger immune escape than concomitantly circulating variants. However, Dhar et al. estimate the needed characteristics of Delta by fitting a model to the epidemiological data and to the variant predominance estimated by genomic measurements from small non-randomized cohorts. Leaving aside the large known and unknown uncertainties throughout their exercise, basically, the inferred characteristics of Delta are obtained by fitting to the data, rather than being independently measured in a controlled clinical trial. Under such circumstances, the mortality event creates an illusion of the needed Delta, but an actual Delta cannot be concluded to have caused the mortality event.
In conclusion, it appears that the early rollout of the vaccine in April-July 2021 in India was devastating, causing the deaths of approximately 3.7 million residents (Figure 1), on administering approximately 350 million doses of the vaccine (in a population of 1.39 billion).
This corresponds to an effective vaccine fatality per dose ratio (per-dose toxicity) of approximately 1%, which is approximately x100 the vaccine fatality per dose ratio for the Janssen vaccine administered to 65+ year old residents of the USA, calculated from the VAERS data (Hickey and Rancourt, 2021; see their Table 1). It is also approximately the same vaccine fatality per dose ratio (1%) as is consistent with the anomalous fall-2021 peak in excess all-cause mortality occurring in high-poverty states of the USA, which was interpreted as being caused by the vaccine: Rancourt et al. (2022) and see the data for Mississippi shown in Figure 9.
Frail residents are susceptible to being fatally harmed on injection and should be protected against overly enthusiastic or politically motivated state-run injection campaigns implemented without stringent individual clinical risk assessment.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Denis G. Rancourt, PhD is a Researcher at Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca).
Sources
Acosta et al. (2022): Acosta RJ, Patnaik B, Buckee C, Kiang MV, Irizarry RA, Balsari S, et al. /// All-cause excess mortality across 90 municipalities in Gujarat, India, during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-April 2021). /// PLOS Glob Public Health, 2022, 2(8): e0000824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000824
Bauer et al. (2021): Bauer, P., Brugger, J., König, F. et al. /// An international comparison of age and sex dependency of COVID-19 deaths in 2020: a descriptive analysis. /// Sci Rep 11, 19143 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97711-8
Bonanad et al. (2020): Bonanad C, García-Blas S, Tarazona-Santabalbina F, Sanchis J, Bertomeu-González V, Fácila L, Ariza A, Núñez J, Cordero A. /// The Effect of Age on Mortality in Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis With 611,583 Subjects. /// J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020 Jul;21(7):915-918. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.05.045. Epub 2020 May 25. PMID: 32674819; PMCID: PMC7247470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2020.05.045
Choi et al. (2021): Sangjoon Choi, SangHan Lee, Jeong-Wook Seo, Min-ju Kim, Yo Han Jeon, Ji Hyun Park, Jong Kyu Lee, Nam Seok Yeo /// Myocarditis-induced Sudden Death after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Korea: Case Report Focusing on Histopathological Findings /// Journal of Korean Medical Science 2021; 36(40): e286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e286
Deshmukh et al. (2021): Yashwant Deshmukh, Wilson Suraweera, Chinmay Tumbe, Aditi Bhowmick, Sankalp Sharma, Paul Novosad, Sze Hang Fu, Leslie Newcombe, Hellen Gelband, Patrick Brown, Prabhat Jha /// Excess mortality in India from July 2020 to July 2021 during the COVID pandemic: death registration, health facility deaths, and survey data /// medRxiv 2021.07.20.21260872; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260872
Dhar et al. (2021): Dhar MS, Marwal R, Vs R, Ponnusamy K, Jolly B, Bhoyar RC, Sardana V, Naushin S, Rophina M, Mellan TA, Mishra S, Whittaker C, Fatihi S, Datta M, Singh P, Sharma U, Ujjainiya R, Bhatheja N, Divakar MK, Singh MK, Imran M, Senthivel V, Maurya R, Jha N, Mehta P, A V, Sharma P, Vr A, Chaudhary U, Soni N, Thukral L, Flaxman S, Bhatt S, Pandey R, Dash D, Faruq M, Lall H, Gogia H, Madan P, Kulkarni S, Chauhan H, Sengupta S, Kabra S; Indian SARS-CoV-2 Genomics Consortium (INSACOG)‡, Gupta RK, Singh SK, Agrawal A, Rakshit P, Nandicoori V, Tallapaka KB, Sowpati DT, Thangaraj K, Bashyam MD, Dalal A, Sivasubbu S, Scaria V, Parida A, Raghav SK, Prasad P, Sarin A, Mayor S, Ramakrishnan U, Palakodeti D, Seshasayee ASN, Bhat M, Shouche Y, Pillai A, Dikid T, Das S, Maitra A, Chinnaswamy S, Biswas NK, Desai AS, Pattabiraman C, Manjunatha MV, Mani RS, Arunachal Udupi G, Abraham P, Atul PV, Cherian SS. /// Genomic characterization and epidemiology of an emerging SARS-CoV-2 variant in Delhi, India. /// Science. 2021 Nov 19;374(6570):995-999. doi: 10.1126/science.abj9932. Epub 2021 Oct 14. PMID: 34648303; PMCID: PMC7612010. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj9932
Elo et al. (2022): Elo, I.T. et al. /// Evaluation of Age Patterns of COVID-19 Mortality by Race and Ethnicity From March 2020 to October 2021 in the US /// JAMA Network Open, 2022, 5(5), p. e2212686. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12686
Gill et al. (2022): James R. Gill, Randy Tashjian, Emily Duncanson /// Autopsy Histopathologic Cardiac Findings in 2 Adolescents Following the Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose. /// Arch Pathol Lab Med 1 August 2022; 146 (8): 925–929. doi: https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2021-0435-SA
Goldstein and Lee (2020): Joshua R. Goldstein, Ronald D. Lee /// Demographic perspectives on the mortality of COVID-19 and other epidemics /// PNAS | August 20, 2020 | 117 (36) 22035-22041 /// https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2006392117
Jha et al. (2022): Jha P, Deshmukh Y, Tumbe C, Suraweera W, Bhowmick A, Sharma S, Novosad P, Fu SH, Newcombe L, Gelband H, Brown P. /// COVID mortality in India: National survey data and health facility deaths /// Science 375, 667–671, 11 February 2022 /// https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm5154
Leffler et al. (2022): Leffler CT, Lykins V JD, Das S, Yang E, Konda S. /// Preliminary Analysis of Excess Mortality in India During the COVID-19 Pandemic. /// The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2022;106(5):1507-1510. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.21-0864 . https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.21-0864
Lewnard et al. (2022): Joseph A Lewnard, Ayesha Mahmud, Tejas Narayan, Brian Wahl, T S Selvavinayagam, Chandra Mohan B, Ramanan Laxminarayan /// All-cause mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chennai, India: an observational study /// The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Volume 22, Issue 4, 2022, Pages 463-472, ISSN 1473-3099, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00746-5
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (2022): C+ WIN dashboard, Winning Over COVID-19 /// https://dashboard.cowin.gov.in/ /// accessed on 4 December 2022
Mörz (2022): Mörz, M. A /// Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19. /// Vaccines 2022, 10, 1651. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10101651
Santesmasses et al. (2020): Santesmasses, D., Castro, J.P., Zenin, A.A., Shindyapina, A.V., Gerashchenko, M.V., Zhang, B., Kerepesi, C., Yim, S.H., Fedichev, P.O. and Gladyshev, V.N. /// COVID-19 is an emergent disease of aging. /// Aging Cell, 2020, 19: e13230. /// https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.13230
Schneider et al. (2021): Schneider, J., Sottmann, L., Greinacher, A. et al. /// Postmortem investigation of fatalities following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines. /// Int J Legal Med 135, 2335–2345 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-021-02706-9
Schwab et al. (2022): Schwab, C., Domke, L.M., Hartmann, L. et al. /// Autopsy-based histopathological characterization of myocarditis after anti-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination. /// Clin Res Cardiol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-022-02129-5
Sessa et al. (2021): Sessa, F.; Salerno, M.; Esposito, M.; Di Nunno, N.; Zamboni, P.; Pomara, C. /// Autopsy Findings and Causality Relationship between Death and COVID‑19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review. /// J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5876. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10245876
Sorensen et al. (2022): Sorensen, R.J.D. et al. /// Variation in the COVID-19 infection–fatality ratio by age, time, and geography during the pre-vaccine era: a systematic analysis /// The Lancet, 2022, 399(10334), pp. 1469–1488. /// Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02867-1
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
First published November 4, 2017.
Author’s Note and Update
The World is at a Dangerous Crossroads.
Nuclear war threatens the future of humanity. We are no longer dealing with a hypothetical scenario. The threat of World War III is real:
While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Ukraine, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality.
The US administration has endorsed preemptive nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Since the George W. Bush administration, pre-emptive nuclear war has been portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”.
The following article first published in 2017 questions the history of the Cold War. It has a bearing on recent developments.
US nuclear threats directed against Russia predate the Cold War.
They were first formulated at the height of World War II under the Manhattan Project when the US and the Soviet Union were allies.
The secret plan to bomb 66 Soviet cities was released in mid-September 1945, two weeks after the formal surrender of Japan.
Had the US decided NOT to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race would not have taken place.
Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of “Deterrence” against the US, had it not been for the Manhattan Project which was intended to implement a nuclear war against the Soviet Union.
Flash Forward to 2022:
President Joe Biden does not have the foggiest idea as to the consequences of nuclear war:
“Biden’s announcement that the US will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear threats, and the knowledge that US nuclear weapons are deployed close to Russia are forcing Putin to abandon his no first use of nuclear weapons pledge.
In other words, unlike the 20th century Cold War, today there is a hair-trigger on nuclear war.
Now Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General says:
“I fear that the war in Ukraine will spiral out of control and become a major war between NATO and Russia. If things go wrong, they can go horribly wrong.”
Massive amounts of money have been allocated by the Biden Administration to feed the weapons industry including the Pentagon’s 1.3 trillion dollar nuclear weapons program first launched under Obama.
Humanity is at a dangerous crossroads. Nuclear war has become a multi-billion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.
The use of nuclear weapons against Russia is currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon. US-NATO war games are being carried out on Russia’s doorstep. A first strike preemptive nuclear attack on Russia is not excluded.
In the words of Fidel Castro on October 15, 2010
“In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.
Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!” (Fidel Castro Ruz, conversations with the author, October 2010)
The use of nuclear war against Russia and the Soviet Union has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon since September 15, 1945. (see Article below). The intent of the Manhattan Project was to wage nuclear war against the Soviet Union.
.
What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III Scenario.
It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, Hiroshima Day, August 6, 2022, December 11, 2022
***
“Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map”, 204 Atomic Bombs against 66 Major Cities, US Nuclear Attack against USSR Planned During World War II
All major cities of the Soviet Union were included in the list of 66 “strategic” targets. The tables below categorize each city in terms of area in square miles and the corresponding number of atomic bombs required to annihilate and kill the inhabitants of selected urban areas.
Six atomic bombs were to be used to destroy each of the larger cities including Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent, Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa.
The Pentagon estimated that a total of 204 atomic bombs would be required to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map”. The targets for a nuclear attack consisted of sixty-six major cities.
To undertake this operation the “optimum” number of bombs required was of the order of 466 (see document below)
One single atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima resulted in the immediate death of 100,000 people in the first seven seconds. Imagine what would have happened if 204 atomic bombs had been dropped on major cities of the Soviet Union as outlined in a secret U.S. plan formulated during the Second World War.
Hiroshima in the wake of the atomic bomb attack, 6 August 1945
The document outlining this diabolical military agenda had been released in September 1945, barely one month after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (6 and 9 August, 1945) and two years before the onset of the Cold War (1947).
The secret plan dated September 15, 1945 (two weeks after the surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945 aboard the USS Missouri, see image below) , however, had been formulated at an earlier period, namely at the height of World War II, at a time when America and the Soviet Union were close allies.
It is worth noting that Stalin was first informed through official channels by Harry Truman of the infamous Manhattan Project at the Potsdam Conference on July 24, 1945, barely two weeks before the attack on Hiroshima.
The Manhattan project was launched in 1939, two years prior to America’s entry into World War II in December 1941. The Kremlin was fully aware of the secret Manhattan project as early as 1942.
Were the August 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks used by the Pentagon to evaluate the viability of a much larger attack on the Soviet Union consisting of more than 204 atomic bombs? The key documents to bomb 66 cities of the Soviet Union (15 September 1945) were finalized 5-6 weeks after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (6, 9 August 1945):
“On September 15, 1945 — just under two weeks after the formal surrender of Japan and the end of World War II — Norstad sent a copy of the estimate to General Leslie Groves, still the head of the Manhattan Project, and the guy who, for the short term anyway, would be in charge of producing whatever bombs the USAAF might want. As you might guess, the classification on this document was high: “TOP SECRET LIMITED,” which was about as high as it went during World War II. (Alex Wellerstein, The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements (September 1945)
The Kremlin was aware of the 1945 plan to bomb sixty-six Soviet cities.
The documents confirm that the US was involved in the “planning of genocide” against the Soviet Union.
Let’s cut to the chase. How many bombs did the USAAF request of the atomic general, when there were maybe one, maybe two bombs worth of fissile material on hand? At a minimum they wanted 123. Ideally, they’d like 466. This is just a little over a month after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Of course, in true bureaucratic fashion, they provided a handy-dandy chart (Alex Wellerstein, op. cit)
Central to our understanding of the Cold War which started (officially) in 1947, Washington’s September 1945 plan to bomb 66 cities into smithereens played a key role in triggering the nuclear arms race.
The Soviet Union was threatened and developed its own atomic bomb in 1949 in response to 1942 Soviet intelligence reports on the Manhattan Project.
While the Kremlin knew about these plans to “Wipe out” the USSR, the broader public was not informed because the September 1945 documents were of course classified.
Today, neither the September 1945 plan to blow up the Soviet Union nor the underlying cause of the nuclear arms race are acknowledged. The Western media has largely focussed its attention on the Cold War US-USSR confrontation. The plan to annihilate the Soviet Union dating back to World War II and the infamous Manhattan project are not mentioned.
Washington’s Cold War nuclear plans are invariably presented in response to so-called Soviet threats, when in fact it was the U.S. plan released in September 1945 (formulated at an earlier period at the height of World War II) to wipe out the Soviet which motivated Moscow to develop its nuclear weapons capabilities.
The assessment of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists mistakenly blamed and continue to blame the Soviet Union for having launched the nuclear arms race in 1949, four years after the release of the September 1945 US Secret Plan to target 66 major Soviet cities with 204 nuclear bombs:
“1949: The Soviet Union denies it, but in the fall, President Harry Truman tells the American public that the Soviets tested their first nuclear device, officially starting the arms race. “We do not advise Americans that doomsday is near and that they can expect atomic bombs to start falling on their heads a month or year from now,” the Bulletin explains. “But we think they have reason to be deeply alarmed and to be prepared for grave decisions.” (Timeline of the Doomsday Clock, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2017)
IMPORTANT: Had the US decided NOT to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race would not have taken place.
Neither The Soviet Union nor the People’s Republic of China would have developed nuclear capabilities as a means of “Deterrence” agains the US which had already formulated plans to annihilate the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union lost 26 million people during World War II.
The Cold War List of 1200 Targeted Cities:
This initial 1945 list of sixty-six cities was updated in the course of the Cold War (1956) to include some 1200 cities in the USSR and the Soviet block countries of Eastern Europe (see declassified documents below). The bombs slated for use were more powerful in terms of explosive capacity than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Source: National Security Archive
“According to the 1956 Plan, H-Bombs were to be Used Against Priority “Air Power” Targets in the Soviet Union, China, and Eastern Europe. Major Cities in the Soviet Bloc, Including East Berlin, Were High Priorities in “Systematic Destruction” for Atomic Bombings. (William Burr, U.S. Cold War Nuclear Attack Target List of 1200 Soviet Bloc Cities “From East Germany to China”, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 538, December 2015
Source: National Security Archive
Washington, D.C., December 22, 2015 – The SAC [Strategic Air Command] Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959, produced in June 1956 and published today for the first time by the National Security Archive www.nsarchive.org, provides the most comprehensive and detailed list of nuclear targets and target systems that has ever been declassified. As far as can be told, no comparable document has ever been declassified for any period of Cold War history.
The SAC study includes chilling details. According to its authors, their target priorities and nuclear bombing tactics would expose nearby civilians and “friendly forces and people” to high levels of deadly radioactive fallout. Moreover, the authors developed a plan for the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted “population” in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw. Purposefully targeting civilian populations as such directly conflicted with the international norms of the day, which prohibited attacks on people per se (as opposed to military installations with civilians nearby).National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 538, December 2015
List of Cities
Excerpt of list of 1200 cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive, op. cit.
From the Cold War to the Present
In the post Cold War era, nuclear war directed against Russia, China, North Korea and Iran is “On the Table”.
What distinguishes the October 1962 Missile Crisis to Today’s realities:
1. Today’s president Joe Biden does not have the foggiest idea as to the consequences of nuclear war.
2, Communication today between the White House and the Kremlin is at an all time low. In contrast, in October 1962, the leaders on both sides, namely John F. Kennedy and Nikita S. Khrushchev were accutely aware of the dangers of nuclear annihilation. They collaborated with a view to avoiding the unthinkable.
3. The nuclear doctrine was entirely different during the Cold War. Both Washington and Moscow understood the realities of mutually assured destruction. Today, tactical nuclear weapons with an explosive capacity (yield) of one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb are categorized by the Pentagon as “harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”.
4. A one trillion ++ nuclear weapons program, first launched under Obama, is ongoing.
5. Today’s thermonuclear bombs are more than 100 times more powerful and destructive than a Hiroshima bomb. Both the US and Russia have several thousand nuclear weapons deployed.
Moreover, an all out war against China is currently on the drawing board of the Pentagon as outlined by a RAND Corporation Report commissioned by the US Army
U.S Foreign Policy Insanity
There is a long history of US political insanity geared towards providing a human face to U.S. crimes against humanity.
On August 9, 1945, on the day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, president Truman (image right), in a radio address to the American people, concluded that God is on the side of America with regard to the use of nuclear weapons and that
“He May guide us to use it [atomic bomb] in His ways and His purposes”.
According to Truman: God is with us, he will decide if and when to use the bomb:
[We must] prepare plans for the future control of this bomb. I shall ask the Congress to cooperate to the end that its production and use be controlled, and that its power be made an overwhelming influence towards world peace.
We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind.
It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.
We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes” (emphasis added)
Comments Off on Today the Threat of Nuclear War is Real: America’s 1945 Plan: “Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map”, 204 Atomic Bombs against 66 Major Cities, US Nuclear Attack against USSR Planned During World War II
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
As a child of the Cold War, I grew up only knowing the Soviet Union as our enemy. When it collapsed, it created a vacuum when it came to defending the US. It turns out we needed the USSR to bring purpose to our own existence.
I was a child of the Cold War. The year that I was born, 1961, saw the Berlin Wall go up. When I was almost a year and a half old, the Cuban Missile Crisis had my parents wondering if there would be a tomorrow (we lived in central Florida at the time.) My father was an Air Force officer. In 1964, he was deployed to Turkey, where he maintained F-100 Suer Sabre fighter bombers standing strip alert outside Izmir, armed with nuclear weapons.
In 1965-66, he was sent to Vietnam to fight the communists. In 1969, he was sent to South Korea to be prepared to do the same. In 1975, he took our family to Turkey, where I was surrounded by the reality of the Cold War–secret US listening posts in Sinop that spied on Soviet communications, a secret seismic station that monitored Soviet nuclear tests, and secret bunkers armed with nuclear weapons that would be loaded onto Turkish fighters in case of a war with the Soviet Union.
In 1977, we moved to West Germany, where the Soviet threat was a daily reality. US tanks and armored vehicles crowded the German highways and carved tracks into German fields as they prepared to take on a Soviet Army that was massed, literally, right across the border. My home, nestled in a picturesque German village, was a stone’s throw away from a US nuclear weapons storage facility, which meant that if the balloon did go up, we would most likely go up with it. I traveled to occupied Berlin three times, by road, rail, and plane. Each time put me, temporarily at least, at the mercy of the Soviet soldiers surrounding Berlin.
I joined the Army in 1979 for the express purpose of being sent to the front lines so I could fight the Soviets as soon as they crossed the border. Later, as a Marine officer, I trained to fight the Soviet Army using the newly minted precepts of maneuver warfare. My career ambition, as an intelligence officer, was to be assigned to the Military Liaison Mission, in Potsdam, East Germany, where I would be given a de facto license to spy on the Soviet Group of Forces in Germany. Instead, I was one of the first persons assigned to the newly created On-Site Inspection Agency, set up to implement the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty signed by President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1987.
I was stationed in the town of Votkinsk – west of the Ural mountains – outside of a missile assembly plant, where I monitored the SS-25 road-mobile intercontinental missiles exiting the factory to verify that they were not, in fact, SS-20 intermediate-range missiles banned by the treaty. Life in Votkinsk provided me with a PhD in Soviet reality. I learned to love the language, culture, and traditions of my sworn enemy, making them less so in the process. The treaty was based upon the principle of reciprocity, which meant how we treated the Soviet inspectors based outside the Hercules solid rocket motor production plant in Magna, Utah, impacted how the Soviets treated us in Votkinsk, and vice versa. The treaty cut both ways, and at the end of the day this kind of equality under the law, so to speak, made us equals in the eyes of the other.
I grew up fearing the Soviet Union. After two years of near continuous contact with the citizens and factory workers of Votkinsk, this fear was replaced by the kind of respect that can only be had by truly getting to know someone—the good, the bad, the ugly, but mainly the good. The accumulation of knowledge helped sweep away the ignorance-based fear that had dominated my world-view prior to my assignment in Votkinsk.
I left that job in the summer of 1990 armed with the knowledge that the nation I once viewed as my mortal enemy had become, if not a trusted friend, then a reliable colleague, especially when it came to issues of mutual concern. I fought in Desert Storm as part of an international coalition made possible only because the Soviet Union opted not to continue the Cold War practice of vetoing anything that could be perceived as giving the US a geopolitical advantage.
After the war, as a UN inspector charged with overseeing the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, I worked closely with Soviet diplomats and military officers to fulfill the mandate given us by the Security Council. In December 1991 I was working closely with one Soviet arms-control specialist on preparing plans for long-term monitoring of Iraq’s industrial capability to produce WMD, while traveling to Iraq with another Soviet, a senior Colonel who was an expert in SCUD missiles, to uncover aspects of Iraq’s past missile activities that they were, at the time, hiding from the inspectors. For me, the weapons inspection experience with the UN was a continuation of the work I had begun with the Soviets in Votkinsk a few years back, where we cooperated with one another in an effort to achieve an outcome that was mutually beneficial.
I returned from the Iraq inspection a few days before Christmas and was seated in my parents’ living room when the news broke about Mikhail Gorbachev’s resignation, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I sat in shocked silence as the image of the Soviet flag being pulled down from the Kremlin and replaced by the tricolor of the Russian Federation, played on the television screen.
The talking heads on TV were proclaiming victory in the Cold War, celebrating the demise of a nemesis who had been the dominant force in the US in terms of foreign policy and national security for the better part of 35 years.
I did not share in their glee. I had grown up viewing the Soviets as my enemy, and as a young adult had trained to kill or be killed when it came to any interaction with the citizens of the Soviet Union. Later, I learned to respect the Soviets as hardworking, honorable people who were the product of a history one needed to know and understand to see them in their proper perspective. Most of my fellow Americans, however, only had a superficial understanding of Soviet history. The ignorance derived from such superficiality helped drive the notion of an American victory on the occasion of the Soviet Union’s demise.
I did not share this outlook. Instead, I wondered about the balance that had existed in global affairs during the Cold War that was achieved only because of the parity that existed between the two nations in terms of their respective ability to destroy the other with nuclear weapons. I thought about the progress that had been achieved in mutually walking back from the abyss of nuclear annihilation that came with principled, mutually beneficial, bi-lateral disarmament. And I reflected on the potential that was just starting to prove itself at the United Nations on the issues of Iraq, where US and Soviet interests coincided.
When I saw the flag of the Soviet Union lowered for the last time over the Kremlin, I felt a hole open up in my psyche. The enemy I had prepared to fight had become a colleague, and even a friend. And now it was gone. Not defeated, because I no longer viewed the Soviet Union as an enemy. Just gone, and with it the sense of balance that had made the world make sense for the three decades I had lived on the earth to that point.
*
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.
Scott Ritteris a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
First published by Global Research on December 3, 2021
“This is really a technology designed to poison people, there’s really no two-ways about it.” Dr. Michael Palmer on mRNA vaccines
***
Question– Does the Covid-19 vaccine cause heart attacks?
Answer– It does, and researchers are closer to understanding the mechanism that triggers those events.
Question– How can I be sure you’re telling the truth?
Answer– Well, for starters, there’s a research paper that appeared recently in the prestigious Circulation magazine that draws the same conclusion. Here’s an excerpt from the paper:
It’s actually quite rare for researchers to be so blunt in their analysis, but there it is in black and white. As you can see, they didn’t pull their punches. Here’s how Alex Berenson summed it up on his blogsite at Substack:
“A new study of 566 patients who received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines shows that signs of cardiovascular damage soared following the shots. The risk of heart attacks or other severe coronary problems more than doubled months after the vaccines were administered, based on changes in markers of inflammation and other cell damage. Patients had a 1 in 4 risk for severe problems after the vaccines, compared to 1 in 9 before. (“If you like heart problems, you’ll love the Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines”, Alex Berenson, Substack)
“Doubled”? “The risk of heart attacks.. more than doubled” after vaccination?
Apparently, so. No wonder cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra is so flabbergasted. Here’s what he said in a recent interview:
“Extraordinary, disturbing and upsetting. We now have evidence of a plausible biological mechanism of how mRNA vaccine may be contributing to increased cardiac events. The abstract is published in the highest impact cardiology journal so we must take these findings very seriously.”
Indeed, we must, but our public health experts continue to pretend that nothing has changed, even though more and more professionals continue to speak out. Here’s Malhotra again:
“I have alot of interaction with the cardiology community across the UK, and anecdotally, I have been told by colleagues that they are seeing younger and younger people coming in with heart attacks…. Now since July, there’s been at least 10,000 non-covid deaths, and most of those have been driven by circulatory disease, in other words, heart attack and stroke. And there’s been a 30% increase in deaths at home, often because of cardiac arrest…. (So) The signal is quite strong… This needs to be investigated… And I think it is high-time that policymakers around the world put an end to the mandates, because –if this signal is correct– then history will not be on their side and the public will not forgive them for it.” (Dr Aseem Malhotra reveals increase in risk of heart attack following the mRNA COVID vaccine, Bitchute, 1:35)
Shocking, right? And what’s more shocking is the media’s response which is aimed at concealing the fact that these toxic injections pose a clear threat to the lives of millions. Is that overstating the case?
No, not at all.
So, what conclusions can we draw from this new research? What is the science telling us?
It’s telling us that the vaccine can reduce the flow of blood to the heart, damage heart tissue, and greatly increase the risk of a heart attack. The authors are telling readers point-blank that the vaccine can either kill or severely injure them. Can you see that?
Question– I can’t say. I haven’t read the report.
Answer– No, you haven’t, and you probably won’t either since the big news organizations and social media giants are going to make sure it never sees the light of day. But just read that one paragraph over again and try to grasp what the authors are saying. They’re saying that many people who choose to get vaccinated will either die or have years shaved off their lives. And–remember–this isn’t an opinion piece. It’s science. It’s also a straightforward repudiation of a mass vaccination campaign that is demonstrably killing people.
Question– You always exaggerate. This is just one report from one group of researchers. I could easily provide you with research that refutes your theory.
Answer– I’m sure you could, in fact there’s a small army of industry-employed propagandists (aka– “fact checkers”) who spend all their waking hours cobbling together fake news stories that do just that; discredit the science that veers even slightly from the official narrative. The truth is, the pro-vaxx disinformation campaign has been vastly more effective than the vaccine itself. I don’t think even you’d disagree with that.
Question– I do disagree with that, and I resent your characterization of the widespread support for these essential procedures as “pro-vaxx disinformation”. That is an extremely biased and ignorant statement.
Answer– Is it? In the last few weeks, we’ve produced hard evidence that a great many people who died after vaccination, died from the vaccination. We showed, for example, that two German pathology professors, Arne Burkhardt and Walter Lang, found that in five of the ten autopsies, “the two physicians rate the connection between death and vaccination as very probable, in two cases as probable.” These same doctors found that “lymphocytic myocarditis, the most common diagnosis.…(along with) autoimmune phenomena, reduction in immune capacity, acceleration of cancer growth, vascular damage “endothelitis”, vasculitis, perivasculitis and erythrocyte “clumping”.. In other words, the whole ‘dog’s breakfast’ of maladies that have been linked to the “poison-death shot”. (See full report here; “Lymphocyte riot’: Pathologists investigate deaths after Corona vaccination”, Free West Media)
These same pathologists found evidence of a “lymphocyte riot”, potentially in all tissues and organs. (Note– Lymphocytes are white blood cells in the immune system that swing into action to fight invaders or pathogen-infected cells. A “lymphocyte riot” suggests the immune system has gone crazy trying to counter the effects of billions of spike proteins located in cells in the bloodstream. As the lymphocytes are depleted, the body grows more susceptible to other infections which may explain why a large number of people are now contracting respiratory viruses in late summer.)
The autopsies provide hard evidence that the vaccines do, in fact, cause significant tissue damage. So, my question to you is this: How do you brush aside the rock-solid proof that the vaccines inflict significant injury on people who get injected? Do you need to examine the maligned corpses yourself before you change your mind and admit you’re wrong?
Question– Nothing can be deduced from just 10 autopsies. More than a billion people have been vaccinated so far, and the deaths are still within an acceptable range given the severity of the disease.
Answer– “The severity of the disease”? You mean a virus that is survived by over 99.98% of the people who catch it? You mean an infection that –according to the latest figures from Johns Hopkins– killed 351,000 in the US in 2020 which is roughly half the number of people who die from heart disease every year? And when you say: “Nothing can be deduced from just 10 autopsies”, you are very much mistaken. You can detect a pattern of vaccine-generated disease that is produced by the injection of a toxic substance (spike protein) that causes bleeding, clotting and autoimmunity even in the people who survive. “Survival” does not mean undamaged. Oh, no. And anyone who has seen the many videos of healthy athletes dropping dead on the field of play months after being jabbed, should understand that “There go I but for the grace of God.” Bottom line: If you get injected, you’re never going to know whether you’ll be struck-down without warning by a similar cardio-type event. (See: “At least 69 athletes collapse in one month, many dead”, freewestmedia.com)
Do you think that if these athletes knew they could die from the vaccine, they would have made the choice they did?
Question– You’re being overly dramatic. Naturally, not everyone is going to react the same to an emergency-use drug, but– on balance– the vaccines have mitigated the impact of a deadly pandemic the likes of which we haven’t seen for more than a century.
Answer– You really believe that, don’t you? Just like you really believe that Covid-19 is a totally unique and “novel” virus. If you just researched it a bit, you’d know that that theory has been thoroughly debunked. The Coronavirus isn’t new; it is an iteration of numerous other infections that have spread through the population for a least 2 decades. Take a look at this except from a research paper by the Doctors for Covid Ethics and you’ll see what I’m talking about:
“Several studies have demonstrated that circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgA antibodies became detectable within 1-2 weeks after application of mRNA vaccines... Rapid production of IgG and IgA always indicates a secondary, memory-type response that is elicited through re-stimulation of pre-existing immune cells…. Importantly, however, IgG rose faster than IgM, which confirms that the early IgG response was indeed of the memory type. This memory response indicates pre-existing, cross-reactive immunity due to previous infectionwith ordinary respiratory human coronavirus strains….
Memory-type responses have also been documented with respect to T-cell-mediated immunity. Overall, these findings indicate that our immune system efficiently recognizes SARS-CoV-2 as “known” even on first contact. Severe cases of the disease thus cannot be ascribed to lacking immunity. Instead, severe cases might very well be caused or aggravated by pre-existing immunity through antibody-dependent enhancement.
This study confirms the above assertion that the immune response to initial contact with SARS-CoV-2 is of the memory type. In addition, it shows that this reaction occurs with almost all individuals, and particularly also with those who experience no manifest clinical symptoms.
Repeat: If the vast majority of people already have robust, pre-existing immunity, “then the benefits of vaccination are highly doubtful.”
Is that a reasonable “evidence-based” conclusion? And, if it is, then shouldn’t there have been a debate on this matter before over a billion people were inoculated with an experimental substance that causes, bleeding, clotting, autoimmunity, strokes, and heart attacks? And how could it not be true, after all, if there was no pre-existing immunity in a US population of 330 million people, then the number of fatalities would be exponentially higher. Instead, after a full two years of exposure– the percentage of deaths in the US is still less than one-third of one percent, a veritable drop in the bucket. Would that be possible with a truly super-contagious “novel” virus?
No, it would not be possible, which means that Fauci and Co lied. And the reason they lied was to convince people that they’re more vulnerable than they really are. It’s just one of many fearmongering scams they used to promote the vaccine: “Get vaccinated or die”, that was the message.
Doesn’t that bother you? Doesn’t it bother you to know the government and public health authorities twisted the truth in order to dupe you into an invasive and potentially-lethal medical procedure?
Question– I think our public health officials did the best they could given the circumstances.
Answer– I think you are wrong about that. I think they have lied repeatedly in order to advance a predominantly-political agenda. But, let’s assume you’re right for a minute. Then why do they continue to ignore groundbreaking research that conflicts with their political objectives? Have you thought about that? I already mentioned the shocking report above that indicates the vaccine reduces the flow of blood to the heart and increases the risk of a heart attack. Have you heard a peep out of Fauci or Walensky about that report?
No, not a thing.
Why do you think that is? You’d assume that if Fauci had our best interests in mind, he’d use his sway with the media to spread-the-word far and wide. But, no. He’s made no effort to confirm what the research indicates; that there’s a clear link between the production of the spike protein and cardiovascular damage. He hasn’t lifted a finger in that regard, and it shows. The surge in fatalities and the sharp uptick in excess deaths in the vast number of countries that launched mass vaccination campaigns earlier in the year, are mainly circulatory deaths, that is, heart attacks, strokes and the like. The latest example of this phenom is the Netherlands which has seen a 20% spike in deaths over the previous year. Check it out:
“Last week the number of deaths was more than 20 percent higher than usual for this time of year. The Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) reported 3 750 deaths, nearly 850 more than expected. According to the statistical office, the higher mortality can be seen in all age groups.
In the Netherlands, 85 percent of people over the age of 18 are fully vaccinated, and many had their jabs only recently. …
Dutch officials have started injecting those 80 with boosters on Thursday, weeks earlier than planned…
Based on weekly data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) in the UK, vaccinated people under 60 are twice as likely to die as unvaccinated people. And overall deaths in Britain are far above normal.
As in Germany, Swedes also appear to die at rates 20 percent or more above normal for weeks after receiving their second Covid jab, according to data from a Swedish study.” (“Dutch deaths more than 20% higher than previous year”, Free West Media)
And this isn’t just happening in the Netherlands and Germany either. It’s happening everywhere that mass vaccination campaigns were launched earlier in the year. Now, all of those countries are seeing a sharp uptick in cardiac arrests, strokes, vascular damage and blood clots. Why? What did we do differently in 2021 than we did in the years before?
Question– Where are you going with this? I feel like you’re setting me up for something?
Answer– I am. I want you to admit that the data now supports the case for terminating the vaccination campaign immediately. That’s my main objective, to convince people that we’re on the wrong track and need to stop this madness before more people die.
Did you know that the vaccines also damage the immune system?
It’s true, the injections are immuno-suppressant which means the body is less capable of fighting off infections, viruses and diseases. Think about that for a minute. The vaccine was supposed to protect its recipients from sickness and death, instead it does the exact opposite. It prevents cells from producing the antibodies that are needed to stave-off infection. Check out this short blurb from Dr. David Bauer of Francis Crick Institute who explains what’s going on:
“So, the key message from our finding is that, we found that recipients of the Pfizer vaccine– those who have two doses– have five to six-fold lower of neutralizing antibodies. These are the “gold standard” private-security antibodies of your immune system, which block the virus from getting into your cells in the first place. So, we found that that’s less for people with two doses. We also found that for people with just one dose of the Pfizer jab, that they are less likely to have high levels of these antibodies in their blood. And perhaps most importantly, we see that the older you are, the lower your levels are likely to be, and the time since you’ve had your second jab, the longer that time goes on, the lower your levels are likely to be. So, that’s telling us that we’re probably going to need to prioritize boosters for older and more vulnerable people, coming up soon, especially if this new variant spreads.” (“Dr David LV Bauer Francis Crick institute destroys the immune system”, Bitchute, 1 minute)
6-times less neutralizing antibodies?
Yep. Like we said, the vaccine suppresses the immune system which opens a pathway to infection. Here’s how Alex Berenson summed it up in an article he posted recently on Substack:
“What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus….
This means vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein EVEN AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN INFECTED AND RECOVERED ONCE...
But how can that be? How can the government, the public health establishment and the drug companies push a vaccine that actually makes people more vulnerable to disease? It makes no sense, right; unless, of course, the object is to make people sicker and more likely to die? Is that what’s going on?
Indeed, it is. Here’s more from a Pfizer whistleblower:
“A former Pfizer employee, now working as a pharmaceutical marketing expert and biotech analyst, has provided evidence in a public meeting in September suggesting that Pfizer is aware that these shots can cause those vaccinated to be more prone to contracting COVID-19 and infections.
Why isn’t this front-page news? Why is the science being suppressed? Why are the claims of credible professionals being swept under the rug, censored on social media, and brushed aside by our public health officials?
The only reasonable explanation, is that the authors of the mass vaccination campaign want to conceal the dangers of the vaccine from the public, because what they really care about is universal vaccination, making sure that all 7 billion people on Planet Earth are vaccinated come hell-or-high-water. As you can see, the science hasn’t deterred them at all. They are just as determined to implement their plan as they were on Day 1, maybe more so.
Take a look at this clip from an explosive paper that shows how the spike protein enters the nucleus of our cells causing incalculable damage to the immune system. This cutting-edge research has caused a furor in the scientific community.
“Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS–CoV–2) has led to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) pandemic, severely affecting public health and the global economy. Adaptive immunity plays a crucial role in fighting against SARS–CoV–2 infection and directly influences the clinical outcomes of patients. Clinical studies have indicated that patients with severe COVID–19 exhibit delayed and weak adaptive immune responses; however, the mechanism by which SARS–CoV–2 impedes adaptive immunity remains unclear. Here, by using an in vitro cell line, we report that the SARS–CoV–2 spike protein significantly inhibits DNA damage repair, which is required for effective V(D)J recombination in adaptive immunity.
It means that the spike protein enters the nucleus of our cells and damages our DNA. That was not supposed to happen. The vaccine was not supposed to penetrate the inner sanctum where our genetic material is stored. Once it makes its way to the nucleus, the spike protein prevents the repair of broken DNA which, in turn, impacts the proliferation of B-cells and T-cells that are essential in the fight against infection. (Note– The spike also effects specific genes that are highly “predispositional for cancer development… so, this is clearly news of great significance that should not be taken lightly.” (See– “Spike protein inside nucleus enhancing DNA damage? – COVID-19 mRNA vaccines update 1″, youtube, 12 minutes)
Here’s how Dr. Mobeen Syed explains the effects of the spike protein on the immune system: (I transcribed this myself and apologize for any errors.)
“The spike protein enters the nucleus, and not just the spike but also the non-structural proteins end up in the nucleus as well. They do not just contaminate the DNA, but also interfere with the machinery and repair of the DNA… When our cells are dividing, there are strict mechanisms to make sure the DNA is correctly repaired, and correctly copied, otherwise the cell will become a cancer cell. We have an elaborate mechanism to repair DNA…. There are multiple mechanisms for DNA repair, because there are multiple kinds of repair… These two mechanisms are important, because these two mechanisms of repair are impaired by the spike proteins presence.… When any infection occurs, the B cells and T cells proliferate. Increasing in number, means making copies of the DNA… Proliferation itself is an important immune response. The creation of the antibodies requires functioning DNA...
What I am explaining here is that DNA break-and-repair can also be done in immune cells intentionally for the normal function of the immune system. Every B and T cell needs a variable binding sight to attach to the antigen, and to create that variation we need the DNA to randomly restructure which needs DNA break-and-repair … Imagine there are repair enzymes in our body that go to the broken DNA and fix it. Now imagine that these repair enzymes no longer go to the site of the broken DNA or even are produced? Researchers found that when the nonstructural proteins are drawn into the nucleus, then reduced proliferation of the (B and T) cells occurs… and our ability to respond to infections will not be good.” (“Spike Protein Goes to Nucleus and Impairs DNA Repair”Spike Protein Goes to Nucleus and Impairs DNA Repair”, you tube)
Imagine if someone or some group of powerful elites wanted to reduce the global population by many billions of people. And they figured the best way to achieve that objective would be to inject people with a mysterious pathogen that had been secretly developed in foreign labs for over a decade. Imagine if that lethal antigen not only triggered heart attacks, strokes and catastrophic vascular injury, but also disabled the body’s critical defense (immune) system, thus, increasing one’s susceptibility to infections, viruses and diseases by many orders of magnitude. Imagine if we saw signs that this plan was unfolding before our very eyes, from the mountain of corpses that were riddled with killer lymphocytes, to the sharp rise in excess deaths and all-cause mortality, to the unexplained surge in cardiac arrests, strokes, autoimmunity, bleeding, clotting, headaches, bruising, inflammation, heart-valve problems, brain bleeds, vascular, neurological and respiratory diseases all suspiciously linked to the initiation of a mass vaccination campaign.
Could such a thing could happen in this day and age? Could anyone be bold enough to launch a war against humanity? Is anyone capable of such evil?
Yes, they are.
*
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.
Michael Whitney, renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
This is an important message which we just received from Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Vice-president of Pfizer
Forward this message far and wide.
***
My good friend Dr Sucharit Bhakdi, with whom we and others wrote a series of open letters to the European Medicines Agency, is utterly distraught.
Listen carefully.
He and his colleague, a pathologist, have confirmed that, even in people who’ve died post-covid-19 vaccination and where their death was not attributed to the adverse effects of vaccination, in almost all cases they DID die as a result of the vaccination.
The numbers killed by these vaccines is much worse than what we thought, already.
But it’s what they’ve just discovered that’s much worse.
We knew of blood clots from expressing spike protein.
We were aware of autoimmune attacks on ones own tissues expressing spike protein to which our killer lymphocytes were primed, such as myocarditis.
But what’s new is the revelation that lymph node cells are also being invaded by the gene-based agents and marking THEM for auto destruction.
When you destroy that part of the immune system, which we loosely call “immune surveillance”, every manner of nasty, latent infections, by viruses & also bacteria, explode, uncontrolled.
Hundreds of millions of people are going to die of unrestrained tuberculosis, Epstein Barr virus, toxoplasmosis etc etc etc
AND on top of this, the daily accidental production of cancer cells, normally deleted swiftly by immune surveillance, before they can divide, ceases.
Guess what happens next?
I don’t care where you’ve sat during this ridiculous “pandemic”.
Whether you’ve gone along with it, knowing it was an overreaction. Or even in ignorance.
I am telling you right now:
IF YOU PERSONALLY HAVING WATCHED THIS CHOOSE TO SETTLE BACK TO WATCH A FILM, INSTEAD OF CALLING SOME PEOPLE YOU KNOW & TELLING THEM ABOUT IT, THE END OF HUMANITY IS A SHARED BURDEN WITH THE PERPETRATORS.
Please put this on every platform.
Swamp the ‘fact checkers’.
Please do it now.
Rescue our civilization while there are innocents to save, ESPECIALLY our children and grandchildren.
First posted on Global Research on December 16, 2021
.
On Thursday December 16th in Pemberton BC, Dr. Charles Hoffe gave a speech to about 100 people who braved the cold to hear his message and it certainly was loud and clear…that you and especially your children do not need to rush out and get the Covid-19(84) vaccine and in fact your chances of being severely injured is far greater than what the so called “health officials” are saying.
.
In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth films a speech by Dr. Charles Hoffe as he pleads with people to do their research before injecting themselves with this highly experimental mRNA technology because he has witnessed first hand the destruction it can potentially bring.
Several Western governments have put in place curfews and restrictions that prevent families and friends from celebrating the New Year.
Absurd political statements abound. Politicians are emphasizing the looming dangers of the so-called “deadly Covid-19 Omicron variant”, despite the fact that Omicron is one of many variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This was confirmed by the WHO two days later following the omicron announcement dated November 26, 2021 :
According to the WHO, (28.11.21) “There is currently no information to suggest that the symptoms associated with Omicron are different from those of other variants. “
Media disinformation prevails. According to CNN, citing expert opinion:
The Omicron variant “is extraordinarily contagious”, and if you are in a crowd now, and certainly if you are not vaccinated, you are at great risk of contracting this virus “,
A small party at a friend’s house should be okay if everyone is vaccinated, boosted and tested negative before the party ,… Large outdoor parties are less risky unless they are crowded.
“I will not eat in a restaurant now without a mask”
“I absolutely will not go to a bar. ” Emphasis added.
The Role of the Corrupt Politicians
Statements by politicians as well as media reports aim to create social divisions between “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated”.
According to Dr. Anthony Fauci who is behind the Omicron scam:
People should avoid large New Year’s gatherings where they do not know the immunization status of guests… Small gatherings of immunized family or close friends are safe.
Governments (in the grip of financial power) tell us over and over again that these restrictions are being enacted in order to “save lives” and protect people from infection with the “deadly” variant Omicron.
These same governments then put pressure on millions of people to receive the “Booster” of the vaccine.
And now we know, amply documented, that the mRNA jab is a “killer vaccine” which has already resulted in countless deaths and injuries worldwide.
While official data on mortality and morbidity are available, the media present the “vaccine” as the solution to end the (alleged) pandemic.
The fear campaign wins.
Governments also point to a “dangerous” increase in “confirmed cases of Covid-19” during the Christmas holidays without acknowledging that an increase in RT-PCR positive cases at this time of year indicates a higher incidence of seasonal influenza and the (corona) “common cold”.
François Legault’s Curfew
In Quebec, Prime Minister François Legault ordered off the cuff overnight a night curfew as of December 31, 2021 (from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.).
Press conference by Premier of Quebec Legault. He announced the curfew on December 30 to be implemented the next day .
The justification for this decision, which compromises the New Year’s celebrations for 8.5 million Quebecers, according to Prime Minister Legault, consists in “slowing down the spread of the Omicron variant”.
And here is the detail of the Legault directive:
According to the official notice sent to Quebecers at 7 p.m. (December 31, 2021) (on their cellphones):
“Forbidden to be outside your home or property …
Increased police surveillance”
Deliberate destabilization of civil society
The social, cultural and economic impacts of these measures put forth by Mr. Legault are unequivocal. They are devastating. Suspension of classes in primary and secondary schools, closure of places of worship …
Quebecers are prevented from socializing, which constitutes a violation of their fundamental rights. The entire urban social landscape is in turmoil.
Thanks to Mr. Legault , the New Year’s curfew and restrictions have contributed to a new wave of bankruptcies of bars and restaurants.
The more you test, the more you generate positive cases. And these figures are then cited by the government to justify their far-reaching decisions.
Is the RT-PCR test used to generate the data for “confirmed covid-19 cases” reliable? Does it detect the omicron variant?
Is the Legault government aware of the fact that in the United States, the RT-PCR test has been withdrawn by the Centers for the prevention and fight against diseases (CDC) (as of of December 31, 2021)?
The CDC appears to acknowledge (of course with usual innuendos) that the RT-PCR test does not consistently differentiate between Covid-19 and seasonal influenza. This means that the positive covid-19 figures listed and cited by government authorities are erroneous.
Extensively documented and analyzed by many scientists, the RT-PCR test does not detect or identify SARS-CoV-2 and its variants including omicron.
In January 2021, “ The World Health Organization (WHO) questioned its own guideline for the RT-PCR test which was proposed (by the WHO) in January 2020, endorsed and implemented by the governments of WHO Member States. “
“The contentious issue concerns the number of cycles of the amplification threshold (Ct). The WHO as of January 2021 retracts and now asks governments to repeat the test if the amplification (Ct) standards (threshold) were applied at 35 cycles or above:> 35 cycles ”
**
May solidarity and human dignity prevail,
Truth is a peaceful weapon,
It’s about breaking the official Covid Narrative, a fragile consensus based on lies,
Comments Off on No gatherings of friends and families: the Covid Omicron fraud used to justify the “Christmas and New Year lockdown”: François Legault’s curfew
With foresight, this incisive article by Colin Todhunter was first published by Global Research on November 9, 2020
***
The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting at the end of January in Davos, Switzerland, brings together international business and political leaders, economists and other high-profile individuals to discuss global issues. Driven by the vision of its influential CEO Klaus Schwab, the WEF is the main driving force for the dystopian ‘great reset’, a tectonic shift that intends to change how we live, work and interact with each other.
The Great Reset entails a transformation of society resulting in permanent restrictions on fundamental liberties and mass surveillance as entire sectors are sacrificed to boost the monopoly and hegemony of pharmaceuticals corporations, high-tech/big data giants, Amazon, Google, major global chains, the digital payments sector, biotech concerns, etc.
Using COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions to push through this transformation, the great reset is being rolled out under the guise of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ in which older enterprises are to be driven to bankruptcy or absorbed into monopolies, effectively shutting down huge sections of the pre-COVID economy. Economies are being ‘restructured’ and many jobs will be carried out by AI-driven machines.
In a short video below, the WEF predicts that by 2030, “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.” A happy smiling face is depicted while a drone delivers a product to a household, no doubt ordered online and packaged by a robot in a giant Amazon warehouse: ‘no humans were involved in manufacturing, packaging or delivering this product’; rest assured, it is virus- and bacteria-free – because even in 2030, they will need to keep the fear narrative alive and well to maintain full-spectrum dominance over the population.
The jobless (and there will be many) could be placed on some kind of universal basic income and have their debts (indebtedness and bankruptcy on a massive scale is the deliberate result of lockdowns and restrictions) written off in return for handing their assets to the state or more precisely the financial institutions helping to drive this great reset. The WEF says the public will ‘rent’ everything they require: stripping the right of ownership under the guise of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘saving the planet’. Of course, the tiny elite who rolled out this great reset will own everything.
Hundreds of millions around the world deemed ‘surplus to requirements’ are to be robbed (are currently being robbed) of their livelihoods. Our every movement and purchase are to be monitored and our main dealings will be online.
The plan for individual citizens could reflect the strategy to be applied to nation states. For instance, World Bank Group President David Malpass has stated that poorer countries will be ‘helped’ to get back on their feet after the various lockdowns that have been implemented. This ‘help’ will be on condition that neoliberal reforms and the undermining of public services are implemented and become further embedded.
On 20 April, the Wall Street Journal ran the headline ‘IMF, World Bank Face Deluge of Aid Requests From Developing World. Scores of countries are asking for bailouts and loans from financial institutions with $1.2 trillion to lend. An ideal recipe for fuelling dependency.
In return for debt relief or ‘support’, global conglomerates along with the likes of Bill Gates will be able to further dictate national policies and hollow out the remnants of nation state sovereignty.
Identity and meaning
What will happen to our social and personal identity? Is that to be eradicated in the quest to commodify and standardise human behaviour and everything we do?
The billionaire class who are pushing this agenda think they can own nature and all humans and can control both, whether through geoengineering the atmosphere, for example, genetically modifying soil microbes or doing a better job than nature by producing bio-synthesised fake food in a lab.
They think they can bring history to a close and reinvent the wheel by reshaping what it means to be human. And they think they can achieve this by 2030. It is a cold dystopian vision that wants to eradicate thousands of years of culture, tradition and practices virtually overnight.
And many of those cultures, traditions and practices relate to food and how we produce it and our deep-rooted connections to nature. Consider that many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our forebears were built around stories and myths that helped them come to terms with some of the most basic issues of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These culturally embedded beliefs and practices served to sanctify their practical relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.
As agriculture became key to human survival, the planting and harvesting of crops and other seasonal activities associated with food production were central to these customs. Freyfaxi marks the beginning of the harvest in Norse paganism, for example, while Lammas or Lughnasadh is the celebration of the first harvest/grain harvest in Paganism.
Humans celebrated nature and the life it gave birth to. Ancient beliefs and rituals were imbued with hope and renewal and people had a necessary and immediate relationship with the sun, seeds, animals, wind, fire, soil and rain and the changing seasons that nourished and brought life. Our cultural and social relationships with agrarian production and associated deities had a sound practical base.
Prof Robert W Nicholls explains that the cults of Woden and Thor were superimposed on far older and better-rooted beliefs related to the sun and the earth, the crops and the animals and the rotation of the seasons between the light and warmth of summer and the cold and dark of winter.
We need look no further than India to appreciate the important relationship between culture, agriculture and ecology, not least the vital importance of the monsoon and seasonal planting and harvesting. Rural-based beliefs and rituals steeped in nature persist, even among urban Indians. These are bound to traditional knowledge systems where livelihoods, the seasons, food, cooking, processing, seed exchange, healthcare and the passing on of knowledge are all inter-related and form the essence of cultural diversity within India itself.
Although the industrial age resulted in a diminution of the connection between food and the natural environment as people moved to cities, traditional ‘food cultures’ – the practices, attitudes and beliefs surrounding the production, distribution and consumption of food – still thrive and highlight our ongoing connection to agriculture and nature.
‘Hand of God’ Imperialism
If we go back to the 1950s, it is interesting to note Union Carbide’s corporate narrative based on a series of images that depicted the company as a ‘hand of god’ coming out of the sky to ‘solve’ some of the issues facing humanity. One of the most famous images is of the hand pouring the firm’s agrochemicals on Indian soils as if traditional farming practices were somehow ‘backward’.
Despite well-publicised claims to the contrary, this chemical-driven approach did not lead to higher food production according to the paper ‘New Histories of the Green Revolution’ written by Prof Glenn Stone. However, it has had long-term devastating ecological, social and economic consequences (see Vandana Shiva’s book ‘The Violence of the Green Revolution’ and Bhaskar Save’s now famous and highly insightful open letter to Indian officials).
In the book ‘Food and Cultural Studies’ (Bob Ashley et al), we see how, some years ago, a Coca Cola TV ad campaign sold its product to an audience which associated modernity with a sugary drink and depicted ancient Aboriginal beliefs as harmful, ignorant and outdated. Coke and not rain became the giver of life to the parched. This type of ideology forms part of a wider strategy to discredit traditional cultures and portray them as being deficient and in need of assistance from ‘god-like’ corporations.
What we are seeing in 2020, is an acceleration of such processes. In terms of food and agriculture, traditional farming in places like India will be under increasing pressure from the big-tech giants and agribusiness to open up to lab-grown food, GMOs, genetically engineered soil microbes, data harvesting tools and drones and other ‘disruptive’ technologies.
The great reset includes farmerless farms being manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce commodity crops from patented GM seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be processed and constituted into something resembling food. What will happen to the farmers?
Post-COVID, the World Bank talks about helping countries get back on track in return for structural reforms. Are tens of millions of smallholder farmers to be enticed from their land in return for individual debt relief and universal basic income? The displacement of these farmers and the subsequent destruction of rural communities and their cultures was something the Gates Foundation once called for and cynically termed “land mobility”.
Cut through the euphemisms and it is clear that Bill Gates – and the other incredibly rich individuals behind the great reset – is an old-fashioned colonialist who supports the time-honoured dispossessive strategies of imperialism, whether this involves mining, appropriating and commodifying farmer knowledge, accelerating the transfer of research and seeds to corporations or facilitating intellectual property piracy and seed monopolies created through IP laws and seed regulations.
In places like India – still an agrarian-based society – will the land of these already (prior to COVID) heavily indebted farmers then be handed over to the tech giants, the financial institutions and global agribusiness to churn out their high-tech, data-driven GM industrial sludge? Is this part of the ‘own nothing, be happy’ bland brave new world being promoted by the WEF?
With the link completely severed between food production, nature and culturally embedded beliefs that give meaning and expression to life, we will be left with the individual human who exists on lab-based food, who is reliant on income from the state and who is stripped of satisfying productive endeavour and genuine self-fulfilment.
Technocratic meddling has already destroyed or undermined cultural diversity, meaningful social connections and agrarian ecosystems that draw on centuries of traditional knowledge and are increasingly recognised as valid approaches to secure food security (for example, see ‘Food Security and Traditional Knowledge in India’ in the Journal of South Asian Studies). The massive technocratic transformation currently envisaged regards humans as commodities to be controlled and monitored just like the lifeless technological drones and AI being promoted.
But do not worry – you will be property-less and happy in your open prison of mass unemployment, state dependency, track and chip health passports, cashlessness, mass vaccination and dehumanisation.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
First published by Global Research on December 10, 2021
***
Research reveals that prolonged use of Covid masks, homemade or N95, can cause anywhere from five percent on up to 20 percent loss of oxygen, leading to hypercapnia (excessive carbon dioxide in the bloodstream typically caused by inadequate respiration), panic attacks, vertigo, double vision, tinnitus, concentration issues, headaches, slowed reactions, seizures, alterations in blood chemistry and suffocation due to air displacement.
Senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Centerfor Health Security says wearing a mask for prolonged period of time can alter blood chemistry
Breathing in too much exhaled carbon dioxide (CO2) may be life-threatening, according to experts at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). By now, everyone has experienced, at the least, that light-headed, dizzy, flustered feeling of repeatedly re-breathing back in your own already processed air. Those are just the beginning warning signs of much more serious health problems.
In fact, wearing a mask day in and day out can lead to alterations in blood chemistry, and that leads to “changes in level of consciousness, if severe,” according to Amesh A. Adalja, MD, and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Maryland.
It gets worse. A German neurologist, Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson, MD, PhD (in pharmacology), who specializes in neurotoxicology and environmental medicine, warns that oxygen deprivation from prolonged Covid-mask wearing can cause permanent neurological damage.
She states in her research,
“The re-breathing of our exhaled air will without a doubt create oxygen deficiency and a flooding of carbon dioxide. We know that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation. There are nerve cells for example in the hippocampus, that can’t be longer than 3 minutes without oxygen – they cannot survive. The acute warning symptoms are headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, issues in concentration, slowing down of the reaction time – reactions of the cognitive system.”
The reason so many mask wearers have NO CLUE this chronic damage is happening to them is because once a person has chronic oxygen deprivation, all of those symptoms disappear, because the person gets accustomed to the deprived state; however, their efficiency remains impaired and the lack of appropriate oxygen delivery to the brain continues to dangerously progress.
That’s why, after prolonged mask use, many people say they don’t “mind it” anymore (it’s an unintended pun because they’re losing their mind).
Neurodegenerative diseases take years to develop, but we’re already two years into the pandemic of mask wearing
The media and the CDC have hyped the pandemic so much, including the next-to-harmless Omicron variant, that Americans are wearing their masks even when they are completely alone in their home, car, office or walking and jogging outside. Children are forced to wear their masks all day at school, with minimal or zero mask breaks, even during recess. Some people are literally wearing their mask while exercising on cardio machines at the gym.
The more you think you’re getting used to wearing your mask, the more the degenerative processes in your brain are getting amplified, as the oxygen deprivation continues, explains Dr. Margarite Griesz-Brisson. Plus, nerve cells in the brain are unable to divide themselves in normal fashion, and damaged nerve cells are regenerated because the brain can’t empty the “trash.”
ODMS is like carbon dioxide induced anesthesia
The more metabolically active the brain is, the more oxygen it needs, and that’s why it’s absolutely ridiculous for children to be wearing masks all day. Plus, their immune system is so adaptive they need “constant interaction with the microbiome of the Earth,” as the German neurologist put it.
This constant deprivation of oxygen, be it a slow torture at 5% to 20% all day, is not only dangerous to child and adolescent health, it inhibits the development of the brain, creating irreversible damage, including permanent neurological damage, according to an expert in the field. Let that settle in for a minute. It’s mask-induced anesthesia. This is the polar opposite of the value of going to school and learning.
Is someone you know suffering from oxygen deprivation mask syndrome? Get some fresh air and change that daily environment as soon as humanly possible. For reliable health news on the internet, tune to Vaccines.news for updates on experimental vaccines (all of the Covid shots) that cause blood clots and other horrific side effects.
*
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.
First published by Global Research on July 8, 2009
As the anticipated July release date for Baxter’s A/H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, an Austrian investigative journalist is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway. Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder.
She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination which is being filed in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from a pandemic.
Summary of claims and allegations filed with FBI in Austria on June 10, 2009
In her charges, Burgermeister presents evidence of acts of bioterrorism that is in violation of U.S. law by a group operating within the U.S. under the direction of international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, as well as WHO, UN and NATO. This bioterrorism is for the purpose of carrying out a mass genocide against the U.S. population by use of a genetically engineered flu pandemic virus with the intent of causing death. This group has annexed high government offices in the U.S.
Specifically, evidence is presented that the defendants, Barack Obama, President of the U.S, David Nabarro, UN System Coordinator for Influenza, Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO, Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, David de Rotschild, banker, David Rockefeller, banker, George Soros, banker, Werner Faymann, Chancellor of Austria, and Alois Stoger, Austrian Health Minister, among others, are part of this international corporate criminal syndicate which has developed, produced, stockpiled and employed biological weapons to eliminate the population of the U.S. and other countries for financial and political gain.
The charges contend that these defendants conspired with each other and others to devise, fund and participate in the final phase of the implementation of a covert international bioweapons program involving the pharmaceutical companies Baxter and Novartis. They did this by bioengineering and then releasing lethal biological agents, specifically the “bird flu” virus and the “swine flu virus” in order to have a pretext to implement a forced mass vaccination program which would be the means of administering a toxic biological agent to cause death and injury to the people of the U.S. This action is in direct violation of the Biological Weapons Anti-terrorism Act.
Burgermeister’s charges include evidence that Baxter AG, Austrian subsidiary of Baxter International, deliberately sent out 72 kilos of live bird flu virus, supplied by the WHO in the winter of 2009 to 16 laboratories in four counties. She claims this evidence offers clear proof that the pharmaceutical companies and international government agencies themselves are actively engaged in producing, developing, manufacturing and distributing biological agents classified as the most deadly bioweapons on earth in order to trigger a pandemic and cause mass death.
In her April charges, she noted that Baxter’s lab in Austria, one of the supposedly most secure biosecurity labs in the world, did not adhere to the most basic and essential steps to keep 72 kilos of a pathogen classified as a bioweapon secure and separate from all other substances under stringent biosecurity level regulations, but it allowed it to be mixed with the ordinary human flu virus and sent from its facilities in Orth in the Donau.
In February, when a staff member at BioTest in the Czech Republic tested the material meant for candidate vaccines on ferrets, the ferrets died. This incident was not followed up by any investigation from the WHO, EU, or Austrian health authorities. There was no investigation of the content of the virus material, and there is no data on the genetic sequence of the virus released.
In answer to parliamentary questions on May 20th, the Austrian Health Minister, Alois Stoger, revealed that the incident had been handled not as a biosecurity lapse, as it should have been, but as an offence against the veterinary code. A veterinary doctor was sent to the lab for a brief inspection.
Burgermeister’s dossier reveals that the release of the virus was to be an essential step for triggering a pandemic that would allow the WHO to declare a Level 6 Pandemic. She lists the laws and decrees that would allow the UN and WHO to take over the United States in the event of pandemic. In addition, legislation requiring compliance with mandatory vaccinations would be put into force in the U.S. under conditions of pandemic declaration.
She charges that the entire “swine flu” pandemic business is premised on a massive lie that there is no natural virus out there that poses a threat to the population. She presents evidence leading to the belief that the bird flu and swine flu viruses have, in fact, been bioengineered in laboratories using funding supplied by the WHO and other government agencies, among others. This “swine flu” is a hybrid of part swine flu, part human flu and part bird flu, something that can only come from laboratories according to many experts.
WHO’s claim that this “swine flu” is spreading and a pandemic must be declared ignores the fundamental causes. The viruses that were released were created and released with the help of WHO, and WHO is overwhelmingly responsible for the pandemic in the first place. In addition, the symptoms of the supposed “swine flu” are indistinguishable from regular flu or from the common cold. The “swine flu” does not cause death anymore often than the regular flu causes death.
Burgermeister notes that the figures for deaths reported for the “swine flu” are inconsistent and there is no clarity as to how the number of “deaths” has been documented.
There is no pandemic potential unless mass vaccinations are carried out to weaponize the flu under the guise of protecting the population. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the mandatory vaccines will be purposely contaminated with diseases that are specifically designed to cause death.
Reference is made to a licensed Novartis bird flu vaccine that killed 21 homeless people in Poland in the summer of 2008 and had as its “primary outcome measure” an “adverse events rate”, thereby meeting the U.S. government’s own definition of a bioweapon (a biological agent designed to cause an adverse events rate, i.e death or injury) with a delivery system (injection).
She alleges that the same complex of international pharmaceutical companies and international government agencies that have developed and released pandemic material have positioned themselves to profit from triggering the pandemic with contracts to supply vaccines. Media controlled by the group that is engineering the “swine flu” agenda is spreading misinformation to lull the people of the U.S. into taking the dangerous vaccine.
The people of the U.S. will suffer substantial and irreparable harm and injury if they are forced to take this unproven vaccine without their consent in accordance with the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act, National Emergency Act, National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20, and the International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza.
In the U.S. since 2008, Burgermeister charges that those named in her allegations have implemented new and/or accelerated the implementation of laws and regulations designed to strip the citizens of the U.S. of their lawful constitutional rights to refuse an injection. These people have created or allowed provisions to remain in place that make it a criminal act to refuse to take an injection against pandemic viruses. They have imposed other excessive and cruel penalties such as imprisonment and/or quarantine in FEMA camps while barring the citizens of the U.S. from claiming compensation from injury or death from the forced injections. This is in violation of the laws governing federal corruption and the abuse of office as well as of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Through these actions, the named defendants have laid the groundwork for mass genocide.
Using the “swine flu” as a pretext, the defendants have preplanned the mass murder of the U.S. population by means of forced vaccination. They have installed an extensive network of FEMA concentration camps and identified mass grave sites, and they have been involved in devising and implementing a scheme to hand power over the U.S. to an international crime syndicate that uses the UN and WHO as a front for illegal racketeering influenced organized crime activities, in violation of the laws that govern treason.
She further charges that the complex of pharmaceutical companies consisting of Baxter, Novartis and Sanofi Aventis are part of a foreign-based dual purpose bioweapons program, financed by this international criminal syndicate and designed to implement mass murder to reduce the world’s population by more than 5 billion people in the next ten years. Their plan is to spread terror to justify forcing people to give up their rights, and to force mass quarantine in FEMA camps. The houses, companies and farms and lands of those who are killed will be up for grabs by this syndicate.
By eliminating the population of North America, the international elite gain access to the region’s natural resources such as water and undeveloped oil lands. And by eliminating the U.S. and its democratic constitution by subsuming it under a North American Union, the international crime group will have total control over North America.
Highlights from the complete dossier
The complete dossier of the June 10th action is a 69 page document presenting evidence to substantiate all charges. This includes:
Factual background that delineates time lines and facts that establish probable cause, UN and WHO definitions and roles, and history and incidents from the April, 2009 “swine flu” outbreak.
Evidence the “swine flu” vaccines are defined as bioweapons as delineates in government agencies and regulations classifying and restricting vaccines, and the fear of foreign countries that “swine flu” vaccines will be used for biological warfare.
Scientific evidence the “swine flu” virus is an artificial (genetic) virus.
Scientific evidence the “swine flu” was bioengineered to resemble the Spanish flu virus of 1918 including quotes from Swine Flu 2009 is Weaponized 1918 Spanish Flu by A. True Ott, Ph.D., N.D., and a Science Magazine report from Dr. Jeffrey Taubenberger et.al.
The genome sequence of the “swine flu”
Evidence of the deliberate release of the “swine flu” in Mexico
Evidence as to the involvement of President Obama that delineates his trip to Mexico which coincided with the recent “swine flu” outbreak and the death of several officials involved in his trip. Contention is made that the President was never tested for “swine flu” because he had been previously vaccinated.
Evidence as to the role of Baxter and WHO in producing and releasing pandemic virus material in Austria includes a statement from a Baxter official stating the accidentally distributed H5N1 in the Czech Republic was received from a WHO reference center. This includes delineation of evidence and allegations from Burgermeister’s charges filed in April in Austria that are currently under investigation.
Evidence Baxter is an element in a covert bioweapons network
Evidence Baxter has deliberately contaminated vaccine material.
Evidence Novartis is using vaccines as bioweapons
Evidence as to WHO’s role in the bioweapons program
Evidence as to WHO’s manipulation of disease data in order to justify declaring a Pandemic Level 6 in order to seize control of the USA.
Evidence as to the FDA’s role in covering up the bioweapons program
Evidence as to Canada’s National Microbiology Lab’s role in the bioweapons program.
Evidence of the involvement of scientists working for the UK’s NIBSC, and the CDC in engineering the “swine flu”.
Evidence vaccinations caused the Spanish killer flu of 1918 including belief of Dr. Jerry Tennant that the widespread use of aspirin during the winter that followed the end of World War I could have been a key factor contributing to the earlier pandemic by suppressing the immune system and lowering body temperatures, allowing the flu virus to multiply. Tamiflu and Relenza also lower body temperatures, and therefore can also be expected to contribute to the spread of a pandemic.
Evidence as to manipulation of the legal framework to allow mass murder with impunity.
Constitutional issues: the legality vs. illegality of jeopardizing the life, health and public good by mass vaccinations.
The issue of immunity and compensation as evidence of intent to commit a crime.
Evidence as to the existence of an international corporate crime syndicate.
Evidence of the existence of the “Illuminati”.
Evidence as to the depopulation agenda of the Illuminati/Bilderbergs and their involvement in the engineering and release of the artificial “swine flu” virus.
Evidence that weaponized flu was discussed at the annual Bilderberg meeting in Athens from May 14-17, 2009, as part of their agenda of genocide, including a list of attendees who, according to a statement once made by Pierre Trudeau, view themselves as genetically superior to the rest of humanity.
Media is keeping Americans clueless about the threat they are under
Jane Burgermeister is a dual Irish/Austrian who has written for Nature, the British Medical Journal, and American Prospect. She is the European Correspondent of the Renewable Energy World website. She has written extensively about climate change, biotechnology, and the ecology.
In addition to the charges currently under investigation that she filed against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology in April, she has filed charges against WHO and Baxter among others concerning a case of exploding “swine flu” vials meant for a research lab on a busy IC train in Switzerland.
In her view, control of the media by the ruling elite has allowed the world crime syndicate to further its agenda unabated while the rest of the people remain in the dark about what is really going on. Her charges are an attempt to get around this media control and bring the truth to light.
Her greatest concern is that “in spite of the fact Baxter has been caught red handed nearly triggering pandemic, they are also moving ahead, together with allied pharma companies, with supplying the vaccine for pandemics.” Baxter is hurrying to get this vaccine to market some time in July.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland announced unprecedented violations of Canadian citizens’ charter rights on Oct 6th – in the form of vaccine mandates and vaccine passports.
Are these legally or scientifically justified?
*
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 Mark Taliano for bringing this to our attention.
Originally published in French on mondialisatieon.ca
Justin Trudeau: “Regardless of whether we’re attacking your fundamental rights… or limiting your fundamental rights, and the Charter says it’s wrong, we’re still going to go ahead and do it. It is essentially a loophole which allows a majority to override the fundamental rights of a minority… ”
It’s like saying, “We are stealing from you, we know this is wrong and against the law, and we will continue to steal from you!”
The Prime Minister of Canada admits that he and his government are “attacking our fundamental rights”.
And, knowingly, they will continue on this dark path of contempt for our Constitution, and our constitutional rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If it’s not contempt, I don’t know what it is!
What are YOU, Canadians, men and women, going to do about it? I know what I’m going to do about it. \
See the report below:
“The Canadian Charter of Rights is not a law and it was established by Pierre E. Trudeau. The only one that we the people should be calling upon is the Bill of Rights. This is the one they don’t want you to know about”
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Irony of Historic National Freedom and Unspoken Tyranny of Imperialism
Do nations and civilizations grow out of the moral mire of military conquests, killings of innocent people, political cruelty and subjugation by imperialism?
For more than 800 years, India as a Moghul Empire was an economically well integrated and politically viable entity and west Europeans had strong trade and political relationships.
After intrigued conspiracies and planned division, British invaded India in 1857, committing cold blooded massacres of two million people mostly Muslims opposing the military invasion described just as a “Mutiny” in the British chronicle.
Bahadur Shah Zafar – the last Moghul emperor was deposed over night in Delhi, his youngest son head was chopped-off and put on a breakfast plate to strangle the Shah and make him surrender unconditionally. Shah was hurriedly taken to Rangoon (Burma) and imprisoned in a garage and later on died and buried only to write poems in loss of his freedom and beloved country. Did the British overtake India to be a free country for democracy or to support the Hindu domination of futuristic India? British robbed Moghul India and it became Great Britain and imagined India as an absolute entity of the British Empire.
Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru, Dr. Mohammad Iqbal, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Khan though educated in British intellectual traditions but articulated new mission and visions for national freedom as a revulsion against the British colonial political traditions and continuity of British Raj in India.
Was this violent and ruthless indoctrination part of the British heritage or history-making efforts to besiege India forever? Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy made sure that Indians will remain loyal and committed subservient to the futuristic blending of so called celebrated national freedom after the 1947 partition into India and Pakistan. British failed to deliver the truth of national freedom to both nations in a universal spirit of political responsibility. Both nations continued to engage in military warfare, ethnic conflicts and hegemonic control to dominate each other by undermining their own future.
History could not have confined the tyranny and oppression of “divide and rule” of British imperialism against the will of the Indian masses. Canons of rationality clarify that national freedom granted to both new entities in August 1947 was a fake chronology of time and history. The so called national freedom perpetuated a hybrid socio-economic and political culture – part human- part vulture, British made no security arrangements to ensure communal peace and harmony which resulted in millions of people been killed in ethnic violence while migrating from one place to another.
Tormented with injustice, public discard and political lethargy, British imperialism changed the Indian mindset and behavior within a century, but India and Pakistan even after 75 years remained glued to the British colonial systems in thoughts, systems and governance. Does it not signal a naïve and void imagination of national freedom professed by both nations since 1947? They continue to interact with one another as the most hated enemy of time and history, wars, threat of nuclear arsenals, Kashmir dispute and worst of all lack of direct people to people communication or business relationships – all seem to be part of a highly ruptured and purging pursuit of national freedom.
Indian and Pakistani Leaders Follow Egoistic Agenda for the Future
The aerial view of New Delhi reflects an Islamic image of the city – grand New Delhi Mosque, nearby historic and beautiful Taj Mahal, Old Fort and lot more. To foreigners, it is does not look like the capital of Hindu India at all. If this inference has any reality, the future of India and Pakistan should have been collaboration and lasting friendship. India always wanted to subdue Pakistan and its national freedom. Pakistan’s bad luck entailed many military coups breaking its integrity and trust on freedom. Egoistic and foolish Generals created bogus and corrupt politicians claiming to be the leaders of future-making. They lacked the moral and intellectual capacity to imagine its future with a new generation of educated, intelligent and proactive people who could have contributed for a promising future of Pakistan. Most pernicious consequences defy logic as most Indian and Pakistani elite would not dare to be on the rational side of time and history. The nation building is a forgotten and unreasonable goal to their pursuits.
India’s political agenda was intact when in December 1971, East Pakistan was disintegrated and Bangladesh was created by Mrs. Indra Gandhi –the Prime Minister – a power conspirator in India. Pakistani governing elite would not dare to admit that it was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Genera Yahya Khan both major conspirators who led to the defeat of Pakistan. Even half a century later, Pakistanis still live in delusional and unarguable conclusion of that historic misfortune. As a graduate student, I met General PNK Choudry (the former Chief of the Indian Armed Force) forcibly retired by Mrs. Indra Gandhi and sent as an Ambassador (HC) to Canada. At a local university campus, we met when he was a guest speaker. Later on, I invited him for a class gathering with fellow students and lunch. During the summer while working at photo store, General Choudry comes in with two cameras on his shoulder and many times we had lunch together and walks and photography together. On weekends, at university library- often I got library books to share with him and we talked about global affairs and his own past and India-Pakistan. He denied any alleged conspiracy against Mrs. Gandhi to oust her and bring a military coup in India. My interaction with General Choudry continued for almost two years. After his diplomatic assignment, he was hired by McGill University, Montreal as a lecturer and that is where he died in 1975. He was a simple, 6.5 ft approx tall person, humble and spoke openly and truthfully as I recall him. As an Indian top army General he may have been a tyrant but as a human being and a diplomat he was a decent person. He fought wars with Pakistan and knew most of the military establishments. Here is what he disclosed during many conversations and it should be alarming to Pakistanis if they deny it:
ZABhutto and Shekih Mujib were Appointed by Mrs. Indra Gandhi
Prior to the defeat and surrender of East Pakistan in 1971, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had direct contact with Mrs. Gandhi and wanted India’s help to become the next leader of Pakistan. India was looking for such an opportunity and wanted East Pakistan to become a new entity- Bangladesh. Sheikh Mujib Rehman was nationalist but was enthusiastic for a new homeland except to become the next elected leader of Pakistan. Bhutto-Yahya Khan were competing for power even without elections. Sheikh Mujib’s Awami Party won the majority of seats in the 1971 elections of the National Assembly to be a legitimate elected leader of Pakistan.
The ill-informed Pakistani Generals had questions about Mujib’s futuristic intentions and delayed the peaceful transfer of power. ZA Bhutto (Peoples Party) carved up his own egoistic agenda for grabbing the political power even if Pakistan was defeated, otherwise Sheikh Mujib-Yahya could have become the next governing leaders. Bhutto was a power hungry individual without any political capacity to be a leader. Mrs. Gandhi helped both – ZA Bhutto and Sheikh Mujib and the price was the defeat and surrender of Pakistan. Mrs. Gandhi appointed Bhutto as the next President, Martial Law Administrator and Prime Minister of Pakistan and Sheikh Mujib ur Rehman as the next President of Bangladesh. Some Pakistani would blame General Niazi for the surrender but in reality it was Yahya-Bhutto and the Pakistani Generals who should have faced full accountability and perhaps firing squads for their treachery and dishonesty to national freedom and integrity of Pakistan. None of this ever happened in Pakistan. To see more, please view the articles by this author: “Pakistan: Leaders who Stabbed the Nation” (2009), “Pakistan: Leader or Criminals.” (2014); “Pakistan: Reflections on the Turbulent 69th Independence Day”, “Pakistan: How to change the culture of political corruption and rebuild the Future.” (2014), and “Pakistan and India’s leader mark freedom from British Colonial Rule but Masses look for a Navigational Change.” (2020).
To General Choudry, if the whole Pakistan was captured by India except the Sindh province, ZA Bhutto would have gladly become the Chief Minister of Sindh to co-exist with India. He disclosed, there were five or six “soft hearted” Pakistani Generals willing to align and not to challenge India’s plan for Bangladesh. Shocking as it is, future Pakistani leaders never held anyone accountable for the crimes against the nation. Were ZA Bhutto and Yahya Khan more important than the existence, national freedom and integrity of One Pakistan? Dr. Ishtiaq Qureshi (Editor Urdu Digest) wrote “Skoote –Dahaka Say Purdah Uttha Hey” (1972), in which he described the details how Bhutto and Yahya khan betrayed Pakistan and stabbed the nation. Dr. Qureshi was imprisoned by the Bhutto Government. This dreadful tragedy infallibly resulted to question the very basis of the originality of Pakistan and remains unacknowledged and districted by the Pakistani political elite even to this day. Are the Pakistanis still living in any rational denials of their own chapter of history?
Moral and intellectual corruption is rampant in both countries.
Masses are systematically compelled to bribe officials to get the basic services and official necessities of nationality ID, passports, driver license and lot more in life. The national freedom has changed from the enlarged scope of corruption and exploitation – the legacy of the British imperialism.
Both India and Pakistani neo-colonialists look for escape from reality and are allergic to see the mirror of the present and future.
Allama Iqbal (pioneer of Pakistani national freedom) did not live to see his dream come true of Pakistan.
Mahtama Gandhi was murdered by a Hindu extremist, Nehru died a natural death.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah passed away in a broken ambulance on a Karachi street, and Liaquat Ali Khan (first PM) was murdered by the then Pakistani politicians.
Mrs. Gandhi was killed by his Sikh bodyguard. Sheikh Mujib was murdered by his military commander and Bhutto was hanged for killing a political opponent.
Are there any Glimpse of Hope for People-Oriented Change for the New Generations?
India has its multiple problems of socio-economic and political diversity. It is unable to counteract the national freedom movement of Sikh Nation for an independent Khalistan.
Kashmir was never a part of British Indian dominion and its masses continue to seek freedom from India occupation and violations of their basic human rights. Muslim, Christian and other minorities are oppressed under Hinduvata managed India claiming to be a secular and democratic country.
Pakistani miserably failed to take proactive initiatives to support the freedom movement for the people of Kashmir. The old service men-led elite could not imagine new and creative strategies to organize international conferences or effectively communicate to the Western world to share the aspirations of the Kashmiri masses.
The degeneration of the Indian-Pakistani moral and intellectual culture is well in progress. The essence, meaning and purpose of historic British colonial systems are operative across all public affairs, policies and practices in India and Pakistan.
The armed forces, the civil service and legal jurisprudence all remain under the sinister influence and disfigured reality of the two so called free nations. Police still beats the protesters and open fire on peaceful demonstrators, be in New Delhi, Kashmir or Islamabad. National freedom does not empower futuristic societies to establish political absurdity, immoral and intellectual decadence and political injustice.
Common people in both countries are besieged in obsolete systems of political governance except rich landlords and affluent compete the elections and gain power. There is no change for the people in the colonized landscape except enlarged scope of moral and intellectual corruption guised as freedom. If you will question both elite having many common values of the British Raj, they would deny if there is anything wrong with their thinking, role play and management of public affairs.
The new and young generation who could not imagine a new sustainable future are vanishing fast and migrating to Europe and America in search of better opportunities. The old generations of landlords and retired civilian-military officials manage the governing bodies whereas people of new and educated generation are deprived of any practical participation and migrate to Europe and North America and never return to their home countries. The hub of political culture is divided and delusional about national freedom and a sustainable future-making. There are no wars for the people of the sub-continent to fight but they are fighting wars on several fronts without reason- known and unknown. The compelling realities across the beleaguered sub-continent demand new thinking, new visionary leadership, men of new ideas and plans to deal with the unwarranted exploitation of masses, communal deaths, and deliberate destruction of the historic culture and millions of people looking for change and a new beginning of cordial borders and relationships.
*
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. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in international affairs-global security, peace and conflict resolution with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including the latest: One Humanity and the Remaking of Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution. Lambert Academic Publications, Germany, 12/2019.
Featured image: A photograph of Mahatma Gandhi during the Salt March, which gave a critical impetus to the Indian independence movement. (Public Domain)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
“Our nation was born in genocide. We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or feel remorse for this shameful episode.”
Those words were spoken by Martin Luther King Jr in his 1963 book “Why We Can’t Wait.”
Of course, the U.S. was not the only nation who tried as a matter of policy to wipe out its indigenous people–Canada, Australia and others did the same. But the thrust of what King was saying is correct.
The month of December is filled with various kinds of celebrations and festivities; however, there is one event that always seems to be conveniently overlooked by the wider society. This December 29 marks the 131st anniversary of the massacre of the Native people at Wounded Knee. Wounded Knee is located on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota.
What Whites as a collective do not understand, approve, or develop they demonize, ridicule or attack. Part of the background to the Wounded Knee massacre, lies in the spiritual of the Ghost Dance Movement practiced by some of the Native Nations, among them the Sioux people. After the surrender of the Sioux Nation in the 1876-1877 war, the government drove the Sioux out of Nebraska, all that was left to them was 35,000 square miles of almost useless land.
After protests and compromises between the Native Nations and the government, groups settled in various parts of the territory. The 35,000 square miles of land given to the Great Sioux Reservation was mostly taken away eventually from the Native people.
When the Sioux killed George Armstrong Custer of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, the U.S. Army wanted revenge. Sitting Bull, the great Sioux chief was in exile in Canada with some of his followers, where they stayed for four years; this partly explains why the government intruders were successful in retaking most of the land from the Sioux.
The government tried to convince Sitting Bull to return to the United States with the condition that, they surrender all weapons and horses as; they were considered a threat to the United States, the British Government, and the Royal Mounted Police in Canada. Chief Sitting Bull and some of his followers eventually returned to the United States and was very influential among many of the other Nations.
Many of the Native people of the Reservation believed in and practiced what was known as the Ghost Dance; a ritualistic dance based on the belief that the dead would come back to life and that non-believers would be destroyed. Sitting Bull was very skeptical.
The popularity of the Ghost Dance among the Native people worried the government and soldiers were brought into some Reservations to stop the ceremonies. Indian police were sent to the Reservation to remove and arrest Kicking Bear who went to Standing Rock to teach Chief Sitting Bull’s people the Ghost Dance. Sitting Bull took no action against Kicking Bear, and it was suggested that he be arrested and jailed in a military prison.
On December 15, 1890 forty-three Indian police surrounded the cabin of Sitting Bull while at the same time a group of cavalry stood in waiting as support some miles away. While being taken away by Indian Affairs agents, the leader of the arrest team was shot, in retaliation he fired hitting Sitting Bull instead; a traitor named Red Tomahawk would assassinate Sitting Bull on the spot.
Because of the influence of the Ghost Dance, the Sioux people took no retaliation; instead hundreds fled from Standing Rock to nearby Ghost Dance camps or with Chief Red Cloud at Pine Ridge. On the morning of December 29, 1890, the United States army’s 7th cavalry surrounded a group of Ghost Dancers whose leader was Big Foot a Lakota Sioux chief.
The soldiers demanded that the men surrendered and hand over all their weapons; not satisfied with the number of weapons surrendered, the soldiers raided the tents confiscating axes and knives; only two guns were found from the raid. A fight later ensued between a native and a soldier, a shot was fired, and reports stated nobody knew by whom.
The soldiers immediately opened fire indiscriminately on the unarmed people killing men, women, and children, using Hotchkiss Mountain Guns sited on hills overlooking the camp. When the massacre stopped 153 native people were killed nearly half of them women and children; the cavalry suffered disproportionate losses; 29 soldiers killed and 39 wounded.
One estimate is that the final toll nears 300 of 350 men, women and children who were in the camp; on top of this the indignity that followed was deplorable. Many of the killed or dying were left to lie where they had fallen and later froze from the snowstorm that followed later that day.
Frederic Remington illustration of the Wounded Knee massacre. [Source: history.com]
The deplorable scene is best described in a quote by Black Elk in the book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown.
Black Elk said:
I did not know then how much was ended. When I look back now from this high hill of my old age, I can still see the butchered women and children lying heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as when I saw them with my eyes still young. And I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud and was buried in the blizzard. A people’s dream died there. It was a beautiful dream….the nation’s hoop is broken and scattered. There is no center any longer, and the sacred tree is dead.
On that infamous day of December 29, 1890, the U.S. government fueled by the doctrine of white supremacy, carried out one of its many atrocities that have repeated themselves dozens of times over—in places like My Lai, No Gun-Ri, Bola Baluk, Baghuz, the Plain of Jars and Kunduz among others around the world where the U.S. army has slaughtered native peoples.
Vietnamese civilians killed by U.S. army in the village of My Lai in March 1968. [Source: historynet.com]
These latter crimes reiterate that America’s unwillingness to “reject or feel remorse for this shameful episode [genocide of natives],” as Martin Luther King Jr. put it, continues, and is embedded in the ideology of white supremacy and great power chauvinism that drives imperialist policies.
To this day, each successive Administration has only given hypocritical lip service in acknowledging the atrocities meted out to the Native people. Whether it is the disparity in the allocation of resources for development; the imprisonment of Leonard Peltier or the activists protesting the Enbridge pipeline, Native-Americans are still oppressed.
Their rights and treaties are still trampled on and ignored and they are effectively written out of the mainstream narrative. “Peace and good will to all men” should meaningfully include the Native peoples.
*
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.
Richard Dunn is a retired construction professional, trained in Architecture and Energy Management. He’s been a social justice activist since 1968 and was particularly active with the Walter Rodney defense demonstrations. Richard is an author, a contributing columnist to newspapers, an editor for a music industry magazine and operates a social justice website. Richard can be reached at: [email protected].
Featured image: Burial of the dead after the massacre of Wounded Knee in South Dakota. U.S. Soldiers are shown putting Indians in a common grave; some corpses are frozen in different positions. [Source: wikipedia.org]
In recent developments, several Western governments have implemented curfews and restrictions which prevent family and friends from celebrating New Year.
Nonsensical political statements abound. They invariably point to the “deadly Covid-19 Omicron Variant”, despite the fact that Omicron is one among thousands of harmless variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. (See analysis below).
Media disinformation prevails. According to CNN quoting expert opinion:
The Omicron variant “is extraordinarily contagious”, and if you are in a crowd now, and certainly if you’re unvaccinated, you are at great risk of contracting this virus,”
A small celebration at a friend’s house should be OK if everyone is vaccinated and boosted and tested negative before the party, he said. Big outdoor parties are less risky unless they’re crowded.
“I would not eat in a restaurant now without a mask,”
“I would absolutely not go into a bar.” emphasis added.
Government statements and media reports are intent upon creating divisions between “vaccinated” and “non-vaccinated”. According to Dr. Anthony Fauci who is behind the Omicron scam:
People should avoid large New Year’s Eve gatherings where they don’t know the vaccination status of guests … Small gatherings of vaccinated family or close friends are safe”
In chorus, Western governments (pressured by the financial establishment) repeatedly tell us that these restrictions are there “to save lives” and protect people from being infected by the deadly Omicron variant.
In turn, they pressure millions of people to get the vaccine booster. And we now know, beyond doubt, amply documented, that the mRNA jab is a “Killer Vaccine” which has resulted in countless deaths and injuries Worldwide.
While the official data on mortality and morbidity are available, the media will portray the “vaccine” as the solution to resolving the alleged pandemic.
The fear campaign prevails. Governments also point to a “dangerous” increase in “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases” during the Christmas holiday period resulting from the flawed and invalid RT-PCR test without acknowledging the fact that an increase in RT-PCR positive cases at this time of the year indicates a greater incidence of seasonal influenza and corona “common colds”.
Quebec Premier Legault’s Press Conference. He announces Curfew on December 30th to be implemented on the following day.
In Quebec, Premier François Legault ordered at short notice from one day to the next a nightly curfew starting on the 31st of December 2021 (from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m).
The justification of this far-reaching decision which jeopardizes New Year celebrations of 8.5 million people, is “to curb the spread of the Omicron variant as COVID-19 cases surge”. What utter nonsense!
The social, cultural and economic impacts of these measures are far-reaching. People are prevented from socializing which is a fundamental human right. The entire urban landscape is affected. New Year curfews and restrictions have also contributed to a further wave of bankruptcies of bars and restaurants. And it is all based on a Big Lie.
Meanwhile in the US, the RT-PCR is to be withdrawn by the CDC effective December 31st 2021. The CDC acknowledges that the PCR test does not effectively differentiate between Covid-19 and Seasonal Influenza.
Amply documented and analyzed by numerous scientists, the RT-PCR test does not detect or identify SARS-CoV-2 and its variants. See:
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, December 31, 2021
Scroll down: analysis of the Omicron variant
***
The alleged spread of the “deadly” Omicron variant has now become the pretext and justification for implementing partial lockdowns, restrictions on travel as well as confinement and stay at home mandates.
These measures are political in nature. They have no scientific basis. They sustain the fear campaign prior to the Christmas holiday period. They trigger a new wave of economic and social chaos. They are sustained by a 24/7 media disinformation campaign
A Friday November 26 statement by the WHO’s Technical Advisory Group (TAG-VE) (integrated by selected Bill Gates appointees) stated the following:
This variant [omicron] has a large number of mutations, some of which are concerning. Preliminary evidence suggests an increased risk of reinfection with this variant, as compared to other VOCs. The number of cases of this variant appears to be increasing in almost all provinces in South Africa.
This advisory had been “staged”. Moreover, the TAG-VE statement was an advisory. It was not an official WHO statement.
Two days later on Sunday November 28, the WHO issued an “Official Update” which refuted the TAG-VE advisory. In fact it said exactly the opposite:
Preliminary data suggests that there are increasing rates of hospitalization in South Africa, but this may be due to increasing overall numbers of people becoming infected, rather than a result of specific infection with Omicron.
There is currently no information to suggest that symptoms associated with Omicron are different from those from other variants. …. (emphasis added)
While the WHO’s Update on Omicron passed virtually unnoticed, it contradicted both the TAG-VE November 26 advisory as well as the numerous “Warnings” expressed by the (corrupt) WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom.
On “Black Friday”, November 26, 2021, the TAG-VE advisory statement as well as media reports contributed to spearheading the collapse of stock markets coupled with a dramatic rise in the value of Big Pharma vaccine stocks, with Pfizer in the lead:
Pfizer Inc. jumped to a record Friday [November 26, 2021] on the promise of its Covid-19 vaccine and antiviral pill even as fears of a new variant tamped down much of the rest of the U.S. stock market.
The drug maker added $17.5 billion to its market value as the shares closed 6.1% higher in New York trading. Pfizer’s vaccine with BioNTech SE is on track to be the best-selling drug product on a yearly basis and received backing from a European regulatory panel on Thursday to expand its use into children as young as five. BioNTech shares surged 14% to the highest in two months. (Bloomberg)
Big Bucks for Pfizer based on a combination of “inside information”, “foreknowledge’ and “fake science” coupled with media disinformation regarding the “deadly” Omicron Variant.
What is at stake is a $17.5 Billion Financial Gain on “Black Friday” (following Thanksgiving), which we might describe as “A Good Friday” Windfall for Pfizer Thanks to Omicron. “No conflict of interest”!
Boris faces growing pressure from his own advisers to hit the panic button on Plan C to curb new variant
Londoners are leaving the capital fearing the PM could change his mind on a lockdown or more restrictions
Irate residents put up signs telling visitors to ‘f**k off’ while man at Devon resort dressed as Grim Reaper
Chief medical officer Chris Whitty told people to pick the events they attend this Christmas ‘carefully’
Are you leaving the capital – or unhappy about Londoners visiting? (Daily Mail, December 16, 2021)
It’s an exercise in social engineering.
The omicron variant is said to be spreading in numerous countries in all regions of the World. What’s the evidence?
Restrictions on air travel, no large Christmas reunions, stay at home mandates, partial closure of bars and and restaurants (leading to more bankruptcies), sports and culture events. It is all for good cause: saving lives.
Image Pakistan Daily Times, December 2020: Trainee Santas in UK
It is worth noting that what is now unfolding is a staged repeat of last year’s restrictions pertaining to Christmas and New Year reunions.
The unspoken objective is to isolate human beings.
Prevent people from socializing and meeting up with their loved ones. It’s a despicable agenda on the part of our governments.
It’s the same concepts and directives as last year. Two years in succession. Lies and nonsense committed by corrupt officials.
Get vaccinated. Go for your third vaccine boost:
“The rapidly spreading Omicron coronavirus variant means Canadians should be “ready to pivot” their travel plans within the country during this holiday season, said medical experts studying COVID-19.
“If [you] can avoid travel, avoid it,” said Dr. Peter Juni, the head of Ontario’s COVID-19 Science Advisory Table. “We just need to really seriously cut down on our contact.”
The PCR Test Used to Detect Omicron Variant
What’s the Evidence? Media reports confirm that the standard PCR test is being used to “detect” the omicron variant.
That’s an impossibility! The PCR test cannot under any circumstances identify or detect the original virus (SARS-CoV-2) nor can it detect its numerous variants. What it identifies are genetic sequences. This is corroborated both by the WHO as well by numerous scientific studies.
According to Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the PCR technique: “The PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself.” According to renowned Swiss immunologist Dr B. Stadler
So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left.
.
These omicron PCR tests have no scientific basis. They are nonetheless used by corrupt politicians to justify the Christmas lockdown, which in several countries consists in preventing families and friends from getting together during the holiday period.
The instructions are twofold:
1. Test, test, test, which makes the number of so-called “Covid-19 confirmed cases” allegedly “detected” by the PCR go fly high.
2. Get protected: Go for your third vaccine jab, ie. your booster:
“Vaccines have given us substantial protection from infection and severe outcomes to date, … said Dr. Theresa Tam, chief public health officer of Canada …
While it’s possible that the new Omicron variant might evade some vaccines, she believes they should still provide good protection.
“We’re safer when everyone who is eligible is fully vaccinated and if all who are eligible also get a COVID-19 booster dose,” she said.” (Global News Canada)
Utter nonsense on the part of Canada’s chief public health officer.
It’s not Omicron which is “Deadly”. It’s Pfizer’s mRNA “killer vaccine”.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
In a recent Op-Ed, I had outlined the causes and ramifications of a looming supply chain crisis. Shortfalls in fundamental goods and services, however, are just the surface symptoms of a silent, protracted war against human merit.
Throughout history, the most universal and indispensable asset has been human resource. Civilizations were built on human ingenuity. Yet, despite the 21st century hoopla over smart cities, smart workers and smart futures of every kind, it is ironic that talent shortages persist in nearly every critical sector. In the United States alone, labour productivity recently hit a 40-year low even as unemployment claims dropped. How does one explain this anomaly? Perhaps, the “no jabs no jobs” mandate has crushed worker morale?
The global labour crisis was brewing for decades and yet nothing was done to address this problem. According to a Korn Ferry study in 2018, global talent shortages were expected to cost $8.452 trillion in lost financial revenue by 2030. The Wuhan outbreak of 2019 will have added yet-unquantifiable exponentials to this figure.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) nonetheless remains optimistic. WEF founder Klaus Schwab sees an opportunity here to “revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.” He is of course referring to a totalitarian solution called the Great Reset.
The roadmap to this reset has never been satisfactorily explained. We are only given reductionist soundbytes and glossy visual clips which scrupulous avoid some troubling questions: How is the Great Reset going to be achieved? What are the phases, action plans and milestones leading up to 2030?
Is the Reset predicated on the erosion of national sovereignty?
Can the post-reset world accommodate eight billion plus humans by 2030?
To deflect these niggling questions, the WEF and its ilk have been distracting the public with a daily barrage of alleged existential crises.
Unsurprisingly, experts who understood these possible dangers, and who could have played a role in mitigating them, have been systematically locked out from relevant platforms – both at the national and international levels. In their stead, the globalist elite triumphantly promoted the dross of the earth in the name of “inclusivity”, “diversity”, “equality” and “open societies”.
The bovine marionettes in charge of our societies today do not possess the intelligence, spunk or moral fibre to question the slew of contradictions, human rights consequences and critical gaps evident in the Great Reset project.
It looks as if our world was deliberately engineered to fail. Vacuous rhetoric like Build Back Better and the New Normal only serves to pull wool over the sheeple’s eyes. Unremitting global lockdowns also shield the elite in a Noah’s ark-type cocoon while the foundations of the Great Reset are being surreptitiously laid. The capstone in 2030 may take the form of an incarnated Tower of Babel that will have total ownership over a decimated global population.
The long-running intellectual pogrom (aka global talent shortage) has been accompanied by an accelerated erosion in individual ownership – just as the WEF had promised.
How can you own anything when you are repeatedly subjected to lockdowns that separates you from your source of income?
How can you generate new sources of income when interaction-dependent undertakings are suppressed?
As recent events have shown, there will be no respite even when you are double-, triple- or quadruple-jabbed. This no longer about a virus; it is about global panoptic control.
Science of Pervasive Insanity
The suppression of global talent has fuelled a desideratum of lunatic pursuits dressed-up (or more appropriately “cross-dressed”) as “science”. Medicine is at the forefront of this travesty.
Medical experts such as CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky promotes the science of gender-bending when she is not ratcheting up the pandemic narrative.
US Assistant Health Secretary Rachel Levine (birth name suppressed by Wikipedia) arguably generates more headlines over gender (mis)pronouns than over the plethora of US healthcare woes.
Bent expertise naturally spawn bent science. Mothers and pregnant women are now redesignated as “birthing people”; men can give birth and lactate against the order of nature; and traditional genders are taxonomized into “people with penises” and “people with vaginas”. It gets worse. Arguments justifying paedophilia include respectable terminologies like Minor Attracted Person (MAP).
This gangrenous “science” also deems traditional spelling, grammar and punctuation norms to be racist as the academia is now a playground for philanthropic blackmail. The ongoing explosion in scientific inanities is simply too exhaustive to be enumerated here. Nonetheless, it is important to note its origins in Marxist theory. Just as Karl Marx advocated an “intrinsic value” for goods and services – rather than the laws of supply and demand — competency must likewise reflect a vague intrinsic “effort”.
The results are predictable. Only the most pliant, clueless and debased are allowed to prosper during the build-up to the Great Reset. (Their fate post-2030 would be obvious to the commonsensical observer). Untold billions have been pumped into the media and universities worldwide to propagate this pandemic of madness. Why? Because it enriches the merchants of mass ignorance.
Albert Einstein’s admonition that “science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free speech” is deemed irrelevant in the New Normal. Repeat a lie a thousand times, it becomes truth; repeat it a million times a day and it becomes a new religion fused with pseudosciences. This naturally leads to the type of mass psychosis or mass formation we are witnessing today.
Traditionally, insanities like these will eventually bury a civilization under the weight of its collective psychosis. Another would rise to offer an alternative, usually via an invasion. To prevent history from repeating itself, the Great Reset was contrived to prevent the emergence of competing power structures. Enter the WEF-centralized Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC) and its puppets across the corridors of power far and wide.
Is it any wonder that rejection letters over medical exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines employ the same tone and syntax across different geographical zones? Who is centralizing these policies, activities and communiques, sometimes down to the last typo?
Casualties of the New Science
The new science is creating more contradictions than consensus. In fact, it is generating nothing but a never-ending pantomime of nonsense. Leaders who want to “save our planet” from climate change have paradoxically reduced their cities into insanitary nightmares. The rot has metastasized into every sector.
But let us return to the pandemic narrative. While “experts” falsely parrot a scientific lie called the “pandemic of the unvaccinated”, they cannot explain why Gibraltar, where more than 99% of the population is vaccinated, is witnessing a COVID surge.
Similar patterns are repeated in highly-vaccinated nations. The correlations between high vaccination rates and coronavirus surges continue to be either misrepresented, disparaged or censored. Establishment experts cannot explain why Africa, with its low vaccination figures, is not reeling from the coronavirus. I have yet to see recent viral clips of Africans gasping for life in COVID isolation wards.
Similarly India, with a 30% adult vaccination rate, is faring far better than Malaysia with an alleged 96% inoculation rate for the same cohort as of October/November 2021. These contradictions no longer faze corrupt medical establishments. It is the top-down dictates that matter. If their job depends on including “climate change” on death certificates, then so be it. Lives are now a matter of doctored statistics.
In this cauldron of universal deceit, predators of all forms are having a field day. In one telling example, lockdowns have enabled rats and other pests to systematically destroy our agricultural lifelines. Yet, robots and drones used to enforce human social distancing are not being redeployed to safeguard our bread baskets. Where is the sense of proportion?
In the line with the long-running war against human talent, highly skilled personnel continue to be purged from critical industries under the pretext of vaccine mandates. Recent purge targets include top nuclear scientists at the sensitive Los Alamos National Laboratory, 12,000 US Air Force personnel and thousands of firefighters and policemen in the United States alone. Hundreds of thousands of doctors and healthcare professionals worldwide are facing the sack for refusing to submit to the vaccine mandate. Imagine the consequences?
The implications go far beyond an arbitrary personnel reshuffle. Among the unvaxxed include the most educated and skilled cohorts in the world. An unusual number of them have PhDs. We need their skills and ideas to resolve a variety of future challenges. But they are also standing in the way of the Great Reset project.
*
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.
Did Jesus intervene to free 17 white missionaries kidnapped in Haiti from October 16 to December 20, 2021? Why is it most Haitians are upset and feel offended by this amazing “miracle” that has been reported by CNN, Miami Herald, news media all around the world?
In this series, a Haitian-Canadian radio host, activist and blogger provides shocking details about the ongoing nightmare Haitians are enduring because of well-connected gangs of kidnappers who operate in full impunity, within a few miles from the huge U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince.
Their victims are almost exclusively Black Haitians. However, few are aware of the plight of these thousands of victims of real kidnappings happening in Haiti.
Part 1 (8 min 33)… we examine the fact that thousands of real Haitians victims of kidnappings do not make news headlines.
In part 2 (7 min 53), we discuss the confessions of Haitian kidnapper Arnel Joseph, as reported in July 2019, two years before his spectacular assassination.
In part 3 (9 min 36), we take a close look at specific members of the so-called “business elite” in Haiti who were mentioned by Arnel Joseph, according to the 2019 reference document “Arnel Joseph parle comme une rossignol” (Arnel Joseph speaks like a nightingale). See this.
In part 4 (7 min 11), we take a close look at the type of “mission” has been historically assigned to U.S Missionaries in Haiti. A critical analysis of the ongoing foreign occupation of Haiti is necessary to make sense of seemingly “weird” events that have unfolded in recent months.
In part 5 THE MILLIONAIRE KIDNAPPERS OF HAITI (9 min 53), we conclude this series, with a deeper look at why Millionaires have been, time and again, identified as the main culprits masterminding murderous kidnappings that are plaguing Haiti, while the country supposedly “benefits” a disastrous UN Peacekeeping mission (since 2004).
A critical analysis of the close ties established and nurtured between the US and allied foreign powers (Core Group) that effectively call the shots in Haitian politics since 2004, the 15 “white mafia families” who dominate Haiti’s import-export space (with private ports and all) and the PHTK (Michel Martelly) gang of kidnappers and narcotics dealers… is absolutely essential to make sense of real as well as suspected “fake kidnappings” that have been occurring incessantly and tragically in Haiti.
If you care about human rights, you will want to watch the full set of videos.
Please consult also the referenced article, here (English & Français).
*
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.
Imagine, there is the so-called COVID pandemic threatening the entire world with total societal and economic collapse, let alone all the collapses in between, like health, mental, nutritional cum famine – increasing misery and fear, fear, fear, tremendous fear, day in, day out.
People’s capacity of thinking straight is already drastically reduced by the useless mask-wearing – as you inhale CO2, rather than oxygen.
Now they are also after your children – which is the biggest crime of all… just imagine.
Obligatory useless mask wearing. The lack of oxygen flowing into their lungs and into their young developing systems, may reduce their IQ – capacity of independent thinking.
And now also “vaccinations” all the way down to 5-year-olds. In some countries even younger.
Already today, cardiac problems abound. Even in children. The experimental mRNA gene-therapy injection may cause acute myocardial injury and chronic damage to the cardiovascular system, leading in many cases to death, as has occurred in many cases in otherwise healthy children.
Ask yourself: Is this what the Gates, Rockefeller, Schwab, and their World Economic Forum (WEF) System want?
It meets their eugenics agenda of Depopulation.
Then comes Scenario Two
NATO threatening Russia over Ukraine. Russia drawing a red line – up to here and not an inch further, meaning “not an inch closer to the gates of Moscow”. NATO’s Stoltenberg stooge, of course, repeats what he has been told – NATO is doing what they think is right, and if they think arming Ukraine and making Ukraine a NATO member, this is none of Russia’s business. The frontiers become harder. Russia advances troops towards the Ukrainian borders, but does not invade. As Putin said, ared line is drawn.
Simultaneously, the Russian-Chinese alliance is strengthening and solidifying. You have an eastern powerhouse of two military giants, with China being also the world’s second largest economy, mind you, a largely de-dollarized economic power. That’s important to understand: US sanctions won’t hold, they are mere words blown in the wind, and a bit of propaganda for those who are misinformed and still believe in the might of the West.
The dollar has not only lost its luster, but is increasingly shunned by countries who dare to do so, because the US is every day more recognized as a failed state, as a declining empire, if ever it was one.
Now, imagine, these two scenarios, Covid versus NATO, confronting each other, the West knows, fully aware that that they, NATO, would stand not a chance against Russia and China, not on the huge Eurasian Continent, and not in the South China Sea.
Europe in the Middle
Why would they risk destroying each other? With Europe in the Middle.
Sounds like in the two previous World Wars – Europe in the Middle. Putin actually has said so, first targets would be Europe. Why? Because almost all of the 30-plus NATO military bases threatening Russia are in Europe.
Are the European leaders so brainless that they would want their countries destroyed for the third time in a little more than a century? – Sometimes one wonders. But overall, probably not.
UN Agenda 2030
So, then, what is more destructive, and not even localized, but worldwide and following a firm agenda, namely the UN Agenda 2030 – where no infrastructure is at stake, yet, human destruction is targeted and transfer and appropriation of real assets is the objective – as well as full digitization of money of assets and of human brains.
And – imagine! – no destruction of infrastructure!
All for full control of everything by a small elite. Control of money, control of disease, control of behavior and – yes – control of our human brains. Klaus Schwab, WEF, calls this process The Great Reset. That’s a plan that deserves more attention than the simulated, false war games around Russia and China.
This “plan” follows the ten-year UN Agenda 2030. It has been prepared for at least 70 years, if not longer, with simulations and trials, with events… all in the open, but we sleepwalking citizens have noticed anything.
What ought to be said at this point, is that our freedom that we cherish and that we claim is ours by Constitutional Rights and cannot be taken away – that we have Human Rights that are untouchable – yes, ideally. But let’s face it. None of these rights are cast in iron or stone. At best, they are written on paper.
Therefore, none of these rights can be taken for granted. Life and Mother Earth and all sentient beings of our planet and elsewhere in the universe are dynamic – dynamic beings, with dynamic non-predictable lives and movements.
If we let ourselves be absorbed by comfort and by senseless consumerism – and, thus, in particular the western world that already today consumes about 4 times more than Mother Earth produces, then we, humans have to be jolted back into reality. Otherwise, we are really doomed. Not because Klaus Schwab says so, but because Mother Nature, Mother Earth, needs to breathe again.
The sooner we wake up, the sooner we will be able to claim back our human rights, our civil rights and our sovereign freedoms. But they do not – and should not – come just because we believe they have been written into some Constitutions. No. We have screwed up, despite the many warning signals.
This, of course, does not mean – and it must be said again — that we should go the way projected by Klaus Schwab, at the end of the ten-year agenda, we all own nothing but are happy.
“What is envisaged under “the Great Reset” is a scenario whereby the global creditors will have appropriated by 2030 the World’s wealth, while impoverishing large sectors of the World Population”.
In 2030 “You’ll own nothing, And you’ll be happy.” (see video below)
Under Klaus Schwab’s scenario, we would also be totally brainless and vulnerable to electronic signals that manipulate and control us like they do for robots,
In fact we would become robo-humans, or as Schwab calls them “transhumans” (2016 interview with Swiss French TV, in the first 3 minutes of the Video below).
This is not all. What the WEF also has in store for us and mind you the WEF is just the executing apparatus, consisting of super rich and powerful players like Wall Street, politicians, Hollywood, and, yes, “scientists” that are famous and whose words bear weight, never mind “bought” weight of falsehood and fake science.
The WEF and its co-players and actors, IMF, World Bank, major regional development banks, WHO, the entire UN system – have been simulating what they call a “polygon” pandemic, meaning a total breakdown of the world’s electric / electronic system on which all our activities practically depend on.
Foremost, the “polygon” disruption would target supply chains, with focus on food supply and other necessary amenities, so that simple daily tasks and necessities, like getting food into our stomachs, would be disrupted. Nobody knows for how long. But probably long enough that famine would come to town, to all of us who have not been attentive with foresight in building-up food stocks of long-storables, such as grains, sugar, flower and so on.
In Klaus Schwab’s own words:
“A Frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyber-attack [that] could bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole. The COVID-19 crisis would be seen in this respect as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyberattack.”
The WEF Managing Director, Jeremy Jurgens, referring to “polygon”, says:
“I believe that there will be another crisis. It will be more significant. It will be faster than what we’ve seen with COVID. The impact will be greater, and as a result the economic and social implications will be even more significant.”
View the WEF Video: Cyber Attack With Covid-like Characteristics
Just imagine, what that might bring about?
Not only days, weeks, possibly months, without light, pitch dark nights – a thriving ambiance for thieves – but also days without electronics, without electronic communication we have grown so dependent of. Basically, without communication. Period. Because we have forgotten how to communicate, if not electronically.
Such a scenario, or different scenarios for different times, are planned.
They might cause further disaster, misery, famine, disease, death. It’s what “they” want. It’s an integral part of the infamous UN Agenda 2030. This may be a key reason why most countries have already clandestinely prepared their governments for martial law. Any people-power must be suppressed before it swells up.
So as to avoid these horror scenarios by WEF, Bill Gates, Rockefeller, Kissinger et al, we have to wake up and fight, not against the enemy, but for our own new life, our own new values, not those falsely invented hypes of climate change and green values. They are all part of what transforms us into useless and brainless gnomes that follow blindly a litany of lies dished out be the reigning financial elite.
We have to find our own new values. Back to the old normal is a no-no. That would mean back into the old consumption-driven comfort zone. That would be a failure.
We humans have to vibrate on a higher level on a level beyond hatred, beyond vengeance, on a level where we can see the light and only the light and a future that binds us in solidarity.
Now imagine – is it more realistic to speculate about a NATO invasion of Ukraine, provoking Russia’s Red Line, or even attacking Russia, and / or – God forgive – China? – Or shall we rather concentrate on defeating the western supremacy, driven, coerced, blackmailed and bought by the financial super-power – BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity – that manages a leverage supremacy of some 80 trillion-plus dollars, by switching our values away from traditional monetary values, towards human and life values and community economics – like solidarity, as in:
“local production for local markets, with local money and local communal and public banking with sovereign central banking….”.
And trading with like-minded societies building on comparative advantages – towards the real meaning of trade – namely a win-win situation for all partners.
And yes, we can do it, if we want to, and especially if we realize that sticking to our comfort zone rather than waking up to an uncomfortable reality, will simply put us deeper into slavehood, into the misery as predicted – of course not in so many words – by the Great Reset. We must take back our lies in environmentally and societally meaningful ways.
And now imagine, John Lennon’s song:
“Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people
Livin’ for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Livin’ life in peace
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
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.
Public-health messaging from the beginning of this pandemic has had very little to say about immunity acquired following infection. But for most people, it is a real and pressing concern, and not only because of the vaccine mandates that have little or no regard for it. People want to know whether once recovered they can be confident of not getting it again.
Must everyone live in fear forever or is there a basis for the recovered to live with confidence?
We have looked at the published evidence and can conclude based on the existing body of evidence, that reinfections are very rare, if at all and based on typically a few instances with questionable confirmation of an actual case of re-infection (references 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25).
Colson et al. did publish a very interesting paper on evidence of a SARS-CoV-2 re-infection with a different genotype. They sought to show that the same patient was infected in April, cleared the virus, seroconverted, but was “re-infected four months later with a new viral variant. The two infections reflect the circulating strains in Marseille at the same time. It is the most comprehensive study as it documented seroconversion following the first infection, showed drastically different viral genomes with 34 nucleotide differences, and ruled out errors of samples by techniques commonly used for forensic identifications.”
This study deserves serious reflection. If it is correct, we have at least one well documented case with a 4-month duration between infections.
However, A very recent study in Qatar (Lancet) found that “natural infection appears to elicit strong protection against reinfection with an efficacy ~95% for at least seven months”. Hall in Lancet reported same.
“The study in Austria also found that the frequency of re-infection from COVID-19 caused hospitalization in only five out of 14,840 (0.03%) people and death in one out of 14,840 (0.01%)”.
A very recent UK observational study by Lumley published in CID (July 2021) looked at the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and B.1.1.7 variant infection in healthcare workers by antibody and vaccination status. “Researchers analyzed records from Curative, a clinical laboratory based in San Dimas that specializes in COVID-19 testing and has during the pandemic been conducting routine workforce screening. None of the 254 employees who had COVID-19 and recovered became re-infected, while four of the 739 who were fully vaccinated contracted the disease…it should give confidence to people who have recovered that they are at very low risk for repeat infection and some experts including myself believe that protection is equal to vaccination”.
“Israel National News reports that this data was presented to the Israeli Health Ministry and yielded the following breakdown of breakthrough infections of those vaccinated vs. those with prior infection:
“With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.
“By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave…Irish researchers recently published a review of 11 cohort studies with over 600,000 total recovered COVID patients who were followed up with over 10 months. They found the reinfection rate to be just 0.27% “with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time”.
Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins wrote “reinfection is extremely rare and even when it does happen, the symptoms are very rare or [those individuals] are asymptomatic.”
Dr. Peter McCullough (personal communication June 27th 2021) advises:
“I have demanded that if any one proposes a recurrent case the following are fulfilled: 90 days between the two illnesses. The episodes have both cardinal signs and symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 testing with at least two or more concordant results (e.g. RT-PCR, antigen, sequencing). To my knowledge, this has never happened. On one of the occasions the first or second episode was simply a false positive PCR or ambiently positive antibody result with no clinical syndrome.”
Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Harvey Risch (July 18th 2021) have suggested as another model for consideration:
“People have suggested to require more than nominal PCR positivity and having signs/symptoms to establish reinfection. So, PCR Ct<25 in both instances, antibody tests confirming the infections, symptoms both times, and separated by more than 90 days are some considerations that people have suggested.”
Importantly, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently (May 10th 2021 Scientific brief, WHO/2019-nCoV/Sci_Brief/Natural_immunity/2021.1) alluded to what has been clear for many months (one year now), which is that people are very rarely re-infected. The WHO is very late but better late than never.
The key points they have stated in this briefing which stand out and warrants a mention (again we always knew this and tried informing the CDC and WHO of this across the last year) is that:
i) Within 4 weeks following infection, 90-99% of individuals infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus develop detectable neutralizing antibodies.
ii) Available scientific data suggests that in most people immune responses remain robust and protective against reinfection for at least 6-8 months after infection (the longest follow up with strong scientific evidence is currently approximately 8 months).
iii) Studies aimed to detect immunological memory including the assessment of cellular immunity by testing for the presence of memory B cells, and CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, observed robust immunity at 6 months post-infection in 95% of subjects under study, which included individuals with asymptomatic, mild, moderate and severe infections.
iv) Current evidence points to most individuals developing strong protective immune responses following natural infection with SARS-CoV-2.
A very recent discussion on mild COVID-19 inducing lasting antibody protection, was based on a publication in Nature. The research showed that people who have had mild illness develop antibody-producing cells that can last a lifetime.
“Months after recovering from mild cases of COVID-19, people still have immune cells in their body pumping out antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19, according to a study from researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Such cells could persist for a lifetime, churning out antibodies all the while”.
In terms of Omicron, we are not seeing data or evidence to conclude that natural immunity has been breached. In fact, we believe, unless we are shown otherwise, that natural immunity has indeed held and worked marvelously. Based on the reported symptoms and sequelae, it can be considered an immune “rechallenge” and not a bona fide reinfection.
Based on current evidence, natural immunity is doing its job and innate immunity and natural immunity are working hand-in-hand and Omicron shows us this. The role of innate immunity is to protect as the first line of defense and typically completes the task and especially in children and young persons.
Top immunology and virology experts argue that the more the variants are different from one another, the more trained innate immunity is responsible for cross-protection. Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche (personal communication December 29, 2021) explains that:
“The innate immunity and thus innate antibodies, get ‘trained’ and ‘learn’ with re-exposures. Innate Abs have broad coverage and the innate immune cells secreting those adapt to the different stimuli to which the host get exposed. Repeated exposure during a pandemic will, therefore, result in enhanced training of innate IgM-secreting B cells. This builds the basis for a broadly protective first line of immune defense that is able to deal with all kinds of different variants. This protection is likely to be the key pillar of protection, especially during a pandemic of continuously evolving more infectious variants.
In case of highly infectious variants (such as Omicron), the first line of immune defense (innate Abs) may not succeed in capturing all of the virions rapidly enough to prevent viral entry into the cell (as the latter occurs in a very effective way: that’s per definition the case with highly infectious variants). So, innate immunity is taking care of the peak of viral load. Hence, even in cases where the virus breaks through the innate immune defense, the course of the disease is mild as acquired, highly specific Abs arrive in time to abrogate the infection caused by that specific variant.”
We have to continue examining this issue and be open either direction. However the in toto evidence points to a rarity or suggests it is very limited, and potentially unlikely happening 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.
Dr Alexander holds a PhD. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. Dr Alexander is a former Assistant Professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine and research methods; former COVID Pandemic evidence-synthesis consultant advisor to WHO-PAHO Washington, DC (2020) and former senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services (HHS) Washington, DC (A Secretary), US government; worked/appointed in 2008 at WHO as a regional specialist/epidemiologist in Europe’s Regional office Denmark, worked for the government of Canada as an epidemiologist for 12 years, appointed as the Canadian in-field epidemiologist (2002-2004) as part of an international CIDA funded, Health Canada executed project on TB/HIV co-infection and MDR-TB control (involving India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Afghanistan, posted to Kathmandu); employed from 2017 to 2019 at Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Virginia USA as the evidence synthesis meta-analysis systematic review guideline development trainer; currently a COVID-19 consultant researcher in the US-C19 research group
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Since the October 25 coup by the military in the oil-rich state of Sudan, the democratic movement has held protests almost on a daily basis.
Interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, a technocrat with extensive ties to international finance capital, was overthrown during the late October putsch only to be reinstalled in a secret agreement with the Transitional Military Council (TMC) led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan which excluded the main opposition parties and mass formations which have guided the revolutionary movement since December of 2018.
Over the last three years, former longtime President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, was overthrown in an April 2019 coup led by the TMC which was designed to thwart a people’s takeover which would have inevitably involved a vanguard role for the Forces of Freedom and Change (FFC). The FFC grew out of an alliance with the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA), the Central Committee of Sudan Doctors, along with dozens of other opposition forces from various political spectrums including the Communist Party (SCP).
However, the massacre of demonstrators during June 2019 prompted a more engaged intervention by the African Union (AU) based in neighboring Ethiopia, where Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed sought to mediate the conflict. In several months the Sovereign Council was created ostensibly designed as a transitional body that within three years would result in a multi-party election creating a parliament and presidency through direct selection by the electorate.
However, the entire process has been derailed largely at the aegis of imperialist forces seeking to dominate the current and future situation inside the country. Under the previous administration of President Donald J. Trump, Prime Minister Hamdok was compelled to acknowledge the so-called “Abraham Accord” which is designed to expand the diplomatic recognition of the state of Israel in Africa and West Asia while undermining international solidarity with the Palestinian people. This measure has not been fully implemented diplomatically although there are reports of at least two exchanges of delegations between Khartoum and Tel Aviv.
These maneuvers by Washington and its allies have not pacified the FFC and other popular forces who have remained in the streets. Even the armed opposition groupings from the Darfur region of Sudan and the border areas of the now partitioned Republic of South Sudan, who signed on to the November 21 post-coup arrangements, are still within a highly precarious situation in their relationship with the military leadership.
The latest round of demonstrations could only be suppressed by the deployment of the police, paramilitary units and the army. At a December 24 public rally called by the FFC, unnamed individuals set off teargas in the crowd in the effort to disrupt the meeting.
December 25 was marked by renewed mass demonstrations demanding the immediate resignation of Hamdok and the military from the reigns of state power. Actions were held in the three major cities surrounding the capital of Khartoum, Khartoum North and the twin-city of Omdurman. Additional protests extended to the east of the country around Port Sudan where organizations have put forward their own unique set of demands for the military regime.
Sudan Tribune reported on the level of repression carried out by the security forces saying:
“The Sudanese government closed main streets leading to the Republican Place in Khartoum, shut down internet services, and deployed troops on the bridges linking the three towns of the capital Khartoum, Khartoum North and Omdurman. Five days after the last protests of December 19, the demonstrators again made their target the presidential palace which is the premises of the military-dominated Sovereign Council. In spite of the massive deployment of joint security forces including the police, the army and the Rapid Support Forces, the protesters marched towards the Palace chanting slogans to denounce the coup d’etat of Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan.”
What has been notable in the demonstrations for democratic transformation since 2018 is the high level of participation of women in the revolutionary movement. Many have moved to the front of the actions challenging the discrimination and marginalization prevalent in Sudanese society. These women have been met with harsh repression where sexual assault has been utilized has a means to driving women off the streets. These attempts to suppress women through brutal attacks have not worked and instead have prompted manifestations by women exposing the crimes being committed by the military and the entire security apparatus.
The same above-mentioned report by Sudan Tribune emphasizes:
“[W]omen participated in Saturday’s (Dec. 25) protest to show they were not intimated by the sexual violence and rape by the security forces on 19 December. The police used live ammunition and tear gas to disperse the protests in the streets near the Republican Palace. Nonetheless, they failed to stop the demonstrators. The security authorities in Khartoum on Friday (Dec. 24) announced the closure of the bridges and streets leading to the sovereign and strategic sites…. ‘The people are stronger, and it is impossible to go back,’ they also chanted to voice their determination to continue the protests that started immediately after the first hours of the coup on October 25.”
Sudan and Regional Stability in the Horn of Africa
Meanwhile in neighboring Ethiopia, the U.S. is attempting to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. The State Department and corporate media outlets based in the West have sought to create an atmosphere where the administration in Addis Ababa is considered brutal and illegitimate.
In line with this approach by Washington, the Sudanese military junta has sided with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) rebels fighting the elected government in Addis Ababa and other centers of authority throughout the Horn of Africa state. With the TPLF rebels in retreat, returning to their bases in the Tigray province by clearing out areas within the Afar and Amhara regions of the country, the Sudanese military regime is being placed in an even more unstable position.
Funding from the U.S., the Gulf Monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates along with Tel Aviv is contingent upon Gen. al-Burhan’s compliance with the imperatives of western imperialism. The mass democratic movement in Sudan, if it is to seize power, will inevitably be forced to shift the overall foreign policy of the country. Absent fundamental changes in domestic and foreign policies, the nation of Sudan will remain subject to the manipulation by the capitalist centers of the West and their surrogates throughout Africa and West Asia.
During mid-to-late December, numerous news articles have appeared suggesting that the reinstalled interim Prime Minister Hamdok is threatening to resign from his tenuous post as head of the second iteration of the Sovereign Council. If Hamdok leaves, which the U.S., UN and the Gulf Monarchies do not want to happen, the military will be weakened even further politically. The lack of a political underpinning for the TMC is causing the armed forces to utilize heightened levels of repression against the democratic movement.
Sudan and the International Situation
With the ascendancy of the current U.S. President Joe Biden in January 2021, the foreign policy of the State Department and the Pentagon has not shifted in its substance towards the African continent. The Trump administration sought to prop up the military regime in Sudan and the same approach continues under Biden.
As Trump was hostile towards the present government in Ethiopia, so is the Biden administration. The U.S. fears a genuinely revolutionary democratic Africa where the foreign policy of the post-independence states is based upon the interests of the majority of workers, farmers, youth and other popular strata within these developing countries.
After two decades of direct occupation of Afghanistan, the U.S. was forced to leave in humiliating defeat during August 2021. The military adventures in the West Asian and African states of Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen are facing a similar fate as to the outcome of Afghanistan in Central Asia. Trillions in U.S. currency has been spent on these occupations and proxy wars while the national infrastructure of the urban, suburban and rural areas is in rapid decline.
Of course, the failure of imperialist war is paid for by the workers and oppressed in the U.S. struggling against rising impoverishment, racist bigotry, national oppression, gender discrimination, environmental degradation, among other social ills. Consequently, the antiwar and anti-imperialist struggle is essential in the efforts to overturn capitalist exploitation and national oppression.
*
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 frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Sudan women demonstrate for revolutionary democracy (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The last days of December 2021 were marked, on the one hand, by the scheduling of a summit between Moscow and NATO to discuss the Ukrainian issue, and, on the other, by a statement by the Ukrainian ambassador in Washington, alleging that her country has a plan B for dealing with Russia, suggesting a possible military confrontation. In fact, these two events explain in short what was the Russian-Ukrainian issue in 2021: NATO spreading rumors of invasion but willing to negotiate, while Ukraine takes such rumors as absolute truth and plans a war it obviously could not win.
2021 presented a series of moves in the Ukrainian issue. Indeed, since the height of the crisis at the border, between 2014 and 2015, perhaps this year’s tensions have been the most significant. The West has endorsed the narrative of an alleged Russian invasion plan like never before. From January to December, Washington spread in the western media rumors of a Russian interest in attacking Ukraine, presenting as “evidence” only inconclusive data with no scientific validity.
As a result, the Ukrainian government has reached incalculable levels in its anti-Russian paranoia, tightening its policies of ethnic persecution. Terrorist attacks, mass executions, torture, assaults and kidnappings reached a new height in the Donbass region. In Crimea Ukrainian forces have constantly tried to boycott the Russian presence through sabotage. The situation reached unacceptable levels and led Moscow to seek a judicial solution to the topic.
In August, the Russian government filed a lawsuit at the European Court of Human Rights, with the aim of seeking legal punishment for Kiev due to its crimes against the fundamental rights of the Russian population in its territory. A number of irrefutable evidence of the veracity of the allegations, including testimonies and images of crimes committed by Kiev’s official forces against Russian-speaking citizens, was attached to the court case. However, so far no change has occurred in the status of the case and, unfortunately, it is unlikely that there is actually a legal solution, considering that the European Court is largely influenced by the EU’s pro-Western mentality – which includes an anti-Russian geopolitical stance.
In the military sphere, the situation has also deteriorated a lot over the year, with Ukraine allowing NATO military maneuvers at increasingly aggressive levels. Not only did annual exercises such as Defender Europe take place, but there were also several extraordinary drills involving NATO forces and the Ukrainian military. Russia obviously felt threatened by the escalation of maneuvers in its strategic environment, which in many occasions resulted in some troop movements within the Russian territory, in order to maintain readiness for any emergency case. Ironically, the West reacted to each Russian maneuver as further “evidence” of the alleged invasion plans against Ukraine.
It is also necessary to remember that new pro-Western agents started to play a destabilizing role in the Ukrainian crisis this year, mainly UK and Turkey. The UK has sought to develop a post-Brexit geopolitical strategy and has been committed to an automatic alignment with the US, investing in greater participation in NATO’s main conflict zones. Ankara, in turn, has an interest in weakening Moscow as much as possible in order to lessen the country’s international influence over the post-Soviet Central Asian space, which is encompassed by Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman geopolitics. Although Turkey has no direct interests in Ukraine, any form of destabilization of Russia looks interesting to Ankara, which explains its recent sending of arms and money to Kiev.
However, no aspect of the Ukrainian topic was more striking this year than the gradual distance between the West and Kiev. The constant corruption scandals in the Ukrainian political scenario – especially aggravated by the Hunter Biden case – have started to generate suspicion in the Western public opinion about the destination of American and European taxpayers’ money when their governments send large amounts to Kiev. As a result, an atmosphere of tension began to emerge between NATO and Ukraine. Zelensky tried to remedy the situation in his talks with Biden, but the situation seems widespread among Western governments.
Obviously, this western “tiredness” towards Ukraine has not resulted in any misalignment. NATO continues to use Kiev as a destabilization tool against Russia, but a less aggressive stance has been witnessed. Biden talked about the Ukrainian issue with Putin and now there is a summit between Moscow and NATO scheduled for the next year. For the western alliance, solving the Ukrainian case by peaceful means has gradually become an interesting possibility, considering that Kiev is acting in a truly irrational way, planning a military confrontation against Russia – which NATO obviously wants to avoid. In the current situation, sending money and weapons to the Ukrainians has become an attitude less and less strategic, motivating the Western interest in dialoguing with Russia and ignoring Kiev.
The current scenario is complex, opening the door to several possibilities in the coming months. Throughout 2021, NATO spread rumors of a Russian invasion to increase instability in Eastern Europe, but the situation got out of control as Kiev adopted the narrative as a dogma (while NATO’s great leaders know it is fake news). Now, Kiev seems to want a war and NATO wants dialogue. This became fully apparent in the events of December – the summit schedule for January and the Ukrainian speech about a “plan B”.
The most curious thing about this case is that Kiev, which is obviously militarily weaker than Moscow, only feels safe to consider a war with Russia because it believes that NATO would intervene in a possible conflict scenario. But, of course, this would never happen. Currently, there is no unity of thought in NATO. The organization is polarized and its members constantly abandon each other, just as happened in Afghanistan. Certainly, NATO would not intervene to help Ukraine, considering that Kiev is not even part of the alliance and that such conflict could escalate to the nuclear level – something that is not in the interest of any state. The problem is that Kiev still does not understand this.
The confidence in a NATO aid in the event of war allows Kiev to act as aggressively as possible against Russia. The Ukrainian government intensifies ethnic persecution day after day and this is reaching intolerable levels for Moscow. In fact, the Russian strategy for the Donbass has been so far based on non-intervention and the search for a peaceful solution. The Russian government filed the lawsuit at the European Court and has acted as an observer of the Minsk Accords – which are constantly violated by Kiev – but refuses to intervene militarily in the region, fearing a possible war in Eastern Europe and the consequent unnecessary death of thousands of people.
Moscow, wants Kiev to fulfill the Minsk Accords, respect the Russian population. However, if Kiev continues to constantly promote aggressive incursions into the Donbass, perpetrating crimes against humanity and making the situation unsustainable, it is possible that in the near future Moscow will change its strategy and begin to consider a possible intervention – a situation in which there would certainly be no Western help, resulting in the defeat of the Ukrainian forces. Kiev does not seem to understand this reality.
In fact, the Ukrainian situation seems to have deteriorated significantly in every way possible. Kiev has taken autonomous steps to push forward its war plans against Russia, even without NATO authorization. For example, the Ukrainian parliament recently passed a law to facilitate the citizenship acquisition process for mercenaries and foreign militants who fought on Kiev’s side in the Donbass civil war. Clearly, the country has an interest in strengthening its military and paramilitary forces (such as neo-Nazi militias that support the government) in the short term – which appears to be an urgent measure in the face of an imminent conflict.
Luckily for the Ukrainians, the Russians do not want war and will continue to try to resolve the situation peacefully in the short term – even though the possibility of a change in strategy becomes more and more viable. What Kiev should do is to pay attention to how it has been constantly used by the West and abandon the role of destabilizing agent, focusing on promoting internal improvements such as fighting corruption and establishing a proper economic project – in addition to a policy of respect for human rights and international agreements. This would be the best scenario for all sides.
Something that can be said about Ukraine this year is that tensions and conflicts in the Russian Western border have returned to the center of world geopolitics. Currently, the Ukrainian-Russian crisis is the thermometer of global geopolitics and any change in the region could have catastrophic effects worldwide. The year ends inconclusive but hopeful. The Moscow-NATO summit could be the key to starting an era of stability, even though Kiev is boycotting the event.
So, anything is possible for 2022, but one thing seems inevitable: either Ukraine will abdicate its unrealistic war plans, or the situation will soon become insupportable for Kiev, which would have no foreign support in the face of a possible Russian reaction.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
We need to know why MI5 and MI6 appear to have placed their involvement in power struggles in Libya, and Britain’s commercial interests there, above those of the safety of its own citizens.
After thanking those who tried to save eight year-old Saffie-Rose Roussos, the youngest of those murdered at the Manchester Arena in May 2017, her mother told the inquiry into the atrocity: “I also want to say to the professionals and MI5, this inquiry isn’t about protecting your job, your reputation, or your uniform.”
Officers from MI5 had just spent three weeks giving evidence to the inquiry in secret.
The security and intelligence agencies have serious questions to answer. Of all the mistakes and intelligence failings behind the deadly terrorist attacks over the last few years the one where the agencies have most to hide is the Manchester suicide bombing.
Salman Abedi killed 22 people and maimed 139 others, half of them children, attending the Ariana Grande concert.
He had recently travelled to Libya, and was allowed back into Britain just days before his attack.
He had been watched by MI5 for many years, part of a Manchester community of Libyans which had sought refuge from dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Many had become increasingly indoctrinated by extremist ideology and engaged in fundraising for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).
Enemies, then friends
The British government subjected some of the Libyans in Manchester to control orders and their passports were confiscated.
But the Libyan ruler was then Britain’s enemy as well as the enemy of the Libyan exiles. He was the Lockerbie bomber, the supplier of arms to the IRA, and killer of the policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher.
Both MI5 and MI6 were keen to know who Gaddafi’s opponents were. MI6 took a keen interest in those Libyan dissidents, who were behind an attempted coup against Gaddafi in 1996.
Later, in 2003, Gaddafi suddenly became Britain’s friend – he had paid compensation to the victims of the Lockerbie bombing and Fletcher’s family and agreed to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programme.
Lucrative gas and oil contracts beckoned as the following year then prime minister Tony Blair met Gaddafi for what became known as the “Deal in the Desert”.
So determined was the Blair government to impress its new friend that MI6 and MI5 offered up Gaddafi’s Islamist opponents who were living in Britain, or had lived there, to the Libyan secret police.
They included Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a founder of the LIFG who with his wife was rendered to Libya’s capital, Tripoli, in a joint MI6-CIA operation. They were incarcerated and tortured.
MI5 gave Gaddafi’s intelligence officials lists of Libyans living in Britain for use in Belhaj’s interrogations. (After seven years of denial, the government in 2018 finally apologised to Belhaj and admitted Britain’s role in the abductions.)
Friend, then enemy
In 2011 – the year of the “Arab Spring” – Gaddafi went from being a close British ally to its enemy again, after threatening to crush protestors in the Libyan town of Benghazi.
David Cameron, enthusiastically backed by French president Nicholas Sarkozy, launched air strikes against Libya with the aim of toppling Gaddafi. The Libyan exiles in Britain, many of them suspected terrorists, were now allies once again.
The control orders imposed on them were lifted and their passports returned. Abedi and other Libyans in Britain were free to travel to Libya and join militant Islamic militias which seized power after Gaddafi was killed.
The new alliance between the militants and the British government and its security and intelligence agencies – MI5 and MI6 – would help to explain why Salman Abedi could fly back to Manchester days before his suicide attack despite previous suspicions they harboured about him.
“The public, and the bereaved families in particular, deserve answers”
We do not know how the British government’s shifting relations with the Gaddafi regime influenced MI5 and MI6’s approach to the Libyan extremists in Manchester. The public, and the bereaved families in particular, deserve an answer.
Salman Abedi had first come across MI5’s radar in 2010 but the Manchester bombing inquiry was told there was “nothing to suggest” then he was a risk to national security. He became a “subject of interest” to MI5 in 2014 but his file was closed five months later, in July 2014, based on a “lack of engagement” with extremists.
From 2013 to 2017, Abedi was in contact with three men, all separate subjects of interest – one suspected of planning travel to Syria, one with links to Al Qaeda, and the third with links to extremists in Libya.
And between April 2016 and April 2017, a month before the attack, he had contact with three more subjects of interest, all with suspected links to the Islamic State terror group.
Witness J
A senior MI5 officer known to the inquiry only as Witness J was asked about two prison visits by Abedi to convicted terrorist Abdalraouf Abdallah. The second visit was in January 2017, shortly before he began planning his terror attack.
The inquiry was also told that Abedi’s name came up as a “priority indicator” during a “data-washing exercise” within a small number of former subjects of interest worthy of further consideration. A meeting to consider the results of the exercise was planned for 31 May 2017, nine days after the bombing.
In August 2020, Hashem Abedi, Salman’s brother, was jailed for a minimum of 55 years for helping to plan the Manchester attack. Hashem had travelled to Libya before the bombing. He was arrested shortly after the attack and extradited to Britain to face trial.
The inquiry has been shown pictures of Salman Abedi and his brothers brandishing guns in Libya.
Kim Harrison, counsel for some of the bereaved families, said they pleaded to MI5 to cooperate with and answer those questions “in an open and constructive and non-defensive manner”. Witness J admitted to the inquiry that making different decisions “could have stopped the plot”.
In a heavily-redacted report in 2018 the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee said it was “highly surprising” that Salman Abedi “was not, at any point, subject to any form of travel monitoring or travel disruption.”
It added that “it appears highly likely that Salman and Hashem’s extremist views were influenced by their father Ramadan Abedi and fostered by other members of their immediate family”.
It also concluded that Salman should have been referred to the government’s counter-extremist Prevent programme.
We need to know why MI5 and MI6 dropped their guard and appear to have placed power struggles in Libya and the UK’s commercial interests there above those of the safety of British citizens.
*
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.
Richard Norton Taylor is a British editor, journalist and playwright, and the doyen of British national security reporting. He wrote for the Guardian on defence and security matters and was the newspaper’s security editor for three decades.
All images in this article are from Declassified UK
Since 2020, the number of military interventions in African politics has accelerated.
.
However, what is often overlooked is the role of western governments and their military institutions in the deliberate undermining of national and regional stability.
.
The North African state of Libya is a prime example of the devastating impact of the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the State Department and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) under the direction of Washington when a decade ago the oil-rich state was destroyed. This imperialist project was the first full operation of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) founded three years earlier in 2008.
.
Today Libya remains mired in chaos failing on at least three occasions to establish a United Nations brokered functional government of national unity and to stem the persistent internecine warfare in the country. On December 24 elections were scheduled to take place. Nevertheless, the elections could not occur as a result of the incapacity of the elites to establish a coherent political system based on the interests of the majority of people within the society.
.
Under the Jamahiriya political dispensation headed by the late Col. Muammar Gaddafi, Libya had become the most prosperous state within the African Union (AU). The state was a bulwark of support for national liberation movements and social justice causes across Africa and the world.
.
Over the course of the last decade, Libya has become a source of conflict and instability throughout North and West Africa. Human trafficking has endangered lives of nationals and millions of migrants funneled through the country enroute to the Mediterranean and the European continent.
.
When looking at the current security situation in Mali, the origins of the present crisis beginning in 2012, can be traced to the Pentagon-NATO mission in Libya. The rebel groups which were recruited, paid, armed, coordinated and promoted by the imperialists had no consistent ideological orientation that could lead to the creation of a modern political state.
.
The rebel insurgencies in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and other states in the West Africa region follow a similar pattern. The focus of these armed groupings has been to create insecurity and destroy whatever development which exists.
.
Mali opposition parties and mass organizations were dissatisfied with the role of the former President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita for several months in the aftermath of a disputed parliamentary election. The AU immediately attempted to intervene after the coup to encourage the restoration of civilian rule. An interim administration was established with the aims of transitioning to multi-party elections in the near future.
.
Problems involving the interim arrangements resulted in yet another coup in ten months. Col. Assimi Goita, the leader of both the 2020 and 2021 coups was trained in Pentagon war colleges in the U.S. The U.S. has groomed military figures such as Goita along with Col. Mamady Doumbouya, providing an explanation as to possibly why the AU has not been able to dislodge either of these men from state power.
.
Col. Doumbouya, as has Col. Goita, openly defied the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which had imposed sanctions in conjunction with the AU. Both military leaders are able to hold on to power while allowing transnational corporations to continue their exploitation of African land and resources.
.
The Federal Republic of Nigeria, the most populous state on the African continent, has proven incapable of resolving the Boko Haram insurgency in the north of the country since 2009. Current President Muhammadu Buhari, a career military official, ran for office in 2015 saying under his leadership Boko Haram would be defeated in six months.
.
Not only has Boko Haram continued to terrorize the people of the northeast it has spread to other contiguous states in the region such Chad, Cameroon and Niger. The group under the guise of radical Islam, has engaged in kidnappings, extortion, murder and sexual assault of children. The inability of the federal government to end the insurgency has created an atmosphere of greater insecurity in other regions including the northwest, central and south.
.
During 2021, Buhari was quoted as requesting the relocation of AFRICOM headquarters from Stuttgart, Germany to Nigeria. Such statements illustrate the lack of a strategic outlook among the current leadership of Nigeria with its more than 200 million people. What people should tell Buhari and other African leaders who believe that a greater Pentagon presence will translate into higher levels of national security, is that quite the opposite is true.
.
Since the advent of AFRICOM the security situation within the AU region has worsened. Until Africa can initiate its own independent military system to maintain security in the face of constant imperialist destabilization and exploitation, the overall development of the continent will remain stifled.
.
Horn of Africa and the Strategic Interests of Imperialism
.
The conflicts in Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia are all related to a similar effort to determine the economic future of these important states. Ethiopia is considered by many contemporary historians as the cradle of human civilization. Sudan has a history that is just as ancient and pivotal as Ethiopia. Somalia as well, with its location on the Indian Ocean and in close proximity to the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Peninsula, is coveted by Washington and Wall Street.
.
All of these states have natural resources which are important within the world economic system dominated by capitalism and imperialism. Sudan has enormous petroleum and other energy deposits along with Somalia. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project (GERD) provides the potential for a major enhancement of hydro-electric capacity in the East and North African regions.
.
U.S. machinations in Ethiopia have drawn the attention of many Africans within the continent and internationally. In many cities in the U.S. and around the world the #NoMore movement has gained recognition. Within the Ethiopian media there are numerous references daily to the need for unity against the hegemonic efforts of Washington. The rebel Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) is being groomed by Washington once again to take over the government in Addis Ababa. The sanctions imposed by President Joe Biden are a continuation of the misguided foreign policy by the U.S. against Africa and its people. With the defeat of the latest rebel advances in Ethiopia, the administration of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has won respect among African people and genuine anti-imperialists around the globe.
.
A beleaguered Transitional Military Council (TMC) leadership in the Republic of Sudan are approaching the point of being further exposed for its inextricable links to imperialism. The democratic movement in Sudan is central to the overall crisis in the Horn of Africa. Egypt, which is the second largest recipient of aid from Washington, next to the State of Israel, is working feverishly to undermine the transformational process in Sudan and Ethiopia. Following its lead from Washington, Cairo has politicized the negotiations with the Abiy government over the filling of the GERD project. Sudan is being swayed due to the political orientation and economic vulnerability of the military junta.
.
Egypt wants to secure a permanent role for the western-backed military interests in Sudan. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi was a military official who retired from the army to run for head-of-state after overthrowing a civilian administration in 2013. The U.S. cannot afford a politically independent government in Egypt, which is a gateway to the rest of Africa, West Asia and Southern Europe.
.
Pan-Africanism Becomes Critical to the Discussions Around Security
.
Pan-Africanism is being demonstrated to a new generation of Africans. The only solution to the security crisis in Africa is unification.
.
The masses in Sudan and Ethiopia have pointed towards a new direction in political organizing and resistance to imperialism. Biden’s foreign policy in the Horn of Africa has incentivized the unity among Ethiopians, Eritreans and other peoples from around the continent. Any talks related to achieving stability in the Horn of Africa, West Africa and other regions must consider the destabilizing effect of imperialist militarism. Through the purported military training of the armed forces, to the supply of weapons and techniques of warfare, the U.S., France, Britain, the European Union (EU) and NATO have deeply penetrated the structures of the post-colonial African state.
.
During the coup in Conakry in May 2021, the presence of AFRICOM troops were strongly in evidence. These military leaders could not act with this degree of impunity absent of the full backing of transnational corporations, international finance capital and their security apparatuses. Stability and security will only be realized once the resources, land and labor of African people are retaken and used for the benefit of the majority.
.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
This was the Christmas my young daughter finally cornered me into admitting that Father Christmas doesn’t exist. I felt a small pang of regret that she had taken another step towards graduating into the less colourful world of adulthood, but also a larger sense of relief that I could now stop lying to her. What a few years ago seemed like harmless collusion in a fable to sprinkle a little extra magic on Christmas had over the years become a burdensome deception that seemed a violation of the trust between a parent and child.
Worse, as my daughter had grown older, the content of the lie had become more obviously poisonous – and not only because a childhood spent venerating Father Christmas likely serves as one of the pillars of the continuing patriarchy.
The degree to which to the Christmas story reinforces our understanding of how society should be organised – and at a time before we can think critically – was driven home to me by a new Netflix and Sky joint film production I watched with my family on Christmas Day.
A Boy Called Christmas is the origin story for Father Christmas, explaining how a peasant boy called Nicholas living in a gloomy winter kingdom eventually brought joy to young children around the globe.
By fleshing out a magical realist backstory for Father Christmas, the movie brings into unusually sharp focus how the ideas at the heart of Christmas condition young minds to think in damaging ways about how power should operate in our societies. We have a mysterious authoritarian figure who wills only the best for us. He shapes our world in ways that are not, and should not be, open to scrutiny. His authority must be accepted and trusted. Good behaviour – in the sense of obedience and compliance – is rewarded. And those rewards, conflated with love, are measured in strictly material terms. Consumption is not only good, it is love.
Politics of deception
But A Boy Called Christmas goes one step further than this. It also celebrates to a quite alarming degree – at least, if you are not too seduced by its humour and enchanting story line to notice – the ideological corruption not only of Father Christmas’ world but of ours too. It glorifies the politics of deception, of class war, of a naked, brutal capitalism that has successfully subverted the struggle for justice and equality. And in achieving all this through the wonder of Christmas, it underscores how powerful this type of propaganda is, even for adults.
One early, critical scene actually unmasks the film’s ugly politics and its telling relevance to our own times, even if it does so inadvertently.
The kindly king calls together some of his bravest peasants, including Nicholas and his father, for a meeting at his castle. He observes that life in the kingdom has become cheerless and drab, and asks – in what amounts to a dangerous political miscalculation – what they believe they need for a better life. He gives his destitute subjects a voice for the very first time.
Stunned by the idea that they can express an opinion, the peasants hesitate. Then the revolutionary potential of the moment dawns on them. One calls out “A living wage!” Another cries “Healthcare!”. Yet another demands “Union representation!”.
In the film, this pivotal moment is played for laughs, with the king hurriedly deflecting his subjects from the revolutionary socialism he has accidentally unleashed. But the king’s desperate response momentarily breaks the fourth wall. Even if only for a moment, it is difficult not to see the parallels with our own, supposedly democratic systems. The king shuts down the dialogue he has initiated, dismissing the peasants’ demands. Then with all the weighty gravitas of a Barack Obama in his presidential heyday, the king tells them what they really need: “Hope!”
Hope. Formless, contentless, cost-free hope. The king rams “hope” into their mouths to silence them like a parent sticks a pacifier into a baby’s mouth to stop it crying for attention. His “hope” depoliticises the moment. Like the Holy Grail, “hope” keeps us on a permanent quest – one never realised – for fulfilment, for justice, for a better world. It is the horizon we never reach. Hope is what every leader in a corrupt system offers his subjects instead of rights or equality.
So the king sends the bravest peasants on a mission to find “hope”. He has no idea where “hope” can be found or what it might look like. But find it they must, even if they die trying.
Exploited workers
In response, Nicholas defies his father and goes on a dangerous journey to locate a fabled elf city renowned for the joyful inhabitants who supposedly live there. If “hope” can be found anywhere, Nicholas concludes, it is in Elfhelm. But when Nicholas stumbles on the elf city, he discovers a dark, miserable place. Recent abusive encounters with humans have made the elves fearful of outsiders. They have elected an authoritarian leader to protect them from the human enemy.
To cut a long story short, Nicholas turns things around by saving an elf child. The elves not only accept him as one of their own but take him in as their leader. Nicholas helps the elves rediscover their joy and encourages them to return to making the toys that keep them entertained.
And everyone lives happily ever after. Or so the film suggests. The elves agree to become Nicholas’ exploited workers, producing toys through the year for Father Christmas to export to the rest of the world. Nicholas returns with a large bag of toys to show the king that he has indeed found “hope”. In a critical marketing exercise, Nicholas takes the kindly king on his flying reindeer to see whether the children of the kingdom’s peasants are lifted a little out of their misery by the magic of a Christmas present. Once the king is reassured that a spinning top or cuddly toy will be effective at preventing his peasants from rising up to demand a living wage and healthcare, he awards Nicholas an annual contract to distribute toys to the kingdom every Christmas Day.
Dangerous propaganda
What’s most alarming about A Boy Called Christmas is the extent to which it reminds us of how in thrall we are to capitalism – even when we understand how brutal a system it truly is. I found myself celebrating this tale of greed and exploitation, of consumption and class war, even as, at a cerebral level, its message appalled me. A Boy Called Christmas bypassed my critical faculties to appeal to my heart – I cheered on the enslavement of the elves, I warmed to the bumbling, despotic king and I approved of the beatification of Nicholas, capitalism’s first and iconic entrepreneur.
A Boy Called Christmas had wrapped up “hope” as a glitzy small present for me just as deceitfully as the king had packaged “hope” for his own subjects.
In other words, the film worked supremely as propaganda, even as I recognised how dangerous that propaganda was. It managed to place another brick in the wall that has been imprisoning my mind for decades.
If it achieved this much with me – as someone opposed to the politics it lauds, as someone who prizes critical thinking, as someone unable to avert my gaze from its subtext – what, I wondered, had it done to my young daughter watching alongside me. She still inhabits the fuzzy realm between childhood’s magical thinking and the superficial rationality of adulthood. The wall around her mind is only half-built, but she will soon be a happy prisoner – as readily, it seems, as I am one.
A Boy Called Christmas left me even more certain I should never have colluded in the deception called Father Christmas. But it also emphasised to me how difficult it is to avoid capitalism’s sophisticated propaganda machine. Its corrupting influence touches almost everything we consider entertainment – even a simple, heartwarming children’s fable.
Bah humbug to you 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.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Since most members make a goodbye email before they leave, I figured I should as well, despite the “special” circumstances around my departure. Anyways, my time here in the RCMP is up. For now. The low T wannabe tyrants in Ottawa have decided that I can no longer serve as a police officer because I refuse to tell them if I have submitted to their “vaccine” edict.
I’ve served in the RCMP for 21 years and one of the first things I said to any person I ever arrested was “you don’t have to say anything to me.”
Unfortunately, our government has told me that I have to tell them what’s in my body, and if the right drug is not inside me, I have to get it as condition of my continuing employment, human rights be damned. Why did I put vaccine in quotations above you ask? More on that later. Buckle up and tighten the straps on your government mandated shame muzzle, this goodbye email will likely ruffle some feathers.
My journey to this point of our dystopian, medical, apartheid state started like many of yours. Watching the television almost 2 years ago as reports started coming in of some strange virus out of Wuhan. I was a little concerned, but not much. You see, for the last 10 years of my life I had spent a lot of time as an amateur researcher of history and learned to my dismay that the official narrative of most events is usually a little suspect at best. Like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or the January 6th “insurrection” in D.C., the examples are sadly numerous.
I’ve also always been a very independent person. Following the herd has never appealed to me. When a belief is put forth to me I always evaluate it for myself and don’t simply accept it’s veracity based on the authority behind it. For example, during the last Federal Government census, I could not help but notice that the gender section had 3 boxes. Male, Female and other, which was a blank box. For real, the Federal Government of Canada allowed you to make up your own gender on the last official census. I found this to be a combination of amusing and insane. Feeling particularly bull headed and cheeky at the time, I naturally chose Minotaur as my gender. Yes, that’s right, on the Canadian government census my gender is that of a mythical giant man with the head of a bull.
So back to my Covid journey. I was skeptical of the pandemic from the start but decided to wait and see what evidence would surface of this dangerous pandemic. So I sat back and quietly observed. At that time, and still at the time I’m writing this, I was the admin NCO on the watch. I was in the unique position of seeing every file that came through PRIME in the 46 hour window I was at work each week. Naturally, this included all sudden death files. Pay attention now, have another sip of your latte if you have to. Since the pandemic began, until now, I was in a position to see every single sudden death file that came through our detachment area. What did I notice in this position? Nothing. No upwards trend whatsoever. Funny enough, I didn’t see people dropping dead in my neighbourhood either.
This was a very stark contrast to what I saw in media.
A non-stop chorus on TV, radio, and internet, of case counts, hospitalizations and deaths. At no time in my life had I seen anything like it. A complete disconnect between my observed reality and that which was portrayed by my government and the government subsidized mainstream media.
And they were reporting deaths in care homes. Care homes? When did the media ever report deaths in care homes unless it was some sort of instance of gross negligence? It’s called end of life care for a reason. People go to care homes at the end of their life. Death is the natural consequence, and this fact used to be understood as common sense.
When the statistics started showing that the vast majority of anyone dying from Covid, either had one or more co-morbidities, or was older than the average life expectancy, my skepticism of the pandemic narrative only grew. Then in the summer of 2020, I got Covid. For a few days I was really tired and shivered a lot. Then it was over. I survived the “deadly” disease like the vast majority of anyone else who caught it. To be honest, I’ve had worse plus, and worse hangovers.
At the end of 2020 I became convinced we were all being force fed a giant load of absolute bullshit. Don’t believe me? Look at world population statistics. Here’s a sample. At the end of 2018, the world population was 7,631,091,040 and that year 57,625,149 people died. This showed an overall death rate of .76%. I know some of you are shocked by this, but yes, 57 million people died of all types of causes in 2018. When you reach the end of your life, you die. At the end of 2019, the world population was 7,713,468,100 and 58,394,378 died. Naturally, because we had more people reaching the end of their lives, more people died. The death rate that year was .76%. Now let’s see what 2020 brought us. The year of the pandemic. At the end of 2020, the world population was 7,794,798,739 and 59,230,795 died. The death rate was .76%. Yes. That’s right. In the year of the deadly pandemic the world’s population grew by 81,330,639 people and the death rate did not change by even a hundredth of a percent. The media never once pulled back the lens to show this, they continued to show the narrow focus of case counts and Covid deaths. Even going so far as to change causes of death so that someone who died “with” Covid in their system was counted as someone who died “of” Covid. The Western world shut down over a disease about as deadly as the common flu. And our rights were shut down along with it.
Despite this disease having a non existant effect on the overall death rate of the world’s population the call came out for a mass vaccination. Since I was already skeptical of the pandemic, I was naturally skeptical of the need for a “vaccine”. Oh look, vaccine is in quotations again. Why am I doing that?
Because it’s not a f^#king vaccine!!!
A vaccine is created when a virus from nature is made harmless in a lab and then cultivated there. The vaccine, created from the neutered virus, is then injected into a person. The body then reacts to the vaccine just like it would to the unaltered, dangerous virus. However, because the vaccine is a modified harmless version of the virus, it doesn’t cause disease and the body’s natural immunity is able to “learn” how to cope with the virus. This “learning” is lifelong and is why people develop an immunity to whatever they were inoculated against. People who have been vaccinated against Measles do not get Measles, and the same with mumps etc etc. None of the so called Covid “vaccines” meet this definition. If you were wondering why “vaccinated” people are still getting Covid, and spreading it, this is why. The fact that “vaccinated” people still get Covid and spread it should tell you that this madness will never end as long as you buy into the official narrative.
How these new Covid “vaccines” work is based on a brand new technology never used on a massive scale. Particularly in regards to the 2 “vaccines” most heavily promoted, Moderna and Pfizer. These drugs use artificial Mrna technology. Think of Mrna as the software of our bodies. The operating instructions. Pfizer and Moderna use artificial Mrna based on a computer algorithm. These instructions are encapsulated in something called a nano lipid. A nano lipid is a tiny envelope of fat. There are trillions of these nano lipids in the Pfizer and Moderna shots. Once injected they circulate through your body through your body’s lymphatic system.
Upon the nano lipids dissolving, your body receives new instructions for its immune system. These instructions tell your immune system to make spike proteins which resemble the spike proteins of the Covid virus. This is the key distinction you need to be aware of. Your body is being instructed to make the very pathogen that your immune system builds a defense against. This is completely uncharted territory and nothing like this has ever been done on the human population on such a large scale. The drug companies themselves have admitted they don’t know the long term side effects. When a recent FOIA request was sent to the FDA in the US, requesting the safety data they had on the Pfizer vaccine, the FDA asked a judge for 75 years to comply with the request. Nothing sketchy there.
To make matters worse. Every single Western nation has passed legislation shielding these drug companies from civil liability, if their vaccines harm people. While this legislation was passed years ago, it still applies to the Covid “vaccines.” You heard right. If the Moderna Covid “vaccine” harms you, you cannot sue Moderna. Same with every other drug company that makes any vaccine, Covid “vaccine” or not. They all have civil liability immunity for the vaccines they manufacture. Vaccine injury compensation has been paid out in the US under a tax funded program called the vaccine injury compensation fund, not as a remedy through civil lawsuits. Established in 1986, this fund has paid out $4.4 billion in claims. In Canada, we had no such vaccine injury fund until June of 2021. Hand on chin emoji goes here.
Make no mistake here. This is a large scale drug trial and whoever was jabbed is taking part. Having educated myself about these new drugs I was very skeptical when they started promoting them. Additionally, nearly all the drug companies making Covid “vaccines” have a very checkered history in quality control and ethics. J and J has payed 9 billion in settlements throughout it’s lifetime and Pfizer has payed $4.6 billion. Not for their vaccines of course, for their other pharmaceuticals. Moderna was founded in 2010 and their Covid “vaccine” is the first product they have ever put on the market. Information has since come to light that the Moderna “vaccine” was finishing in development in December of 2019, immediately before the pandemic hit. It’s almost like they were anticipating something. Do I dare put my hand on my chin and gaze thoughtfully upwards a second time?
As I was already skeptical about the entire pandemic narrative, I decided a long time ago that I was not going to take any of these “vaccines”. So as I had decided to sit back and watch how the so called pandemic unfolded, I decided to observe the vaccination campaign. One of the first things I noticed is that people like me were completely ignored and never talked about. What do I mean by people by like me? I mean people who had Covid and recovered. Suddenly, natural immunity didn’t exist anymore. Everyone had to get the vaccine regardless of whether they had natural immunity or not. Wait….. what? No one would ever suggest someone who had measles or polio should get vaccinated against those diseases. Why was natural immunity suddenly not talked about anymore? But if you knew where and how to look, it was talked about, and studied. The largest study was in Israel where the researchers concluded that natural immunity conveyed 27 times more protection than vaccination. Not double, not triple, 27 times! Fast Forward to recent times where an attorney in the US submitted a FOIA request, to the CDC, requesting records of any patient, who had a previous Covid infection, who was subsequently re-infected and then transmitted the Covid to another person. The CDC could not produce a single record of this ever happening. Yet for some bizarre reason, neither the government nor the media will ever talk about natural immunity and Covid together.
And now we are able to see much of the results of this mass vaccination campaign. And despite what you’ve been told, it’s not good. Data from the UK is showing that vaccinated adults under 60 are dying at twice the rate of the unvaccinated. American VAERS data shows these Covid “vaccines” have caused more deaths than all other vaccines combined in the last 30 years. In Europe, FIFA data has revealed a 500% increase in cardiac events and sudden deaths in soccer players. Very recently, the American Heart Association released a study which demonstrated that Mrna “vaccines” dramatically increase markers related to heart conditions. A recent German study showed that the higher a jurisdictions’ vaccination rate, the higher it’s mortality rate. On November 11th of this year, a Doctor Nagase came forward to report a record 13 still born births, in a 24 hour period, at BC Children’s hospital. They average 1 per month. During a very recent Ontario provincial parliament debate, MP Rick Nicholls confronted the health minister about a sharp rise in still births from vaccinated pregnant women in Ontario. All he got for his efforts was deflection. Despite this new evidence beginning to come light, there has been absolute silence in the media. Instead, they now want to vaccinate our children. Children are at a near zero risk from Covid. Vaccinating children with these experimental drugs, with unknown long term side effects, which are starting to show increasing adverse effects, is absolutely criminal.
Since I refuse to go along with this coerced “vaccination” campaign, I am being forced onto Leave without pay. Despite the fact that approximately 70% of the Federal workforce gets testing as an option, for some inexplicable reason, the RCMP, the CBSA and Federal Corrections have a mandatory vaccination order. I refuse to go along with this. This is nonsensical, illegal and unethical. I will continue to refuse and I have obtained legal representation, along with hundreds of other federal employees. We will get our day in court and we will win. Some may ask where our union stands on the issue. The answer is they didn’t. Our union leadership immediately bent the knee and offered no resistance whatsoever. Despite these setbacks, those who are fighting this know we have the truth on our side. The truth, at the moment, may be mere pebbles rolling down a slope. This will inevitably become an avalanche. So in reality, this isn’t a goodbye email, it’s a “see you in 2022” email.
Before I go, let me say this. Don’t be afraid. The government, and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media, have promoted a nonstop campaign of fear for almost 2 years now. Turn off your television and radios. Do your own research and question everything. Knowledge begins with asking questions. With each new variant they will try and frighten you, despite the fact that never in the history of virology has a virus ever mutated to become more deadly. Selective pressures always favour a more contagious, but less deadly mutation. The new “scariant” is Omicron. They don’t tell you that they skipped Mu and Xi in the Greek alphabet. Why? Because Mu or Xi just don’t sound scary. When you hear some brain dead parrot repeat the talking point “trust the science,” politely ask them to provide a definition of science. They never can because they don’t know. What they are really saying, but are too stupid to realize, is that they are saying “trust authority and don’t ask questions.” This, my friends, is the antithesis of science.
And get some sunshine. The latest German study, you know, actually science, showed an inverse relationship between vitamin d and Covid mortality rates. The study showed, given high enough vitamin d levels, a mortality rate of zero could be achieved. In addition, please don’t let them inject this “vaccine” into your children. Why on earth would you allow an experimental drug to be injected into your children, from pharmaceutical companies that have a history of civil litigation settlements, where these same companies have blanket legal immunity from the vaccines they create, for a disease that your children are completely safe from? It’s insanity. And the latest video where Trudeau explains he is excited to begin vaccinating children, looks completely psychotic and unhinged. Keep these lunatics away from your children. Your children are going to be just fine with their natural immunity.
I don’t know how many people will get to read this. I suspect that once certain ranks are aware of this email it will be pulled from the server. That right there speaks volumes in itself. Silencing the last message of a 21 year veteran who was forced to leave simply because he didn’t tell the government whether he had a drug in his body or not, doesn’t portray a leadership of transparency or good faith. On the contrary, it demonstrates both cowardice and a complete betrayal of any professed principles. Before I go, if any of you believe in courage and freedom. You aren’t alone. In fact, many members feel this way and they have created their own website: mounties4freedom.com. Another concerned group of freedom loving Canadians has created action4canada.com. Check them out when you have time.
Anyways, I have taken up too much of your time as it is. Always laugh at those who would spread fear, and see you in 2022.
Corporal Richard Mehner, your “vaccine” free Minotaur
P.S. Chief Supt. De La Gogondiere, I taped a copy of this letter on your office door, Martin Luther style. If you don’t understand the historical reference I invite you to look it up.
*
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.
On Wednesday Twitter banned the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, Dr Robert W Malone, the most influential American voice against forced vaccination, citing “missing context”.
The ban came just hours after the AP published a “fact check” in which it falsely claimed that vaccines work against the Omicron variant, even as evidence of dramatic vaccine failure from all over the world keeps piling up.
“Omicron blows right through the vaccines and through the triple jabbed,” Malone told Fox News in an interview recently. “Omicron is very, very infectious and the data are already in that both the double and triple vaccination is not protecting you from Omicron.” It is not clear what “context” could possibly be missing from Malone’s statements.
Iceland is the most boosted nation (58%) and has the 4th highest covid case rate on Earth.
Time to relinquish the illusion of control and admit that infections can not be prevented (at best, delayed).
The non-entity responsible for the ban is not a scientist, incidentally. “In Galileo’s day fact checkers were called the Inquisition,” a Twitter user noted dryly.
Malone had over a half million highly educated followers. “That means I must have been on the mark, so to speak. Over the target. It also means we lost a critical component in our fight to stop these vaccines being mandated for children and to stop the corruption in our governments, as well as the medical-industrial complex and pharmaceutical industries,” he responded on his Substack page.
*
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: Robert Malone. Screenshot from Substack
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
I hope you know this by now, but on Christmas morning the Russian military announced a sizable troop withdrawal from Russian territory near Ukraine. The New York Post’s Eileen AJ Connelly jumped on the story. At noon Saturday her piece, “Over 10,000 Russian troops leaving Ukraine border region after month of drills”, was posted.
While the drawdown was announced without fanfare, it might represent the first quid for the quo’s that President Vladimir Putin expects from U.S. negotiators next month in talks originally proposed by President Joe Biden.
How to explain the silence of the corporate media on the troop pullout? One can imagine the reaction of the eggnog-ed elite running our foreign-policy/media strategy upon hearing the news. “Another Russian dirty trick, announcing this on Christmas day! Who is in good shape enough to prepare our customary press guidance? You know, our Daily Memo for the Media? We also need to focus on what subtle treachery lies behind this ostensibly conciliatory move by Russia.”
Apparently, no one was up to the challenge. Without the customary Memo for the Media, the stenographers posing as journalists for the New York Times and the Washington Post were at sea. You can almost hear them making excuses for those from whom they receive dictation: “Hey, it’s Christmas; surely this hard-to-explain news can wait a day or two. We, all of us, need to put the right spin on this gambit from the outset.” And so, as of this writing, not a word yet in the NYT or Washington Post.
Informal Memo for the Media
Since it may be a day or two more before the media gets the guidance memo, let me help with some background.
When Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin talked via video on Dec. 7, the White House readout was unusually sparse. It indicated that Biden voiced deep concern about “Russia’s escalation of forces surrounding Ukraine” and called for “de-escalation and a return to diplomacy”, adding that “the two presidents tasked their teams to follow up”.
“Incidentally, during our conversation he [Biden] actually proposed appointing senior officials to oversee this sphere” (“sphere” being Russian concerns over US missile deployments in Romania, Poland and possibly Ukraine). “It was in response to his proposal that we drafted our proposals on precluding the further eastward expansion of NATO and the deployment of offensive strike systems in the countries bordering on Russia.”
Not Worth the Paper It’s Written On
As Putin addressed the Russian senior military on Dec. 21, a hint of defensiveness crept in as he emphasized the need for long-term, legally binding guarantees. Perhaps he saw a smirk on the face of one of the generals. (It is a safe bet that Putin has faced considerable pressure from his military to take advantage of Russia’s preponderance of power near Ukraine and use it for more than “just” leverage to get talks going.) In any case, Putin felt it necessary to demonstrate that he is quite aware of Washington’s dismissive attitude toward its obligations under arms control treaties:
“Well, we know very well that even legal guarantees cannot be completely fail-safe, because the United States easily pulls out of any international treaty that has ceased to be interesting to it for some reason, sometimes offering explanations and sometimes not, as was the case with the ABM and the Open Skies treaties – nothing at all.”
“There are certain signals that our partners are willing to work on that [a “clear and comprehensive response to Russia’s proposals”]. However, there is also the danger that they will attempt to drown the proposals in words, or in a swamp, in order to take advantage of this pause and do whatever they want to do.
“To make clear to everyone: we are aware of this, and this turn of events, these developments will not work for us. We look forward to constructive and meaningful talks with a visible outcome – and within a definite timeframe – that would ensure equal security for all.”
The Ball in US Court
The positive news, so far, lies in the unusually rapid response by the White House in agreeing to discuss Moscow’s proposals next month. One might well have expected them to be dismissed out of hand or put on the back burner, far-reaching as they are. So what else was discussed between Biden and Putin on Dec. 7 – besides the scary enough warnings about highly dangerous 5-minute warning time for hypersonic missiles. What prompted Biden to react positively to the surprising initiative the Kremlin publicized so quickly?
My guess is that it was the Chinese elephant (dragon?) in the room. At the June summit in Geneva, President Biden flummoxed those of us who knew how close Russia and China had already become, by stating publicly with supreme confidence after the summit:“
“Let me choose my words. Russia is in a very, very difficult spot right now. … They are being squeezed by China.” [Russia] has a multi-thousand-mile border with China. China is seeking to be the most powerful economy in the world and the largest and the most powerful military in the world.”
It seems likely that on Dec. 7 Putin made a point of explaining to Biden that, on this issue, he had been woefully misinformed. It was rather the case that Russia and China have never been closer – that, indeed, they have what amounts to a virtual military alliance.
Biden may have been alerted to tune into the virtual summit that Putin was scheduled to have with Chinese President Xi JinPing on Dec. 15, during which XI stated that China’s relationship with Russia “even exceeds an alliance in its closeness and effectiveness. (See also: “Putin Has a Big Brother in XI”
As soon as the June summit in Geneva was announced, we worried:
“Whether or not Official Washington fully appreciates the gradual – but profound – change in America’s triangular relationship with Russia and China over recent decades, what is clear is that the US has made itself into the big loser. The triangle may still be equilateral, but it is now, in effect, two sides against one.
There was little sign just a half-year ago that Biden was aware of this profound shift in the “world correlation of forces.” His acceptance of Putin’s proposal to hold early discussions may reflect that Biden is no longer tone-deaf to where the US now stands in the triangular relationship.
*
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.
The bill extends amendments that were in previous NDAA’s that block the White House from using funds to transfer or release Gitmo detainees into the US or other countries. The bill also blocks the use of funds to close the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay altogether.
After signing the bill, Biden released a statement denouncing the restrictions. “Unfortunately, section 1032 of the Act continues to bar the use of funds to transfer Guantánamo Bay detainees to the custody or effective control of certain foreign countries, and section 1033 of the Act bars the use of funds to transfer Guantánamo Bay detainees into the United States unless certain conditions are met,” the statement said.
Biden said the provisions “unduly impair the ability of the executive branch to determine when and where to prosecute Guantánamo Bay detainees and where to send them upon release.” Despite his objections, Biden still signed the massive $777.7 billion NDAA that authorized about $25 billion more than he requested from Congress.
Biden has pledged to close Gitmo, but the same promise was also made by President Obama. There are currently 39 detainees in the prison, and only 11 have been formally charged with crimes. Gitmo costs about $540 million to operate each year, meaning the US government spends over $13 million for each prisoner.
In July, Biden transferred former detainee Abdul Latif Nasser to his home country of Morrocco. Nasser was held since 2002 on no charges and was cleared for release five years ago. Like other Gitmo inmates, Nasser faced torture and other abuses during his time at the US military prison.
*
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.
Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.
The numbers killed by these vaccines is much worse than what we thought, already. But it’s what they’ve just discovered that’s much worse. We knew of blood clots from expressing spike protein. We were aware of autoimmune attacks on ones own tissues expressing spike protein to which our killer lymphocytes were primed, such as myocarditis. But what’s new is the revelation that lymph node cells are also being invaded by the gene-based agents and marking THEM for auto destruction.
Why has the CDC waited until December 31, 2021 to enforce the suspension of the invalid and flawed PCR test? Seasonal influenza which starts in October has contributed to driving up the number of so-called “Confirmed Covid-19 Cases”. And in recent developments, these PCR positive cases are routinely being categorized as “Confirmed Covid-19 Omicron Variant Cases”.
Pfizer is currently involved in marketing its experimental mRNA vaccine. The FDA in an ambiguous statement has provided an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, while underscoring that the vaccine is “an unapproved product”. There is something “contradictory” in the FDA statement.
The more we learn about Dr. Anthony Fauci, the worse he looks. The grandfatherly figurehead has now had two years in the limelight, urging people to “follow the science,” which he has shamelessly equated to his own ever-shifting opinion.
In Ventura County, located to the north of Los Angeles, cases of “unexplained” heart problems, strokes and blood clotting are skyrocketing at area hospitals. And many local doctors are refusing to link these events to Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) injections.
Based on the extensive claims and enclosed documentation, we charge those responsible for numerous violations of the Nuremberg Code, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression in the United Kingdom, but not limited to individuals in these countries.
Behind its development is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – with support of the Rockefeller Foundation – and others belonging to the sinister all-digitization, depopulation and eugenics agenda. It is an alliance of public-private partners, including UN agencies and civil society.
I fact checked the fact checkers and couldn’t believe what I found. Despite the corporate press, Big Pharma, and the federal government telling us otherwise, it is absolutely true that there is no FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine available in the United States today. And there are no plans to make one available any time soon.
Comrades, many American citizens stood jaw agape as they watched Australian metropolitan police departments begin cracking skulls and making arrests for violating COVID rules and restrictions. Yes, it always seemed like Australia, New Zealand and Europe were the beta testing ground to see if police would comply with jackboot arrests of their own community.
What this implies is that both the CDC and the WHO have formally acknowledged the failures of the RT-PCR test, without however implementing a shift in the methodology of detecting and identifying SARS-CoV-2.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Another cache of emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) reveals Dr. Anthony Fauci and his boss, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, colluded to quash dissenting views on the lockdowns
October 4, 2020, three medical professors — Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Sunetra Gupta from Oxford and Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford — launched the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for focused protection of high-risk individuals rather than the continuation of blanket lockdowns
As support of the declaration rapidly spread, Fauci and Collins discussed how they could stop the call for a sane, science-based approach. In an email to Fauci, Collins wrote, “There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises”
The emails between Fauci and Collins are the smoking gun showing that it is they who are waging war against science
Despite having a combined annual budget of $58 billion, and a combined staff of 31,000, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH/NIAID have not yet conducted an actual study to determine how natural immunity stacks up against the COVID jab, likely because they don’t want to know the answer
*
The more we learn about Dr. Anthony Fauci, the worse he looks. The grandfatherly figurehead has now had two years in the limelight, urging people to “follow the science,” which he has shamelessly equated to his own ever-shifting opinion.
Another cache of emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) now reveals Fauci and his boss, National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins, colluded behind the scenes to quash dissenting views on the lockdowns.1
Fauci and Collins Conspired to Destroy Dissent
October 4, 2020, three medical professors — Martin Kulldorff from Harvard, Sunetra Gupta from Oxford and Jay Bhattacharya from Stanford — launched the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement anyone could sign onto that called for focused protection of high-risk individuals, such as the elderly, rather than the continuation of blanket lockdowns. AIER sponsored the declaration.
“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health,” the declaration stated. “Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”
As support of the declaration rapidly spread, Fauci and Collins seemingly panicked, and discussed how they could possibly stop the growing call for a sane, science-based approach. In an October 8, 2020, email to Fauci, Collins wrote:2,3,4,5
“The proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention … There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises …”
“Don’t worry, I got this,” Fauci replied. Later, Fauci sent Collins links to newly published articles refuting the focused protection solution, including an op-ed in Wired magazine, and an article in The Nation, titled “Focused Protection, Herd Immunity and Other Deadly Delusions.” “Excellent,” Collins replied.
This correspondence is a real peek behind the curtain as to who Fauci and Collins really are. They’re not interested in debating scientific merit. Their go-to strategy is simply to demolish the opposition by any means necessary.
Clearly, there’s nothing “fringe” about these scientists. Bhattacharya, for example, has conducted NIH-funded research for decades.6 If he’s a “fringe” scientist, why is Collins funding him?
As noted by Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Liberty Report (video above), behind the scenes, Fauci and Collins are just “nasty bureaucrats who want to destroy anyone who challenges their power … The scientific method does not involve, ‘Oh my gosh, that guy said something that contradicts me, I must destroy him.’”
Fauci’s War on Science
As noted by Jeffrey Tucker in a December 19, 2021, Brownstone article,7 the attacks on the declaration and its creators were particularly shocking considering “They were merely stating the consensus based on science and experience. Nothing more.”
Indeed, March 2, 2020, 850 scientists signed a letter8 to the White House warning against the use of lockdowns, travel restrictions and the closing of businesses and schools.
Fauci himself had even told a Washington Post reporter that “The epidemic will gradually decline and stop on its own without a vaccine”9 — a scientifically correct stance he’s since abandoned. According to Tucker, the emails between Fauci and Collins are the smoking gun showing that it is they who are waging war against science.
“What we find in these emails are highly political people who are obsessed not with science but with messaging and popular influences on the public mind,” Tuckerwrites.10
“What do we learn from these emails? The attacks on tens of thousands of medical professionals and scientists were indeed encouraged from the top. The basis for the attacks were not scientific articles. They were heavily political popular pieces.
This adds serious weight to the impression we all had at the time, which was that this was not really about science but about something far more insidious. You can discover more about this in Scott Atlas’s book on the topic [‘A Plague Upon Our House’]. These new emails confirm his account. It was an outright war on top scientists …
My own estimate is that the convinced advocates of lockdowns when they took place were probably fewer than 50 in the U.S. How and why they managed to grab hold of the reins of power will be investigated by historians for many decades.
The incredibly positive response to the Great Barrington Declaration, which has garnered 900,000 signatures in the meantime, demonstrates that there was and is still life remaining in traditional public health measures deployed throughout the 20th century and still respect for human dignity and science remaining among medical professionals and the general public.
This war on dissent against lockdowns is not only a scandal of our times. The lockdowns and now the mandates have fundamentally transformed society …
We seem ever more to be on the precipice of total disaster, one that will be difficult to reverse. It is urgent that we know who did this, as well as how and why, and take steps to stop it before more damage is done and then becomes permanent.”
Bhattacharya Speaks Out
When news of the Fauci-Collins collusion broke, Bhattacharya tweeted,11 “Now I know what it feels like to be the subject of a propaganda attack by my own government. Discussion and engagement would have been a better path.”
According to Bhattacharya, Collins and Fauci cooked up the false counternarrative that focused protection would “let the virus rip” through populations with devastating effect. This erroneous talking point was then thrown at them again and again.
“When reporters started asking me why I wanted to ‘let the virus rip,’ I was puzzled,”Bhattacharya tweeted December 19, 2021.12 “Now I know that Collins and Fauci primed the media attack with the lie.
I was also puzzled by the mischaracterization of the GBD [Great Barrington Declaration] as a ‘herd immunity strategy,’ Biologically the epidemic ends when a sufficient number of people have immunity, either through COVID recovery or vax. Lockdown, let-it-rip, and the GBD all lead to that.
As Martin Kulldorff has said, it makes as much sense to say ‘herd immunity strategy’ as it does to say ‘gravity strategy’ for landing an airplane. The only question is how to land safely, not whether gravity applies.
So the question is how to get through this terrible pandemic with the least harm, where the harms considered include all of public health, not just COVID. The GBD and focused protection of the vulnerable is a middle ground between lockdown and let-it-rip.
Lockdowners like Collins & Fauci … could have engaged honestly in a discussion about it, but would have found that public health is fundamentally about focused protection … Instead, Fauci & Collins decided to smear Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta, me and supporters of the GBD. They lied about the ideas it contains and orchestrated a propaganda campaign against us …
Fauci & Collins are silent about lockdown harms because they are culpable. The sad fact is that they won the policy war, they got their lockdowns, and now … own the harms. They cannot deny it. The GBD warned them.
They also cannot say that the lockdowns worked to suppress COVID. In the U.S., we followed the Fauci/Collins lockdown strategy and we have 800k COVID deaths. Sweden — more focused on protecting the vulnerable — did better and cannot be ignored …
[History] will judge those in charge of the COVID policy, and it will not judge kindly. [Collins] smears the GBD and its authors because he has no substantive argument left … Collins’ interview with Baier marks a sad end to an illustrious career, and I take no joy in saying so. Fauci should join him in retirement. They have done enough damage.”
Against Fading Odds, Fauci Tries to Keep Narrative Alive
The damaging character revelations emerge just as Fauci and President Biden struggle to whip up panic about Omicron to keep the need for pandemic countermeasures going. It’s a challenge, for sure, as most people have already realized that Omicron is no worse than a common cold.
During a December 19, 2021, CNN interview, Fauci stated that they “did not anticipate the extent of mutations” that occurred in Omicron.13 So, basically, despite sinking billions of dollars into research, scientists were unable to predict the mutations. That should tell us something.
Disturbingly, there’s now evidence suggesting Omicron might be yet another lab creation. In a recent Bannons War Room interview, Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,14 reviewed what we know so far about the Omicron variant.
As noted by Malone, the press has been talking about “everything except for the obvious, which is that this is a ‘vaccine’-escaped mutant.’” The variant appears highly resistant to the COVID shots, which is a sign of it having mutated within one or more COVID-jabbed individuals, yet the first recommendation from the mental giants in charge of COVID responses was to push COVID booster shots. This is as irresponsible and irrational as it is unscientific.
“The boosters are a perfect way to bias our immune system so we’re LESS able to respond to this new variant,” Malone explained. “This is [like] jabbing everybody with a flu vaccine from three seasons ago and expecting it to have effects against the current [flu strains].”
Omicron Emerged From Old 2020 Strain
As for the nature and origin of Omicron, Malone said:
“It has the hallmark of a viral agent under tight genetic selection for evolution to escape the ‘vaccine’ responses against the receptor bonding domain. The question that is outstanding right now is — because this is so different from the other strains that are being tracked; it’s in its own separate little evolutionary branch — how did this happen?”
What Malone is referring to is the fact that the closest genetic sequences to Omicron date back to mid-2020. It doesn’t seem to belong to any of the evolutionary branches that have emerged since.15In the time-lapse graphic16 below, Twitter user Chief Nerd illustrates the genomic epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 from the original strain until now, using data from nextstrain.org.17
Time-lapse I made of the genomic epidemiology of SARS-COV-2 since the 2020 Wuhan strain
Notice that Omicron makes a sudden appearance inconsistent with the other variants, and contains the largest number of mutations
It’s a great illustration of just how odd an unnatural Omicron’s emergence really is. As the time-lapse gets toward the end of 2021, suddenly there’s Omicron, emerging like a straight line from a mid-2020 strain, having no semblance to any of the other strains. There’s no precedent for this oddity occurring in nature.
In all, Omicron is said to have some 50 mutations from the original Alpha strain, many of which specifically allow it to circumvent COVID shot-induced antibody defenses.
According to molecular biologist and cancer geneticist Philip Buckhaults, Ph.D.,18 Omicron has 25 nonsynonymous and only one synonymous spike mutation compared to its most recent common ancestor (AV.1). Were it a natural occurrence, that ratio ought to be somewhere between 25 to 50 and 25 to 100.
Until and unless we end up with conclusive proof of its origin, we need to keep all options open, Malone says, and that includes the possibility of Omicron being cooked up in a lab from a previous strain.
One plausible theory is that scientists enabled an early SARS-CoV-2 variant to build antibody resistance, possibly by passaging them through human or humanized cell lines in the presence of convalescent plasma.
Congressman Calls for Natural Immunity Study
December 14, 2021, a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis held a remote hearing in which they debated the need for an accelerated vaccination effort. In the outtake from that meeting (video above), Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, points out that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the NIH/NIAID have a combined annual budget of about $58 billion, and a combined staff of 31,000.
With that kind of budget and an army of staff, why has the U.S. government not done a study to determine how natural immunity stacks up against the COVID jab? Jordan asked. The answer he received (from an, unfortunately, unidentified doctor) was refreshingly direct:
“I don’t think they want to know the answer,” because “it would undermine the indiscriminate vaccination policy for every single human being, including extremely low risk people.”
According to a Columbia University study, more than half the American population have now been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in one form or another, and have natural immunity, and according to an Israeli study, natural immunity is 27 times more effective than the COVID shot.19
So, why are government leaders and so-called health authorities still acting as though natural immunity is irrelevant and the only way to control the pandemic is through repeated injections with experimental — and clearly hazardous — gene transfer technology?
I believe the answer is they’re ignoring natural immunity because their primary objective and goal it to have everyone injected. They want everyone routinely jabbed so they can justify the rollout of health passports, which will become the foundation for an all-encompassing digital ID control system.
In short, our public health agencies have been hijacked and are carrying out an anti-human, anti-health agenda intended to enslave the public in a technocratic control grid.
There’s no doubt anymore that the vaccine passports will be expanded to encompass financial transactions and incorporate a social credit system. Together, all of these pieces will allow an unelected elite to control the lives of every person on the planet, down to the minutest details of our everyday lives.
While Fauci and Collins are certainly not alone in this effort, and likely not even close to the top of the technocratic food chain, they have played very important roles. It’s time to see them for who and what they are, and demand that they be held to account for their actions.
*
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.
I sent the letter below to a group of fellow socialists who support lockdowns, mass vaccination campaigns and mandatory vaccinations for healthcare staff. After 30 years active in the movement I was shocked by how so much of the Left has gone along with government mismanagement of the pandemic. So I decided to engage fellow socialists in debate. Below is my first missive in this attempt to stimulate debate.
*
Dear …
I am rather disturbed by your ringing endorsement of vaccines as the answer to the pandemic.
This displays an element of covid derangement syndrome that has gripped most sections of the left during the pandemic.
First of all, vaccines do not prevent people catching or transmitting the virus.
Secondly, natural immunity from having had covid provides much greater protection than the vaccines do.
Thirdly, governments across the world and apex public health bodies have completely failed to promote policies that would strengthen peoples immune systems e.g. exercise, good diet, plenty of rest and sleep, vitally important medicines such as vitamin D and C.
Governments and apex health bodies such as the CDC, NIH have endorsed toxic drugs such as Remdesivir based on slim medical evidence. The WHO’s solidarity trial has since come out against the drug as not only does it not work but many patients find it quite toxic. Yet hospitals across the world, including the UK, use Remdesivir to treat covid patients.
Meanwhile, there has been an international campaign to demonize cheap, ultra safe repurposed drugs which are the key to ending the pandemic. These range from Fluvoxamine, Colchicine, Ivermectin, I could go on.
The most well known case of an attempt to demonization a repurposed drug is that of Ivermectin. It has 69 medical trials proving its efficacy as a prophylactic and treatment for the different stages of Covid-19. I would refer you to the work of Professor Paul Marik of EVMS, who is one of the most highly published intensive care specialists in the world, on the efficacy, cheapness and ultra safe nature of Ivermectin. Meta analysis proves Ivermectin to be superior to any other anti viral out there.
Ivermectin is used in dozens of low income countries particularly in Africa. Scientists from the UK/USA puzzle over the low infection rates while Africa has very low vaccination rates. Ivermectin use is very widespread across Africa and has been for decades.
Epidemiologist Dr.Juan Chamie has produced date to show that the highest covid infection rates are in the wealthiest countries with the highest rates of vaccination where there are no effective anti virals available to treat the illness and have high levels of inflammatory illnesses caused by unhealthy lifestyle.
Epidemiological evidence from the Indian state of Utter Pradesh, population 241 million, Mexico City and Japan reveals how Ivermectin has crushed infection rates and emptied hospitals of covid patients.
Your analysis also ignores the immense harm caused by vaccines as noted by the VAERS system in the US. Dr.Robert Malone, one of the inventors of MRNA vaccine technology and world renown cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough have both talked about this issue and faced tremendous censorship and attacks from the media. If the vaccines are so safe then remove the liability protection that the drug companies have.
The current crop of vaccines are leaky, non sterilizing vaccines that only stimulate one part of the immune system. They don’t prevent people catching or transmitting covid-19.
Yet we have lock downs of the unvaccinated going on in Austria. Next year Germany and Austria, which should know better considering their Nazi heritages, are going to force people to take vaccines which is a blatent violation of the Nuremburg Medical Code developed after the trials of Nazi doctors at the end of WW2.
Governments engaging in such measures are pursuing a policy of divide and rule of the population. Meanwhile they are free to pursue reactionary social and economic policies.
Much of the Left appears unable to link up the regulatory capture of public health agencies by Big Pharma and the complete failure of the many health policies promoted by governments across the world. Ordinary people across the world in their hundreds of thousands are protesting vaccine passports yet most of the Left will not even cover these protests. Look at the dockers in Triest blockading the port in protest at the vaccine passport of the Italian government.
Capitalism is going into a decade of extreme crisis in the 2020s. its complete failure to deal with Sars-Cov-2 does not bode well for dealing with much bigger issues over the next period.
*
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.
Before your child is injected, watch Dr. Robert Malone’s statement on child COVID vaccinations.
Before you vaccinate your child, which is irreversible and potentially permanently damaging, find out why 15,000 physicians and medical scientists around the world signed a declaration publicly declaring that healthy children should NOT be vaccinated for COVID-19.
On behalf of these MDs and PhDs, Dr. Robert Malone, who has devoted his career to vaccine development, provides parents a clear statement outlining the scientific facts behind this decision.
Full Text of Malone Statement
My name is Robert Malone, and I am speaking to you as a parent, grandparent, physician and scientist. I don’t usually read from a prepared speech, but this is so important that I wanted to make sure that I get every single word and scientific fact correct.
I stand by this statement with a career dedicated to vaccine research and development. I’m vaccinated for COVID and I’m generally pro-vaccination. I have devoted my entire career to developing safe and effective ways to prevent and treat infectious diseases.
After this, I will be posting the text of this statement so you can share it with your friends and family.
Before you inject your child – a decision that is irreversible – I wanted to let you know the scientific facts about this genetic vaccine, which is based on the mRNA vaccine technology I created:
There are three issues parents need to understand:
The first is that a viral gene will be injected into your children’s cells. This gene forces your child’s body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children’s critical organs, including
Their brain and nervous system
Their heart and blood vessels, including blood clots
Their reproductive system, and
This vaccine can trigger fundamental changes to their immune system
The most alarming point about this is that once these damages have occurred, they are irreparable
You can’t fix the lesions within their brain
You can’t repair heart tissue scarring
You can’t repair a genetically reset immune system, and
This vaccine can cause reproductive damage that could affect future generations of your family
The second thing you need to know about is the fact that this novel technology has not been adequately tested.
We need at least 5 years of testing/research before we can really understand the risks
Harms and risks from new medicines often become revealed many years later
Ask yourself if you want your own child to be part of the most radical medical experiment in human history
One final point: the reason they’re giving you to vaccinate your child is a lie.
Your children represent no danger to their parents or grandparents
It’s actually the opposite. Their immunity, after getting COVID, is critical to save your family if not the world from this disease
In summary: there is no benefit for your children or your family to be vaccinating your children against the small risks of the virus, given the known health risks of the vaccine that as a parent, you and your children may have to live with for the rest of their lives.
The risk/benefit analysis isn’t even close.
As a parent and grandparent, my recommendation to you is to resist and fight to protect your children.
The statement was delivered at a December 12 livestream event hosted by Unity Project and Global Covid Summit.
Dr. Robert Malone and other leading physicians discussed their recent Physicians’ Declaration update, why healthy children should not be vaccinated and the associated risks. Read supporting evidence here.
Dr Robert Malone is the inventor of the mRNA technology.
***
About The Unity Project
The Unity Project, a non-partisan, non-profit educational organization, promotes a “children-first” agenda focused on integrity, care, rationality, and evidence-based motivation. For more information, visit www.UnityProjectOnline.com.
About Global Covid Summit
Global Covid Summit is the product of an international alliance of physicians and medical scientists, committed to speaking truth to power about Covid pandemic research and treatment. Please read and consider signing our Declaration HERE.
I fact checked the fact checkers and couldn’t believe what I found. Despite the corporate press, Big Pharma, and the federal government telling us otherwise, it is absolutely true that there is no FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine available in the United States today. And there are no plans to make one available any time soon.
.
I know it’s hard to believe, but it’s 100% true..And this reality implicates both Big Pharma and the US Public Health bureaucracy in an incredible scandal..On August 23, the FDA granted full approval for a COVID-19 vaccine to Pfizer-BioNtech for a specific product sold under the brand name Comirnaty..The landmark moment — the “full approval” endorsement from the FDA — was heralded by the Biden Administration and countless states, and quickly leveraged to coerce millions into taking the shots. This product, Comirnaty, was fully authorized for the “prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older.” Yet Comirnaty itself has never made its way into the United States. The fully-approved version is nowhere to be found within our borders..A separate product, which remains under emergency use authorization (EUA), is the only “Pfizer shot” available in the United States.Early on, Pfizer and its government allies seemed to have a reasonable explanation for this issue. They claimed that Comirnaty was not yet available because the EUA shots were still lining the shelves, and claimed that the FDA-approved version would be available to all soon.
Now, it’s been over 4 months since full approval, and Comirnaty is still not being distributed.
The FDA has recognized Comirnaty as a “legally distinct” product with “certain differences,” but claims it does not impact safety or effectiveness of the shots. “Fact checkers” leverage the latter point of safety and efficacy to claim that people are still getting access to ingredients akin to the fully approved product.
But here’s the issue: they have yet to explain why people still can’t get Comirnaty, now 128 days after full approval.
And if it is the case that the two products are the exact same thing, the FDA has not explained why they only approved a distinct product named Comirnaty, and not the injection currently being sold under the EUA label. Why won’t the FDA approve the EUA product? Pfizer doesn’t want them to. You’ll see in a moment.
The CDC continues to confirm that Comirnaty is “not orderable at this time.” Moreover, the CDC currently states that “Pfizer does not plan to produce any product with these NDCs (National Drug Codes) and labels over the next few months while EUA authorized product is still available and being made available for US distribution.”
Pfizer is likely refusing to make the fully authorized version available, while continuing to sell an EUA product because doing so opens up Pfizer and BioNTech to legal liability issues.
An EUA fully protects the drugmaker and grants zero legal recourse to the patient.
Additionally, Robert Kennedy Jr mentioned it on a recent podcast with Mikhaila Peterson. I looked into these claims extensively, and they are completely accurate. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), which was passed into law in 1986, provides a legal liability shield to drug manufacturers if they receive full authorization for all ages.
Pfizer needs approval for children so that it can protect itself from lawsuits. The company is working with regulators, even clandestinely altering vaccine ingredients (a process that should require them to get full approval for an entirely separate product), to clear the path to legal indemnity.
Now you know why Pfizer, Moderna, and others are working relentlessly to authorize their products for children, who face near-zero risk from COVID-19, but continue to showcase alarming side effects from the vaccine.
If Comirnaty was available for adults in the United States, Americans would be able sue Pfizer for vaccine injuries. If Comirnaty is for all ages, that means Pfizer receives extensive legal protection. Big Pharma is using children as legal human shields for their products. Let’s hope they don’t get away with it again.
There is currently no fully authorized COVID-19 vaccine available in the United States today, and this reality has been attacked relentlessly by the corporate press. “Fact checkers” at Newsweek, USA Today, Reuters the Associated Press, and elsewhere peddled false information to cover up this absolute fact.
If you run a Google search on this issue, you will find the aforementioned “fact checks” as evidence that Comirnaty is available, when it is most certainly not available. Nobody in the United States is receiving the legally distinct, fully authorized shot, because that shot makes Big Pharma and corrupt regulators more legally vulnerable than they want to be.
There is a wave of vaccine-induced illnesses sweeping Southern California hospitals, and a few brave nurses have come forward to talk about it.
In Ventura County, located to the north of Los Angeles, cases of “unexplained” heart problems, strokes and blood clotting are skyrocketing at area hospitals. And many local doctors are refusing to link these events to Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) injections.
A critical care nurse at a Ventura County ICU came forward to tell the Conejo Guardian that he is “tired of all the B.S. that’s going on” as the medical establishment refuses to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
“It’s crazy how nobody questions anything anymore,” this person, named Sam, is quoted as saying.
Sam says that there has been a noticeable surge in young people experiencing these types of severe health problems after they get needled with the injections from Operation Warp Speed.
“We’ve been having a lot of younger people come in,” Sam added. “We’re seeing a lot of strokes, a lot of heart attacks.”
In one case, a 38-year-old woman came to the emergency room with occlusions, or blockages of blood flow, in her brain.
“They [doctors] were searching for everything under the sun and documenting this in the chart, but nowhere do you see if she was vaccinated or not,” Sam added.
“One thing the vaccine causes is thrombosis, clotting. Here you have a 38-year-old woman who was double-vaccinated and she’s having strokes they can’t explain. None of the doctors relates it to the vaccine. It’s garbage. It’s absolute garbage.”
Sponsored: NEW Biostructured Silver First Aid Gel created by the Health Ranger combines three types of silver (ionic silver, colloidal silver, biostructured silver) with seven potent botanicals (rosemary, oregano, cinnamon and more) to create a breakthrough first aid silver gel. Over 50 ppm silver, verified via ICP-MS lab analysis. Made from 100% Texas rain water and 70% solar power. Zero chemical preservatives, fragrances or emulsifiers. See full details here.
The vaccine-damaged are the ones flooding hospitals
In another instance, a 63-year-old woman with no previous cardiac history suffered a heart attack. Tests revealed that her coronary arteries were clean, however she had just taken a Moderna injection.
“One doctor actually questioned the vaccine, but they didn’t mention it in the chart because you can’t prove it,” Sam said.
Sam says that hospitals all around the area are seeing a significant spike in myocarditis, a well-known adverse effect caused by Chinese Flu shots.
“Everyone wants to downplay it – ‘It’s rare, it’s rare,’” Sam laments about how the medical establishment is not taking any of this seriously.
“Doctors don’t want to question it. We have these mass vaccinations happening and we’re seeing myocarditis more frequently and nobody wants to raise the red flag. When we discuss the case, they don’t even discuss it. They don’t mention it. They act like they don’t have a reason, that it’s spontaneous.”
Another ICU nurse by the name of Dana told the Conejo Guardian that her facility has “never been this busy,” and that “none of it is Covid-19.”
“We don’t normally see this amount of strokes, aneurysms and heart attacks all happening at once,” Dana says.
“Normally we’ll see six to ten aortic dissections a year. We’ve seen six in the last month. It’s crazy. Those have very high rates of mortality.”
Almost never do the doctors at Dana’s hospital ever even consider the fact that Wuhan Flu shots might be responsible for all this. Instead, they are blaming things like “the holidays” for this sudden uptick, which makes zero sense.
“I don’t understand how you can look at what’s going on and come up with just, ‘Yeah, it’s the holidays.’ There’s been a big change in everybody’s life, and it’s the vaccine.”
The vast majority of admitted patients are fully vaccinated, and yet an unprecedented number of them, Dana says, are “on pressers to keep their blood pressure up, people on ventilators, clotting issues, so we have a lot of Heparin drips to make sure they don’t stroke out.”
More of the latest news about Fauci Flu injections can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.
The last two weeks have brought three new studies finding negative efficacy for two vaccine doses, meaning the vaccinated are more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated.
These are study findings, not raw data, so have been adjusted for various biases and confounders, making it harder to dismiss them as anomalous or skewed.
The first is a pre-print study from Denmark, published on December 23rd, which looked at nearly all PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infections in Denmark from November 20th to December 12th and investigated them to see if they were likely to be the Omicron variant. By comparing the vaccination status of those infected, the researchers found a vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant of minus-76.5% for Pfizer and minus-39.3% for Moderna three months after double vaccination (see chart above), meaning the double-vaccinated were considerably more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated. They found the vaccine effectiveness against Omicron was significantly lower than against Delta, with Pfizer vaccine effectiveness at 53.8% and Moderna at 65% against Delta after three months. They reported that a third dose of Pfizer got vaccine effectiveness against Omicron back up to 54.6%, at least for a month. The full results are in the table below.
Hansen et al.
The latest vaccine effectiveness study from the UKHSA confirms these results. Against Omicron, the UKHSA reports zero or negative vaccine effectiveness from a double-dose of all three vaccines (AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Moderna) after five months. The third dose takes it up again, but only into the 40-60% range, and dropping fast.
AstraZeneca
Pfizer
Moderna
A new study in Eurosurveillance from Norway also backs up the observation of negative vaccine effectiveness against Omicron, with a higher proportion of those who tested positive in the particular outbreak in the study being double-vaccinated than those who did not test positive (98% versus 93%).
Somestudies had already found negative vaccine effectiveness against Delta, in line with the unadjusted figures from the UKHSA, though many people had dismissed these results as anomalous or biased. With Omicron, the reports of negative efficacy are becoming impossible to ignore, with even the UKHSA publishing graphs showing it after three months on two doses. At some point, health authorities are going to need to grapple with what the data is showing on this and stop pretending it isn’t there
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Global Research articles are the object of censorship. Please forward our articles far and wide. Crosspost on your blog and on partner websites.
***
According to President Biden, “a winter of death” awaits anyone who rejects the experimental COVID jab. If we are to go by actual science and data, the warning Biden issued should have gone out to the vaccinated, because everything points to the double and triple jabbed being at increased risk for infection, especially with the Omicron variant
One reason for this is because the COVID jab reprograms your innate and adaptive immune systems, causing immune depletion. Data also show that the more heavily “vaccinated” a population is, the higher the case rate gets
As predicted, we are rapidly approaching a time when the unvaccinated might be imprisoned for no other reason than their refusal of an experimental gene transfer injection
In early January 2021, a New York bill (A416) was introduced that would give the governor and his or her delegates the power to remove and/or indefinitely detain anyone suspected of being a threat to public health. Detainees would be kept in a “medical facility or other appropriate facility” — in other words, a medical prison camp — for a maximum of 60 days, although a court could extend the detention in 90-day increments, indefinitely
In Australia, medical incarceration is already underway. Anyone who has come in close contact with someone who tests positive must spend 14 days in the quarantine camp, even if they are triple jabbed and test negative for COVID
According to President Biden, “a winter of death” awaits anyone who rejects the experimental COVID jab which, by the way, has been consistently shown to do far more harm than good.
A December 16, 2021, White House statement reads: “For the unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death. For themselves, their family and the hospital they’ll soon overwhelm.” That exact sentence was reiterated the next day by COVID-19 response coordinator Jeff Zients during a virtual press conference.
Backlash Over Biden’s Callousness
As reported by MSN’s Claire Goforth,1 the “prediction” didn’t go over well with the public. “Most people hate it. They feel it’s callous and cruel,” Goforth said, quoting a number of Twitter responses, including one from John D. Davidson:
“If you wanted to make half the country hate the administration and resist its edicts and advice, it would be hard to come up with a better strategy than this.”
A Twitter user by the name Martyr Made noted, “The aggressive Us/Them language in this White House message is insane.”2 Olivia Nuzzi, a Washington, D.C., reporter for New York Magazine tweeted, “Who is this for? Unvaccinated Americans are not going to be persuaded by messaging like this.”3
White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain defended Biden saying “we have a duty to warn people what they are facing if unvaccinated.”4 But from my perspective, the rub is that they continue to pretend that lies are truth and truth is lies. Everything is upside-down, and many are rejecting this “winter of woe” message for the simple fact that they know the opposite is true.
If we are to go by actual science and data, the warning Biden issued should have gone out to the vaccinated, because everything points to the double and triple jabbed being at increased risk for infection, especially with the Omicron variant.
One reason for this is because the COVID jab reprograms your innate and adaptive immune systems, causing immune depletion.5 Data also show that the more heavily “vaccinated” a population is, the higher the case rate gets.6 And even this fails to account for the massive increase risk of dying from the jab or becoming permanently disabled, as many jabbed millions have already suffered.
Former WHO Adviser Tells Vaccinated to Quarantine Over Winter
Back in August 2021, the U.K. Column interviewed professor Christian Perronne, a French infectious disease expert, long-time vaccine policy chief and former vice president of the World Health Organization’s European Advisory Group, who issued the opposite — and likely far more accurate — warning:7
“Vaccinated people are at risk of the new variants … It’s been proven in different countries, so vaccinated people should be put in quarantine and should be isolated from society. Unvaccinated people are not dangerous; vaccinated people are dangerous to others.
It’s proven in Israel now. I’m in contact with many physicians in Israel. They’re having big problems now; severe cases in hospitals are among vaccinated people. And in the UK also, you had a larger vaccination program and also there are problems.”
Not surprisingly, despite impeccable credentials, Peronne has been censored and shunned for his contrarian views on COVID countermeasures, the COVID gene transfer shots in particular. During his interview, he didn’t mince words, referring to the European COVID-19 policy as “completely stupid.”
Are Prison Camps for the Unjabbed Next?
As predicted, we are rapidly approaching a time when the unvaccinated might be imprisoned for no other reason than their refusal of an experimental gene transfer injection. In early January 2021, a New York bill (A416) was introduced that would give the governor and his or her delegates the power to remove and/or indefinitely detain anyone suspected of being a threat to public health.
Detainees would be kept in a “medical facility or other appropriate facility” — in other words, a medical prison camp — for a maximum of 60 days, although a court could extend the detention in 90-day increments, indefinitely. As reported by Reason:8
“The bill’s language is noticeably vague in defining the parameters around disease type, leaving the government wide latitude in conducting its risk analysis … The legislation was originally introduced during the 2015-16 session in response to the Ebola virus … Though [SARS-CoV-2] is a serious virus, it is also no Ebola, which carries an average case fatality rate of 50%, with some outbreaks reaching as high as 90% …
[T]he vagueness of its approach gives the state a great deal of discretion in locking people up who might have some sort of unnamed illness, as well as people who merely interacted with someone who might have that illness.”
The bill comes up for a vote in the New York Senate and Assembly sometime in the next legislative session, which begins January 5, 2022.9 In addition to indefinite detention for poorly specified reasons, the bill would “require an individual who has been exposed to or infected by a contagious disease to complete an appropriate, prescribed course of treatment, preventive medication or vaccination.”
In other words, this bill legalizes the forced vaccination of anyone who is detained under the mere suspicion of being infected with something or having been in close proximity to someone suspected of being infected. As reported by Rights and Freedoms:10
“There is no explicit reference to what types of contagious diseases qualify a person to be removed from public life, detained in a facility, and forced into medical treatment and vaccination. Anyone can technically be held in isolation until they are deemed non-contagious, which would also raise questions over whether those carrying HIV/AIDS could be released back into society.
The bill has received an overwhelmingly negative response on the NY Senate website.11Commenters have stated that, ‘this is disturbing and sets up a terrible precedent for future law. The governor can basically detain whoever [he/she] likes on the basis of scanty evidence.
This is un-American. It reminiscent of the Soviet Union locking up political opponents on the basis that they were ‘mentally unstable.’ We CANNOT allow this in our state.’ ‘This is a violation of fundamental human rights. The government should be working for the people, not locking them up without cause.’”
Australia Among the First to Test Medical Imprisonment Model
If you think being tossed into a prison camp without cause or recourse is impossible — after all, this is the United States of America, the land of the free, home of the brave — think again. Australia, another shining star of democracy, has backslidden into totalitarianism at a speed that has everyone’s head spinning.
The Australian government has gone full speed ahead, building a massive COVID quarantine camp, complete with barbed wire fences, guards and video surveillance. Once you’re in, you can’t just waltz out whenever you want to. In the video above, Hayley Hodgson describes what it was like to be detained and transferred to a COVID internment camp, even though she wasn’t sick.
Video surveillance placed her with a friend who had tested positive. They ran her license plate to retrieve her address and showed up at her house, telling her she had to quarantine. Even if you test negative, you still have to spend 14 days in a quarantine camp if you’ve been in close contact with someone who has tested positive. If you refuse, you’re fined $5,000 and forcibly taken there by police anyway.
“You feel like you’re in prison … It’s inhumane what they’re doing,” she says. “You are so small. They just overpower you. You’re literally nothing. It’s like, ‘You do what we say, or … we’ll lock you up for longer.’”
If someone can threaten to extend your stay in this “health hotel,” just what kind of medicine are we dealing with? Clearly, this is a prison model, not a health care model. When have you ever been in a hospital and the nurse tells you, “If you don’t eat your pudding, we’re keeping you here another three months”?
Life in the Biosecurity State
Based on Hodgson’s description of the camp, you don’t get much in terms of medical attention. One shudders to think what would happen to someone who actually had a severe case of COVID in there. Will hazmat suit-equipped police drop you at your room and then you don’t see them again unless you’re caught breaking some rule?
Food is delivered and dropped outside your door once a day. Each room has a 2×2 meter deck where you can go, but if you step outside your room or designated outdoor area without a mask, you’re fined $5,000. She was also told that additional infractions would result in her stay being extended past the 14 days — even though she wasn’t sick and there was no reason to keep her there in the first place.
“You’re literally treated like a prisoner in there,” she says. If you’re triple jabbed and think that means you’ll never see the inside of one of these prisons, think again. It doesn’t matter whether you’ve been double or triple jabbed.
If you’re found to have been in close contact with someone who tests positive, in you go. And there’s no legal process you can turn to for help if you disagree with the decree to quarantine. During her stay, three teenagers — all of whom had tested negative — managed to escape the camp. The manhunt that ensued is further evidence that we’re dealing with a prison model and nothing else.
US Has Hundreds of Ready-Made Prison Camps
While Australia is building its second camp, the U.S. already has 800 FEMA camps ready for action. As reported by AMG News:12
“FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations … The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby.
The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners. Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold approximately 2 million people.”
The article goes on to list the many executive orders that can work together to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, effectively allowing government to seize control over all aspects of life, from food production and transportation to communications and health care functions.
There’s even an executive order that allows the government to mobilize civilians into “work brigades” to carry out whatever functions are deemed necessary, and one that allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate entire communities. To find the FEMA camp nearest you, check out the state listings in the AMG News article.13 Most states have three or more.
Interpret the Media Narrative — They Want Civil War
If you’ve been paying attention over the past couple of years, you may have noticed that you can almost always predict what the next phase of the narrative is going to be. They “advertise” or pave the way for the evolving narrative by putting out articles slanted in a given direction.
Based on recent headlines, I suspect “the powers that be” are hoping to incite a civil war. “CIA Advisor: US Is ‘Closer to Civil War’ Than Thought Possible,” the Daily Mail claims.14 “We’re Edging Closer to Civil War,” an opinion columnist at The New York Times declares.15 “US Closer to Civil War Than Most Would Like to Believe, New Book Says,” announces The Guardian.16
According to Dr. Barbara Walter, a political science professor who serves on the Political Instability Task Force, the U.S. meets several criteria that historically have served as indicators that an “open insurgency” may be imminent. In her book, “How Civil Wars Start,” she writes:17
“No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war. If you were an analyst in a foreign country looking at events in America — the same way you’d look at events in Ukraine or the Ivory Coast or Venezuela — you would go down a checklist, assessing each of the conditions that make civil war likely. And what you would find is that the United States … has entered very dangerous territory.”
Government Has Designated the Enemy, and It’s Us
The problem here is that while authoritarian politicians keep paying lip service to “democracy,” their own actions are anything but. Just who is undermining democracy? If you believe the news and CIA advisers, it’s the people who want the Constitution to stand and be adhered to that are the enemies of democracy. Never mind the mental gymnastics required to get to that conclusion.
It’s not hard to predict a scenario in which authoritarian leaders, acting on a falsely constructed narrative that a civil war is imminent, might start rounding up “dissidents.” And that’s in addition to the already existing, thinly veiled threat of tossing the unvaccinated into indefinite detention.
I agree with Walter’s assessment that we’re in dangerous territory, but not for the same reasons as she suggests. I would also argue that just about every country is a powder keg ready to blow, and for the same reason — people are being tyrannized by their governments and by unelected health authorities that claim powers they do not legally have.
Take England, for example. Entrepreneur and COVID blogger Steve Kirsch was recently notified that an anti-COVID restrictions campaign member had been detained for 28 days under the Mental Health Act for not wearing a mask to a dentist appointment.18 Normally, it’s quite difficult to get a person sectioned under the Mental Health Act, but not anymore.
Refusing to wear a mask apparently qualifies as an acute mental health disorder warranting a month-long stay in a psych ward.
The man, Charlie Cunningham, is reportedly being held at Littlemore Mental Hospital in Oxford, “where he’s being deprived of sleep under the pretext of being suicidal,” according to the woman who contacted Kirsch. She added, “He’s now going to be detained over Christmas and New Year — [he’s] very upset as he feels he’s been kidnapped and being held against his will …”
While all the articles mentioned earlier that warn of civil war blame the decline in democracy on the Trump administration, the Trump administration can hardly be blamed for the civil rights abuses and power grabs that are occurring today. It’s time to judge each tree by its fruit. That said, knowing that a civil war would serve the totalitarian takeover agenda, it would be wise to make sure our resistance remains a peaceful one.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
2021 is arguably the year when intra-NATO tensions and rivalry widened more so then ever since the alliance’s inception in 1949. Although NATO most recently expanded its membership to include Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020, the rift caused by competing interests and the emboldening of revisionist ideologies (neo-Ottomanism and Anglo Chauvinism) among bloc members has only widened in recent years, but no other like 2021.
Intense NATO disunity first became prevalent during the Syrian War. Turkey continues to be enraged that the US, France and other member states train, fund and arm the People’s Protection Units (YPG), the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) that Ankara recognizes as a terrorist organization. Meanwhile, Washington is furious that Turkey defied warnings to not purchase the Russian-made S-400 missile defense system, and thus in December 2020 imposed sanctions on its fellow NATO member, an unprecedented action. With former US President Donald Trump unwilling to confront Turkey in a serious way in order to not jeopardize his personal business interests in the country, his successor Joe Biden has more willingly confronted his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
On Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day (April 24, 2021), Biden recognized the Turkish-perpetrated Armenian Genocide, something successive presidents refused to do out of fear of alienating a Turkey that was once seen as a bulwark against the Soviet Union/Russian Federation. Seeing as the previous non-recognition of the genocide was for political and geopolitical reasons, the recognition signifies a major change in Washington’s attitude towards Ankara.
Although Washington bemoans Ankara as being revisionist, its own contradictory revisionism actually caused a deeper disunity among NATO members in 2021 following the announcement of AUKUS, a trilateral Anglo security pact between Australia, the UK and the US. Under the pact, the US will share nuclear propulsion technology with Australia. This culminated in Canberra cancelling without notice the French–Australian submarine deal worth €56 billion, ending efforts for the two countries to develop a deeper strategic partnership.
The sudden cancellation of a lucrative contract and defense strategy with Australia was a humiliation for Paris as its ambitions for more global influence was dealt a blow. The French Ambassadors to Washington and Canberra were recalled to Paris, and Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said “With Britain, there is no need. We know their constant opportunism.”
Washington pleaded to Paris that it had no knowledge that Canberra was about to “backstab”, as Le Drian termed it, their planned strategic alliance. The UK’s post-Brexit Anglo Chauvinistic ideology, something that Canberra naturally aligns with, motivated the humiliating manner in which France was sidelined to make way for AUKUS. This total disregard for French industry and strategic interests made Paris lose trust in NATO.
This “backstab” spurred on Paris to seek greater strategic alliances at a bilateral level, leading to a mutual defense pact that supersedes NATO with Greece. Greece is also frustrated with NATO as daily Turkish violations against its airspace, Turkish threats of a casus belli if it expands its maritime zone in the Aegean Sea to 12 nautical miles from its six (as permitted by international law), and Turkish attempts to exploit energy deposits in Greece’s maritime space, is met with indifference. In this way, Athens lost trust in NATO as a peace guarantor, something that made its pact with France a security necessity.
The Biden administration praised what Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis termed as “strategic autonomy” from Washington, a minor concession likely to try and appease Paris as it lost its more lucrative agreement with Australia. However, Ankara continually berates the French-Greek pact, with Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar saying that Greece’s alliance with France will cause cracks in NATO. On another occasion he said “[Greece is] trying to overpower Turkey with armaments and challenges, in cooperation with some other countries,” an indirect reference to France. Akar added: “[Greece] has different ambitions that it seeks to achieve through other alliances.”
There is clearly a major breakdown in NATO unity as accusations are being made between member states on who is responsible for causing cracks. This comes as the US continues to expect all member states to be compliant, as the UK retracts to Anglo Chauvinism under the guise of “Global Britain”, as France attempts to have more international influence, and as Turkey more aggressively pursues a neo-Ottoman policy.
2021 saw Greece and France lose trust in NATO, Turkey accuse Greece of causing disunity, the US angered as Turkey announces it wants to purchase another S-400 unit from Russia, and the formation of an Anglo bloc that seemingly supersedes NATO and French interests. Throw into this quagmire the massive disparity of interest among NATO members to support Ukraine against Russia, and it appears that the bloc is disunited like never before.
These events suggests that 2021 is a year where NATO’s fragility and disunity was more apparent than any other year, especially in the post-Cold War period. With these tensions, particular as the Anglo bloc and Turkey pursue revisionist policies and ideologies, disunity within NATO will not only continue into 2022, but intensify.
*
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.
This article was originally published in January 2021.
Every act of censorship inadvertently achieves its opposite by drawing attention to its subject.
Last week, an Israeli court ordered the 2002 film Jenin, Jenin to be banned in Israel and all copies of it confiscated.
The film – which was directed by Mohammed Bakri, a Palestinian citizen of Israel – has been the subject of censorship attempts since its release around 18 years ago.
Nissim Magnaji, a soldier who appears on archival footage in the film for just a few seconds, sued Bakri for defamation in 2016. His suit was supported by former Military Advocate General Avichai Mandelblit.
An Israeli judge ruled in Magnaji’s favor last week, ordering Bakri to pay more than $50,000 to the soldier and another $15,000 in court fees. Israeli government and military officials welcomed the court’s ruling.
Bakri is now planning to appeal the ruling in Israel’s highest court.
Following the court’s ruling, social media users shared links to the video and Bakri gave a number of interviews.
The Palestine Film Institute, a body that preserves and promotes Palestinian cinema, decided to make the film available to everyone. You can watch it for free at the top of this page.
Bearing witness
The film is a collection of interviews with residents of Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank following an Israeli military invasion in April 2002 that lasted almost two weeks.
The Israeli military killed at least 52 Palestinians and injured scores of others, according to a report compiled by the United Nations secretary-general at the time.
Israeli forces also shelled 150 buildings, leaving 450 families homeless. According to the report, 23 Israeli soldiers were dead by the end of the operation.
“It was not just the numbers involved that shocked the world at the time, but the brutal nature of an Israeli assault that was unprecedented even in the harsh history of the occupation,” Israeli historian Ilan Pappé wrote in The Electronic Intifada in 2017.
Bakri said he snuck into the camp on foot through the mountains about 10 days after the invasion to witness what Israel had done and speak to camp residents.
“I couldn’t move. I couldn’t breathe,” Bakri told his son Adam Bakri in an interview on Sunday about his emotional reaction after he first arrived in the camp.
“I couldn’t hold my body, I mean, when I saw these things around me and I smelled that smell of death.”
Little in the camp was left unscathed.
“Their bombs came down on us like water,” a young Palestinian girl tells Bakri in the film.
“I saw dead bodies, houses in ruins and undescribable atrocities. After all I’ve been through, what will become of my life?”
The girl, who Bakri identified as Najwa in later interviews, gained notoriety for her remarkable courage and became an iconic face of the film.
The documentary-style film combines rapid-fire shots in between interviews with dramatic sound transitions for aesthetic effect. It is genre-bending. It has no voice over and it doesn’t identify anyone. Bakri, who is often shown walking away from the camera, is sometimes heard, but he never turns around.
The film does not pretend to do more than bear witness.
A technicality
The filmmaker isn’t new to dealing with censorship and lawsuits pertaining to his film.
Five soldiers sued Bakri following the film’s release accusing him of defamation. Their cases were later dismissed, because, as Bakri wrote in The Electronic Intifada in 2008, “I do not know them and neither are they mentioned or shown in the film.”
Magnaji tried to get the film censored on relatively similar grounds.
Magnaji appears briefly in the film with two other soldiers as a camp resident recounts how during a raid on his home, an Israeli military officer robbed him of his life’s savings that he had set aside in the hope of having a child one day.
The elderly man recounted asking the military officer about his money. “He said, ‘shut up or I will kill you,’” the man recalls, as a clip is shown of three Israeli soldiers walking near a military vehicle, including Magnaji, according to Israeli media.
Getting the film censored may provide Magnaji and his supporters in Israel’s government with some temporary satisfaction.
But no amount of censorship will change the indisputable fact that the Israeli military committed atrocities in that camp and in others during the second intifada, nor that these soldiers were members of the military that has reinforced occupation and committed countless crimes against Palestinians.
No amount of intimidation will shake the legendary courage and resilience of each camp resident who witnessed Israel’s crimes that month.
And no amount of lawsuits will make them forget.
That’s just a truth Israel and its soldiers will have to live with.
*
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.
Coupled with the continued global economic uncertainty surrounding COVID-19, the result is that the EU will continue suffering from high prices and unreliable supplies so long as it refuses to pragmatically reach long-term supply agreements with Russia.
President Putin recently expressed exasperation at the counterproductive policies being pushed by the EU amidst its ongoing energy crisis. He agreed with a Duma representative who earlier warned that Europe was at threat of freezing due to its politicization of Russian gas imports. In the Russian leader’s own words,
“Yes, I agree with your assessment. And it’s also stupid for those who are delaying the (Nord Stream II) system, because greater quantities of gas in the European market would surely lower the price of spot transactions. They don’t want to buy from us directly, but for them, the price would fall dramatically. They’re just chopping down the branch they’re sitting on. It’s remarkable.”
It’s very rare for President Putin to express exasperation about anything, let alone other countries’ policies, but that just goes to show how counterproductive he believes them to be. Contrary to what many in the Mainstream Media and Alt-Media Community (AMC) claim, each for their own ideological reasons of course and in pursuit of different narrative ends,
Russia doesn’t want Europe to freeze. It genuinely wants to continue mutually beneficial energy cooperation with the bloc and isn’t interested whatsoever in “punishing” those countries through the suspension of supplies for political reasons. That’s why this exasperates President Putin so much.
The EU’s radical “green” policies and anti-Russian paranoia are directly responsible for exacerbating the ongoing energycrisis.
The first refer to the bloc’s accelerated transition towards so-called “green” energy sources, which occurred at the expense of existing conventional (fossil fuel) ones. The result was that the EU had insufficient fuel supplies to accommodate the economy’s gradual recovery over the past months after the economic consequences of the international community’s uncoordinated efforts to contain COVID-19 dealt a powerful blow to it over nearly the past two years.
They should have gradually implemented moderate policies in hindsight instead of accelerate the implementation of radical ones.
The second factor relates to some countries’ US-instigated fears about Russia’s alleged political intentions when it comes to its role in supplying the EU’s energy.
The Baltic States and Poland have consistently claimed without any factual basis that Russia wants to “punish” all of the EU for whatever reason they claim at the time, be it the bloc’s so-called “democratic” and “human rights” standards or its imposition of sanctions against the Eurasian Great Power. Not once has Russia ever “weaponized” energy, with the only alleged case of this in the early 2000s being due to Ukraine failing to pay for its supplies and subsequently siphoning off resources as they transited through its territory westward.
Russia shut down its export routes per contractual agreement in order to prevent its resources from being stolen and in an attempt to compel the debtors to finally pay their bill. This legal move was maliciously spun as some sort of “collective punishment” against all of Europe, which explains the timing with which Ukraine’s US-backed government at the time carried out this unprecedented provocation.
Even so, it remains etched in some of the regional residents’ minds as Russia’s alleged “weaponization” of energy exports, which their governments now claim is happening once again. These countries would rather pay for more expensive and less reliable US LNG than clinch deals with neighboring Russia.
The state of affairs is such that the EU shows no signs of relenting on its accelerated imposition of radical “green” policies, and the bloc is still somewhat influenced by its Russophobic members’ paranoia about the Kremlin’s strategic intentions.
Coupled with the continued global economic uncertainty surrounding COVID-19, the result is that the EU will continue suffering from high prices and unreliable supplies so long as it refuses to pragmatically reach long-term supply agreements with Russia.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Comrades, many American citizens stood jaw agape as they watched Australian metropolitan police departments begin cracking skulls and making arrests for violating COVID rules and restrictions. Yes, it always seemed like Australia, New Zealand and Europe were the beta testing ground to see if police would comply with jackboot arrests of their own community.
Well, now we can see those same tactics being deployed in the U.S.
New York City was the first large metropolitan area to require vaccination identification cards to enter restaurants, bars, dining establishments and various public and private venues. Now comes the enforcement part.
Watch this video below to see the New York Police Department (NYPD) start deploying vaccination police, and making arrests of people who do not present papers to prove their status. WATCH:
When asked why they would arrest their own community members simply for being unvaccinated and wanting to eat a sandwich, the police turn a deaf ear. This should not be a surprise. When it comes to getting their own paychecks, or putting food on their family’s table, just about every single police officer in the U.S. will load you in the cattle car…. while saying, “It’s just my job.”
We watched this escalate in Victoria, New South Wales and various regions throughout Australia, as well as France, Germany, Austria and regions in Europe. If things go as they did in previous examples, when/if the citizens of New York City begin to push back against this, there’s no reason to believe the NYPD will not respond with armored cars, riot teams and rubber bullets.
It is profoundly disturbing, sickening and wrong, but shouldn’t be too surprising given what we have witnessed in other countries. When push comes to shove, very few police will not participate; most will do exactly what they are told by the local and state officials.
NYPD is the first to start showing their jackbooted nature. Next will likely be Chicago and Los Angeles; it spreads from there. Once the Blue State governors and city officials see they can turn to violence in order to retain their dictates, orders and demands, that violence will not stop – nor will it diminish.
The best course of action is to see the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be.
Watch the police in action, and take note of their irrelevance to the questions put to them. There have been multiple psychological studies of this behavior over the years, and all end up with the same result – the police will do what they are told regardless of their own views on the matter.
Many police and law enforcement officers will tell you they will not comply with such orders. However, when those orders actually materialize, the police compartmentalize their behavior and do exactly what they are told.
The local police in your town will do exactly the same if they are ordered to carry out the rules of the city officials in your area. Your local police will do this regardless of what they might say right now.
As we witnessed in Australia, once the police officers start carrying out these types of operations, the only way to make it stop is to make them uncomfortable. That requires mass non-compliance by large numbers of citizens to overcome the mental barrier the police use to justify their conduct.
Then, after the police start getting uncomfortable arresting moms, dads and children, it takes open and vocal public shaming on a large scale toward the officers on a community level to get them to stop.
Remember, when the Chinese government first told the regular army to open fire on the students in Tiananmen Square, the soldiers would not shoot. The Chinese Communist government then brought in the Mongolian divisions who had no connection to the local community. You know what happened next.
*
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.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
François Legault’s Curfew
