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.
Israeli authorities yesterday demolished the homes of the Palestinian Bedouin village of Al-Araqeeb in the southern Negev region, for the 196th time since the year 2000.
The demolition of the tents sheltering Al-Araqeeb’s residents during the winter storm came less than a month after the village was last levelled on 24 November.
This is the 14th time that the Israeli authorities have demolished the tents in Al-Araqeeb since the start of the year.
The village was first levelled in July 2010, and every time the residents of Al-Araqeeb rebuild their tents and small homes, occupation forces return to raze them, sometimes several times in a month.
Located in the Negev (Naqab) desert, the village is one of 51 “unrecognised” Arab villages in the area and is constantly targeted for demolition ahead of plans to Judaise the Negev by building homes for new Jewish communities. Israeli bulldozers, which Bedouins are charged for, demolish everything, from the trees to the water tanks, but Bedouin residents have tried to rebuild it every time.
Bedouin in the Negev must abide by the same laws as Jewish Israeli citizens. They pay taxes but do not enjoy the same rights and services as Jews in Israel and the state has repeatedly refused to connect the towns to the national grid, water supplies, and other vital amenities.
*
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.
Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed Moscow’s great concern over the deployment of the US Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Systems near Russian borders, including their possible location in Ukraine.
“We are highly concerned over the deployment of the US ABM systems near Russian [borders],” the head of state noted at the expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry Board on Tuesday.
According to Putin, “if this infrastructure advances, if the US and NATO missile systems appear in Ukraine, then their flight time to Moscow will be reduced to 7-10 minutes, and speaking about hypersonic weapons – to 5 minutes.”
“For us, this is a serious hurdle, a challenge to our security,” the Russian leader noted.
“The buildup of US and NATO forces directly at the Russian borders, as well as holding large-scale drills, including unplanned ones, causes serious concern,” Putin pointed out.
The United States and its allies need to understand that Russia simply “has nowhere to retreat” if its weapons appear in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday at an expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry board.
“They [the US] simply do what they want. But what they are doing on the territory of Ukraine now, or trying to do and going to do – this is not thousands of kilometers away from our national border. This is at the doorstep of our home. They must understand that we simply have nowhere to retreat further,” Putin said.
*
“Do they think we don’t see these threats? Or do they think that we are so weak-willed to simply look blanky at the threats posed to Russia? [Good question] That is the problem: we simply have nowhere to move further, that’s the question,” Putin said.
Standard Missile 3 of the sort currently deployed in Romania and soon in Poland.
*
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.
Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Both are alleging without providing a speck of evidence that 97% of Covid cases/hospitalizations/deaths are the unvaccinated. This is a total lie.
Information from every country shows that it is the vaccinated who are suffering injuries and deaths.
The “Omicron variant” is being used to create a new wave of public fear and government control over civil liberties and citizens’ bodies–essentially rape with a needle–despite the known fact that the variant is rarely harmful. Hospitals are falsely reported to be full of Omicron patients.
The presstitute media stresses that the more or less harmless variant is highly contagious, and are creating fear out of the ease of catching it. People are urged to protect themselves by taking the jab even though it is a known fact that the Omicron variant is immune to the “vaccine.”
Acquaint yourself with the facts:
In Scotland for August to November 2021 over 85% of deaths were in the vaccinated. Boosters are merely boosting COVID infections. Some 40,000 deaths have occurred in the USA, UK and EU following vaccination but Omicron is mild. The UK Government has manipulated the data to blame the unvaccinated but the vaccinated are at greatest risk.
It was clear from the first cases in South Africa and now in the UK and EU that the new Omicron variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease and very few deaths [not from Covid but] “with COVID”. Indeed South African experts have advised stopping stop-and -trace and quarantining because most of the infected have no symptoms.
More evidence of the failure of vaccines in the face of new infections comes from the USA where one of the largest US outbreaks of the new Omicron variant to date is believed to have occurred at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where almost all 930 cases over the past week are believed to be of the variant.
All of the confirmed Omicron cases in the Cornell University case are among people who are fully vaccinated, and some of them are in people who’ve also had the booster.
The booster is of course more of the same in the hope that the third dose will do what the first two doses were supposed to do! And the new variant, “omicron”?
Most of the Omicron cases in the United States have been among the vaccinated, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in an update on Friday 10/12/21. Most patients have experienced mild symptoms.
When the media of the entire Western World lends itself to blatant lies in order to boost Big Pharma profits, enhance governments’ destruction of civil liberty, suppress dissent, and perhaps facilitate a depopulation agenda, the Western World is lost. It is the corrupt Western media that has conspired with governments to destroy freedom and nazify the Western World to the point that Australia has concentration camps for the unvaccinated and Germany and Austria intend to imprison the unvaccinated–all of this for a “vaccine” that all evidence proves beyond any question does not protect against a virus, a virus moreover that has a very low death rate and is easily cured and prevented with HCQ and Ivermectin.
Western peoples need to understand that their enemies are not Russia and China but their own governments and their own “public health” officials. It is these people who are the enemies of mankind.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a 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.
News of the deployment of National Guard troops to an unspecified location in the Horn of Africa is an indication that US interference in the region will continue.
The dominant corporate and state media have reported for months that Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, will soon fall to the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), a treasonous splinter of the Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) that started a civil war by attacking an Ethiopian federal army base on November 3, 2020. However, the dominant press have of late been unable to deny that the ENDF has retaken cities, towns, and territory in the Amhara and Afar Regional States, both of which border the Tigray Regional State.
The TPLF is a longstanding ally of the US, which supported its brutal 27-year, minority rule in exchange for its army’s service to the US agenda on the African continent. Its proponents have stridently called for US military action to stop what they call genocide in Tigray, even though UN and Ethiopian Human Rights Commission investigators concluded that there is no genocide taking place.
AG: Ann Fitz-Gerald, news came out this week that a thousand National Guardsmen from Virginia and Kentucky are deploying to Ft. Bliss, Texas now to train for deployment to the Horn of Africa at the turn of the year.
Nearly half the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq were National Guardsmen, so that’s nothing new. But what do you think of this escalation of boots on the ground? Especially to a region as increasingly volatile as the Horn?
AF: It’s not totally clear what these troops have been deployed for. A press release stated that it was to support safety and stability in the region. The statement said the objective is to provide security for the forward operating bases maintained by the Department of Defense, to build partnerships with host nations, and to improve safety and stability in the region.
The National Guard is a unique element of the military, with a direct line of command both to the state governor and the federal authorities. But they respond to domestic emergencies and overseas combat missions, counter drug efforts, reconstruction missions, and more. Sometimes the National Guards, which are often called “paramilitary forces” in other countries, are more effective than the regular military units in supporting things like domestic emergencies such as crowd control, disaster management, and community defense and resilience.
In this case, the deployment may be for contingency purposes, augmentation purposes. Should the military contingency force, known as CJTF—the Horn of Africa Combined Joint Task Forces— be deployed, maybe the National Guard troops would provide security to this and other forward operating bases and/or be used for other augmentation purposes, not only in the case where the main force would become deployed, but also for the purposes of drawing on wider competencies of the Guards, which are more oriented to domestic crises like civil unrest and natural disasters.
One may argue that it’s quite surprising with troops returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the drawdowns in those theaters of operations, that the government would draw on the National Guard to deploy overseas. On the other hand, the National Guard could arguably cover a wider range of missions. We are dealing these days with wider security threats. So maybe the US government is looking for that wider flexibility and agility in support of its ongoing operations on the continent.
AG: It seemed for a moment that you might be saying the National Guard does especially nice things. But this is alarming, to say the least, to Ethiopians who’ve expected the US to start drone bombing, or invade in some other way, for the past year.
AF: That’s what the risk always is when the directives come across as very general or slightly unclear, and when there is a crisis in the region as well. It is easy to jump to conclusions and make assumptions.
And I am sure that constituencies in the US might also be alarmed by the costs of losing domestic support in states like Virginia to overseas missions. They might ask whether that’s the best use of the National Guard while we’re still in the COVID crisis and facing climate calamities like wildfires, hurricanes, and rising sea levels.
Others may assume that the US is scaling up its military operations in the Horn of Africa so as to take military action in Ethiopia, but I would encourage people not to jump to conclusions. This may be part of a wider vision that the US government has for its military footprint in Africa, not just in the Horn.
The US recently announced, back in March 2021, a new direction for national security that was intricately tied to the US’s economic interests at home and overseas. So it may be part and parcel of a wider mission, all of which would involve a more deeply embedded footprint in the Horn of Africa.
AG: I can’t say I find that reassuring.
AF: Well, it may also relate to the US Embassy in Addis Ababa encouraging US nationals to get out of the country as soon as they can and suggesting that they might need help.
In addition to that, there are more regional issues such as the recent coup in Sudan. The US military still has a dominant presence in the Sudanese government. We also see election uncertainty and unrest in Somalia.
AG: Do you think there’s any good reason for the US military to be in Africa and/or any benefit for the African people?
AF: Well, we’ve been talking for a long time now about African solutions to African challenges and a wider role to be taken on the by the African Union. And not just the African Union, but the continent’s regional economic mechanisms and regional economic communities.
The US Department of Defense was in the past focused on the potential for mass migration to Europe and North America. Another concern is keeping shipping routes and waterways protected and open.
AG: Today California 30th District Congressman Brad Sherman suggested blocking trade going in and out of Ethiopia and Eritrea through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Oman. With a Chinese base as well as a US base in Djibouti, that could cause a greater logjam than that cargo ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal earlier this year.
AF: I agree that doesn’t sound wise. Are Americans really served by a wider US military footprint than the one we have already seen on the African continent? During a time when the number of African standby forces across the continent has increased? When there have been efforts to develop a collaborative arrangement between the UN and the African Union (AU) to support African peacekeeping missions? One would think this US presence should now be scaled down to let Africans solve their own problems.
AG: Lots of people on the African continent, and those who are critical of US and Western policy in Africa, think that elite Western interests are just there to dominate, exploit, and indebt them, and steal their natural resources. Do you think they are honestly there for anything else?
AF: They are there to protect US foreign policy interests and US national security interests. It should also be noted that earlier on this year, the US announced new plans for their national security strategy to be indistinguishable from their plans for a new economic strategy.
That economic strategy has implications for building back better at home in the US vis a vis its overseas economic interests. So it seems that there is a renewed interest that the US has taken in mineral resources across the African continent and the Arabian/Nubian Shield . There is an interest in having access to those natural resources: lithium, niobium, and other minerals that are key to pivoting to a cleaner, greener economy, which is the main thrust of the US economic plans. That would require access to these minerals and resources, but also stability to support that access.
AG: But the US sows chaos wherever it goes, as it has in Libya, Syria, and Somalia, just to name those nations nearest Ethiopia.
AF: Well, its logical goals should be stability, peace, and security on the African continent. In the longer term, stability should in fact benefit the pursuit of American economic interests across the continent.
AG: I can’t help laughing. I’m sure you’ve noticed that I talk more colloquially, like a journalist, while you talk like an academic. We are both who we are.
AF: Yes we are. As an academic I’m required to discuss things in a certain way, but we agree about a lot and have enough in common to talk.
AG: OK, the TPLF has been claiming that they are winning the war in Ethiopia, and the western press has been chanting day after day that the TPLF is close to seizing Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia. Every day there are reports in the US and European capitals that they are withdrawing embassy personnel and that NGO staff and foreign citizens are fleeing at the behest of their governments.
Today, however, these outlets, even the dominant corporate outlets, are reporting that the Ethiopian National Defense Force is recapturing northern towns and districts. What do you think is going to happen militarily?
AF: We’ve seen a lot of different media reports on issues concerning the trajectory of the conflict, and developments on the battlefield. And of course CNN published a story with photos taken way back in May in the Tigray Regional State, but said that they were TPLF rebel forces on the outskirts of Addis, and that the TPLF had the city encircled.
On the contrary, we’ve now learned from local Ethiopian media that the town of Lalibela has been retaken, as have a number of other northern districts in the North Wollo Regional State, the region just south of the Tigray Region. North Wollo is where there are communities all along the border with Tigray.
Lalabella is an historic and holy city, famous for its churches carved out of rock in the 12th and 13th centuries. It’s a UNESCO world heritage site, and people both inside and outside Ethiopia were alarmed when the TPLF seized it.
The national defense forces have also retaken cities including Gashena, where five strategic routes come together, including the road into Tigray Region and onward onto Tigray’s capital, Me’kele. We have also been informed by national and local media sources that the TPLF has suffered some very heavy losses at the front lines of these battle areas.
I understand that the TPLF no longer have a presence at all in the Afar Region.
Forced recruitment by the TPLF rebels, however, has continued across different segments of the Tigray Regional State population, and as a result, many people who lack experience in soldiering are coming to the front lines. This has resulted in large, tragic losses.
Local Ethiopian news is also reporting that there’ve been significant losses to the TPLF leadership. There was an announcement last week citing that 12 senior leaders had been killed. The Ethiopian army’s air strikes are also continuing and they have targeted the TPLF supply lines that were running between Mek’ele and other areas, and in the border region with Amhara Regional State.
We are seeing a likely TPLF defeat in the Amhara region, but the question is, now that Afar has been cleared of conflict, why do remaining TPLA fighters from Amhara keep increasing in numbers? What happens next? I expect a TPLF defeat, after which democracy and peace should be declared as the pillars of the post-conflict pathway.
Priority has to be given to an interim administration set up in the Tigray Region which makes space for all political groupings, all opposition groups as well—plural politics. And in all the conflict-affected regions, rebuilding the infrastructure must take priority.
The Ministry of Peace reported back in August that some critical infrastructure in Tigray had been destroyed repeatedly by TPLF fighters and had been reconstructed and rebuilt several times. But these services extend to banking as well. All these critical services need to be supported. And social programs. Support to these sorts of programs will win the support of the people. It is the confidence of these conflict -affected communities that the government really needs to win back.
Social programs are important for community healing and community-based and political-based dialogue. There are issues concerning accountability and rule of law, which very much depends on which leaders remain in position at the top of the TPLF organization.
What leaders were responsible for strategic command and control of the fighting, and specifically the attack on the northern manned outposts that launched this war in the first place? I would say, in the spirit of prioritizing peace and democracy, that in parallel with holding this very small group of leaders to account, the government should consider granting a blanket amnesty to all others. It would be a magnanimous move on the government’s part and it would help support the much needed healing and space for dialogue.
AG: The US has seemed determined to see the government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed fall. The constant calls of genocide in Tigray are like those that usually precede US bombing campaigns, as they did in Libya and Syria. There was a piece in The Guardiansaying that genocide is imminent and we must act. One of its authors was a former head of the United Nations Development Program, whom WHO Chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus—a former TPLF minister—had appointed to co-chair the WHO’s Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.
Do you see any retreat from all this crusading and the very real possibility that the US might attack Ethiopia, claiming it has to “stop genocide?”
AF: I’ve seen some concerning things that have come out as statements by US policy makers, particularly by the State Department. That has generated anti-U.S. sentiment back in Ethiopia and also across the Ethiopian diaspora community. There’s been constant criticism of the Ethiopian government, and punitive sanctions imposed on Ethiopia and its ally Eritrea, but none on the TPLF. This has emboldened the TPLF and given it no incentive to stand down. So the TPLF incursions outside Tigray have continued, the insurgency has continued, and the violence and destruction has continued.
On the genocide issue, I read some online US national news about this, which referred to a decision to halt any official decision made on a genocide designation. The claim of genocide has been debunked by a recent reportwritten by investigators from the UN and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, but despite this report, many media outlets, most of all CNN and its foreign correspondent Nima Elbagir, have continued to cry genocide. Elbagir, in her recent moderation of a panel hosted at Yale University—which featured 2 senators from the human rights caucus—seemed to be pushing the US to disregard the UN report and adopt a domestic designation of genocide.
AG: You were disinvited from that panel at Yale, weren’t you? I read this report, Yale hosts Ethiopia conference amid social media controversy, disinvites speaker . It quotes you saying, ““I had no objection to being asked to stand down from the event. I understand that others did complain on the basis that Ethiopian voices were not represented at the event.”
AF: There wasn’t a single Ethiopian voice and in the end, the panel was not only all white but also all male. CNN’s Nima Elbagir, the only woman and the only person of color, moderated.
AG: So they didn’t even much bother with the optics of ten white men debating the fate of a Black African nation.
AF: No, they didn’t.
AG: The US has also demanded “negotiations without preconditions” for almost a year, implying that the TPLF and the federal government are equals who should surrender everything, then just sit down and talk to each other. What do you think about that?
AF: The issue of negotiations, much less negotiations without preconditions, is a non-starter with Ethiopians. You can flip this on its head and say the Biden administration wouldn’t go to the negotiation table with the insurrectionists who stormed Capitol Hill after Trump lost the last US presidential election. Ethiopia should not be treated with different standards.
The Ethiopian people need this war to end. The world needs this war to end. The unnecessary loses, the destruction to livelihoods, all of this needs to stop. And a more peaceful pathway involving rebuilding, needs to start. This is not going to be an easy task, but it is one that the country must prioritize, one that should be supported and cannot be rushed. Healing, development, forgiveness, and social reconstruction will take many years. That’s what we should be thinking about, as western partner countries at the moment. Support for peace.
AG: Despite its protestations about negotiations, the US government has acted as though peace in the region is the last thing they’re interested in. Just as peace is the last thing they were interested in when they went to war with Libya and Syria. So why would you expect anything different?
AF: That’s the disappointing side of things about US policy on Ethiopia and the wider Horn of Africa region. While the US takes a very short term view of its own interests, enormous diplomatic and cooperative opportunities are foregone. Arguments about the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, which US ally Egypt does not want to see completed, has taken away from discussions on regional economic cooperation that could have gone on in the meantime. The US needs to take a longer view of its own interests and those of the region.
AG: As a journalist, I feel it’s my job to describe what is as well as I can, and I can’t help being cynical, but I know that, as a professor at the Balsillie School of International Affairs , you need to propose a better way forward, as you’re doing.
AF: Trying to.
AG: This week, we’ve seen leaked footage of a meeting in which former and current western diplomats met with a senior TPLF member and spokesperson, despite US claims to neutrality. What do you think of this video?
AF: The video became viral and infamous quite quickly. It was a big leak. My own concerns about the video were the way in which a so-called civil society organization platformed a known leader of a nationally declared terrorist group, the TPLF.
AG: Hold on, you need to explain what you mean by “nationally declared terrorist group.”
AL: There was a vote in the Ethiopian parliament which designated the TPLF as a terrorist group following its attack on the Northern Command post on the 3rd and 4th of November 2020. To give a platform to Berhane Gebre-Christos, a leader and spokesperson of that group—for a civil society organization to do that—is not good practice. No one should provide platforms for groups that commit high crimes.
Berhane Gebre-Christos said he wanted to create a “transitional government,” meaning to topple the legitimately elected government of Ethiopia, and the Western diplomats and former diplomats there agreed with him.
It’s totally inappropriate for any current or previously serving diplomat to get mixed up with a group plotting a coup.
My other concern is that the website of this NGO in question claimed that the organization had been receiving funds from the USAID and the NED. And then, very quickly, after the video was released, we saw many so-called board members and founding members speaking out, claiming that they had in fact not been playing the role suggested by the video and the organization’s website.
AG: What organization?
AF: The civil society group that was hosting the meeting. It’s called Peace and Development Center Ethiopia, and its website is pdcethiopia.org . They hosted the meeting that the leaked video had covered.
AG: Is there anything you’d like to say about the role of the USAID and NED?
AF: I don’t know the extent of their projects that USAID and NED are funding.It just stated on the website that the organization did receive funds from both USAID and NED.
AG: The US government’s aggressive policy is so short sighted that it’s obviously pushing Ethiopia into collaboration with China, which is exactly what they’re trying to stop. It’s incredibly stupid. One might imagine that USAID Administer Samantha Power and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken are agents of the Chinese government.
AF: I agree that it’s very unwise and short-sighted. And it is the opposite of the U.S.’s stated and perceived goals.
AG: Is there anything else you’d like to say?
AF: I hope to see peace take root in Ethiopia and across the wider Horn of Africa region very soon. I hope we’ll be having interviews of a very different sort in the near future.
*
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.
Ann Fitz-Gerald is a professor at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, and the Director of the Balsillie School of International Relations . She has many years of experience working as a research professor across most of Ethiopia’s regional states and the wider Horn of Africa region. She has also supported internationally sponsored peace talks in the region and has worked as a Course Director for a masters program delivered in Addis Ababa.
Ann Garrison is a Black Agenda Report Contributing Editor based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for promoting peace through her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes Region. She can be reached on Twitter @AnnGarrison and at ann(at)anngarrison(dot)com. She 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.
Russian Deputy-Ambassador Dmitri Polyanskiy moderated this scintillating Arria Formula Meeting. The opening briefer was Dr. Fernand de Varennes, UN Special Rapporteur on Minorities Issues.
In a powerful exposure of egregious discrimination against ethnic minorities, residents of Latvia and Estonia and other Baltic states and Ukraine, denied their rights to citizenship, their rights to speak their native languages, denied their right to government representation, presented an alarming description of the fascistic trends throughout the Baltics, and Ukraine.
In a passionate and powerful presentation, Alexander Gaponenko, Civil activist of Latvia described the relegation to second, or third class citizenship of Russian speakers in Latvia, and the brilliant Valery Engel, Director of Latvia’s European Center for Democracy described the Kafkaesque reception he received in Estonia where he had been invited to present a speech on anti-Semitism in Latvia.
Dr. Engel was denied entry into Estonia on the basis of articles he had written exposing anti-Semitism in Latvia, despite the fact that he was a principal speaker invited to the conference denouncing anti-Semitism to be held in Estonia. To his great credit, Dr. Engel recognized the irony in this preposterous denial of entry.
In Latvia, the Russian language was prohibited in public and private schools, and Russian speaking children who were unable to speak with the fluency of their Latvian-speaking classmates, were often categorized as “retarded,” and refused promotion to grades of higher learning. And thus they were forced into categories of expertise beneath their favored Latvian classmates. A spiral of downward mobility was thus engineered, depriving Russian-speaking children of opportunities imperative for development throughout their life.
In an overwhelming and heartbreaking description of the surge of Nazism in Ukraine, Ms. Elena Berezhnaya, of the Ukranian Anti-Fascist-League described the scourge of neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, which were tacitly, and often actively supported by the Ukranian government “authorities,” undoubtedly on whose behalf they were rampaging throughout Ukraine.
Ms. Berezhnaya described the current deification of Ukraine’s most famous nazi-collaborator, Stefan Bandera, and she mentioned that in 2016 a law was passed in Ukraine making it illegal to criticize nazi collaborators.
When Russia’s moderator, Deputy Ambassador Dmitri Polyanskiy opened the meeting for comments by other Security Council members, the U.S. Representative made a statement bordering on the absurd, and revealing zero knowledge of history.
After stating that the United States was totally anti-nazi, and opposed all forms of Nazism, (despite the fact that the United States, with Ukraine was the only UN member state opposing the human rights resolution “Prohibiting the glorification of Nazism,”) the US representative totally ignored the fact that it was the U.S. government, led by Victoria “f**k the EU” Nuland that led the destabilization and violent overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected President Yanukovich, and Nuland then selected and packed the post-coup Ukranian government with pro-nazis, who have metastasized into the nazi horror from which the Donbass is desperately trying to escape, as the entire region is sliding (or being engineered) into confrontation 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.
Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York.
All 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.
Vaccine injury is everywhere. The federal government collects reports of vaccine injury through the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). The system is intentionally clunky and difficult to navigate.
So some warrior mamas created OpenVAERS that takes all of the federal reports and makes them easily searchable. Pharma and the bougie mainstream are terrified of OpenVAERS because by making the reports easily searchable it wakes lots of people up to the catastrophic harms from vaccines.
OpenVAERS started before COVID. But with the introduction of COVID vaccines, OpenVAERS has become even more important. OpenVAERS tracks COVID vaccine injuries every week through what has become known as the Red Box Summaries. The Red Box Summaries are so powerful that Facebook and Instagram have programmed their artificial intelligence to censor screenshots from OpenVAERS in order to protect the Pharma cartel.
Over time, OpenVAERS has added additional charts and graphs to help people understand the data and its context. For example these two charts are better than anything produced by the federal government during this whole debacle.
This week the warrior mamas at OpenVAERS outdid themselves. They produced a new chart (below) that graphs the number “Fully” vaccinated (divided by 1,000), the number of covid vaccine injuries reported to VAERS, and the population (divided by 1,000) for all 50 states.
As you can see, the number of covid vaccine injury reports in each state corresponds to the number of people fully vaccinated in that state. While this is obvious to everyone who has been paying attention, this will be a revelation to people who tried to bury their head in the sand in hopes that this problem would go away on its own.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that a majority of VAERS reports are sent in by vaccine manufacturers (37%) and health care providers (36%). The remaining reports are obtained from state immunization programs (10%). Only 7% of VAERS reports are submitted by the vaccine injured and their families (with 10% of reports from other sources).
Nearly every independent scholar who has studied VAERS agrees that it is a significant undercount of actual vaccine harms.
Former FDA Director David Kessler in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association stated that “only about 1% of serious events are reported to the FDA.” A report for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Inc. confirmed that VAERS undercounts actual vaccine injuries by a factor of 100.
More recently several scholars have attempted to refine these initial estimates.
Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford estimate that VAERS undercounts fatal vaccine reactions by a factor of 41.
Dr. Jessica Rose, a statistician in Israel, recently calculated an under-reporting factor of 31 for all severe adverse events following vaccination.
We are in the midst of the most catastrophic vaccine campaign in U.S. history.
Sign up at OpenVAERS to have their weekly reports delivered to your email inbox for free.
Mess with a mama bear you’re gonna get mauled.
*
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.
The White House was viciously mocked over the weekend after pushing the message that unvaccinated Americans would experience a winter of “severe illness and death” due to the omicron variant of the coronavirus.
President Biden, as well as White House COVID response coordinator Jeff Zients, each pushed the messaging last week, with the former issuing the stark and gloomy warning to Americans following a Thursday White House briefing on the pandemic.
“I want to send a direct message to the American people: Due to the steps we’ve taken, omicron has not yet spread as fast as it would have otherwise done,” Biden said.
“But it’s here now, and it’s spreading, and it’s going to increase … We are looking at a winter of severe illness and death for the unvaccinated – for themselves, their families and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm,” he added. “But there’s good news: If you’re vaccinated, and you have your booster shot, you’re protected from severe illness and death.” (emphasis added)
Conservatives on social media wasted no time blasting the morbid statement which some believed almost seemed to almost take pleasure in the thought of the suffering of the unvaccinated.
Read this Christmas Message from Resident Biden. The second paragraph can fuel panic and chaos. More than they already have. This administration is fkd up beyond all repair! pic.twitter.com/y8Ahkp7m9j
President Biden’s warning of a “winter of severe illness and death” makes President Jimmy Carter’s “malaise” speech urging Americans to lower expectations seem a cheerful upper by contrast. How do Democrats run as the party of “severe illness and death”? This is madness.
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: Joe Biden on Election Night in Pittsburg, Nov. 3, 2020. (Adam Schultz, Flickr, Biden for President)
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 message that could have come straight out of Nazi Germany, Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary has said that anyone who remains unvaccinated should be completely cut off from hospitals, planes, public transport, and the ability to get food at supermarkets. He added that governments should place increasing restrictions on the unvaccinated – including making vaccination mandatory for air travel.
“I have no difficulty saying to people, you can fly, but you have to be vaccinated.
We fully respect your right to be not vaccinated if you are one of the lunatic fringes who believe this is some government, big pharma conspiracy.
But if you are not vaccinated, you can’t go to the supermarket, you can’t go to the pharmacy. You shouldn’t be allowed into hospital if you’re not vaccinated”
Leaning into his enthusiasm for coercion, O’Leary added that not allowing unvaccinated people to participate in certain activities would incentivize them to get the vaccine.
“If you tell someone under 30 years of age that they cannot get into a pub they’d get vaccinated pretty damn quickly.
But governments should place increasing restrictions (on the unvaccinated) while recognizing the rights of everybody. If you want to be unvaccinated, that’s fine, but we should increasingly not allow those to go to work, to travel on the Underground, to fly etc.”
However, O’Leary did say that he ‘fully recognizes’ the choices of those who believe in conspiracy theories between government and big pharma not to get the jab, he does not think they should enjoy the same freedoms as those who have received the vaccination. In other words, he respects your choice, as long as you make the one he agrees with.
These kinds of comments are par the course for O’Leary, who is described on Wikipedia as arrogant and prone to making comments which he later contradicts. He has been extravagantly outspoken in his public statements, sometimes resorting to personal attacks and foul language.
We await to see whether he regrets his decision to back proposals that would hurt the airline he is running.
*
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.
Last November, an expert group headed by Sergei A. Karaganov, the Honorary Chairman of the Presidium, Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, presented its final 150 paged assessment policy report with some recommendations intended to improve and scale up the existing Russia’s influence in Africa. The report, put together by 25 academic researchers and experts, further indicated concrete pitfalls and setbacks in the policy implementation in Africa.
This latest policy report unreservedly criticized Russia’s policy towards Africa. It claimed that there have been inconsistencies in the policy implementation. It said that the policy strategy regarding Africa has to spell out and incorporate the development needs of African countries.
While the number of top-most and high-level meetings have increased, the share of substantive issues on the agenda often remains intangible and negligibly small. There are little definitive results from such meetings, which were to demonstrate, a large extent, the “demand for Russia” by Africa and its leaders. In addition, disorganized Russian-African lobbying combined with lack of “information hygiene” at all levels of public speaking were listed among the main flaws of Russia’s current Africa policy.
“In many cases and situations, ideas and intentions are often passed for results, and unapproved projects are announced as going ahead. Russia’s possibilities are overestimated both publicly and in closed negotiations. Worse is many projects announced at the top and high political levels have not been implemented,” according to the report presented in November.
Long before the historic Russia-Africa summit, at least during the past decade, several bilateral agreements between Russia and individual African countries were signed. Besides, memoranda of understanding, declaration of interests, pledges and promises dominated official speeches. On the other side, Russia is simply invisible in economic sectors in Africa, despite boasting of decades-old solid relations with the continent.
It has however attempting to transform the much boasted political relations into a more comprehensive and broad economic cooperation. Its economic footprints are not growing as expected. Interestingly, Russian authorities always acknowledge the enormous potentials and advantages Russia has, and at the same are puzzled by the comparatively high level of economic influence by other foreign players in Africa.
Russia has intensified efforts to strengthen political dialogue, including the exchange of visits at the top levels. Interaction between foreign ministries is expanding. During the year prior to the first Russia-African summit, 21 African foreign ministers visited Russia. According to the calculation with information made available officially at the website, Sergey Lavrov and his deputy Minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, have held talks with nearly 100 African politicians including ministers, deputies between January and September 2019. Bogdanov interacted with all African ambassadors in the Russian Federation. Russian ambassadors and staff are also at their posts inside Africa.
Russians like historical references. As always expected, they have nostalgic interest towards Africa, relying on the traditions of friendship and cooperation established back to the days of the political liberation struggle for freedom and independence and eager to use that as unifying factor. Soviet Union, in many respects, supported most of the countries during the decolonization of Africa.
The question being asked three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union: What has noticeably changed between Russia and Africa? In answering this basic question, Lavrov acknowledged talking to students and staff at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO): “Africa is one of our priorities. Our political ties in particular are developing dynamically. But economic cooperation is not as far advanced as our political ties.”
According to Lavrov, the process of Russia returning to Africa is taking the form of intensifying political dialogue, which has always been at a strategic and friendly level, and now moving towards a vigorous economic cooperation. It is necessary to consolidate these trends and draw up plans for expanding consolidated partnerships with the African countries.
That however, just as the coronavirus pandemic subsided leading to the opening of air space and borders, a lined-up of African foreign ministers including Algeria, Chad, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Sudan, Sierra Leone and Togo came, as always, for political consultations and dialogue.
The significance of diplomatic meetings and most possibly those to follow preceding the next Russia-Africa summit slated for 2022, Lavrov has always indicated in his introductory speeches –these visits are to review the status of the bilateral relations and prospects for their further development.
Russian and African experts have expressed their concern about official visits proliferating both ways, with little impact on the sustainable development currently needed by the majority of African countries. While some see official visits simply as diplomatic tourism, a number of the African leaders keep in mind how bilateral policies would help tackle key questions such as rising unemployment, healthcare problems, poor infrastructure and industrial development – how to turn Russia’s focus towards realizing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Russia has shown interests in niche sectors such as nuclear power development, launching African satellites, and energy and mining projects. It has been seeking to exploit conventional gas and oil fields in Africa; part of its long-term energy strategy is to use Russian companies to create new streams of energy supply.
In terms of a strategic outlook and action on economic engagement, it is seriously lagging behind. Russia has long ago cut the “red-ribbon” marking the completion of an infrastructure project in Africa. With regard to other economic areas, it may have to identify wide range of sectors as with members of the European Union, China, the United States, India, the Gulf States and others.
Nevertheless, within the framework of the African Continental Free Trade (AfCFTA) that promises creating a single borderless market, it offers opportunities for localization, production and marketing of consumables throughout Africa. This should perhaps, be the strongest dimension of Russia’s dealings in Africa.
Currently, Russian trade is heavily concentrated in North Africa, especially with Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco. Noticeably, in 2019 bilateral trade information from Russian Export Centre shows (trade statistics) that Russia’s relationship with North Africa is the most significant, US$17 billion of the aggregate total US$20 billion for the whole of Africa. President Vladimir Putin has asked that this trade figure be doubled, up to US$40 billion before the next summit planned for 2022.
In an interview with Steven Gruzd, Head of the African Governance and Diplomacy Programme at the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), he similarly noted that Africa is a busy geopolitical arena, with many players, both old and new, operating. Apart from EU countries, China and the US. There are players such as Iran, Turkey, Israel, the UAE, Japan and others. Russia has to compete against them, and distinctively remain focused its efforts. On the other side, Russia uses the rhetoric of anti-colonialism in its engagement with Africa, and that it is fighting neo-colonialism from the West, especially in relations with their former colonies. It sees France as a threat to its interests especially in Francophone West Africa, the Maghreb and the Sahel.
“I would largely agree that there is a divide between what has been pledged and promised at high-level meetings and summits, compared to what has actually materialized on the ground. There is more talk than action, and in most cases intentions and ideas have been officially presented as initiatives already in progress. There needs to be a lot of tangible progress on the ground for the second summit to show impact. It will be interesting to see what has been concretely achieved in reports at the second Russia-Africa summit scheduled for late 2022,” he said.
Steven Gruzd also heads the Russia-Africa Research Programme initiated this year at SAIIA, South Africa’s premier research institute on international issues. It is an independent, non-government think tank, with a long and proud history of providing thought leadership in Africa.
In another interview, George Nyongesa, a Senior Associate at the Africa Policy Institute in Nairobi (Kenya) reminded that Africa is heading for its defining moments. By 2050, a quarter of the world’s population especially its young people and thus the largest labor force will be in Africa.
Human capital is definitely an important feature of Africa’s global profile besides its natural resources. Thus, it is no wonder that global players like the United States, Europeans and Asians are competing for influence, simultaneously investing and focusing on the youth, on the African continent. The competition for the control of the continent by global players is a geopolitical reality and by nature multidimensional: economic, education and training, and social; and brings to memory the rivalry of the Cold War era when the United States often treated African states as pawns or prizes rather than partners, according to Nyongesa.
However, 21st century Africa is different in the sense that African leaders seem aware of their windfall potential in human capital and resources and are no longer interested in patrons or protector and this new attitude has opened wide a range of partners necessary for the achievement of security and prosperity they seek.
In the interview, he further underlined that “the continent is enjoying enviable attention as key global players from the United States, Europe and Asia continue to outfox each other. This can be seen from the fact that US retreat from its fight against violent extremism in Africa, allows Russia to fill in security gaps; hence the growing Russian military influence on the continent. At the same time, the United States expansion of trade and business in the continent is proving a constructive counter Chinese ever-increasing economic influence.”
There are still some challenges and persistent problems with perceptions. With economic engagement, Russia often interprets the influence of foreign players as neo-colonizers. In order to make successful economic inroads into Africa, Russia is signing agreements exchanging military weapons for mining concessions. It finds it expedient to militarize and deal with its competitor, as exemplified in Central African Republic, Guinea and Mali and in the Sahel-5 region.
Lipton Matthews, an American researcher and business analyst in recent discussions with this research writer about foreign players and the “scramble” for resources, he explained that the weak governance structures in Africa, the perception that China is colonizing Africa is a consequence of Africa’s history of defective governance. Though China through its infrastructural projects is presiding over the modernization of Africa, similar to what Europeans and Americans did in the developing world years ago.
On the other hand, he argued: “We must disabuse ourselves of the notion that colonialism is inherently exploitative. Most people would prefer sovereignty to colonial rule, but the truth is that colonial status does not impede economic growth and some colonies in Africa experienced faster growth during the colonial era. We should give greater priority to good governance than national sovereignty. It is better to be under the rule of benevolent colonizers than to be the subject of a dictator.”
In order to aid Africa, Russia should assist Africa in transitioning to a knowledge-based economy by promoting technology transfer agreements. Russians must also invest in more R&D collaborations with their African partners. This agreement will revolutionize Africa’s economy and a richer Africa is a positive for Russian investors. If Africa is properly managed, the continent should succeed with sustainable development and, to a considerable extent, attain an appreciable economic independence.
In October 2018, before the start of the first Russia-SADC business forum, Stergomena Lawrence Tax, then Executive Secretary of SADC, explained an exclusive interview that Russia has a long history of bilateral engagements with the Southern African countries, which constitute the Southern African Development Community.
On the other hand, for the past several years, it has not been that visible in the region as compared to China, India or Brazil. It is encouraging that, of late, Russia has positioned itself to be a major partner with Southern Africa and being part of the BRICS promotes engagement with the region. It has to move with concrete steps into such areas like agriculture, industrial production, high technology and transport.
In the interview, Stergomena shortlisted some of the southern Africa priorities that are also in line with SADC as indicated below:
Prospecting, mining, oil, construction and mining, purchasing gas, oil, uranium, and bauxite assets (Angola, Namibia and South Africa);
Construction of power facilities—hydroelectric power plants on the River Congo (Angola, Namibia and Zambia,) and nuclear power plants (South Africa);
Creating a floating nuclear power plant, and South African participation in the international project to build a nuclear enrichment centre in Russia;
Railway Construction (Angola);
Creation of Russian trade houses for the promotion and maintenance of Russian engineering products (South Africa).
Participation of Russian companies in the privatization of industrial assets, including those created with technical assistance from the former Soviet Union (Angola).
Stergomena further discussed questions relating to public diplomacy. Russia has all but overlooked or underestimated many aspects of it. These include cultural exchanges, scholarly visitors’ programmes, and of course, the use of media to cover and project issues on Africa from a Russian perspective.
These are instruments and aspects of public diplomacy, which would have the effect of reaching audiences on our continent and beyond and impacting positively on what Russia has to offer the world. In the same vein, this can be seen as a form of “soft power” as its aim is to appeal and attract partners rather than coerce them into a relationship of one form or the other, she in an emailed interview in October 2018.
There are the Intergovernmental Commissions on Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation and Trade fixed with African countries. There is the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Trade, the Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Trade. The Coordinating Committee for Economic Cooperation with African States established back in 2009.
According to historical documents, the Coordinating Committee for Economic Cooperation with African States was created at the initiative of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation and Vnesheconombank with the support of the Federation Council and the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. It has the support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economy and Trade, the Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as the Ministry of Higher Education and Science.
Within the framework of the joint declaration adopted at the first Russia-Africa Summit, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation established the Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum. The Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum also moved to create an Association of Economic Cooperation with African States (AECAS). Alexander Saltanov, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, is the Chairman of AECAS and feverishly stepping forward to advance significant issues of business cooperation between Russia and Africa.
The Secretariat of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum has a useful structure, and its primary task is to find real opportunities for mutually beneficial cooperation and joint implementation of projects between Russian and African entrepreneurs. There are coordination, public and scientific councils operating under its roof. The Secretariat seems to coordinate and support some kind of public outreach initiatives from the civil society.
As most contemporary researchers do, they have offered additional strategic proposals and authorities have to bite on them to make the long-expected progress. It is a well-known and irreversible fact that Russia’s economic presence in Africa is significantly inferior in comparison to the top-ten key global players. It is time to overcome this yawning gap, use the existing structures to expeditiously operationalize the set goals and accelerate the economic return the continent.
Indeed, judging from the above discussions about the changing geopolitical relations, there are well-functioning structures and mechanisms to reap the benefits of a fully-fledged economic partnership and to achieve a more practical and comprehensive results expected from the new multifaceted relations between Russia and Africa.
By all purposes, the relationship requires a new approach, broad levels of interaction including the civil society to forge a new positive image and change public perceptions, and work consistently with the private sector for diversified corporate partnerships. Strategically speaking, Russia needs to adopt an agenda – rather than running on ad hoc basis– and it further needs an effective Action Plan, both the agenda and plan have to conform to African Union’s Agenda 2063 and the UN Development Goals 2030.
*
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.
Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a frequent contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.
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.
When Pavel Zavalny, the chairman of Russian parliamentary committee on energy, made the forecast last Friday that Nord Stream 2 pipeline could start shipping natural gas to Germany as early as next month, it was received with disbelief. But Zavalny was categorical, and was quoted by Reuters as saying, “I can say with a high degree of certainty that the first gas via Nord Stream 2 will go in January.”
He added that Europeans would not want to drag their feet with the certification process over Nord Stream 2 at a time when their storage levels of gas is so abysmally low.
But Zavalny was effectively contradicting the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock who had stated only four days back previously that the certification process stood suspended “due to the existence of clear regulation in European law regarding the energy area on unbundling and other issues of the [company’s] structure.”
Expert opinion since then has been that the earliest the gas would flow through the new pipeline can be only by the second half of 2022, if at all.
Meanwhile, the lawmakers in the US Congress have been demanding that Washington should simply kill the pipeline project. Baerbock has the reputation of being a proxy of the Americans and the general impression is that after the exit of Angela Merkel as chancellor, 40-year old Baerbock is determined to steer Germany toward a “tough” line on Russia.
Conceivably, the Kremlin wasn’t amused. The undersea Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been built at a cost of $11 billion. But the Kremlin kept its thought to itself. We now know why.
The data from German network Cascade shows that all Russian natural gas shipments to Germany through a major transit pipeline known as the Yamal-Europe transnational gas pipeline reversed direction today.
The Yamal-Europe transnational gas pipeline runs from northwest Siberia to Frankfurt-an-der-Oder in eastern Germany via Belarus and Poland. Last year, around one-fifth of all natural gas sent to Western Europe went via Belarus.
The flows through the Yamal-Europe pipeline dropped to 6% of its capacity on Saturday, 5% on Sunday, and fell to zero by today morning.
Plainly put, Russia has halted its gas exports to Germany and it also transpires that Gazprom, the system’s operator in Russia and Belarus, has booked no capacity for transiting natural gas to Germany for the near future, either.
Moscow’s explanation is that Gazprom prioritises domestic consumption within Russia over export of gas to foreign countries and temperatures have plummeted in Moscow and other large Russian cities this week. It is a plausible explanation.
However, this is happening at an inflection point when due to the winter cold and the restricted supply, European energy prices have soared. The prices in Europe spiked 7% on Monday and are surging. (here, here and here)
Pressure is building on Germany as its emergency reserves have dropped to a “historically low level” of below 60% last week for the first time in years.
Moscow is offering that if only licence is granted to operate Nord Stream 2, Gazprom will promptly begin additional supplies to meet Germany’s needs. In anticipation of the German regulator’s approval, Gazprom even filled the first of the two parallel pipes with so-called technical gas in October and the second started to fill up in December.
But Germany claims it is a stickler for rules and regulations and the Nord Stream 2, which is registered in Switzerland, must first restructure its operations to comply with the requirements of the German energy watchdog BNetzA and abide as well by relevant EU law and only then can the intricate approval process, which started in September and was suspended in mid-November, resume.
The BNetzA head Jochen Homann predicted on Dec. 16 that a decision on Nord Steam 2 “won’t be made in the first half of 2022.”
The bottomline is that while all protagonists pretend that this is a commercial issue, the US has transformed it as a geopolitical issue. Simply put, the US abhors the very idea of Russia consolidating its presence further in the European energy market and wants to kill Nord Steam 2 in its cradle.
Second, Washington worries (rightly so) that such heavy German dependence on Russian energy will inevitably soften up Berlin’s attitudes toward Moscow in general, which will be detrimental to the interests of the transatlantic alliance.
Third, Washington wants Ukraine to continue to be the beneficiary of the transit fee of over 1 billion dollar annually which Gazprom was paying to Kiev for use of the Soviet-era pipelines passing through that country to western Europe. That is to say, whileworks systematically to turn Ukraine as an anti-Russian state, it expects Moscow to keep subsidising Ukrainian economy which is a basket case.
Finally, the US hopes to make inroads into the lucrative European market for its own shale gas exports. In a long term perspective, the US wants Europe to be dependent on its energy exports, just as NATO is its captive market for arms exports.
The new German government has walked into the American trap. By acting tough on Russia, Berlin forfeits Russia’s goodwill. The recent expulsion of two Russian diplomats posted to Berlin on dubious grounds most likely put Russia’s back up further. The German ministers have lately been speaking harshly about Russia in the context of Moscow’s tensions with NATO and the US.
Germany has played a double role on Ukraine running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. On the one hand, it played the role of a peacemaker along with Russia in the Normandy Four format (France, Germany, Ukraine, Russia) while at the same time secretly encouraging Kiev to be recalcitrant in the Donbas situation.
Moscow recently exposed Germany’s perfidious role by releasing its diplomatic correspondence with Berlin.
As the winter sets in and Germany’s energy requirements increase, it a shortage of gas can be expected in the coming weeks. The European continent may face rolling blackouts if the winter is cold. The price of gas will go through the roof, which will hit the consumers and German industry.
Moscow only can come to Germany’s and Europe’s rescue in these dire circumstances by exporting more gas via existing pipelines. But Gazprom linking it to clearance for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which it has constructed at heavy cost.
The catch is, the new German chancellor Olaf Scholz went one significant step further than Merkel and has agreed, pushed by Washington, to “consider” stopping Nord Stream 2 if Russia invades Ukraine (according to the FT).
German politicians ultimately pay heed to the captains of industry. Forty-year old Baerbock from the Green Party happens to be a greenhorn. Scholz, a conservative social democrat, has a lot of experience with political top jobs, albeit lacking in charisma and often underestimated.
In foreign policy, the buck stops at the Federal Chancellery — and Scholz stands for continuity in foreign policy so that he can focus on the German economy in pandemic times.Zavalny may have a 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.
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.
Moscow has recently taken the first step towards the rapprochement with Washington. Russia outlined an eight-point draft treaty of security guarantees aimed to lower tensions in Europe and defuse the crisis over Ukraine. The demands include ending Ukraine’s path towards NATO membership, limiting the deployment of troops and weapons close to Russia’s borders, and a halt to NATO’s eastward expansion.
Russian officials stressed that Moscow wants to begin negotiations “without delays and without stalling”, emphasizing that this is not some kind of ultimatum, but seriousness of their warning should not be underestimated. It was highlighted that ignoring Moscow’s request for discussions could lead to a “military response” similar to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
Vladimir Putin claimed that Russia will not be satisfied if Western partners want to “chat up” negotiations on security guarantees.
In her turn, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki claimed that there’s no reason the U.S. can’t do that, but it is going to do that in partnership and coordination with its European partners. Washington reportedly disagrees with parts of Moscow’s proposal, but is willing to discuss its content.
Unfortunately, there have been no official calls from Washington to launch the negotiation process yet. All the claims remain within diplomatic rhetoric. In fact, neither the United States nor NATO are changing their aggressive policy towards Russia.
On December 21, Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda called on NATO to increase its military capabilities in Eastern Europe as well as cooperation between the member countries to confront the threat from the East.
According to recent statements by some of its top officers, the Western military alliance plans to deploy troops in Romania and Bulgaria as a way to strengthen the current “security scheme” for Ukraine.
The offensive claims are accompanied by military aggression in Eastern Ukraine.
On December 21, the civilian settlement of Alexandrovka in the Donetsk People’s Republic was shelled with 20 rounds from the 120 mm mortars of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF).
Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu confirmed that the number of the UAF attacks on civilians in Donbass and the positions of the DPR, LPR People’s militias is not decreasing, provoking local fighters to retaliate.
Sergei Shoigu revealed that more than 120 US PMCs were identified in the settlements of Avdiivka and Priazovskoye in the Donetsk region. They equip firing positions in residential buildings and social facilities; preparing for UAF operations as well as radical armed groups to increase hostilities.
Along with support preparing the attacks, the U.S. PMCs are preparing a chemical attack in Donbass. Russian Defence Minister claimed that tanks with unidentified chemical components were delivered to the settlement of Avdiivka and the village of Krasny Liman to commit provocations.
In practice, as winter has come, the situation in Eastern Ukraine revealed its dependence on fluctuations in natural gas prices. When the price increases, the situation worsens.
On December 21, the price of gas in Europe in the course of exchange trading broke another historical record and came up to $ 2,228 per thousand cubic meters. According to various experts, a rise to $2,500 and even up to $3,000 should be expected if there are no signals about the imminent launch of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Only a sharp increase in supply may change the situation in Europe.This is possible only with the conclusion of additional contracts with Russia for gas imports and the launch of Nord Stream 2.
*
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.
Afghanistan was at the heart of the 17th Extraordinary Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers representing 57 nations at the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).
It was up to Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan to deliver the keynote address to the session, held on 19 December at the Parliament House in Islamabad.
And he rose to the occasion: “If the world doesn’t act, this will be the biggest man-made crisis which is unfolding in front of us.”
Imran Khan was addressing not only representatives of the lands of Islam, but also UN officials, the proverbial “global financial institutions,” scores of NGOs, a smattering of US, EU and Japanese bureaucrats and, crucially, Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi.
No nation or organization has yet formally recognized the Taliban as the new, legitimate Afghan government. And quite a few are frankly more interested in engaging in an elaborate kabuki, pretending to deliver some sort of aid to the devastated Afghan economy after 20 years of US/NATO occupation instead of actually coordinating aid packages with Kabul.
The numbers are dire, and barely tell the full extent of the drama.
According to the UNDP, 22.8 million Afghan citizens – over half of Afghanistan – are facing food shortages, and soon, acute hunger; while no less than 97 percent of Afghans could soon fall under the poverty line. In addition, the World Food Programme stresses that 3.2 million Afghan children risk acute malnutrition.
Imran Khan emphasized that the OIC had a “religious duty” to help Afghanistan. As for the ‘hyperpower’ that stunned the world with its humiliating withdrawal show after 20 years of occupation, he was adamant: Washington must “delink” whatever grudges it may hold against the Taliban government from the destiny of 40 million Afghan citizens.
Imran Khan did ruffle a few Afghan feathers – starting with former President Hamid Karzai, when he observed that “the idea of human rights is different in every society,” referring to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, which borders Afghanistan.
“The city culture is completely different from the culture in rural areas …,” he said. “We give stipends to the parents of the girls so that they send them to school. But in districts bordering Afghanistan, if we are not sensitive to the cultural norms, then they won’t send them to school despite receiving double the amount. We have to be sensitive about human rights and women rights.”
This was interpreted in a few quarters as Pakistani interference – part of a secret, devious strategic narrative. Not really. The prime minister was stating a fact, as anyone familiar with the tribal areas knows. Even Afghan Foreign Minister Muttaqi said the prime minister’s words were not “insulting”.
Imran Khan also observed that there are already over three million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Moreover, Islamabad is sheltering more than 200,000 refugees who overstayed their visas. “They can’t go back. We are already suffering from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. We are not in a position to deal with an influx of refugees.”
Would you ever trust NATO?
Then there’s the ultimate nut to crack: internal Taliban dynamics.
Diplomatic sources confirm off the record that it’s a non-stop struggle to convince different layers of the Taliban leadership to allow for some concessions.
Discussions with the NATO block are for, all practical purposes, dead: bluntly, there will be no help without visible concessions on girls’ education, women’s rights and the heart of the matter – on which everyone agrees, including the Russians, the Chinese and the Central Asians – a more inclusive government in Kabul.
So far, Taliban pragmatists – led by the Doha political office – have been on the losing end.
The OIC meeting at least came up with practical suggestions involving Islamic development banks. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi was keen to emphasize the necessity of getting Kabul to access banking services.
This is the heart of the problem: there are no solid banking channels after NATO departed. So it’s technically impossible to transfer financial aid into the system and then distribute it across hard-hit provinces. Yet, once again, this is ultimately linked to those lofty western humanitarian aid pledges crammed with conditionalities.
In the end, Qureshi, together with the OIC Secretary-General Hissein Brahim Taha, announced that a ‘humanitarian trust fund’ will be established as soon as possible, under the aegis of the Islamic Development Bank. The fund should be able to incorporate international partners, non-politicized westerners included.
Qureshi put out his bravest face, emphasizing that “the need is felt to forge a partnership between the OIC and the UN.”
Taha, for his part, was quite realistic. No funds whatsoever have been pledged so far for this new OIC humanitarian operation.
As Qureshi mentioned, there is one thing which Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan and other actors may decisively help with: investment “in the people of Afghanistan, bilaterally or through the OIC, in areas such as education, health and technical and vocational skills to the Afghan youth.”
So now it comes to the crunch – and fast. It’s up to the OIC to play the leading role in terms of alleviating Afghanistan’s dire humanitarian drama.
The official declaration calling on all OIC member states, Islamic financial institutions, donors, and unnamed ‘international partners’ to announce pledges to the humanitarian trust fund for Afghanistan will have to go way beyond rhetorical flourish.
At least, it’s all but certain that from now on, it will be up to the lands of Islam to decisively help Afghanistan. A bitter, defeated, vengeful, internally corroded NATO simply cannot be trusted.
Nobody today remembers that the Empire had concocted its own version of the New Silk Road over 10 years ago, announced by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Chennai in July 2001.
That was no ‘community of shared future for mankind,’ but a very narrow obsession on capturing energy resources – in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan; ‘stabilizing’ Afghanistan, as in perpetuating the occupation; giving a boost to India; and ‘isolating’ Iran.
The energy supply routes to the west should have gone through the Caspian Sea, and then across Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey – the three actors of the BTC pipeline – thus bypassing Russia, which was already then being depicted in the west as a ‘threat’.
All this is dead and buried – as post-occupation Afghanistan alongside the five Central Asian ‘stans’ are now back as one of the key foci of interest of the Russia–China strategic partnership: the heart of a Greater Eurasia spanning from Shanghai in the east to St. Petersburg in the west.
Yet to make it happen, it’s imperative that the OIC helps Afghanistan as much as the Taliban must help themselves.
*
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: An earlier meeting between Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi and Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureishi (Source: The Cradle)
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 fragility of the American democracy seems to be already visible even to pro-Western analysts. Recent studies and reports indicate that the American state is among the most politically vulnerable to internal threats in the world. This diagnosis is currently shared even by some of the biggest supporters of Washington. The internal reality of the US is showing itself as a major source of concern for the American government, which, on its part, should decline some of its international interests in order to improve its domestic scenario.
In November, the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance named American democracy as one of the most backward in the world. The institute emphasized the emergence of several authoritarian tendencies in the US, which can be perfectly understood when we look back on some recent events, such as the electoral violence last year, the constant allegations of electoral fraud, and others. However, this negative and “pessimistic” opinion about the future of the US now seems shared even by CIA advisers.
Barbara F. Walter, a CIA executive consultant and expert in analyzing scenarios of political instability, pointed out in a recent publication that the US is on the brink of a civil war. Barbara has written a book on this topic, which has been reviewed by The Washington Post. According to her, the process of polarization of American society has already surpassed the stages of “pre-insurgency” and “incipient conflict”, making it literally on the brink of starting an internal armed conflict.
These are some of Barbara’s words:
“We are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe (…) the 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 (…) We are no longer the world’s oldest continuous democracy (…) That honor is now held by Switzerland, followed by New Zealand, and then Canada. We are no longer a peer to nations like Canada, Costa Rica, and Japan, which are all rated at +10 on the Polity index”.
The author believes that her country has entered a very dangerous stage of political security, especially after the events earlier this year, when protesters invaded the Capitol during the height of popular demonsrations. For her, this event seems to have paved the way for Washington to enter the stage of “open insurgency”, which is a dangerous step towards a civil war. According to her, this entire scenario is a consequence of the anti-democratic process that advanced during the Trump administration, making the American state a sort of intermediary between an autocracy and a real democracy.
Considering all these factors and pointing to several indices from previous polls, the CIA consultant concludes that her country’s current political status can be defined as “high risk of civil war”, something truly similar to the internal scenario of polarization in the 19th century, before the beginning of the only civil conflict in American history. A combination of bad governance with undemocratic policies and institutional weakening makes Washington vulnerable to all internal threats.
Walter appoints Trump and the Republicans who for her have pushed the US into an “abyss” as culprits. She believes that Joe Biden’s government and the Democrats’ hegemony would be a hope for the American, but at the same time points out that the Trump administration left such a negative legacy that it makes it practically impossible to achieve the Democrats’ goals – materialized in Biden’s Build Back Better agenda, which becomes more and more unachievable.
In fact, much of the data pointed out by Barbara Walter is true, but in the end, the aim of her work seems to be just an attempt to legitimize the actions of Democrats and condemn all aspects of the Trump administration. While it is undeniable that Trump represented several setbacks for American democracy, it seems a real exaggeration to point him as the culprit in this entire process.
The first mistake is to idealize American democracy as the most perfect example of a political regime to be followed. Structural problems such as racism, social inequalities and public security crisis are nothing new in American history, but a reality that has been with the country for decades. The main problem that Trump represented for American democracy was precisely to damage its image, as the Republican president was explicit in its authoritarian and right-wing tendencies, while Democratic praxis consists of disguising such tendencies by promoting an agenda in defense of ethnic, sexual and social minorities. Trump has been explicit and Biden has been more moderate, but both represent the same advanced stage of US democratic decadence.
The arguments exposed in Barbara’s book seem like a true apology for Biden and his model of governance, as well as an attempt to highlight, from a strategic perspective – considering Barbara’s position at the CIA – the importance of implementing the Build Back Better agenda, which currently faces strong rejection in American political society. However, despite her overly pro-Biden stance, Barbara deserves special attention for correctly diagnosing the danger that currently most affects American society.
Civil war is no longer a distant scenario for the world’s greatest power. Social polarization in the country has reached really high levels. Racial tensions, political conflicts, separatist groups and several other factors have contributed to the increase in the country’s internal crisis. The uncontrolled immigration that began with the Biden government makes the situation even worse, escalating social problems and racist and xenophobic reactions. Amidst a scenario of weak democracy, polarization and totalitarian tendencies gain space and, with this, future scenarios such a civil war, Balkanization or even the beginning of a dictatorship are expected.
The best thing for the American government to do is to interpret Barbara Walter’s book as a true warning, a report by a CIA consultant about the problems that affect America, and not as a simple apology for the Biden administration. Washington’s problems are serious and it is no longer a matter of “Republicans vs. Democrats” but of “democracy vs. civil war”.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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.
With Julian Assange now fighting the next stage of efforts to extradite him to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 of which are based on the brutal, archaic Espionage Act, some Australian politicians have found their voice. It might be said that a few have even found their conscience.
Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce was sufficiently exercised by the High Court judgment overturning the lower court ruling against extradition to demand an end to the matter. In his opinion piece for the Nine newspaper group on December 14, he argued that rights were “not created in some legal sonic boom at one undefined point of our existence nor switched off like the power to a fridge because of a fear or a confusion as to the worth of their contents.”
The deputy PM proved mature enough to admit that “whether you like him or despite him”, the importance of the case transcended his situation. “So we must hope for the British courts to do so, and we will judge its society accordingly.” (They have not and, accordingly, should be judged.)
The Nationals leader has little time for the role of whistleblowing or disclosing egregious misconduct by a State; less time for Assange as the publisher in history, the exposer of crimes by a great power. “They are a separate matter to the key issue: where was this individual when he was allegedly breaking US law for which the US is now seeking his extradition from London?”
Joyce’s reasoning, while jejune on the historical contributions of WikiLeaks, has the merit of unusual clarity. He argues that the UK “should try him there for any crime he is alleged to have committed on British soil or send him back to Australia, where he is a citizen.” Assange never pilfered any US secret files; did not breach Australian laws and was not in the US when “the event being deliberated in the court now in London occurred.” To extradite him to the US would not only be unjust but bizarre. “If he insulted the Koran, would he be extradited to Saudi Arabia?”
The move by the Nationals leader also brought a few voices of support from the woodwork. Liberal backbenchers Jason Falinski and Bridget Archer are encouraging diplomatic intervention. Falinski suggested that the Morrison government “do what it can to get an Australian citizen back to Australia as quickly as possible” though he refused to entertain “a public spat with America”. Archer believed that “he should be released and returned to Australia”.
The announcement that Caroline Kennedy would be heading Down Under as the new US ambassador to Australia was also seen as an opportunity. Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr suggested to that Prime Minister Scott Morrison take the chance to discuss the Assange case with Kennedy. (This, from a man who once claimed that Assange “has had more consular support in a comparable time than any other Australian” while admitting that he did not “know whether this is the case.”)
Morrison might, suggests Carr, point out that Australia had its own challenges in facing war crimes allegations, notably “war crimes trials pending for Australian troops in Afghanistan who might have done the very things Assange exposed in Iraq.” Washington’s treatment of the publisher could well “turn this guy into a martyr.”
Carr sees such advice as part of the capital of trust between allies. It was a “small transaction under the architecture of what each sees as a mutually beneficial relationship.” It might even show that Australia was capable of behaving “like a sovereign nation” in “one tiny corner of our alliance partnership”. If Canberra were unable to “take up the cause of an Australian passport holder, what scope for any independent action do we allow ourselves?”
The former foreign minister shows, at stages, flashes of ignorance about aspects of the proceedings (the US prosecution, for instance, made a special point in not mentioning the Collateral Murder video in its proceedings), he is at least cognisant of the monstrous defects in the case, not least the fact that a good deal of the indictment is based on falsified accounts from former WikiLeaks volunteer, Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson.
The latest stirring of principled awareness in Australia should be treated warily. Australian governments tend to protect their citizens with a begrudging reluctance, except in the rarest of cases. They are notorious in playing the game of surrender and capitulation. In the context of the US-Australian alliance, one given an even more solid filling with the AUKUS security pact, the hope that Australia would ever be able to exercise sovereign choices on any issue that affects US security is almost inconceivable.
The lamentable behaviour from Canberra regarding Assange’s welfare has also been brought to light by the tireless exploits of lawyer Kellie Tranter. Using Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, Tranter developed a timeline revealing how Australian officials were updated on Assange’s condition (legal and physical) yet did little in the way of addressing it. Kit Klarenberg, making use of Tranter’s findings, also discusses the extent Australian officials knew about Assange’s plight.
In April 2019, for instance, the lawyer Gareth Pierce, acting for Assange, wrote to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) warning that the publisher’s possessions were being held by the Ecuadorian authorities. These included a stash of privileged legal documents. DFAT, while claiming it would chase the matter up, concluded in May 2019 that Assange’s possessions were “under the authority and jurisdiction of the Judicial System of the Republic of Ecuador”. Australian diplomats, it followed, were unable to intervene. The result: Assange’s documents, held by the Ecuadorians, were seized by the FBI.
As extradition proceedings were taking place, Peirce wrote to the Australian High Commission that consular representatives would have “undoubtedly noted what was clear for everyone present in court to observe” – that the publisher was “in shockingly poor condition … struggling not only to cope but to articulate what he wishes to articulate.” DFAT’s report of those proceedings, intentionally or otherwise, was stonily silent on the issue.
Throughout, DFAT maintained that Assange had refused consular assistance or support. This was a point the publisher took up in a meeting at Belmarsh prison with consular officials on November 1, 2019, claiming that to be misguided nonsense. He also noted concerns by the prison doctor about his state, being “so bad that his mind was shutting down”, the appalling state of isolation which made it impossible for him “to think or to prepare his defence.”
Little then, can be expected from the compliant minions in Canberra desperately keen not to soil or sour relations with Washington. But it is at least mildly heartening that a few members of the Morrison government have woken up to the fact that this grotesque act of persecution against a publisher should end.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
Featured image: Julian Assange in Belmarsh Prison in 2019 (Source: WSWS)
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 Austrian government is hiring people to “hunt down vaccine refusers,” according to a report published by Blick.
Yes, really.
The burden for enforcing the fines unjabbed Austrians will have to pay as part of their punishment will fall to their employers, necessitating a new army of ‘inspectors’ to ensure that process is running smoothly.
The city of Linz, which is home to 200,000 inhabitants, has a relatively low vaccination rate of 63 per cent.
In response, “Linz now wants to hire people who are supposed to hunt down vaccine refusers,” reports Swiss news outlet Blick.
The role of the inspectors will be to check on “whether those who do not get vaccinated really pay for it.”
The vaccine refusenik hunters will receive a wage of 2774 euros, which will be paid 14 times a year, making an annual income of 38,863 euros.
Nice work if you can get it.
“The job includes, among other things, the creation of penal orders as well as the processing of appeals,” according to the report, adding that workers need to be “resilient” and willing to work a lot of overtime.
The jobs are only open to Austrian citizens, all of whom will either have to be vaccinated against or fully recovered from COVID.
As we previously highlighted, the unvaccinated in Austria could find themselves imprisoned for a year under a new administrative law that would force them to pay for their own internment.
Austrians who don’t get vaccinated by February face fines of up to €7,200 ($8,000) for non-compliance, and those who refuse to pay would also face a 12 month jail sentence.
*
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.
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has returned from the frontline in the battle to halt the advances of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).
TPLF rebels launched an attack on the Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) during early November of 2020 triggering a conflict which has resulted in the deaths of thousands and the displacement of several million people inside the country and in neighboring Sudan.
Abiy, who was elected to a full term of office in 2021, had already declared a unilateral ceasefire in June. Nonetheless, the TPLF continued the conflict by sending its rebel forces into the Amhara and Afar populated areas of Ethiopia.
Ethiopia, a vast country of over 115 million people, the second most populous state on the African continent, is composed of numerous ethnic groups and nationalities. Since the ascendancy of the Abiy administration in the aftermath of a national uprising against the TPLF-led Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) regime in the early months of 2018, the prime minister has sought to unite the country under the political banner of the Prosperity Party (PP).
The TPLF grouping which maintained control of the Tigray province after 2018 in the north of the country has consistently refused to participate in efforts aimed at building national unity in Ethiopia and Pan-African solidarity throughout the Horn of Africa region. The rebels held provincial elections in 2020 despite the call by the central government in Addis Ababa to postpone voting across the country due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Obviously, the central government was taken unawares after its forces were attacked in the Tigray provincial capital of Mekelle. In the first few months of the war, the ENDF retook Mekelle and other areas of the province prior to announcing a unilateral ceasefire in June for the purposes of allowing humanitarian assistance and the agricultural production of the farmers.
In recent weeks, after the prime minister visited the frontline, the character of the conflict has shifted once again. The Ethiopian military has been able to retake land from the TPLF in the most contested areas of the country.
United States media outlets apparently working in collaboration with the State Department and the Pentagon, began to spread misinformation about the purported “imminent collapse” of the Abiy government in Addis Ababa in November. These reports were contradicted by the Ethiopian government along with visitors to the country who repeatedly stated that the capital city was calm even with the prime minister’s declaration of a state of emergency.
The claims of mass starvation, sexual assault and accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide flourished within the western governmental and corporate press agencies. The Ethiopian administration of Prime Minister Abiy was identified by the U.S. and its allies as the perpetuator of these crimes. However, the government denied these allegations saying the charges were solely being leveled by the TPLF and its supporters to further isolate Addis Ababa.
Eyewitness reports related to the war crimes committed by the TPLF’s Defense Forces (TDF) went largely ignored by the western media. TPLF forces took trucks and other equipment sent to the area for humanitarian purposes. The Abiy government accused elements working within the United Nations framework in Ethiopia as being collaborators with the rebels. In the modification of their allegations of war crimes committed by the central government, in recent weeks the western-backed agencies are now saying that abuses have occurred on both sides of the conflict. The prime minister and his government have categorically rejected any accommodation of the TPLF and its demands which often solidarizes with imperialist interests in the Horn of Africa.
An Ethiopian-oriented news agency, Borkena.com, reported on the recent situation on the battlefront noting that:
“Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) forces retreated to the Tigray region of Ethiopia after facing devastating military defeats in the Afar and Amhara regions of Ethiopia over the past three weeks. Six prominent TPLF military generals whose names are still undisclosed were killed in the Kasagita Front in the Afar region of Ethiopia, as reported by local Ethiopian sources about three weeks ago. After losing a fortified military stronghold in the areas, whose objective was said to be to cut off the supply route to Djibouti and hold Ethiopia in a choke position, losing battles became pervasive in the areas it controlled. In a span of less than two weeks, TPLF was forced to leave cities after cities in the western, Eastern and Wollo front in the center. Shewarobit, Debre Sina, Ataye, Kemissie, Kombolcham Batie, Dessie, Haik, Wuchale, Wurgehsa, Mersa, Woldia and Kobo were freed from TPLF forces one after the other.”
The Role of the U.S. and United Nations in the Conflict
Under the previous administration of President Donald J. Trump, threats against Addis Ababa were made related to the construction and operations of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project (GERD). The project, which is the largest hydroelectric plant in Africa, has been planned for years by the Ethiopian government to enhance its own internal power supply and to assist other states within the broader region known as the Nile Basin Initiative. (See this)
Neighboring Egypt has sought to sabotage the GERD under the guise that it will severely curtail access to the waters of the Blue Nile which is shared by both countries. The current arrangements imposed by British imperialism during the early 20th century favors Egypt, its then colonial subject. Ethiopia, although occupied by the Italian fascist forces between 1936-1941, has never been subjected to direct colonial control by European powers.
Trump had urged Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to “blow up” the GERD after Ethiopia rejected a deal imposed by Washington. The statement was made to Sudanese interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok during 2020, at the time of Khartoum’s illegal “recognition” of the State of Israel.
Unfortunately, the United Nations humanitarian agencies have taken a position similar to the U.S. in regard to the war. Ethiopia has set strict limits on access to conflict areas which have been utilized by certain UN agencies to make accusations against the government in Addis Ababa.
However, what has created even more tension is the declaration by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to conduct an investigation into the claims of war crimes since November of 2020 in the north of Ethiopia. The government in Addis Ababa has rejected the plans for an investigation saying it will not cooperate since these issues are internal matters.
A press briefing was held on December 21 in Addis Ababa featuring the spokeswoman for Prime Minister Billene Seyoum who addressed the announcement by the UNHRC. Borkena.com in an article on the briefing emphasized:
“Ethiopia says the resolution was politically motivated. Politically motivated because it discredited the efforts by the Ethiopian government to investigate rights abuses in the Tigray region. Earlier this year, the Ethiopian government martial court looked into cases of violations by members of the Ethiopian Defense Forces. Those who were found to be guilty were punished in accordance with the martial court. In regard to claims of genocide in Tigray by the TPLF surrogates and some state actors tacitly supporting the designated terrorist group, a joint investigation by the United Nations Human Rights Commission and Ethiopian Human Rights Commission ruled that there was no genocide in Tigray. The press secretary on Tuesday (Dec. 21) reflected a view that the UN Human Rights Council should stop practices that sound as partisanship and consider the importance of investigating rights abuses in the Afar and Amhara regions of Ethiopia where the TPLF carried out multiples of atrocities during the months of occupation in parts of these regions.”
The attacks on Ethiopia have generated mass demonstrations domestically and internationally known as #NoMore. Thousands of Diasporic Ethiopians and Eritreans have held joint demonstrations across the world including the U.S. These actions intensified after the announcement of sanctions by Washington against Ethiopia. In addition, a leaked videotape of a secret meeting involving the U.S., UK, European Union and TPLF officials where plans were being discussed for the imposition of a new government after the removal of Prime Minister Abiy. (See this)
These developments illustrate clearly the real aims and objectives of the war being waged against the Ethiopian government. Anti-imperialists throughout the world, with specific to the western capitalist states, must be in solidarity with the Ethiopian people in these attempts to destabilize and overthrow the legitimate administration inside the country.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Israel was involved in the assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, the former head of Israel’s military intelligence said yesterday.
Soleimani, who was considered the mastermind of the pro-Iran proxies in the region, was killed in an American drone strike near the Iraqi capital Baghdad in January 2020.
According to Israeli daily Haaretz, former Israeli army intelligence chief Major General Tamir Hayman told the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Centre that the killing of Soleimani was one of “two significant and important assassinations” during his tenure.
The other assassination, he said, was that of the military leader of the Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Bahaa Abu Al-Ata.
“Soleimani’s assassination is an achievement, since our main enemy, in my eyes, are the Iranians. Two significant and important assassinations can be noted in my term,” Hayman said.
Several days after Soleimani was killed, NBC News reported that Israeli intelligence helped the United States target him.
Hayman’s tenure as Israeli army intelligence chief ended in October. He has said that Israel has carried out multiple operations to disrupt the spread of Iranian weapons and funds throughout the region.
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).
There is an incredible gaslighting campaign happening in the United States right now, as COVID cases reach all time highs in the U.S. northeast and elsewhere.
On television and in corporate press outlets, there is a giant, ongoing memory-holing operation related to the once-promised idea that mRNA shots would stop the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.
While they now claim otherwise, every single major government health official and pharmaceutical executive has claimed that COVID shots stop the virus.
Let’s take a look at what the top government health officials have said on the record about these shots over the past year.
Let’s start with the worst of offenders, Dr. Anthony Fauci.
“When you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health and that of the family but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. In other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that’s when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community.”
“Our data from the CDC suggests that vaccinated people don’t carry the virus, don’t get sick and that it’s not just in clinical trials, but it’s also in real world data.” – CDC Director Rochelle Walensky.
“I’m very confident that transmission between people will be reduced by such a highly effective vaccine” -BioNTech CEO Ugur Sahin, whose company developed the “Pfizer vaccine.”
ファイザーは、分析の結果、開発中の新型コロナウイルスワクチンは90％以上の予防効果があったと発表 Pfizer’s Early Data Shows Vaccine Is More Than 90% Effective https://t.co/wQFslkmXAL 米ファイザー、ワクチンの効果9割超に https://t.co/tj4t9o2ftP https://t.co/vhTEDGqlsp https://t.co/2l2ju2PuyY
Now, why is it important to hold these people accountable?
Well, first off, they made a false proclamation and need to be held accountable for doing so.
But second, and much more important, is the reality that almost every single one of the failed “public health expert” strategies related to COVID-19 are tethered to the idea that the shots will end the pandemic.
Lockdowns were highlighted as a means of buying time for everyone to get injected with mRNA shots. Today’s “lockdowns of the unvaccinated” are designed to coerce people into taking the shots, with the thesis that they are a threat to the community for remaining unvaccinated.
Mandatory masking (and “social distancing”), particularly among schoolchildren, are justified as a temporary tool to be utilized until one has taken the shots.
Vaccine passports are implemented under the impression that a “fully vaccinated” crowd would not spread COVID among one another.
In August, Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for all of the data within Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine biological product file — a body of information comprising some 329,000 pages.
.
The FDA, arguing its poorly staffed Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research did not have the capacity to quickly redact legally exempt material, such as Pfizer proprietary information and personal private information of trial participants, the agency asked to be allowed to release only 500 pages of this data per month, thus necessitating 55 years for full disclosure.
The agency later requested up to 75 years to complete the task. As of Nov. 17, only a fraction of the data in question had been released.
Here I will discuss one of these released documents, the “Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports.” This document constitutes one part of Pfizer’s responsibility for pharmacovigilance with respect to their Biological License Agreement with the FDA.
Pharmacovigilance refers to the science and activities relating to the detection, assessment, understanding and prevention of adverse effects or any other medicine-related problem.
Before we examine the quantity, seriousness and nature of the adverse events included in this document it is worthwhile to pause and consider just how significant this report should have been to the public.
Pfizer’s vaccine had yet to complete full safety and efficacy testing, yet its product was being rapidly deployed on a healthy population that dwarfed the size of the vaccine’s clinical trial.
The FDA and Pfizer were well aware that very real risks, if they existed, could not have been identified from the trials alone. There weren’t enough participants, and the participants had not been observed for very long.
Everything may seem okay if you experiment on 20,000 people, but what happens when you experiment on a million people?
The “Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports” should have been the “everything looks good so far” reassurance the FDA was seeking. Why was it necessary to impel the FDA to make this information public through a court order?
In the discussion section of the document (section 4), Pfizer assures the FDA it “… performs frequent and rigorous signal detection on BNT162b2 cases.”
What does “rigorous” signal detection mean? Did Pfizer survey a large number of vaccine recipients for adverse events and investigate them? No, it didn’t.
This report is merely a compilation of unsolicited, in other words, passive, reports of adverse events directly brought to Pfizer’s attention by recipients, cases reported by the health authorities, cases published in the medical literature, cases from Pfizer-sponsored marketing programs, non-interventional studies and cases of serious adverse events reported from clinical studies regardless of causality assessment.
In the report, Pfizer admitted the “magnitude of underreporting is unknown.”
It is well accepted that passive reporting will inescapably lead to underreporting. Nevertheless, according to Pfizer’s report:
“Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, the MAH (Marketing Authorisation Holder) has prioritised the processing of serious cases, in order to meet expedited regulatory reporting timelines and ensure these reports are available for signal detection and evaluation activity.”
The authors continued:
“Pfizer also taken a [sic] multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports. This includes significant technology enhancements, [sic] and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues.”
In other words, the number of adverse events reported overwhelmed Pfizer’s expectations, yet the vaccine maker concluded, “The findings of these signal detection analyses are consistent with the known safety profile of the vaccine.”
This paradoxical statement will prove to be an important clue as we dissect the data below.
What does the document reveal?
Through Feb. 28, a total of 42,086 recipients (cases) reported 158,893 events, or adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine. Approximately 50% of these events were deemed serious.
Figure 1: Total Numbers of BNT162b2 AEs by system organ classes and event seriousness
An overview of the characteristics of the recipients is given here:
Of note, 1,223 recipients of the vaccine had a fatal outcome. More than 11,000 had not recovered. The outcome of 9,400 was unknown. Nearly three-quarters were female.
These numbers are concerning, but do they represent a significant safety concern? The answer to that question depends entirely upon the number of people who had been vaccinated up to that point.
Pfizer provided this number to the FDA in the general overview section of the document, section 3.1.1. — but in the document released under the FOIA request, that number was redacted:
“It is estimated that approximately (b) (4) doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.”
In the above, “(b)(4)“ indicates that this number has been redacted.
The cumulative number of doses distributed worldwide as of Feb. 28 is not proprietary information, nor does it constitute personal, private data of individuals.
Yet without this key number there is no way to calculate the incidence of serious events, i.e., a safety signal.
The FDA chose, without explanation or any legal justification, to withhold this crucial piece of data.
Despite the FDA’s obvious intention to obfuscate, Pfizer provided a means of estimating this number when it unequivocally concluded: “… these signal detection analyses are consistent with the known safety profile of the vaccine.”
What was the known safety profile of the vaccine?
As of Feb. 28, the only known safety profile of the vaccine was determined by the initial results from the phase 3 trials from the autumn of 2020.
Thus, if these data are consistent with its known safety profile, and roughly 79,000 serious adverse events had occurred up to that time, we can estimate that approximately 13,550,000 (79,000 x 171.6) doses had been distributed.
Admittedly there is uncertainty in this calculation. Perhaps a different interpretation of the safety profile was implied.
However, Pfizer reported the number of doses that had been distributed, not administered.
Fewer doses would have been administered than delivered. Moreover, serious adverse events in the trials were distributed across participants who were fully vaccinated (having received two doses).
Here we are using the number of doses as the denominator. This estimation will result in the lower limit of the true incidence of adverse events.
In other words, by using these assumptions we are giving Pfizer’s vaccine the maximum benefit of the doubt.
Using this estimate of total doses given, the incidence of a fatal outcome is 1223/13.55 million or 1 in 11,079.
Permanent sequelae (conditions that result as a consequence of vaccination) = 520/13.55 million, or 1 in 26,057. Furthermore, 11,361 out of 13.55 million, or 1 in 1,193, had not yet recovered from an adverse event.
Pfizer inexplicably chose to group recipients who “recovered” with those who were “recovering.” How many in this large group (19,582) were still suffering from harm at the time of the report? On what basis did Pfizer determine a recipient still had a chance of full recovery?
With no clarification from the vaccine manufacturer, we are forced to lump them in with another large group of 9,400 whose ultimate outcome was “unknown” — leaving us with a high limit of 1 in 466 recipients having had an undetermined outcome.
Although none of these adverse events and fatalities were shown to be directly or indirectly caused by vaccination, Pfizer offered more data of concern around adverse events of “special Interest” (AESI).
According to Pfizer, 1,403 cardiovascular AESIs, 932 hematologic, 3,600 musculoskeletal, 501 neurologic and 3,674 “other” serious AESIs all occurred with a median time of onset of 24 hours or less from vaccination.
The 275 strokes and 449 cases of facial paralysis reported occurred with a median time of onset of two days from vaccination.
Though it is impossible to establish an unassailable causative link between vaccination and injury at this time, the temporal relationship between them is correlative and highly suggestive of causation.
Nevertheless, the authors of the Pfizer report concluded at the end of each AESI category that “This cumulative case review does not raise new safety issues.”
The report also included 24 serious cases in children younger than 12. Of those, 13 cases had not yet been resolved at the time of reporting. The mean age of these recipients was 3.7 years.
We must assume that very few children of that age were inoculated at that time given that Pfizer had authorization for use on adults only. With no number of inoculated children reported, we cannot know what the risk of injury is in children under 12.
Conclusions
Pfizer’s repeated assurances that no new safety issues exist are disingenuous at best.
The FDA was overtly obstructive by withholding crucial information required to make an accurate assessment of harm. However, by using reasonable estimations based on Pfizer’s own claims and published trial data, it is likely a safety signal does exist — and that safety signal was ignored by the very organization that is supposed to be listening for it, the FDA.
Pfizer’s estimated incidence of potential vaccine fatality, 1 in 11,079, is approximately twice that reported in VAERS. Given that the potential vaccine fatalities in this document have been passively reported, we can assume the actual incidence is higher.
More comprehensive analyses have demonstrated a VAERS underreporting factor of vaccine fatality approaching 41 or greater.
Underreported or not, the real and growing tragedy is that until an injury associated with vaccination is proven to be caused by it, it remains, for all intents and purposes, a non-existent signal to the very institutions responsible for public health and safety.
On what grounds can we as physicians and healthcare providers assure our patients this vaccine is safe if adverse events are not investigated or even acknowledged?
Is a nod from the FDA really good enough?
Or should we demand transparency, discussion or at the very least, unredacted data? What does the public expect of us?
Important article by Jane M. Orient, M.D. published by the AAPS
***
In addition to being subjected to various forms of censorship, for the first time in living memory American doctors are getting threat letters from licensure boards warning them against distributing “harmful misinformation.” Medical boards in 12 states have disciplined doctors because of this allegation. While it is claimed that there’s an epidemic of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the warnings don’t spell out what that means.
We don’t have an epidemic of patients dying because doctors told them to refuse treatment or to drink Clorox or aquarium cleaner.
In fact, no patients need to have suffered any harm at all for the medical board to investigate a doctor’s no-longer-free speech. All it takes is an anonymous complaint
Pharmacists who were converted into the overseers of physicians’ prescribing practices will complain that a doctor had prescribed ivermectin for COVID-19.
Or an employer might complain that a doctor supported a worker’s request for a medical exemption that wasn’t on the CDC’s list of acceptable reasons.
Or the doctor might have spoken at a political meeting at which mask mandates were being challenged.
Or a patient might complain that a doctor wasn’t wearing a mask in his private consulting room, even when no COVID-19 patients were anywhere near and the doctor had demonstrated immunity.
“Harmful misinformation” appears to mean anything that contradicts or asks questions or raises doubt about the dogma that “vaccines are safe and effective,” or suggests a treatment not endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and their corporate sponsors.
One source of the allegedly “harmful misinformation” is a database created and maintained by the CDC, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
Anybody can enter a suspected vaccine adverse reaction, and the public can access it. So, “it can be abused by people trying to sow fear,” write Shayla Love and Anna Merlan in VICE News. One person filed a fraudulent report, promptly removed, claiming that an influenza vaccination had turned him into the “Incredible Hulk.”
Flawed as it is, VAERS is the best CDC has to offer for looking for “danger signals.” Of course, correlation doesn’t prove causality. As Lindy McGee from Texas Children’s Hospital correctly pointed out, “I can report if I get hit by a truck after I’ve gotten a vaccine and that would be reported as associated with a vaccine. It does not make any implication of causality.” However, there is a double standard. If you get hit by a truck, but test positive for COVID-19, the hospital will get paid for counting you as a COVID death.
Adverse reports to VAERS are many times higher for COVID-19 vaccines than for all other vaccines combined since the database was established in 1988. The website vaers.hhs.gov clearly states: “Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (18 U.S. Code § 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.” So, presumably most of the approximately 20,000 reports of death concern people who really did die soon after getting the jab, most within a few days. It could be 20,000 coincidences, but the count is not “misinformation.”
Love and Merlan call the compilers of VAERS information at openvaers.com/covid-data “dumpster divers.” Matt Motta of Oklahoma State University and Dominik Stecuła of Colorado State University refer to that January article favorably in their Aug 25 essay that says VAERS is only good for researching “vaccine hesitancy.” They don’t mention that the featured VAERS death count of 329 from Jan 22, 2021, has steadily increased.
Also viewed as “misinformation” is the opinion of physicians and researchers that hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and other “repurposed” drugs are beneficial in COVID-19, as shown in more than 1,000 studies. Reports of dying patients who recovered when hospitals were legally forced to step aside and allow off-protocol treatment are ignored.
The safe option for doctors is to promote the jab or keep silent, and not to suggest anything different from what Anthony Fauci approves. By silencing doctors who are ethical professionals, one opens the gates for the reckless charlatans.
Recall that in Orwell’s Newspeak, the meaning of words is inverted. The Ministry of Love is in charge of torture; the Ministry of Plenty, of starvation; and the Ministry of Truth, of propaganda.
Just as President Biden’s unconstitutional vaccination mandates were being ripped up by the courts, authoritarian politicians, public health bureaucrats, and the mainstream media, announced a new Covid variant to justify another round of lockdowns and restrictions. The things that didn’t work last time would be a good idea to do again this time, they claim.
For these authoritarians, the timing of omicron’s emergence was perfect.
The variant was first discovered in South Africa, with the US and European media running endless scare stories. Authoritarian politicians used the manufactured fear to justify another attack on liberty.
Europe shut down and became a virtual prison camp. In Austria, Germany, and elsewhere, citizens became non-persons without a vaccine passport.
South African health officials reported that the variant seemed to be more contagious but far milder than previous variants, as usually happens with such viruses. But the lockdowners would not hear of it. From Boris Johnson in the UK to DeBlasio in New York City, the variant was perfect cover for them to put their boots back on the necks of terrorized citizens.
As to be expected, Fauci reveled in the emergence of the new variant, warning of “record deaths” for the unvaccinated. Similarly, President Biden warned that this would be a “winter of death” for the unvaccinated.
But here’s something the media isn’t reporting about the omicron outbreaks: they are taking place among the fully vaccinated. Cornell University, with 97 percent of the campus fully vaccinated and a mask mandate, has announced that it would return to online only instruction after a massive Covid outbreak.
Likewise, the National Football League has postponed several games this weekend due to Covid outbreaks, even though the League is virtually 100 percent vaccinated. And the National Basketball Association, which is above 95 percent fully vaccinated, has just announced that due to a surge in Covid cases it too will postpone games.
The vaccine is not working to prevent infection or transmission of the virus: cases are raging in states with the highest vaccine levels. Yet the “experts” continue to maintain that the only thing that can stop the spread of omicron is vaccines! More people are catching on that this makes no sense. If vaccines don’t stop the spread, how can vaccines stop the spread?
Meanwhile, South Africa, with one of the lowest rates of vaccination, has just announced that they are only seeing a tiny fraction of hospitalizations with omicron compared to previous variants. South Africa’s Covid response authority has written to the health minister recommending an end to containment efforts, contact tracing, and quarantines.
Unvaccinated South Africa is ending Covid restrictions while the hyper-vaccinated North is locking down. Something doesn’t add up.
Fauci loves to say that to question him is to question science, but this has nothing to do with science. It’s about power. Fauci, the political authoritarians, and the corrupt Big Pharma billionaires are trying to make a last stand, desperate to push omicron as a justification for further tyranny and profits. But actual science is not cooperating.
Omicron is spreading and vaccines are not stopping it. Thus far nearly half of omicron infections are asymptomatic. Some experts are predicting that omicron will spell the end of Covid-19. But we know that as long as people like Fauci are around, Covid-19 will never end. Unless, of course, we repudiate the charlatans and profiteers and reclaim our liberty!
The top eight Pfizer and Moderna shareholders saw their combined wealth rise by $10 billion in a seven-day windfall after the Omicron variant was discovered, according to a report in the Daily Mail.
With the discovery of Omicron making headlines globally from November 24, the personal wealth of Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel rose by $824 million alone amid the company’s rapid share growth, with the pharma boss selling 10,000 shares of his own stock in that period for a cool $3.19 million.
Investment giant Vanguard Group Inc. saw the value of its shareholdings in Pfizer and Moderna increase by more than $2.7 billion after the Omicron news, with Blackrock Inc.’s shares rising by more than $2.4 billion and Baillie Gifford & Co’s Moderna stock valuation climbing by more than $1.5 billion.
State Street Corp.’s Pfizer shareholdings increased in value by more than $1 billion, and Capital World Investors’ shares rose by more than $900 million, followed closely by Bancel’s $824 million and Flagship Pioneering’s $652 million gain on Moderna stock.
Bancel’s share value reportedly rose by $1.7 billion at one point during the last week of November, but a lost legal dispute concerning company patents brought his stocks down to an $824 million valuation.
Neither company denied the staggering figures when contacted by the Daily Mail.
Reacting to the news, Irish senator Sharon Keogan said politicians needed to “check the stock market” and “join the dots” in assessing who benefits from the global response to COVID, and to cease making the participation of people in society “contingent upon the consumption of the product of a private company under direct or indirect threat of force.”
The Pifzer CEO’s recent prediction that people will need an annual COVID vaccination for many years to come was sardonically compared by the senator to a Coca-Cola CEO recommending a can with every meal, “because I’m sure he’s just concerned for people’s safety.”
Keogan then laid out the remarkable discovery that “in the week of Omicron it was discovered the wealth of the eight top Pfizer and Moderna shareholders rose by a combined €9 billion ($10 billion USD).”
“Governments globally have collectively made ordinary participation in society contingent upon consumption of the product of a private company under direct or indirect threat of force,” Keogan lamented in her December 9 speech.
“Over the past two years, the livelihoods of ordinary people have been steadily siphoned into the pockets of pharma and tech giants — the only hope we have is in recognizing that this is an entirely unsustainable (situation), and will end,” she predicted.
LifeSiteNews last week reported how at least 75 federal legislators in the United States held stock in Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer in 2020.
The three companies are responsible for producing experimental, abortion-tainted COVID-19 injections.
The paper trail shows Big Pharma corporations also shelled out millions of dollars to finance electoral campaigns and lobby the federal government.
The data raised serious ethical concerns about the objectivity of the U.S. legislature, prompting questions about how much government actors stand to profit from coercive jab mandates that have deprived Americans of their rights and handicapped a struggling economy.
LifeSiteNews’ Ashley Sadler further reported in late November how Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, had found Pfizer attempted to “silence governments, throttle supply, shift risk and maximize profits in the worst public health crisis in a century” through its vaccine contract negotiation strategies with various nation states.
Public Citizen’s report noted that Pfizer has negotiated contracts with nations to ensure it retains the right to actually “silence governments” while funneling disputes through private arbitrators rather than public courts.
In Brazil, for example, Pfizer demanded the country waive its “sovereign immunity waiver on public assets” and agree to a “lack of penalties for Pfizer if deliveries were late.”
After first arguing Pfizer’s terms were “unfair and abusive,” Brazil ultimately agreed to them, even consenting to “resolve disputes under a secret private arbitration under the laws of New York” and to “broadly indemnif[y] Pfizer for civil claims.”
In addition to Brazil, Pfizer also required Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Peru to waive their sovereign immunity.
Indian news channel WION also reported that Pfizer had astoundingly asked Argentina to put “its bank reserves, its military bases, and its embassy buildings at stake as collateral.”
But Pfizer’s alleged “bullying” and apparent moves to silence governments has not been limited to Latin American countries.
The report added that in the United Kingdom, “[a] secret panel of three private arbitrators — not a U.K court — is empowered under the contract to make the final decision” in the event of a contractual dispute with Pfizer, while “[b]oth parties are required to keep everything secret.”
The same is true in the United States, in which both the U.S. government and Pfizer have agreed not to discuss the “existence, subject matter or terms” of the contract “without the prior written consent of the other.”
Pfizer is not unfamiliar with being hit with massive criminal and civil liability claims, which may explain its eagerness to defend itself against future lawsuits.
In 2009, in the largest pharmaceutical settlement in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice at the time, Pfizer was forced to pay a $2.3 billion settlement “to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products.”
According to the DOJ, Pfizer misbranded an anti-inflammatory drug that had been pulled from the market, promoting its sale “for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns.”
Pfizer’s subsidiaries pleaded guilty to a felony for misbranding the drug “with intent to defraud or mislead,” and the company was ordered to pay a criminal fine totaling $1.3 billion, “the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter.” Pfizer paid out another $1 billion “to resolve allegations” related to the illegal promotion of three other drugs.
The reluctance of health authorities to approve the use of ivermectin as a viable and inexpensive treatment or prophylactic for COVID-19 has come under sustained criticism from many experts, with clear evidence emerging that some academics were coerced into suppressing favorable data.
Many critics have noted that the “emergency use authorization” given to the experimental vaccines by the FDA could only have been obtained in the absence of safe and effective alternative treatments, such as ivermectin.
The European (EEA and non-EEA countries) database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, verified by European Medicines Agency (EMA), and they are now reporting 32,649 fatalities, and 3,003,296 injuries, following COVID-19 injections.
This database maintained at EudraVigilance is only for countries in Europe who are part of the European Union (EU), which comprises 27 countries.
The total number of countries in Europe is much higher, almost twice as many, numbering around 50. (There are some differences of opinion as to which countries are technically part of Europe.)
So as high as these numbers are, they do NOT reflect all of Europe. The actual number in Europe who are reported dead or injured following COVID-19 shots would be much higher than what we are reporting here.
The EudraVigilance database (EEA and non-EEA countries) reports that through December 4, 2021 there are 32,649 deaths and 3,003,296 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:
From the total of injuries recorded, almost half of them (1,409,643) are serious injuries.
“Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”
A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. It is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.
Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.*
Here is the summary data through December 4, 2021.
Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 15,061 deaths and 1,399,513 injuries to 04/12/2021
38,170 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 217 deaths
43,454 Cardiac disorders incl. 2,204 deaths
404 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 38 deaths
18,886 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 10 deaths
286,356 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,544 deaths
971 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 62 deaths
499 Immune system disorders incl. 30 deaths
33,416 Infections and infestations incl. 441 deaths
12,583 Injury poisoning and procedural complications incl. 180 deaths
23,958 Investigations incl. 159 deaths
12,472 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 96 deaths
161,308 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 114 deaths
650 Neoplasms benign malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 25 deaths
223,680 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,007 deaths
533 Pregnancy puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 14 deaths
191 Product issues incl. 1 death
20,150 Psychiatric disorders incl. 60 deaths
4,093 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 63 deaths
15,594 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 2 deaths
38,722 Respiratory thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 817 deaths
49,877 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 53 deaths
1,533 Social circumstances incl. 6 deaths
1,499 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 26 deaths
27,179 Vascular disorders incl. 457 deaths
Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson: 1,989 deaths and 105,819 injuries to 04/12/2021
1,029 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 41 deaths
1,952 Cardiac disorders incl. 169 deaths
36 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
1,080 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 2 deaths
72 Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
1,415 Eye disorders incl. 7 deaths
8,743 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 80 deaths
27,925 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 533 deaths
130 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 11 deaths
473 Immune system disorders incl. 9 deaths
4,676 Infections and infestations incl. 157 deaths
974 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 20 deaths
4,927 Investigations incl. 111 deaths
664 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 50 deaths
15,331 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 45 deaths
59 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 4 deaths
20,725 Nervous system disorders incl. 219 deaths
43 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
32 Product issues
1,479 Psychiatric disorders incl. 17 deaths
443 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 26 deaths
2,249 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 6 deaths
3,799 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 259 deaths
3,241 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 8 deaths
337 Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths
718 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 58 deaths
3,267 Vascular disorders incl. 151 deaths
*These totals are estimates based on reports submitted to EudraVigilance. Totals may be much higher based on percentage of adverse reactions that are reported. Some of these reports may also be reported to the individual country’s adverse reaction databases, such as the U.S. VAERS database and the UK Yellow Card system. The fatalities are grouped by symptoms, and some fatalities may have resulted from multiple symptoms.
Comments Off on 32,649 Deaths 3,003,296 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Database of Adverse Reactions as Young, Previously Healthy People Continue to Suffer
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen ordered his country’s military to destroy or submit to warehouses all weapons that were produced in the US. The reason for such a harsh reaction by the Cambodian leader is because of provocative actions and further threats of sanctions from US authorities.
The White House has decided to punish Cambodia for daring to build their country’s military with Chinese support. What infuriates Washington is not so much the fact that the port of Ream in southern Cambodia is a part of the Belt and Road Initiative, but rather their belief that the Chinese are building a new naval base on a site that was recently constructed with American funding, something that Cambodian officials vehemently deny.
Despite this denial, Washington has imposed a series of sanctions against Cambodia, including an embargo on the supply of American weapons and military equipment.
Hun Sen wrote on his Facebook page: “The US embargo on the supply of weapons is a warning to the next generation of Cambodian citizens, to the leaders of the government. If you want your own independent defence bloc, don’t use American weapons.”
Cambodia’s leader, according to some sources, dreams that one day his eldest son, Lieutenant General Hun Manet, will become his successor. Manet is currently deputy commander-in-chief of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces and Hun Sen believes that he is a future prime minister. In this way, if the US continues to sanction and antagonise Cambodia, the split between the two countries could become generational.
In modern international law, only sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council are recognized. Unilateral sanctions, such as those imposed by the US against a plethora of countries, are illegal according to international law, something that countries like Russia and China repeatedly highlight. With this in mind, the sanctions the US imposed against Cambodia were unilateral, and therefore illegal.
None-the-less, like other countries, Cambodia has the opportunity to buy weapons from elsewhere, and therefore the embargo is unlikely to affect the impoverished Southeast Asian country in a major way. It is recalled that Cambodia is one of the poorest countries in the Southeast Asia region and does not procure major weapons like advanced frigates or fourth/fifth generation fighter jets. Therefore, Cambodia’s military needs are modest and can be easily supplied from other countries.
Southeast Asian countries are a favoured destination for Russian, Chinese, Israeli and French military suppliers. The US lost its monopoly on a variety of products in the region and it appears that it is difficult for the Americans to acknowledge this bitter truth.
It is recalled that in 2016, the US refused to supply weapons to the Philippines, citing human rights violations in the country. At the time, the Filipino president asked China and Russia for help and his country received new weaponry. However, it appears once again that the US, despite being under a new administration, has not learned its lesson that countries will just simply move onto another supplier if the only way they can procure new military equipment is with conditions attached that dictates their domestic and foreign policies.
Cambodia is a minnow state within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), but it took over the chairmanship of the bloc last week from Brunei. On December 6, Hun Sen stated that Myanmar should be entitled to attend the Association’s forum as a member of the ASEAN family. He also announced plans to meet with the ruler of Myanmar, General Min Aung Hlaing, saying: “If I don’t work with the leader, who can I work with?”
Although it is unlikely that there will be a substantive breakthrough in overcoming the crisis in Myanmar during Cambodia’s chairmanship of ASEAN, Phnom Penh has a greater willingness and ability than Brunei to coordinate action on Myanmar, especially as it does not place preconditions on meeting with General Hlaing like the Bruneians did.
Last week while on a trip to Malaysia, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Washington plans to impose further sanctions against Myanmar’s military leaders. Blinken did not rule out the possibility of assessing the actions of the Myanmar military against citizens as genocide. At the same time, Washington recently announced additional sanctions against organisations and individuals linked to Myanmar’s military.
With Cambodia holding the ASEAN chairmanship for the next mandate period and having ambitions to try and resolve the Myanmar crisis, it will surely lead to another point of tension with Washington. The US is trying to break China’s influence across Southeast Asia, and this has directly led to tensions with Cambodia, the Philippines and Myanmar.
This suggests that the problems between Washington and Phnom Penh will not subside anytime soon. Rather, off the back of US weapon embargoes and Cambodia’s intentions to reconcile Myanmar and ASEAN, relations will only continue to deteriorate, especially as Cambodia continues to unapologetically strengthen its relations with China.
La Federazione Russa ha consegnato agli Stati Uniti d’America, il 15 dicembre, il progetto di un Trattato e di un Accordo per disinnescare la crescente tensione tra le due parti. I due documenti sono stati resi pubblici, il 17 dicembre, dal Ministero degli Esteri russo. La bozza di trattato prevede, all’Art. 1, che ciascuna delle due parti «non intraprenda azioni che incidono sulla sicurezza dell’altra parte» e, all’Art.2, che «si adoperi per garantire che tutte le organizzazioni internazionali e alleanze militari a cui partecipa aderiscano ai principi della Carta delle Nazioni Unite».
All’Art. 3 le due parti si impegnano a «non utilizzare i territori di altri Stati allo scopo di preparare o effettuare un attacco armato contro l’altra parte». L’Art. 4 prevede, quindi, che «gli Stati Uniti non stabiliranno basi militari nel territorio degli Stati dell’ex Urss che non sono membri della Nato», ed «eviteranno l’adesione di Stati dell’ex Urss alla Nato, impedendo una sua ulteriore espansione ad Est». Nell’Art. 5 «le parti si astengono dal dispiegare le loro forze armate e i loro armamenti, anche nell’ambito di alleanze militari, nelle aree in cui tale dispiegamento può essere percepito dall’altra parte come una minaccia alla propria sicurezza nazionale». Quindi «si astengono dal far volare bombardieri equipaggiati con armamenti nucleari o non nucleari e dallo schierare navi da guerra nelle aree, al di fuori dello spazio aereo e delle acque territoriali nazionali, da cui possano attaccare obiettivi nel territorio dell’altra parte».
All’Art. 6 le due parti si impegnano a «non usare missili terrestri a gittata intermedia o corta al di fuori dei loro territori nazionali, nonché nelle zone dei loro territori da cui tali armi possano attaccare obiettivi sul territorio dell’altra parte». L’Art.7, infine, prevede che «le due parti si asterranno dallo schierare armi nucleari al di fuori dei loro territori nazionali e riporteranno nei loro territori le armi già schierate al di fuori» e che «non addestreranno personale militare e civile di paesi non nucleari all’uso di armi nucleari, né condurranno esercitazioni che prevedano l’uso di armi nucleari».
Il progetto di Accordo stabilisce le procedure di funzionamento del Trattato, basate sull’impegno che le due parti «risolveranno tutte le controversie nelle loro relazioni con mezzi pacifici» e «utilizzeranno i meccanismi delle consultazioni e informazioni bilaterali, comprese linee telefoniche dirette per contatti di emergenza». Il Ministero degli Esteri russo comunica che la parte statunitense ha ricevuto spiegazioni dettagliate sulla logica dell’approccio russo e di sperare quindi che, nel prossimo futuro, gli Stati uniti avviino seri colloqui con la Russia su tale questione critica.
Tace per ora la parte statunitense. Si fa sentire però la Voce dell’America, megafono multimediale di Washington che parla in oltre 40 lingue a centinata di milioni di persone in tutto il mondo: dice che «molti esperti sono preoccupati per questa mossa della Russia, che vuole sfruttare il fallimento del negoziato come pretesto per invadere l’Ucraina». Tace per ora la Nato, in attesa degli ordini da Washington. Tace l’Italia che, pur non essendo destinataria diretta della proposta russa, è parte in causa: tra le armi nucleari che gli Usa schierano al di fuori del proprio territorio vi sono le bombe B-61 installate a Ghedi e Aviano, tra poco sostituite dalle più micidiali B61-12, al cui uso viene addestrato il nostro personale militare nonostante l’Italia sia ufficialmente paese non nucleare. E gli Usa si preparano a installare in Italia anche nuovi missili nucleari a gittata intermedia.
Mentre i media calano una quasi totale cappa di silenzio sulla proposta russa, i gruppi parlamentari la ignorano come se non avesse niente a che fare con l’Italia, esposta a crescenti pericoli quale base avanzata delle forze nucleari Usa contro la Russia. Trovino almeno il tempo di leggere in pochi minuti la bozza che la Russia ha consegnato agli Usa per aprire la trattativa, e abbiano il coraggio politico di esprimere pubblicamente il loro giudizio. Se è negativo, spieghino perché è in contrasto con la nostra Costituzione e la nostra sicurezza.
On December 15, the Russian Federation delivered to the United States of America the project of a Treaty and an Agreement to defuse the growing tension between the two parties.
The two documents were made public by the Russian Foreign Ministry on December 17.
The draft treaty foresees in Art. 1, that each of the two parties “shall not undertake actions that affect the security of the other party” and,
In Art.2, that “shall seek to ensure that all international organizations and military alliances in which it is taking part adhere to the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.”.
In Art. 3 the two parties commit themselves “not to use the territories of other States with a view to preparing or carrying out an armed attack against the other Party“.
Art. 4 provides then, that “the United States shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former USSR that are not members of NATO”, and “shall deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former USSR to prevent further eastward expansion of NATO“.
In Art. 5 “the parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of military alliances, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other party as a threat to its national security.”
Thus “they shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments and from deploying warships in areas, outside national airspace and territorial waters, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other party.”
In Art. 6 “the parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party” and that “shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons, nor conduct exercises involving the use of nuclear weapons.”
InArt.7 “the parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons to their national territories”, and “shall not train military and civilian personnel from non-nuclear countries to use nuclear weapons” nor “conduct exercises involving the use of nuclear weapons.”
The draft Agreement established procedures for the Treaty operation, based on the commitment that the two parties “will resolve all disputes in their relations by peaceful means“, and “will use the mechanisms of bilateral consultations and information, including hotlines for emergency contacts.” The US party was given detailed explanations regarding the logic of the Russian approach, and the Russian Foreign Ministry hoped that in the near future the United States will enter into serious talks with Russia on this critical issue.
The U.S. party is silent for now. However, the Voice of America, Washington’s multimedia megaphone that speaks to hundreds of millions of people around the world in more than 40 languages, is making its voice heard: it said that “many experts are concerned about the Russia’s gambit, which wants to use the failure of the negotiations as a pretext to invade Ukraine”.
NATO is silent for now, waiting for orders from Washington. Italy is silent, even though it is not the direct recipient of the Russian proposal but it is part of the cause: among the nuclear weapons that the US deployed outside its territory there are the B61 bombs [tactical nuclear weapons] installed in Ghedi and Aviano bases, soon to be replaced by the more deadly B61-12, and our military personnel is trained for their use despite Italy being officially a non-nuclear country. And the U.S. is preparing to install in Italy also new nuclear missiles with intermediate range.
While the media is maintaining an almost total silence on the Russian proposal, the Parliamentary groups are ignoring it as if it had nothing to do with Italy, the country is exposed to growing dangers as an advanced base for US nuclear forces against Russia. Make them at least find the time to read in a few minutes the draft that Russia handed over to the USA to open the negotiations, and have the political courage to publicly express their opinion. If it is negative, let them explain why it is contrary to our Constitution and our security.
First published by il manifesto, December 21, 2021. Translated from Italian by the author.
Manlio Dinucci is an award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
The CIA and British intelligence are feeding the public through their media assets the story that Russia’s security concern is really a cloak behind which hides Moscow’s plan to create a new Russian sphere of influence over eastern Europe.
Of course, Washington has a sphere of influence over eastern Europe called NATO, but it would be the end of the world for Russia to have any influence with countries that border it.
Another part of the CIA disinformation is that the White House is willing to discuss part of the Russian security demand but not the parts the White House disagrees with. This, of course, is nonsensical as the Kremlin made it clear that its demand for a halt to NATO expansion is not divisible. Expansion stops. Period. Or there will be “dire consequences.”
Western orientated Russian intellectuals at the Russian International Affairs Council are already at work undermining the Kremlin’s position on the non-expansion of NATO. The mission of the Council is to facilitate Russia’s peaceful integration into the global community, something that can only happen on Washington’s terms.
The Council’s director, Andrei Kortunov, quickly undermined the Kremlin’s position by describing the Kremlin’s ultimatum as “a bargaining position.” Washington already doesn’t take the Kremlin seriously, and Kortunov’s idiotic statement makes it certain Washington will dismiss the ultimatum as well. Indeed, as I reported, NATO’s Stoltenberg, the White House press spokesperson, and Biden’s national security adviser have already dismissed the Kremlin’s demand.
To make certain that the Kremlin understands that its demand is rejected, General Tod Wolters wants an even more aggressive response to the Kremlin. He is calling for NATO/US troops to be deployed in Romania and Bulgaria. Called Enhanced Forward Presenceit amounts to the US military occupation of Eastern Europe–the exact opposite of the response demanded by Russia.
Perhaps the Kremlin is learning, belatedly, that years of sweet-talking the West created the expectation that Russian complaints never have to be taken seriously. As I warned, the Kremlin’s behavior encouraged more provocations, which eventually would go too far and force the Kremlin to put a foot down.
With the CIA misrepresenting the Kremlin’s expression of a non-negotiable security concern as a plot to rebuild the Soviet Empire and the Russian International Affairs Council describing the Kremlin’s red line as just a bargaining position, we will see if the foot stays down or whether the Kremlin blows forever its credibility.
In the UK, after Government manipulation of hospitalisations and deaths to exclude more recent data, the truth is now emerging. In Scotland for August to November 2021 over 85% of deaths were in the vaccinated. Boosters are merely boosting COVID infections. Some 40,000 deaths have occurred in the USA, UK and EU following vaccination but Omicron is mild. The UK Government has manipulated the data to blame the unvaccinated but the vaccinated are at greatest risk.
It was clear from the first cases in South Africa and now in the UK and EU that the new Omicron variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease and very few deaths even “with COVID”. Indeed South African experts have advised stopping stop and trace and quarantining because most of the infected have no symptoms.
Considering the thousands of deaths and millions of injuries worldwide caused by the COVID vaccines there is very little difference between the decline in deaths between the least and most vaccinated countries.
LEAST VACCINATED COUNTRIES:
(Average vaccination rate 21%)
Decline of deaths from most recent peak:
Tanzania 100%
Nigeria 98%
Ethiopia 89%
Kenya 91%
Egypt 36%
S. Africa 92%
Pakistan 95%
Russia 18%
Average decline in deaths for 8 least vaccinated countries: 77%
MOST VACCINATED COUNTRIES
(Average vaccination rate 88%)
Decline of deaths from most recent peak:
UAE 90%
Cuba 98%
Chile 89%
Portugal 91%
Singapore 83%
Cambodia 94%
S. Korea 17%
Canada 98%
Average decline in deaths for 8 most vaccinated countries: 82%
If we take the 3 least vaccinated countries their decline in deaths from the recent peak averaged 95% whereas the three most vaccinated achieved 92%
With a vaccination rate 4 times the least vaccinated countries the 8 most vaccinated countries produce a mere 5% better decline in deaths from their recent peaks. A paltry return for vaccines which have caused nearly 2,000 deaths in the UK, 9,000 in the USA and 31,000 in the EU.
Even the Lancet has shown the vaccines do not work – as the third jab and talk of a fourth testify. To quote from the Lancet study:
“In the UK it was found that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated and 23% for unvaccinated)”
VACCINATED AT GREATEST RISK OF DEATH
In the UK, after Government manipulation of hospitalisations and deaths to exclude more recent data, the truth is now emerging. In this graph from Scotland for August to November 2021 over 85% of deaths are in the vaccinated.
An exposure of how the Government has manipulated the data to blame the unvaccinated appears here: It turns out that the source of the statement “Of the Covid patients treated in intensive care in recent months, the majority – nearly 75 per cent according to the latest data – have chosen not to be vaccinated.” was data from May to July. The data above (from Scotland from August to November) suggests the exact opposite.
More evidence of the failure of vaccines in the face of new infections comes from the USA where one of the largest US outbreaks of the new Omicron variant to date is believed to have occurred at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where almost all 930 cases over the past week are believed to be of the variant.
All of the confirmed Omicron cases in the Cornell University case are among people who are fully vaccinated, and some of them are in people who’ve also had the booster.
The booster is of course more of the same in the hope that the third dose will do what the first two doses were supposed to do! And the new variant, “omicron”?
Most of the Omicron cases in the United States have been among the vaccinated, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in an update on Friday 10/12/21. Most patients have experienced mild symptoms.
OMICRON IS WEAK
Indeed it was clear from the first cases in South Africa that the new Omicron variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease, without prominent symptoms and it:
“presents mild disease with symptoms being sore muscles and tiredness for a day or two not feeling well. So far, we have detected that those infected do not suffer loss of taste or smell. They might have a slight cough. There are no prominent symptoms. Of those infected some are currently being treated at home”
– as Angelique Coetzee, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association described it. Indeed the case fatality rate in S Africa – deaths as a proportion of cases 10 days earlier – was at the lowest level since covid started.
In the UK a mere 12 deaths have been “with” Omicron – in other words not death “from” Omicron!
The World Health Organization’s weekly epidemiological update for Dec. 7 showed that all 212 Omicron cases documented across eighteen European Union (EU) countries were either mild or asymptomatic.
Everywhere the Omicron variant seems to be supplanting the Delta variant but with much milder symptoms so that as the South African doctor Omar Hamada said the Omicron variant of COVID-19 may provide natural immunity without inducing severe illness, as the symptoms so far resemble more of a “mild, common cold” in South Africa.
“If the infectivity is greater, but the virulence or severity is less, this may be actually something good in terms of getting people immune to it without necessarily having to depend on a vaccine that’s not incredibly effective,” said Hamada.
BOOSTERS
The boosters being touted by Governments are controversial among experts. “The boosters are a perfect way to bias our immune system so we’re LESS able to respond to this new variant,” said Dr Robert Malone the inventor of the mRNA vaccine.
“This is [like] jabbing everybody with a flu vaccine from three seasons ago and expecting it to have effects against the current [flu strains].”
A top World Health Organization (WHO) official said there was “no evidence” to suggest that the vaccine booster doses would offer “greater protection” to healthy people. Dr. Mike Ryan, the WHO’s emergency director, questioned the logic of some countries trying to produce more booster doses to vaccinate anyone aged 18 and older.
“Right now, there is no evidence that I’m aware of that would suggest that boosting the entire population is going to necessarily provide any greater protection for otherwise healthy individuals against hospitalisation and death,” Ryan said.
France has even banned the Moderna booster.
UK BOOSTERS BOOST INFECTIONS
On 1st October when the Boosters started in the UK 153,912 were vaccinated. On 18th December there were 904,598 vaccinated an increase of 487%
New Infections on 1st October were 34,752 while on 18th December there were 90,109 new infections – an increase of 159%.Since there is a delay between vaccination and infection it is probable that that percentage increase in infections will catch up with the prior increase in vaccinations. And that further increase will lead the politician to call for more vaccinations and ruinous lockdowns!! which will in turn lead to more infections and so on ad absurdum and ad infinitum.
worldindata.org compared the European countries which had given boosters with those countries that had not and found that the infections gap between them was growing – from 19% more infections for the Booster countries to 21%.
It is quite clear that (as in previous periods of vaccine increases) there has been a consequent increase in COVID infections. This is a world wide pattern since vaccination programmes started. The excuse (if there is one at all given the horrendous numbers of deaths) was that those who fell ill were not so seriously ill as those who were unvaccinated. But that too we now know (see above) is rubbish.
The terrible toll of deaths and serious injuries among nurses, doctors, airline pilots and sportsmen around the world is unprecedented for any vaccine, never mind one which has proved so useless in preventing infections, infectiousness and deaths. The next Freenations post will deal with those deadly consequences.
The Democrats have held the presidency and a majority of both houses of Congress for only eleven months, but they have already put their stamp on the transformation of the United States from top to bottom. In reaction to those cascading accusations of “domestic terrorism,” many Americans are beginning to believe that the country is literally coming apart, with little in the way of a binding national spirit or sense of purpose. And the heavy hand that is being wielded to impose a revolution in areas like education and health mandates raises concerns that much worse is to come over the next three years.
That the country is in deep trouble is a view that I have come to share and each morning has become a chore to get up out of bed and scan through the news service headlines that had accumulated since the night before. I sometimes notice that there is more space given to reviews of television shows, the doings of “celebrities,” and sporting events than to the more serious issues that confront the American people. One might suspect that most readers don’t really care about the state of the nation, but I rather think that what we are seeing is a deliberate and all-encompassing media driven propaganda campaign designed to deliver bread and circuses while also reducing the choices that people are able to make in many of the aspects of their daily lives.
Three weeks ago there was an article featured in The New York Times, which is, of course, one of the worst and most persistent of the national libtard media, which headlined “A Pollster’s Warning to Democrats: ‘We Have a Problem’: Focus groups with Virginia voters led to a bluntly worded memo on what Democrats need to do going into the midterms.” The article begins with “Brian Stryker, a Democratic pollster, didn’t work for Terry McAuliffe’s campaign in the Virginia governor’s race. But Mr. McAuliffe’s narrow defeat in a liberal-leaning state alarmed him and most every Democratic political professional.”
Stryker was subsequently commissioned to do polling and prepare a no-holds-barred memo on what went wrong. “The [poll’s] participants hailed from the suburbs of Washington and Richmond and had the same political profile: Each supported Mr. Biden in 2020, and either voted for Mr. Youngkin in November or strongly considered supporting him.” The Times article consists mostly of an interview by the newspaper on the points made in the memo.
I confess that I read the entire article, a rare achievement with the NYT, and then sat back to have a good laugh. I was, after all, an actual Virginia voter involved in the campaign to defeat McAuliffe due largely to his “anti-parent involvement in education” beliefs as well as his close ties to the Clintons. I noted immediately that the polls undertaken by Stryker were focused on the limousine liberal voters in northern Virginia and around the capital Richmond. Those are not necessarily the voters who turned Virginia blue and their ability to send their children to private schools made education less of an issue than it was for ordinary working people who had to rely on the public system. So the responses were, one might suggest, skewed.
Most Virginians I know who voted against McAuliffe did so for a whole basket of issues relating to the Democrats punishing the white working and middle classes and disadvantaging their children because of their skin color. They were also responding to surging homicides and unpunished looting, arson and rioting nationally, which has been linked to the Democrats opportunistic support of the BLM phenomenon generated behavior. People in Virginia in general no longer feel safe on the streets of their towns and even in the schools because of the Democratic Party tendency to pander to the various constituencies harboring grievances that it has embraced. Note particularly one question from the NYT journalist to Stryker and the response:
“Q: What drives this perception that Democrats are fixated on cultural issues?
A: We probably haven’t been as focused on the economy as we should be. I think some of that is voters reading us talking about things that aren’t economic issues. Part of it is just a natural reaction, too: We’re in an economy they feel is tough. It’s hard for them to think we’ve solved problems when they see so many.”
Stryker not so skillfully dodges the question because the problem is that the Democratic Party is indeed “fixated on cultural issues,” which is why they are willing to turn public education into a “feel good waste of time” that many parents loathe and the taxpayer/homeowner is required to fund. McAuliffe lost the election when he declared that parents should not interfere in the education of their children and that there are too many school teachers who are white. Nevertheless, it is odd that Stryker was seemingly unable to figure out that it was not the economy that drove voters to reject McAuliffe, that citing the economy is the equivalent of no answer at all. Just maybe he was talking to the wrong people.
One can only hope that the Democrats are heading for a fall in 2022, but the punditry that makes its living off of the mainstream media is persisting in its attacks. Another recent article is by Max Boot, a ramshackle neocon of no particular distinction who wears a funny hat to distinguish himself from the other odd-looking neocons. Characteristically Jewish and born in Russia, he has inevitably exploited the usual networking to find a home as an opinion contributor at the extreme liberal Washington Post though he sometimes pretends to be a conservative. His article is entitled “Democrats are on course to lose in 2022 and 2024. If they do, we may lose our democracy.”
Boot is concerned because opinion polls show that Joe Biden and his party are seen increasingly unfavorably while the Republicans are gaining support. He describes the GOP as “extremist and authoritarian” but to give him some credit for being more alert to real issues than Stryker he observes that the Democrats are suffering from “progressive overreach” recounting how “[He] recently visited [his] alma mater, the University of California at Berkeley, and got an earful from friends about the excesses of ‘cancel culture,’ the unwillingness of many progressives to confront crime and homelessness, and, above all, all the damage done by Zoom classes and mask requirements for young children. These are complaints from liberals in one of the most progressive cities in the United States. Democrats are living in a dreamland if they continue to dismiss such worries as phony Republican attacks. Similar concerns cost Democrats in New Jersey and Virginia — and could haunt them again next year… [Biden]needs to attack the far-left activists who want to defund the police, boycott Israel and divide Americans by race.”
But Boot still is blind to what is happening to America fueled by the party that he clearly prefers. It is the Democrats who have introduced the COVID vax mandate; who opened up the southern border to unlimited illegal immigration; who promote racial and ethnic preferences; who continue to saber rattle against Iran, Russia and China; who refuse to arrest and try the rioters, looters and arsonists in America’s cities; who seek to restrict free speech and freedom of association; who continue the persecution of journalist Julian Assange; and who are going after ordinary Americans who protest against the destruction of the schools as “domestic terrorists.” If Max Boot really wants to know who has totalitarian tendencies and is threatening democracy in the United States all he has to do is turn around and look at his Democratic Party friends. And when he figures it out, he can explain it all to Brian Stryker.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
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.
Recent research from Israel gives some impressive data. For simplicity and a fair comparison, we look at data for 6 to 8 months after the event; in other words, the event being getting COVID infection and natural immunity or getting vaccination.
Here are the numbers in terms of confirmed infection rate per 100,000 risk days. The reason the researchers used ‘risk days’, rather than just ‘people’, is that the composition of each group changed over time. For example, some previously infected people chose to get vaccinated.
Here are the key data:
1. recovered from infection: 14
2. vaccinated and booster: 89
3. hybrid (natural immunity plus vaccination): 17
The point here is that the infections rate is much higher for vaccination and booster versus natural immunity from prior infection; in fact, it is more than six times greater. And even getting vaccination when having natural immunity adds a little higher infection rate.
Only one big scientific conclusion: Vaccination increases COVID infection and natural immunity is far more protective. You lose a little protection when you get vaccinated on top of having natural immunity, and that is not counting the many possible harmful health impacts of vaccines that can occur soon or much later than when you get the shots.
Every day all I hear about are all kinds of people, including many high level politicians like governors and senators getting COVID despite being vaccinated and also having received booster shots. Don’t reasonable, intelligent people say to themselves “than why in the hell is the government still pushing vaccines?” Now we also are hearing that omicron variant is becoming dominant. But the vaccines were not working when delta was the dominant variant. I guess the vaccines may be even more ineffective for the highly mutated omicron. Yet we still cannot get the government to sanction use of ivermectin and other treatments that a relatively few doctors are using with great success.
The real science data shows vaccines do not work and for many people they produce all kinds of bad health impacts. Who do you want to trust?
*
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.
Just like when U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s American Government, during the 1962 Cuban Crisis, warned that Soviet missiles in Cuba would mean World War 3, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin’s Russian Government warned, on 20 December 2021, that if its adjoining nation of Ukraine becomes a NATO member (which would present the danger of U.S. missiles only a 7-minute flight-time away from Moscow), it would mean WW3.
Soviet communism is gone, the Soviet dictatorship is gone, the Soviet response to NATO, the Warsaw Pact, is gone; but America and its allies have continued the Cold War against Russia; and, now, finally (after decades of NATO expansion right up to Russia’s borders), Russia has laid down the gauntlet to them, just as America had laid down the gauntlet to the Soviet Union and its allies, in 1962, regarding Cuba.
Russia’s RT News bannered on December 20th, “Russia promises ‘military response’ to any further NATO expansion”. Of course, any “military response” would be against NATO — all of it — and probably within less than an hour, most people on both sides of that nuclear war would be either dead or doomed soon to die — and even throughout the world there would be billions of deaths.
No military conflict between Russia and America (and its ‘allies’ or vassal-nations) would be able to remain non-nuclear, because whichever side would be losing any non-nuclear war would promptly release all of its nuclear stockpile against the other, and so the nuclear exchanges would become a part of any U.S.-v.-Russia war.
The reader-comments at that news-report were informative, especially if a reader there clicks onto “Best” so as to be reading first the most “like”ed of the reader-comments (and this means that the most representative of all of the comments are being posted at the top). Here they are:
COMMENTS — “BEST” (the top-listed ones)
TheFishhv2
About time. NATO expansion must stop, because NATO’s intentions are not good. This organization has done a lot of damage in the last 25 years, and it must be reigned in.
Sun Tzu TheFishhv2
NATO is a defense organization pal, they never attacked anyone!
1Beak1 Sun Tzu
How true as they were in Libya, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia – What a wretched Liar.
LaCarreta Sun Tzu
NATO in its 72 years of existence never defended a single member state only attacked, bombed, invaded a number of foreign nations.
On May 7, 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), five U.S. Joint Direct Attack Munition guided bombs hit the People’s Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese journalists and outraging the Chinese public.
NWOD Sun Tzu
LOL, NATO is an aggressive imperialist enterprise. It has NEVER acted defensively – name a time it has – and every single war, battle, sabotage, and threat it has engaged in has been aggressive, unlawful and evil.
TheCruXx Sun Tzu
And how can you explain it to the world, that NATO was in several wars, when NO ONE ATTACKED THEM, OR ANYONE OF THEM. Kinda odd for a defense club…
LeftForward Sun Tzu
The best defense?
Libertarian4Eva TheFishhv2
When Russia is done with eastern Europe, think they’d mind coming to our US southern border? It’s not like it is defended at all, anyone can get through, and frankly the Russian troops would be good business for Texas. Considering our true enemy is in Washington DC, I think it would be a good breath of fresh air to have the visitors.
ELPuerco
One should keep in mind that during the 1990 negotiations between the Soviet Union and the US-led Western “bloc” over the issue of German reunification (the so-called fall of the German wall), the Western side promised that NATO would not expand itself into Eastern Europe. And yet, expand it did – and it has been expanding, and getting very close to Russia. To this day, Washington maintains a policy of “encircling” and “containing” Moscow. In fact, declassified documents that became public in 2017 show us that between 1990 and 1991, security assurances against any such NATO enlargement were given to Soviet authorities by western leaders of the highest level. This 1990 promise was broken, which makes Russia the aggrieved party – and not the other way around, as US narratives would have it. Basically, the so-called Iron Curtain fell, while its western counterpart (NATO) has grown larger and stronger – even though the Cold War supposedly ended. And that brings us to the current crisis.
*
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.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102 Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling) PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Fool me once, shame on the trickster for resorting to trickery. Fool me twice, shame on me. When someone has earned the reputation of a trickster, one ought to be very skeptical of that trickster. Thus, to be fooled twice by the same trickster brings shame on the gullible person.
The United States has been duping the gullible among its citizenry and also gullible people in the world for quite a while. Near the end of WWII, there was the lie that the US had to drop nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to get Japan to surrender. There was the American deception surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin incident that served as a pretext to deepen American militarism in Viet Nam. There was the twisting of facts about Iraq’s possessing weapons of mass destruction that resulted in over a million Iraqis being killed, the country’s infrastructure being destroyed, and Iraq being occupied by US military to this day. The US lied to USSR/Russia about no eastward NATO expansion; the US lied about Syria using chemical weapons. Why would anyone continue to believe the word of a serial, unrepentant liar?
Nowadays, the US barks that Russia is about to invade Ukraine. Then there is the allegation that China is committing genocide against Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Considering the US involvement in the oppression and killing of Palestinians, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, and Iranians — the notion that the US would shed a tear for Muslims is sadly risible.
Scads of disinformation have been revealed about a purported genocide of Uyghurs.
With the outrageous claims against China dismissed as flimsy artifices, the US seized upon an interpersonal altercation: an alleged sexual assault of a Chinese female tennis player by a retired former high-ranking Communist Party official.
There was a deleted post on Weibo, a Chinese social media site, by the player, Peng Shuai. The post purportedly contained the allegation of sexual assault. Then she became a meme: #Where is Peng Shuai. Western media implied the Chinese state had deleted the post, scrubbed the net of references, and disappeared Peng.
I wrote an article with the commonsense title “Jumping to China-bashing Conclusions: Due process calls demands waiting for the facts.” In any justice-based system, people must not be tried in media; they must be tried in a functioning court of law by a preponderance of the evidence. That is why one must scrutinize the information and evidence before jumping to conclusions.
Yet, the WTA, a professional body overseeing professional women’s tennis, had already deemed China to be guilty by suspending its tournaments in that country.
Recently, on 19 December, Peng was approached by a reporter from the Singaporean Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao. Peng looks genuinely surprised by the encounter, like a deer in the headlights, but knowing that she has to get this over with. (See the interview here.)
Peng emphatically states, “First, I would like to emphasize a very important point: I have never said nor written about anyone sexually assaulting me. This point must be very clearly emphasized.”
Whether a post on social media is a personal matter or not, people can debate, but Peng maintains it is. Peng also affirmed that an earlier email to the WTA denying a sexual assault was hers.
Unanswered in the interview was why the wording in the Weibo post seems to allege a sexual assault.
The WTA remains unsatisfied. It issued a statement: “We remain steadfast in our call for a full, fair and transparent investigation, without censorship, into her allegation of sexual assault, which is the issue that gave rise to our initial concern.” The tennis body headquartered in the US is, in effect, demanding that a powerful country of 1.4 billion people with a 5000-year history should submit a domestic crime allegation to its dictate. This demand presented to a country that rues its century of humiliation by outside powers will curry as much influence as an ant to a hungry aardvark.
Peng said she has no travel plans now. It seems the WTA ought to do its due diligence and visit Peng in China.
Not too quickly though, as Sinophobes in the West see a need to keep the heat turned up to try and spoil the Beijing Winter Olympics.
Talk about being a bad sport.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp@gmail. Twitter: @kimpetersen. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102 Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling) PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
In mainstream culture, social and political violence by the poor depicted in cinema is generally situated in narratives that try to maintain the legitimacy of the state. Consequently it also tries to delegitimize violence that may threaten the state. For example, the recent Mexican-French film New Order (2020) depicts the street violence and demonstrations of the poor as mindless violence, murder, and robbery, rather than as an inevitable reaction to decades of extreme poverty and oppression.
In these scenarios, the indigent, the poor, the working class, have no rational program, no ideological agenda, and no democratic future where they could be in the driving seat of economic and cultural progress. They are forever condemned to explosive, cathartic and senseless cyclical violence that is then simply stage-managed by the state through its courts, police, army and prisons. It could be argued that the main reason for these depictions of the poor is that mainstream culture is itself one of the tools used in the maintenance of that status quo.
Two recent Irish films, Arracht (‘Monster’) (2019) and Herself (2020), depict violence in very different eras. Arracht is based in Connemara in the middle of the nineteenth century, while Herself is set in a modern urban setting in Dublin. On another level, both films show how violence is allowed to be depicted in mainstream cinema.
Arracht, for example, is a well made film with much work gone into the authenticity of the depiction of the potato blight and the subsequent desperation of the local inhabitants. The narrative centres on Colmán Sharkey who lives on the Atlantic coast with his wife and young son. Colmán has taken on Patsy Kelly as a farmhand and fisherman, a dodgy character who was in the Royal Navy. The landlord has raised the rents and Colmán decides to talk to him personally, bringing Patsy with him. However,
“At the landlord’s estate, Colmán unsuccessfully tries to persuade him not to raise rents due to the famine devastating the country. Patsy wanders off where he encounters the two collection agents and the landlord’s daughter. He murders all three before being discovered by Colmán, who is shocked by what he finds and notices a frightened young girl has witnessed the scene. Patsy kills the landlord, leading to a confrontation with the Sharkey brothers in which Sean [Colmán’s brother] is fatally stabbed. Enraged, Colmán brutally beats Patsy and leaves him for dead.”
Soon these murders enter local nationalist folk culture in the form of a ballad sung by local fishermen. It is assumed that Colmán killed the landlord and he is seen as an heroic resistance fighter. However, it was shown that Colmán is not a violent person from an earlier scene when Patsy disarms an armed man sent to collect the rents, and Colmán orders Patsy to return the gun.
We know that the violence in the landlord’s house was committed by Patsy and not Colmán. In this case it is the actions of a sociopath (Patsy) which are immortalized in culture despite Colmán’s non-violent approach to resistance. There is a sleight of hand here that shows radical nationalist culture as illegitimate violence carried out by sociopaths and furthermore depicts the singers of the ballad as being ignorant of the facts of the situation, and that they are glorifying deeds that are basically portrayed as terrorism.
Given the severity of colonial oppression in Ireland in the nineteenth century, violence against the landlords or representatives of the state is unsurprising. Resistance by the peasants is delegitimized and limited to the legal and courts system, which is upholding the landlord rent increases and evictions that are exacerbating the conflict in the first place.
A similar cinematic sticking point over legitimate and illegitimate violence occurs in Neil Jordan’s film Michael Collins set during the Irish War of Independence. Jordan has the IRA explode a car bomb even though car bombs were not used until much later during the Troubles. Some critics focused in on this event as legitimating the later IRA campaign which they saw simply as modern terrorism unlike the earlier struggle for independence.
In Herself, the contemporary story of a woman (Sandra) fighting back against her violent ex-husband in the courts system, is a more positive narrative in that it shows her struggle against the structural violence of state bureaucracy. Furthermore, her tenacity in also resisting criminal violence by her ex-husband works well on both literal and symbolic levels.
While her battle against domestic violence is an uphill struggle against the prejudices of the state court system she eventually wins custody of her children. Her decision to build her own house in the back garden of the wealthy doctor she works for is an interesting twist in that her desire to be free and independent is determined by middle class power and control. However, her determination to create something for herself is significant as the learning processes involved in building a house counters modern consumerist ideology with the practical knowledge of production.
Furthermore, Sandra organizes a team to help her build the house, working for free, which harks back to an old Irish social tradition of a meitheal (where neighbours would come together to assist in the saving of crops or other tasks).
Unfortunately, the finished house is then burned down by her ex-husband in a criminal act of revenge. Yet this does not deter her (or her friends) from starting afresh. Thus the film carries a positive message that one can win out through struggle within the system, but also symbolically without the system, with the collective help of others despite enormous setbacks and challenges.
Despite the fact that the legitimacy of the state is maintained in Herself (winning custody of her children through the courts, her husband being caught and put away for years), the message of struggle, learning, and co-operation towards a common goal is quite subversive. She learns not only how to fight the system but also how to construct a new way of being within the system which has profound possibilities for the future (learning new skills, working collectively, solidarity, etc.).
A similar situation can be seen in The Wind that Shakes the Barley (2006), a film by Ken Loach set during the Irish War of Independence (1919–1921) and the Irish Civil War (1922–1923), wherein the First Dáil sets up a parallel court system to the colonial institutions, which not only became accepted and recognized by the local people (de facto) but were eventually to become de jure with the setting up of the new Irish state.
However, whether the message is conservative (Arracht) or progressive (Herself), it is usually oblique, as overtly radical content rarely gets screened. Cinema is an extremely costly business, and screenplay and finished film decisions are made by wealthy and conservative producers. Yet, every now and then films depicting working class life and struggles are produced which are significant, for example, Salt of the Earth (1954), The Organizer (1963) (Italian), The Battle of Algiers (1966)(Italian-Algerian), Blue Collar (1978) (USA), Norma Rae (1979) (USA), Vera Drake (2004) (UK), I, Daniel Blake (2016) (UK).
*
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.
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Europe is on a precipice. It has marched, blindly, towards something very much resembling tyranny. Austria will shortly criminalize those who refuse the Covid vaccine. Germany looks set to follow.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, is wondering out loud if every member state should do likewise and make offenders of those who reject this form of medication.
In Italy you are deprived of your livelihood rather than your liberty if you say no to vaccination: the unvaxxed are not permitted to work. Anywhere. In Greece, everyone over the age of 60 must pay the government 100 euros for every month they remain unvaxxed. As if the Greek government, in cahoots with its masters in Brussels, had not immiserated Greek pensioners enough already.
Police in Rotterdam opened fire on people protesting against Covid restrictions. Three were seriously injured. Austrian cops have wielded batons and shields against the thousands who took to the streets of Vienna to say no to mandatory vaxxing. In Brussels, the black, bureaucratic heart of the EU project, water cannons and tear gas were unleashed upon citizens agitating against vaccine passes. The irony is almost too much: in the European quarter of Brussels, the very part of Europe in which the modern European sensibility was forged by politicians, experts and technocrats, ordinary people make a blow for freedom and the forces of this supposedly liberal new continent beat them down. Rarely has modern Europe’s bluster about ‘human rights’ and ‘respect’ been so savagely exposed.
What is happening in Europe right now is nothing short of terrifying. We are not merely witnessing another round of Covid restrictions. This isn’t just the introduction of another set of emergency measures that some people believe are necessary to stave off the latest Covid wave and the Omicron threat lurking on the horizon. No, we are living through a chilling overhaul of the entire relationship between the state and the individual, with the state empowered to such an extraordinary degree that it can now instruct its citizens on what to inject into their bodies, and the individual so politically emaciated, so denuded of rights, that he no longer even enjoys sovereignty over himself, over that tiny part of the world that is his own body and mind. We are witnessing the violent death of European liberalism and the birth pangs of a new and deeply authoritarian era.
Many seem not to recognise how serious a development mandatory vaccination is. Even those of us who are pro-vaccination, who have been happily vaxxed against Covid-19, should look with nothing less than horror upon the proposal that it should be an offence not to be vaccinated; that a citizen should be fined thousands upon thousands of euros if he refuses this treatment. One of the ideas being discussed in Austria ahead of its mandatory vax law that will be introduced in February is that citizens who refuse vaccination will be summoned to a local court. If they ignore the summons twice they will face a fine of 3,600 euros. If they continue ignoring the state’s demand that they receive medical treatment that they do not want, they’ll be fined 7,200 euros. These are life-ruining fines. There is no talk – yet – of imprisoning people who reject the vaccine, but the Austrian state is making it crystal clear that it will happily wield its power to propel the unvaxxed into destitution.
Germany has already enforced a lockdown of the unvaccinated – that is, it has used the full force of the law to divide the populace between those who have made the ‘right’ (italics added) medical decision, and thus may enjoy some crumbs of liberty, and those who have not, and thus deserve nothing less than house arrest.
Now, outgoing chancellor Angela Merkel says mandatory vaxxing is likely to be introduced early next year. Ursula von der Leyen seems to think that every EU member state should force vaccination upon its citizens. How to ensure that everyone gets vaxxed ‘needs discussion’, she said recently. We must ‘potentially think about mandatory vaccination’, she continued. The 500million inhabitants of the European Union, of this supposed bastion of human rights, this political union we were told was necessary to preserve the dignity and freedom of modern Europeans, face the prospect of a neo-imperial diktat instructing them to receive medical treatment or else face severe consequences.
We underestimate at our peril just how grave an assault on personhood mandatory vaccination represents. To my mind, forced vaccination is such an obscenity that even justice secretary Dominic Raab’s assurance that it won’t happen in the UK was far too soft for my liking. ‘I don’t think’ it will happen here, he said. Don’t think? He should have said it will never happen here, over my dead body, because it would represent such an intolerable assault on the Enlightenment-derived liberties upon which our nation is built.
Everyone is saying mandatory vaccination goes against the Nuremberg Code, which insists voluntary consent must be given for medical intervention. But the ideal of individual sovereignty goes back much further than that. In his Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), the great Enlightenment philosopher John Locke sought to ‘settle the bounds’ between the individual and officialdom…
To Locke, as to other great European thinkers whose ideas gave rise to our Enlightened continent, the desire to ‘save’ an individual is not a good enough reason to meddle with his soul or his body. ‘God Himself will not save men against their wills’, he wrote. Yet where God once failed, the EU hopes to succeed. Where even the Almighty once feared to tread, held back by the small matter of man’s will, of man’s right to govern his own soul and body, the bureaucracies of 21st-century Europe will now rush in. They will brush aside the apparently trifling matter of bodily autonomy, they will discard the rights of self-government hard fought for over generations, and cajole people by brute law to submit themselves to medical intervention.
This spells the end of freedom as we know it.
Bodily autonomy is the foundation stone of self-government, and self-government is the thing that gives freedom meaning. If we do not enjoy sovereignty over our minds and our flesh, then we are not free in any meaningful way. And it won’t just be the minority of people who feel forced to receive the vaccine whose freedom will suffer under this new regime of state power over people’s bloodstreams and muscles and flesh – everyone’s freedom will. The state diktat determining that only those who receive a certain form of medical treatment will get to enjoy freedom will make freedom itself contingent upon doing what the state wants you to.
Even the vaxxed will not be truly free people in this world. Rather, we will be the beneficiaries of state favour, the enjoyers of small privileges, in return for our agreeing to receive an injection. We will have a license from on high to go about our daily lives. And we will know that that license could swiftly be revoked if we refuse medical treatment in the future. The redefinition of ‘freedom’, the making of liberty contingent upon submission to medicine, will throttle the rights of all of us – vaxxed and unvaxxed alike.
Strikingly, there is very little pushback from the so-called human-rights lobby against the proposed new regime of forced medication. Europhiles in the UK and elsewhere – the kind of people who assured us the EU was the great modern defender of the dignity of the individual – are meek as mice in the face of these state threats to strongarm citizens into medical compliance.
It wasn’t meant to be like this, you see. It was Brexit Britain, they said, that would become a hotbed of deranged authoritarianism, while the EU would hold a candle for the modern principles of rights and respect. And now that the opposite has proven to be the case, they look the other way, or they subtly give their nod to what amounts to a tyranny of the state over the souls and flesh of individual human beings. European liberalism is dying, the European Union stands exposed as a seat of extreme authoritarianism, and the future of this continent looks very uncertain indeed. Covid will look like a blip in the affairs of man in comparison with the fallout from this political and moral crisis of the European continent.”
*
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.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer.
Featured image: In Upper Austria nurses and doctors campaign against forced jabs. Their “experiences do not correspond to the image in the mainstream media”. Facebook/Free west Media
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
“Worse Than the Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” by Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Dr. Greg Nigh, is one of the most comprehensive descriptions of the many possible unintended consequences of the mRNA gene transfer technologies incorrectly referred to as “COVID vaccines”
As of December 3, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has logged 19,886 COVID jab related deaths. Pfizer — the only company that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted full licensing for an as-yet unavailable COVID shot — accounts for 13,268 of them
Calculations suggest VAERS COVID-related reports are underreported by a factor of 41. That means that in the U.S. alone, the actual death toll may be closer to 374,576. Including international deaths reported to VAERS would put the death toll at 815,326
Key side effects that are now being reported in massive numbers include miscarriages, heart attacks, myopericarditis, thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), shingles, Bell’s palsy and a variety of permanent disabilities, many of which involve neurological dysfunction
The side effects we now see being reported were entirely predictable based on the known science detailed in Seneff’s and Nigh’s paper
*
MIT scientist Stephanie Seneff’s paper,1 “Worse Than the Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh, is still one of the best, most comprehensive descriptions of the many possible unintended consequences of the mRNA gene transfer technologies incorrectly referred to as “COVID vaccines.”
December 9, 2021, their paper was reprinted in the Townsend Letter, the Examiner of Alternative Medicine.2 Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT who has been conducting research at MIT for over five decades, has spent a large portion of her career investigating the hazards and mechanisms of action of glyphosate.
Her attention was diverted to the science of mRNA gene transfer technologies in early 2020, when Operation Warp Speed was announced. As noted in her paper, many factors that lacked precedent, yet were being implemented at breakneck speed, included:
The first-ever use of PEG in an injection
The first-ever use of mRNA gene transfer technology against an infectious agent
The first-ever “vaccine” to make no clear claims about reducing infection, transmissibility or death
The first-ever coronavirus vaccine ever tested on humans (and previous coronavirus vaccines all failed due to antibody-dependent enhancement, a condition in which the antibodies actually facilitate infection rather than defend against it)
The first-ever use of genetically modified polynucleotides in the general population
An Insanely Reckless Process
In a May 2021 interview with me, Seneff said:
“To have developed this incredibly new technology so quickly, and to skip so many steps in the process of evaluating [its safety], it’s an insanely reckless thing that they’ve done. My instinct was that this is bad, and I needed to know [the truth].
So, I really dug into the research literature by the people who’ve developed these vaccines, and then more extensive research literature around those topics. And I don’t see how these vaccines can possibly be doing anything good …”
At the time, just five months into the mass inoculation campaign, Seneff suspected the COVID shots would end up killing far more people than the infection itself. Today, a full year into it, the statistics are grim beyond belief, proving her educated prediction to have been an astute one.
mRNA Jabs Are Shockingly Hazardous
As of December 3, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has logged an astounding 927,738 COVID jab related adverse events, including 19,886 deaths.3 VAERS can receive reports from vaccine manufacturers and other international sources, and if we exclude those, the death toll reported in U.S. territories exclusively stands at 9,136.4
Of the total death reports, Pfizer — the only company that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted full licensing for an as-yet unavailable COVID shot — accounts for the vast majority: 13,268, compared to 4,894 for Moderna, 1,651 for Janssen and 73 for an undisclosed brand.
Pfizer also accounts for the vast majority of hospitalizations post-injection, and while those over the age of 66 make up the bulk of deaths, the 25-to-50 age group accounts for most of the hospitalizations. Key side effects that are now being reported in massive numbers include:5
All of these consequences were predicted by Seneff and Nigh in their paper, which makes the events all the more tragic. Importantly, VAERS is notoriously underreported, so the real-world impact of these shots is far greater than what those data suggest.
The Cure Is Indeed Worse Than the Disease
Calculations6 performed by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, and his team of statisticians suggest VAERS COVID-related reports are underreported by a factor of 41. This is a conservative estimate, supported by calculations using a variety of sources besides VAERS itself.
That means that in the U.S. alone (using the data for U.S. territories only), the actual death toll may be closer to 374,576 (including international deaths reported to VAERS would put the death toll at 815,326), and those are deaths that occurred within days or weeks post-injection.
As Seneff and Nigh explain in their paper, there’s overwhelming reason to suspect that these gene transfer injections will have devastating impacts in the long term, resulting in excess deaths over the next decade.
What’s more, it’s clear that the death toll from the COVID-19 infection itself in the U.S. has been vastly exaggerated, as it’s based on positive PCR tests and even mere suspicion of COVID in the absence of testing. Many died from other causes and just happened to have a positive COVID test at the time of death.
Kirsch estimates the real death tally from COVID-19 to be about 50% of the reported number (which is likely conservative). This means about 380,000 Americans died from COVID-19 (rather than with COVID), whereas the COVID shots may have killed more than 374,570 in the first 11 months alone.
As predicted in the title of Seneff’s paper, it seems the cure may indeed end up being worse than the disease. This is particularly true for children and young adults, who have either died or been permanently disabled by the shots by the thousands, while having an extraordinarily low risk of dying from or being seriously harmed by the infection itself.
Seneff suspects that in the next 10 to 15 years, we’ll see a dramatic spike in prion diseases, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases at younger ages, and blood disorders such as blood clots, hemorrhaging, stroke and heart failure.
The Spike Protein Is the Most Dangerous Part of SARS-CoV-2
The reason we’re seeing all these problems from the COVID shots is because they program your cells to continuously produce SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which we now know is the most dangerous part of the virus. Many experts noted this from the start, wondering what the vaccine developers could possibly be thinking, selecting this as the antigen for their shots.
While the mRNA injections can cause harm in many different ways, one basic problem is that they can overstimulate your immune system to the point of failure. In summary, as your cells start producing the viral spike proteins, your immune cells rally to mop up the proteins and dump them into your lymphatic system. (This is why many report swollen lymph nodes under the arms.)
The antibody response is part of your humoral immunity. You also have cellular immunity, which is part of your innate immune system. Your innate immune system is very powerful. If you’re healthy, it can clear viruses without ever producing a single antibody. Antibodies are actually a second-tier effect when your innate immune system fails.
The problem is that your innate immune system will not be activated and likely will fail to protect you if you get a COVID-19 shot, because it’s bypassing all of the areas where your innate immune system would be brought to bear.
Normally you breathe the virus in and stimulate the production secretory IgA antibodies that protect your respiratory system. When you bypass that route of exposure with a jab in the arm, no secretory IgA antibodies are produced, leaving you susceptible to the infection.
As explained by Ronald Kostoff in an excellent December 8, 2021, Trial Site News article, “COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’: The Wrong Bomb Over the Wrong Target at the Wrong Time”:7
“An effective vaccine would focus on cellular immunity in the respiratory and intestinal tract, in which secretory IgA is produced by your lymphocytes that are located directly underneath the mucous membranes that line the respiratory and intestinal tract.
The antibodies produced by these lymphocytes are ejected through and to the surface of the linings. These antibodies are thus on site to meet air-borne viruses and they may be able to prevent viral binding and infection of the cells.
Unfortunately, the main inoculants used presently for COVID-19 focus on antibodies (IgG and circulating IgA) that occur in the bloodstream. These antibodies protect the internal organs of the body from infectious agents that try to spread via the bloodstream.”
When you are injected with the COVID jab, your body will only induce IgG and circulating IgA — not secretory IgA, and these types of antibodies do not effectively protect your mucous membranes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. So, as noted by Kostoff, the breakthrough infections we’re now seeing “confirm the fundamental design flaws” of this gene transfer technology.
“A natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus) will in most individuals remain localized to the respiratory tract,” Kostoff writes.8 “The vaccines used presently cause cells deep inside our body to express the viral spike protein, which they were never meant to do by nature.
Any cell which expresses this foreign antigen on its surface will come under attack by the immune system, which will involve both IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes. This may occur in any organ, but the damage will be most severe in vital organs.
We are seeing now that the heart is affected in many young people, leading to myocarditis or even sudden cardiac arrest and death. In other words, we are dropping the wrong bomb on the wrong target at the wrong time!”
In the end, your body will essentially believe that your innate immune system has failed, which means it must bring in the backup cavalry. In essence, your body is now overreacting to something that isn’t true. You’re not actually infected with a virus and your innate immune system has not failed, but your body is forced to respond as if both are true.
Effects Likely to Persist Long Term
What’s more, the synthetic RNA in the mRNA vaccines contains a nucleotide called methyl-pseudouridine, which your body cannot break down, and the RNA is programmed to trigger maximum protein production. So, we’re looking at completely untested manipulation of RNA.
It is very important to recognize that this is a genetically engineered mRNA for the spike protein. It is not identical to the spike protein mRNA that SARS-Cov-2 produces. It’s been significantly altered to avoid being metabolized by your body.
The spike protein your body produces in response to the COVID-19 vaccine mRNA locks into your ACE2 receptor. This is because the genetically engineered new spike protein has additional prolines inserted that prevent the receptors from properly closing, which then cause you to downregulate ACE2. That’s partially how you end up with problems such as pulmonary hypertension, ventricular heart failure and stroke.9,10
As noted in a 2020 paper,11 there’s a “pivotal link” between ACE2 deficiency and SARS-CoV-2 infection. People with ACE2 deficiency tend to be more prone to severe COVID-19. The spike protein suppresses ACE2,12 making the deficiency even worse. According to Seneff, the gene transfer injections essentially do the same thing, and we still don’t know how long the effects last.
Manufacturers initially guessed the synthetic RNA might survive in the human body for about six months. A more recent investigation found the spike protein persisted in recovered COVID patients for 15 months.13
This raises the suspicion that the synthetic and more persistent mRNA in the COVID shots may trigger spike protein production for at least as long, and probably longer.14 What’s more, the number of spike proteins produced by the shots is far greater than what you experience in natural infection.
As explained by Dr. Peter McCullough,15 this means that after your first shot, your body will produce spike protein for at least 15 months. But, when you get shot No. 2 a few weeks later, that shot will cause spike protein production to go on for 15 months or longer. With shot No. 3 six months after that, you produce spike protein for yet another 15 months.
With regular boosters, you may never rid your body of the spike protein. All the while, it’s wreaking havoc with your biology. McCullough likens it to “a permanent install of an inflammatory protein in the human body,” and inflammation is at the heart of most if not all chronic diseases. There’s simply no possible way for these gene transfer shots to improve public health. They’re going to decimate it.
Long-Term Neurological Damage Is To Be Expected
In her paper,16 Seneff describes several key characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that suggests it acts as a prion. This could help explain why we’re seeing so many neurological side effects from the shots. According to Seneff, the spike protein produced by the COVID shot, due to the modifications made, may actually make it more of a prion than the spike protein in the actual virus, and a more effective one.
For a detailed technical description of this you can read through Seneff’s paper, but the take-home message is that COVID-19 shots are instruction sets for your body to make a toxic protein that will eventually wind up concentrated in your spleen, from where prion-like protein instructions will be sent out, radically increasing your risk of developing neurodegenerative diseases.
Lung, Heart and Brain Diseases Are Predictable Consequences
Seneff also goes into great detail describing how the spike protein acts as a metabolic poison. While I recommend reading Seneff’s paper in its entirety, I’ve extracted some key sections below, starting with how the spike protein can trigger pathological damage leading to lung damage and heart and brain diseases:17
“The picture is now emerging that SARS-CoV-2 has serious effects on the vasculature in multiple organs, including the brain vasculature … In a series of papers, Yuichiro Suzuki in collaboration with other authors presented a strong argument that the spike protein by itself can cause a signaling response in the vasculature with potentially widespread consequences.
These authors observed that, in severe cases of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 causes significant morphological changes to the pulmonary vasculature … Furthermore, they showed that exposure of cultured human pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit was sufficient to promote cell signaling without the rest of the virus components.
Follow-on papers showed that the spike protein S1 subunit suppresses ACE2, causing a condition resembling pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a severe lung disease with very high mortality … The ‘in vivo studies’ they referred to … had shown that SARS coronavirus-induced lung injury was primarily due to inhibition of ACE2 by the SARS-CoV spike protein, causing a large increase in angiotensin-II.
Suzuki et al. (2021) went on to demonstrate experimentally that the S1 component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, at a low concentration … activated the MEK/ERK/MAPK signaling pathway to promote cell growth. They speculated that these effects would not be restricted to the lung vasculature.
The signaling cascade triggered in the heart vasculature would cause coronary artery disease, and activation in the brain could lead to stroke. Systemic hypertension would also be predicted. They hypothesized that this ability of the spike protein to promote pulmonary arterial hypertension could predispose patients who recover from SARS-CoV-2 to later develop right ventricular heart failure.
Furthermore, they suggested that a similar effect could happen in response to the mRNA vaccines, and they warned of potential long-term consequences to both children and adults who received COVID-19 vaccines based on the spike protein.
An interesting study by Lei et. al. (2021) found that pseudovirus — spheres decorated with the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein but lacking any viral DNA in their core — caused inflammation and damage in both the arteries and lungs of mice exposed intratracheally.
They then exposed healthy human endothelial cells to the same pseudovirus particles. Binding of these particles to endothelial ACE2 receptors led to mitochondrial damage and fragmentation in those endothelial cells, leading to the characteristic pathological changes in the associated tissue.
This study makes it clear that spike protein alone, unassociated with the rest of the viral genome, is sufficient to cause the endothelial damage associated with COVID-19. The implications for vaccines intended to cause cells to manufacture the spike protein are clear and are an obvious cause for concern.”
The COVID Shots Activate Latent Viruses
As mentioned earlier, shingles infection is turning out to be a rather common side effect of the COVID shot, and like the neurological, vascular and cardiac damage we’re seeing, activation of latent viral infections was also predicted.
One reason why latent viral infections are cropping up in response to the shots is because the shots disable your type I interferon pathway. A second reason is because your immune system is overburdened trying to deal with the inflammatory spike proteins flowing through your body. Something’s got to give, so latent viruses are allowed to break through.
That’s not the end of your potential troubles, however, as these coinfections may worsen or accelerate other conditions, such as Bell’s Palsy, myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome.
Herpes viruses, for example, have been implicated as a trigger of both AIDS18 and chronic fatigue syndrome.19 Some research suggests these diseases don’t appear until viruses from different families partner up and the type 1 interferon pathway is disabled.
With all of that in mind, it seems inevitable that, long term, the COVID mass injection campaign will result in an avalanche of a wide range of debilitating chronic illnesses.
*
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.
Protests across the Western world exploded over the weekend with righteous indignation over vaccine passports and mandates, and the mainstream media responded with blatant, intentional silence.
In major cities across the Western world, tens of thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands in each city, marched against their government’s anti-freedom, anti-human agenda regarding COVID-19, mandatory vaccines, and the dehumanizing apartheid state the entire world seems hellbent on imposing.
These protests are so widespread that it would almost be easier to list the countries which didn’t have demonstrations rather than those that did.
Nonetheless, here are only a select number of cities that saw massive pro-freedom demonstrations, collectively constituting millions of freedom fighters:
London, England saw an easy hundred thousand protesters come out in solidarity against vaccine mandates, wielding signs of non-compliance and demanding the government return their freedoms as they marched on Parliament.
For a 24th consecutive week, thousands take to the streets in cities across France to protest Macron’s draconian vaccine pass regime and the COVID tyranny spreading across Europe. The French have shown they can do this for years if need be. Paris today.pic.twitter.com/3QbJmq9xo4
As Michael Senger notes, this will be the 24th consecutive week of protests in France over the “draconian vaccine pass regime and the COVID tyranny spreading across Europe.”
In Vienna, Austria, tens of thousands of freedom fighters tore down barricades and stormed the streets to protest lockdowns and vaccine-based segregation.
Those in Vienna were joined in protest by their brothers and sisters in Salzburg.
Thousands continue to take to the streets in cities all across Austria against compulsory vaccination, lockdown for the unvaccinated, and other aberrations of COVID tyranny. Salzburg today.pic.twitter.com/GsMWFt9hGK
Tens of thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands, of Germans rallied in Hamburg to protest the emerging state of totalitarianism that hasn’t existed in the country since WWII.
Australians picked up the torch once again in Melbourne on December 17, filling the streets to oppose COVID prison camps and vaccine passports. Again, barely a mention by the mainstream media.
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 ones who call the shots (in war) won’t be among the dead and lame And on each end of the rifle we’re the same” — John McCutcheon
In World War I, as happens to be true in most American wars, the Christian church leadership joined in the patriotic fervor with very un-Christ-like, nationalistic and racial/religious domination stances.
Astonishingly, religious leaders on every side of the conflict truly believed that God was on their particular side. And so the pulpits all over Europe, including British, Scottish, French, Belgian, German, Austrian, Hungarian, Russian and Italian reverberated with flag-waving fervor, with clear messages to their doomed warrior-sons that it was their God-given Christian duty to march off to kill the equally brain-washed young Christian soldier enemies, who were also certain that God was on their side.
Five months into the miserable death and destruction of the perpetually dead-locked trench war (featuring the now-infamous mass slaughter via artillery, machine gun and poison gas weaponry), the first Christmas of the war on the Western Front came around.
Christmas was the holiest of Christian holidays on all sides of the war, but in this time of homesickness and having to live in the cold, rain and snow, the first Christmas of the war had special meaning. December 24, 1914 reminded the soldiers of the good food, warm homes and beloved family relationships that they had left behind – and which they now suspected that they might never experience again. The physically exhausted, spiritually-deadened, combat-traumatized soldiers on both sides of No Man’s Land desperately sought some respite from the water-logged, rat-infested and now increasingly frozen trenches.
The frontline soldiers on both sides were at the end of their emotional ropes because of the unrelenting artillery barrages against which they were defenseless. If they weren’t killed or maimed by the bombings, what would eventually destroy many of the survivors was the “shell-shock” (now known as combat-induced posttraumatic stress disorder – PTSD), with the horrifying nightmares, sleep deprivation, suicidality, depression, hyper-alertness and other mental and neurological distresses. Other common “killers” were the bad food, lice, trench foot, frostbite and gangrenous toes and fingers.
Suicidal “over the top” assaults against enemy machine gun nests were stupidly and repeatedly ordered by senior officers like Sir Douglas Haig, who didn’t have to participate in the bloody assaults. Sir Winston Churchill, in his British naval command role at the time, had obviously learned nothing from Haig’s disastrous tactic when, a year later, he also ordered repeated assaults against Turkish machine gun fire at the infamous massacre of Australian and New Zealand troops at Gallipoli, a blunder for which the disgraced Churchill resigned his commission in the British Admiralty.
The day-to-day horrors of trench warfare were punctuated by the screams of agony coming from the wounded soldiers who had to be left hanging on the barbed wire or lying in the bomb craters in No Man’s Land – their deaths often lingering on for days. The effect on the troops in the trenches who had to helplessly ignore the pleas for help was traumatizing. For any number of reasons, the morale of the troops on both sides of No Man’s Land had hit rock bottom during the months approaching Christmas.
Christmas in the Trenches
So, on December 24, 1914, the exhausted troops settled down to open Christmas gifts from home, expecting to have some respite from the war for a day or so. A magnanimous (and deluded) Kaiser Wilhelm had even ordered 100,000 Christmas trees with millions of ornamental candles to be sent up to the German front, expecting that such an act would boost troop morale. Using the supply lines for such militarily unnecessary items seemed to be an acceptable investment for the over-confidant emperor, but his generals disagreed. Nobody, however, suspected that the Christmas tree idea would backfire and instead be a catalyst for a famous event in the history of peace-making that was nearly censored out from recorded history.
That spontaneous event, the Christmas Truce of 1914, was expressed in a variety of ways at a multitude of locations all along the 600 miles of trenches that stretched across France, but it was an event that would never again be duplicated in the history of warfare.
The tradition that has emerged from this true story was that, in the silence of Christmas Eve night, the Germans started singing Christmas carols, with the British, French, Scots and Canadians doing the same, the two sides joining together bilingually when the Germans sang “Stille Nacht”. Before long, the divine spirit of peace and “goodwill towards men” prevailed over the demonic spirit of war.
While participating in the group sing along, the men sensed their common humanity, and the natural aversion to killing emerged, overcoming the brain-washing they had all been subjected to since basic training. And for a precious day or two, these men rose to a level of humanity that would not allow them to continue killing other humans even if ordered to do so.
Individual unarmed soldiers, disobeying orders from their superiors, cautiously stood up and walked out of their trenches into No Man’s Land. Nobody began shooting and slowly both trenches emptied out and a unique Christmas eve celebration began that had never happened before and – if the world’s military establishment has anything to say about it – will never happen again.
Soldiers that were deadly enemies just moments before shared chocolates, cigarettes, beer, wine, Schnapps, pictures from home and soccer games. Names and addresses were exchanged, and every soldier who genuinely experienced the dramatic event was forever changed.
Of course, on their way each soldier had to step around shell holes and over the frozen corpses of their dead friends, which were given respectful burials the following day; former enemies helping one another with the solemn job.
Fostering Peace on Earth in Times of War is Considered Treason
Fraternizing with the enemy (and refusing to obey orders in time of war) has historically been regarded by military commanders and politicians as an act of treason which has always been severely punished, sometimes by summary execution. In the case of the Christmas Truce of 1914, trying to avoid drawing public attention to this potentially contagious incident, most commanding officers threatened various punishments but only a few executions took place. One punishment that many of the newly antiwar German soldiers faced was their transfer to the Eastern Front where they would then be expected to kill and die in the equally suicidal battles against Orthodox Christian soldiers from Russia.
The prize-winning movie (almost winning the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film) that beautifully characterizes the spirit of the Christmas Truce is “Joyeux Noel” (French for “Merry Christmas”). “Joyeux Noel” tells the moving tale that has been adapted from the many surviving stories and letters home from soldiers who had been there.
This unique story of war resistance needs to be retold over and over again if our modern-era of false flag-generated wars of empire and corporate domination are to be effectively de-railed. These never-ending wars – always followed by armed occupations that inevitably generate armed resistance and revolt later – are fought by naïve but thoroughly indoctrinated, macho adolescents – many of whom are from devout Christian families. These not quite emotionally mature adolescents are at high risk of becoming spiritually damaged by active engagement in the “killing fields”. Indeed, combat soldiers are often doomed to a life overwhelmed by the realities of combat-induced PTSD (or sociopathic personality disorder), with suicidality, homicidality, loss of religious faith, traumatic brain injuries, and even neurological and autoimmune disorders because of the Pentagon’s aggressive over-vaccination agendas (often with experimental, poorly tested, fast-tracked vaccines, usually injected without informed consent as a part of some secret biodefense weapons research project.
Of course, militarists of every era in history do whatever they can to prevent soldiers from experiencing the humanity of their enemies. Shouldn’t that be the job of the chaplains, who are supposed to be nurturers of the souls of those soldiers who are in their care? Evidence suggests that military chaplains avoid counseling soldiers about Jesus’ Golden Rule, his clear command to love their enemies or the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. I’m sure that there would be consequences for a chaplain if one was discovered doing that. Military chaplains are part of the apparatus of war that pays very little attention to any of the Ten Commandments, especially the ones that say: “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s oil”. In their defense, military chaplains, in their seminary training and, likely even in their Sunday School upbringing, may have never heard about the profoundly important gospel truths about non-domination, non-retaliation and the unconditional love of friend and enemy.
Theological Blind Spots of War
A couple of these theological blind spots are illustrated at the end of “Joyeux Noel” in a powerful scene depicting a confrontation between the Christ-like, antiwar Scottish chaplain and his pro-war bishop just as the humble chaplain was administering “last rites” to a dying soldier. The bishop had come to chastise the chaplain and relieve him of his duties because of his “treasonous and shameful” behavior on the battlefield (ie, being merciful to and fraternizing with the enemy).
The authoritarian bishop refused to listen when the chaplain proclaimed that he had just performed “the most important mass of my life” and that he wished to stay with his men, most of whom were losing their Christian faith. The bishop angrily denied the chaplain’s request and sent him home.
The bishop then delivered a rousing pro-war sermon to some fresh troops that had been brought in to replace the ones who were now refusing to kill anymore. The words of the sermon were chosen by the film-writers directly from a homily that had been delivered by an Anglican bishop in England later in the war. The subtle response of the chaplain to his sacking was very well portrayed by the filmmakers.
“Joyeux Noel” is an important film that deserves to be annual holiday fare. It has ethical lessons far more powerful than the scores of commonly recommended Christmas films such as “It’s A Wonderful Life” or “A Christmas Carol”.
Some of the lessons of the story of the Christmas Truce are illustrated in John McCutcheon’s important song, “Christmas in the Trenches”. Here are the lyric. Pay close attention to the last line:
Christmas in the Trenches
By John McCutcheon
Oh my name is Francis Tolliver, I come from Liverpool
Two years ago the war was waiting for me after school
From Belgium and to Flanders, Germany to here
I fought for King and country I love dear
Twas Christmas in the trenches and the frost so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France where still no Christmas songs were sung
Our families back in England were toasting us that day
Theie brave and glorious lads so far away
I was lying with my mess-mates on the cold and rocky ground
When across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound
Says I now listen up me boys, each soldier strained to hear
As one young German voice sang out so clear
He’s singing bloody well you know, my partner says to me
Soon one by one each German voice joined in in harmony
The cannons rested silent and the gas clouds rolled no more
As Christmas brought us respite from the war
As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent
God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen struck up some lads from Kent
The next thing sang was Stille Nacht, tis ‘Silent Night’ says I
And in two tongues one song filled up that sky
There’s someone coming towards us now the front line sentry said
All sights were fixed on one lone figure trudging from their side
His truce flag like a Christmas Star shone on the plane so bright
As he bravely trudged unarmed into the night
Then one by one on either side, walked in to No Man’s Land
With neither gun nor bayonet, we met there hand to hand
We shared some secret brandy and we wished each other well
And in a flare lit football game we gave them hell
We traded chocolates, cigarettes and photographs from home
These sons and fathers far away from families of their own
Young Sanders played the squeeze box and they had a violin
This curious and unlikely band of men
Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more
With sad farewells we each began to settle back to war
But the question haunted every heart that lived that wondrous night
Whose family have I fixed within my sights
Twas Christmas in the trenches and the frost so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France were warmed, the songs of peace were sung
For the walls they’d kept between us to exact the work of war
Had been crumbled and were gone forever more
Oh my name is Francis Tolliver, from Liverpool I dwell
Each Christmas comes since World War I have learned its lesson well
For the ones who call the shots won’t be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle we’re the same
Check out the video of McCutcheon singing his song below:
For a good pictorial history of the reality of WWI’s trench warfare, watch below:
The full version of “Joyeux Noel” is still available online here. I strongly suggest family viewing for the holidays.
*
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.
Dr Gary G. Kohls lives in the USA and writes a weekly column, entitled Duty to Warn, for the Duluth Reader, Duluth, Minnesota’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American Friendly Fascism, corporatism, Oligarchy, militarism, racism, malnutrition, and Big Pharma’s over-drugging and over-vaccinating agendas as well as other movements that threaten the environment, democracy, civility, health and the sustainability and livability of the planet and the future of the children.
Roger Wicker, membro da Comissão dos Serviços Armados do Senado dos EUA, disse, numa entrevista à Fox News (8 de Dezembro), não excluir a possibilidade de uma intervenção militar directa dos EUA contra a Rússia para “defender a Ucrânia” e, sem que o entrevistador lhe tivesse pedido, acrescentou: “Sabe que não excluímos a possibilidade de uma acção nuclear como primeira utilização”. Esta é uma mensagem transversal a Moscovo sobre a determinação dos EUA em apoiar um eventual ataque de Kiev contra os russos de Donbass. Seria certamente apresentada como uma resposta a um ataque efectuado pelos russos de Donbass. Na mente daqueles que, desde 2014, têm concretizado a estratégia de tensão contra a Rússia esta seria ainda uma jogada vencedora.
Moscovo teria duas alternativas: não intervir militarmente em defesa dos russos de Donbass, deixando-os subjugados pelo ataque ucraniano apoiado de facto pela NATO e forçados a abandonar a região e a refugiar-se na Rússia, decisão que seria traumática para Moscovo sobretudo a nível interno; ou intervir militarmente para impedir o ataque ucraniano, expondo-se à condenação internacional por agressão e invasão de um Estado soberano.
Os generais ucranianos avisaram que não seriam capazes de “repelir as tropas russas sem uma infusão maciça de ajuda militar do Ocidente”. A infusão já começou: os Estados Unidos, que já deram a Kiev uma ajuda militar de 2,5 biliões de dólares, forneceram-lhe em Novembro mais 88 toneladas de munições como parte de um “pacote” de 60 milhões de dólares, incluindo mísseis Javelin já posicionados contra os russos de Donbass. Ao mesmo tempo, os EUA enviaram para a Ucrânia mais de 150 conselheiros militares que, juntamente com os de uma dúzia de aliados da NATO, dirigem, de facto, as operações.
A situação é ainda mais explosiva porque a Ucrânia – agora parceira mas, de facto, já membro da NATO – poderia ser oficialmente admitida como o 31º membro da Aliança, com a consequência de que, de acordo com o Artigo 5º do Tratado do Atlântico Norte, os outros 30 membros da NATO teriam de intervir militarmente na frente de Donbass em apoio à Ucrânia contra a Rússia. O Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros russo pediu à NATO que não admitisse a Ucrânia, para não aumentar ainda mais a tensão militar e política na Europa, recordando que desde o fim da Guerra Fria a Rússia recebeu repetidas garantias de que a jurisdição e as forças militares da NATO não avançariam um centímetro em direcção a Leste, mas estas promessas não foram cumpridas. O Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros russo propôs assim que a NATO abrisse negociações sobre acordos a longo prazo que impediriam uma maior expansão da NATO para Leste e a instalação de sistemas de armamento na vizinhança imediata do território russo. A proposta foi categoricamente rejeitada em 10 de Dezembro pela NATO através do Secretário Geral Stoltenberg: “A relação da NATO com a Ucrânia será decidida pelos 30 membros da Aliança e pela Ucrânia, e por mais ninguém”.
Imediatamente a seguir, ontem, 13 de Dezembro, os Ministros dos Negócios Estrangeiros do G7 (EUA, Canadá, Reino Unido, França, Alemanha, Itália, Japão) e o Alto Representante da União Europeia, reunidos em Liverpool, declararam que estavam “unidos na sua condenação do reforço militar da Rússia e da sua retórica agressiva em relação à Ucrânia” e que “a Rússia não deve ter dúvidas de que uma nova agressão militar contra a Ucrânia teria como resposta, consequências maciças e custos graves”.
Entretanto, a Finlândia, membro da União Europeia e parceira activa da NATO contra a Rússia, anunciou a compra de 64 caças F-35A da Lockheed Martin pelo preço de 8,4 biliões de euros, que, incluindo as infraestruturas, sobe para 10 biliões de euros, aos quais o governo acrescentará mais 10 biliões de euros para a sua manutenção e modernização. Os 64 aviões F-35A de ataque nuclear serão colocados na fronteira russa, apenas a 200 km de São Petersburgo e, de facto, sob comando dos Estados Unidos que, como recorda o Senador Wicker, não excluem serem os primeiros a usar armas nucleares.
That’s even worse than in America (which is famously controlled by the owners of its arms-producers and “MIC”), where the published answer is “No data.”
In other words: military procurement — selling (mainly) military products-weapons or services (the types of things that constitute the bulk of governmental purchases) to the French Government — is allowed by French laws to be corrupt. A prospective seller to the French Government is allowed to donate not only to a candidate but to a political party. (Obviously, this gives those government contractors immense influence over French foreign policies, and especially over ‘defense’ policies, including how much and which corporation’s weapons to buy.)
.
However in order to be able to contribute lots of money to a particular candidate or party, a coordinated operation that might include many cooperating donors from a given weapons-producer might be necessary. By contrast, in the United States, which nominally prohibits almost every type of corruption, the fine-print exceptions allow massive donations from any billionaire or mega-corporation via PACS and other allowed tricks.
.
On balance, therefore, France seems to be less corrupt than America, and far less corrupt than Germany, according to these legal yardsticks. And if military procurement were not an issue, then France would appear to be significantly less corrupt than America, as well as vastly less corrupt than Germany.
.
But, just as there are legal ways around the nominal anti-corruption provisions in America, there likewise are legal ways around the nominal anti-corruption provisions in France. Furthermore, in one way, France is far more corrupt even than America, because in France there is actually much more secrecy regarding campaign donations than there is in America. Also, an EU study of the various member-nations’ campaign-finance laws found that even foreign donations have been, at least until 2019, virtually unregulated, in all EU nations. Nonetheless, like in America, the owners of France’s weapons-producers have especially ready legal pathways to control the government (which is their main customer, the biggest buyer of their products).
.
So, in France, politicians who are unfavorable toward NATO and other weapons-marketing organizations will probably need to rely more on regular, run-of-the-mill donors, than on billionaires or their generally war-profiteering corporations.
.
In other words, any such candidate will need to have considerable left-wing populist appeal, in order to compete effectively against the better-financed contenders, who are more military-contractor-backed.
In any case, the main path to corruption in France seems to be through military procurement. That could turn out to be a major reason why one of France’s perennial Presidential candidates, Marine Le Pen, whose policies would be a threat to military contractors, will again lose.
Marine Le Pen is basically a populist leftist who inherited from her conservative populist father the Front Nationale Party and switched the name to the National Rally Party and moved it to a populist left ideological position, but her father’s reputation still haunts leftist voters, who, in a second-round election therefore peel off to the more-establishment liberal opponent, who then receives the endorsements of the candidates who had been eliminated in the first round, so that the French military-industrial complex will end up being represented by the next President. This is likely to happen again.
.
She also needs to retain at least some portion of the voters who had supported her fascist father, whom she despises (but can’t say so publicly, because she needs at least some of those voters, too). Therefore, she talks about her father as little as possible, and maintains ambiguity on lots of issues, in order to hold together, as much as possible, a populist coalition that’s both left and right, progressive and conservative. But the billionaires — both the conservative fascist ones and the liberal fascist ones — know that they wouldn’t be able to control France (as they do) if she were to become President. So, their media always refer to her as “far-right” in order to scare away voters, by portraying her as being secretly just like her father was — even though most of her policy-commitments are opposite to that (but only few voters actually base their votes on policy-positions, and politically involved billionaires know this). She continually walks a political tightrope. But one thing about Marine Le Pen seems clear: France’s billionaires fear her; none supports her.
.
On December 10th the Financial Times headlined “Valérie Pécresse, the woman who could beat Macron”, and Victor Mallet presented a credible case that that establishment conservative is the likeliest person to end up as the winner, in the second round. However, Mallet noted that “her hardline stance on law and order and her commitment to economic reform and fiscal orthodoxy will play well on the French right.”
.
If so, then a second-round contest between her and Le Pen could very likely produce a bigger-than expected liberal vote for Le Pen, as being a lesser-of-two-evils, in their view. The biggest barrier to that happening would be that this time, Le Pen might not end up in the second round, because Éric Zemmour, who hates her (and Muslims), and who appeals more than she does to rich conservatives, many of whom might be invested in armaments stocks, could end up reducing her first-round vote so that Le Pen won’t make it to the second round. He might even be largely financed in order to keep her out of the second round, so that Pécresse, or the current President, Macron, will win. Right now, Zemmour is campaigning mainly against Le Pen, but, if the final contest will be between Pécresse and Le Pen, then he would probably endorse Pécresse, which would cause many conservative voters to vote for her.
“The monthly poll puts National Rally candidate Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour, her competitor on the far-right, neck and neck with 14.5% of voter intentions, a score that would knock both of them out of the second round.”
.
That is exactly what France’s military-industrial complex, and French billionaires, would hope for. If Pécresse wins, then America’s billionaires will also win, because then there will be a France that is even more of a U.S. vassal than is now the case, under Macron.
Once again, NATO is on the verge of unnecessarily escalating tensions in Eastern Europe for the sole purpose of confronting Russia. According to recent statements by some of its top officers, the Western military alliance plans to deploy troops in Romania and Bulgaria as a way to strengthen the current “security scheme” for Ukraine. In practice, this type of attitude only tends to further increase polarization and discord between the states in that region, undermining any search for international peace and stability.
According to a recent report by Der Spiegel, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Tod Wolters, suggested that the Western alliance should send military forces to Bulgaria and Romania. The reason for such maneuver would be the supposed need to face the growth of the Russian military presence on the western border. Basically, Tod Walters advocates that Romania and Bulgaria be included in NATO’s current defense scheme for Ukraine, whose remnants also include Poland and the Baltics.
In that way, it would be possible to create an Eastern Europe almost entirely occupied by the alliance. Such an extended occupation plan has been called “Enhanced Forward Presence” and seems to be NATO’s bet in order to gain positions and undermine any Russian or Belarusian influence in Eastern Europe.
There is no doubt that such a plan would be harmful to the search for regional peace, but the big problem is that such a measure has also been called for by the Romanian and Bulgarian governments themselves, which seem increasingly misled by NATO’s narratives about supposed Russian plans for that region. States with less military and economic power and low international influence tend to be the most affected by the spread of this type of fallacious discourse and that is why there is currently a tendency among Eastern European nations to more and more demand a NATO presence in their territories. Romania and Bulgaria – as well as the Baltics and Poland – fear suffering the collateral effects of a possible conflict between Ukraine and Russia and have bet on the western alliance as an important ally in the face of this (non-existent) threat.
NATO has so far not provided any precise information about the possibility of boosting its troops in Romania and Bulgaria and has not commented about Wolters’ words. However, under pressure from the international media, spokespersons for the alliance said that the topic could be discussed in upcoming summits. Amid the current tensions on the Russian western border, any form of hardening opposition to Moscow is expected to be discussed, which worries security analysts around the world, considering the harmful effects of this type of attitude on the negotiation and rapprochement process that could start soon.
The recent virtual summit between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin brought, despite the tensions and uncertainties, some kind of “hope”, as the meeting ended with a mutual promise of willingness for dialogue between the leaders of NATO and Russia. Moscow demanded an end to NATO military maneuvers in Eastern Europe as an elementary condition for a summit between Russia and the Western governments to happen. Now, with such a possibility of sending more troops to the region, the possibility of such a Moscow-NATO summit has diminished, further threatening the search for the pacification of the European space.
There are only two ways to interpret the deployment of new NATO troops at the present time: either the alliance is giving a clear signal that it has no interest in the summit or a peaceful solution to the eastern European situation, or it is giving the green light to the dialogue saying, on the other hand, that if its interests are not reached, the occupation of the region and the encirclement against Russia will increase even more. In both cases, NATO’s game looks like a big strategic mistake.
If Russia has no interest in invading or declaring war on any European country and NATO leaders and strategists know it does not. The Russian interest in the end of NATO’s occupation of Eastern Europe is to quell the violence and hostility that have remained for decades in the region, paving the way for a possibility of peaceful dispute between Moscow and the West to influence local states.
Russia is also interested in protecting its own borders, which suffer direct and collateral effects from the increase of enemy forces, but there is no “fear” on the part of Moscow regarding the presence of troops in neighboring countries, simply because there is no interest in the confrontation. That is why trying to play Russia using hostile forces in neighboring countries as a trump card seems like a big strategic mistake.
For the sake of peace and security of all states, the best thing for NATO to do is to decline any interest in escalating hostilities, focusing on the possibility of peaceful dialogue with Russia in search of a joint solution for the benefit of all sides.
Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
Incisive article. First posted on GR on May 15, 2021
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
***
Say it’s 2014 and you’ve had this idea for a technocratic Great Reset of the world economy for some time now, but it only works if the entire planet is rocked by a pandemic. How do you go about selling your idea?
“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future” — Klaus Schwab, WEF
If you are World Economic Forum (WEF) Founder Klaus Schwab, you attempt to sell your vision of a global Utopia via a Great Reset of the world order in three simple steps:
Announce your intention to revamp every aspect of society with global governance, and keep repeating that message
When your message isn’t getting through, simulate fake pandemic scenarios that show why the world needs a great reset
If the fake pandemic scenarios aren’t persuasive enough, wait a couple months for a real global crisis to occur, and repeat step one
It took Schwab and the Davos elite about six years to watch their great reset ideology grow from a tiny Swiss seed in 2014 to a European super-flower pollinating the entire globe in 2020.
The so-called “Great Reset” promises to build “a more secure, more equal, and more stable world” if everyone on the planet agrees to “act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.”
But it wouldn’t have been possible to contemplate materializing such an all-encompassing plan for a new world order without a global crisis, be it manufactured or of unfortunate happenstance, that shocked society to its core.
“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval” — Clade X pandemic simulation (May, 2018)
So, in May, 2018, the WEF partnered with Johns Hopkins to simulate a fictitious pandemic — dubbed “Clade X” — to see how prepared the world be if ever faced with such a crisis.
A little over a year later, the WEF once again teamed-up with Johns Hopkins, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to stage another pandemic exercise called Event 201 in October, 2019.
Both simulations concluded that the world wasn’t prepared for a global pandemic.
And a few short months following the conclusion of Event 201, which specifically simulated a coronavirus outbreak, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared that the coronavirus had reached pandemic status on March 11, 2020.
“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
Since then, just about every scenario covered in the Clade X and Event 201 simulations has come into play, including:
Governments implementing lockdowns worldwide
The collapse of many industries
Growing mistrust between governments and citizens
A greater adoption of biometric surveillance technologies
Social media censorship in the name of combating misinformation
The desire to flood communication channels with “authoritative” sources
A global lack of personal protective equipment
The breakdown of international supply chains
Mass unemployment
Rioting in the streets
And a whole lot more!
After the nightmare scenarios had fully materialized by mid-2020, the WEF founder declared “now is the time for a “Great Reset” in June of this year.
Was it excellent forecasting, planning, and modeling on the part of the WEF and partners that Clade X and Event 201 turned out to be so prophetic, or was there something more to it?
Timeline
Below is a condensed timeline of events that tracks the Great Reset agenda that went from just a “hope” in 2014 to a globalist ideology touted by royalty, the media, and heads of state the world-over in 2020.
2014-2017: Klaus Schwab calls for Great Reset and WEF repeats message
Ahead of the 2014 WEF meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Schwab announced that he hoped the WEF would push the reset button on the global economy.
The WEF would go on to repeat that message for years.
Between 2014 and 2017, the WEF called to reshape, restart, reboot, and reset the global order every single year, each aimed at solving various “crises.”
2014: WEF publishes meeting agenda entitled “The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics and Business.”
2016: WEF holds panel called “How to reboot the global economy.”
2017: WEF publishes article saying “Our world needs a reset in how we operate.”
Then in 2018, the Davos elites turned their heads towards simulating fake pandemic scenarios to see how prepared the world would be in the face of a different crisis.
2018-2019: WEF, Johns Hopkins & Gates Foundation simulate fake pandemics
On May 15, 2018, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted the “Clade X” pandemic exercise in partnership with the WEF.
The Clade X exercise included mock video footage of actors giving scripted news reports about a fake pandemic scenario (video below).
The Clade X event also included discussion panels with real policymakers who assessed that governments and industry were not adequately prepared for the fictitious global pandemic.
“In the end, the outcome was tragic: the most catastrophic pandemic in history with hundreds of millions of deaths, economic collapse and societal upheaval,” according to a WEF report on Clade X.
“There are major unmet global vulnerabilities and international system challenges posed by pandemics that will require new robust forms of public-private cooperation to address” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
Then on October 18, 2019, in partnership with Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WEF ran Event 201.
During the scenario, the entire global economy was shaken, there were riots on the streets, and high-tech surveillance measures were needed to “stop the spread.”
Two fake pandemics were simulated in the two years leading up to the real coronavirus crisis.
“Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security issued a public statement on January 24, 2020, explicitly addressing that Event 201 wasn’t meant to predict the future.
“To be clear, the Center for Health Security and partners did not make a prediction during our tabletop exercise. For the scenario, we modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic, but we explicitly stated that it was not a prediction. Instead, the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic.”
Intentional or not, Event 201 “highlighted” the “fictional” challenges of a pandemic, along with recommendations that go hand-in-hand with the great reset agenda that has set up camp in the nefarious “new normal.”
“The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
Together, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation submitted seven recommendations for governments, international organizations, and global business to follow in the event of a pandemic.
The Event 201 recommendations call for greater collaboration between the public and private sectors while emphasizing the importance of establishing partnerships with un-elected, global institutions such as the WHO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Air Transport Organization, to carry out a centralized response.
One of the recommendations calls for governments to partner with social media companies and news organization to censor content and control the flow of information.
“Media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology” — Event 201 pandemic simulation (October, 2019)
According to the report, “Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation.
“National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages.
“For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology.”
Sound familiar?
Throughout 2020, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been censoring, suppressing, and flagging any coronavirus-related information that goes against WHO recommendations as a matter of policy, just as Event 201 had recommended.
2020: WEF declares ‘Now is the time for a Great Reset’
After calling for a great reset in 2014, the Davos crowd repeated the same ideology for a few more years before pivoting towards simulating faux pandemic scenarios.
A few months after the WEF established that nobody was prepared to deal with a coronavirus pandemic, the WHO declared there was a coronavirus pandemic.
All of a sudden! the great reset narrative that the WEF had been nurturing for six years, found a place to pitch its tent in the “new normal” camp.
“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future,” Schwab declared on June 3, 2020.
And that’s where we’re at today.
The Davos elites said they wanted a global reset of the economy many years ago
They role-played what would happen if a pandemic were to occur
And now they’re saying that the great reset ideology is the solution to the pandemic, and it must be enacted quickly
The great reset is a means to an end.
Next on the agenda is a complete makeover of society under a technocratic regime of un-elected bureaucrats who want to dictate how the world is run from the top down, leveraging invasive technologies to track and trace your every move while censoring and silencing anyone who dares not comply.
*
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.
Tim Hinchliffe is the editor of The Sociable. His passions include writing about how technology impacts society and the parallels between Artificial Intelligence and Mythology. Previously, he was a reporter for the Ghanaian Chronicle in West Africa and an editor at Colombia Reports in South America. [email protected]
Moscow has outlined an eight-point draft treaty of security guarantees that would lead to lower tensions in Europe and defuse the crisis over Ukraine if the West were to adopt it. The demands include ending Ukraine’s path towards NATO membership, limiting the deployment of troops and weapons close to Russia’s borders, and a return to the pre-1997 status quo, i.e. before NATO’s eastward expansion.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Friday that although there was no deadline for beginning talks to ease tensions, Moscow wants to begin negotiations “without delays and without stalling” and stressed that “we can go any place and any time, even tomorrow.” He also emphasized that “this is not about us giving some kind of ultimatum, there is none. The thing is that the seriousness of our warning should not be underestimated.”
Effectively, he warned that ignoring Moscow’s request for discussions could lead to a “military response” similar to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
Moscow’s call for talks comes as a Ukrainian soldier was killed on Friday during fighting with Donbass defense forces. Although Kiev is amassing forces and attaining new weapon systems like the US-made Javelin anti-missile system, the West lambasts Russia for deploying over 100,000 troops on its border to deter Ukraine from any new military adventures.
US President Joe Biden warned his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin of “sanctions like he’s never seen” before should Ukraine be attacked, an unlikely prospect since Moscow has repeatedly stressed that it has no interest in war or territorial expansion in Ukraine. Despite this guarantee though, it has not lessened the Western media campaign to demonize Russia.
The Guardian reported that the “Kremlin’s aggressive proposals are likely to be rejected in western capitals as an attempt to formalize a new Russian sphere of influence over eastern Europe.” This is extremely problematic as it claims that Moscow’s suggestion for Russia and NATO to “not consider each other adversaries” and “resolve all disputes peacefully and refrain from the use of force” is an “aggressive proposal.”
It brings to question why the London-based newspaper finds it “aggressive” to resolve disputes peacefully?
Although the British tabloid believes that Moscow’s proposals “are likely to be rejected” by the West, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said “there’s no reason we can’t do that moving forward to reduce instability, but we’re going to do that in partnership and coordination with our European allies and partners.”
A senior White House official told reporters on Friday that Washington disagreed with parts of Moscow’s proposal, but was willing to discuss its content.
“We are prepared to discuss them. That said, there are some things in this document that the Russians know will be unacceptable,” the official told reporters on condition of anonymity, demonstrating that the US is willing to negotiate rather than reject everything as The Guardian appears to hope.
Although it is unlikely that the West will stop military exercises in Poland and the Baltic states as the Kremlin hopes, demands like banning Ukraine from joining NATO and limiting the types of weapons near Russia’s borders could find success. The Kremlin likely does not expect all their demands to be met, however the proposals could force negotiations in the context of increased military tensions in eastern Ukraine.
Russia-based experts doubted that the West would accept the proposals, with Dmitry Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, explaining that the “publication of Russian proposed agreements with US and NATO on [European security] may suggest that Moscow (rightly) considers their acceptance by the West unlikely.”
Andrei Kortunov, head of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), agreed with Trenin’s assessment and said: “This is a bargaining position — [the Kremlin] is trying to get some degree of partial acceptance. Of course, there is a real risk to making these sorts of demands, especially if the West takes a harsh position, but clearly, the Kremlin thinks that the risk is justified in the circumstances.”
Regardless of whether the Kremlin knew if their proposal would be accepted or not, at the very minimum, an opening for negotiations has been made. It is now in the West’s hands to pursue this opening from Moscow, or face a Russia that has clearly said they will use a “military response” if NATO continues to encroach on its sphere of influence and security interests in Ukraine. It is likely that Washington will explore negotiations with Moscow as it too wants to pool more resources towards opposing and challenging China in Asia-Pacific rather than Russia in Eastern Europe.
American foreign policy, wrapped up in hubris inside American exceptionalism, is incapable of recognizing a dangerous situation.
And a dangerous situation is what we have.
The Russian deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov speaking for the Kremlin has made it clear that Russia will tolerate no further movement of NATO toward Russia’s borders.
Russia has ruled out any possibility of the former Russian provinces of Ukraine and Georgia becoming NATO members. If this red line is ignored, the consequences, Ryabkov said, “will be dire.” Russia will respond militarily, and the West, he said, will find it has undermined its own security, not Russia’s.
In other words, as the Kremlin sees it, the incorporation of Ukraine and/or Georgia into NATO is an unacceptable threat to Russian national security. Period. It is not negotiable.
In a rational world such an unequivocal statement by a preeminent military power with hypersonic nuclear missiles would be taken seriously.
But the Western World is no longer rational. It is a world drunk on arrogance. The NATO secretary replied to what is, in effect, an ultimatum from a nuclear power by rejecting out of hand that power’s security concern:
“Whether Ukraine joins NATO is up to the bloc’s member states and its leadership, and Moscow doesn’t have input into the decision.” The idiot NATO secretary went on to boast, foolishly, that NATO was so little impressed with Russian objections that NATO was “already training Ukrainian troops and consulting with them, and are conducting joint exercises and providing military supplies and technology.”
The White House spokesperson replying for President Biden and the National Security Council said Washington “will not compromise” on NATO expansion, adding that Washington won’t accept the idea of halting NATO expansion, despite what Russia demands.
In other words–be certain to understand this and its consequences–Washington’s position is that Russia has NO legitimate national security interests except as defined by Washington.
Here we have a highly dangerous situation. One power says you are treading on me and we won’t tolerate it; the other power says you have no say in the matter.
During the 20th century Cold War we Cold Warriors heard every word, every intonation of what the Soviets said. To risk nuclear war because some fool had wax in his ears or was feeling macho that day was out of the question. In those days there were departments of Russian studies in US universities that were not dependent on funding from the military-security complex. There was public debate. There was always an independent expert, such as Stephen Cohen, to remind everyone of how the Russians saw the situation.
Today independent scholarship has disappeared. Russian studies programs in universities are Russophobic in keeping with their funding. As there are no objective scholars, there are no knowledgeable people in the US intelligence community. We can see this in the recent statement of Biden’s national security advisor Jake Sullivan, who reports that US intelligence agencies believe that Putin is “giving serious consideration” to an invasion of Ukraine.
Washington has been saying this since 2014 when Washington overthrew the Russian friendly Ukrainian government hoping to seize in the process the Russian naval base in Crimea. It is a fixed message. There is no thought. Just repetition of propaganda. So we have a National Security Council incapable of nothing but the repetition of propagandistic slogans.
In effect Washington is already at war with Russia.
Meanwhile last Thursday evening, December 16, Washington and its neo-nazi Ukraine puppet decided to confirm Russian suspicions that Washington and Ukraine represent revanchist Nazism. Only two countries voted against the UN resolution condemning Nazism. Yes, it was the United States and Ukraine. The utter total stupidity of the US vote is extraordinary. That Washington supports Nazism is the last thing the Kremlin needed to hear.
My generation was the last generation in the West to be educated instead of indoctrinated, and even we were fed lies about World War I and World War II.
Subsequent generations are largely unaware that in German-occupied Western Ukraine large armies were organized and incorporated into the German army’s march into Russia. It was remnants of these “Banderas” (Stepan Bandera) that Washington used to overthrow the Ukrainian government and install an American puppet state on former Russian territory while the Kremlin, ignoring its backyard, was enjoying the Sochi Olympics.
The mistakes that people make have more to do with world history than any good decisions.
I am watching Washington, which I know so well from a quarter century of high level participation, make the mistake of a lifetime. The Washington regime is so full of arrogance that it is unable to comprehend that Russia has run out of patience.
The Russians see a real problem. All Washington sees is a propaganda opportunity. This is a situation that leads directly to Washington miscalculating. The miscalculation will be fatal.
Update to America’s Foreign Policy Dilemma
In America Russophobia is running amuck.
The Propaganda Ministry repeats daily that Russia is on the verge of invading Ukraine.
The American people, long trained to regard Russia as the enemy, have heard the allegation so many times it has become a fact.
The arrogant Biden regime has rebuffed Russia’s security concern, and the Republicans are no better. Blind belligerence towards Russia is building as Republican senators add their voices to the propaganda that Putin intends to invade Ukraine and “rob the Ukrainian people of their sovereignty.”( Washington already did that when it overthrew the elected Ukrainian government in 2014 and established a puppet state in Kiev.)
The Republicans want to rush $450 million more in weapons to “the brave Ukrainian armed forces.” And for good measure, the Republicans want to have Russia designated a terrorist state.
The Ukraine crisis is in part an armaments marketing program as the Republicans backing the bill are in tight with the military/security complex. But everyone is overlooking the effect on the Kremlin whose trust in Washington has reached zero on the scale.
Perhaps in preparation for what the Kremlin sees will be a showdown over Washington’s indifference to Russia’s security concern, the Kremlin has ordered two strategic nuclear missile forces to combat duty. Additionally, Russia has closed the northern sea route and deployed radio engineering regiments and electronic domes to jam US over-the-horizon radar. If US naval provocations continue in the Black Sea, Russia might also close the Black Sea.
Meanwhile, the neo-nazi Ukrainian battalions armed by Washington are escalating the situation with the Donbass Russians.
Washington is setting itself up for an embarrassing backdown or a major confrontation for which Washington holds few cards.
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.
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.
When Julius Caesar, after some hesitation, crossed the small river Rubicon in 49 B.C., he took a decisive and irreversible step against his opponents in Rome. “Thither go,” he is said to have exclaimed, “where the sign of the gods and the wrong of the enemy calls. The die is cast.” (1) “The sign of the gods” was a figure that appeared to him and crossed the river in front of him to the sound of trumpets.
Should not those fellow citizens whose minds are free and who have cast off all timidity follow Caesar’s courageous example and cross the Rubicon together?
That is, courageously confront the enemies of humanity and stand up to them, because through long hesitation the evils grow stronger. Every further criminal attack on humanity by the diabolical “elite” must be thwarted with civil disobedience and further non-violent activities. It must not be allowed that a small insane clique of power-obsessed super-rich terrorises as well as tries to subjugate the whole of humanity and is already planning the next global economic and social crisis – while we citizens hesitate to put a stop to them once and for all.
Two examples from the invaluable fund of alternative media
In order to adequately describe the current global political situation – according to Michel Chossudovsky “the worst crisis in modern history” – and to glimpse the possible future, I draw on two recent articles from the indispensable fund of modern independent media. Both have been published on the academic website “Global Research” and provide an unvarnished insight into current world events.
“Never before had humanity been exposed to so intense barrage of falsehood and absurdity in the guise of truth, science, concern, and fact.” (2)
His article provides context to the attempted human destruction project we are witnessing and adds comments on reconstruction. Few could have guessed, let alone understood, according to Snefjella, the attack on humanity that was officially launched publicly in March 2020.
Professor Chossudovsky’s second article, dated 14 December 2021, provides a glimpse of the future and is titled:
Klaus Schwab, the founder and CEO of the WEF and architect of the “Great Reset” describes the crisis scenario as follows, according to Chossudovsky:
“The frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyber attack 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.” (emphasis added)
WEF executive director Jeremy Juergens adds:
“I believe 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.” (emphasis added) (4)
So, what are we waiting for?
Embrace the warmongers too
Crossing the Rubicon requires also keeping an eye on the geopolitical situation and stopping the criminal warmongers. This is the concern of the new “Krefeld Appeal” of 16 November 2021 “Falling into the arms of the warmongers”. It was signed by well-known personalities, received much attention worldwide and warns against a war against humanity.
The new “Krefeld Appeal” complements the Public Declaration
“We Europeans Say NO to a War Against Russia”, which was already written many years ago. Both appeals can be viewed on the homepage of the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung” (NRhZ) and can still be signed. Please, dear fellow citizens, make up your own minds (5).
If we let it happen, everyone dies alone
In the autumn of 1946, the German author Hans Fallada wrote his last novel, “Everyone Dies for Himself”. With it, he created a panorama of the lives of “normal” people in Nazi-era Berlin: after their son is killed in Hitler’s war, a Berlin couple wants to set signs of resistance. The quiet, sober couple write messages on cards and distribute them around the city. But they dared to resist the Nazis alone; therefore it was futile.
In 1943 they were both executed. Hans Fallada learned of their fate from a Gestapo file that came into his hands through the poet Johannes R. Becher, later Minister of Culture of the German Democratic Republic (GDR). More than 60 years after Fallada’s death in 1947, his novel became an international event and, in the words of “The New York Times”, a “major literary event” (6).
In the preface to his book, Hans Fallada addresses a few words to the reader:
“Some readers will find that there is quite a lot of torture and death in this book. The author takes the liberty of pointing out that this book deals almost exclusively with people who fought against the Hitler regime, with them and their persecutors. In these circles, quite a lot died in the years 1940 to 1942 and before and after. About a good third of this book is set in prisons and asylums, and dying was very much afoot in them as well. It also often didn’t please the author to paint such a bleak picture, but more brightness would have meant lying.” (7)
What distinguishes the noble from the common?
I leave the serious final word to Hermann H. Mitterer, an officer of the Austrian Armed Forces and former colleague. He too, in the preface of his 2019 book “Population Exchange in Europe. How the Global Elite Use Mass Migration to Replace the Native Population”, to his readers, saying:
“It is not wealth, not social position, not academic education that distinguishes the noble from the common. It is the ability to recognise the importance of supra-temporal values and the will to give personal sacrifice and, if necessary, one’s own life for their preservation.” (8)
(6) Fallada, Hans (2011,9). Every man for himself dies. Berlin. Book cover
(7) op. cit., p. 5.
(8) Mitterer, Hermann H. (2009). Population Exchange in Europe. How a global elite uses mass migration to replace the native population. Rottenburg, p. 4
Dr Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a retired rector, educationalist and graduate psychologist.
“It’s Christmas Eve! It’s the one night of the year when we all act a little nicer, we smile a little easier, we cheer a little more. For a couple of hours out of the whole year, we are the people that we always hoped we would be! It’s a sort of a miracle because it happens every Christmas Eve… There are people that are having trouble making their miracle happen… It’s not just the poor and the hungry, it’s everybody that’s gotta have this miracle!”— Scrooged (1988)
What a year.
It feels as if government Grinches, corporate Scrooges, and cancel culture humbugs have been working overtime to drain every last drop of joy, kindness and liberty from the world.
After endless months of gloom and doom, it can be hard to feel the joy of Christmas in the midst of rampant commercialism, political correctness and the casual cruelty of an apathetic, self-absorbed, dog-eat-dog world.
Then again, isn’t that struggle to overcome the darkness and find the light within exactly what Christmas—the celebration of a baby born in a manger—is all about? The reminder that we have not been forgotten or forsaken. Glad tidings in the midst of hard times. Goodwill to counter meanness. Innocence in the face of cynicism. Hope in the midst of despair. Comfort to soothe our fears. Peace as an answer to war. Love that conquers hate.
As “fellow-passengers to the grave,” we all have a moral duty to make this world (or at least our small corners of it) just a little bit kinder, a little less hostile and a lot more helpful to those in need.
No matter what one’s budget, religion, or political persuasion, there is no shortage of things we can each do right now to pay our blessings forward and recapture the true spirit of Christmas.
For starters, move beyond the “us” vs. “them” mentality. Tune into what’s happening in your family, in your community and your world, and get active. Show compassion to those in need, be kind to those around you, forgive those who have wronged you, and teach your children to do the same. Talk less, and listen more. Take less, and give more. Stop being a hater. Stop acting entitled and start being empowered. Learn tolerance in the true sense of the word. Value your family. Count your blessings. Share your blessings. Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and comfort the lonely and broken-hearted. Build bridges, and tear down walls. Stand for freedom. Strive for peace.
One thing more: make time for joy and laughter. Shake off the blues with some Christmas tunes, whatever fits the bill for you, be it traditional carols, rollicking oldies, or some rocking new tunes. Watch a Christmas movie that reinforces your faith in the things that truly matter.
Here are ten of my favorite Christmas movies and music albums to get you started.
First the movies.
It’s A Wonderful Life (1946). An American classic about a despondent man, George Bailey who is saved from suicide by an angel working to get his wings. This film is a testament to director Frank Capra’s faith in people. Sublime performances by James Stewart and Donna Reed.
The Bishop’s Wife (1947). An angel comes to earth in answer to a bishop’s prayer for help. Cary Grant, David Niven and Loretta Young help energize this tale of lost visions and longings of the heart.
Miracle on 34th Street (1947). By happenchance, Kris Kringle is hired as Santa Claus by Macy’s Department Store in New York City for the Thanksgiving Day Parade. Before long, Kringle, who believes himself to be the one and only Santa Claus, has impacted virtually everyone around him. Funny, witty and heartwarming, this film is stocked with some fine performances from Maureen O’Hara, John Payne and young Natalie Wood. Edmund Gwenn won the Academy Award for best supporting actor for his role as Saint Nick.
A Christmas Carol (1951). This is the best film version of the penny-pinching Scrooge’s journey to spiritual enlightenment by way of visits from supernatural visitors. Alastair Sim as Scrooge gives one of the finest film performances never to win an Oscar. The Man Who Invented Christmas (2017) provides a wonderful glimpse into how Charles Dickens came to write A Christmas Carol.
A Christmas Story (1983). Ralphie is a young boy obsessed with one thing and only one thing: how to get a Red Ryder BB-gun for Christmas. Ralphie’s parents are wary, and his mother continually warns him that “you’ll shoot your eye out.” Based on Jean Shepherd’s autobiographical book In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash, at the heart of this timeless comedy is the universal yearning of a child for the magic of Christmas morning. A great cast, which includes Darren McGavin, Peter Billingsley, Melinda Dillon and a voice-over narrative by Shepherd himself.
One Magic Christmas (1985). If you grew up in a family where times were tough, this film is for you. A guardian angel comes to earth to help a disillusioned woman who hates Christmas. This tale of redemption and second chances is a delight to watch. And Harry Dean Stanton makes a first-class offbeat angel.
Prancer (1989). This story of an eight-year-old girl who believes that an injured reindeer in her barn is actually one of Santa’s reindeer is one of the most down-to-earth Christmas films ever made. It’s a testament to the transforming power of love and childhood innocence. Sam Elliott and Cloris Leachman are fine in supporting roles, but Rebecca Harrell shines. Filmed on location in freezing, snowy weather, this film is a treat for those who love Christmas.
Home Alone (1990). Eight-year-old Kevin, accidentally left behind at home when his family flies to Paris for Christmas, thinks he’s got it made. Hijinks ensue when two burglars match their wits against his. A funny, tender tribute to childhood and the bonds of family.
Elf (2003). Another modern classic with a lot of heart. Buddy, played to the hilt by Will Ferrell, is a human who was raised by elves at the North Pole. Determined to find his birth father, Buddy travels to the Big Apple and spreads his Christmas cheer to everyone he meets. This film has it all: Santa, elves, family problems, humor, emotion and above all else, a large dose of the Christmas spirit. One of the best Christmas movies ever made.
The Christmas Chronicles (2018). The story of a sister and brother, Kate and Teddy Pierce, whose Christmas Eve plan to catch Santa Claus on camera turns into an unexpected journey that most kids could only dream about. Kurt Russell’s star turn as Santa makes for movie magic.
Now for the music.
Out of the hundreds of Christmas albums I’ve listened to over the years, the following, covering a broad range of musical styles, moods and tastes, each in its own way perfectly captures the essence of Christmas for me.
It’s Christmas (EMI, 1989): 18 great songs, ranging from John Lennon’s “Happy Xmas (War Is Over)” to Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas.” The real treats on this album are Greg Lake’s “I Believe in Father Christmas,” Kate Bush’s “December Will Be Magic Again” and Aled Jones’ “Walking in the Air.”
Christmas Guitar (Rounder, 1986): 28 beautifully done traditional Christmas songs by master guitarist John Fahey. Hearing Fahey’s guitar strings plucking out “Joy to the World,” “Good King Wenceslas,” “Jolly Old Saint Nicholas,” among others, is a sublime experience.
Christmas Is A Special Day (The Right Stuff, 1993): 12 fine songs by Fats Domino, the great Fifties rocker, ranging from “Amazing Grace” to “Jingle Bells.” The title song, written by Domino himself, is a real treat. No one has ever played the piano keys like Fats.
Christmas Island (August/Private Music, 1989): “Frosty the Snowman” will never sound the same after you hear Leon Redbone and Dr. John do their duet. Neither will “Christmas Island” or “Toyland” on this collection of 11 traditional and rather offbeat songs.
A Holiday Celebration (Gold Castle, 1988): The classic folk trio Peter, Paul & Mary, backed by the New York Choral Society, sing traditional and nontraditional holiday fare on 12 beautifully orchestrated songs. Included are “I Wonder as I Wander,” “Children Go Where I Send Thee,” and “The Cherry Tree Carol.” Also thrown in is Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind.”
The Christmas Album (Columbia, 1992): Neil Diamond sings 14 songs, ranging from “Silent Night” to “Jingle Bell Rock” to “The Christmas Song” to “Come, O Come Emmanuel.” Diamond also gives us a great rendition of Lennon’s “Happy Xmas (War Is Over).” A delightful album.
A Charlie Brown Christmas (Fantasy, 1988): 12 traditional Christmas songs by the Vince Guaraldi Trio. The pianist extraordinaire and his trio perform “O Tannenbaum,” “The Christmas Song” and “Greensleeves.” Also included is the Charlie Brown Christmas theme.
The Jethro Tull Christmas Album (Fuel Records, 2003): If you like deep-rooted traditional holiday songs, you’ll love this album. The 16 songs range from “God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen” to Ian Anderson originals such as “Another Christmas Song” and “Jack Frost and the Hooded Crow.” With Anderson on flute and vocals, this album has an old world flavor that will have you wanting mince pie and plum pudding.
A Twisted Christmas (Razor Tie, 2006): Twisted Sister, the heavy metal group, knocks the socks off a bevy of traditional and pop Christmas songs. Dee Snider’s amazing vocals brings to life “Oh Come All Ye Faithful,” “Deck the Halls,” “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus,” among others—including “Heavy Metal Christmas (The Twelve Days of Christmas).” Great fun and a great band.
Songs for Christmas (Asthmatic Kitty, 2006): In 2001, independent singer/songwriter Sufjan Stevens set out to create a Christmas gift through songs for his friends and family. It eventually grew to a 5-CD box set, which includes Stevens’ original take on such standards as “Amazing Grace” and “We Three Kings” and some inventive yuletide creations of his own. A lot of fun.
Before you know it, Christmas will be a distant memory and we’ll be back to our regularly scheduled programming of “us vs. them” politics, war, violence, materialism and mayhem.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, there may not be much we can do to avoid the dismal reality of the American police state in the long term—not so long as the powers-that-be allow profit margins to take precedence over people—but in the short term, I hope you’ll do your part to “spread a smile of joy” and “throw your arms around the world at Christmastime.”
As you celebrate the season, take to heart the closing sermon in The Bishop’s Wife:
“Once upon a midnight clear, there was a child’s cry, a blazing star hung over a stable, and wise men came with birthday gifts. We haven’t forgotten that night down the centuries. We celebrate it with stars on Christmas trees, with the sound of bells, and with gifts… We forget nobody, adult or child. All the stockings are filled, all that is, except one. And we have even forgotten to hang it up. The stocking for the child born in a manger. It’s his birthday we’re celebrating. Don’t let us ever forget that. Let us ask ourselves what He would wish for most. And then, let each put in his share, loving kindness, warm hearts, and a stretched out hand of tolerance. All the shining gifts that make peace on earth.”—The Bishop’s Wife (1947)
American multinational aircraft manufacturer and government contractor Boeing has issued a statement declaring that it will not enforce Joe Biden’s controversial and divisive COVID-19 vaccine mandate after a series of federal rulings have dealt the White House devastating losses.
In a statement first obtained by Seattle-based KIRO, Boeing announced their intention to suspend the mandate.
“We continue to encourage our employees to get vaccinated and get a booster shot if they have not done so,” a Boeing spokesperson said.
“Meanwhile, after careful review, Boeing has suspended its vaccination requirement in line with a federal court’s decision prohibiting enforcement of the federal contractor executive order and a number of state laws.”
Boeing employs over 140,000 workers across the United States, and is the second largest federal contractor in the country.
Being a federal contractor, Boeing was subject to an executive order from the Biden White House demanding that all of its employs be vaccinated.
Related Report
This executive order was halted by a federal judge earlier this month.:Joe Biden and his White House’s legally questionable vaccine mandate for federal contractors’ was halted nationwide by a federal judge on Tuesday, it was confirmed this morning.
Set to take effect on January 4, 2022, the mandate applied to nearly one quarter of the entire United States workforce, as the mandate targeted all companies that do business with the federal government such as Microsoft, Google, Lockheed Martin, and General Motors.
This latest vaccine mandate shutdown comes after Kentucky federal judge’s grant of a preliminary injunction involving a lawsuit in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio.
The Biden regime’s government contractor mandate sparked a vast flurry of federal lawsuits from Arizona, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and Georgia, which argued that the regime did not have the legal authority to require the experimental injections, and that any such mandate was in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks the latest defeat to the Biden regime’s vaccination agenda, even as the vaccine is seemingly rendered useless by the spread of the Omicron variant.
The Danes are now publishing extremely detailed daily data about Covid cases and hospitalizations – not just about Omicron, but all Covid variants.
And, in news that will surprise precisely no one who has been alive the last two years, they paint a picture entirely different than what the media claims.
Omicron – which continues to appear significantly less dangerous though more transmissible than earlier variants of Covid – has been used as a cover for vaccine failure.
Most new Covid cases in Denmark occur in people who are vaccinated or boosted – and that is true for both Omicron and earlier variants. More than 76 percent of non-Omicron Covid infections in Denmark are in vaccinated people, along with about 90 percent of Omicron infections.
Further, only 25 of the 561 people currently hospitalized in Denmark for Covid have the Omicron variant. The Danes do not provide an exact number for patients in intensive care with Omicron, saying only that it is fewer than five.
Perhaps the most stunning fact about Omicron and Denmark is that its rise actually parallels a marked slowdown in the growth of Danish hospitalizations and intensive care patients. Those rose roughly fivefold between mid-October and late November, as the Danes left the happy vaccine valley. Since then they have barely budged, rising about 20 percent.
Danish Covid hospitalizations over the last three months: note that the rise predates Omicron.
The Danish data also show that people with Omicron are both less likely to be hospitalized than those with other variants and released from the hospital much more quickly – in line with what South African health authorities have reported.
On Friday, for example, the Danes reported that the total number of hospital patients with Omicron since the epidemic began reached 77, up by 20 patients from Thursday.
But the number of Omicron patients currently hospitalized rose only by eight between Thursday and Friday, from 17 to 25. Thus 12 out of the 17 Omicron patients on Thursday appear to have been released overnight.
Compared to Monday’s report, the trend is even more clear. The number of Omicron cases has roughly tripled, but the number of people hospitalized has barely budged, from 14 to 25.
About the only reason for concern in any of the Danish data is that Omicron still appears to be preferentially infecting younger people – though not people under 15, who are more likely to be unvaccinated.
Overall, though, the figures out of Denmark largely back those from South Africa – and make clear that the reason that Europe has seen a massive rise in cases and hospitalizations this fall has nothing to do with Omicron and everything to do with vaccine failure.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials skipped the start of oral arguments Tuesday as a federal district court weighed whether the agency can take 75 years to fully release documents on Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID vaccine, according to a lawyer representing plaintiffs who sued the FDA for the documents.
A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA told the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas the agency will produce more than 329,000 related documents as fast as it can, while safeguarding personally identifiable information and Pfizer trade secrets.
Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT), the group behind the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and subsequent lawsuit, is seeking safety and effectiveness data, adverse reaction reports and a list of active and inactive vaccine ingredients.
PHMPT is a group of more than 30 scientists, medical professionals, international public health professionals and journalists. The group’s lawsuit argues the FDA is overestimating the time needed and understaffing the job.
“Assuming a low average of 50 pages per hour per person, even to review the hundreds of thousands of pages the FDA estimates, the agency would need just 19 reviewers to work full-time for 12 weeks to review and produce these documents — which is a tiny fraction of its approximately 18,000 employees,” said PHMPT in a legal brief filed Monday.
FOIA does not mandate any particular processing schedule, only that the agency process requests “as soon as practicable,” the FDA said in a legal brief filed Monday.
“The bottom-line issue still remains what processing schedule is ‘practicable’ for the agency,” the FDA said.
At the agency’s proposed rate of 500 documents per month, the last documents would be released in 2096.
A quote from Business Intelligence Associates, an e-discovery company, estimated 400,000 pages could be produced within six to eight weeks at a cost of $132,000, according to PHMPT.
PHMPT wants the FDA documents released within 108 days. That’s the same amount of time the FDA spent reviewing the responsive documents for “the far more intricate task” of licensing Pfizer’s vaccine, the group said in its lawsuit.
“Americans must routinely produce documents, pay fines, and otherwise expend resources to comply with the law. Courts don’t inquire as to the ability or financial resources to comply with the law — they must comply.
“In fact, it would be laughable if a billionaire defendant came before a court and claimed poverty to escape making a document production, but that is the FDA’s position.”
The FDA budget for fiscal year 2019 was $6.1 billion.
In the FDA’s 64-page briefing, the agency argued it needed the full 75 years to redact and release the documents out of “fairness” to other FOIA requesters.
“Fairness would be giving millions of Americans who are mandated to receive this liability-free vaccine today assurance regarding the FDA’s review by allowing independent scientists access to the same data the FDA reviewed, without making them wait decades.
“Fairness would be allowing Americans injured by the vaccine today, who cannot sue Pfizer or anyone else for the harm, hope that independent scientists with access to that data can more readily develop treatments for their ailments.
“Fairness would be our federal health authorities allocating more than one person spending a few hours each month to review Pfizer’s documents for public disclosure after having given Pfizer over $17 billion of taxpayer money to develop and market the product.
“That would be fair to the American people.”
Siri noted that no decision has been made by the court and that a transcript of this week’s hearing should be released soon.
U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) earlier this month introduced a bill that would force the FDA to release them in 100 days.
Dr. Marty Makary, a public health researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, on Tuesday accused government officials of practicing “modern-day McCarthyism” against anyone who suggests young healthy people, especially those who recovered from COVID, don’t need booster shots.
Dr. Marty Makary on Tuesday accused public health officials of “modern-day McCarthyism,” and publishing studies not worthy of “a 7th-grade science experiment.”
The public health researcher and professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health told members of the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis some COVID policies have become “too extreme, too rigid and are no longer driven by clinical data.”
Makary zeroed in on natural immunity and COVID booster shots for teens. He criticized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) rush to push boosters for 16- and 17-year-olds based on lab experiments suggesting boosters raise antibody levels against Omicron.
Vaccine makers announced the results of the experiments without releasing any of the underlying scientific data, Makary said.
“Is this what we’ve come to,” Makary asked? “Pharma tells us what to do and the CDC just falls in line?”
Makary assured committee members he isn’t “anti-vax” — he’s been vaccinated for COVID.
But he’s a strong proponent of acknowledging natural immunity, and not requiring people who have recovered from COVID — especially young people — to get the vaccine.
That viewpoint has made him the target of criticism, Makary said.
“We have a modern-day McCarthyism whenever somebody questions COVID booster shots for kids,” Makary said.
Makary reminded committee members that, despite a combined annual budget of about $58 billion, neither the CDC nor the National Institutes of Health have produced credible studies on natural immunity to COVID — something his research team is undertaking, using private money.
The CDC did publish two studies earlier this year, claiming to show vaccine immunity trumps natural immunity. Those studies were so flawed, in Makary’s opinion, they were “worse than a 7th grade science experiment.”
Makary accused the CDC of knowingly publishing flawed studies so people would get the vaccine, rather than wait to acquire natural immunity by getting and recovering from the virus.
“Many lives are being destroyed” by the government’s failure to recognize natural immunity, Makary said.
The company says the implanted chip will be able to read any device that uses the Near Field Communication (NFC) protocol.
“Implants are a very versatile technology that can be used for a variety of purposes, and now it is very helpful to have your Covid passport at your fingertips. If your phone runs out of battery, the Covid passport will always be available,” company representative Hannes Sjoblad.
He explained that the chips can be implanted either between the thumb and forefinger, or in the arm itself just above the wrist. The microchip itself is the size of a grain of rice. Hannes Sjoblad argues that the implementation process is completely reversible.
According to the researcher of digital cultures Moa Petersen, at the moment in Sweden, about 6 000 people have already implanted a chip in their hand, but this does not mean that they all loaded their Covid passports there. The chips can store not only certificates, but also office documents, bus passes or gym membership.
In the crudest, most political judgement in memory, two High Court judges in London have ordered the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, where a trial in a kangaroo court awaits him, followed by a life lost in a barbaric prison system.
“Let us look at ourselves, if we have the courage, to see what is happening to us” – Jean-Paul Sartre
Sartre’s words should echo in all our minds following the grotesque decision of Britain’s High Court to extradite Julian Assange to the United States where he faces “a living death”. This is his punishment for the crime of authentic, accurate, courageous, vital journalism.
Miscarriage of justice is an inadequate term in these circumstances. It took the bewigged courtiers of Britain’s ancien regime just nine minutes last Friday to uphold an American appeal against a District Court judge’s acceptance in January of a cataract of evidence that hell on earth awaited Assange across the Atlantic: a hell in which, it was expertly predicted, he would find a way to take his own life.
Volumes of witness by people of distinction, who examined and studied Julian and diagnosed his autism and his Asperger’s Syndrome and revealed that he had already come within an ace of killing himself at Belmarsh prison, Britain’s very own hell, were ignored.
The recent confession of a crucial FBI informant and prosecution stooge, a fraudster and serial liar, that he had fabricated his evidence against Julian was ignored. The revelation that the Spanish-run security firm at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where Julian had been granted political refuge, was a CIA front that spied on Julian’s lawyers and doctors and confidants (myself included) – that, too. was ignored.
The recent journalistic disclosure, repeated graphically by defence counsel before the High Court in October, that the CIA had planned to murder Julian in London – even that was ignored.
Each of these “matters”, as lawyers like to say, was enough on its own for a judge upholding the law to throw out the disgraceful case mounted against Assange by a corrupt US Department of Justice and their hired guns in Britain. Julian’s state of mind, bellowed James Lewis, QC, America’s attack dog at the Old Bailey last year, was no more than “malingering” – an archaic Victorian term used to deny the very existence of mental illness.
To Lewis, almost every defence witness, including those who described from the depth of their experience and knowledge, the barbaric American prison system, was to be interrupted, abused, discredited. Sitting behind him, passing him notes, was his American conductor: young, short-haired, clearly an Ivy League man on the rise.
In their nine minutes of dismissal of the fate of journalist Assange, two of the most senior judges in Britain, including the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett (a lifelong buddy of Sir Alan Duncan, Boris Johnson’s former foreign minister who arranged the brutal police kidnapping of Assange from the Ecuadorean embassy) referred to not one of a litany of truths aired at previous hearings in the Old Bailey and the District Court – truths that had struggled to be heard in the lower court presided over by a weirdly hostile judge, Vanessa Baraitser. One episode of her insulting behaviour towards a clearly stricken Assange, struggling through a fog of prison-dispensed medication to remember his name, is unforgettable.
What was truly shocking last Friday was that the High Court judges – Lord Burnett and Lord Justice Timothy Holyrode, who read out their words – showed no hesitation in sending Julian to his death, living or otherwise. They offered no mitigation, no suggestion that they had agonised over legalities or even basic morality.
Their ruling in favour, if not on behalf of the United States, is based squarely on transparently fraudulent “assurances” scrabbled together by the Biden administration when it looked in January as if justice might prevail.
These “assurances” are that once in American custody, Assange will not be subject to the Orwellian SAMS – Special Administrative Measures – which would make him an un-person; that he will not be imprisoned at ADX Florence, a prison in Colorado long condemned by jurists and human rights groups as illegal: “a pit of punishment and disappearance”; that he can be transferred to an Australian prison to finish his sentence there.
The absurdity of this lies in what the judges omitted to say. In offering its “assurances”, the US reserves the right not to guarantee any pledge made in court should Assange do something that displeases his jailers. In other words, as Amnesty has pointed out, it reserves the right to break any promise, or all of them.
There are abundant examples of the US doing just that. As investigative journalist Richard Medhurst revealed last month, David Mendoza Herrarte was extradited from Spain to the US on the “promise” that he would serve his sentence in Spain. The Spanish courts regarded this as a binding condition.
“Classified documents reveal the diplomatic assurances given by the US Embassy in Madrid and how the US violated the conditions of the extradition “, wrote Medhurst, “Mendoza spent six years in the US trying to return to Spain. Court documents show the United States denied his transfer application multiple times.”
The High Court judges – who were aware of the Mendoza case and of Washington’s habitual duplicity – describe the “assurances” as a “solemn undertaking offered by one government to another”. This article would stretch into infinity if I listed the times the rapacious United States has broken “solemn undertakings” to governments, such as treaties that are summarily torn up and civil wars that are fuelled. It is the way Washington has ruled the world, and before it Britain: the way of imperial power, as history teaches us.
It is this institutional lying and duplicity that Julian Assange brought into the open and in so doing performed perhaps the greatest public service of any journalist in modern times.
Julian himself has been a prisoner of lying governments for more than a decade now. During these long years, I have sat in many courts as the United States has sought to manipulate the law to silence him and WikiLeaks. The obsession to “get him” has been unrelenting.
This reached a bizarre moment when, in the tiny Ecuadorean embassy, he and I were forced to flatten ourselves against a wall, each with a notepad in which we conversed, taking care to shield what we had written to each other from the ubiquitous spy cameras – installed, as we now know, by a proxy of the CIA, the world’s most enduring criminal organisation.
This brings me to the quotation at the top of this article: “Let us look at ourselves, if we have the courage, to see what is happening.”
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote this in his preface to Franz Fannon’s The Wretched of the Earth, the classic study of how colonised and seduced and coerced and, yes, craven peoples do the bidding of the powerful.
Who among us is prepared to stand up rather than remain mere bystanders to an epic travesty such as the judicial kidnapping of Julian Assange? What is at stake is both a courageous man’s life and, if we remain silent, the conquest of our intellects and sense of right and wrong: indeed our very humanity.
(Julian’s fiancée, Stella Moris, has revealed that Julian suffered a stroke on 27 October, the opening day of a previous High Court hearing).
The New York Times (NYT) has revealed that a top secret US cell known as Talon Anvil sidestepped safeguards and repeatedly ordered airstrikes that killed an untold number of civilians in Syria under the guise of targeting ISIS fighters.
According to the report published on 12 December, the shadowy group operated from anonymous rooms “cluttered with flat screens” in three shifts around the clock between 2014 and 2019.
Among US officials, Talon Anvil was known to disregard safeguard procedures to function at the “speed of war,” and obscured a countless number of civilian deaths including farmers trying to harvest, children in the street, families fleeing fighting, and villagers taking shelter in buildings.
The NYT report also claims that Talon Anvil played an “outsize role” in the dropping of over 100,000 bombs in the war-torn country.
“They were ruthlessly efficient and good at their jobs … but they also made a lot of bad strikes,” a former Air Force intelligence officer who worked on hundreds of classified Talon Anvil missions told the NYT.
Among the many bombing campaigns that Talon Anvil was responsible for is the 2019 airstrike in the eastern Syrian governorate of Dayr al-Zawr which killed over 60 civilians, including dozens of women and children. This particular attack has been described as being “part of a pattern of reckless strikes that started years earlier.”
US Air Force officials who spoke with the NYT on condition of anonymity said that over the years they notified their commanding officers several times about Talon Anvil’s disregard for civilian lives. However, the military leaders seemed reluctant to scrutinize the strike cell as it was “driving the offensive” on the battlefield.
According to Larry Lewis, a former Pentagon and State Department adviser, every year that Talon Anvil operated in Syria the civilian casualty rate increased significantly.
Lewis also claims that US military commanders “enabled the tactics by failing to emphasize the importance of reducing civilian casualties.” He singles out General Stephen J. Townsend, who commanded US troops in Syria in 2016 and 2017, as being “dismissive of widespread reports from news media and human rights organizations describing the mounting toll.”
Talon Anvil’s operations were highly classified and the strike cell as a whole never existed in an official manner. It was run by a classified Special Operations unit called Task Force 9, whose other tasks included training allied Syrian and Kurdish armed groups.
The strike cell reportedly worked out of “bland office spaces” both in Iraq and Syria and were in control of a “fleet of Predator and Reaper drones that bristled with precision Hellfire missiles and laser-guided bombs.”
They carried out most of their operations based on tips from allied forces, secret electronic intercepts, drone cameras, and other information to find enemy targets.
A former member of Talon Anvil told the NYT that the strike cell often decided that something was an enemy target with scant supporting evidence. But as suspicion mounted over their tactics, Talon Anvil began to classify nearly all of its attacks as defensive – even when targets were 100 miles away from the front lines.
“It’s more expedient to resort to self-defense,” said Lewis. “It’s easier to get approved.”
The drone operators were also known to turn away the drone cameras away from targets before launching bombs or missiles to avoid accountability.
The operators also pressured analysts, who watched drone footage after strikes had taken place, to report that they had seen weapons or other evidence that would justify a strike hit. If they refused, the cell would simply ask for another analyst.
To the majority of politically correct conformists of Western Europe, North America and beyond, Jesus Christ is a dangerous subverter of the status quo. This, in spite of the fact that they claim to be adherents of the values he proclaimed.
The message put across by the most followed figurehead of the Christian faith, juxtaposed into this moment of time, is far too radical for any western government to go anywhere near. Yet these same governments – or at least the majority of their members – will proclaim their belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
This goes to the very heart of the definition of ‘hypocrisy’.
To proclaim unity over division, love over hate, freedom of the individual over authoritarian control, justice over injustice and self enlightenment over top down dogma – the central message of Jesus’s teachings – is currently to be labelled ‘not normal’.
To all those who prefer to do what they are told – to be ‘not normal’ means ‘not one of us’ – even if this means supporting a modern day policy of segregation, suppression and slandering of those guilty of of not conforming to ‘the rules of the game’.
Some 2,000 years ago it appears that the same conditions prevailed. To go against them was ‘a criminal offence’. An offence against the diktats of the Holy Roman Empire, and the punishment was to be ostracised, imprisoned or put to death.
The non conformist of the politically correct status quo today is faced by precisely the same techniques of oppression, with only the death sentence being largely outlawed. Which does not mean that those considered the greatest threat to the state won’t ‘loose their lives’ via some covert secretive way or other.
Jesus stood fully against fascism, many facets of which were at large amongst the corrupt officials of the Roman Empire. He also exposed the fake officialdom and materialistic ambitions of the clerks, stewards and ‘money hoarders’ who dominated the great cities of that era.
Has anything changed?
To stand-up against the top-down politically repressive cabal today is to be vilified as ‘a terrorist’ or ‘a mental case’ – and singled-out for special surveillance and monitoring.
To speak the truth and to speak-out against the lies perpetuated in the parliaments of the western world, is to be instantly framed as a ‘conspiracy theorist’, of which Jesus was perhaps the original role model.
Yet the very people who stand-up on their moral soap-boxes to proclaim the good Christian values they profess to follow – and demand from others – are the very ones to condemn the ‘conspiracy theorist’ for daring to carry forward the wisdom of the teachings of he who the fake moralists also proclaim as their traditional value model.
It is well known that passages of The New Testament, in the course of many translations and editorial abridgements, have been expurgated and watered down so as to sterilise the more radical teachings of Jesus Christ. This is paralleled today by the leading voices of the resistance to a totalitarian take-over being blocked from having a public voice by the mainstream media and by social media sites owned by corporate clones and deep state financiers.
The truth, it seems, has always been dangerous.
This planet has been in the hands of the oppressors of truth for well over 2,000 years. Their ambitions have grown steadily greater throughout the passage of time. Now they want to claim not only ‘full spectrum dominance’ over every aspect of the daily life of the planet, but to take control of the human soul itself. To digitalise and genetically engineer the very molecules, cells and genes of the human species to fit their cold anti-life vision.
To breed-out the God instinct that leads humanity in the direction of justice, love, wisdom, truth – and oneness with the Supreme Creator.
The great scamdemic being manifested today by the perpetrators of the demonic anti life/pro death control obsessed cabal, is built upon the underlying use of fear to keep people in a permanent state of imbalance, anxiety and stress. A state which makes control mechanisms very easy to put in place.
Yet a significant proportion of those who are complicit in aiding the cabal to do their hatchet job call themselves Christians, which means followers of the teachings of Jesus.
This Christmas, let’s encourage those we personally know; those in our families and social milieux and those in positions of power in society, to join in meditating on what values we are committed to uphold in the great battle for the future direction of the planet.
Peace, love, wisdom and truth; or division, hate, foolhardiness and lies? The great teachings of spiritual masters – or the power pursuits of aspiring fascists?
Let’s not be kind to hypocrites, even if we find ourselves to be one of them. The future of the soul of man is at stake.
Be bold, brave and bright this Christmas – or don’t celebrate it at all. Don’t be just another hypocrite.
Seasons greetings.
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. He is co-founder of HARE The Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology see https://hardwickalliance.org/ Julian’s acclaimed book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info
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 my video dated 11th December I detailed some of the health problems which face the gullible folk who have succumbed to the lies and misinformation shared so widely and enthusiastically by governments, the medical establishment and the mainstream media.
It has been established that there is much that no one yet knows about the covid-19 jabs and the eagerness of the Medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency in the UK to licence a product about which information appeared to be lacking has never been adequately explained. We do know however that, as I was the first to reveal, the MHRA received a huge sum of money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – which has financial links with jab producers such as Pfizer.
As far as the effect on the brain is concerned the big question is, can the lipid nanoparticles carry the mRNA jab across the blood brain barrier?
The blood brain barrier is a semi permeable barrier of cells which prevent some substances in the blood from crossing into the protective fluid around the central nervous system.
It is vital to know if this happens because if it does then all bets are off as to what might happen to the brain.
And after all, liquid nanoparticles are already used to deliver other drugs across the blood brain barrier.
If the LNPs carry the mRNA jab into the brain then the neurons, the brain cells, might be marked as foreign by the body’s immune system. And as more booster jabs are given the problem will get worse.
The worry is that brain cells might be targeted and killed by cytotoxic T cells.
It has now been established that mRNA has been found in all human tissues except the kidney. It has been found in heart, lung, liver, testicles – and brain. A Japanese study, for example, showed that the vaccine does end up in the brain.
Also worrying is the fact that researchers have called for studies to investigate any relationship between jabs and acute CNS demyelination.
How much damage will this do?
How long will it take before brain damage can be identified?
I don’t have the foggiest idea.
And nor does anyone else.
In a normal experiment with a new drug, doctors would be looking and checking all the possible problems before releasing the drug for widespread use.
But the covid-19 jabs are being rolled out to billions without any one having the faintest idea what will happen.
If you have been jabbed, the first certainty seems to be that the mRNA vaccine will enter your brain.
The second certainty is that the more covid jabs you have, the more dangerous this will be.
How many of your brain cells will die is something only time will tell. And children, of course, will be more vulnerable because they are more vulnerable anyway and because they are likely to live longer.
Some experts, advisors and regulators will tell you that the risks are small. But how can they know that? And what is small? They told us that the blood clotting problems were small.
In my view, having one of these jabs is the equivalent of taking a huge dose of LSD and waiting to see what happens. And hoping that you’re not going to end up like Peter Green for example.
And, remember, the covid-19 jabs don’t stop you getting covid-19 and they don’t stop you passing it on. According to the NHS’s own guidelines in the UK you can still get or spread covid-19 even if you have had three jabs.
The choice about whether or not to be jabbed should be yours.
But governments want to make these jabs compulsory.
If this jab were being given for a lethal disease with a 50% mortality rate then the risks might be worth taking. It’s not and they’re not.
Thank you for watching an old man in a chair. And thanks to Brand New Tube and to Muhammad Butt. Please subscribe to my channel on Brand New Tube and spread my videos about on other platforms such as Rumble, Brighteon, Odysee and Bitchute. My thanks to everyone who does this. Put this video on Twitter and Facebook too. If you get your wrist slapped regard it as a war injury. Please do translations too. All the papers and so on that I refer to can easily be found on the internet. If I give you all the links I’ll never do anything else. We do put up transcripts of the videos on both websites and when possible we add important links.
For the record, this channel has not been monetised – none of my videos ever has been. There are no ads, no sponsors and no requests for funds on videos or websites.
Don’t forget to watch my friend Dr Colin Barron’s amazing videos which are always fantastic and often incredibly funny. And visit his website www.colinbarron.co.uk.
Read www.theLightpaper.co.uk for all the news considered too truthful to print by the mainstream media. An amazing 200,000 copies are distributed. That’s a bigger circulation than The Guardian. Make sure you get hold of a copy of `We are the 99%’ recorded by Darren and the Daz Band which is the anthem for the Resistance Movement. It’s vital it’s the Christmas Number One. There is a link to it on both my websites. And visit and astandinthepark.org which will give advice on how and where to stand in a park.
Please visit my own websites www.vernoncoleman.org and www.vernoncoleman.com.www.vernoncoleman.com is more old fashioned but contains hundreds of articles on animal issues, politics and much else in addition to health. You can find free books on both sites and brand new stuff is added every weekday. There are hundreds of original articles to read and, of course, the feature detailing vaccine damage is updated every week. New articles are added most days.
Vernon Coleman’s Wednesday Review will, God willing, appear here every Wednesday at 7pm. If it doesn’t then either something has happened to me or the video has been suppressed as has so much of my work these days.
We all need to pray for the truth to be shared by the many, not just the few. Whatever your religion you need to pray because the people running this fraud respect only lies but, in the way that vampires fear sunlight, they fear the truth – it is your government’s greatest enemy and our only weapon. Finally, although it may feel like it at times, please remember that you are not alone. More and more people are waking up and once they are awake they don’t go back to sleep. – which means our numbers are growing daily.
If we are going to win this war then we have to fight hard and with determination and passion and the truth. Remember, this is primarily a propaganda and media war.
Distrust the government, avoid mass media and fight the lies.
Thank you for watching an old man in a chair.
*
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.
Vernon Coleman’s no 1 bestselling bookEndgame explains the awful truth behind the covid fraud and the global warming fraud – and explains where we are heading. Endgame is available from Amazon as a paperback and an eBook.
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 February 2021.
As I reported on my website back in March, on March 19th, the public health bodies in the UK and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens decided that the new disease shouldno longer be classified as a ‘high consequence infectious disease’ (click on the link below to see the proof). The coronavirus was downgraded to flu level.
Here is the statement
As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK. There are many diseases which can cause serious illness which are not classified as HCIDs.
A couple of days after this decision, the UK Government introduced lockdowns and introduced the most oppressive Bill in British Parliamentary history.
The Emergency Bill, which was 358 pages long, turned Britain into a totalitarian state and gave the Government and the police unprecedented powers. Public meetings and elections were banned and there were new powers relating to ‘restrictions on use and disclosure of information’.
There are still people who do not know that the coronavirus was downgraded to `flu’ threat back in March. Please send the link to MPs and newspapers. It proves that everything that has happened since March has been a lie.
*
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).
First published by Global Research on October 22, 2021
***
The price of energy from all sources conventional is exploding globally. Far from accidental, it is a well-orchestrated plan to collapse the industrial world economy that has already been weakened dramatically by almost two years of ridiculous covid quarantine and related measures.
What we are seeing is a price explosion in key oil, coal and now especially, natural gas energy. What makes this different from the energy shocks of the 1970s is that this time, it is developing as the corporate investment world, using the fraudulent ESG green investment model, is dis-investing in future oil, gas and coal while OECD governments embrace horrendously inefficient, unreliable solar and wind that will insure the collapse of industrial society perhaps as early as the next months. Barring a dramatic rethinking, the EU and other industrial economies are willfully committing economic suicide.
What only a few years ago was accepted as obvious was that ensuring an abundant, reliable, efficient and affordable energy defines the economy. Without efficient energy we cannot make steel, concrete, mine raw materials or any of the things that support our modern economies. In the past months the world price of coal for power generation has doubled. The price of natural gas has risen by almost 500%. Oil is headed to $90 a barrel, highest in seven years. This is a planned consequence of what is sometimes called the Davos Great Reset or the Green Agenda zero carbon madness.
Some two decades ago Europe began a major shift to mis-named renewables or Green Energy, mainly solar and wind. Germany, the heart of EU industry, led the transformation with former chancellor Merkel’s ill-conceived Energiewende, where Germany’s last nuclear power plants will close in 2022 and coal plants are rapidly being phased out. This all has now collided with the reality that Green Energy is not at all able to deal with major supply shortages. The crisis was entirely predictable.
Green Chickens Come Home to Roost
With the widespread covid lockdowns of industry and travel in 2020 EU natural gas consumption fell dramatically. The largest EU gas supplier, Gazprom of Russia, in interest of an orderly long-term market, duly reduced its deliveries to the EU market even at a loss. An unusually mild 2019-2020 winter allowed EU gas storage to reach maximum. A long, severe winter all but erased that in 2021.
Contrary to EU politicians’ claims, Gazprom has not played politics with the EU to force approval of its new NordStream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. As EU demand resumed in the first six months of 2021, Gazprom rushed to meet it and even exceed record 2019 levels, and even at the expense of replenishing Russian gas storage for the coming winter.
With the EU now firmly committed to a Green Energy agenda, Fit for 55, and explicitly rejecting natural gas as a long-term option, while at the same time killing coal and nuclear, the incompetence of the think-tank climate models that justified a 100% CO2-free, electric society by 2050 has come home to roost.
Because financial investors on Wall Street and London saw the benefit of huge profits from the Green energy agenda, working with the Davos World Economic Forum to promote the laughable ESG investing model, conventional oil, gas and coal companies are not investing profits in expanded production. In 2020 worldwide spending on oil, gas, coal dropped by an estimated $1 trillion. That is not coming back.
With BlackRock and other investors all but boycotting ExxonMobil and other energy companies in favor of “sustainable” energy, the prospects of one exceptionally cold and long winter in Europe and a record lack of wind in northern Germany, triggered a panic buying of gas on world LNG Markets in early September.
The problem was the restocking was too late, as most available LNG from the USA, Qatar and other sources that normally would be available had already been sold to China where an equally confused energy policy, including a political ban on Australian coal, has led to plant closings and a recent government order to secure gas and coal “at any cost.” Qatar, US LNG exporters and others have flocked to Asia leaving the EU in the cold, literally.
Deregulation of Energy
What few understand is how today’s Green energy markets are rigged to benefit speculators like hedge funds or investors like BlackRock or Deutsche Bank and penalize energy consumers. The headline prices for natural gas traded in Europe, the Dutch TTF futures contract, is sold by the London-based ICE Exchange. It speculates on what future wholesale natural gas prices in the EU will be in one, two or three months hence. The ICE is backed by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and Société Générale among others. The market is in what are called gas futures contracts or derivatives.
Banks or others can speculate for pennies on the dollar, and when news broke on how low EU gas storage for the coming winter were, financial sharks went on a feeding frenzy. By early October futures prices for Dutch TTF gas had exploded by an unprecedented 300% in only days. Since February it is far worse, as a standard LNG cargo of 3.4 trillion BTU (British Thermal Units) now costs $100-120 million, while at the end of February its cost was less than $20 million. That’s a 500-600% rise in seven months.
The underlying problem is that, unlike the case for most of the postwar period, since the political promotion of unreliable and high-cost solar and wind “renewables” in the EU and elsewhere (e.g. Texas, February 2021) electric utility markets and their prices have been deliberately deregulated to promote Green alternatives and force out gas and coal on the dubious argument that their CO2 emissions endanger the future of humankind if not reduced to zero by 2050.
The prices borne by the end consumer are set by the energy suppliers who integrate the different costs under competitive conditions. The diabolical way EU electricity costs are computed, allegedly to encourage inefficient solar and wind and discourage conventional sources, is that, as French energy analyst Antonio Haya put it, “the most expensive plant of those needed to cover demand (marginal plant) sets the price for each hour of production for all the production matched in the auction.” So today’s natural gas price sets the price for essentially zero cost hydro-electric electricity. Given the soaring price for natural gas, that is defining EU electricity costs. It’s a diabolical pricing architecture that benefits speculators and destroys consumers, including households and industry.
A fundamental aggravating cause for the recent shortages of abundant coal, gas and oil is the decision by BlackRock and other global money trusts to force investment away from oil, gas or coal—all perfectly safe and necessary energy sources—to buildup of grossly inefficient and unreliable solar or wind. They call it ESG investing. It is the latest rage on Wall Street and other world financial markets ever since BlackRock CEO Larry Fink joined the Board of the Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum in 2019. They set up front ESG certifying companies that award ESG “politically correct” ratings on stock companies, and punishing those who do not comply. The rush into ESG investing has made billions for Wall Street and friends. It has also put the brakes on future development of oil, coal or natural gas for most of the world.
The ‘German Disease’
Now after 20 years of foolish investment into solar and wind, Germany, the once-flagship of EU industry, is a victim of what we can call the German Disease. Like the economic Dutch Disease, the forced investment into Green Energy has resulted in the lack of reliable affordable energy. All for an unproven 1.5C claim of IPCC that is supposed to end our civilization by 2050 if we fail to reach Zero Carbon.
To advance that EU Green Energy agenda, country after country with a few exceptions have begun dismantling oil, gas and coal and even nuclear. Germany’s last remaining nuclear plants will permanently close next year. New coal plants, with latest state-of-art scrubbers, are being scrapped even before being started.
The German case gets even more absurd.
In 2011 the Merkel government took an energy model developed by Martin Faulstich and the state Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU) which claimed that Germany could attain 100% renewable electricity generation by 2050. They argued that using nuclear longer would not be necessary, nor the construction of coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS). With that, Merkel’s catastrophic Energiewende was born. The study argued, it would work because Germany could contract to buy surplus, CO2-free, hydro-electric power from Norway and Sweden.
Now with extreme drought and a hot summer, the hydropower reserves of Sweden and Norway are dangerously low coming into winter, only 52% of capacity. That means the electric power cables to Denmark, Germany and now UK are in danger. And to make it worse, Sweden is split on shutting its own nuclear plants which give it 40% of electricity. And France is debating cutting as much as one-third of its clear nuclear plants meaning that source for Germany will also not be sure.
Already on January 1, 2021 because of a German government mandated coal phase-out, 11 coal-fired power plants with a total capacity of 4.7 GW were shut down. It lasted only 8 days when several of the coal plants had to be reconnected to the grid due to a prolonged low-wind period. In 2022 the last German nuclear plant will shut and more coal plants will permanently close, all for the green nirvana. In 2002 German nuclear power was source for 31% of power, carbon-free electric power.
As for wind power making up the deficit in Germany, in 2022 some 6000 wind turbines with an installed capacity of 16 GW will be dismantled due to the expiration of feed-in subsidies for older turbines. The rate of new wind farm approvals is being blocked by growing citizen rebellion and legal challenges to the noise pollution and other factors. An avoidable catastrophe is in the making.
The response from the EU Commission in Brussels, rather than admit the glaring flaws in their Green Energy agenda, has been to double down on it as if the problem were natural gas and coal. EU Climate Czar Frans Timmermans absurdly declared, “Had we had the green deal five years earlier, we would not be in this position because then we would have less dependency on fossil fuels and natural gas.”
If the EU continues with that suicidal agenda, it will find itself in a deindustrialized wasteland in a few short years. The problem is not gas, coal or nuclear. It is the inefficient Green Energy from solar and wind that will never be able to offer stable, reliable power.
The Green Energy Agenda of the EU, US and other governments along with the Davos-promoted ESG investing will only guarantee that as we go forward there will be even less gas or coal or nuclear to fall back on when the wind stops, there is a drought in hydroelectric dams or lack of sunshine.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize this is a road to economic destruction. But that’s in fact the goal of the UN 2030 “sustainable” energy or the Davos Great Reset: population reduction on a massive scale. We humans are the frogs being slowly boiled. And now the Powers That Be are really turning the heat 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.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Featured image is from NEO
Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation
Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index
List Price: $25.95
Special Price: $18.00
This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”
This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.
The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.
VAERS data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 965,843 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 20,244 deaths and 155,506 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Dec. 10, 2021.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today released new data showing a total of 965,843 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Dec. 10, 2021, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Foreign reports are reports received by U.S. manufacturers from their foreign subsidiaries. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 9,295 U.S. deaths reported as of Dec. 10, 21% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 26% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 480 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Dec. 10. This includes279 million doses of Pfizer, 184 million doses of Moderna and 17 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 10, 2021, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
4,181 adverse events, including 80 rated as serious and 2 reported deaths. One death occurred in an 11-year-old girl from Georgia vaccinated Sept. 14, prior to the authorization of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine in the 5 to 11 age group.
The second death (VAERS I.D. 1890705) occurred in a 5-year-old girl who died four days after her first Pfizer shot.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 10, 2021, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
The most recent deaths involve a 13-year-old girl from Texas (VAERS I.D. 1913198) who died 31 days after receiving her COVID vaccine. According to her VAERS report, the girl received her first dose of Pfizer on Aug. 1.
Two weeks later, she complained of vague upper back pain and was diagnosed with a rare soft tissue cancer located on her heart despite having no previous medical history. Parents requested a VAERS report be filed in case her cancer was related to the vaccine. Her cancer and heart condition rapidly and progressively worsened and she died Dec 1.
61 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
571 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 561 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
143 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Dec. 10, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:
19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 42% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
An advisory panel to the CDC on Thursday voted 15 – 0 to “preferentially recommend” mRNA COVID vaccines Pfizer and Moderna over the J&J shot for adults 18 years and older.
The recommendation came after the agency’s advisory panel said the rate of rare blood-clotting disorders following the J&J vaccine was higher than expected.
The CDC signed off on the panel’s updated guidance late Thursday.
The panel effectively discouraged vaccine providers and adults from using J&J’s shot but stopped short of recommending the vaccine be pulled from the market. The interim recommendation applies to J&J’s primary series vaccine dose and the booster dose.
The CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force excluded “reports where [the] only thrombosis is ischemic stroke or myocardial infarction,” which significantly reduced the number of cases involving blood-clotting disorders.
16,000 physicians and scientists say kids shouldn’t get COVID vaccines
COVID vaccines are “irreversible and potentially permanently damaging,” said Dr. Robert Malone, in a statement explaining why 16,000 physicians and medical scientists around the world signed a declaration publicly declaring healthy children should not be vaccinated against COVID.
Malone said the viral gene injected into children’s cells forces the body to make toxic spike proteins that could cause irreparable damage to critical organs. The novel technology used by the vaccines has not been adequately tested, Malone said.
Malone said there is no benefit for children to be vaccinated against the small risks of a virus, given the COVID injuries parents, or their children, may have to live with for the rest of their lives.
Doctor says ‘many lives are being destroyed by government’s failure to recognize natural immunity
Dr. Marty Makary, a public health researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, on Tuesday, accused government officials of practicing “modern-day McCarthyism” against anyone who suggests young healthy people, especially those who recovered from COVID, don’t need booster shots.
Makary told members of the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis some COVID policies have become “too extreme, too rigid and are no longer driven by clinical data.”
Makary criticized the CDC’s rush to push boosters for 16- and 17-year-olds based on lab experiments suggesting boosters raise antibody levels against Omicron.
He reminded committee members that, despite a combined annual budget of about $58 billion, neither the CDC nor the National Institutes of Health have produced a credible study on natural immunity to COVID.
Studies show Pfizer vaccine less effective against Omicron
As The Defender reported on Dec. 14, three studies released within days of each other showed the PfizerBioNTech COVID vaccine is less effective against the Omicron variant.
According to a preprint study by researchers at the UK’s University of Oxford in England, there’s “a substantial fall in neutralization” of antibodies in the fully vaccinated “with evidence of some recipients failing to neutralize at all.”
According to the study, breakthrough infections in those previously infected or double-vaccinated individuals could increase, although there is currently no evidence of increased potential to cause severe disease, hospitalization or death.
As though a self-identified nuclear alliance which reserves the right to the first use of nuclear weapons, which has 70 members and partners (120 in all if the collective partnership with the African Union is factored in) on six continents, including eight members and as many partners which have land and sea borders with Russia, and that has waged unprovoked wars on three continents will instantaneously and miraculously transform itself into a reliable “security partner” – perhaps on the occasion of a star appearing over Bethlehem.
The very Russia it was established, is being maintained and has expanded to contain and confront.
If the 18th century Russian fabulist Krylov could return to life he might be commissioned to compose a tale in which the clever fox convinces sheep that the wolf has been transmogrified into one of them, no longer fitted with fangs and claws, desiring only to graze on weeds and shrubs: with which consequences it’s not hard to imagine.
The following excerpts are from this morning’s TASS:
Russian Foreign Ministry published a draft agreement on guarantees of security between Russia and the United States Friday. The document includes eight articles and covers the main aspects of mutual guarantees of security between Moscow and Washington.
The document reflects the calls, repeatedly voiced by Moscow in the past, and offers a solution to the accumulated problems and threats, including those that emerged after Washington withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
NATO eastward expansion
“The United States of America shall take measures to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and deny accession to the Alliance to the former USSR republics,” the treaty says.
Besides, the Russian draft stipulates US’ obligation not to establish military bases in former Soviet states that are not NATO members, not to use their infrastructure to carry out any military activity, and not to develop bilateral military cooperation with them.
US and NATO keep putting forward ultimatums in response to Moscow’s proposals on security guarantees, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told a briefing on Friday.
“Of course, we saw the NATO statement released late last night. There is nothing new, except the statement that relevant proposals have been examined, and then the same argument and position which we have been listening to for many years,” the diplomat said responding to a question from TASS.
In this regard, Ryabkov advised his NATO colleagues to “abandon their own cliches,” their accustomed behavioral patterns and “misconceived paternalism.”
“We were told yesterday that it is up to Moscow, whether relations will look up. So, it is for NATO and, in particular, for the US. If Washington is not able to choose on its own and agree to the negotiations we propose, then let them consult further. We have learned that the strongest side of the alliance is its unity. Let’s see where the lowest common point is and who dictates it in the North Atlantic Alliance, budling [sic] the US stance,” he concluded.
The US and NATO haven’t shown readiness to hold talks with Russia on security guarantees, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said at a news conference on Friday.
“We don’t have any grounds yet to say they (the US and NATO – TASS) are ready to start talks, which we are proposing to start literally tomorrow because the issue is pressing,” the diplomat said.
Ryabkov didn’t rule out the West may try to delay the talks.
“On the other coast, they excel at using tactics, procedures and processes the way they need, so that if they aren’t comfortable, substantive work doesn’t take place or gets delayed so that everything eventually comes to nothing,” he said. “It’s a risk.”
The diplomat said it’s very hard to agree on things when the interests of Russia, on the one hand, and the US and NATO, on the other hand, are as different as they are at the moment.
But “the responsibility of the politicians that deal with European security on the other side, I hope, is sufficient to make the only right choice and agree to the Russian proposals,” he said.
Russia on Friday released draft agreements titled the Treaty Between the US and Russia on Security Guarantees and On Measures to Ensure the Security of the Russian Federation and Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The proposals were handed over to a US representative at a meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry on December 15.
In an overwhelming and heartbreaking description of the surge of Nazism in Ukraine, Ms. Elena Berezhnaya, of the Ukranian Anti-Fascist-League described the scourge of neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, which were tacitly, and often actively supported by the Ukranian government “authorities,” undoubtedly on whose behalf they were rampaging throughout Ukraine.
Makary zeroed in on 
