Tulsa Commemorates Centenary of 1921 Race Massacre

By Abayomi Azikiwe, May 27, 2021

Previously coined as the “Tulsa Riot”, was in actuality a full-scale assault on the rights of African Americans to live in peace and stability in the United States. During the course of a two-day rampage by gangs of armed white men accompanied by the police and National Guard, it is estimated that 300 African Americans were killed.

Chloroquine Is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread

By Martin J Vincent, Eric Bergeron, and et al., May 27, 2021

We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.

The ‘Great Reset’: A Technocratic Agenda that Waited Years for a Global Crisis to Exploit

By Tim Hinchliffe, May 27, 2021

In the face of a global pandemic, an un-elected body of global bureaucrats based in Davos, Switzerland has asked the world to trust its vision of a technocratic “great reset,” knowing full well the public would never go for such a request had it not been for the golden opportunity they’d all been waiting for.

China: Towards Capitalist Restoration. Michel Chossudovsky

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 26, 2021

I started reviewing Chinese economic history including the structures of the factory system prior to 1949, the development of the treaty ports established in the wake of the Opium wars (1842) and came to the realization that what was being reinstated in terms of the special economic zones, the open door policy had been influenced by the history of the treaty ports, which granted extraterritorial rights to Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and Japan.

Why the EU Sides Against China

By Manlio Dinucci, May 26, 2021

On May 20 the European Parliament froze the ratification of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. The agreement was signed by the European Commission after seven years of negotiations last December. The resolution was approved by an overwhelming majority:  599 votes in favor, 30 against and 58 abstentions.

The FDA Cover-up that Led to the Approval of the Pfizer Vaccine

By Jon Rappoport, May 26, 2021

The document, posted on the FDA website, is titled, “Vaccines and Related Biological Products; Advisory Committee Meeting; FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” It is dated December 10, 2020. The date tells us that all the information in the document is taken from the Pfizer clinical trial, based on which the FDA authorized the vaccine for public use.

Bombshell Video, Leaked Documents Detail How Facebook Censors Vaccine Facts When They Don’t Fit CDC, Big Pharma Narrative

By Megan Redshaw, May 26, 2021

Investigative journalist James O’Keefe from Project Veritas on Monday released a bombshell video of two Facebook insiders blowing the whistle on the tech giant’s effort to secretly censor — on a global scale — COVID vaccine questions and concerns. The Facebook whistleblowers alleged the company is pushing an initiative to censor vaccine hesitancy on its platform.

India: Vaccine Drive in Uttar Pradesh Goes Awry, Villagers Jump into River to Evade Jab

By ummid.com, May 26, 2021

Despite a sustained campaign and widespread publicity, vaccine hesitancy continues to prevail in the rural hinterlands of Uttar Pradesh where the pandemic is spreading its tentacles. In Sisoda village in Barabanki — where a group of residents jumped into the Saryu river to evade vaccination on Sunday — the residents remain firm in their decision of not getting the jab.

The Accelerating Destruction of Earth’s Biodiversity: When Will We Act?

By Robert J. Burrowes, May 26, 2021

In their report compiled in 2017, Professors Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich & Rodolfo Dirzo recorded that Earth continues to experience ‘a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization.

America Dominant Again (in Arms Sales)

By William Hartung, May 26, 2021

n April of this year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published its annual analysis of trends in global arms sales and the winner — as always — was the U.S. of A. Between 2016 and 2020, this country accounted for 37% of total international weapons deliveries, nearly twice the level of its closest rival, Russia, and more than six times that of Washington’s threat du jour, China.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The ‘Great Reset’: A Technocratic Agenda that Waited Years for a Global Crisis to Exploit

Tulsa Commemorates Centenary of 1921 Race Massacre

May 27th, 2021 by Abayomi Azikiwe

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

May 31-June 1 represents the 100th anniversary of the attack by white mobs against an entire African American community in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

This somber centenary is being marked with numerous press reports and television segments about a racist massacre which has been largely hidden since the 1920s.

Previously coined as the “Tulsa Riot”, was in actuality a full-scale assault on the rights of African Americans to live in peace and stability in the United States. During the course of a two-day rampage by gangs of armed white men accompanied by the police and National Guard, it is estimated that 300 African Americans were killed.

In addition to the murders, hundreds of families had their homes, churches, fraternal organizations and small businesses destroyed. The belongings of the victims were stolen by the white mobs and authorities while several hundreds Black people were unlawfully detained for several days in the aftermath of the massacre.

The Greenwood Business District in Tulsa was largely owned and operated by African Americans. The educator and founder of Tuskegee Institute, Booker T. Washington, had labelled Greenwood Street and adjacent areas in Tulsa as “Black Wall Street” due to the proliferation of African American owned businesses. Washington in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a proponent of Black business development as a means to overcome national oppression.

Of course, Washington’s views were challenged on a political and ideological level by African American leaders such as Dr. W.E.B. DuBois, Monroe Trotter, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, among others. Nonetheless, the targeting of an entire community based on false allegations of an assault against a Caucasian woman in a department store elevator, prompted shock and outrage within the Black community during the early 1920s.

Tulsa African American church burned in race massacre of 1921 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

The Tulsa massacre occurred within an historical context where lynching, false imprisonment and capital punishment were directed towards containing the African American people. Any efforts aimed at creating a semi-independent existence away from the total domination by the racist system were often attacked through mob violence.

Although “separate but equal” and Jim Crow were enshrined within the legal framework of the U.S. by the close of the 19th century, Blacks were not allowed to build any institutions which would threaten the total domination of the nationally oppressive system of racism and super-exploitation.

Tulsa Finally Recognizes Race Massacre

Within Tulsa and surrounding areas, the centenary is being promoted even within the corporate media. There are reports that President Joe Biden will visit Tulsa in order to participate in the events surrounding the commemoration.

An article reprinted in USA Today from the Oklahoman newspaper says of the anniversary events that:

“President Joe Biden will visit Tulsa on June 1 to mark the centennial of the Tulsa Race Massacre, according to the White House.  Biden’s visit will cap off a long weekend full of events, speakers and concerts to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the tragedy that marks one of the lowest points in Oklahoma history. Last week, voting rights activist and Georgia politician Stacey Abrams was announced as the keynote speaker at the ‘Remember & Rise’ Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial commemoration event.”

This presence by the president of the U.S. represents a departure from the official denial that the incident never took place within Oklahoman history. The events of 1921 were not recognized by the educational institutions in the state and therefore were never taught for many decades in schools or universities.

There have also been other attempts to minimize and trivialize the magnitude of the massacre and the destruction of property. Reports of the use of airplanes to drop incendiary devices on homes, churches and businesses were denied officially up until recently.

Two Known Survivors Speak on the Events of 1921

The broader knowledge and understanding of the race massacre in Tulsa during May-June 1921 has provided a platform for survivors to discuss their recollections of events. One survivor, who is said to be the oldest at 107, Ms. Viola Fletcher, testified before a panel in the U.S. Congress during May.

Fletcher said that she was seven years old at the time of the massacre. She noted that the memories are still quite vivid. She said that this had been her first time visiting the capital of the U.S. and that justice for the victims and their descendants was imperative.

A quote from Fletcher in her speech before Congress said:

“I will never forget the violence of the white mob when we left our home. I still see Black men being shot, Black bodies lying in the street. I still smell smoke and see fire. I still see Black businesses being burned. I still hear airplanes flying overhead. I hear the screams. I have lived through the massacre every day.”

Archaeologists and forensic scientists have been examining an area in Tulsa where mass burials of victims took place. Over the last year more information on the location and the examination of the burial site has been published in various press agencies.

The existence of mass graves has been denied as well by Oklahoman authorities. Fortunately, the oral history of the survivors provided a guide to finding the location of the massacre victims.

During her testimony before Congress, Fletcher also emphasized:

“Our country may forget this history, but I cannot. I will not and other survivors do not, and our descendants do not. When my family was forced to leave Tulsa, I lost my chance of an education. I never finished school past the fourth grade. I have never made much money. My country, state and city took a lot from me. Despite this, I spent time supporting the war effort in the shipyards of California. But most of my life, I was a domestic worker serving white families. I never made much money. To this day, I can barely afford my everyday needs. All the while the city of Tulsa has unjustly used the names and stories of victims like me to enrich itself and its white allies through the $30m raised by the Tulsa Centennial Commission while I continue to live in poverty.”

Another survivor, Lessie Evelyn Benningfield Randle, 106, spoke to Congress noting:

“It means a lot to me to finally be able to look at you all in the eye and ask you to do the right thing. I have waited so long for justice.”

The survivors were given a standing ovation by members of Congress present in the room. Yet the demand for reparations over the last two decades has not been met by the State of Oklahoma or the U.S. government which today is profiting from the broad interest in the massacre of a century ago.

Tulsa African Americans taken into custody after their community was destroyed in 1921 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Oklahoma Governor Removed from Tulsa Centennial Commission

There is a struggle unfolding again within the U.S. over how to teach or ignore the legacies of racism and national oppression. Several states such as Oklahoma have passed legislation banning what they describe as “critical race theory” from being taught in K-12 educational institutions. Other states such as Louisiana and Georgia are developing legislation in order to ban the teaching of the actual history and social development of the U.S.

This is not a new development since the advent of African American, Black and Pan-African Studies in K-12 and higher education resulted from a political struggle waged by people since at least the 1960s. The notion of “critical race theory” can be defined by the capitalist class and right-wing politicians as anything they deemed to be undesirable. Documented scholarship on the origins, character and social impact of African enslavement along with racist violence, such as the Tulsa massacre, could be prohibited from discussion in these states.

When Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, a ceremonial member of the Tulsa Centennial Commission, signed into law the bill that outlaws the teaching of social studies which does not glorify white supremacist mythology about the U.S., other members of the body voted to have him removed. The ultimate logic of these laws would in essence prohibit an honest evaluation of the events of 1921 in Tulsa.

The history of African and other oppressed peoples in the U.S. has been one of exploitation and state-sanctioned violence designed to suppress the struggle for equality, self-determination and liberation. Although the Tulsa race massacre been exposed for the world to see, the ultimate objective is to remove the system that continues to oppress and exploit the people of color communities in the U.S.

*

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 Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Tulsa fires burn during race massacre of May-June 1921 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Video: War-torn Syria Takes to the Voting Polls

May 27th, 2021 by South Front

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.

***

In Iraq, attacks on various US positions are becoming the norm, rather than incidents that seldom take place.

IED attacks on American convoys are simply an everyday occurrence now.

On May 24th, rockets were fired at Ain Al Asad Air Base in western Iraq’s Anbar province.

According to the spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve, one rocket was fired. Some other sources reported their number was at least 5.

No casualties or damages were reported.

The attack took place two days after the Iraqi Resistance coordination room had issued a statement threatening the US forces of resuming attacks.

May 23rd, just one day before the attack, 6 US logistical convoys were reportedly targeted with roadside bombs in various regions of Iraq.

The explosions were reported in Babylon, Aldewanea, Alsmewa, Alnasrea and Basrah regions.

The attacks on US supply convoys and facilities in Iraq are a response to the assassination of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Deputy-Commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units, and Commander of Iran’s Quds Force, Qassim Soleimani.

In neighboring Syria, the situation appears calm, as citizens take to the voting polls in the presidential election.

On May 26, 12,102 election centers opened in all provinces for Syrian citizens, as the number of eligible voters registered inside and abroad Syria has reached more than 18 million.

There are three candidates: Abdullah Abdullah, Bashar al-Assad and Mahmoud Mar’ai.

The US, UK, France, Germany and Italy released a statement claiming Syria’s elections are “neither free nor fair.”

Their foreign ministers said the elections should be put under UN supervision “to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability.”

Their joint statement reads that all Syrians should be able to participate in the voting process, including Syrian refugees living abroad.

The al-Qaeda-affiliated “moderate opposition” slammed the elections as “illegitimate”. The Istanbul-based “Syrian National Council” said that the only acceptable elections were those in which Bashar al-Assad didn’t take part.

Still, the ability to hold elections in most of the country and establish some sort of normalcy is a result of the efforts of the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian support. Including measures for containing ISIS, and the “moderate opposition” in Greater Idlib and the northern parts of the country.

Despite efforts to rebrand terrorists such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, the situation is slowly but steadily normalizing in Syria. Some refugees are returning to their homeland, and certain parts of the country have already been rebuilt. A lot of problems remain, of course, but the overall trajectory is a positive one.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This article was originally published on Virology Journal in 2005.

Abstract

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.

Results

We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

Conclusion

Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

Read the full article 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.

Full authors

Martin J VincentEric BergeronSuzanne BenjannetBobbie R EricksonPierre E RollinThomas G KsiazekNabil G SeidahStuart T Nichol

Featured image is from InfoBrics

First published in November 2020

In the face of a global pandemic, an un-elected body of global bureaucrats based in Davos, Switzerland has asked the world to trust its vision of a technocratic “great reset,” knowing full well the public would never go for such a request had it not been for the golden opportunity they’d all been waiting for.

When the head of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Klaus Schwab, announced in June that “Now is the time for a great reset,” it wasn’t the first time he called for it.

In fact, he called on the WEF to start the great reset over five years ago (see video below), but this year he’s saying that COVID-19 is the most urgent reason to restructure all of society and the global economy.

The great reset agenda was already in place long before the coronavirus pandemic, and the WEF was just waiting for a crisis to exploit it.

Prior to this year, implementing worldwide lockdowns that destroy businesses, wreck the economy, and leave people destitute and stripped of their constitutional rights while trying to enact invasive contact tracing, immunity passports, and otherwise massive bio-electronic surveillance apparatuses would never have been accepted by the citizens of a free society

The so-called great reset is an old ideology touted for decades by globalists like Henry Kissinger, who opined in 2014, “Never before has a new world order had to be assembled from so many different perceptions, or on so global a scale.”

The great reset is the proposed mechanism for setting in motion a new global order, but it wouldn’t be possible to bring forth such a bold plan without a global crisis, be it manufactured or of unfortunate happenstance, that shocks society to its core.

“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

In this story, I will attempt to dissect:

  • What types of invasive surveillance technologies will be required by the great reset
  • Why the great reset is being re-branded and pushed in 2020
  • How the Davos crowd is trying to sell the great reset Utopia
  • Who will be asked to give up their privacy for the common good
  • When humans become hackable
  • Where you have the power to choose

With the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic, the WEF has the perfect excuse to quickly enact its vision for steering society towards a more invasive and intrusive, technocratic future in the name of serving the common good.

The un-elected architects of the great reset envision a Utopian world of inclusivity, equality, and sustainability that will require trust in emerging technologies like AI, 5G, Blockchain, and robotics, in order to usher in their golden dawn.

WEF Great Reset Agenda

Great Reset Will Require Trust in Invasive Surveillance Tech: WEF Promotes Health Passports & Contact Tracing

In order to bring about the great reset, it will require trust in the technology, and to be more specific, the WEF would like to have greater trust in “crisis-relevant tech,” which includes developing digital health passports and contact tracing, under a new form of internet governance.

“The use of digital technology during the COVID-19 crisis offers clear lessons […] Target mistrust broadly to enable specific crisis-relevant tech” — Daniel Dobrygowski, WEF

“The Great Reset will require new institutions and business models, and new digital technologies to build them,” wrote the WEF Head of Corporate Governance and Trust, Daniel Dobrygowski, in a blog post. “The necessary collaboration, however, is only possible if we solve the digital trust problem,” he added.

According to the Dobrygowski, “The use of digital technology during the COVID-19 crisis offers clear lessons,” one of those being, “Target mistrust broadly to enable specific crisis-relevant tech.”

The WEF openly supports the development of so-called “crisis-relevant tech” as evidenced by its backing the development of health passports, which act as digital records of your health status to determine whether or not you are free to travel or even go outside.

Earlier this year the WEF announced it was supporting the development and launch of CommonPass— a platform whose mission is “to develop and launch a standard global model to enable people to securely document and present their COVID-19 status (either as test results or an eventual vaccination status) to facilitate international travel and border crossing while keeping their health information private.”

“Contact tracing apps can be powerful weapons against the virus – but they can also be tools for state surveillance” — WEF report

The WEF also lent its support to another health passport initiative called CovidPass, which was built by one of the WEF’s own “Young Global Leaders,” Mustapha Mokass, who used to be an advisor at the World Bank.

CovidPass “uses blockchain technology to store encrypted data from individual blood tests, allowing users to prove that they have tested negative for COVID-19.”

In supporting both CommonPass and CovidPass, the Davos elite have made it clear they want “crisis-relevant tech” like health passports to be part of the great reset solution.

Ask yourself, would the idea of being forced to electronically prove your current health status in order to travel or even leave your own home have been acceptable 10 months ago?

Why is this happening now?

The die was cast years ago, but only now do the Davos elite see a shrinking, yet golden opportunity, to create a new world order out of the coronavirus chaos.

COVID Presents a ‘Shrinking, Golden Opportunity’, Great Reset Is Not a Response to the Coronavirus

In June Prince Charles praised the great reset agenda for its potential to “make people more receptive to big visions of change” after having suffered through “unprecedented schockwaves.”

“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,” the prince told the WEF.

Would the idea of being forced to electronically prove your current health status in order to travel or even leave your own home have been acceptable 10 months ago?

Prince Charles may have let on more than he cared to share, or thought you would notice. Again, he’s telling you that the great reset was always the plan. COVID-19 is the excuse.

In other words, the coronavirus crisis presents a golden opportunity for the global establishment to further its agenda upon a frightful and angry population that has been so beaten down by the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns that they will have become more susceptible to giving over their freedoms to the idea of greater centralized power and control.

Prince Charles went on, “As we move from rescue to recovery, we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again.”

“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change” — Prince Charles

The British royal’s words echo those of WEF Director Schwab, who said, “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.”

Again, why is the window of opportunity so narrow? Could the seeds of their grand strategy only flower while the world was distracted and divided amidst the chaos?

The Lure of Utopia Has Many Hooks: Giving Up Privacy & Freedom for the Common Good

Prior to this year, implementing worldwide lockdowns that destroy businesses, wreck the economy, and leave people destitute and stripped of their constitutional rights while trying to enact invasive contact tracing, immunity passports, and otherwise massive bio-electronic surveillance apparatuses would never have been accepted by the citizens of a free society.

But the coronavirus pandemic has opened a “narrow window” for a “golden opportunity,” and once this crisis is over, the Davos club fears that the window may be shut forever.

The WEF admits in its own contact tracing governance framework that “Contact tracing apps can be powerful weapons against the virus – but they can also be tools for state surveillance.”

Yet, the WEF believes that people should balance certain freedoms to serve the common good. It is a global vision without a clear end, and it is one that flies in the face of constitutional republics that protect certain unalienable rights.

“This new mindset would balance concerns over privacy and other issues with the potential to create value and improve lives” — WEF report

According to the WEF framework, enacting contact tracing technology would “not be easy and will require a new social consensus that embraces the use of technology to resolve problems for the good of all.”

Additionally, “This new mindset would balance concerns over privacy and other issues with the potential to create value and improve lives.”

In order to enact invasive technologies upon the population, citizens of the world will have to realize that it’s for the greater good and that they should change their mindsets to be less concerned about “privacy and other issues” and more excited about “the potential to create value and improve lives.”

The great reset “will require stronger and more effective governments […] and it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way” — Klaus Schwab, WEF

Just about every proponent of contact tracing and health passports, including the WEF, all declare that technology should be used and governed ethically, but you hardly see any mention of winning the consent of the people.

Instead, they lobby stakeholders and policymakers to carry the torch in imparting the global vision from the top of the capstone and on-down.

“As we move from rescue to recovery, we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again” — Prince Charles

If the coronavirus were to disappear from the earth today, would the WEF have to wait for a new global crisis, or would it push-on with the same reset agenda, regardless?

According to the WEF director, the great reset “will require stronger and more effective governments […] and it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way.”

“The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions,” he added. “We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems.”

In creating order out of the coronavirus chaos, the great reset promises to bring about “a more secure, more equal, and more stable world.”

Is that how they plan to win our trust? By promising us a Utopia if we just go along with it?

Bio-Electronic Surveillance and Hackable Humans

We haven’t even gotten into how the great reset would affect the world’s money system and the role of blockchain and digital payments, but when you look at digital health passports and contact tracing apps, you are looking at sophisticated form of bio-electronic surveillance that the world has never been seen before.

“We are no longer mysterious souls; we are now hackable animals” — Yuval Harari, WEF

When you combine biological data with advanced computing power, what you get is the ability to hack humans.

Speaking in Davos over the past few years, historian Yuval Harari has stated that “organisms are algorithms” and that “new technologies will soon give some corporations and governments the ability to hack human beings.”

“The power to hack human beings can of course be used for good purposes like provided much better healthcare,” said Harari, adding, “but if this power falls into the hands of a 21st Century Stalin, the result will be the worst totalitarian regime in human history, and we already have a number of applicants for the job of 21st Century Stalin.”

“In Stalin’s USSR the State monitored members of the Communist elite more than anyone else. The same will be true of future total surveillance regimes.”

The great reset calls to restructure every aspect of society, and it can only do so if people trust the increasingly invasive, bio-electronic surveillance technology they wish to deploy.

“In Stalin’s USSR the State monitored members of the Communist elite more than anyone else. The same will be true of future total surveillance regimes” — Yuval Harari, WEF

The more people know that someone is watching them, the more they will change their behavior. Just being aware that someone is monitoring your every digital transaction, will cause you to conform to certain norms.

As a population grows-up under massive surveillance, it will adapt its behavior to appear normal to society but compliant to authority. Over time, the citizens will police themselves out of fear.

Take a look at Communist China’s surveillance state, and you will see what I mean.

The WEF Wants to Win Your Trust, You Have a Choice

Tyranny arrives in subtle stages. It’s slow at first, but before you realize it even exists, it has already won.

That is what I see happening with the unholy merger of “the great reset” with “the new normal.”

Those who pull the strings have been begging for a global crisis to unleash their worldwide restructuring of society and the economy.

This year, in the face of a global pandemic, an un-elected body of global lobbyists based in Davos, Switzerland has asked you to have faith in their vision of a technocratic Utopia, knowing full well they could never issue such a request had it not been for the golden opportunity they had all been waiting for.

And that is where your power lies, dear reader. It’s your choice.

You can believe the WEF vision shared by some of the world’s most influential bureaucrats, or you can be skeptical of the whole establishment agenda that asks you to just trust the plan.

*

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.

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]

Why the EU Sides Against China

May 26th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On May 20 the European Parliament froze the ratification of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. The agreement was signed by the European Commission after seven years of negotiations last December. The resolution was approved by an overwhelming majority:  599 votes in favor, 30 against and 58 abstentions. It is formally motivated as a response to Chinese sanctions against members of the European Parliament.  Beijing decided the sanctions after its officials were subjected to sanctions on the accusation, rejected by China, of violating human rights in particular the Uighurs’ rights. EU lawmakers argued that while Chinese sanctions are illegal because they violate international law, European sanctions are legal because they are based on the human rights defense sanctioned by the United Nations.

What is the real reason behind the “defense of human rights in China” screen? The strategy, launched and led by Washington, to recruit European countries in the coalition against Russia and China. The fundamental lever of this operation is the fact that 21 of 27 countries of the European Union are NATO members under US command. In the front row against China, as well as against Russia, there are the Eastern countries. They are  NATO and  EU members at the same time. They more linked to Washington than to Brussels, so they increase the US influence on EU foreign politics. The EU politics  basically follows the US policy, especially through NATO. However, not all US allies are on the same level: Germany and France negotiate under the table with the United States on the basis of their mutual convenience, Italy instead obeys and keeps silent to the detriment of its own interests. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg can thus declare at the end of the meeting with French President Macron on May 21: “We will uphold the international rules-based order against the authoritarian push-back from countries like Russia and China”.

NATO has until now overshadowed the “threat” of China by focusing its strategy against Russia, but is now placing China on the same level. This decision comes in the wake of what they are doing in Washington. Here the strategy against China is about to become law. The draft law S.1169 on Strategic Competition with China was presented to the United States Senate on April 15, on the bipartisan initiative of the Democrat Menendez and the Republican Risch. The motivation for this law leaves no doubt that  it is an all-out confrontation:

 The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is leveraging its political, diplomatic, economic, military, technological, and ideological power to become a strategic, near-peer, global competitor of the United States. The policies increasingly pursued by the PRC in these domains are contrary to the interests and values of the United States, its partners, and much of the rest of the world”.

On this basis, the US Senate Strategic Competition Act will establish political, economic, technological, media, military, and other measures against China, aimed at targeting and isolating this country. It is a real declaration of war, and not figuratively. Admiral Davidson, who heads the US Indo-Pacific Command, asked the Congress for $ 27 billion to build a curtain of missile bases and satellite systems around China, including a constellation of space-platform radars. Meanwhile, US military pressure on China is increasing: missile launching warships of the Seventh Fleet cross in the South China Sea, US Air Force strategic bombers have been deployed on the island of Guam in the West Pacific, while the US Navy Triton drones have been approached to China by transferring them from Guam to Japan. 

In the footsteps of the United States, NATO is also extending its strategy to East Asia and the Pacific where – Stoltenberg announced – “We need to militarily strengthen together with close partners such as Australia and Japan“. The European Parliament has therefore not simply taken another step in the “sanctions war” against China. The EU Parliament took another step to bring Europe to 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.

This article was originally published on Il Manifesto, translated to English from Italian.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As I’ve been documenting for the past year, the COVID experts have been contradicting themselves six ways from Sunday. As charlatans, they’re abject failures. They can’t keep their own story straight.

Thanks to an alert reader, I’ve come across a new blockbuster.

BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS, the FDA should never have allowed the Pfizer COVID vaccine to be shot into a single arm. The Agency’s Emergency Use Authorization was a crime—according to their own data.

Here we go.

The document, posted on the FDA website, is titled, “Vaccines and Related Biological Products; Advisory Committee Meeting; FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” [1]

It is dated December 10, 2020. The date tells us that all the information in the document is taken from the Pfizer clinical trial, based on which the FDA authorized the vaccine for public use.

A key quote is buried on page 42: “Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group [who received a saltwater shot].”

Those shocking numbers have never seen the light of day in news media.

The comparative numbers reveal that the vaccine was not effective at preventing COVID-19. It was certainly not 50% more effective than no vaccine at all—the standard for FDA Emergency Use Authorization.

To make all this clear, I need to back up and explain the theory of the vaccine clinical trial.

The researchers assumed the SARS-CoV-2 virus was spreading everywhere in the world, and during the clinical trial, it would descend on some volunteers.

The billion-dollar question was: how many people receiving the vaccine would become infected, vs. how many people in the placebo group?

If it turned out that FAR FEWER people getting the vaccine became infected with SARS-CoV-2, the vaccine would be hailed as a success. It protected people against the virus.

But as you can see from the numbers above, that wasn’t the case at all.

So now we come to the vital weasel-phrase in the FDA document I just quoted: “suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 [cases].”

“Well, you see, we can’t say these were ACTUAL COVID-19 cases. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. They’re in limbo. We want to keep them in limbo. Otherwise, our clinical trial is dead in the water, and we’ll never get approval for the vaccine.”

What does “suspected cases” mean? It can only mean these people all displayed symptoms consistent with the definition of COVID-19, but they’re unconfirmed cases because…their PCR tests were negative, not positive.

However, if their tests were negative, why would they be called “suspected cases” instead of “NOT CASES”?

Something is wrong here. The FDA is hedging its bets, muddying the waters, obscuring facts.

By FDA/CDC rules, a case of COVID-19 means: a person has tested positive, period.

That’s the way cases are counted.

These several thousand volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial were either COVID-19 cases or they weren’t. Which is it?

The official response to that question is obvious: the FDA decided to throw the data from all those suspected cases in the garbage and ignore them. Poof. Gone.

Why do I say that?

Because if the FDA had paid serious attention to the several thousand “suspected cases,” they never would have authorized the vaccine for public use. They would have stopped the clinical trial and undertaken a very deep and extensive investigation.

Which they didn’t.

This is called a crime.

“But…but it’s not that simple. This is a complex situation. It’s a gray area.”

“No. It isn’t. If you were running a clinical trial of a new drug, and a few thousand people in the trial, who were given the drug, nevertheless came down with the disease symptoms the drug was supposed to cure, wouldn’t you cancel the trial and go back to the drawing board?”

“You mean if we were being honest? That’s a joke, right? We’re not honest. Don’t you get it?”

Yes. I get it. You’re criminals. Killers.

But wait. There’s more. The FDA document also states: “Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.”

That’s explosive. Right after vaccination, 409 people who received the shots became “suspected COVID cases.” This alone should have been enough to stop the clinical trial altogether. But it wasn’t.

In fact, the FDA document tries to excuse those 409 cases with a slippery comment: “It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days post vaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.”

Translation: You see, a number of clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and adverse effects from the vaccine are the same. Therefore, we have no idea whether the vaccinated people developed COVID or were just reacting to the vaccine. So we’re going to ignore this whole mess and pretend it’s of no importance.

Back in April of 2020, I predicted the vaccine manufacturers would use this strategy to explain away COVID cases occurring in the vaccine groups of their clinical trials.

It’s called cooking the data. It’s a way of writing off and ignoring COVID symptoms in the vaccine group—and instead saying, “The vaccine is safe and effective.”

And the FDA document, as I stated above, just puts an impenetrable cloud over all the volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial by inventing a category called “suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases,” and throwing those crucial data away, never to be spoken of again.

I’m speaking about them now. Any sensible person, looking at them, would conclude that the vaccine should never have been authorized.

Unless fraud, deception, profits, and destruction of human life via the vaccine were and are the true goals.

Finally: When you have “suspected cases,” and their ultimate status depends on doing a test, you do the test. You do it as many times as you need to, until it registers positive or negative. Then each “suspected case” becomes an actual case or no case at all.

Perhaps these “suspected cases” in the clinical trial were tested, and many of them came up positive, revealing they were actual COVID cases—but the researchers lied and covered up the fact that they were tested.

Or if you really don’t want to know whether “suspected cases” are actual cases, you don’t test them. You leave them in a convenient limbo and park them, never to be seen again.

Either way, the situation is patently absurd. By official standards, the PCR test decides whether a person is a case or not a case. Just do the test. Saying “we don’t know” is nothing more than a con and a hustle.

I’d love to hear the researchers try to talk their way out of this one. Here is how the conversation might go:

“So you’re saying these several thousand suspected COVID cases couldn’t be adjudicated one way or another?”

“That’s right. Their PCR tests were ‘indeterminate’.”

“That says something devastating about the test itself.”

“Well, sometimes you just can’t tell whether it’s positive or negative.”

“I see. And this ‘indeterminate’ result occurred in SEVERAL THOUSAND suspected cases.”

“I guess so, yes.”

“You know, you could have done something else with these suspected cases. A different test. You could have taken tissue samples and looked for the virus itself in a more direct way.”

“No. That wouldn’t work.”

“Why not?”

“Because…the actual virus…”

“Because no one has been able to come up with a specimen of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

“Right.”

“So tell me—what does that indicate? I’ll tell you what it indicates. You can’t prove the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists.

“I have to go. I’m late for a meeting.”

“You’re late for more than just a meeting. Is it true a person becomes a virologist by cutting out a coupon from the back of a comic book and mailing it to a PO Box in Maryland?’

“Absolutely not. That’s outrageous.”

“What then?”

“The PO Box is in Virginia.”

*

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 author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Notes

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

Featured image is from FiercePharma

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.

***

Investigative journalist James O’Keefe from Project Veritas on Monday released a bombshell video of two Facebook insiders blowing the whistle on the tech giant’s effort to secretly censor — on a global scale — COVID vaccine questions and concerns.

The Facebook whistleblowers alleged the company is pushing an initiative to censor vaccine hesitancy on its platform.

According to new leaked documents, the social media giant uses algorithms to target users who disseminate messaging that runs counter to the company’s political ideology and vaccine narrative — even if the comments are factually accurate.

An internal memo obtained by Project Veritas explained “Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion.” O’Keefe told Sean Hannity on Monday that Facebook initiated a “beta” test for the algorithm that classifies some users under two incremental tiers of what they dub “vaccine hesitancy” or a “VH Score,” and does so without the user’s knowledge.

The stated goal of the new feature is to “drastically reduce user exposure” to “VH” comments, O’Keefe’s team reported, and decrease “other engagement of VH comments including create, likes, reports [and] replies.”

“Based on that VH score, we will demote or leave the comment alone depending on the content within the comment,” an anonymous whistleblower said.

The insider, who is described by O’Keefe as a “data center technician” for Facebook, revealed the tech giant was running the “test” on 1.5% of its 3.8 billion users with the focus on the comments sections on “authoritative health pages.”

“They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page, before you even see it,” the insider told O’Keefe.

Another leaked document addressed “Borderline Vaccine Framework,” which classifies content with another expressed “goal” to “identify and tier the categories of non-violating content that could discourage vaccination in certain contexts, thereby contributing to vaccine hesitancy or refusal.” The framework states: “We have tiered these by potential harm and how much context is required in order to evaluate harm.”

The ratings are divided into two tiers: “Alarmism & Criticism” and “Indirect Vaccine Discouragement,” which includes celebrating vaccine refusal and “shocking stories” that may deter others from getting vaccinated even if events or facts are potentially or actually true.

The algorithm flags key terms in comments to determine whether or not it can remain in place, but allows human “raters” to make a ruling if the algorithm cannot do so itself.

“What’s remarkable about these private documents that Facebook has not wanted you to see until tonight is that ‘Tier 2’ [violation] says even if the facts are true that you will be targeted and demoted — your comments will be targeted and demoted,” O’Keefe said.

The first whistleblower told O’Keefe that Facebook, led by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, wants to “build a community where everyone complies — not where people can have an open discourse and dialogue about the most personal and private and intimate decisions.”

“The narrative [is] get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you, everyone should get it. If you don’t, you will be singled out as an enemy of society.”

In response to the leaked documents, Facebook told Project Veritas, “We proactively announced this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information.”

O’Keefe, however, said the change in policy has largely been private while Facebook holds itself out as being a free speech town square.

Facebook working with CDC to censor reports of vaccine injury from its own VAERS system

Facebook insiders and leaked internal documents allege the company coordinates with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to censor vaccine content, including reports submitted to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

“So the VAERS is a Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. It looks like [Facebook] is measuring the comments where they’re mentioning where, you know, that the patient died,” said the Facebook whistleblower. “Really they [the CDC] support all of this because you know they release the standards, the CDC themselves. And that’s really one of, one of the primary things that Facebook is basing their policy off of.”

Under Facebook’s Borderline Vaccine Framework, content pointing to VAERS data is censored because it suggests “extreme risk without providing context.”

The insider said Facebook is open about the fact they’re coordinating with the CDC.

Ultimately, any facts that don’t fit a particular narrative are omitted, demoted, deboosted, banned or considered dangerous to society, said O’Keefe.

Children’s Health Defense sues Facebook over censorship

In August 2020, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit charging Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and several fact-checking organizations with censoring truthful public health posts and for fraudulently misrepresenting and defaming the children’s health organization.

The complaint alleges Facebook has “insidious conflicts” with the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies, and details factual allegations regarding the CDC, CDC Foundation and the World Health Organization’s extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg, calling into question Facebook’s collaboration  with the government in a censorship campaign.

Facebook censors CHD’s page, targeting factual information about vaccines, 5G and public health agencies. Facebook-owned Instagram deplatformed CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Feb. 10 without notice or explanation.

Lawyers for Children’s Health Defense are awaiting the ruling of Judge Susan Illston after defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss in the CHD lawsuit alleging government-sponsored censorship, false disparagement and wire fraud.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

The Internet does not have a Soul or a Spirit

May 26th, 2021 by Katie Singer

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.

***

When I acknowledge the land on which I live and write—as Indigenous People have taught me to do—I feel grateful to that ecosystem. I feel included in it. And so, I say thanks to the land called Northern New Mexico, which has sustained me for thirty years. I thank my parents and grandparents for giving me life, and the land called New York City, where I was born.

Today, I write from the Internet; and so, I thank it for allowing me to share my observations.

The Internet does not have a soul or a spirit. It is not a living creature, not a home or a neighborhood or a country. It is not water, land, metal, air or fire—and yet we use each of these things to manufacture and operate and discard the Internet’s parts. These parts do not absorb carbon dioxide, like a tree, or biodegrade (like living creatures do) when they die.

The Internet provides machine-to-machine communication. It is the largest thing that humanity has built. Its electricity use, fossil fuels, extracted and smelted ores, greenhouse gas emissions, use of chemicals, its toxic waste, worker hazards, fire hazards, degradation of wildlife habitats, impacts to social structures and local authority over environmental and public health policies (its impacts to democracy) are proportionate to its size—and yet most of us users do not see these impacts.

Could we make the Internet’s workings and impacts visible?

Behind the screen, every computer has transistors that process and store data, provide memory and apps. A smartphone uses transistors for GPS, low power microprocessors, sensors, transmitters and receivers (for cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth signals) and noise filtering microphones. Transistors are made from silicon, an element not found in nature in pure form. Manufacturing silicon typically requires pure quartz gravel; a carbon (such as petroleum coke, a byproduct of the Tar Sands, or Blue Gem coal, like that mined in Columbia); and hard, dense, moist wood (like that found in the Amazon rainforest). These three things are transported to a smelter that operates at 3000 degrees Fahrenheit (1649 degrees Celsius) for six or seven years at a time. [1] Because interrupting delivery of electricity to a smelter can blow it up. it cannot be powered by solar or industrial wind facilities, which provide intermittent power. Smelters are powered by coal, nuclear and/or hydro power.

Young people, typically from rural areas, often aiming to send money home to their families, swipe circuit boards in Chinese factories with solvents like n-hexane. N-hexane causes leukemia and neuro-muscular diseases. [4] Copper, which serves as conductors for the circuit board’s signals, is usually mined in Chile. For every kilogram of copper mined, at least 210 kilograms of waste are generated. [5]

Coltan and cobalt, for mobile devices’ batteries, are mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo. More people have been murdered over coltan than any other single event since World War II. [6] Lithium, also for batteries, takes water from communities and farmers. [7] Discarded lithium batteries can contaminate water supplies. [8]

Computers’ raw materials and manufactured parts get transported between continents on container ships powered by dirty bunker fuel that pollutes the oceans. [9] They’re transported on airplanes and trucks and trains (think of the energy and extractions embodied in each of these great vehicles) that need airports, highways and railroads. This is big business. One smartphone has more than 1000 substances, each with its own energy-intensive, toxic waste-emitting supply chain. [10] Looking at a laptop’s cradle-to-grave energy use, 81% will be consumed during design, mining, smelting, shipping of raw materials, manufacturing of chemicals and assembly—before the end-user turns the laptop on for the first time. [11]

The Internet is not sustainable. It depends on ores and fuels that took billions of years to form. Devices become obsolete within a few years. New software that’s incompatible with “old” hardware and can lead consumers to buy new computers. Most electronic parts are not replaceable or recycled. At the end of their usable life, computers and batteries should be treated as hazardous waste.

Here’s another issue: our world is now nearly saturated in man-made electromagnetic radiation (EMR) used by mobile devices and access networks to transmit and receive information, called data. This EMR is not contained in wires. No agency monitors or limits EMR-exposure’s impacts on sperm, pregnant women, babies, children, wildlife habitats or trees. No agency monitors or limits any living creature’s combined or cumulative EMR-exposure. [12, 13]

The biosphere and the techno-sphere  

I’m a writer, nourished by nearness to other living creatures, by nutrient-dense food and clean water, by a home that keeps cool in the summer and warm in the winter, by cycles of work and rest. My computer and the Internet are tools that help me research, write and publish. They do not need rest.

I live on Earth, a physical place, a web of life, a biosphere that provides water, nutrient-dense soil and food.

I write from the Internet, a techno-sphere, created by a corporate, global super-factory that makes and connects and discards machines that generate toxic waste. The Internet is everywhere. It’s in our electronics, cellular antennas and routers and data servers. Its cables are buried around our homes and schools and businesses and hung on utility poles. The air surrounding us holds its data. The Internet operates now past the Earth’s atmosphere and the heliosphere (a shield that protects planets from interstellar radiation). The Internet has no boundaries, and it grows.

Limits to electronic growth

Aware of (some of) the environmental consequences of using this computer, I struggle for peace between my ears. I want to reduce my impacts. I think: to strengthen the biosphere that sustains us, to reduce the extractions, toxic waste, greenhouse gas emissions and worker hazards that ravage our planet, we Internet users will need to make dramatic changes. [14]

Will we limit deployment of new access networks like 5G (fifth generation of mobile access networks) to private networks? [15] Will we create standards that require manufacturers to verify worker and environmental protections from every product’s cradle to its grave? Could we require modular electronics with replaceable parts? Could we enforce policies that require professional engineers to certify the safety of telecom infrastructure before it goes live?

Will we limit the number of hours anyone can stream videos? Should we block every person’s Internet access until they can describe the supply chain of at least one of its substances? Do we teach children to forage or grow at least three kinds of food—and to compost—before they use an electronic device? Do we teach them to read, write and do math on paper before they use electronics? [16]

Do we provide all people on Earth sufficient nutrient-dense food, clean water and toilets before we expand the Internet?

How can we respect the Earth and continue to use the Internet?

*

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.

Katie Singer writes about the energy, extractions, toxic waste and greenhouse gases involved in manufacturing computers, telecom infrastructure, electric vehicles and other electronic technologies. She believes that if she’s not aware that she’s part of the problem, then she can’t be part of the solution. She dreams that every smartphone user learns about the supply chain of one substance (of 1000+) in a smartphone. Her most recent book is An Electronic Silent Spring. She currently writes about nature, democracy and technology for Wall Street International Magazine. Visit www.OurWeb.tech and www.ElectronicSilentSpring.com.

Notes

  1. www.OurWeb.tech/letter-12/
  2. Schwarzburger, Heiko, “The trouble with silicon,” PV Magazine, 9.15.10.
  3. https://mineralsusgs.gov.minerals/pubs/commodity/copper/
  4. Heather White and Lynn Zhang, “Complicit,” 2019.
  5. Goonan, Thomas G., “Flows of selected materials associated with world copper melting,” U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report, 2004-1395.
  6. Eichstaedt, Peter, Consuming the Congo: War and Conflict Minerals in the World’s Deadliest Place, Lawrence Hill Books, 2011.
  7. Katwala, Amit, “The spiraling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction,” 8.5.18; https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact.
  8. Choi, Hye-Bin, et al., “The impact of anthropogenic inputs on lithium content in river and tap water,” Nature Communications, 2019.
  9. Allan Sekula and Noel Burch, “The Forgotten Space,” 2012.
  10. Needhidasan, S., et al., “Electronic waste–an emerging threat to the environment of urban India,” J. Environ Health Sci. Eng., Jan. 20, 2014; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3908467.
  11. https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/your-phone-costs-energyeven-before-you-turn-it-on
  12. Singer, Katie, An Electronic Silent Spring, SteinerBooks, 2014.
  13. www.saferemr.com
  14. In 1989, when the USSR broke up and Cuba lost its oil supply, overnight, Cubans traded their cars for bicycles; turned parking lots into farms, and shared their available electronics with neighbors so that the country could survive. Could this serve as an example of a possible response to the techno-sphere’s damaging, unsustainable growth? Faith Morgan, “The Power of Community,” 2006.
  15. www.OurWeb.tech/letter-4/
  16. See Criss Rowan’s work at www.zonein.ca.

Featured image is from Wall Street International Magazine

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.

***

Belarus’ fighter jet-assisted diversion of a Ryanair flight to Minsk in response to an ostensible bomb threat onboard and subsequent arrest of an extremist member of the country’s Color Revolution movement upon landing might open Pandora’s Box by setting the precedent whereby Western countries might eventually follow in its footsteps for purely political reasons against unilaterally sanctioned individuals from Russia or elsewhere.

Belarus ordered a fighter jet to escort a Ryanair flight to Minsk that was transiting through its airspace en route to Vilnius on Sunday in response to an ostensible bomb threat onboard. Upon landing, an extremist member of the country’s Color Revolution movement, Roman Protasevich, was arrested by the authorities. The flight was then allowed to continue to Vilnius after no bomb was ever found on board. The Western reaction was swift and a growing number of countries lined up to condemn Belarus for what they claimed was an intelligence operation aimed at arresting Protasevich but which allegedly might have put innocent lives at risk. Minsk shrugged off the allegations while Moscow called the West out for its double standards.

There are several angles through which to analyze this development. The first is to take the Belarusian authorities’ word about what happened, that it was merely a coincidence that someone informed them of a bomb onboard the same flight that Protasevich was taking over Belarusian airspace. The second is to applaud President Lukashenko for a clever operation whereby his government was able to bring an extremist member of the country’s Color Revolution movement to justice. The third, however, is to condemn him for allegedly putting lives at risk and possibly violating international aviation regulations by purportedly faking a bomb threat in order to arrest that political extremist.

Either way, the move might have been a game-changer since it could open Pandora’s Box by setting the precedent whereby other countries might eventually follow in its footsteps for political reasons. For instance, there are Russian individuals that are sanctioned by the US, and America might stage a similar intelligence operation regarding a supposedly fake bomb threat in order to arrest them in the same way that Protasevich was arrested. The US is known for its belief in so-called “extra-territorial jurisdiction” so it could at least in theory have its agents waiting at a European airport to arrest whoever it is that they’d be targeting provided that they have the host country’s permission. They might also do it without informing them in advance, too.

Technically, it was the US itself which first opened this Pandora’s Box during its earlier efforts to capture Edward Snowden in what seems like a lifetime ago to many. Former Bolivian President Evo Morales’ plane was diverted and forced to land in Austria amid suspicions that the American whisteblower was on board. It turned out that he wasn’t, but the incident showed just how far the US will go if it has the political will to stage such operations. With this in mind, Lukashenko was in a sense just giving the US a taste of its own medicine by staging Sunday’s operation to arrest one of its regime change proxies. Nevertheless, everyone knows that the US regularly implements double standards, hence why its EU ally just banned Belarusian airlines from the bloc.

Unlike during the Snowden-Morales incident, the world is nowadays unquestionably in the midst of a New Cold War. This means that there might be more of a political will for the US and its allies to repeat what Lukashenko just did, which to remind the reader was basically him just doing what America was the first to pioneer. Any unilaterally sanctioned individual flying over the airspace of an American-friendly country could therefore be at risk of having the same thing happen to them too. This will greatly reduce their freedom of movement across the world and perhaps in some cases basically trap them in their homeland for the rest of their lives if they don’t feel safe traveling anymore.

Of course, nothing of the sort might also happen, but it’s highly unlikely that the US won’t exploit Sunday’s incident. It has a clear pattern of accusing others of doing exactly what it’s done before, or pretending that their application of whatever tactic or strategy was the first time it’s ever been employed, and hence justify the US doing the same from then on out. To facilitate the public’s possible acceptance of this scenario, an intensified information warfare campaign might soon be forthcoming, perhaps even accusing Russia of somehow being involved in Sunday’s incident. It obviously wasn’t, but the facts never got in the way of any of the US’ other conspiracy theories about the Eurasian Great Power, so they probably won’t be an obstacle to this one either.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

Greetings from “New Normal” Germany!

May 26th, 2021 by CJ Hopkins

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.

***

On April 1, 1933, shortly after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazis staged a boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany. Members of the Storm Troopers (“die Sturmabteilung,” or the “Storm Department,” as I like to think of them) stood around outside of Jewish-owned stores with Gothic-lettered placards reading “Germans! Defend yourselves! Do not buy from Jews!” The boycott itself was a total disaster — most Germans ignored it and just went on with their lives — but it was the beginning of the official persecution of the Jews and totalitarianism in Nazi Germany.

Last week, here in “New Normal” Germany, the government (which, it goes without saying, bears no resemblance to the Nazi regime, or any other totalitarian regime) implemented a social-segregation system that bans anyone who refuses to publicly conform to the official “New Normal” ideology from participating in German society. From now on, only those who have an official “vaccination pass” or proof of a negative PCR test are allowed to sit down and eat at restaurants, shop at a “non-essential” stores, or go to bars, or the cinema, or wherever.

Here’s a notice from the website of Prater, a popular beer garden in Berlin:

Of course, there is absolutely no valid comparison to be made between these two events, or between Nazi Germany and “New Normal” Germany, nor would I ever imply that there was. That would be illegal in “New Normal” Germany, as it would be considered “relativizing the Holocaust,” not to mention being “anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security,” or whatever.

Plus, it’s not like there are SA goons standing outside shops and restaurants with signs reading “Germans! Defend yourselves! Don’t sell to the Unvaccinated and Untested!” It’s just that it’s now illegal to do that, i.e., sell anything to those of us whom the media and the government have systematically stigmatized as “Covid deniers” because we haven’t converted to the new official ideology and submitted to being “vaccinated” or “tested.”

Protesting the new official ideology is also illegal in “New Normal” Germany. OK, I think I should probably rephrase that. I certainly don’t want to misinform anyone. Protesting the “New Normal” isn’t outlawed per se. You’re totally allowed to apply for a permit to protest against the “Covid restrictions” on the condition that everyone taking part in your protest wears a medical-looking N95 mask and maintains a distance of 1.5 meters from every other medical-masked protester … which is kind of like permitting anti-racism protests as long as the protesters all wear Ku Klux Klan robes and perform a choreographed karaoke of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Sweet Home Alabama.

Who says the Germans don’t have a sense of humor?

I don’t mean to single out the Germans. There is nothing inherently totalitarian, or fascist, or robotically authoritarian and hyper-conformist about the Germans, as a people. The fact that the vast majority of Germans clicked their heels and started mindlessly following orders, like they did in Nazi Germany, the moment the “New Normal” was introduced last year doesn’t mean that all Germans are fascists by nature.

Most Americans did the same thing. So did the British, the Australians, the Spanish, the French, the Canadians, and a long list of others. It’s just that, well, I happen to live here, so I’ve watched as Germany has been transformed into “New Normal Germany” up close and personal, and it has definitely made an impression on me.

The ease with which the German authorities implemented the new official ideology, and how fanatically it has been embraced by the majority of Germans, came as something of a shock. I had naively believed that, in light of their history, the Germans would be among the first to recognize a nascent totalitarian movement predicated on textbook Goebbelsian Big Lies (i.e., manipulated Covid “case” and “death” statistics), and would resist it en masse, or at least take a moment to question the lies their leaders were hysterically barking at them.

I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Here we are, over a year later, and waiters and shop clerks are “checking papers” to enforce compliance with the new official ideology. (And, yes, the “New Normal” is an official ideology. When you strip away the illusion of an apocalyptic plague, there isn’t any other description for it).

Perfectly healthy, medical-masked people are lining up in the streets to be experimentally “vaccinated.” Lockdown-bankrupted shops and restaurants have been converted into walk-in “PCR-test stations.” The government is debating mandatory “vaccination” of children in kindergarten. Goon squads are arresting octogenarians for picnicking on the sidewalk without permission. And so on. At this point, I’m just sitting here waiting for the news that mass “disinfection camps” are being set up to solve the “Unvaccinated Question.”

Whoops … there I go again, “relativizing the Holocaust.” I really need to stop doing that. The Germans take this stuff very seriously, especially with Israel under relentless attack by the desperately impoverished people it has locked inside an enormous walled ghetto, and is self-defensively ethnically cleansing.

But, seriously, there is no similarity whatsoever between Nazi Germany and “New Normal” Germany. Sure, both systems suspended the constitution, declared a national “state of emergency” enabling the government to rule by decree, inundated the masses with insane propaganda and manipulated “scientific facts,” outlawed protests, criminalized dissent, implemented a variety of public rituals, and symbols, and a social segregation system, to enforce compliance with their official ideologies, and demonized anyone who refused to comply … but, other than that, there’s no similarity, and anyone who suggests there is is a dangerous social-deviant extremist who probably needs to be quarantined somewhere, or perhaps dealt with in some other “special” way.

Plus, the two ideologies are completely different. One was a fanatical totalitarian ideology based on imaginary racial superiority and the other is a fanatical totalitarian ideology based on an imaginary “apocalyptic plague” … so what the hell am I even talking about? On top of which, no swastikas, right? No swastikas, no totalitarianism! And nobody’s mass murdering the Jews, that I know of, and that’s the critical thing, after all!

So, never mind. Just ignore all that crazy stuff I just told you about “New Normal” Germany. Don’t worry about “New Normal” America, either. Or “New Normal” Great Britain. Or “New Normal” wherever. Get experimentally “vaccinated.” Experimentally “vaccinate” your kids. Prove your loyalty to the Reich … sorry, I meant to global capitalism. Ignore those reports of people dying and suffering horrible adverse effects. Wear your mask. Wear it forever. God knows what other viruses are out there, just waiting to defile your bodily fluids and cause you to experience a flu-like illness, or cut you down in the prime of your seventies or eighties … and, Jesus, I almost forgot “long Covid.” That in itself is certainly enough to justify radically restructuring society so that it resembles an upscale hospital theme park staffed by paranoid, smiley-faced fascists in fanciful designer Hazmat suits.

Oh, and keep your “vaccination papers” in order. You never know when you’re going to have to show them to some official at the airport, or a shop, or restaurant, or to your boss, or your landlord, or the police, or your bank, or your ISP, or your Tinder date … or some other “New Normal” authority figure. I mean, you don’t want to be mistaken for a “Covid denier,” or an “anti-vaxxer,” or a “conspiracy theorist,” or some other type of ideological deviant, and be banished from society, do you?

*

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: Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-14468, Georg Pahl, CC-BY-SA 3.0

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Belarus has been regularly in and out of the spotlight in recent months, with protests, chaos and alleged assassination schemes against President Alexander Lukashenko.

On May 23rd, Ryanair flight FR4978 from Athens to Vilnius in Lithuania made an emergency landing at the Minsk international airport, following a false bomb threat.

The incident resulted in the arrest of opposition activist Roman Protasevich, who was on board.

He is best known as one of the main people behind the Belarus’ opposition Nexta Live network.

It is operated out of Poland and is the main platform for coordination of the mass protests since 2020.

At the moment, there are two main versions regarding the incident with the RyanAir aircraft:
Either this was a high-profile operation of the special forces of Belarus aimed at detaining a young activist.

Or, conversely, it was an operation played out by the Belarus opposition forces supported by their Western allies, who seek to discredit President Lukashenko.

To shed light on the incident, a recording of a pilot’s call with the dispatcher was released, proving they were not forced to land in Minsk and it was their own decision made in accordance with international rules.

Belarus officially claimed that they had received a message from the Palestinian group Hamas threatening to blow up a Lithuania-bound flight over Belarusian airspace unless the European Union condemned Israel over the conflict in the Gaza Strip.

Subsequently, a video showing that Protasevich was in good health and remained in a pre-trial facility was published online.

He also acknowledged his participation in organizing mass protests in Minsk in 2020.

Belarus’ foreign ministry insisted the country’s authorities acted “in full conformity with international rules” and accused Europe of politicizing the incident.

However, it did not prevent the EU from proclaiming more restrictions against Belarus.

In addition to blocking the use of the EU’s airspace and airports, the EU is expected to hit individual officials and companies linked to the incident with sanctions.

The incident coincided with the European Summit, where a strategic debate on Russia is to be held.

The new international scandal may influence the final decision of European leaders.

The Russian Foreign Ministry criticized the West’s response with spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.

She reminded everyone of similar incidents happening in recent years.

In 2013 US special forces, looking for Edward Snowden, forced the plane of the Bolivian President to make an emergency landing in Vienna.

The White House declined to compare the two incidents, but US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said Washington “strongly condemns” the Belarusian regime’s “brazen and shocking act to divert a commercial flight to arrest a journalist”.

It is still not clear who exactly was behind the emergency landing of the RyanAir flight in Minsk.

Regardless of all versions and speculations, it is evident that the incident will lead to a greater rift between Russia, Belarus and the so-called collective West.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

Nicaragua’s Inspiring Response to COVID-19

May 26th, 2021 by Rohan Rice

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.

***

Little attention has been paid internationally to how the Central American country has managed to keep COVID-19 cases and fatalities low even under a devastating campaign of US sanctions

In a recent study conducted by the University of Oxford and the World Health Organization, socialist Nicaragua was placed number nine on a list of the ten safest countries to visit during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nicaragua is the only country within Latin America to appear on that list. As of Sunday May 22, the country had 7,193 confirmed cases and only 185 deaths.

Nicaragua’s unorthodox but highly effective management of COVID-19 has so far been a great success. In an informative article written by John Perry for FAIR, Perry demonstrates how the country has approached the COVID-19 pandemic swiftly and thoroughly. After consultations with South Korea and Taiwan—countries that overcame a separate coronavirus epidemic in 2002—Nicaragua implemented a careful plan of action that differed from most other governments around the world:

“Nicaragua announced its strategy much earlier (in late January, when most Western countries were still dismissing the likelihood of a pandemic); it prepared wards in 18 hospitals to receive COVID patients, and reserved one hospital solely for this purpose; it put health checks in place at points of entry to the country with mandatory quarantines, and it began a program to combat misinformation being purveyed via social media (several rounds of house-to-house visits, a free phone line, streetside clinics and more).”

What’s most impressive about Nicaragua’s response is it has had just one COVID peak and has subsequently ‘flattened the curve’ of cases and deaths. Half of its cases and deaths took place between mid-May and mid-July 2020, and since then Nicaragua has kept the virus at very low levels. Strict controls at the border and active door-to-door “health brigades’” have been essential in this and help explain how Nicaragua has avoided repeated lockdowns.

These successes have gone entirely unrecognized by Western international media who have instead embarked on a political disinformation crusade against the government led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN). The BBC claimed Nicaragua hadn’t implemented any measures to combat COVID-19 at all. While The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Washington Post all spread stories that Nicaragua’s president, Daniel Ortega, had “vanished”, that he was denying the existence of Covid-19, and was anti-lockdown. The sources for these vexatious rumors were all linked with the US-backed government opposition in Nicaragua, such as the local Nicaraguan newspaper, La Prensa.

Nicaraguan-based doctors and journalists, such as Perry himself, have offered rebuttals to these pieces but were largely ignored by the same international press. This includes the statistics for cases and deaths being circulated by non-governmental agencies, which are grossly exaggerated:

“official figures report 6,629 cases in total, whereas the unofficial Citizens’ Observatory reports double this number, 13,278. The higher figure is based on “suspected” (not tested) cases, and according to the observatory website includes “rumors” as one source of information. But even the higher figure is dramatically lower than those for adjoining countries, as this chart shows.” [below]

This graph additionally shows just how much more effective Nicaragua’s pandemic model has been than its geographic neighbors, all of whom are run by neoliberal governments that have put profit before people. As if tackling a pandemic while under sanctions wasn’t difficult enough, the Nicaraguan government has had to implement this successful public health campaign while mitigating against the impact of category four and category five hurricanes (Eta and Iota) in 2020. We also mustn’t forget this is a country that is still recovering from the US-coup attempt in 2018 that crippled its economy.

Despite all this, Nicaragua’s attempt to eradicate COVID-19 victoriously continues apace. The vaccination programme is now well underway. To date, the country has received approximately 1.9 million doses of vaccine, mostly comprised of donations from Russia, as well as some from India and the COVAX program.

You can read John Perry’s complete analysis for FAIR 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.

This article was written in collaboration with the Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign UK. In November 2021, Nicaraguans will vote in their national elections. The USA has already begun a campaign to try to oust the incumbent socialist FLSN government at the voting booth. This article is part of a year-long series that seeks to present the truth of Nicaragua under the Sandinista government.

Rohan Rice is a writer, photographer, and translator from London. You can find his work at:https://rohanjrice.wordpress.com/

Featured image: Vaccination against COVID-19 is underway in Nicaragua largely thanks to vaccine donations from Russia. Photo: CCC Jairo Cajina

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.

***

As grievous as was the blow, as terrible as is the suffering, as overwhelming and demoralizing as has been the ensuing chaos, and as discouraging as has been the spread of falsehoods, and the seduction of the educated, it is no surprise to the historian that a mighty nation like the United States could rapidly decline into moral depravity.

It is no mystery to the scholars of Babylon and Rome, of Byzantium and Athens, that great governments are brought to their knees, not by an external enemy, but rather by the substitution of superficial rituals for moral action, by a spiritual blindness that strikes down the best and the brightest.

This moral virus has infected the minds of those who should have known better, and the door was left ajar for the crafty and the cunning to surreptitiously sneak in and slip a collar around the eagle’s neck, rendering justice a pet for their idle amusement.

We have no time now for laments, standing here on the battlefield. The cruel powers have unleashed their dogs of war and they are ripping our institutions to shreds, tearing the living heart out of our government and our schools, and leaving behind our values and beliefs as rotted carcasses for the jackals to feed upon. These stealthy forces keep shifting their forms to confuse us, now conservative, now progressive, now black, now white.

What we know with certainty is that the current lull in the battle is the bait they have laid out for us. They are planning a final assault, as we stand here, dazed and confused. They want us to be absorbed in our selfish needs, stewed in the narcissism of the smartphone, lost in the cult of the self, and incapable of organizing our thoughts, or of mustering bravery, or of rising to the occasion.

Source: Emanuel Pastreich

 

Their weapons are different. Rather than a tank, they use a vaccine syringe for their first melee. They use AI and commercial media to reprogram our brains, rendering us docile beasts that chase after food, pornography and glittering images. We did not even notice how they made us dependent on them for food, for energy, for information, and now even for our very identity.

Not a single column still stands in the temple of government that our founding fathers erected.

The beasts have carved the executive branch up into private fiefdoms, and leased them out to foreign banks. These days, those involved in governance are patted on the head and rewarded for tearing apart the edifice, for doing the bidding of the hidden masters.

The members of the Congress, regardless of their color or flavor, thrust their snouts deep in the public trough, where they devour the slop shoveled their way by the high priests of Mammon.

There are only two parties: the pimps and the whores.

The gangrene flowing through the veins of the judiciary is foul. It corrupts everything it touches, rendering judges and prosecutors unfeeling, incapable of, and unwilling to, uphold the Constitution, or to do anything that might displease their true masters.

Newspapers, magazines, universities and research institutes, corporations and foundations, are spigots that spew forth lies.

An evil spirit has possessed the public sector, rendering it a monstrosity. It slouches towards your neighborhood with a syringe in hand.

Declaration of an Acting Government for The United States of America

In light of the collapse of all branches of the Federal government, and the slip of civil society into the dark abyss of decadence and narcissism, we citizens declare that an Acting Government of the United States of America is established hereby that will serve as a midwife in the painful, but promising, rebirth of this nation.

The words of this declaration will limn the direction forward for our nation and suggest the contours of our future.

The acting government of the United States will distinguish itself from the wreckage now occupied by jackals and hyenas, by its strict adherence to our sacred Constitution and to the spirit of the law.

The acting government will administer as much of the United States as it can, granted the tremendous challenges that we face.

The roots of our government are planted firmly in hearts of patriots, of citizens committed to liberty, justice and freedom. The acting government will lay the foundations for an accountable government capable of addressing common concerns about the economy, society and security, hand in hand with those patriots.

The United States has a noble tradition of democratic governance. The inspiration for our nation, however, must be traced back to the American Revolution of 1776, and to the revolution against slavery of 1860. Our political philosophy is revolutionary, and this is a moment when that tradition must be revived.

The Declaration of Independence was the first step, a break with the British Empire. This declaration of independence is a break with the insidious empire of finance and speculation run by billionaires and their servants.

We hereby declare our independence from that empire of corruption and pillage, that empire of foreign wars and manipulative media, that empire of processed foods and needless medications forced on us for profit.

Our founding fathers declared,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

We do not need any more media-savvy swiveling between the fraudulent flavors of “progressive” and “conservative,” the Pepsi and Coke of debased politics.

Before we recognize anyone as president, we must first take these six actions:

1) We will list the billionaires, investment banks, private equity funds and the other parasitic financial institutions that have taken control of our nation’s government and detail how they govern us illegally.

We will make all information public regarding their criminal takeover, and their criminal administration, of our country. We will bring criminal charges against the leaders, and seize their assets, regardless of how many politicians they own, or how many billions of dollars they claim to possess.

2) We will take control of the economy, starting with money and finance (especially the Federal Reserve), and create an economy of the people, by the people and for the people.

The speculative economy will end and all fiscal policy will be drafted in close coordination with citizens using scientific data concerning the true short-term and long-term challenges facing our nation. For-profit organizations will play no role in the formulation of economic policy, nor will foreign economic concerns. Corporations whose stock is owned by foreign interests, that have their headquarters outside of the United States, will not be considered American.

3) We will establish true journalism, starting with journalism produced by networks of patriotic citizens, that is dedicated to the pursuit of truth, and does not shy away from taboo subjects. This journalism will have no corporate sponsors and will be accompanied by social media networks and search engines that are run as regional and national cooperatives responsible to the people, that have pursuit of truth, not profit, as their paramount goal.

4) We will establish an international committee of ethical citizens to oversee an investigation of the criminal actions by those pretending to be the United States government for the last twenty years. Base on the findings of those public investigations, we will make proposals for a revolutionary restructuring of the government so as to make the citizen again sovereign.

Only then will we be able to hold transparent and accountable elections for the President and the Congress that allow the citizens to vote on the basis of accurate information, elections from which corporate money and private wealth will be banned.

Criminal syndicates like the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, not described in the Constitution, will play no role in these open and fair elections.

5) We will set down national security priorities related to the threats facing our citizens. The process of assessing those security concerns will be immune from the lobbying of weapons manufactures and investment banks. We will consider crucial issues such as the collapse of biodiversity, the destruction of our climate, the concentration of wealth and the misuse of technology to destroy the minds of our citizens. We will also stop the use of automation and communications technology by corporations to destroy our livelihoods. We see the war of the rich against the citizens of the Earth as the primary security threat of our age.

6) We will reform the United Nations so that it will become a space for true “Earth” governance that takes an internationalist perspective, and is not a tool for globalism. We will banish from the United Nations the money chargers and the plutocracy who have shredded the United Nations Charter and made its employees into their lapdogs.

The demands are simple, but achieving them will require vision, inspiration, tenacity and sacrifice. The rebuilding of the United States, in accord with its sacred Constitution, will be both a national and an international project.

We call out to all Americans, to all patriots who can hear our voices, and especially to those who were lucky enough to receive outstanding educations, privileged enough to obtain specialized training in the sciences, in international relations, in economics and in medicine. It must be you! Lawyers, doctors, professors, technicians, government officials, corporate executives and business owners! This is your moment of truth.

This is the moment when you must choose to stand with the downtrodden, choose to help citizens, who have not been so fortunate as you have, to distinguish truth from falsehood.

Those who possess extreme riches are not your friends. They care no more for you than they do for the homeless.

We declare today that in our streets, in our neighborhoods, in our states and in our nation, the United States of America, the super-rich and their minions shall have no dominion. The government titles or institutional trappings that they have stolen, or bought, grant them no authority over us.

If truth slips from our grasp, the powerful can easily twist our sentiments. The evil that they stir up shifts patterns, so as to blend into any scene, like a moth, like a chameleon.

Our acting government will adhere to the constitution, to the sacred truth and to our moral indignation. We know no other masters.

*

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.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.


I Shall Fear No Evil

Why we need a truly independent candidate for president

Author: Emanuel Pastreich

Paperback ISBN: 9781649994509

Pages: 162

Click here to order.

.

.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Declaration of The Establishment of a Provisional Government for the United States of America
  • Tags:

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.

***

The European database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, which also tracks reports of injuries and deaths following the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines.”

Here is what EudraVigilance states about their database:

This website was launched by the European Medicines Agency in 2012 to provide public access to reports of suspected side effects (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions). These reports are submitted electronically to EudraVigilance by national medicines regulatory authorities and by pharmaceutical companies that hold marketing authorisations (licences) for the medicines.

EudraVigilance is a system designed for collecting reports of suspected side effects. These reports are used for evaluating the benefits and risks of medicines during their development and monitoring their safety following their authorisation in the European Economic Area (EEA). EudraVigilance has been in use since December 2001.

This website was launched to comply with the EudraVigilance Access Policy, which was developed to improve public health by supporting the monitoring of the safety of medicines and to increase transparency for stakeholders, including the general public.

The Management Board of the European Medicines Agency first approved the EudraVigilance Access Policy in December 2010. A revision was adopted by the Board in December 2015 based on the 2010 pharmacovigilance legislation. The policy aims to provide stakeholders such as national medicines regulatory authorities in the EEA, the European Commission, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers, as well as the pharmaceutical industry and research organisations, with access to reports on suspected side effects.

Transparency is a key guiding principle of the Agency, and is pivotal to building trust and confidence in the regulatory process. By increasing transparency, the Agency is better able to address the growing need among stakeholders, including the general public, for access to information. (Source.)

Their report through May 22, 2021 lists 12,184 deaths and 1,196,190 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

 

From the total of injuries recorded, there are 604,744 serious injuries which equals over 50%.

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.”

Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. This subscriber has volunteered to do this, and 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.[1]

Here is the summary data through May 22, 2021.

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccineTozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTechPfizer: 5,961 deathand 452,779 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 13,531   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 59 deaths
  • 9,828     Cardiac disorders incl. 735 deaths
  • 71           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 5,468     Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 183        Endocrine disorders
  • 6,266     Eye disorders incl. 14 deaths
  • 41,214   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 216 deaths
  • 128,031 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,909 deaths
  • 327        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 27 deaths
  • 4,802     Immune system disorders incl. 31 deaths
  • 13,948   Infections and infestations incl. 648 deaths
  • 4,821     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 81 deaths
  • 10,374   Investigations incl. 221 deaths
  • 3,354     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 120 deaths
  • 65,326   Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 71 deaths
  • 250        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 15 deaths
  • 81,748   Nervous system disorders incl. 616 deaths
  • 279        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 7 deaths
  • 88           Product issues
  • 7,978     Psychiatric disorders incl. 94 deaths
  • 1,342     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 93 deaths
  • 1,570     Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 18,597   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 697 deaths
  • 21,101   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 53 deaths
  • 663        Social circumstances incl. 9 deaths
  • 160        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 10 deaths
  • 11,459   Vascular disorders incl. 225 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273(CX-024414) from Moderna: 3,365 deathand 72,596 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 1,335     Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 22 deaths
  • 2,045     Cardiac disorders incl. 370 deaths
  • 12           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 718        Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 37           Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 997        Eye disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 6,305     Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 108 deaths
  • 20,774   General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,480 deaths
  • 129        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 8 deaths
  • 691        Immune system disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 2,392     Infections and infestations incl. 183 deaths
  • 1,292     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 63 deaths
  • 1,743     Investigations incl. 77 deaths
  • 816        Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 64 deaths
  • 9,149     Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 62 deaths
  • 77           Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 11 deaths
  • 12,314   Nervous system disorders incl. 339 deaths
  • 83           Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions
  • 11           Product issues
  • 1,375     Psychiatric disorders incl. 51 deaths
  • 468        Renal and urinary disorders incl. 40 deaths
  • 175        Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 1 death
  • 3,513     Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 306 deaths
  • 3,726     Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 23 deaths
  • 259        Social circumstances incl. 9 deaths
  • 235        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 26 deaths
  • 1,925     Vascular disorders

Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222/VAXZEVRIA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca2,489 deathand 655,534 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 7,200     Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 100 deaths
  • 9,748     Cardiac disorders incl. 311 deaths
  • 103        Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 6,740     Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 217        Endocrine disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 10,591   Eye disorders incl. 8 deaths
  • 69,826   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 116 deaths
  • 178,037 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 685 deaths
  • 396        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 20 deaths
  • 2,409     Immune system disorders incl. 9 deaths
  • 13,832   Infections and infestations incl. 163 deaths
  • 5,870     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 46 deaths
  • 13,474   Investigations incl. 50 deaths
  • 8,405     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 35 deaths
  • 104,075 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 25 deaths
  • 222        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 6 deaths
  • 141,437 Nervous system disorders incl. 388 deaths
  • 156        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 3 deaths
  • 76           Product issues
  • 12,272   Psychiatric disorders incl. 21 deaths
  • 2,264     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 20 deaths
  • 3,327     Reproductive system and breast disorders
  • 21,237   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 278 deaths
  • 29,750   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 14 deaths
  • 582        Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths
  • 498        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 15 deaths
  • 12,790   Vascular disorders incl. 168 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson369 deaths and 15,281 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 145        Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 264        Cardiac disorders incl. 34 deaths
  • 8             Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
  • 77           Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 5             Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 191        Eye disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 1,302     Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 11 deaths
  • 3,619     General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 97 deaths
  • 38           Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 51           Immune system disorders
  • 245        Infections and infestations incl. 8 deaths
  • 209        Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 6 deaths
  • 1,134     Investigations incl. 23 deaths
  • 104        Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 2,368     Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 12 deaths
  • 12           Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
  • 3,051     Nervous system disorders incl. 48 death
  • 7             Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions
  • 8             Product issues
  • 181        Psychiatric disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 69           Renal and urinary disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 62           Reproductive system and breast disorders
  • 637        Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 29 deaths
  • 324        Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 1 death
  • 39           Social circumstances incl. 2 deaths
  • 214        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 20 deaths
  • 917        Vascular disorders incl. 46 deaths

*

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.

Notes

[1] 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.

Featured image is from Health Impact News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India: Vaccine Drive in Uttar Pradesh Goes Awry, Villagers Jump into River to Evade Jab

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.

***

Israeli forces and settlers stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque for the third day in a row on Tuesday morning, as arrests of Palestinian activists took place across the occupied West Bank.

According to Palestinian sources in occupied East Jerusalem, Israeli settlers stormed the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, with the protection of Israeli police.

Israeli forces guards were filmed harassing teenage boys in the neighbourhood of Silwan, apparently carrying out random ID checks.

Silwan is a neighbourhood south of Al-Aqsa Mosque and is one of the East Jerusalem suburbs that are at risk of the displacement of Palestinian residents.

In Hebron, settlers attacked the houses of two separate families and uprooted 35 olive trees and a yield of summer crops, according to local reports.

Israeli forces also arrested Palestinian resident of Hebron, Asaid Zuhair Eskafi, 21, after they raided the Khalat Hadour area and searched his family’s home.

They also arrested Yasser Badersawi, an alleged Hamas leader in Nablus, after raiding his home.

This comes hours after a 23-year-old Palestinian refugee was shot and left for dead by undercover Israeli agents in Al-Bireh.

Plain-clothed Israeli forces, known as Mista’arvim, snuck into the Umm Al Sharayet neighbourhood, where they shot and killed a man identified as Ahmad Jamil Fahd.

Director of the Palestine Medical Complex, Ahmad Al-Bitawi, told Voice of Palestine radio that Fahd was rushed to a medical facility but died.

He was a resident of Am’ari refugee camp, east of Ramallah city.

Weeks of escalated violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank erupted following the Israeli decision to restrict movement at Al-Aqsa Mosque during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and settler attacks on the holy site.

Tensions further escalated following the forced dispossession of Palestinian families from their homes in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah and the 11-day Israeli bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip, which killed some 250 Palestinians, including 66 children, and wounded over 1,910 others.

Health authorities in the West Bank also confirmed 31 were killed in the occupied region, totalling 279 across all Palestinian territories.

*

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

Featured image is from Andrew Shiva / Wikimedia Commons

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As those individuals aware of it will have observed, presumably with deep regret, the latest ‘International Day for Biological Diversity’ passed on 22 May with the bulk of the human population continuing to act in ways that destroy Earth’s biosphere at an ever-accelerating rate.

Unaware that many authors continue to report the ongoing destruction of Earth’s biodiversity, which is under siege on a range of fronts by unchecked human destruction of Earth’s biosphere as well as particular assaults on Earth’s living creatures, responses to this ‘hidden’ path to human extinction continue to waver between non-existent and token.

Consequently, in such circumstances, the destruction of biodiversity might yet become the means by which Homo sapiens is consigned to the fossil record ‘beating’ nuclear war, the climate catastrophe and electromagnetic radiation as the fundamental driver of extinction.

Of course, these drivers are intimately related. Ongoing preparations for nuclear war (requiring the extraction of vast resources from the biosphere), the accelerating climate catastrophe and the ever-expanding electromagnetic contamination of the biosphere are all heavily implicated in driving the destruction of life on Earth and seriously addressing these issues is something only discussed in narrow, genuinely aware circles while official ‘concern’ and that of the human population generally continue to exhibit negligible engagement, perhaps ‘tut-tutting’ the latest news in the corporate media of the extinction of an iconic species. See ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls: A Report on the State of Planet Earth at Year’s End 2020’.

But given that 150-200 species of life on Earth (plants, birds, animals, fish, amphibians, insects, reptiles and microbes) become extinct daily, as noted in 2010 by Ahmed Djoghlaf, the secretary-general of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity who stated that ‘We are losing biodiversity at an unprecedented rate’, and with many biologists having noted that the species extinction rate is nearly 1,000 times the ‘natural’ or ‘background’ rate and ‘is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago’ – see ‘Protect nature for world economic security, warns UN biodiversity chief’ – only a delusional individual would argue that this issue is drawing the attention and profound action that is needed to halt this existential crisis.

And given that, back in 2010, the UN was arguing that the ‘economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change’ – see ‘UN says case for saving species “more powerful than climate change”’ – there is obviously no doubt that, officially and otherwise, the destruction of biodiversity has been neglected compared to the (admittedly also inadequate) attention given to the climate catastrophe.

So Homo sapiens moves quickly and efficiently to its own extinction, an inevitable consequence of the destruction of the web of life.

An important aspect of the destruction of biodiversity is what precedes the extinction of a species.

In their report compiled in 2017, Professors Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich & Rodolfo Dirzo recorded that Earth continues to experience ‘a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization. We describe this as a “biological annihilation” to highlight the current magnitude of Earth’s ongoing sixth major extinction event.’ Moreover, local population extinctions ‘are orders of magnitude more frequent than species extinctions. Population extinctions, however, are a prelude to species extinctions, so Earth’s sixth mass extinction episode has proceeded further than most assume.’ See ‘Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines’ and ‘Our Vanishing World: Wildlife’.

But, tragically, many additional species are now trapped in a feedback loop which will inevitably precipitate their extinction as well because of the way in which ‘co-extinctions’, ‘localized extinctions’ and ‘extinction cascades’ work once initiated and as has already occurred in almost all ecosystem contexts. See the (so far) six-part series ‘Our Vanishing World’. Have you seen a flock of birds of any size recently? A butterfly?

Why is this Happening?

The accelerating destruction of Earth’s biosphere is driven by one fundamental cause. Over-consumption by humans in industrialized countries. With nearly a billion people living in poverty and about 500 million indigenous peoples living or attempting to live subsistence lifestyles around the world, it is those populations in industrialized countries who are determined to consume more than they actually need and generally live unaware of their ecological impact who are destroying Earth’s biosphere.

Because whether consuming water, energy for household use, fossil fuels for vehicle or airline travel, paper, plastic, metals or meat, only a rare human is keeping track of, and consciously minimizing use of, these ‘end product’ resources which are extracted directly from, or manufactured with resources extracted from, Earth’s biosphere, with a byproduct of this production being a massive amount of waste material, much of it not able to be disposed of in any way that is remotely ecologically benign.

And because the extraction of resources from the biosphere to satisfy consumer demand fundamentally depends on state or private corporations making a profit from the extraction, corporations will exploit anywhere with negligible concern for the local environments destroyed.

To highlight the cost of our endlessly-expanding consumption, one only has to consider a few of the near ‘endless’ list of biosphere assaults adversely impacting the Earth and the species dependent on impacted ecosystems.

Did you know about the planned oil drilling in the staggeringly beautiful and, until now, pristine Okavango Delta in south-west Africa, and what this might mean for the region’s 18,000 elephants and other wildlife (not to mention the human population)? See ‘A Big Oil project in Africa threatens fragile Okavango region’.

Did you know about the ‘massive volumes of fracking waste’ being illegally dumped at Vaca Muerta in northern Patagonia in Argentina? Good for the biosphere and local wildlife do you think? See ‘Argentina’s Illegal Oil and Gas Waste Dumps Show “Dark Side” of Vaca Muerta Drilling, Says Criminal Complaint’.

And while there is a huge number of mines around the world inflicting massive damage on their immediate location – see ‘Environmental Nightmares Created by Open Pit Mines’ – mining is just one way to destroy the biosphere.

Rainforest destruction is another key driver of biosphere degradation in all parts of the world where rainforests are located, notably including the Amazon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia and West Papua, and the range of assaults is breathtaking with logging, burning, land clearance to create cattle farms, palm oil and soybean plantations, dam building as well as mining and oil drilling just among the most damaging causes. See ‘Our Vanishing World: Rainforests’.

But, as hinted at above, the emission of ‘greenhouse gases’, notably carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is destroying the delicate composition of Earth’s atmosphere, to the detriment of the biosphere generally and with catastrophic implications for life on Earth. Despite largely successful efforts by the elite-controlled IPCC to delude people into believing that the global mean temperature has increased by only 1°C, in fact, since the pre-industrial era (prior to 1750) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have already caused the global temperature to rise by more than 2°C above this baseline (in February 2020). This occurred despite the Paris climate agreement in 2015 when politicians pledged to hold the global temperature rise to well below 2°C above the pre-industrial level and pledged to try to limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C above this level. See ‘2°C crossed’ and ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’.

And electromagnetic radiation is inflicting rapidly increasing damage to all forms of life with the deployment of 5G now in full swing. See ‘Deadly Rainbow: Will 5G Precipitate the Extinction of All Life on Earth?’

Of course, all forms of military violence – invariably done to gain control over biosphere resources – as well as the preparation for it, destroys vast areas of the natural environment (including the creatures that live in it) either deliberately or as ‘collateral damage’. See ‘Ten Reasons Why Militarism is Bad for the Environment’.

As can be readily observed, the destruction of biodiversity is a primary subset of the destruction of the biosphere. Every living organism needs habitat to survive. Every time we destroy part of the biosphere, we destroy the habitat of the organisms that live in it. But we also destroy life and biodiversity directly too. How much longer can the wolf, for example, hold on against the onslaught? See ‘Bill Allowing 90 Percent of Idaho’s Wolves to Be Killed Passes House and Senate’.

Humanity generally is so unconcerned about destruction of the biosphere and the biodiversity cost that goes with it, that we studiously ignore this cost, even when it impacts our closest relatives, human and otherwise. See West Africa’s chimpanzees are on the brink of extinction! and ‘Western Chimpanzee’.

And even the most iconic of species, such as the elephant, are not safe from the human onslaught. From 26 million elephants in 1800, the elephant population of Africa is down to 415,000, thanks to poaching for ivory, ‘trophy hunting’, destruction of habitat and other human causes. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has now listed the African forest elephant as ‘critically endangered’ and the African savanna elephant as ‘endangered’. See ‘Disappearing Elephants’ and ‘Africa’s elephants now endangered by poaching, habitat loss’.

Of course, destruction of habitat takes an almost infinite variety of forms when it comes to Homo sapiens. The latest farming venture to threaten elephant habitat is just now being created. See ‘From poaching to avocados, Kenya’s elephants face new threat’.

Besides this, assaults on particular species are pushing many endangered species to the brink of extinction. Wildlife trafficking, for example, is worth up to $20 billion each year. Illegal wildlife products include jewelry, traditional medicine, clothing, furniture, and souvenirs, as well as some exotic pets, most of which are sold to unaware/unconcerned consumers in the West although China is heavily implicated too. And to mention elephants again in this context: every 15 minutes an elephant is killed for its tusks. See Stop Wildlife Trafficking.

But if we are not concerned about the iconic species, can you imagine the collective concern for those millions of creatures of which we have never even heard, let alone given a name? And yet, as the work of Professor Gerardo Ceballos and his colleagues cited above clearly suggests, there are many unknown or obscure species that are part of the ‘co-extinctions’, ‘localized extinctions’ and ‘extinction cascades’ that are driving the ‘biological annihilation’ that they have documented.

So What Can We Do?

Well, in theory, we can participate in official responses to this crisis. See ‘Previewing the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration’.

But, as history demonstrates, we would be unwise to rely on responses generated by the elite and promulgated through its agents. Such efforts are inevitably designed to subvert effective outcomes, which they do with unrelenting monotony to which the record of uninterrupted destruction readily testifies.

Nevertheless, there is a great deal that we can do, personally, that will make a difference.

As is always the case with threats to biodiversity, the fundamental response to this crisis involves producing and consuming less. A lot less. ‘A difficult ask’ you might say. And more difficult than you probably realize, given the fundamentally dysfunctional emotional state that drives human over-consumption in materialist societies in the first place. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.

But for those emotionally equipped for the challenge, you are welcome to join those who recognize the critical importance of reduced consumption and greater self-reliance by participating in The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth which outlines a ‘step by step’ strategy for achieving these ends. In addition, you are welcome to consider signing the online pledge of The Peoples Charter to Create a Nonviolent World.

Of course, you can also campaign to do other things as well. Halting war and all military activity of any kind would save the biosphere enormous resources so effort put into that is worthwhile. If you would like to campaign, strategically, to halt war there is a list of strategic goals for doing so in Campaign Strategic Aims.

In fact, if you wish to focus on strategically resisting any of the four primary threats to human existence – nuclear war, the deployment of 5G, the collapse of biodiversity and/or the climate catastrophe – you can read about nonviolent strategy, including strategic goals to focus your campaigns, on that website too.

Equally fundamentally, if you would like to nurture children to become powerful individuals capable of acting strategically to prevent and respond to violence while able to critique society and elite propaganda, see ‘My Promise to Children’. A child who is emotionally whole does not need to use consumption as a substitute for giving up their unique identity as a survival strategy during childhood, as the ‘Love Denied’ article also explains.

As an aside, if you want a better fundamental understanding of how we reached this point, see Why Violence?, Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice and ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

Conclusion

Halting the human rush to extinction through the destruction of biodiversity will require monumental effort. Raising awareness of this rapidly unfolding but still largely-hidden tragedy is, therefore, a high priority. But that is only the start. Enormous effort is required as well.

Of course, for those too terrified to contemplate the reality of ongoing destruction of Earth’s biodiversity and its implications for our own behaviour, denial or delusion are easy ‘psychological retreats’, particularly when our childhood survival largely depended on such tactics.

So it is going to take those who are powerful enough to deal with reality to make a stand.

We are on the cliff-edge of extinction. What will you do?

*

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.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of Why Violence? His email address is [email protected] and his website is here.

He is a frequent contributor to ‘Global Research’.

Featured image is from Pixabay


Annex

The Earth Pledge

Out of love for the Earth and all of its creatures, and my respect for their needs, from this day onwards I pledge that:

  1. I will listen deeply to children. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.
  2. I will not travel by plane
  3. I will not travel by car
  4. I will not eat meat and fish
  5. I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown food
  6. I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use, including by minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices
  7. I will not own or use a mobile (cell) phone
  8. I will not buy rainforest timber
  9. I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws
  10. I will not use banks, superannuation (pension) funds or insurance companies that provide any service to corporations involved in fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or weapons
  11. I will not accept employment from, or invest in, any organization that supports or participates in the exploitation of fellow human beings or profits from killing and/or destruction of the biosphere
  12. I will not get news from the corporate media (mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)
  13. I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant
  14. I will gently encourage my family and friends to consider signing this pledge.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Accelerating Destruction of Earth’s Biodiversity: When Will We Act?
  • Tags: ,

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.

***

The last ten years of my career were spent running Jewish communities as an executive in the Jewish Federation movement across North America—it was a career quite literally bookended by conflict in Israel-Palestine. As the most recent round of violence exploded, Jewish communal organizations sprang into action, issuing statements blaming Palestinians for their own suffering and lack of sovereignty, ahistorically casting Israel as a wholly innocent victim.

During the time I spent at Federations in Boston, Los Angeles, Columbus, and London, Ontario, 3,590 Palestinians lost their lives at the hands of Israel’s security forces. I feel a level of complicity in each of their deaths. It is a sin I must bear. While I never personally picked up a weapon or wore the uniform of the Israel Defence Forces, a portion of every dollar I raised for Jewish Federations helped to create the material conditions that brutalize and subjugate Palestinians.

In Judaism, the concept of sin is not a state of permanence. In fact, when translated, the Hebrew word for sin literally means “to go astray.” That means that in the eyes of the almighty, we have the opportunity to find our path back to righteousness through t’shuvah, or repentance. To truly be repentant, we must first confess our transgressions, show true regret, and finally vow never to repeat our misdeeds.

For me, the path to repentance means that the words written here will likely alienate me from a community of friends and colleagues built over the course of a decade. That is a price I am willing to pay.

I am not alone in my position. In an EKOS poll of Canadian Jews, 37 percent say that they have a negative opinion of the Israeli government. That’s hardly the monolithic support for Israel that Jewish communal organizations claim to represent and it certainly doesn’t make one in four of us “anti-Israel” or “self-hating.” To the contrary, it makes us more concerned with Israel living up to its purported values than succumbing to nationalist violence to achieve its goals.

For my peers, younger Jews who have only ever known Israel as an occupier and military power, the split is even more pronounced. In the 2018 Survey of Jews in Canada, nearly half of Canadian Jews under 30 report being criticized for expressing concern about the policies of Israel. It’s not surprising. Jewish communal organizations work hard to stifle dissent, shaming those who would question the morality of Israel and driving out anyone with a differing viewpoint.

For organizations like the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and Jewish Federations, there is only one acceptable view: blanket support of Israel’s policies that have led to the dehumanization of Palestinians. Far from democratic or representative of Canadian Jews, the boards of directors of Federations and communal organizations are mostly packed with obtuse and reactionary voices in Jewish communities and those with the most money to put behind their words. Rather than being the mainstream of Jewish communal life, those voices are the extreme.

Jewish communal and advocacy organizations know full well they often represent only the most hardline voices in our communities but would rather support the morally bankrupt leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, pedaling an ideology that ends in the bombing of civilians in Gaza or the theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank, than to be truly representative of the opinions of Canadian Jews. The 54-year occupation, tacitly supported by CIJA, Jewish Federations, and other communal institutions, has led to what Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem, Israel’s largest human rights organization, call apartheid and is directly responsible for this moment of devastation.

In our tradition, we seek t’shuvah not only for ourselves, but also for the entirety of the Jewish people. It’s time. It’s time to admit the sins done against the Palestinian people and begin the long path of repentance. It’s time to listen to the voices demanding an end to violence and occupation that has been ever present throughout the entirety of our lives. It’s time to end this and vow: never again.

*

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.

Joe Roberts is a veteran political strategist in both the US and Canada, Executive Director of the Centre for Canadian Progress, Co-Host of the political podcast New Left Radio, and Managing Director at Jewish Currents Magazine. Follow him on Twitter @Joe_Roberts01.

Featured image: Separation wall between Israel and the West Bank near Jerusalem. Photo by Mazur Travel/Shutterstock.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on I’m a Former Jewish Federation CEO—and I Oppose Israel’s Actions Against Palestinians
  • Tags: , ,

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.

***

As Oman’s UK-trained police confront popular protests against unemployment and corruption in the dictatorial Gulf state, the British military prepares to deploy an aircraft carrier to a new UK naval base in Oman, and the head of the Royal Air Force praises his Omani counterpart.

Britain’s closest ally in the Gulf has been rocked by three days of protests in the largest show of dissent against its unelected Sultan since the Arab Spring in 2011.

Police have fired tear gas, deployed armoured vehicles and mass arrested protesters, raising concern over the British government’s extensive support for Oman’s monarchy.

It comes as Britain’s new aircraft carrier set sail on Saturday on a voyage that will see her stop off at the UK’s growing naval base in Duqm, Oman, and with the head of Britain’s Royal Air Force currently meeting his Omani counterpart.

Thousands of Omanis are protesting against high levels of unemployment and corruption, as well as police crackdowns on their initial attempts to demonstrate.

All political parties are banned in Oman where it is a criminal offence to insult the Sultan, who rules with absolute power. The only independent newspaper, Al Zaman, has been shut down for attempting to cover corruption.

Declassified recently showed that until at least last year, Oman’s ruler was secretly advised by a British-dominated privy council that held midnight meetings at his lavish palace. Its members have included General Nick Carter, the current head of the British military and Richard Moore, the chief of intelligence agency MI6.

Other high-level advisers to the Sultan have been Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, and Lord Geidt, an ex-private secretary to the Queen who is now responsible for stopping corruption among British government ministers.

British advisers dominate the Sultan’s privy council. (Photo: In the Thick of It)

It is not known whether the Sultan followed all the economic and strategic advice provided by his privy council, but Oman spends more on its military per person than almost any other country in the world and has a vast national debt.

Much of the regime’s military equipment has been bought from British arms companies, which have received billions of pounds from Oman since the Arab Spring in 2011.

Those protesters were partly placated when Oman’s then Sultan, Qaboos bin Said, created 10,000 new jobs in the police force. However such short-term tactics to reduce unemployment have saddled his successor, his nephew Haitham bin Tarik, with more national debt, a problem compounded as revenue from oil reserves fell 35% at the start of 2021.

Anonymous opposition sources inside Oman told Declassified last week that discontent about the economy was at an all-time high and had risen since our privy council revelations. People were afraid to speak out openly for fear of reprisals and some worry that Oman’s newly expanded cyber security apparatus could intercept their messages.

GCHQ, Britain’s electronic surveillance force, has three listening stations based at secret locations in Oman. In addition, Crossword – a cyber security company chaired by Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6 who sat on the Sultan’s privy council – announced last week that it was setting up its Middle East headquarters in Oman.

Despite concern at being monitored, on Sunday morning people gathered outside the labour ministry in Sohar, an industrial city in northern Oman. They were almost immediately arrested by large numbers of riot police, but a handful of photos from the protest went viral and trended in Oman on Twitter.

Another group of around 30 men attempted to protest in Sohar on Monday morning, but were surrounded by a similar number of riot police vehicles and taken away in a police coach. Almost identical scenes were repeated in Salalah, a city 850 km southwest of Sohar.

A larger group then gathered near the labour ministry in Sohar where they were chased away by riot police. Some protesters resorted to throwing stones against well-protected police units, who responded with tear gas.

The British government approved the export of £16.6-million worth of tear gas to Oman in August 2015, and has allowed smaller quantities to be shipped there in the last 12 months, according to research by Campaign Against Arms Trade.

Oman’s police have also had extensive training from the UK, including at the College of Policing in Britain as well as public order sessions with officers from Northern Ireland and its state-owned company, NI-CO.

The training is currently being delivered through the Foreign Office’s Gulf Strategy Fund.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland trained Oman’s riot police in 2017. (Photo: Declassified UK)

As smaller groups of protesters continued to march around the streets of Sohar on Monday morning, armoured vehicles belonging to Oman’s army were seen approaching the city and police set up roadblocks.

Almost 100 serving British troops are on loan to Oman’s military and UK army officers serve in Omani armoured units and military intelligence. Their rules of engagement are classified, but early versions show they were permitted to assist with internal security.

By midday on Monday, riot police were seen snatching individuals from the streets of Sohar and officials warned people not to film the security forces or discuss them on social media platforms such as WhatsApp.

Local media were also censored by the information ministry while state TV initially ignored the protests, belatedly publishing some photos from the protest only once they were being reported by international media.

Later on Monday fresh protests broke out in Salalah, in support of the activists in Sohar. Many of the protesters in Salalah appear to come from the mountainous Dhofar region, which has a long history of resistance to the Omani Sultans and fought against British special forces in the 1970s.

Their protests continued late into the night and were met with a markedly smaller police presence. By the end of Monday, the police released many of the protesters who had been arrested.

However, this concession did not stop an even larger wave of protests starting on Tuesday morning, as youths in Salalah returned to the streets at first light.

Protests also took place in at least eight other cities: Sur, Nizwa, Ibri, Ibra, Rustaq, Suwayq, Al-Khaburah and again in Sohar.

Nabhan al-Hanashi, a political exile and chairman of the Omani Centre for Human Rights, told Declassified that the protests should not come as a surprise.

“The people in Oman, especially the unemployed, were waiting for reforms to take place a long time ago,” he commented. “During the last days of Qaboos they were silenced. When Haitham took over, he promised the people he would do lots of reforms and hold corrupt officials to account. But nothing happened.”

An activist in Oman, who asked to remain anonymous for safety reasons, told Declassified:

“As an Omani citizen I feel upset that we carry the Omani government’s mistakes. We as people don’t have a real opinion on the laws. We cannot oppose the government and there’s no freedom of expression to demand our rights, so we protest with our brothers and sisters for justice and fighting the corruption that is covered up by powerful figures in the government. We demand freedom of media, more power to the people, jobs and economic reforms.”

The head of Britain’s Royal Air Force (RAF), Sir Mike Wigston, met his Omani counterpart amid the protests on Tuesday morning and described him as a “great” friend. Around 24 RAF personnel are on loan to Oman, including pilots and engineers. Historically, Oman’s rulers have used aircraft to attack opposition groups.

Police tactics on Tuesday varied from place to place, with some protesters being given water bottles while others were pursued by riot police. A water cannon and armoured police trucks were seen inside Sohar, where protesters staged a sit-in at the site of the old Globe Roundabout, which was a centre of demonstrations during the Arab Spring.

Experts told Declassified the water cannon may have been produced by a South Korean arms company.

Andrew Smith from Campaign Against Arms Trade told Declassified his group was particularly concerned by videos showing Omani police firing tear gas.

“The regime in Oman avoids a lot of the international scrutiny it deserves, but these images show the repression that it uses to entrench its authoritarian rule,” he said.

“For decades now, the UK has armed and supported the Omani dictatorship, helping to secure its position regardless of the threats and abuses that are inflicted on opponents.

“As long as the UK and other arms-dealing governments are arming human rights abusers, there will always be a risk that those weapons are used in this way.

“The arms sales are also a sign of political support and often go hand-in-hand with an intense political and military collaboration – such as in the case of Oman where the UK has military bases and a long history of military training.

“There must be a full investigation into whether UK-made tear gas or other weapons have been used in the attacks, and an end to the shameful policy that allowed for them to be sold in the first place.”

Last month, Oman’s former foreign minister Yusuf bin Alawi predicted another Arab Spring could soon sweep the region “because nothing changed” since 2011.

The UK Foreign Office would not tell Declassified when Britain last provided public order training to Oman’s police. Instead, a spokeswoman said:

“The UK urges all countries to uphold the rule of law. We are aware of demonstrations in Oman are monitoring the situation closely.”

Under Oman’s Basic Law, any “associations whose activities are inimical to social order” are illegal. The UK Ministry of Defence did not respond to Declassified’s questions about whether British troops were assisting Oman’s response to the protests or whether General Carter still sat on the Sultan’s privy council.

Last night, Omani state television announced that the Sultan had ordered 2,000 full-time government jobs be temporarily opened, but protests look set to continue for a fourth day.

*

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.

Phil Miller is a staff reporter at Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organisation that covers the UK’s role in the world. 

Featured image: Protests in Oman started on Sunday in Sohar. (Photo: Declassified UK) 

Pakistan, China, India and the Afghan Chessboard

May 26th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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.

***

Apocalyptic scenario is unwarranted 

The Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said on May 13, “We will not allow boots on the ground or military bases on our territory.” He was referring to the future US security operations in the region. The Pentagon’s stated position is also not about establishing any new bases in the region but merely that “we (Pentagon) are working all the different options that we have in concert with our State Department intelligence community colleagues to establish the types of arrangements that give us the access basic and over flight necessary to — address the terrorism threats.” 

Within these parameters, Qureshi’s recent visit to the US assumed significance. Qureshi undertook the visit ostensibly to take part in the UN discussions on Palestine, but it coincided with an extraordinary hearing at the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs in Washington on May 18 — titled The U.S.-Afghanistan Relationship Following the Military Withdrawal. 

The hearing took place at the initiative of  Zalmay Khalilzad, US Special Representative on Afghanistan Reconciliation. And this also happened to be Khalilzad’s first-ever congressional hearing in his capacity as special representative! 

Listening closely to the three and a half hour long congressional hearing is an absolute must for anyone seriously interested in tracking the diplomatic peregrinations over the Afghan question. The salience lies in the renewed acceptance today by the US political elite that Pakistan’s role will remain crucial for a peaceful mainstreaming of the Taliban and for ensuring peace and stability in Afghanistan as well as for preventing terrorist threats. 

Khalilzad did not share the apocalyptic predictions of an imminent Afghan civil war and chaos. Khalilzad insisted that the “story of abandonment of Afghanistan” is unwarranted and what is happening is only that the “form of engagement will shift” post-September. In his words, “The combat forces will not be part of future engagement but substantial amount of assistance will be provided.”  

What takes the breath away is Khalilzad’s estimation that it is possible to “incentivise” the Taliban as well as to “confront them with costs” if they do not keep their word. Khalilzad was not explicit but clearly, the massive US aid to Afghanistan gives it much leverage and creates “soft power” — not only over the Taliban but across the political spectrum and governmental and non-governmental institutions. 

Crucially, Khalilzad disclosed that the Taliban admitted to him that they didn’t “rule well” as they rode to power “unexpectedly” in 1996, and have since “learned lessons” from past mistakes. He added that the Taliban are conscious of the heavy “costs” they incurred on account of the 9/11 attacks, especially, Guantanamo Bay detention camp, UN blacklisting, sanctions, and the nineteen years of war. 

The three things that emerged out of the House hearings are: first, Khalilzad sounded reasonably confident of navigating the post-September phase; two, he got lawmakers on board the Biden administration’s policy trajectory to remain engaged in Afghanistan without undertaking combat operations; and, three, he sensitised the lawmakers about the imperative need to work closely with Pakistan. 

Pakistan’s image on the Hill had taken a heavy beating in the recent years. Therefore, the general acceptance in the Beltway today on the importance of partnership with Pakistan will be the key to the door opening into the pathway for peace in Afghanistan. This has profound implications for regional security.   

Qureshi has lost no time to build on the favourable outcome of Khalilzad’s initiative to arrange a special congressional hearing that creates a level playing field for future cooperation with Pakistan. Qureshi has a challenging mission, nonetheless — to realise Pakistan’s desire for “a broad-based and comprehensive” partnership with the US which should go beyond cooperation on Afghanistan, as he conveyed to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a recent phone call just before embarking on the visit to the US. 

Kabul will probably see these trends with a sense of deja vu. Some bitterness will remain that the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is continuing scepticism about the US intentions. Having said that, any pooling of the US-Pakistan efforts may ultimately prove overpowering in the present regional environment where there is general acceptance of the mainstreaming of the Taliban as part of a broad-based power sharing arrangement. 

The current proposal to create in Kabul a so-called Supreme State Council (a format that will work for building a consensus around peace and on other peace-related affairs at higher level), which Khalilzad supported, hopes to bring the warlords and other stakeholders on board and to create the platform to settle differences without recourse to force. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and it remains to be seen whether the proposed council would have decision-making authority.

Equally, a compromise on the Durand Line question will help matters a great deal. However, when asked about it in an interview with Spiegel, former president Hamid Karzai responded cautiously: 

“If we could have a relationship with Pakistan similar to the model of the European Union, perhaps a solution could be found. The Durand Line would then be a zone rather than a fixed border, and would formally continue to exist. We want an open exchange between people on both sides, without border controls, and with freedom of movement, similar to what Europeans have achieved today between Germany and France.”

Read the full transcript of Karzai’s interview with Spiegel titled We Afghans Are Just Being Used  Against Each Other. The point is, there is deep anguish among the Afghan elite that once again a “settlement” is being imposed on their nation by outside powers.  

Nonetheless, Qureshi has made a good beginning to rebuild bridges in the Beltway. A Voice of America commentary says,

“US efforts to solidify plans for what comes next appear to have taken on renewed urgency in recent days, leaning on outreach from the White House and the Pentagon to overcome a decade of strained ties and start to win over Pakistani officials.

“Already, US officials have voiced some optimism that an initial meeting between US national security adviser Jake Sullivan and his Pakistani counterpart, Moeed Yusuf, on Sunday in Geneva, went well

“The Pentagon, likewise, expressed confidence following a call early Monday between US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa. The Pentagon readout said,“The secretary reiterated his appreciation for Pakistan’s support for the Afghanistan peace negotiations and expressed his desire to continue to build on the United States-Pakistan bilateral relationship.”

But then, just as Qureshi concluded his visit, External Affairs Minister J. Jaishankar landed in the US. And, India-Pakistan diplomatic ties continue to deteriorate. New Delhi is deeply sceptical about the growing consensus internationally that Pakistani policy in Afghanistan shows signs of strategic shift — that Islamabad no longer wants a Taliban-dominated future Afghanistan as its next-door neighbour. Indians insist that it is all smoke and mirrors. 

However, India is hardly in a position to assert on the Afghan chessboard. The government is entrapped in a pandemic with no end in sight. Jaishankar’s agenda is heavily dominated by discussions with the American side relating to vaccines. Again, India has a tense border situation with China and the Sino-Indian relations are in a state of free fall, as New Delhi selectively intensifies its engagement with those world capitals that share its concerns over China’s rise and are willing to push back — the US, the UK, EU, QUAD, etc. — at the centerstage of its foreign policy. 

The bottom line is that New Delhi is highly unlikely to do anything that may undermine the US strategy in Afghanistan, which, incidentally, also has an “Indo-Pacific” dimension to it. Incidentally, with a twinkle in his eye, Khalilzad expressed total confidence during the House hearing last week that the US has the capacity to return to the Bagram base “very quickly”, when lawmakers reminded him that Bagram is the “only base the US has on the borders of China”. He advised the lawmakers to consult the Pentagon.  

*

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: Afghan children walk past a Taliban Red Unit, an elite force, Alingar district, Laghman province in eastern Afghanistan (File photo) 

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.

***

“History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon? ‘”—Professor Robert Langdon

The Decline of an Empire

Why did World War One happen?  The conventional fable agreed upon begins on June 28, 1914 with the assassination of Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo.  The aftermath of the assassination spiraled out of control.  It was like an unstoppable train speeding down the tracks.  Suddenly all of the Western powers were at war.  When the armistice was signed on November 11, 1918 forty million people lay dead.  Exactly five years to the day after the assassination of the Archduke, the Treaty of Versailles was signed.  Germany alone accepts all the guilt for the war.  The end.

Well, it was not “The End”.  The outcome of The First World War led to World War Two.  The outcome of WW2 led to the Cold War.  “Winning” the Cold War created the mujahideen; rebranded as Al Qaeda it led to the Global War On Terror, and never-ending wars.  

In the 21st century the U.S. and its allies squandered their blood and treasure on never-ending criminal wars.  Millions of people the U.S. slaughtered in West Asia are dismissed as “collateral damage”.  Meanwhile, China has been using its resources for development, and lifting millions of people out of poverty.

The U.S. Empire has been in a long decline for decades.  More Americans are falling into poverty, and the U.S. has been steadily falling in the United Nations Index of Human Development.  It currently ranks number 28th among developed countries.  The index is a measure of infant mortality, healthcare, life expectancy, education, and per capita income.  The U.S. infrastructure, such as road, rail and airports, public utilities, and the internet are behind other developed countries, too.  

China’s economy is expected to surpass the U.S. in 2028.  Russia has also revitalized its economy in the last 20 years.  Every advance that China and Russia make is propagandized by the U.S. as “aggression”.  

Instead of competing peacefully with China and Russia, the U.S. has engaged in a New Cold War.  Each passing year the world grows closer to a Hot War.  The Doomsday Clock of nuclear annihilations was at 14 minutes to midnight at the end of the Cold War.  It is now at 100 seconds to Armageddon.  That is the closest it has ever been.  There is no effort in the U.S. to turn back the clock.  

August 2014 was the centennial of The First World War.  The year was a grim reminder, which momentarily gave people pause, and a slew of articles resulted.  For instance, Graham Allison wrote an article that appeared in The Atlantic:  Just How Likely Is Another World War? . Allison assessed the similarities and differences between 1914 and 2014.  His conclusion was:

”For the ‘complacent’ who live in what Gore Vidal labeled the ‘United States of Amnesia’, the similarities should serve as a vivid reminder that many of the reasons currently given for discounting threats of war did not prevent World War I.” 

Then Allison optimistically concluded that another world war is, “unlikely if statesmen in both the U.S. and China reflect on what happened a century ago.”  Does anybody see “wise statesmen” reflecting, or see much concern in the United States of Amnesia?  [The blindness, entrenched mediocrity and exceptionalist values of the US ruling cliques constitute also a central point of alarm in Russian geostrategic analyst  Andrei Martyanov’s indispensable book trilogy on US decline.—Ed)

There is no viable anti-war liberal class in the U.S. demanding dialogue, diplomacy and compromise among nations.  The U.S. has exited treaties, which were designed to prevent catastrophic wars.  The U.S. has criminally abandoned international law and the United Nations Charter.  Instead the U.S. has come up with its own “rules-based international order”. International law is based on treaties among nations.  The “rules” are diktats made in Washington and Brussels, imposed on the rest of the world by U.S. militarism.

In the unipolar world after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. did as it pleased.  It ruled the air, land and seas.  With the rise of China and Russia the U.S. does not compete peacefully, nor does it show any desire to.  Diplomacy, negotiation and compromise are dirty words to U,S. warmongers, of which there are many.  

International capitalism is not based on peaceful competition.  Instead it is based on military power, financial blockades, blackmail, and might makes right.  International capitalism is a system of imperialism, monopoly, and war.  When an empire is challenged, it lashes out.  Empires try to destroy their competitors.  Empires project their own lust for power and world domination onto all competitors.

In the early 20th century the sun never set on the British Empire.  Metaphorically, the sun started to set with the rise of Germany.  The British saw a rising Germany as a threat to its goal of world domination.  

The following essay summarizes how the British Empire set out to destroy Germany in 1902.  It led to The Great War.  The similarities of that era are frighteningly similar to the U.S. paranoia and hostility to a rising China and Russia today.            

Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner and The Society of the Elect

The authors of The Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War claim that it was Great Britain that started World War One, and not Germany.  It is a convincing story.  The authors George Docherty and James MacGregor call their book a conspiracy fact.

The story begins in the late 1800s.  The British Empire (aware that control of world trade was essential for supremacy) ruled the seas.  In 1870 a young Cecil John Rhodes migrated to a British colony in southern Africa.  After failing at farming he set out in pursuit of diamonds, which had been discovered in a region, which was later named Rhodesia.  With the financial backing of Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the young Rhodes monopolized the diamond trade.  He became fantastically wealthy and founded the De Beers diamond company.  

In 1895 gold was discovered in the Transvaal Republic controlled by Dutch settlers, known as Boers.  Rhodes teamed up with Sir Alfred Milner, who was the British commissioner for Southern Africa.  Together with a small group of wealthy Britons they instigated the Boer War in order to grab the gold for themselves.   

Rhodes and Milner went on to form a secret society.  As Rhodes had written earlier:

”Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire, and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.”

Rhodes’ ambition was to control all of the world’s wealth, for the benefit of the British Empire.  He believed in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race, and he believed that the British Empire should rule the world. After Rhodes’ early death in 1902, Alfred Milner became the leader of the secret society.  Milner was so admired by Rhodes that he is quoted as having said:

“If Milner says peace, I say peace.  If Milner says war, I say war.  Whatever Milner says, I say ditto.”   

Conspiracy Facts

The authors of the “Hidden History” uncovered many World War 1 documents, which lay the blame for WW1 on Rhodes’s secret society.  Authors George Docherty and James MacGregor built on the work of Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley’s book The Anglo-American Establishment.  Quigley wrote:

“One wintery afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in an earnest conversation in London.  From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest import to the British Empire and the world as a whole.  For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than fifty years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation of British imperialism and foreign policy.”

“The three men thus engaged were already well known in England.  The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealth empire builder and the most important person in South Africa.  The second was William T. Stead, the most famous, and probably the most sensational , journalist of the day.  The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend and confidant to Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential advisor to King Edward Vll, and King George V.”

The Boer War was a long and costly war for Britain.  It marked the beginning of the decline of the British Empire.  Rhodes established his secret society of elites to reverse the decline.  He named it The Society of the Elect.  

By the turn of the 20th century, Germany was a rising power.  It was outpacing Great Britain in industry, finance, science, technology, commerce and culture.  Germany was acquiring colonies and expanding its navy.  The Society of the Elect viewed every German advancement as an act of aggression.  They conspired to start a war that would crush Germany, so that the British Empire would remain supreme.

Circles Within Circles

The Society of the Elect was organized with circles within circles.  The inner circle was Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, W. T. Stead, The Viscount Esher, the Marquess Salsbury, Lord Rosebery, and Nathaniel “Natty” Rothschild.  King Edward VII was a central member, and after his death in 2010, King George V was too.  According to “Hidden History”:

“Stead was there to influence public opinion, and Esher acted as the voice of the King.  Salisbury and Rosebery provided the political networks, while Rothschild represented the international money power.  Milner was the master manipulator, the iron-willed, assertive intellectual who offered that one essential factor:  strong leadership.”

The Society of the Elect had an outer circle, which they named the “Association of Helpers”.  The Helpers were like-minded elites from the ruling class.  They were royalty, imperialists, financiers, greedy profiteers, war mongers, and egotistical and corrupt politicians.  The Helpers were willingly manipulated, often unknowingly, by the inner circle.

Some recruits to the Helpers were Jan Christian Smuts, Arthur Balfour, Edward Grey, Richard Haldane, H. H. Asquith, Lord Roberts, David Lloyd George, Sir Edward Carson, Frederick Sleigh Roberts, Alfred Harmsworth, and Winston Churchill.    

During WW1 Churchill was among the most ruthless imperialists and warmongers.  He is quoted as having said:

“I think a curse should rest on me, because I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment – and yet I can’t help it – I enjoy every second of it.”

The Propaganda Machine

The Boer War was an important prelude to World War 1.  It started off badly in 1899.  It was unpopular at home, and a drain on the British Empire.  In 1902 it ended badly too, with the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Boers.  

Tens-of-thousands of men, women and children died of disease and starvation in British concentration camps.  This would prove to be an important event in the early development of propaganda.

It was the British who began perfecting propaganda to promote the Boer War and to cover up its ugly aftermath.  Newspapers had become an affordable mass medium of influence.  The Society of the Elect had Helpers who owned the newspapers and published war propaganda eagerly.  Rhodes had written of his planned secret society that it “should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people”.

Winston Churchill was a self-promoting war correspondent sent to South Africa during the Boer War.  He returned home as a self-aggrandizing hero.  His wild story of being captured by the Boers, and his harrowing escape made him a national celebrity.  In 1900 he was elected to Parliament, and remained there until his death in 1964.  

Even as a declining empire, the British navy was supreme in the early 20th century.  The British naval policy was to keep its navy as large as the next two naval powers combined.  When Kaiser Wilhelm II started expanding Germany’s navy the British propaganda called it “German aggression” and interfering with “freedom of the seas”.  Haven’t we heard similar cries of alarm in recent times?

Like many contemporary cartoons and posters, the plucky Boers were depicted as the underdogs taking on the overwhelming might of the British Empire, the undisputed superpower of the era. Here the cartoon depicts them as the diminutive Lilliputians from Gulliver’s Travels. As in the classic book, they have subdued and tied up the giant Gulliver. (Boer War Archive)

Yet, Kaiser Wilhelm’s policy was to keep his navy at less than two-thirds the size of the British navy. The German threat to the British Empire was invented propaganda, and the hype of a German invasion was ludicrous propaganda to frighten the public.

 The Triple Entente       

The Society of the Elect made ententes with France and Russia for a war on Germany.  The alliances were secret, unknown to the public, Parliament and most of the Cabinet.  

The British had secret military “non-binding military staff conversations” with Belgium going back to 1906.  In 1911 Belgium collaborated with France and Great Britain on how to defend Belgium’s “neutrality” from a German invasion.  Both offensive and defensive alliances are a violation of neutrality.  

Belgium had instituted military conscription in 1913, and began making plans for a war with Germany.  As “Hidden History” reports:

“Documents found in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Brussels shortly after the war began proved Anglo-Belgian collusion at the highest levels, including the direct involvement of the Belgian foreign secretary, had been going on for years.”  

The Society of the Elect needed ententes with France and Russia because of their large land armies and strategic locations.  The Society secretly promised Russia the prize of Constantinople and the Dardanelles, after the planned breakup of the Ottoman Empire.  Russia had long-coveted a warm-water port.  The Society promised France the return of Alsace-Lorraine, which the French had lost to Germany in 1871.  The secret triple entente planned to divvy up German overseas colonies among themselves.   

Germany knew that it had two hostile empires on its borders.  The German army was confident that it could defend against either one.  But a simultaneous invasion by both Russia and France could be fatal.  A large and speedy German army was maintained for defense.  Military thinking at the time was that the best defense is a speedy offense.

In 1905 General Count van Schlieffen presented a defensive plan.  It became known as the Schlieffen Plan.  If both Russia and France attacked, then the German army would go through Belgium to attack the French from behind their lines.  After the German army quickly defeated France, the plan was to rush to the eastern front to defend against the slower moving Russians.  Time was of the essence.  One day’s delay could result in disaster.

From military intelligence and leaked information, the Society of the Elect learned of the Schlieffen plan.  In 1904 a spy in the German army known only as Le vengeur (The Avenger) sold the entire Schlieffen plan to the French.  Also a general on the German staff was the brother-in-law of the King of Belgium, and could have revealed the Schlieffen Plan.  The Society of the Elect used the Schlieffen Plan to set a trap.  They had to make it appear that Germany was the aggressor.  Otherwise, the British Parliament and the public would not support a war in Europe.  

Again, according to “Hidden History”, Belgian neutrality was a sham:

“Belgium was involved in secret military plans for a possible war of aggression against an unsuspecting Germany but almost a decade later would be presented as the innocent victim of German aggression.”  

The Kaiser knew that the Schlieffen plan would likely fail if the British declared war too.  The British could send its army across the English Channel to slow the German army in France, while Russia invaded from the east.  The British navy could attack and blockade Germany from the North Sea, and it could protect France’s coast.  The French navy could then be dispersed to the Mediterranean to deal with the German navy based in Pula, Austria on the Adriatic Sea.

Mobilization is an Act of War

It was understood in 1914 that the mobilization of an army was a de facto declaration of war.  If Russia and France mobilized their armies, then Germany was confronted with a fatal disaster, unless they moved quickly.  When Germany invaded Belgium, the Society of the Elect got their excuse to go to war.  The trap was sprung.  

Here is what the “Hidden History” says about mobilization:

“The Franco-Russian Military Convention [of 1892] was very specific in declaring that the first to mobilise must be held the aggressor, and that general mobilization ‘is war’”.

The “Hidden History” documents the sequence of events that occurred after the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.  

The Balkans had been a hotbed of conflict for years.  Serbia was aggressively seeking a “Greater Serbia” of Slavic people.  Nationalism was running high, and there was deep hostility towards Austria, because of its 1908 annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Ottoman Empire.

Serbia reacted with jubilation at the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo.  Austria was outraged at the assassination of their future king.  According to “Hidden History”, Austria had solid evidence that Serbia was behind the assassination.  Austria then spent three weeks contemplating a response.  On July 23rd Austria sent Serbia a list of 10 demands, and gave them 48 hours to reply.  

On July 25th Serbia’s answer was to mobilize its army, which was a de facto act of war.  Later the same day Austria began mobilizing.  On July 28th Austria declared war on Serbia, and on July 29th Austria bombarded Belgrade.  On July 30th Kaiser Wilhelm still hoped to placate Austria and Serbia.

According to “Hidden History”, the Kaiser did not give Austria a “blank cheque” of military support, as stated in so many history books:  

“It is claimed that, in a deliberate attempt to force a war on Europe, the Kaiser gave an unconditional assurance to Austria by a so-called blank cheque.  In fact, Austria-Hungary’s need to respond to Serbian aggression was endorsed by others including Britain and the British press.  The Kaiser and his advisors supported a local solution to a local problem and made absolutely no special preparation for war.”   

As “Hidden History” says, Germany showed no intention of attacking Russia.  Nor did Russia have any obligation to defend Serbia militarily.  So, the fable that the assassination of the Archduke triggered a chain reaction of opposing alliances is just that, a fable.

The only “blank cheque” to go to war was the secret entente between Britain, France and Russia.  On July 24th the Russians and the French secretly agreed to mobilize their armies.  The British soon followed.

German trench, 1916. Some get a rest while others stand guard.

Winston Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty, and on July 29th he ordered the British navy to its war station in the North Sea.  This put the British navy in position to attack and blockade Germany.  Society of the Elect member Richard Haldane gave the order to mobilize the British army.  The Society of the Elect took Great Britain to war even before the parliament authorized it.

On July 26th Russia began mobilizing.  Russia was mobilized by July 30th.  The Kaiser sent a telegram to his cousin Czar Nicholas asking him to halt mobilization.  The Kaiser waited in vain for 24 hours for an answer.  Then Kaiser Wilhelm had his ambassador in St. Petersburg ask Russia’s minister of foreign affairs to halt Russia’s mobilization.  On August 1st the Russian minister said that the Russian mobilization would continue.  Later that day Germany declared war on Russia.

Kaiser Wilhelm II Tried to Avoid War 

According to “Hidden History”, Kaiser Wilhelm II did everything he could to avoid war.  The Kaiser did not threaten to attack or declare war on France.  He repeatedly asked his British cousin King George V if he could guarantee French neutrality.  He pledged that if France would remain neutral, then Germany would not attack it.    

King George V never gave a straight answer.  Instead he deceived his cousin, telling him that Britain would stay out of a “ruinous” war.  It was a stall for time that Germany did not have.  Belgium began mobilizing on July 31st.  When the Kaiser could wait no longer he mobilized the German army on August 1, 1914.  Germany was the last country to mobilize.

On August 1st the German ambassador to London, Prince Karl Max Lichnowsky, met with Sir Edward Grey.  While speaking with Lichnowsky, Grey allegedly offered that if Germany pledged not to attack France, then England would remain neutral and guarantee France’s “passivity”.  Kaiser Wilhelm II accepted immediately; only to be told later by King George that “there must be some misunderstanding”.  Lichnowsky then advised that if Great Britain would remain neutral, Germany would respect Belgium neutrality.  Sir Edward Grey replied that he could not give this assurance since “England must have its hands free”.  It had all been a stall for time, which Germany did not have.

Babies On Bayonets

On August 2nd the Kaiser asked Belgium for “permission“ to pass his army through.  On August 3rd Belgium declined, and Germany declared war on France.  On August 4th Germany invaded Belgium.  The Germans were met with stiff resistance from Belgium’s 234,000-man army.

The British propaganda machine went to work.  They feigned outrage at the violation of Belgium neutrality.  There were horrifying stories in the press about German atrocities, executions, rapes, and “babies on bayonets”.  The British propaganda machine called it “The Rape of Belgium”.  

The British dredged up the 1839 Treaty of London.  It supposedly obligated the British to defend Belgium’s neutrality.  To “protect” Belgium, the British sent an expeditionary force to France on August 9th, as was secretly planned since 1906 and 1911 with French and Belgium military planners.     

The public was told that defending Belgium was a matter of honor for the British.  The propaganda was that there would be a domino effect if the British Empire failed to act.  Supposedly, Germany would conquer all of Europe; even the world.  None of it was true, and Belgium neutrality was a sham.  

On August 4th King George declared war on Germany.  The British parliament did not vote on the war until August 6th, and then it was to fund the war.  The Society of the Elect got their war.  Instead of reversing the decline of the British Empire though, the Great War accelerated it.  The British came out of the war exhausted and deeply in debt to the U.S.  They would have to cut spending, and reduce the size of their navy.  The British Empire would never rule the seas again.

The U.S. is Now Facing its “World War 1” Moment

So, why did the First World War happen?  The authors of The Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War say that based on documentary evidence, a small group of wealthy British elites took the world to war to preserve the supremacy of the British Empire.  It was a war the Society of the Elect chose.  

As Edward Bernays said:

“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”

Bernays was the “father of propaganda”, a dishonor usually reserved for Joseph Goebbels.  During the First World War Bernays was developing war propaganda for the Allies.  It was the British and the U.S. that began perfecting war propaganda.

It takes war propaganda to stampede the public to war.  Propaganda is how the British got the public to support the Boer War in 1899.  Having used propaganda successfully for that war, they began using propaganda in the early 1900s to prime the British people for a war with Germany.  Fear is the most effective weapon of war propaganda.

As Henry Kissinger infamously said in 2002:  

“The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being.”

And as H. L. Mencken said of democracy:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

The U.S. is now facing its “World War 1” moment.  For several decades the public has been feed constant fear mongering towards Iran, Russia and China.  The public is easily frightened into giving up their liberties for the promise of protection from “hobgoblins”.  Those who profit from war are not the ones who fight and die in them.  With every new hobgoblin the war profiteers invent they line their pockets with money and feed their insatiable ego with power.  

Another world war could come at any time.  The weapons of mass destruction are locked, loaded and ready to go in a matter of seconds.  The next world war will be The Last World 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.

This article was originally published on The Greanville Post.

David William Pear is a journalist, columnist, editor, and commentator.  His articles, essays and interviews have an emphasis on U.S. foreign policy, history, and economic and social issues. He is an advocate for peace, ending US wars of aggression, and promoting economic, political and social justice. An Associate Edityor with The Greanville Post, he has been writing also for The Real News Network, OpEdNews, American Herald Tribune, and other publications since 2009. He is a member of Veterans for Peace, Saint Pete (Florida) for Peace, CodePink and the Palestinian-led non-violent organization International Solidarity Movement. 

All images in this article are taken from The Greanville Post

America Dominant Again (in Arms Sales)

May 26th, 2021 by William D. Hartung

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.

***

When it comes to trade in the tools of death and destruction, no one tops the United States of America.

In April of this year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published its annual analysis of trends in global arms sales and the winner — as always — was the U.S. of A. Between 2016 and 2020, this country accounted for 37% of total international weapons deliveries, nearly twice the level of its closest rival, Russia, and more than six times that of Washington’s threat du jour, China. 

Sadly, this was no surprise to arms-trade analysts.  The U.S. has held that top spot for 28 of the past 30 years, posting massive sales numbers regardless of which party held power in the White House or Congress.  This is, of course, the definition of good news for weapons contractors like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, even if it’s bad news for so many of the rest of us, especially those who suffer from the use of those arms by militaries in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, the Philippines, and the United Arab Emirates.  The recent bombing and leveling of Gaza by the U.S.-financed and supplied Israeli military is just the latest example of the devastating toll exacted by American weapons transfers in these years.

While it is well known that the United States provides substantial aid to Israel, the degree to which the Israeli military relies on U.S. planes, bombs, and missiles is not fully appreciated. According to statistics compiled by the Center for International Policy’s Security Assistance Monitor, the United States has provided Israel with $63 billion in security assistance over the past two decades, more than 90% of it through the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing, which provides funds to buy U.S. weaponry.  But Washington’s support for the Israeli state goes back much further. Total U.S. military and economic aid to Israel exceeds $236 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2018 dollars) since its founding — nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars.

King of the Arms Dealers

Donald Trump, sometimes referred to by President Joe Biden as “the other guy,” warmly embraced the role of arms-dealer-in-chief and not just by sustaining massive U.S. arms aid for Israel, but throughout the Middle East and beyond.  In a May 2017 visit to Saudi Arabia — his first foreign trip — Trump would tout a mammoth (if, as it turned out, highly exaggerated) $110-billion arms deal with that kingdom.

On one level, the Saudi deal was a publicity stunt meant to show that President Trump could, in his own words, negotiate agreements that would benefit the U.S. economy. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a pal of Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS), the architect of Saudi Arabia’s devastating intervention in Yemen, even put in a call to then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson. His desire: to get a better deal for the Saudi regime on a multibillion-dollar missile defense system that Lockheed was planning to sell it.  The point of the call was to put together the biggest arms package imaginable in advance of his father-in-law’s trip to Riyadh.

When Trump arrived in Saudi Arabia to immense local fanfare, he milked the deal for all it was worth. Calling the future Saudi sales “tremendous,” he assured the world that they would create “jobs, jobs, jobs” in the United States.

That arms package, however, did far more than burnish Trump’s reputation as a deal maker and jobs creator.  It represented an endorsement of the Saudi-led coalition’s brutal war in Yemen, which has now resulted in the deaths of nearly a quarter of a million people and put millions of others on the brink of famine.

And don’t for a second think that Trump was alone in enabling that intervention. The kingdom had received a record $115 billion in arms offers — notifications to Congress that don’t always result in final sales — over the eight years of the Obama administration, including for combat aircraft, bombs, missiles, tanks, and attack helicopters, many of which have since been used in Yemen.  After repeated Saudi air strikes on civilian targets, the Obama foreign-policy team finally decided to slow Washington’s support for that war effort, moving in December 2016 to stop a multibillion-dollar bomb sale. Upon taking office, however, Trump reversed course and pushed that deal forward, despite Saudi actions that Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) said “look like war crimes to me.”

Trump made it abundantly clear, in fact, that his reasons for arming Saudi Arabia were anything but strategic.  In an infamous March 2018 White House meeting with Mohammed bin Salman, he even brandished a map of the United States to show which places were likely to benefit most from those Saudi arms deals, including election swing states Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  He doubled down on that economic argument after the October 2018 murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at that country’s consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, even as calls to cut off sales to the regime mounted in Congress.  The president made it clear then that jobs and profits, not human rights, were paramount to him, stating:

“$110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and many other great U.S. defense contractors. If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries — and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States!”

And so it went.  In the summer of 2019 Trump vetoed an effort by Congress to block an $8.1-billion arms package that included bombs and support for the Royal Saudi Air Force and he continued to back the kingdom even in his final weeks in office. In December 2020, he offered more than $500 million worth of bombs to that regime on the heels of a $23-billion package to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), its partner-in-crime in the Yemen war.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE weren’t the only beneficiaries of Trump’s penchant for selling weapons.  According to a report by the Security Assistance Monitor at the Center for International Policy, his administration made arms sales offers of more than $110 billion to customers all over the world in 2020, a 75% increase over the yearly averages reached during the Obama administration, as well as in the first three years of his tenure.

Will Biden Be Different?

Advocates of reining in U.S. weapons trafficking took note of Joe Biden’s campaign-trail pledge that, if elected, he would not “check our values at the door” in deciding whether to continue arming the Saudi regime.  Hopes were further raised when, in his first foreign policy speech as president, he announced that his administration would end “support for offensive operations in Yemen” along with “relevant arms sales.”

That statement, of course, left a potentially giant loophole on the question of which weapons would be considered in support of “offensive operations,” but it did at least appear to mark a sharp departure from the Trump era.  In the wake of Biden’s statement, arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE were indeed put on hold, pending a review of their potential consequences.

Three months into Biden’s term, however, the president’s early pledge to rein in damaging arms deals are already eroding. The first blow was the news that the administration would indeed move forward with a $23-billion arms package to the UAE, including F-35 combat aircraft, armed drones, and a staggering $10 billion worth of bombs and missiles. The decision was ill-advised on several fronts, most notably because of that country’s role in Yemen’s brutal civil war. There, despite scaling back its troops on the ground, it continues to arm, train, and finance 90,000 militia members, including extremist groups with links to the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  The UAE has also backed armed opposition forces in Libya in violation of a United Nations embargo, launched drone strikes there that killed scores of civilians, and cracked down on dissidents at home and abroad. It regularly makes arbitrary arrests and uses torture.  If arming the UAE isn’t a case of “checking our values at the door,” it’s not clear what is.

To its credit, the Biden administration committed to suspending two Trump bomb deals with Saudi Arabia.  Otherwise, it’s not clear what (if any) other pending Saudi sales will be deemed “offensive” and blocked. Certainly, the new administration has allowed U.S. government personnel and contractors to help maintain the effectiveness of the Saudi Air Force and so has continued to enable ongoing air strikes in Yemen that are notorious for killing civilians.  The Biden team has also failed to forcefully pressure the Saudis to end their blockade of that country, which United Nations agencies have determined could put 400,000 Yemeni children at risk of death by starvation in the next year.

In addition, the Biden administration has cleared a sale of anti-ship missiles to the Egyptian regime of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the most repressive government in that nation’s history, helmed by the man Donald Trump referred to as “my favorite dictator.”  The missiles themselves are in no way useful for either internal repression or that country’s scorched-earth anti-terror campaign against rebels in its part of the Sinai peninsula — where civilians have been tortured and killed, and tens of thousands displaced from their homes — but the sale does represent a tacit endorsement of the regime’s repressive activities.

Guns, Anyone?

While Biden’s early actions have undermined promises to take a different approach to arms sales, the story isn’t over.  Key members of Congress are planning to closely monitor the UAE sale and perhaps intervene to prevent the delivery of the weapons.  Questions have been raised about what arms should go to Saudi Arabia and reforms that would strengthen Congress’s role in blocking objectionable arms transfers are being pressed by at least some members of the House and the Senate.

One area where President Biden could readily begin to fulfill his campaign pledge to reduce the harm to civilians from U.S. arms sales would be firearms exports.  The Trump administration significantly loosened restrictions and regulations on the export of a wide range of guns, including semi-automatic firearms and sniper rifles. As a result, such exports surged in 2020, with record sales of more than 175,000 military rifles and shotguns.

In a distinctly deregulatory mood, Trump’s team moved sales of deadly firearms from the jurisdiction of the State Department, which had a mandate to vet any such deals for possible human-rights abuses, to the Commerce Department, whose main mission was simply to promote the export of just about anything.  Trump’s “reforms” also eliminated the need to pre-notify Congress on any major firearms sales, making it far harder to stop deals with repressive regimes.

As he pledged to do during his presidential campaign, President Biden could reverse Trump’s approach without even seeking Congressional approval. The time to do so is now, given the damage such gun exports cause in places like the Philippines and Mexico, where U.S.-supplied firearms have been used to kill thousands of civilians, while repressing democratic movements and human-rights defenders.

Who Benefits?

Beyond the slightest doubt, a major — or perhaps even the major — obstacle to reforming arms sales policies and practices is the weapons industry itself. That includes major contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, and General Dynamics that produce fighter planes, bombs, armored vehicles, and other major weapons systems, as well as firearms makers like Sig Sauer.

Raytheon stands out in this crowd because of its determined efforts to push through bomb sales to Saudi Arabia and the deep involvement of its former (or future) employees with the U.S. government.  A former Raytheon lobbyist, Charles Faulkner, worked in the Trump State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and was involved in deciding that Saudi Arabia was not — it was! — intentionally bombing civilians in Yemen. He then supported declaring a bogus “emergency” to ram through the sale of bombs and of aircraft support to Saudi Arabia.

Raytheon has indeed insinuated itself in the halls of government in a fashion that should be deeply troubling even by the minimalist standards of the twenty-first-century military-industrial complex. Former Trump defense secretary Mark Esper was Raytheon’s chief in-house lobbyist before joining the administration, while current Biden defense secretary Lloyd Austin served on Raytheon’s board of directors.  While Austin has pledged to recuse himself from decisions involving the company, it’s a pledge that will prove difficult to verify.

Arms sales are Big Business — the caps are a must! — for the top weapons makers.  Lockheed Martin gets roughly one-quarter of its sales from foreign governments and Raytheon five percent of its revenue from Saudi sales.  American jobs allegedly tied to weapons exports are always the selling point for such dealings, but in reality, they’ve been greatly exaggerated.

At most, arms sales account for just more than one-tenth of one percent of U.S. employment. Many such sales, in fact, involve outsourcing production, in whole or in part, to recipient nations, reducing the jobs impact here significantly. Though it’s seldom noted, virtually any other form of spending creates more jobs than weapons production. In addition, exporting green-technology products would create far larger global markets for U.S. goods, should the government ever decide to support them in anything like the way it supports the arms industry.

Given what’s at stake for them economically, Raytheon and its cohorts spend vast sums attempting to influence both parties in Congress and any administration.  In the past two decades, defense companies, led by the major arms exporting firms, spent $285 million in campaign contributions alone and $2.5 billion on lobbying, according to statistics gathered by the Center for Responsive Politics.  Any changes in arms export policy will mean forcefully taking on the arms lobby and generating enough citizen pressure to overcome its considerable influence in Washington.

Given the political will to do so, there are many steps the Biden administration and Congress could take to rein in runaway arms exports, especially since such deals are uniquely unpopular with the public.  A September 2019 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, for example, found that 70% of Americans think arms sales make the country less safe.

The question is: Can such public sentiment be mobilized in favor of actions to stop at least the most egregious cases of U.S. weapons trafficking, even as the global arms trade rolls on?  Selling death should be no joy for any country, so halting it is a goal well worth fighting for. Still, it remains to be seen whether the Biden administration will ever limit weapons sales or if it will simply continue to promote this country as the world’s top arms exporter of all time.

*

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

Corporate Courts Threat to Insects

May 26th, 2021 by Phil Carter

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.

***

Countries around the world have been slow to ban insecticides such as neonicotinoids despite the ongoing loss of insects, including key pollinators, globally.

One reason may be the threat of litigation in a system of secret corporate courts that exists to adjudicate Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses in international trade agreements.

The ISDS system allows companies to sue national governments for damages and lost profits if they pass laws banning hazardous chemicals.

Banned

Jean Blaylock, of Global Justice Now, an NGO campaigning on trade agreements, told The Ecologist: “ISDS has often been used by big business, including pesticide and chemical companies, as a tool to bully and pressure governments to make the decisions that the corporations want.”

History shows that bans on dangerous chemicals work.

In Japan, the Minamata disaster of the mid-20th century involved serious birth defects due to methyl mercury effluent that contaminated fish that people then ate.

It was ended with strict environmental regulations in the early 1970s that banned mercury in industrial effluent at detectable levels.

However, it is likely that Japan would have difficulty passing such laws in the present situation with trade agreements.

Trade

Blaylock gave two examples from Canada. In the first, when Quebec in Canada banned the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes – meaning to tidy lawns and gardens – Canada was sued by pesticide maker Dow Agroscience, forcing the government to settle out of court.

In another case with ominous implications for emerging disasters like Minamata, she said “when Canada banned the chemical MMT in petrol, which is suspected of causing nerve damage, they were sued by the manufacturer, Ethyl.”

Canada was forced to remove the ban in 1998, paying $13 million in lost profits to Ethyl under the terms of a settlement. Subsequently, a 2001 study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine stated there were “major concerns with regard to public health effects” from exposure to MMT.

Scott Sinclair of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives explained by email about pressure against Mexico, which passed a decree banning glyphosate which is used in the herbicide Roundup manufactured by German chemical giant Bayer.

“The reaction from US agribusiness was swift. In March, a coalition of agribusiness groups including CropLife America demanded the US government take trade action against Mexico for violating the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA).”

Laws

Sinclair said that the USMCA retains ISDS provisions with regard to Mexico, although they were removed between Canada and the US. In addition, the old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which it replaced allows legal action to be taken by companies for another three years.

Thus Bayer, which is a member of Croplife America, still has the possibility to sue the Mexican government.

In the Asia-Pacific region, two competing trade agreements that have recently been agreed are starkly different regarding corporate courts. One, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) includes provisions for companies to sue governments.

However, in an indication that corporate courts may be starting to fall out of favor, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) that is to come into force in late 2021 is reported to not include ISDS.

Sinclair said the decision is definitely a step in the right direction, and a huge improvement over the CPTPP. He added that in North America the majority of ISDS claims have been related to environmental protection, causing a huge problem for governments that want to pass laws contrary to corporate interests.

Catastrophic

However, Japan has signed both the CPTPP and the RCEP, one with corporate courts and one without, and Sinclair said that private investors tend to be aggressive in using the dispute settlement mechanism.

In light of this, it seems likely that chemical companies will not hesitate to sue for damages under the agreement that allows them to do so, and the threat of this continues to exist if Japan passes necessary laws banning harmful pesticides.

The landmark ban on methyl mercury, the chemical responsible for the Minamata disaster, ended one of the worst human tragedies of the last century, and stands as an example for the present.

Against the background of the ongoing worldwide insect extinction event, rice-field insects such as dragonflies that were common only 30 years ago have one by one become endangered, with broad-spectrum insecticides playing a devastating role.

As insect species after insect species ends up on Japan’s Red List, the failure to heed this lesson of a previous generation is likely to have catastrophic consequences.

*

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.

Phil Carter is a freelance environmental journalist based in Japan.

Featured image: Village rice fields, Hida Shirakawa-go, Gifu-ken, Japan, July 2010. Photo: Joel Abroad via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA).

This incisive article first published by Global Research in June 2020 addresses the issue of Annexation

***

Israeli soldier executing the kidnapping of several Nahalin villagers southeast of Bethlehem in the West Bank, including Mohammad Afif Fannoun, on June 12, 2020.

When you visualize it, as I try to, what does Israel’s forthcoming annexation of parts of the West Bank look like to you? I mean, what images do you expect to see when Israel makes its declaration, as is expected, in July? Do you perhaps imagine scenes of violence, terror and incitement to play out on social media and on the few seconds of mainstream TV that will be devoted to the announcement?

If you are expecting “an event” as Israel announces its third grand robbery of Palestinian land, you should know that Israel’s annexation is an ongoing process that has been in the making for several decades now.

The statements of condemnation by various international bodies already emerging (more to be expected, of course) sound “mundane” and “normal”, echoing as they do, words addressed to Israel many times since Israel forcibly altered the facts of dominion, demography and land ownership in Jerusalem, beginning June 1967, and the West Bank.

Words, never meaningful action.

These statements continue to be utterly devoid of the consternation and helpless fury engendered in Palestinians by Israel’s continuing obliteration of the Palestinian Muslim and Christian character of the land of Palestine. By Judaizing Jerusalem, and now large swatches of the West Bank, Israel has succeeded in its project of drawing a curtain over Palestine’s history since 70 A.D., and claiming that our history only began with the advent of Theodor Herzl and the Zionist movement. Herzl is known to have said, “If whole branches of Jews must be destroyed, it is worth it, as long as a Jewish state in Palestine is created.”

The obliteration of Palestinian history has driven hundreds of Palestinians to record their personal histories by sharing images like this family picture of my own great grandfather Ismail, which I re-posted recently on Facebook with the following caption:

My great grandfather Ismail ibn (son of) Mahmoud ibn Khalil Al Najjar of #Lifta, in Lifta, Jerusalem, Palestine, circa 1945

“This country will either be Eretz [the land of] Israel with an absolute Jewish majority and a small Arab minority, or Eretz Ishmael [Ismail], and Jewish emigration will begin again if we do not expel the Arabs one way or another.”

– Spoken at a closed discussion in the summer of 1967, a conversation published in 1968 in the Israeli journal De’ot (‘Opinions’), by Israel Eldad (Sheib)

For a long time now, we have been witnessing on social media the incremental (“crawling”) process of Israel’s annexation unfold in the form of video clips and images. Some show outrageous scenes of Jewish “settlers” burning down ancient olive trees or, for that matter, a Palestinian family! Mainstream media carefully labels them “far right” — a few bad apples, and the band plays on.

Some clips manage to show the construction of Jewish colonies going up (with Palestinian labor!), but mostly we only see what Palestinians see and experience behind their walled off property that has already been confiscated by Israel. They are mostly scenes of Israeli harassment and containment, because the process of annexation does not end with the actual confiscation of Palestinian land and property (and, if need be, eviction and displacement); the next step is securing the robbery through a vicious well-orchestrated campaign of terror and detention.

Take, for example, the following embedded video clip posted live on Facebook by Yousef Shakarnah on 12 June 2020 and titled in Arabic, “Storming the village of Nahalin, stirring up terror — a campaign of arrests, including the arrest of Mohammad Afif Fannoun, gas fire and sound bombs, as part of the project of control and annexation.”

‘Storming the village of Nahalin, stirring up terror — a campaign of arrests, including the arrest of Muhammad Afif Fannoun, gas fire and sound bombs, as part of the project of control and annexation’.

Nahalin (also spelled Nahaleen), southwest of Bethlehem in the West Bank, is ringed by the vast Jewish “settlement bloc” of Gush Etzion. The lands of the village have already been subjected to a narrative that obliterates their Palestinian Muslim character, making way for the heist facilitated by the state for its “settler” Jews: The Jerusalem Post in 2015, for example, published a fake-news or hasbara piece claiming that 4,000 years ago “Tens of thousands of Jews, if not more, had lived in the area before even one Palestinian ever set foot in Gush Etzion … Thus, any claim that the current Jewish residents of Gush Etzion have seized lands here is false, even defamatory.”

When you view the video clip, what do you see? An annexation or a routine “security” operation? I asked two Jewish Israeli friends to take a look at the video to help me understand the Hebrew. The language and cultural divide that exists in such videos present an obstacle, not just for American viewers, but also for Palestinian and Jewish Israeli viewers, neither one of whom understands, literally, what the other is saying.

The video clip did not convey “annexation” to them. One of them wrote, in good faith, to say:

Not sure what you’re trying to write… but, unless I’m missing something, I don’t think this recording of what looks like a routine and uneventful visit is terribly meaningful. There may be thousands of such visits every year, and that is very significant, but I don’t see this one visit as remarkable. Again, unless there’s something I’m missing, or perhaps important context that I’m unaware of. Finally, I’m not sure I’d title it Annexation in Progress… Given current discussions about the expected annexation — of something, whether it is much of the Jordan Valley or less than that — this title could be misleading. When I see something like this, I think Occupation As Usual is a good title — which I’ve used over the years.

Technically, my friend is correct. He is in line with all the “technical” claims Israel makes to spit in the face of Palestinian reality— as in, for example, “there is no occupation.”

However, the process of ongoing Israeli robbery of Palestinian land, for that’s what “annexation” means, is inextricable from Israel’s acts of containment of Palestinian individuals, like the “routine” and “uneventful” act shown in the video clip above. There are thousands other similar incidents of Israeli soldiers coming to kidnap a young Palestinian man (or round up a group of them, as in this case), to subsequently torture and interrogate him and then subject him to a kangaroo Israeli military court that puts him away in prison for months or years.

Every single such act is a rape, an outrage, an annexation. We are not numbers.

Annexation is the deliberate taunting and bullying you see in the video clip, implying, as another friend put it, Israel “will do what it wants, when it wants, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

For all the analogies made between Jerusalem and Minneapolis, for Palestinians, the path of demonstrations, legislation and finally reconciliation is simply not an option.

I’ll leave you now with an expressive description of some of what is on view in the video clip of the Israeli soldiers coming for Mohammad Afif Hannoun of Nahalin, written by the writer and activist Diane Langford, who took a look at it, at my request:

I see performative enjoyment of the ‘task’ as when the tooled up soldier blows a kiss. Can’t see anyone threatening them yet they are dressed in full battle kit that kind of reminds me of astronauts on the moon walk, something other worldly and dehumanising of the wearer, creating an atmosphere that something awful is going to happen, something violent. Their monstrous garb and over-protection of themselves by means of massive guns and full body armour reminds me that health workers around the world are facing Covid 19 without proper personal protective clothing. Is there a human being inside that shell? Constant radio chattering. What are they talking about? Trigger fingers twitching menacingly, and yet they act in a casual way and when a shot is fired it is taken as lightly as swatting a fly. The soldier bowls a grenade down the street as if he’s in a game of cricket.

The filmmaker coughs and struggles to breathe, we hear him gasping and fear for his well-being. We hear a woman’s distressed voice. What are they doing to her? A soldier suddenly appears on the roof of the big white house we’ve been looking at. A shot is fired. A woman comes toward the camera in distress. Watching this makes me feel tense and fearful. It is watching fascism up close in a time when many countries seem to be hurtling towards fascism based on this very model.

And, as another friend commented, Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” comes to mind.

*

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.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

Selected Articles: The Zionists on the Defensive

May 26th, 2021 by Global Research News

The Zionists on the Defensive

By Philip Giraldi, May 25, 2021

Yes folks, there is an international conspiracy and it is all about “protecting” Israel. It operates through front and lobbying groups that uniquely promote the interests of a foreign country, Israel, even when those interests do serious damage to the host country where the lobbyists actually live.

The Emperor’s New Rules

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, May 25, 2021

The world is reeling in horror at the latest Israeli massacre of hundreds of men, women and children in Gaza. Much of the world is also shocked by the role of the United States in this crisis, as it keeps providing Israel with weapons to kill Palestinian civilians, in violation of U.S. and international law, and has repeatedly blocked action by the UN Security Council to impose a ceasefire or hold Israel accountable for its war crimes.

Israel-Gaza: Pilots Bombed Palestinian Buildings to ‘Vent Frustration’, Says Report

By Middle East Eye, May 25, 2021

Israeli air force pilots’ bombing and flattening of Palestinian residential towers in the besieged Gaza Strip in its military offensive earlier this month was a way to vent their frustration for failing to stop Palestinian armed factions from firing rockets into Israeli towns, according to an Israeli TV report.

How American Journalism Became a Mouthpiece of the Deep State

By Peter Van Buren, May 25, 2021

Reporters joke that the easiest job in Washington is CIA spokesman. You need only listen carefully to questions, say, “No comment,” and head to happy hour. The joke, however, is on us. The reporters pretend to see only one side of the CIA, the passive hiding of information. They meanwhile profit from the other side of the equation, active information operations designed to influence events in America. It is 2021 and the CIA is running an op against the American people.

Spike Protein Damages Vascular Cells

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 25, 2021

During 2020, many people learned more about coronaviruses, and specifically the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. Pictures of the spiked virus have been plastered across the news media. The image is reminiscent of a chain mace, or flail. This was a medieval weapon with a spiked steel ball at the end of a chain or leather strap. The image may be frightening. It turns out researchers believe the spikes are responsible for significant vascular damage leading to severe disease.

UK Health Secretary Suggests Critics of Vaccine Passports Are “Crazies”

By Paul Joseph Watson, May 25, 2021

UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock suggested critics of the vaccine passport policy were “crazies” after he retweeted a post which disparaged those who have security and privacy concerns about the program. Mail on Sunday commentator Dan Hodges urged people to “ignore the crazies” as he effusively praised the NHS tracking app for being a centralized surveillance hub.

CDC Investigating Reports of ‘Mild’ Heart Problems in Teens, Adolescents After COVID Vaccine

By Megan Redshaw, May 25, 2021

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in a May 17 statement said, reports of myocarditis to date seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination. Most cases appeared to be “mild” and follow-up is ongoing.

FDA Ethically Obligated to Pull COVID Injections Off the Market, or Risk Becoming Complicit in Crimes Against Humanity

By Lance Johnson, May 25, 2021

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was under intense political pressure to give emergency use authorization (EUA) to three experimental injections manufactured by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Now that these experiments have been carried out on roughly one third of the US population, serious issues have emerged.

Outrage Over Israel’s Human Rights Violations Is Fueling the Global BDS Movement

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, May 25, 2021

Israeli police are now threatening to carry out mass arrests against Palestinian citizens of Israel — arrests intended to punish those who took part in sit-ins and other protests in solidarity with Palestinians living in East Jerusalem and Gaza. This latest attack on Palestinian rights comes just days after Israeli police once again attacked Palestinians at Al Aqsa Mosque, and after the Israeli military viciously bombed Gaza for 11 days, killing 248 Palestinians and wounding more than 1,900, destroying 16,800 Palestinian homes and displacing tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Drivers Beware: The Deadly Perils of Blank Check Traffic Stops

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, May 24, 2021

For better or worse, from the moment you’re pulled over, you’re at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.” This is what I call “blank check policing,” in which the police get to call all of the shots.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Zionists on the Defensive
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will Pakistan Give US Post-Afghanistan Military Bases?

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.

***

Just days after senior PBOC officials spoke up about moving to stabilize the yuan as it continued to strengthen against the dollar, Chinese banks have reportedly stepped in to buy dollars and sell the yuan in the open market, the latest in a series of interventions that are seemingly stretching the limits of Beijing’s authoritarian capability to control markets

Over the past month, reports about another crackdown on crypto trading and mining by Beijing sent prices of digital currencies reeling, while senior CCP officials have stepped in to forcibly cool speculation driving up commodity prices.

On top of all this, the weakening greenback has driven the yuan to its strongest level in nearly three years, hurting China’s competitiveness at a time when an ongoing state-ordered deleveraging has sent China’s all-important credit impulse into negative territory, limiting the outlook for growth just as the outlook for China’s economy is becoming increasingly important to the global narrative.

As for the interventions, a handful of traders told Bloomberg that large Chinese state-owned banks were selling yuan in the open market Tuesday. Despite this, and a weaker-than-expected yuan fixing, USD/CNY fell 0.3% to 6.4030, the yuan’s strongest level since June 2018.

Reports noted possible intervention in both USD/CNY and USD/CNH pairs at around the 6.4000 level in order to stem the yuan’s appreciation.

With month-end pressures building, driving the yuan higher, the intervention comes as the Chinese currency arrives at an important technical level that highlights just how much the yuan has strengthened during the dollar’s recent bear run.

The dollar is also at a critical level…

…and looking ahead, a renewed currency war pitting China against the US and the dollar against the yuan could represent a fresh threat to market stability, as any reversal of the greenback’s recent weakness (which has, much to Beijing’s delight, sparked renewed talk of the greenback shedding its global reserve status) could upset several consensus trades  (sell-side analysts have been writing about how “short dollar” is perhaps the biggest global ‘consensus trade’ for almost a year).

All this is happening as the impact of the credit tsunami unleashed in 2020 by Beijing to combat the COVID pandemic is fading fast as China’s credit impulse officially turned negative, threatening to send a deflationary shockwave across the globe.

The direct intervention comes just days after the PBOC signaled that it wouldn’t allow the yuan to strengthen too much, too quickly.

In a statement released Sunday, the deputy governor of the PBOC said the yuan would remain “basically stable,” while another central bank official wrote that the yuan should appreciate to offset the higher costs of commodity imports. However, that second essay, published in a state-backed magazine on Friday, has since been deleted, according to Bloomberg.

That Beijing is having trouble reconciling this is hardly a surprise. China’s economic nabobs now once again find themselves in the unenviable task of trying to control everything – fighting commodity speculation, a currency at a nearly three-year high, a crypto market that serves as a backdoor for wealth fleeing the country – and even the dominance of Chinese tech firms that have become so economically powerful, they have made President Xi and the rest of the senior leadership uncomfortable. And ultimately, Beijing is doing all this as it tries to pull a literal rabbit out of a hat: trying to spur economic growth while continuing to deleverage, while hampering the international competitiveness of its biggest tech companies.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Chinese Banks Buy Dollars to Weaken Yuan in Latest Intervention
  • Tags: ,

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.

***

The massive and continuous demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians around the world including in Israel certainly was a major factor for the imperialist powers and the Arab States to convince the U.S./Israel governments that after 11 days the time for a ceasefire had arrived.

Yet despite this political defeat for the Zionist State of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own future depends on inciting the fascist settlers and Israeli police to provoke new unrest in intensifying tensions against Palestinians. This reality makes the ceasefire fragile.

On May 19 (a day before the ceasefire) Netanyahu invited more than 70 foreign ambassadors and diplomatic representatives to a meeting in an attempt to justify brutal bombing of Gaza by a completely fabricated and illusory narrative.

Toward the end of his deceitful and unconvincing presentation, he warned that “If the perception is that they [Palestinians] gained a victory that is a defeat for all of us.”

Of course Netanyahu by saying “all of us”, meant “all” of those dictatorial regimes in the region which are considered as friends of Israel.

However, the next day even the friendliest countries to Israel saw a ceasefire would serve them better. They feared that if Israel continues killing more children in Gaza, more people would unite to demonstrate against the Zionist State of Israel to the point of an uprising against their own fragile undemocratic regimes.

Millions of working people and youth around the world, (by the power of their massive demonstrations) showed that the false notion of Israel being the “victim” and its “right” to bring death and destruction to their “enemies” with impunity is no longer acceptable. People around the globe didn’t need BBC or CNN to be “informed” about the recent “conflict” since they were independently able to see the massacre live on social media.

They saw how the fourth powerful military in the world was inflicting death and destruction on the defenseless families in Gaza. This realization was beyond a specific religious group, certain ethnicity, or limited to people of a defined geopolitical area. Before the eyes of the world, Israel looked like merciless savages armed with the latest lethal military arsenals. The world opinion with the ongoing COVID pandemic disaster did NOT approve any military operation that destroyed the only COVID testing clinic in Gaza, much-needed hospitals, schools, and also a prominent building that housed foreign media outlets and reporters.

Huge demonstrations in support of Palestinians in the major cities in the U.S., the U.K., and other countries just days after the ceasefire speak volumes on how Israel has been discredited after decades of their brutal conduct as an oppressive occupier and how the “anti-Semite” labeling of their opponents is no longer effective to cover up their apartheid regime and their systematic ethnic cleansing.

There is no doubt the “anti-Semite” sentiments still exist and in some countries is very strong; however, those who propagate hate against Jews or attack the Synagogues are extreme right-wing and fascist groups like some of Trump’s supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th, 2021.

Once again, millions of people around the world demonstrated that – first and foremost they are against wars and military destructive operations in general and in particular they are disgusted to see the defenseless Palestinian families and children face horrible death under the rubble caused by the Israeli precision and smart bombs.

By some estimates, on Saturday, May 22nd, about 200,000 people marched in London and gathered in Hyde Park, which undeniably was one of the largest demonstrations in support of Palestine in British history; demanded “Free Palestine” and “stop the war”.

One of the speakers who address this historical rally was Julian Assange’s partner Stella Moris. In her written statement, in part, she said that Julian Assange

“is paying with his freedom, and maybe his life… over publications that exposed war crimes in Iraq, torture in Guantanamo Bay and Israeli government’s policies in Palestine.” … “Julian published the words spoken by the Israeli government’s official behind closed doors, words that Israeli military materializes in the form of airstrikes that kill innocent men, women and children.”… “Public perception shapes our understanding of what is true and what is possible.” …

This is why the U.S. and U.K. have imprisoned Assange “to hamper our understanding and to prevent us from acting on that knowledge.”

Similar demonstrations have taken place before and after the ceasefire both inside and outside of Israel/Palestine, – from Sana’a to Berlin, from Chicago to Tel Aviv. These demonstrations not only condemned the savagery of the Zionist State of Israel but also raised the question of what steps should be taken to prevent more bloodshed by Israel.

In our time, all crises have a global character and cannot be solved on a local level. Any abstract solution (like Two-State Solution) would not end the occupation of Palestine. Certainly, this is not possible through the current “leadership” who have imposed themselves on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The end of the occupation will not be possible via military operations by the weak army of Hamas or the corrupted and undemocratic clique of Mahmoud Abbas, who for many years have compromised the rights of Palestinians in lieu to be accepted and paid by the U.S./Israeli governments.

ONLY a united working people in Israel/Palestine with international support from the workers around the world (especially the imperialist countries) can create their own state which ends the capitalists’ rules and their divisive and discriminatory economical, political and social policies.

U.S. imperialism is the root cause of problems for the occupied Palestinians.

The hypocrisy of the Biden Administration toward the Palestinians and the State of Israel – like the past Administrations is nothing new but certainly, the deceptive narrative of “caring” for Palestinians by President Biden is disgusting. Like the old Imperial and colonial powers, the U.S. sees the Palestinians as their subjects.

They decide for Palestinians what is right or wrong and who is a good or bad leader for them. While Biden backed Israel in bombing Gaza as “Israel’s right to defend itself” and even praised Netanyahu for “degrading the capabilities” of the Palestinian “terrorists”, now he promises “to provide rapid humanitarian assistance and to marshal international support for the people in Gaza and in the Gaza reconstruction efforts.”

However this empty promise comes with an unworkable condition and that is the aid to Gaza will be through Mahmoud Abbas only, a corrupt politician who has no support or influence in Gaza!

President Biden’s insane position against Palestinians already has rattled his own Party. The average Democratic Party membership doesn’t approve the unconditional U.S. financial and military aid to Israel. Time has changed. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is growing among democratic-minded people and the American Jewish youth.

For the Zionists – who have to maintain more than seven decades of illegal occupation of Palestine and while they continue to steal Palestinians’ homes and lands under cover of “settlers” with the protection of their brutal police and unjust laws – constant tensions and wars are a necessity. For the Zionists, a peaceful time in the region means an end to their power and an end to their occupation. Without wars and confrontations, the Zionist State of Israel will fall apart.

*

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.

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Porque é que a UE se destaca contra a China

May 25th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

O Parlamento Europeu, em  20 de Maio, congelou a ratificação do Acordo UE-China sobre investimentos, assinada em Dezembro pela Comissão Europeia após sete anos de negociações.  A resolução foi aprovada por uma esmagadora maioria com 599 votos a favor, 30 contra e 58 abstenções. É formalmente motivada como sendo a resposta às sanções chinesas contra membros do Parlamento Europeu, decididas por Pequim depois dos seus funcionários terem sido sujeitos a sanções, rejeitadas pela China, por violação dos direitos humanos, particularmente os do Uighur. Os legisladores da UE argumentam que, se bem que as sanções chinesas sejam ilegais porque violam o Direito Internacional, as sanções europeias são legais porque se baseiam na defesa dos direitos humanos aprovados pelas Nações Unidas.

Qual é o verdadeiro motivo que se esconde por trás da capa de “defesa dos direitos humanos na China”? A estratégia, lançada e liderada por Washington, de recrutar países europeus para a coligação contra a Rússia e a China. A alavanca fundamental desta operação é o facto de 21 dos 27 países da UE serem membros da NATO sob comando USA. Na primeira fila contra a China, tal como contra a Rússia, estão ao mesmo tempo os países de Leste, membros da NATO e da UE, que, estando mais ligados a Washington do que a Bruxelas, aumentam a influência dos EUA na política externa da UE. Uma política que segue substancialmente a dos Estados Unidos, sobretudo através da NATO. Mas nem todos os aliados estão ao mesmo nível: a Alemanha e a França fazem acordos com os Estados Unidos com base na conveniência recíproca, enquanto a Itália obedece, mantendo-se em silêncio em detrimento dos seus próprios interesses. O Secretário-Geral da NATO, Stoltenberg, pode assim declarar, no final da sua reunião com o Presidente francês Macron, em 21 de Maio: “Apoiaremos a ordem internacional com base em regras contra o impulso autoritário de países como a Rússia e a China”.

A China, que até agora a  NATO colocava em segundo plano como “ameaça” ao concentrar a sua estratégia contra a Rússia, está agora a ser posicionada ao mesmo nível. Isto vem na trilha do que estão a fazer em Washington. Aqui a estratégia contra a China está prestes a tornar-se lei. No Senado dos EUA, o projecto de lei S.1169 sobre a Competição Estratégica com a China, foi apresentado a 15 de Abril por iniciativa bipartidária do democrata Menendez e do republicano Risch. A exposição dos motivos do projecto de lei não deixa dúvidas de que o confronto é abrangente: “A República Popular da China está a incentivar o seu poder político, diplomático, económico, militar, tecnológico e ideológico para se tornar um concorrente estratégico global quase igual aos Estados Unidos. As políticas cada vez mais seguidas pela RPC nestas áreas, são contrárias aos interesses e valores dos Estados Unidos, dos seus parceiros e de grande parte do resto do mundo”. Nesta base, a lei estabelece medidas políticas, económicas, tecnológicas, mediáticas, militares e outras contra a China, com o objectivo de atacá-la e isolá-la. Uma verdadeira declaração de guerra, não no sentido figurativo. O Almirante Davidson, que dirige o Comando Indo-Pacífico dos Estados Unidos, pediu ao Congresso 27 biliões de dólares para construir uma cortina de bases de mísseis e sistemas de satélites em torno da China, incluindo uma constelação de radares em plataformas espaciais. Entretanto, a pressão militar dos EUA sobre a China está a aumentar: lançadores de mísseis da Sétima Frota estão a navegar no Mar do Sul da China, bombardeiros estratégicos da Força Aérea dos EUA foram estacionados na ilha de Guam, no Pacífico Ocidental, enquanto os drones Triton da Marinha dos EUA foram trazidos para mais perto da China, transferindo-os de Guam para o Japão. Na peugada dos Estados Unidos, a NATO está também a alargar a sua estratégia à Ásia Oriental e ao Pacífico onde – Stoltenberg anunciou – “precisamos de nos fortalecer militarmente juntamente com parceiros próximos como a Austrália e o Japão”. O Parlamento Europeu não deu, portanto, simplesmente mais um passo na “guerra de sanções” contra a China. Deu mais um passo no sentido de motivar a Europa para a guerra.

 Manlio Dinucci

 

 

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Perché la Ue si schiera contro la Cina

il manifesto, 25 de Maio de 2021

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos (NO WAR NO NATO)

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Porque é que a UE se destaca contra a China

Perché la Ue si schiera contro la Cina

May 25th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Il Parlamento europeo ha congelato il 20 maggio la ratifica dell’Accordo Ue-Cina sugli investimenti, siglato in dicembre dalla Commissione europea dopo sette anni di trattative. La risoluzione è stata approvata a schiacciante maggioranza con 599 voti favorevoli, 30 contrari e 58 astenuti. Essa viene formalmente motivata quale risposta alle sanzioni cinesi contro membri del Parlamento europeo, decise da Pechino dopo che suoi funzionari erano stati sottoposti a sanzioni con l’accusa, respinta dalla Cina, di violazione dei diritti umani in particolare degli Uighur. I legislatori Ue sostengono che, mentre le sanzioni cinesi sono illegali poiché violano il diritto internazionale, quelle europee sono legali poiché si basano sulla difesa dei diritti umani sancita dalle Nazioni Unite.

Qual è il vero motivo che si nasconde dietro il paravento della «difesa dei diritti umani in Cina»? La strategia, lanciata e guidata da Washington, per reclutare i paesi europei nella coalizione contro la Russia e la Cina. Leva fondamentale di tale operazione è il fatto che 21 dei 27 paesi dell’Unione europea sono membri della Nato sotto comando Usa. In prima fila contro la Cina, come contro la Russia, ci sono i paesi dell’Est allo stesso tempo membri della Nato e della Ue, i quali, essendo più legati a Washington che a Bruxelles, accrescono l’influenza statunitense sulla politica estera della Ue. Politica che segue sostanzialmente quella statunitense soprattutto tramite la Nato. Non tutti gli alleati sono però sullo stesso piano: Germania e Francia si accordano sottobanco con gli Stati uniti in base a reciproche convenienze, l’Italia invece ubbidisce tacendo a scapito dei suoi stessi interessi. Il segretario generale della Nato Stoltenberg può così dichiarare, al termine dell’incontro col presidente francese Macron il 21 maggio: «Sosterremo l’ordine internazionale basato sulle regole contro la spinta autoritaria di paesi come la Russia e la Cina».

La Cina, che finora la Nato metteva in secondo piano quale «minaccia» focalizzando la sua strategia contro la Russia, viene ora messa sullo stesso piano. Ciò avviene sulla scia di quanto stanno facendo a Washington. Qui la strategia contro la Cina sta per diventare legge. Al Senato degli Stati uniti è stato presentato il 15 aprile, su iniziativa bipartisan dal democratico Menendez e dal repubblicano Risch, il progetto di legge S.1169 sulla Competizione Strategica con la Cina. La motivazione della legge non lascia dubbi sul fatto che il confronto è a tutto campo: «La Repubblica Popolare Cinese sta facendo leva sul suo potere politico, diplomatico, economico, militare, tecnologico e ideologico per diventare un concorrente globale strategico, quasi alla pari, degli Stati Uniti. Le politiche perseguite sempre più dalla RPC in questi ambiti sono contrarie agli interessi e ai valori degli Stati Uniti, dei suoi partner e di gran parte del resto del mondo». Su tale base, la legge stabilisce misure politiche, economiche, tecnologiche, mediatiche, militari ed altre contro la Cina, miranti a colpirla e isolarla. Una vera e propria dichiarazione di guerra, non in senso figurato. L’ammiraglio Davidson, che è a capo del Comando Indo-Pacifico degli Stati uniti, ha richiesto al Congresso 27 miliardi di dollari per costruire attorno alla Cina una cortina di basi missilistiche e sistemi satellitari, compresa una costellazione di radar su piattaforme spaziali.

Intanto aumenta la pressione militare Usa sulla Cina: unità lanciamissili della Settima Flotta incrociano nel Mar Cinese Meridionale, bombardieri strategici della US Air Force sono stati dislocati sull’isola di Guam nel Pacifico Occidente, mentre droni Triton della US Navy sono stati avvicinati alla Cina trasferendoli da Guam al Giappone. Sulla scia degli Stati uniti, anche la Nato estende la sua strategia all’Asia Orientale e al Pacifico dove – annuncia Stoltenberg – «abbiamo bisogno di rafforzarci militarmente insieme a stretti partner come Australia e Giappone». Il Parlamento europeo non ha dunque semplicemente compiuto un ulteriore passo nella «guerra delle sanzioni» contro la Cina. Ha compiuto un ulteriore passo per portare l’Europa in guerra.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Perché la Ue si schiera contro la Cina

The Zionists on the Defensive

May 25th, 2021 by Philip Giraldi

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.

***

Yes folks, there is an international conspiracy and it is all about “protecting” Israel. It operates through front and lobbying groups that uniquely promote the interests of a foreign country, Israel, even when those interests do serious damage to the host country where the lobbyists actually live. In Britain, for example, there are a Conservative Friends of Israel and a Labour Friends of Israel, comprising together 216 members of parliament and party officials. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been silent about Gaza apart from expressing “deep concern” and blaming both sides while Labour leader Keir Starmer, who has also been under pressure to say something, has focused on how four car loads of alleged Palestinian supporters in London may or may not have driven around shouting out “anti-Semitic” comments. Starmer, one recalls, ran on a leadership campaign pledging to root out “anti-Semitism” in the party as a response to previous leader Jeremy Corbyn’s apparently ill-advised public recognition that Palestinians are human beings. Also in Britain, contesting details of the standard narrative of the so-called holocaust can result in a large fine and even some jailtime.

In 2017, Al-Jazeera ran an undercover operation directed against various Israeli front groups in Britain and in the US which determined that officers from the respective Israeli Embassies, presumably intelligence linked, were meeting regularly with members of the alleged non-government organizations that had been set up to provide support for the Jewish state. In Britain, the interaction included explicit discussions on how to destroy the careers of politicians who were deemed to be insufficiently pro-Israeli. In the US the objective has been to disrupt the activities of pro-Palestinian groups, most particularly the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The pro-Israeli and anti-Arab initiatives were coordinated with and sometimes initiated by the Israeli Embassy officers, suggesting that they were actually intelligence operations.

That many American Jewish groups are collaborating directly with the Israeli Embassy raises two concerns. First, it is ipso facto a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which should require registration and complete transparency regarding one’s sources of income and interactions with the foreign embassy. And second, as many of the groups are in tax exempt status with the IRS as either charitable or educational foundations, that status should be rescinded given their foreign affiliation. Of course, the reality is that the Treasury Department has known all that and more for many years and has never taken any action relating to deceptive behavior by pro-Israel groups.

Elsewhere in Europe, “Holocaust denial” even if it only consists of challenging clearly fabricated “factual” details of the event can also land you in jail in Germany and France while criticizing the state of Israel is construed as anti-Semitism, a hate crime. Jewish groups have, in fact, promoted an official “International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance” (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which includes any criticism of Israel as a defining characteristic. The United States Department of State has accepted that definition and language.

Yes, the United States has an office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and it is always headed by a Jew, as has been also the office in the Justice Department that continues to be dedicated to rooting out 90 year old Nazis. Meanwhile, the Republican Party, most particularly in its Trump version, is so close to Israel that it might reasonably be regarded as part of the Israel Lobby. And the Democrats are not much better, though there has been some dissent from progressives, which has led to the creation of a Zionist pressure group within the party called the Democratic Majority for Israel. It exists to defend Israel against any and all criticism while also protecting the billions of dollars and other benefits that the Jewish state receives from the US Treasury and government annually.

One might speculate that there is a whole federal government infrastructure devoted to Jewish and Israeli issues. How did that develop? Well, of course, money is what has made it happen. American politicians have notoriously always been easily corruptible, all it takes is a little cash. But no one is allowed to point out that obvious truth as linking Jews to money is regarded, by Jews and their captive media of course, as some kind of “anti-Semitic trope.”

Now it appears that a ceasefire is more-or-less in place but Israel’s ethnic cleansing that preceded its high-tech slaughter of Palestinian civilians who were being deliberately targeted has been perceived by the world, including many Americans, as particularly brutal. Which means the Zionist propaganda plus coercion machine has been working full time. Capitol Hill offices and the White House have no doubt been inundated with calls, emails and visits from constituents all singing the same song that was also being repeated by the President and Congress. It goes like this: “Israel is being attacked by Hamas terrorists and has a right to defend itself!” Sometimes there is a second verse which includes “The only democracy in the Middle East and America’s best friend and ally.”

Too bad that none of it is true, but the media also did its best to support the narrative by reporting how Hamas was launching “swarms” of rockets against Israel, making it appear as if a beleaguered Israel was valiantly defending itself against terrorist hordes. But the actual numbers told a different tale with only 12 Israelis killed after the violence erupted versus 232 Palestinians, including 65 children. Considerable infrastructure was also deliberately targeted and destroyed in Gaza versus limited damage in Israel while the calculated destruction of the building housing Associated Press (AP) and al-Jazeera should be seen as an attempt to eliminate any independent media observers on the ground in Gaza, even though AP predictably has hardly been critical of the Jewish state.

The Israel Lobby is, to be sure, expert at promoting and marketing its product. It is currently engaged in attacking celebrities and others who expressed any sympathy with the Palestinians while they were being slaughtered by the Israelis as anti-Semites. The larger and more openly combative Lobby groups like the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) have supporters in virtually every congressional district in the United States who can be called upon to get on the phone and start pouring out emails as needed. So every congress critter hears the call and knows what it means. And no one wants to have a hostile Israel Lobby on one’s back if there is any thought of being re-elected. In some cases, approaches include suggestions that significant donations to support one’s political campaign will either increase or be denied depending on what the legislator chooses to do or say.

And then there are the personal visits on Capitol Hill from the Israel lobbyists. The door is always open for the man or woman from AIPAC. Sometimes the Congressman is actually urged to sign a statement on his or her view of the conflict, a document carefully prepared in advance by The Lobby, of course. And the work by the Israel Firsters is almost always effective. Witness for example what took place concerning the assault on Gaza, where Congress and the White House tried to outdo each other in declaring how much they love Israel even though they don’t necessarily have to say or do anything as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did what he wanted anyway. Biden reportedly spoke with Netanyahu six times urging teethlessly “de-escalation” of the fighting but the Israeli each time insisted that he would continue the operation “mowing the grass” in Gaza until “its aim is met.”

The Israeli grip on the US government is and should be astonishing and one has to ask why the American people put up with it. They likely endure because they are unaware of the extent of it. If anyone still doubts the degree to which Jewish power is a major force in the United States it is only necessary as a test case to look at the Congressional and White House comments on Gaza, which served absolutely no American interest and which will only make the world even more anti-US due to the Administration’s enablement of the slaughter of the Palestinians. Washington’s UN Ambassador vetoed three Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire, as is often the case, the only country to vote “no.”

Several aspects of the US role in the fighting particularly demonstrate the ability of Israel and its domestic lobby to get what they want from Washington even when it seems counterintuitive for the Administration and Congress to be falling in line. To be sure, 138 Congressmen and 29 Senators eventually signed onto letters urging a cease fire, but the texts tended to be generic, lacking any context, which means the recommendations were basically useless and not intended to go anywhere.

A highly partisan approach, in line with many of the comments by other government spokesmen, was reflected in a letter from Kevin McCarthy, the “leading Republican” (sic) in Congress, who released a statement confirming his allegiance to Israel. Part of it read:

“The ongoing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians show why America must act immediately to support Israel, condemn Hamas, and sanction those who fund terrorism. Instead of pressuring Israel to compromise with this terrorist group, Democrats should join Republicans in voting to cut off international funding for terrorists.

“That is why today, Rep. Brian Mast, a U.S. Army combat veteran who served alongside the Israel Defense Force (IDF), will push for a vote on the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2021.

“This bipartisan bill, which passed the House last Congress, would sanction foreign governments and individuals who fund Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, such as Iran.”

For starters, how exactly is it that a US Army combat veteran served alongside the Israeli Army? And now this great admirer of Israel is in Congress? Once upon a time one would lose US citizenship for serving in a foreign army. Mast must have missed something about swearing an oath to uphold the US Constitution, not Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of thugs and war criminals. And why are McCarthy and Mast including Iran in their indictment? Possibly because Tehran support of the Palestinian cause would be a pretext for another war? And what are McCarthy and Mast doing pledging anything at all to a foreign country which at the time was engaged in genocide?

Bad enough, but what is really appalling is the role of Joe Biden “the peacemaker” in hurriedly pushing through approval to provide the Israelis with $735 million dollars-worth of precision guided missiles, exactly the kind of weapon being used by Israel currently to kill Gazans. One might reasonably ask “What was Joe thinking?” but that raises the second question of “Was he thinking at all, apart from exercising knee jerk loyalty to Israel and its psychotic leader?” He did not have to provide more weapons to the Jewish state, which apparently was not running out of weapons of its own, but he did it anyway.

The United States already pays one fifth of Israel’s so-called “defense” budget and this extra contribution, as well as the funds provided annually to pay for Iron Dome defense, is on top of that. If there was any question whether the US was enabling the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians the question was surely answered by the decision made by the president, who knowingly provided US made weapons to be used by Israel to commit war crimes in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the US Arms Control Export Act and the existing Arms Supply Agreement between the US and Israel. He also was providing advanced tactical weapons to a country which is in violation of the Leahy Law due to its uninspected nuclear arsenal and is therefore ineligible for US government military assistance of any kind.

To be sure, some in Congress introduced a resolution to stop the weapons “sale” (a euphemism as Israel never pays for anything). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib have proposed blocking the presidential authorization based on its one-sidedness and unsuitability when fighting is actually going on, but it was a futile gesture as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will surely let the bill die in committee. It will never reach the House floor for a vote. Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a similar resolution in the Senate which will likely suffer the same fate.

Tlaib has argued that “The US cannot continue to give the right-wing Netanyahu government billions each year to commit crimes against Palestinians. Atrocities like bombing schools cannot be tolerated, much less conducted with US-supplied weapons. To read the statements [from the Biden Administration] you’d hardly know Palestinians existed at all. No child, Palestinian or Israeli, whoever they are, should ever have to worry that death will fall from the sky. How many of my colleagues are willing to say the same, to stand for Palestinian human rights as they do for Israel? How many Palestinians have to die for their lives to matter?”

So it is all same old, same old. Biden, who boasts that American ties to Israel are “unbreakable,” has welcomed the cease fire in Gaza but it is at best a pause in what has become generational intercommunal warfare based on Israeli intentions to eliminate the Palestinians. And Biden will even be seen as having provided the weapons to further that process. Americans, who have no compelling interest in being involved at all apart from their domination by a ruthless Israel Lobby on foreign policy issues relating to the Middle East, will pay the piper as they rearm the Israelis and enable the next round of killing. Some believe that the tide of public opinion is turning against Israel due to its brutality, but I have my doubts as the Lobby has been in control for so long and knows exactly which buttons to push to get what it wants. That, the subversion and corruption of American democracy, is the real tragedy.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]

Featured image is from The Unz Review

The Emperor’s New Rules

May 25th, 2021 by Medea Benjamin

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.

***

The world is reeling in horror at the latest Israeli massacre of hundreds of men, women and children in Gaza. Much of the world is also shocked by the role of the United States in this crisis, as it keeps providing Israel with weapons to kill Palestinian civilians, in violation of U.S. and international law, and has repeatedly blocked action by the UN Security Council to impose a ceasefire or hold Israel accountable for its war crimes. 

In contrast to U.S. actions, in nearly every speech or interview, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken keeps promising to uphold and defend the “rules-based order.” But he has never clarified whether he means the universal rules of the United Nations Charter and international law, or some other set of rules he has yet to define. What rules could possibly legitimize the kind of destruction we just witnessed in Gaza, and who would want to live in a world ruled by them?

We have both spent many years protesting the violence and chaos the United States and its allies inflict on millions of people around the world by violating the UN Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of military force, and we have always insisted that the U.S. government should comply with the rules-based order of international law.

But even as the United States’ illegal wars and support for allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia have reduced cities to rubble and left country after country mired in intractable violence and chaos, U.S. leaders have refused to even acknowledge that aggressive and destructive U.S. and allied military operations violate the rules-based order of the United Nations Charter and international law.

President Trump was clear that he was not interested in following any “global rules,” only supporting U.S. national interests. His National Security Advisor John Bolton explicitly prohibited National Security Council staff attending the 2018 G20 Summit in Argentina from even uttering the words“rules-based order.”

So you might expect us to welcome Blinken’s stated commitment to the “rules-based order” as a long-overdue reversal in U.S. policy. But when it comes to a vital principle like this, it is actions that count, and the Biden administration has yet to take any decisive action to bring U.S. foreign policy into compliance with the UN Charter or international law.

For Secretary Blinken, the concept of a “rules-based order” seems to serve mainly as a cudgel with which to attack China and Russia. At a May 7 UN Security Council meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggested that instead of accepting the already existing rules of international law, the United States and its allies are trying to come up with “other rules developed in closed, non-inclusive formats, and then imposed on everyone else.”

The UN Charter and the rules of international law were developed in the 20th century precisely to codify the unwritten and endlessly contested rules of customary international law with explicit, written rules that would be binding on all nations.

The United States played a leading role in this legalist movement in international relations, from the Hague Peace Conferences at the turn of the 20th century to the signing of the United Nations Charter in San Francisco in 1945 and the revised Geneva Conventions in 1949, including the new Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilians, like the countless numbers killed by American weapons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Gaza.

As President Franklin Roosevelt described the plan for the United Nations to a joint session of Congress on his return from Yalta in 1945:

“It ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all peace-loving nations will finally have a chance to join. I am confident that the Congress and the American people will accept the results of this conference as the beginning of a permanent structure of peace.”

But America’s post-Cold War triumphalism eroded U.S. leaders’ already half-hearted commitment to those rules. The neocons argued that they were no longer relevant and that the United States must be ready to impose order on the world by the unilateral threat and use of military force, exactly what the UN Charter prohibits. Madeleine Albright and other Democratic leaders embraced new doctrines of “humanitarian intervention” and a “responsibility to protect” to try to carve out politically persuasive exceptions to the explicit rules of the UN Charter.

America’s “endless wars,” its revived Cold War on Russia and China, its blank check for the Israeli occupation and the political obstacles to crafting a more peaceful and sustainable future are some of the fruits of these bipartisan efforts to challenge and weaken the rules-based order.

Today, far from being a leader of the international rules-based system, the United States is an outlier. It has failed to sign or ratify about fifty important and widely accepted multilateral treaties on everything from children’s rights to arms control. Its unilateral sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and other countries are themselves violations of international law, and the new Biden administration has shamefully failed to lift these illegal sanctions, ignoring UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ request to suspend such unilateral coercive measures during the pandemic.

So is Blinken’s “rules-based order” a recommitment to President Roosevelt’s “permanent structure of peace,” or is it in fact a renunciation of the United Nations Charter and its purpose, which is peace and security for all of humanity?

In the light of Biden’s first few months in power, it appears to be the latter. Instead of designing a foreign policy based on the principles and rules of the UN Charter and the goal of a peaceful world, Biden’s policy seems to start from the premises of a $753 billion U.S. military budget, 800 overseas military bases, endless U.S. and allied wars and massacres, and massive weapons sales to repressive regimes. Then it works backward to formulate a policy framework to somehow justify all that.

Once a “war on terror” that only fuels terrorism, violence and chaos was no longer politically viable, hawkish U.S. leaders—both Republicans and Democrats—seem to have concluded that a return to the Cold War was the only plausible way to perpetuate America’s militarist foreign policy and multi-trillion-dollar war machine.

But that raised a new set of contradictions. For 40 years, the Cold War was justified by the ideological struggle between the capitalist and communist economic systems. But the U.S.S.R. disintegrated and Russia is now a capitalist country. China is still governed by its Communist Party, but has a managed, mixed economy similar to that of Western Europe in the years after the Second World War – an efficient and dynamic economic system that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in both cases.

So how can these U.S. leaders justify their renewed Cold War? They have floated the notion of a struggle between “democracy and authoritarianism.” But the United States supports too many horrific dictatorships around the world, especially in the Middle East, to make that a convincing pretext for a Cold War against Russia and China.

A U.S. “global war on authoritarianism” would require confronting repressive U.S. allies like Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, not arming them to the teeth and shielding them from international accountability as the United States is doing.

So, just as American and British leaders settled on non-existent “WMD”s as the pretext they could all agree on to justify their war on Iraq, the U.S. and its allies have settled on defending a vague, undefined “rules-based order” as the justification for their revived Cold War on Russia and China.

But like the emperor’s new clothes in the fable and the WMDs in Iraq, the United States’ new rules don’t really exist. They are just its latest smokescreen for a foreign policy based on illegal threats and uses of force and a doctrine of “might makes right.”

We challenge President Biden and Secretary Blinken to prove us wrong by actually joining the rules-based order of the UN Charter and international law. That would require a genuine commitment to a very different and more peaceful future, with appropriate contrition and accountability for the United States’ and its allies’ systematic violations of the UN Charter and international law, and the countless violent deaths, ruined societies and widespread chaos they have caused.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image is from Pinterest

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

I lived in Gaza from 2011, through the attack of 2014, and for one year after. I am not Palestinian, but some of the things I remember will be relevant in the coming months.

The bombardment was shattering. There followed a winter of soul-destroying neglect by donor states. Tens of thousands of Gazans remained in UNRWA shelter-schools.  Many more families shivered in remnant housing, on tilting slabs of concrete, in rooms with three walls and a blanket hung in lieu of a fourth, persistently cold and wet.

Recovery? America sold Israel $1.9 billion in replacement arms. The World Bank assessed Israel’s bomb damage to Gaza at $4.4 billion.  Of the $5.4 billion that donors pledged to reconstruct Gaza, in that critical first year the International Crisis Group calculated that the donor states actually came up with a paltry $340 million.

Aid is an insufficient place-holding response, but it is needed now.  This time, it cannot happen the same way.

In the workaday business of delivering the material needed to rebuild, the blockade allows Israel to choose the chokepoints of reconstruction.  Having bombed, Israel is allowed to carry on the assault by slow strangulation.

In 2014 they were allowed to impose a farcical compliance regime for the cement that was needed to rebuild the 18,000 homes they had damaged or destroyed.  UNRWA engineers were required to waste their days sitting next to concrete mixers.  International staff spent hours of each day driving between them to count – no shit, count – sacks of cement.  100,000 people were homeless and cement was permitted to reach them like grains of sand through an eye-dropper.  Not a single home was built through the remainder of 2014.

Perhaps this time Israel will choke off the supplies needed to re-pave the tens of thousands of square meters of road they have blown up; it will be something.  We have watched an attack on the veins and arteries of modern civilian infrastructure.  If the crossings regime is allowed to remain in place, we will be leaving the Israeli government to decide unilaterally whether Gazans will be permitted to live in the modern world.

This time, it simply cannot go the same way.

I was as frightened by the way the bombs changed us.  1200 hours of incessant terror and violence had re-wired our brains. The lassitude, the thousand-yard-stares, the woman from Rafah who clutched her midsection as if she could hold her twelve lost relatives in place.  I and my team of Gazan over-achievers struggled to finish any task on time.  Eight months later I found research on the anterior midcingulate cortex to help us understand how bombardment can alter the finishing brain. Every step seemed to be so steeply uphill.

Even more un-Gazan, we often struggled alone.  The very essence of Gaza is its density.  In its urban streets you know the passersby with smalltown frequency.  Gaza coheres with the intentional social glue of resistance.  After the bombardment, people seemed to float alone with their memories. The human heart returns to the scene of unresolved trauma, and our hearts were stuck in many different rooms.

The good people who listened and cared as professionals or as neighbours, were themselves suffering.  Parents compared notes through those months: how many of their children still slept beneath their beds in case the planes came back?  Over everyone’s heads hung the knowledge that there had been no substantial agreement beyond a cessation of firing.

I felt I was watching people reach for each other, and for meaning. Young Gazan men stood for hours, waving Palestinian flags over the rubble of Shuja’iyya while residents crawled over the rubble landscape in search of something familiar. Bright pennants sprouted across the bombed-out windows of apartments.

Not everyone found meaning. Suicide and predatory behaviour also rose. Hamas cracked down on dissent violently, while more-radical groups made inroads among young people who may have felt they had no other agency.

The aftermath was all these things at once. When I left Gaza in late 2015, it felt poised between resuming and despairing. Since then, it has gone on for another six years.  This bombardment picked up where the last one left off: in 2014 the destruction of apartment blocks was Israel’s final act and this time, it was their opening salvo.

This time, we cannot let it go the same way.

I had to learn to harness my sadness and outrage.  If we are to make it different this time, we need to do that.

In the first weeks after the 2014 bombing, I could only rage at the blockade wall but the wall stood, undented. I didn’t know how to look further, and as a Jew I was afraid to look further. I began to read books on military accountability. Those principles helped to focus my gaze beyond the wall.

Now as then, we have witnessed a barbaric action, comprised of choices.  Individuals are accountable for each of those choices.  It is neither partisan nor, must I say it, antisemitic to call them to account ceaselessly.  Accountability takes the side of civilian protection.  If one belligerent causes the overwhelming share of the wrongful death and damage, then that party has duly earned the overwhelming share of our attention.  Call them out.

Loathe the wall but rage wisely at its structural supports: expedient politics, the arms trade that profits by field-testing its weapons on Gazan Palestinians, any denial of the simple equality of our lives, the hand-wringing or indifference of the bystander.  Those hold the wall up.

Prior to this violence, Donald Trump had been busily normalising Israel’s diplomatic relations – good-bye to all that.  Normalise BDS, not the occupation of Palestine.  Apply sustained, peaceful, external pressure as you would to any other wound.  BDS firmly rejects an apartheid arrangement of power, until all people enjoy equality and self-determination.

See and reject the single system that classifies life ethnically between the river and the sea.  When you recognise a single systemic wrong, you have recognised Palestinians as a single nation.

A statement by scholars of genocide, mass violence and human rights last week described the danger: “[T]he violence now has intensified systemic racism and exclusionary and violent nationalism in Israel—a well-known pattern in many cases of state violence—posing a serious risk for continued persecution and violence against Palestinians, exacerbated by the political instability in Israel in the last few months.”

In other words, this isn’t over and we will not let it go the same way.

The risk to Gaza now is the risk of our disengagement before we have brought down the walls.  That is the task; nothing less.  This time, Gaza must go free.

*

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.

Marilyn Garson, Alternative Jewish Voices

Featured image: Photo Marilyn Garson, from a reclaimed rubble sea wall, Gaza City

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.

***

Israeli air force pilots’ bombing and flattening of Palestinian residential towers in the besieged Gaza Strip in its military offensive earlier this month was a way to vent their frustration for failing to stop Palestinian armed factions from firing rockets into Israeli towns, according to an Israeli TV report.

A number of Israeli pilots spoke anonymously to Israel’s Channel 12 last week about their experience flying warplanes over the Palestinian enclave during an 11-day military campaign that ended with a ceasefire on Thursday evening.

In total, Israeli air strikes killed 248 Palestinians in Gaza, including 66 children, between 10 and 21 May, and wounded 1,948 others, the Gaza health ministry has reported.

Nine high-rise buildings were flattened to the ground by Israeli air strikes, including al-Jalaa tower, which housed the offices of numerous media production companies and news agencies, including the Associated Press, Al-Jazeera and Middle East Eye, drawing condemnation from media and human rights organisations.

“I went on a mission to carry out air strikes with a feeling that destroying the towers is a way to vent frustration over what is happening to us and over the success of the groups in Gaza,” one Israeli pilot told Channel 12.

The pilot, identified as Major D in the report, added:

“We failed to stop the rocket fire and to harm the leadership of these groups, so we destroyed the towers.”

Israel has said that Palestinian armed factions in the Gaza Strip had launched almost 4,000 rockets, which killed 12 people and injured hundreds in Israel, before a ceasefire was reached at 2am local time on Friday.

The Egyptian-brokered ceasefire was declared between Israel and Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

*

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: Building housing the offices of Associated Press and other media collapses after Israeli airstrike, Gaza City, May 15, 2021. (Source: Indian Punchline)

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.

***

Reporters joke that the easiest job in Washington is CIA spokesman. You need only listen carefully to questions, say, “No comment,” and head to happy hour. The joke, however, is on us. The reporters pretend to see only one side of the CIA, the passive hiding of information. They meanwhile profit from the other side of the equation, active information operations designed to influence events in America. It is 2021 and the CIA is running an op against the American people.

Leon Panetta, once director of CIA, explained bluntly that the agency influenced foreign media outlets ahead of elections in order to “change attitudes within the country.” The method was to “acquire media within a country or within a region that could very well be used for being able to deliver a specific message or work to influence those that may own elements of the media to be able to cooperate, work with you in delivering that message.” The CIA has been running such ops to influence foreign elections continuously since the end of WWII.

The goal is to control information as a tool of influence. Sometimes the control is very direct, operating the media outlet yourself. The problem is this is easily exposed, destroying credibility.

A more effective strategy is to become a source for legitimate media such that your (dis)information inherits their credibility. Most effective is when one CIA plant is the initial source while a second CIA plant acts seemingly independently as a confirming source. You can push information to the mainstream media, who can then “independently” confirm it, sometimes unknowingly, through your secondary agents. You can basically write tomorrow’s headlines.

Other techniques include exclusive true information mixed with disinformation to establish credibility, using official sources like embassy spokesmen “inadvertently” confirm sub details, and covert funding of research and side gigs to promote academics and experts who can discredit counter-narratives.

From the end of WWII to the Church Committee in 1976, this was all dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Of course the U.S. would not use the CIA to influence elections, especially in fellow democracies. Except it did. Real-time reporting on intelligence is by nature based on limited information, albeit marked with the unambiguous fingerprints of established tradecraft. Always give time a chance to explain.

Through Operation Mockingbird the CIA ran over 400 American journalists as direct assets. Almost none have ever discussed their work publicly. Journalists performed these tasks for the CIA with the consent of America’s leading news organizations. The New York Times alone willingly provided cover for ten CIA officers over decades and kept quiet about it.

Long term relationships are a powerful tool, so feeding a true big story to a young reporter to get him promoted is part of the game. Don’t forget the anonymous source who drove the Watergate story was an FBI official who through his actions made the careers of cub reporters Woodward and Bernstein. Bernstein went on to champion Russiagate. Woodward became a Washington hagiographer. Ken Dilanian, formerly with the Associated Press and now working for NBC, still maintains a “collaborative relationship” with the CIA.

The US Debate on Israel/Palestine Is Changing

May 25th, 2021 by James J. Zogby

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.

***

In the 45 years since launching the Palestine Human Rights Campaign, I’ve witnessed more tragic wars than I can care to count and defended Palestinians against more heinous crimes than I can bear to list. During all this time, we’ve had American supporters who have embraced the cause of Palestinian rights and supported our calls for justice.  But never have I witnessed the sea ​of change in opinion and its impact on the policy debate that is now taking place.

Five decades ago, there were a handful of members of Congress who would courageously speak out and there were some Christian churches, peace and civil rights leaders, and small progressive Jewish groups who would endorse our appeals for Palestinian human rights. For their efforts, they, like us, were subjected to intimidation seeking to silence their voices or punish their advocacy.

Change began with the first Intifada​, as national television broadcast Israeli troops firing on stone-throwing Palestinian youth, ​and the horror that greeted Yitzhak Rabin’s orders to his soldiers to break the bones of the young protesters. Building on this shifting opinion, Jesse Jackson elevated the issue of justice for Palestinians during his 1988 presidential campaign. That year, we succeeded in having the issue debated, for the first time, from the podium of the Democratic convention.

After the Madrid Peace Conference and the Oslo Accords, there was another observable shift in US opinion. On closer examination, however, the change was largely on the Democratic side. President Bill Clinton and the Democrats backed the “Oslo process”, while Republicans, whose party had increasingly come under the influence of the right-wing Christians and Reagan-era neo-conservatives, embraced a hardline pro-Israel stance. Since then, this partisan divide has continued to widen.

As a review of current polling makes clear, this partisan split increasingly masks America’s very real demographic divide on a range of domestic and foreign policyconcerns. On the Democratic side, the largest component group of voters are Blacks, Latinos, Asian-American, millennials and college-educated women. While on the Republican side​, over 40 per cent of their voters are White, older, less than college-educated ​or “born again” Christians Their respective views on Israel/Palestine are mirror images of one another.

Polls now show that the majority of Democratic voters hold deeply unfavourable views of Benjamin Netanyahu, oppose many Israeli policies, and favour conditioning US aid to Israel based on their treatment of Palestinians. Not only have attitudes changed, but progressive Jewish groups and organised Arab Americans have been empowered by this new political environment and have been engaging their elected officials. This has emboldened members of Congress to speak out. In response to both Israel’s recent policies in Jerusalem and the bombardment of Gaza, this split is having an impact in Congress.

The result: For the first time in thirty years​, a dozen members took to floor of Congress to denounce Israeli efforts to evict Palestinians from their Jerusalem homes and the killings of civilians in Gaza; more than one-half of the Democratic Senate caucus has called for an immediate Israel-Hamas ceasefire; and progressives in the House are calling on the president to stop a proposed US arms’ sale to Israel. Also noteworthy has been the muted responses of normally pro-Israel Democratic Senators and Representatives. They know where their base voters are on this issue and they, therefore, are treading carefully.

The US press has given extensive coverage to this development. I was so proud to see a New York Times front page story open with the sentence “In 1988, when James Zogby…pushed Democrats to include mention of Palestinian sovereignty in their platform they responded with a clear warning… ‘If the P-word is even in the platform, all hell will break loose.’” The article goes on to note how the issue we raised and lost back then, is now centre stage in the policy debate.

That’s the good news. More sobering is the fact, as I noted in the same story​, “The base of the party is in a very different place than where the party establishment is.” We haven’t won this policy debate, not by a long shot. But what’s new and important is that we’re forcing a debate. And that’s the first step on the road to change.

*

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 writer is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.

Featured image is from Elijah J Magnier

An Israeli Voice Supporting Palestinians

May 25th, 2021 by Shahbazz Afzal

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.

***

The first time I met Tuvaal I was just a wee young kid.  She was working in Scotland and was attending the same left-wing socialist gathering my father and I were at. We remain in touch.

She is Jewish Israeli and a vocal socialist activist in Israel and a member of the Israel-Palestine section of International Socialist Alternative.  She fights for various causes, including Palestinian human rights – and when I spoke to her recently, she described her anger and frustration with the recent events inside Israel and the illegally occupied territories.  During our lengthy conversation she explained her understanding of how the sequence of events unfolded that led to the increased brutal violence against Palestinians in the past few weeks.

Before the vicious Israeli attacks against Palestinians, Tuvaal talked positively about the many jointly held demonstrations that had taken place, between Israelis and Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah district in Jerusalem, against the planned evictions of Palestinian residents.

She pointed out that racist laws, for instance, allow a right-wing NGO to buy the homes of Palestinian families, kick families out and let Jewish settlers move in their place.

“I view these laws as enshrining ethnic cleansing,” she asserted.

“For the past few weeks, Palestinian youth have been heroically defying the Israeli regime and its armed forces; first, protesting against provocations by Israeli police in Al-Aqsa mosque, protests which despite being answered with brutal oppression, won victories against the police.  Then, the protesters moved to demonstrate against the evictions in Sheikh Jarrah.   Attacked by both Israeli armed forces and the neo-fascist settlers, the protests persisted, in turn, inspiring many more protests around the world.”

During a recent demonstration called, ‘Stop the expulsions in Sheikh Jarrah – oppose the war on Gaza’, saw more than 200 Jewish and Palestinian protestors, peacefully marching together around the neighbourhood, meeting families who were about to be evicted.  They chanted in Arabic and Hebrew, “Settler thieves, leave our homes!” and “No to Israeli armed forces and settlers in Sheikh Jarrah – No to the occupation”.

Tuvaal described the feeling of unity and solidarity – and then came the brutal and vicious Israeli response.

“Israeli armed forces decided to violently disperse the peaceful protesters – a deliberate act of provocation.  While the settlers stirred up trouble, the armed forces attacked Palestinian youths, and fired stun grenades and water cannons targeting the protesters. The use of stun grenades caused many injuries.”

After the violent dispersion, Tuvaal confirmed Israeli settlers “had fired live ammo at the Palestinian residents’ homes.”  At this point in our conversation Tuvaal wanted to make clear that she condemned any attack on civilians, whether perpetrated by Israelis or Palestinians.

When I asked about the current mood of Israelis, Tuvaal admitted the Palestinian response to Israeli brutality had stirred up a nationalist mood amongst Jewish Israelis – and then went onto say that this isn’t very difficult to do considering the entrenched right-wing political landscape of the nation and the lack of a strong left voice.

She described how far right forces, including settlers in mixed Palestinian and Jewish cities and neighbourhoods, as well as organised settler forces from the settlements in the West Bank, have exploited the current events – using it as an opportunity to increase violent attacks on Palestinians and to undermine the coexistence of Jews and Palestinians in these cities. Specific incidents of brutal violence have been witnessed.  The horrific shooting of a young man in Lyd by settlers.  The horrifying lynching of a taxi driver in Bat Yam, who was beaten for an hour by a mob – and the police nowhere in sight.

“The Israeli police are also responsible for causing provocation and unrest in Palestinian cities and villages.  They violently attack protestors against the war on Gaza.  Whilst they defend the violent actions of settlers, they carry out their own actions of violence against Palestinians.”

Although many Israelis support the actions against Palestinians in Gaza, many in the Jewish community are opposed to the “racist attacks” against Palestinians in ’48 territories’.

“Jewish bus drivers have been escorting Palestinian colleagues to their homes and ensuring their safety. Unions have strongly condemned the violence against Palestinians and have issued messages published across many social media platforms of solidarity between Palestinians and Jews.  Our task on the socialist left is to broaden the message: from solidarity with neighbours and colleagues, to solidarity against the brutal attacks on Gaza and against the bloodshed instigated by the Israeli regime.”

Although the current ceasefire has been welcomed by all parties, Tuvaal stresses that Jewish activists, although small in number, remain firmly opposed to the Israeli regime and its brutal actions and policies targeting Palestinians.  They are trying to expose the regime and highlight the ongoing crimes it is committing.  The challenges are there.  The Israeli media, for instance, “is firmly aligned to the Israeli leadership and army propaganda.”

“The ceasefire would not have been achieved without the fearless, determined mass movement of Palestinians, including the inspiring one-day general strike held a couple of days before it was announced.  It also wouldn’t have been achieved without the incredible solidarity movement, with mass demonstrations held all over the world.  However, the ceasefire does not mark the end of the Israeli state’s aggression towards Palestinian people – the occupation, siege, ethnic cleansing, house demolitions, and poverty.  But it also does not mark the end of rebellion against these oppressions.  The mass movement continues on Friday, after the ceasefire was announced, mass demonstrations were held in Al-Aqsa, in the West Bank, and in Umm El-Fahm (inside 48 borders).  The evictions in Sheikh Jarrah still loom over the families’ heads – but the weekly protests will continue.  We, socialists – Palestinian and Jewish – who oppose the occupation, will continue fighting against it, wherever and however we can.”

*

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.

Shahbazz Afzal is an independent writer and political activist.

Featured image is from the authors

Spike Protein Damages Vascular Cells

May 25th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Researchers used a pseudo virus made of a cell surrounded by spike proteins but without a viral component to demonstrate the spike proteins can damage human cells and alter mitochondrial function

Many of the long-haul symptoms attributed to COVID-19 may be the result of endothelial damage that triggers poor flow through the capillaries, inflammation and tissue hypoxia

Data show up to 10% of all people who contracted COVID experienced long-haul symptoms, but none of Dr. Vladimir Zelenko’s patients who were treated within the first five days of infection developed persistent symptoms

As researchers are seeking another target for future vaccine development, French authorities announced five people developed myocarditis after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. Twelve VAERS reports in the U.S. listed myocarditis

*

During 2020, many people learned more about coronaviruses, and specifically the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. Pictures of the spiked virus have been plastered across the news media.

The image is reminiscent of a chain mace, or flail. This was a medieval weapon with a spiked steel ball at the end of a chain or leather strap. The image may be frightening. It turns out researchers believe the spikes are responsible for significant vascular damage leading to severe disease.1

Most people will be infected at least one time in their lives by some type of coronavirus. If the COVID-19 pandemic is the first time you’ve heard about coronaviruses, you should know the first one was discovered in chickens in 1930.2 A few decades later the first human coronavirus was identified.3

Currently, scientists have identified four types of coronaviruses that are endemic and can cause up to 15% of common colds.4 Interestingly, if all coronaviruses have originated in the wild, the rate at which the virus is mutating has accelerated dramatically in 20 years.

In the last two decades, three new coronaviruses have emerged: SARS in November 2002;5 MERS in September 2012;6 and SARS-CoV-2 in December 2019.7 The symptoms of COVID-19 from an infection with SARS-CoV-2 can vary to a great extent.

Some people carrying the virus have had no symptoms. Others report fever, headache, body aches, dry cough, loss of appetite and loss of smell.8 In others, more severe symptoms can develop that affect the respiratory tract and lead to pneumonia.

Approximately 36% of individuals have experienced gastrointestinal symptoms or neurological symptoms, either with or without respiratory symptoms.9 A recent paper published in Circulation Research10 revealed it is the spiked proteins on the virus that play a key role in your symptoms.

Spiked SARS-CoV-2 Damages More Than Your Lungs

A team of researchers including scientists from the University of California San Diego evaluated the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in animals. The researchers were not surprised by the clinical findings, but the data revealed a detailed explanation of how the spike (S) protein triggers damage to the vascular system.11

The researchers created a pseudo virus, or cell surrounded by the spike proteins that did not contain a virus.12 Using an animal model, the researchers administered the pseudo virus into the lungs and found the virus was not necessary to create damage. Instead, the spike protein was enough to cause inflammation.

The experiment was then replicated in the lab using cell cultures. The team exposed healthy endothelial cells that line your arteries to the spiked pseudo virus. Past studies had demonstrated that exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus elicited damage to the cells by binding to angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).

However, the team found the cells responded in a similar way when exposed to the pseudo virus. When the S protein attached to the ACE2 receptor it disrupted signaling to the mitochondria and caused damage and fragmentation. The alterations in mitochondrial function were confirmed as part of the inhibition of ACE2 signaling in the lab.

The results also revealed that the virus could induce endothelial cell inflammation and endotheliitis. The protein reportedly decreased ACE2 levels and impaired nitric oxide bioavailability.13 Co-senior author of the study, Uri Manor, explained in a press release from Salk Institute:14

“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID. Further studies with mutant spike proteins will also provide new insight towards the infectivity and severity of mutant SARS-CoV-2 viruses.”

Long Haul Symptoms May Be Related to Vascular Damage

Some of the symptoms from COVID-19 that last weeks or months for some people may be the result of vascular damage. People who have had these symptoms have been given the name “long haulers.”15

In theory, they have recovered from the worst symptoms of the illness and test negative. Yet, they continue to have symptoms without an active infection. According to a paper in JAMA,16approximately 10% of people who have had COVID-19 may experience long haul symptoms.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention17 report that a combination of the following symptoms without an active COVID infection can appear weeks after the infection and last for months. Symptoms may worsen after physical or mental activity.

  • Brain fog described as difficulty thinking or concentrating
  • Chest pain
  • Cough and difficulty breathing
  • Depression or anxiety
  • Dizziness when first standing
  • Fast beating heart or pounding heart
  • Fatigue
  • Fever
  • Headache
  • Joint or muscle pain
  • Loss of smell or taste
  • Shortness of breath

The predominant pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes endothelial damage and microvascular injury, stimulation of hyperinflammation and hypercoagulability.18 A recent review in Physiological Reports19 examined how the capillary damage and inflammation from endotheliitis triggered by COVID-19 could contribute to the persistent symptoms by interfering with tissue oxygenation.

The combined effects of capillary damage in multiple key organs may accelerate hypoxia related inflammation and lead to long haul symptoms. Although exercise temporarily worsens long haul symptoms and some have rejected high-intensity interval training (HIIT) as an option, one paper published in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine from Denmark suggests the opposite.20

The authors of this study argue that the pathophysiology of COVID-19 may be overcome by the physiological effects of HIIT and it should be considered as one of the rehabilitation choices to potentially reverse these symptoms. They propose that exercise could increase viral clearance and modulate TNF-alpha and interleukin-1 beta signaling.

This may in turn reduce vascular inflammation. They acknowledge that HIIT is the most controversial type of exercise intervention to be prescribed after COVID-19, due to the risk of sudden cardiac arrest secondary to cardiovascular damage.

Several experts21,22 recommend even those accustomed to high intensity exercise should first complete a cardiovascular exam and approach their return to physical activity gradually. They cite a small retrospective study of 28 people with a history of COVID-19 in which the researchers concluded that “comprehensive cardiopulmonary rehabilitation after COVID-19 is safe, feasible, and effective.”23

Early Treatment May Reduce the Number of Long Haulers

In my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko in March 2021, we discussed the treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine. At that point, Zelenko had treated 3,000 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 and only three of his high-risk patients had subsequently succumbed to the disease.

While the focus of the interview was on treatment protocols and the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, Zelenko shared an interesting statistic about his protocol. In the early months of COVID-19, Zelenko decided to treat his high-risk patients as early as possible, without waiting for severe symptoms. This turned out to be one key to his significant success.

Without waiting for test results that often took five days, by which time high-risk patients were exhibiting more severe symptoms, he started treatment immediately. His understanding of the mechanism behind hydroxychloroquine and zinc led to using the combination alongside azithromycin, to prevent bacterial pneumonia and other bacterial infections common with COVID.

What is interesting are the statistics for Zelenko’s patients with long haul symptoms. As I’ve discussed, approximately 10% of the population that is infected with COVID-19 will go on to experience persistent symptoms.24 However, Zelenko has treated 3,000 patients and none who received treatment within the first five days went on to develop long-haul symptoms.

While he has had patients with persistent symptoms from COVID-19, they sought medical care after the first five days of symptoms, which meant the inflammatory process had advanced. From his experience, and the experience of the patients he treated, early intervention with the protocol nearly eliminated the risk of persistent symptoms.

Researchers Find Another Vaccine Target

During vaccine development, researchers and pharmaceutical companies have focused on the spike protein that surrounds the virus. It appears that this is how the virus enters the cells and it seemed reasonable if the virus could not replicate inside the cells, the infection could be stopped.

However, as has been discovered, the virus has more than just a single spike protein.25 There are four proteins that form the structure surrounding the RNA. There is an envelope (E), a membrane (M) and a nucleocapsid (N), in addition to the spike (S). Your immune system recognizes all four of these proteins. Researchers have discovered humans make more antibodies to the N protein than the S protein.26

However, it seemed counterintuitive to address the N protein since this is found inside the structure with the viral RNA. Therefore, any antibodies your body makes against the N protein will not block the virus from entering the cells.27 New information has revealed that once the N protein antibodies get inside the cell they are recognized by an antibiotic receptor, TRIM21.

This antibody receptor shreds the N protein, which then reaches the surface of an infected cell. Your body’s T cells recognize the fragments and kill the cell along with any virus. This has suggested to researchers that inducing N protein antibodies may be another way of stimulating the immune response against SARS-CoV-2.

Another benefit of focusing on the N protein is that it has a lower mutation rate.28 In other words, as the virus mutates in the wild the current vaccine may no longer have any effectiveness against it, in much the same way that the flu vaccine must be altered each year to address influenza variants. The sequence in the N protein is more stable, so researchers postulate that a vaccine may be effective for a longer period.

List of Current Vaccine Side Effects Is Growing

Early in May 2021, reports from France indicated five cases of myocarditis were found in those who had taken the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle that can have lifelong effects as it weakens the muscle and creates scar tissue.29

The national medicines safety agency (ANSM) released their weekly vaccine update, saying “five cases have been declared in France.”30 The agency didn’t feel there was enough information to conclude the vaccine had played a role but would continue to monitor reports.

Over 13.5 million doses of COVID vaccines have been administered in France since April 22, 2021. The ANSM reports 16,030 adverse events from those who had been vaccinated. Israel has also reported several cases of myocarditis after people receive their second dose.

A review of the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows 12 reports of myocarditis were recorded in the U.S. by April 30, 2021. According to Our World in Data,31 by April 30, 2021, 30.32% of the population in the U.S. had been fully vaccinated. VAERS also showed there were 157,277 adverse events reported by April 30, 2021.32

These numbers are likely far lower than the actual number of people who have experienced adverse events from the vaccines. Research data33 show health care providers identify and report vaccine adverse events in woefully low numbers. In fact, the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine was recently paused to teach doctors how to report vaccine injuries.34 The pause has since been lifted in the U.S.

It is crucial to report a vaccine injury or side effect to VAERS, as the data are essential in helping individuals, doctors and researchers make informed decisions. You can make your own report online or using a PDF by going to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.35 You’ll find more information about adverse events and how vaccines affect your health at the National Vaccine Information Center.36

*

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.

Notes

1, 11, 14 Salk, April 30, 2021

2 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 1931;78:413

3 The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 2005;24(11)

4 The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 2005;24(11) para 2 under figure 1

5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, SARS Timeline

6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome

7 World Health Organization, April 27, 2020

8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Symptoms of COVID-19

9 Inflammatory Bowel Disease, 2020; doi.org/10.1093/ibd/iza131

10, 12, 13 Circulation Research, 2021; 128:1326

15, 16, 24 JAMA, 2020;324(14)

17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Post COVID Conditions

18 Nature Medicine, 2021;27:601 Pathophysiology

19 Physiological Reports, 2021; doi.org/10.14814/phy2.14726

20 Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2021; doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.643626

21 European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 2020;27(12)

22 Netherlands Heart Journal, 2020;28:391

23 American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2020;99(10)

25 C&EN, April 1, 2020, Image of the spiked virus

26 Technology Networks, September 10, 2020

27, 28 Discover, January 4, 2021

29 Myocarditis Foundation

30 Brussels Times, May 1, 2021

31 Our World in Data, Coronavirus Vaccinations

32 OpenVAERS, Covid Data

33 Vaccine, 2013;31(24)

34 Twitter, Good Morning America, April 14, 2021

35 VAERS

36 National Vaccine Information Center

Featured image is from Health Impact News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock suggested critics of the vaccine passport policy were “crazies” after he retweeted a post which disparaged those who have security and privacy concerns about the program.

Mail on Sunday commentator Dan Hodges urged people to “ignore the crazies” as he effusively praised the NHS tracking app for being a centralized surveillance hub.

“OK, ignore the crazies. Just downloaded the NHS App,” tweeted Hodges. “It’s amazing! You take a photo of your drivers licence, do a cool face scan, and everything’s there. Covid records, medical records, everything. I now want Covid passports just so I can use it…”’

Hodges subsequently suggested that the app was a “fantastic” way of avoiding anti-vaxxers.

His tweet was subsequently retweeted by Matt Hancock, who over the last year has become the face of the UK’s coronavirus response.

“Why did @MattHancock RT a contrarian, ratioed tweet disparaging “crazies”?” asked Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo.

“He shows profound disrespect to the MPs, many from his own party, who reject Covid passes & want a serious debate; & the anti-ID British public. His attitude will fall down on him like a ton of bricks,” she added.

As we document in the video below, attempts have been made to discredit opposition to the vaccine passport by demonizing critics as anti-vaxxer extremists.

However, the program would serve to introduce a Chinese Communist-style social credit score system with potentially horrendous implications for basic liberties and freedoms.

The British government lied for months in claiming that no vaccine passport was being developed for domestic events, despite that being the plan all along.

*

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

Featured image is from Flickr

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is investigating reports that some teenagers and young adults vaccinated against COVID may have experienced heart problems, according to the agency’s advisory group.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in a May 17 statement said, reports of myocarditis to date seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination. Most cases appeared to be “mild” and follow-up is ongoing.

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. According to researchers at the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”

The CDC’s Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group has reviewed post-authorization COVID vaccine safety data on a weekly basis since the first COVID vaccine was rolled out in the U.S. in December 2020. At the time, vaccine recipients had to be 18 years old or older.

On May 13, the CDC signed off on expanded use of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine for ages 12- to 15-year-olds. The Pfizer vaccine so far is the only COVID vaccine to have received EUA for young teens.

The VaST session on May 17 included several presentations on myocarditis following mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna.The data came from the U.S. Department of Defense, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and Vaccine Safety Datalink.

There were also brief updates from the Veteran’s Administration and the CDC’s Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project groups about plans for future investigation of myocarditis.

The CDC said its monitoring systems had not found more cases of myocarditis than would be expected in the population, but members of the committee on vaccinations said healthcare providers should be made aware of the reports of the “potential adverse event.”

“We look forward to seeing more data about these cases, so we can better understand if they are related to the vaccine or if they are coincidental,” said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’s Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“Meanwhile, it’s important for pediatricians and other clinicians to report any health concerns that arise after vaccination,” Maldonado said.

As The Defender reported, details leaked from an Israeli Health Ministry report in April raised concerns among experts about a possible link between the Pfizer’s COVID vaccine and myocarditis.

The preliminary report by a committee tasked with monitoring vaccine side effects found 62 cases of myocarditis, including two deaths, in people who received the Pfizer vaccine. Fifty-six of the cases occurred after the second dose of the vaccine, and 55 cases occurred in men — most between the ages of 18 and 30.

Israel’s pandemic response coordinator, Nachman Ash, confirmed “tens of incidents” of myocarditis occurred in vaccinated people, primarily after the second dose, but emphasized the health ministry had yet to draw any conclusions.

Israeli researchers presented their findings to the Israeli Health Ministry Director-General, Pfizer, the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

EU regulators in May called on Pfizer and Moderna to provide additional data related to the companies’ COVID vaccines and a potential link to heart inflammation, after the agency completed a safety review of all four COVID vaccines authorized for emergency use in the EU.

Because Moderna and Pfizer use the same mRNA technology for their vaccines, European regulators asked Moderna to monitor for similar cases of heart inflammation.

On April 27, Reuters reported the U.S. Department of Defense was investigating 14 cases of heart inflammation among people who were vaccinated through the military’s health services.

A search in VAERS revealed 288 cases of pericarditis and myocarditis reported in the U.S following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020 and May 14. Of the 288 cases reported, 158 cases were attributed to Pfizer, 110 cases to Moderna and 19 cases to Johnson & Johnson’s COVID vaccine.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

How Texas Killed COVID

May 25th, 2021 by Rep. Ron Paul

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.

***

In March, Governor Greg Abbott announced that Texas would open for business 100 percent without a statewide mask mandate. The pro-lockdown “experts” were shocked. If a state as big as Texas joined Florida and succeeded in thumbing its nose at “the science” – which told us that for the first time in history healthy people should be forced to stay in their houses and wear oxygen-restricting face masks – then the lockdown narrative would begin falling apart.

President Biden famously attacked the decision as “Neanderthal thinking.” Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa warned that, with this order, Abbott would “kill Texans.” Incoming CDC Director Rochelle Walensky tearfully told us about her feelings of “impending doom.”

When the poster child for Covid lockdowns Dr. Fauci was asked several weeks later why cases and deaths continued to evaporate in Texas, he answered simply, “I’m not sure.” That moment may have been a look at the man behind the proverbial curtain, who projected his power so confidently until confronted with reality.

Now a new study appearing as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, highlighted recently in Reason Magazine, has found “no evidence that the reopening affected the rate of new COVID-19 cases in the five-week period following the reopening. …State-level COVID-19 mortality rates were unaffected by the March 10 reopening.”

In other words, not only did the doom and gloom predicted by the lockdown fanatics fail to materialize, but the steady, seasonal downward trend of the virus toward extinction continued regardless of government action. As we have repeated for a year on the Liberty Report, the virus was going to virus regardless of anything we did about it. And Texas proved it.

However, some very important questions remain to be answered as the Covid panic across the United States is finally starting to recede.

First, will anyone be held responsible for the thousands who died because of the prohibition on safe treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin that have since been shown to be effective against Covid-19? As soon as Donald Trump mentioned that hydroxychloroquine might be effective against the virus, the “experts” circled the wagons. It was banned for use, until it later was quietly un-banned.

The politicization of medicine is anti-science, anti-human, and anti-American. Will those who needlessly died due to this politicization finally get their justice?

Second, though Abbott deserves credit for taking the bold step, shouldn’t he be held accountable for closing the state in the first place? After all, when someone has been punching you in the face and then they stop, do you thank them for letting up or do you ask why they punched you in the first place? Will all the tyrannical rule-by-decree orders across the United States be stricken from the books? Or will they just be allowed to do this again for any reason they choose?

Third, thanks to Senator Rand Paul, we are now all aware of Dr. Fauci’s role in funding gain-of-function research on viruses in China. Will we be able to find out exactly why we are being forced to pay for the mad scientist research into how to create more deadly viruses? Can we opt-out of this funding?

Though Greg Abbott deserves much criticism for shutting Texas down, his re-opening decree effectively ended Covid tyranny across the country. We are thankful for that. Now we must resolve to never let this happen again.

*

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.

Global Britain Returns to Rule the Waves

May 25th, 2021 by Jenny Clegg

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.

***

THE HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier strike group is due to set off on its maiden voyage heading towards the South China Sea.

The biggest military deployment in decades, the voyage is symbolic of Britain’s future direction for the next generation — a clear demonstration that Global Britain with its Indo-Pacific tilt is being military-led.

There’s a certain air of imperial vanity about all this — a delusional fantasy singing to the tune of right-wing nationalism.

But there is a hard edge here as Boris Johnson’s return “east of Suez” takes on particular significance in the new scenario of a cold war on China.

The aircraft carrier itself is massive, its flight deck the length of three football pitches.

It is kitted out with state-of-the-art technologies and is carrying 18 F-35 fighter jets — 10 of these are from the United States Air Force.

The group contains three destroyers, again one of which is American, two frigates and a nuclear-powered submarine armed with Tomahawk missiles.

The cost is huge: over £6 billion for two aircraft carriers together, plus £1bn spent so far on the F-35s.

We are supposed to buy 138 in total which makes an additional £13bn — a colossal misallocation of funds much of which were squeezed out from the taxpayers in the name of austerity.

Involving 1,600 personnel altogether, the running costs alone amount to 15 per cent of the military budget or by rough calculation £8bn or £9bn.

The route travels through the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Gulf, round India then up through the Malacca Straits into the South China Sea, passing numbers of trouble spots on the way.

The 28-week voyage will take in 90 port visits in 40 different countries — more than a fifth of the world’s nations — with the aim of rebuilding military and diplomatic relations.

With fighter jets, destroyers and the latest naval technology on display, and Merlin helicopters and drones on board, there’s an arms sales element, and in a further boost to Britain’s military industrial complex, BAE Systems is to assist Japan and South Korea in building fighter jets.

Along the way, the strike group will serve as a focal point for regional joint military exercises.

The military manoeuvre planned in the South China Sea with the US and probably other states, possibly even Japan, will be highly provocative and dangerous.

The area is a tinderbox: as warships and coastguard vessels mill around in the waters, there is a high risk of accident which could rapidly escalate into war — in which case, we could find ourselves in armed conflict with another nuclear-armed state.

Global Britain has been in the pipeline for years: the decision to build the aircraft carriers, just like the renewal of Trident, came from the same place as the command to launch the war on Iraq, namely, the Tony Blair government.

Following Brexit, Johnson promised Britain’s return to its rightful place as an independent power, leading the world.

As can be seen from the involvement of US personnel and military hardware to boost the QE’s firepower, nothing could be further from the truth.

Now the Tories’ Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy identifies China is a systemic competitor “challenging our prosperity, security and values.”

The Indo-Pacific tilt follows the US plans for an “Asian Nato” initiated by Donald Trump in the form of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue — the Quad — involving Australia, US, Japan and India.

This loose grouping was intended to draw India into a closer relationship with the US, hence the term Indo-Pacific.

Quad diplomacy has now been made a priority by Joe Biden who, within his first 100 days in office, upgraded the dialogue into a heads of state meeting.

At the same time, his success in involving Japan in military drills indicates a hardening of the Quad agenda.

Biden so far has not changed Trump’s key policies on China: not on tariffs, not on restrictions on Chinese tech companies, holding to the view of China as the “greatest strategic challenge” to the US.

He has even stepped up the action sending warships and destroyers into the Taiwan Straits and, taking a more ideological approach, he clearly aims to shift international opinion against China as an existential threat to the entire world.

The US Establishment has been taking stock: the unipolar moment has gone; China clearly was able to withstand Trump’s pressure.

Recognising the US can no longer go it alone, hard-line cold warriors are calling on key allies to form a single economic, technological and military bloc — a “summit of democracies” aligned according to America First priorities and sharing the military costs of the agenda — so as to exert enough pressure on China to bring it to heel, subordinate to US leadership.

Biden’s distinctive global China containment strategy is unfolding in a reordering the regions of Asia, looking to finally demolish the cornerstones of their post-war and post-colonial order: in the Middle East, the division between the Gulf states and Israel over Palestine; the principle of non-alignment long held by India; south-east Asia’s military independence, and Japan’s Article 9 of the constitution, known as the Peace Clause, by which it renounced war as a sovereign right.

Claiming “Britain is back” as it travels across Asia — through the Middle East, India, south-east and east Asia, the aircraft carrier group will in reality be delivering the “warlord” agenda of world division.

Global Britain will bolster its military presence in the Middle East to allow the US to focus more on China and seek ways to influence India’s dialogue with China on issues such as Afghanistan, nuclear deterrence, vaccines and so on.

In south-east Asia, the strike group will mark the 50th anniversary of the Five Power Defence Arrangement that Britain has with Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand, in an exercise designed to shift towards a Nato-style alliance long sought by the US.

And through the renewal of military links, Britain will encourage the Japanese to actively participate overseas in regional naval exercises, breaking the post-war constraints.

The Anglo-Japanese link has historical significance given that it was the alliance with Britain that saw Japan’s emergence an aggressive militarist imperialist state in the early 20th century.

Travelling from the Middle East in a wide semi-circle round China to Japan, the armada is symbolic of Britain’s new role as subcontractor-in-chief of US anti-China foreign and military policy.

How will China react? It should be noted that even the announcement that the Queen Elizabeth would sail through the South China Sea back in February 2019 saw China cancel the visit by the trade secretary at the time.

It seems beyond the wit of the vast majority of Labour MPs to take all this in.

However, what trade unions and the labour movement need to think about is whether, given the precarious state of the economy post-Brexit, we can really afford to run the risk of more serious rupture with the fastest-growing economy in the world.

*

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

Featured image: HMS Queen Elizabeth departs HM Naval Base, Portsmouth (Source: PA)

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.

***

Once again, tensions are increasing in bilateral relations between the US and Germany due to Nord Stream 2. The pipeline project is unacceptable for Washington, but it serves European and Russian interests, ensuring energy security and lowering costs. The Biden government is not willing to back down in its decision to prevent the project from being completed and still taking coercive measures, which will be responded by Berlin.

Last week US State Department spokeswoman Jalina Porter said the Biden government will use all available tools to try to prevent Nord Stream 2 from completing. In response, Steffen Kotre, an affiliate of Alternative for Germany (AfD) and a member of the German Parliament’s energy committee, said that Berlin needs to think about countermeasures to be taken if new American sanctions are implemented. These are his words: “It’s common knowledge that the construction of the pipeline is coming to a close. (…) Given the German government is opposing US’ aggressive actions against Nord Stream 2 only rhetorically, there is a growing concern about the project not be completed, so it would be politically correct to initiate countersanctions”.

Kotre says that with the abandonment of coal industry and Merkel’s disdain for nuclear energy, Nord Stream 2 becomes an even more necessary project for German energy security, as the country is currently under strong threat in this sector – in addition to other European nations. The pipeline, Kotre points out, “[will] help to mitigate the consequences of this”. This means that all possible measures to guarantee the completion of the gas pipeline must be taken by Berlin, considering that it is a highly strategic topic.

In addition to Kotre, another member of the AfD, Waldemar Herdt, spoke publicly in favor of measures to protect the pipeline and said that Berlin will not give up on the construction because there are no plausible arguments against the pipeline – only American impositions. In his words: “It is pointless to pressure Germany; Nord Stream 2 will be completed [because] we have no alternative, [and] the Germans will work with the Russians (…) [Nord Stream 2] is not a whim, the German economy needs it (…) It is less expensive, more ecological, more practical than other energy supply options. There are no arguments against this project, but for Washington’s orders: do as you are told”. In addition, praise was given to the way the German government has been handling the case. According to Herdt, when facing the US to ensure the completion of Nord Stream 2, Germany is fighting for its interests for the first time since World War II.

Another reason for the recent unrest in the German Parliament was the statements by Antony Blinken after his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The U.S. secretary of state said that Washington considers it to be in the national interest to waive sanctions on some corporate agents involved in the construction of the pipeline, mainly Nord Stream 2 AG and its CEO, Matthias Warnig. Biden’s promise seems to contradict his own Department’s statement that it will use all “available tools” to prevent the pipeline. However, Biden only listed the main companies that operate in the construction, still maintaining a wide range of agents available for sanctions. For example, on the same occasion, Blinken stated that more than ten vessels involved in the construction will continue to be sanctioned and did not exclude the possibility of further coercive measures against other agents. Apparently, the American strategy will take form in waiving sanctions against the main corporate agents to try to ease tensions with Germany and Russia, but, at the same time, maintaining sanctions against smaller but strategically important agents, undermining the construction of the gas pipeline in a more tenuous and less aggressive way.

In fact, Berlin is defending its interests for the first time in decades – and parliamentary pressure for countersanctions is very important. The possibility of Germany sanctioning the US is a great mark in bilateral relations, as it shows that the German government is increasingly committed to the interests of its people more than to American profits. Obviously, it is too early to say that the demands of parliamentarians will have real effects on the decisions of the federal government – especially considering that they are statements by a right-wing party.

However, considering the firm role played by the government so far, at no time renouncing its interest in the pipeline, it is indeed possible that sanctions will be authorized. It is necessary to point out that parliamentarians made these statements knowing that the main American sanctions would be eased and even so they suggested countermeasures – which indicates that the Germans are not willing to tolerate any sanctions and will not be satisfied with a simple relief for the main companies.

Germany is a nation that is truly allied with the West and committed to liberal values. Berlin has always been willing to cooperate with Washington on all points, but it is not permissible for such cooperation to become submission and abuse. Nord Stream 2 is a German national priority – an economic, social, and environmental necessity that cannot be reduced to international rivalries. Certainly, the US will respond appropriately if there are German sanctions, which could lead to a real trade war – but, apparently, Berlin is really willing to continue to fight for its own interests.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from Asia Times

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.

***

Israeli police are now threatening to carry out mass arrests against Palestinian citizens of Israel — arrests intended to punish those who took part in sit-ins and other protests in solidarity with Palestinians living in East Jerusalem and Gaza.

This latest attack on Palestinian rights comes just days after Israeli police once again attacked Palestinians at Al Aqsa Mosque, and after the Israeli military viciously bombed Gaza for 11 days, killing 248 Palestinians and wounding more than 1,900, destroying 16,800 Palestinian homes and displacing tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Outrage against Israel’s ongoing apartheid system and routine attacks on Palestinian rights and lives is mounting worldwide, setting the stage for a new burst of energy in the global movement for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the Israeli regime — a nonviolent movement in support of the Palestinian struggle for freedom and equality.

Renewed calls for BDS have emerged in the reshaped new political moment following the ceasefire that began on May 20 after President Joe Biden, who has essentially continued Donald Trump’s policy of pandering to Israel, finally put his foot down following outrage by a critical mass of congressional Democrats and protests in the U.S. and around the world, and said he expected “significant de-escalation” of Israel’s attacks on Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu complied with Biden’s directive and agreed to the ceasefire with Hamas.

Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) introduced legislation to prevent Biden from selling $735 million in weapons to Israel. That doesn’t count the $3.8 billion in military assistance the U.S. government provides Israel annually, which funds the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories.

In the occupied territories, Israel regulates the entries and departures of the Palestinians and controls the borders, airspace, shoreline and waters off the Gaza coast. Israel expels Palestinians from their homes and facilitates illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

Palestinians are forced “to live in constant uncertainty, making it difficult to perform simple tasks and make plans,” according to B’Tselem, the leading Israeli human rights organization. “A Palestinian leaving home in the morning cannot know whether he or she is going to make it [to] work — on time or at all — or to keep a medical appointment, visit family or catch a movie. She might make it, or she might be delayed at a checkpoint for hours, detained and humiliated by soldiers. She may have to turn around and go back the way she came. She may get arrested.”

Israel’s massacre of Palestinians in “Operation Guardian of the Walls” — the Israeli military’s name for its most recent 11-day assault on Gaza — has led to renewed calls for BDS against the Israeli regime.

The BDS Movement

In 2005, 170 Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycott, divestment and sanctions. They described BDS as “non-violent punitive measures” that would last until Israel fully complies with international law by (1) ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling its barrier wall; (2) recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and (3) respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their land as stipulated in UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

“A particularly important source of Palestinian hope is the growing impact of the Palestinian-led nonviolent BDS movement,” Omar Barghouti, co-founder of BDS, wrote in The Nation. BDS “aims at ending Israel’s regime of military occupation, settler-colonialism, and apartheid and defending the right of Palestinian refugees to return home.”

The BDS movement is largely modeled on the boycott that helped end apartheid in South Africa. As has been confirmed most recently by Human Rights Watch, Israel also maintains a system of apartheid.

In 2001, the National Lawyers Guild sent a delegation to the region and published a report that documented a system of apartheid in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It detailed illegal Jewish settlements and bypass roads, the restricted movement of Palestinians, discriminatory land policies, the differential treatment of Jews and Palestinian non-Jews, and Israeli policing of Palestinians’ political expression. It analyzed the indiscriminate and excessive use of lethal force against Palestinians and their property, delays and prevention of medical treatment, and Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinians.

Ronnie Kasrils, minister for intelligence services in South Africa from 2004-2008, equated the South African anti-apartheid struggle with the BDS campaign against Israeli apartheid.

“It is imperative that we of the international community redouble our efforts to aid the Palestinian people in solidarity actions. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign remains the most formidable weapon in our arsenal,” Kasrils wrote at Common Dreams. “It worked to bring about the demise of South African Apartheid behind the internal people’s resistance struggle, and is growing in scope and efficacy, to the extent that Israel has identified the non-violent global movement as a strategic threat. Israel, like apartheid South Africa must pay for its crimes — above all by sanctions.”

Boycotts involve the withdrawal of support for Israel and Israeli and international companies that are violating Palestinian human rights, including Israeli academic, cultural and sporting institutions. Divestment campaigns ask churches, universities, banks, pension funds and local councils to withdraw their investments from all Israeli and international companies complicit in the violation of Palestinian rights. Sanctions campaigns pressure governments to cease military trade and free-trade agreements and urge them to expel Israel from international fora.

BDS has had a significant impact on Israel. The BDS campaign played a major role in the 46 percent decrease in foreign direct investment in Israel in 2014, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development. Among the individuals and entities who have answered the call for divestment include George Soros, TIAA-CREF public sector pension fund, Bill Gates Foundation, Norwegian bank Nordea, and Dutch pension giant PGGM. Many churches, including the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA and several Quaker meetings have divested from companies targeted by the BDS movement. Veolia, the French multinational utility company, withdrew from Israel, resulting in billions of dollars in lost contracts. Major international trade union federations in South Africa, Europe, Latin America, India, Canada and the United States endorse BDS.

There is substantial opposition in the United States to Israel’s occupation. In a 2018 poll, 40 percent of Americans overall and 56 percent of Democrats supported the imposition of sanctions or even more serious penalties on Israel to end the occupation.

The Israel Lobby vs. BDS

Boycotts constitute protected freedom of speech, assembly and association under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They have long been used to fight injustice and achieve social change. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” The high court ruled that advocating and supporting boycotts “to bring about political, social, and economic change” — like boycotting Israel — are unquestionably protected by the First Amendment.

Biden is staunchly against the BDS movement. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at his confirmation hearing that both he and Biden “resolutely opposed” BDS. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, vehemently denounced BDS at her confirmation hearing, as did Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in written answers to questions from senators before her hearing.

The success of the BDS movement has motivated Israel apologists to sponsor anti-boycott legislation on the state, local and federal levels. These forces include right-wing Christian Zionist organizations and other Israel lobby groups, often funded by the Israeli government.

“Politicians are pushing unconstitutional laws to stop the movement for Palestinian freedom and shield Israel from criticism,” according to Palestine Legal, an organization that protects the civil and constitutional rights of people who support Palestinian freedom. Since 2014, Palestine Legal has kept track of bills targeting advocacy for Palestinian rights.

“Early efforts focused on defunding universities to punish or deter support for an academic boycott of Israeli institutions. Subsequent legislative efforts aimed to prohibit state contracts with or state investments in entities that support BDS,” Palestine Legal explains. “Some anti-boycott laws include written certification requirements, mandating that potential contractors pledge not to boycott Israel, and some call on the state to compile public blacklists of entities that boycott for Palestinian rights or support BDS,” according to Palestine Legal.

Thirty-one states have anti-BDS legislation in effect. Since 2014, 219 anti-boycott bills have been introduced but only 50 of them have been passed, thanks to strong opposition by grassroots and civil liberties groups.

The anti-boycott laws vary in how they define boycotts and the scope of the boycotts at which they are directed. Some bills target boycotts of Israel or goods and services from Israel, and others aim at boycotts of allied countries. The legislation often punishes boycotts of territories controlled by Israel, reaching boycotts of services or products from or to unlawful Israeli settlements. Many bills threaten criminal penalties and economic sanctions. “This legislation also has a broader intent to chill and intimidate activists and their would-be supporters into believing that BDS is now ‘illegal,’” Palestine Legal’s website says.

Some legislation, like the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which was introduced in Congress in 2017 and again in 2019, would have gone even further, with criminal penalties and jail time for furnishing information in support of a boycott of Israel. The Act was defeated in January 2021.

The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 contains several anti-boycott provisions. It includes a statement opposing “politically motivated actions” that would penalize or limit commercial relations with Israel, including BDS campaigns. The law says that discouraging boycotts for Palestinian rights is a primary U.S. objective when negotiating foreign trade agreements. This Act went into effect in 2016. In 2019, the U.S. Bureau of Legislative Affairs provided Congress with its Report on Politically Motivated Acts of Boycott of, Divestment from, and Sanctions Against Israel, as mandated by the Act. It reported on a pro-BDS bill in Ireland. The report also detailed Kuwait’s actions in support of the boycott against Israel, which was upheld by a German court. Responding to U.S. pressure, Germany passed an anti-BDS law.

What to Boycott

The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) is calling for a boycott of Israeli and international companies that are complicit in violations of Palestinian rights. Although virtually all Israeli companies are complicit in Israel’s system of apartheid and occupation, the BNC is targeting boycotts at a small number of products and companies which have a direct role in Israel’s crimes in order to achieve the greatest impact.

BNC is asking individuals to boycott Pillsbury (whose products are made on stolen Palestinian land in illegal Israeli settlements), SodaStream (which is actively complicit in the Israeli policy of displacing Indigenous Bedouin-Palestinian citizens of Israel in the Negev), Puma (which sponsors the Israel Football Association, including teams in Israel’s illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory), Sabra (whose hummus is a joint venture between PepsiCo and the Strauss Group, an Israeli food company that gives financial support to the Israeli army), Hewlett-Packard (which helps run the biometric ID system that Israel employs to restrict the movement of Palestinians), Ahava (whose cosmetics are produced in an illegal Israeli settlement), AXA (which invests in Israeli banks that finance the theft of Palestinian land and natural resources), and all Israeli produce in your local supermarket (which are often mislabeled “Produce in Israel” when they in fact come from the occupied Palestinian territories).

The world watched horrified as Israeli forces once again slaughtered Palestinians in Gaza, which is often called the world’s largest open-air prison (one of the most densely populated areas on Earth, containing more than 5,000 inhabitants per square kilometer), until Biden told Netanyahu to stop. This latest violence has galvanized even more people in the United States and around the world to stop Israel’s brutality against the Palestinians. In this moment of mass outrage, as more people join the BDS movement and work together to overcome the strategies of repression and criminalization aimed to thwart it, BDS has the potential to grow and become an even more powerful force in the Palestinian struggle to end Israel’s occupation and system of apartheid.

*

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.

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, a member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues

Featured image is from The Bullet

Video: Drone Warfare in the Middle East

May 25th, 2021 by South Front

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.

***

Iran, if Israel is concerned, is busy producing nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, drones and little else.

On May 23rd, nine people were wounded in an explosion at a factory in the city of Shahin Shahr in the central Iranian province of Isfahan.

According to Iranian state media, the factory produces industrial and commercial explosive materials, including fireworks and gunpowder, as well as various chemicals. The factory operates under the supervision of the National Security Council.

Meanwhile, Amichai Stein, a correspondent for the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, claimed that Iran was manufacturing drones at the facility. It is not a speculative conclusion to consider that Stein’s words suggest that the blast at the Iranian factory could be the result of Israeli “interference”. The journalist linked the explosion to a recent incident, in which the Israeli military shot down an armed drone near the city of Beit She’an. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran of launching it from either Iraq or Syria.

In Syria, also on May 23rd, other unidentified combat drones carried out a series of strikes on the outskirts of the town of al-Bukamal in southern Deir Ezzor. The town is held by Damascus’ forces and it is right next to the Iraqi border. The strikes destroyed a number of newly-built hangars in al-Hamdan desert. The strikes didn’t result in any human losses.

A day earlier, an unidentified combat drone targeted a pickup vehicle to the east of al-Bukamal, inside Iraqi territory. Israel and the US were both blamed by Iraqi sources. No casualties were reported.

ISIS is still quite active near and inside Deir Ezzor, but drone attacks by the terrorist group are uncommon.

In the days leading up to the drone raid, ISIS carried out a series of attacks on Syrian Arab Army (SAA) forces.

The first one happened on May 18th, and eight SAA soldiers and pro-government fighters were reportedly killed in an ambush by ISIS cells in the Maskanah desert in southern Aleppo.

On May 20th, terrorists attacked a position of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in the Durihim desert in the southern countryside of Aleppo.

May 22nd saw ISIS attack a convoy of tankers moving oil from northeastern Syria to government-held areas near al-Manakhir in southern Raqqa.

On the same day, three pro-government fighters were reportedly killed in the Ma’adan desert in southern Raqqa after being struck with an IED.

Syria is looking to contain the terrorists, and active negotiations with Iran are on-going on the matter, as well as on other security issues. This includes Israel, which is vehemently attempting to stop any active cooperation between Syria and its allies.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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.

***

“The total amount of third world debt has already been repaid six times over in interest.”(1)

As of 2020, the total amount of debt owed by developing countries was $11 trillion.(2) The cost of interest on this debt was hundreds of billions of dollars per year, or over $1 billion per day. This is many times greater than the aid given by rich countries.(3) This post summarises the main reasons why countries should not have to repay all of their debts.

Borrowing Money for Weapons: Paying For Your Corrupt Boss’ Crimes 

“For years, rich countries willingly provided loans to the dictatorship in our country. Now, we are asked to pay for the bullets which were fired at us.”(4)

A close look at the reasons for lending in specific cases highlights the unfairness of the system. It has been estimated that from 1960-1987, developing countries borrowed $400 billion to spend on weapons. Much of Iraq’s debt was due to money lent to finance Saddam Hussein’s war with Iran in the 1980s.(5) We saw in earlier posts that most money spent on weapons by the poorest countries comes straight back to much richer countries, lining the pockets of shareholders and executives of weapons companies.(6) The Indonesian dictator, Suharto, received loans for tanks and warplanes that were used to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people. The Indonesian people are expected to repay those loans. The same is true of many countries that used to be run by dictators. Britain and the US helped to keep these dictators in power, against the wishes of their people, yet the people are still expected to repay their dictators’ debts.  

We saw in an earlier post that sanctions (depriving a country of basic essentials) can cause devastation, yet people from many countries, including Iraq, Panama and Vietnam, have been expected to repay loans whilst suffering from sanctions imposed by rich nations.

White Elephants – The money goes to companies and consultants from rich countries 

Large amounts of money has been lent to finance huge projects that are of little value to ordinary people. These are known as white elephants. The most obvious of these would be nuclear power plants that were finished 20 years behind schedule and cost many times their original estimate, producing some of the most expensive energy on Earth. Forty-five thousand dams have been built, displacing fifty million people and costing $2 trillion. Many went way over budget, such as a South American dam that was expected to cost $3.6 billion but ended up costing $21 billion. It was described by the former Paraguayan minister of energy as “possibly the largest fraud in the history of capitalism.” Some dams were designed so badly that they unexpectedly flooded thousands of square miles of land, and produce much less energy than expected. Where private contractors are running these powerplants, governments have ended up with contracts where they have to pay for energy that is not used.

Railroads have been constructed that run “from no place to nowhere.” Again, many of the loans for these projects went into the pockets of wealthy shareholders and executives of construction companies in rich countries, together with consultants from those countries. There is even a capital city in Nigeria called Abuja that was built in the middle of nowhere and seemed for many years to have no purpose. The Nigerian people have a joke about the city. They ask God if ordinary people will ever see the benefits of Abuja. He responds “Not in my lifetime.”(7)

The System Is Rigged Against Borrowing Countries 

When a developing country borrows money from international lenders, it usually does so using an established currency, such as US dollars. The exchange rate with its own currency can fluctuate. Some borrowing countries are actually encouraged to change their exchange rate (this is known as devaluing their currency) making loans more expensive to repay. The interest rate is often high and can also fluctuate.

Some loans are used to grow crops for export, but the price of these crops also varies. In 1999, Nicaraguan coffee sold for $1.44 per pound. By 2002, this price had dropped to $0.40 per pound. This means they have to sell three times as much coffee to pay their debts. All three of these factors, exchange rate, interest rate and prices, are beyond the control of the borrowing country – they are controlled by traders and banks in rich countries. In theory these rates can go either way, but in practice poor countries have repeatedly lost out.(8) Conditions can easily change sufficiently that poor countries can no longer afford to repay debts, through no fault of their own.

If the price of coffee drops below the price of production, then it does not matter how much coffee is sold – there is zero profit, and coffee sales cannot be used to repay the debt. Most developing countries have provided enough coffee, cocoa, cotton, cobalt, gold, oil and diamonds (and everything else that they export) to pay back their original loans many times over, yet they still have huge debts. Unlike businesses, countries cannot declare bankruptcy. Banks try not to write-off debts, so they keep lending ever-more money to borrowers to pay off their earlier debts, together with the interest on those debts. The debt just keeps getting bigger. An observer in Nigeria pointed out:

“We borrowed $5 billion. We have paid back $16 billion, but we still owe $28 billion”.

Rich People Keep Stealing the Money 

Nigeria provides a good case study of debt and capital flight. The best estimate of the total wealth stolen by corrupt dictators and their cronies since 1960 in Nigeria is $120 billion.(9) This is enough to repay their debts many times over. The same is true in many poor countries. Two leading experts wrote:

“Of the money borrowed by African governments in recent decades, more than half departed in the same year, with a significant portion of it winding up in private accounts at the very banks that provided the loans in the first place”(10)

The Destructive Power of Compound Interest 

The effect of compound interest on loans to developing countries is extremely important. If a country borrowed $1 million in 1980 at 7% interest, the total debt would now be approximately $16 million. When interest rates are very high, the debt increases more rapidly. If we re-do the same calculation at 14% interest, the total debt would be $250 million. If the interest rate on a loan is even one per cent too high, then the borrower pays a considerable amount of extra interest over a long period of time.

The system of excessive interest on international loans is a deliberate mechanism to transfer wealth from poor countries to rich ones, or from governments to rich people. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, many South American countries experienced serious problems due to excessive interest on their debts.(11) In an extreme example, the Argentinian government was paying 45% interest on loans (known as dollar bonds). Many of these bonds were owned by wealthy Argentinians. The leading expert on the system, Michael Hudson, has explained that these bonds are actually a complex mechanism to help the rich take their money out of the country.(12)

It’s All About Conditions 

Most people think of loans as having two parts, the capital and the interest. In the international world there is a third part – the conditions that come with the loan. This is arguably the most important part. Countries that want to borrow can be more easily persuaded to follow the guidance of advisors from rich countries, to privatise their industries, and to open up their markets for further exploitation by big corporations. In order to qualify to have the debts written off, countries have to implement these same policies.(13) The manipulation of these debts is a means of helping rich countries and their corporations take control of resources and trade in poor countries. Many of these countries have effectively been conquered economically.

Governments from developing countries have been advised to decrease spending on basic necessities (known as austerity), but at the same time they have been forced to keep paying their debts. Nicaragua spends four times as much on debt as on education.(14) One expert on Mozambique said:

“A large share of the government revenues of Mozambique have to be spent on servicing the debt. Little is left for health, education and water provision.”(15)

The interests of banks and investors are considered more important than the lives and health of billions of people. 

Debts can, and should, be written off 

If we write off all debts that were spent on weapons, that were used to support murderous dictators, that were stashed in personal offshore bank accounts in tax havens, that were spent on grand schemes of little benefit to the population, that lined the pockets of Western consultants, or that have grown enormously due to excessive compound interest, the amount outstanding would be very much less than the amount that rich countries still want repaid. If we then deduct the amount already repaid, it would almost certainly be less than zero. Governments and banks in rich countries do not want to do these calculations, because they do not want to admit that the whole system is so corrupt. When researchers examine in detail what happened to the original money that was loaned to specific countries, they conclude that much of the outstanding debt should be canceled.(16) For example, when loans to Ecuador were analysed, some of them violated international law, as well as domestic laws in lending countries, and laws in Ecuador.(17) In total, $3 billion of Ecuador’s debt was illegitimate. The technical term for this is odious debt.

Writing off debts is nothing new. This has been a regular process for thousands of years,(18) and various multi-billion dollar loans to the US and Europe have been written off over the years.(19) Our politicians occasionally write off some of the debts of the poorest countries, but they are rarely as generous as they claim. In some cases, aid is reduced by the same amount as the debt written off, so poor countries get no real benefit. Some schemes do not end debts altogether. They merely reduce them to a level that rich countries consider ‘sustainable.’ What this really means is the greatest amount of interest that can be extorted each year without quite tipping a country into revolution and civil war. The debt written off in recent years is just a small fraction of the amount owed.(20)

The propaganda related to debt is very powerful. Most people have been conditioned to believe that we all have a moral obligation to repay debts.(21) The idea that debts are a powerful mechanism for controlling or exploiting others is rarely discussed. We need to change the whole framework of discussions around debts, and force lenders to accept responsibility for their criminal or unethical practices. In business, it is accepted that debts can be written off. Lenders accept that when they make a loan, there is a risk that they will not get their money back. The same should be true of international lending.

This is a Huge Problem for Some Rich Countries Too

These issues became much more apparent to people in rich countries, when Greece was forced to pursue austerity, in 2010, as a condition of its debt arrangements. Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain also suffered. This had devastating consequences for the people of these countries, particularly the poor. Their situation is particularly difficult as they use the Euro as their currency, which gives them much less control over their finances.

A golden rule for all countries should be to borrow as little as possible in foreign currencies. If a country can create its own currency, it can be used to pay local people to do most of the things needed for development. It is straightforward to set up a national healthcare network, to set up a national system of schools and universities, to train doctors and engineers, to build a country’s infrastructure, or to begin the process of industrialization. It has been done successfully even in very poor countries. Forcing countries to borrow money denominated in US$ is a deliberate strategy by the US to maintain its power.(22)

*

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

This article was first posted on medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda, and explaining war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media. 

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1) Didier Rod, comment in European Parliament, 25 April, 2002, at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20020425+ITEMS+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN 

2) Homi Kharas, ‘What to do about the coming debt crisis in developing countries’, Brookings, 13 April 2020, at https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/04/13/what-to-do-about-the-coming-debt-crisis-in-developing-countries/

This is defined as emerging market and developing country debt. 

Larry Elliott, ‘Debt in developing countries has doubled in les than a decade’, The Guardian, 16 August 2020, at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/16/debt-in-developing-countries-has-doubled-in-less-than-a-decade 

3) David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, 2005, p.193

4) Noha El Shoky, Egyptians for a Sovereign Debt Audit, at www.jubileedebt.org.uk

5) James S. Henry, The Blood Bankers, p.344

6) How It All Began, at www.jubileeresearch.org

7) James S. Henry, The Blood Bankers, Chapter 1

8) James S. Henry, The Blood Bankers, 2003, pp.207-215

Faisal Islam, ‘Class A Capitalists’, The Observer, 21 April 2002, athttp://observer.guardian.co.uk/drugs/story/0,,686664,00.html

ICO, ‘Historical Data on the Global Coffee Trade’, International Coffee Organization, at http://www.ico.org/historical/1990%20onwards/PDF/3a-prices-growers.pdf 

9) Jack Blum, cited in Kamari Clarke and Deborah Thomas, Globalization and Race: Transformations in the Cultural Production of Blackness, 2006

10) James Boyce and Leonce Ndikumana, Africa’s odious debts: How foreign loans and capital flight bled a continent, 2011

11) ‘The Mexican 1982 Debt Crisis’, Rabobank, 19 Sep 2013, at https://economics.rabobank.com/publications/2013/september/the-mexican-1982-debt-crisis/ 

12) Michael Hudson, Argentina back on the debt train’, 23 July 2018, at https://michael-hudson.com/2018/07/argentina-back-on-the-debt-train/

13) Anup Shah, ‘$40 billion debt write-off is not a historic breakthrough’, Global Issues, 10 July 2005, at http://www.globalissues.org/article/544/40-billion-debt-write-off-is-not-a-historic-breakthrough 

14) Ngaire Woods, The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and their Borrowers, 2007, p.168

15) Dr. Eufrigina dos Reis, Mozambique Debt Group, at https://jubileedebt.org.uk/

16) Joseph Hanlon, ‘How much debt must be cancelled?’, Journal of International Development, Vol. 12, Issue 6, pp. 877 – 901, August 2000

17) ‘Debt Resistors’, Jubilee Debt Campaign, at https://jubileedebt.org.uk/the-debt-crisis/debt-resistors

18) David Graeber, Debt: The first 5,000 years

Michael Hudson and Harold Crooks, ‘Bronze age redux: On debt, clean slates and what the ancients have to teach U’, Counterpunch, 1 May 2018, at https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/01/bronze-age-redux-on-debt-clean-slates-and-what-the-ancients-have-to-teach-u/

19) Joseph Hanlon, ‘How Much Debt Must Be Cancelled’, Journal of International Development, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp.877-901

20) ‘The Basics About Debt’, at www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/?lid=98

21) Eric Toussaint, The Debt System: A history of sovereign debts and their repudiation, 2019

22) ‘Michael Hudson discusses the IMF and World Bank: Partners in economic backwardness’, interview by Bonnie Faulkner, 4 July 2019, at https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/michael-hudson-discusses-the-imf-and-world-bank-partners-in-backwardness.html

Millions of Electric Cars Are Coming. What Happens to All the Dead Batteries?

By Ian Morse, May 24, 2021

The battery pack of a Tesla Model S is a feat of intricate engineering. Thousands of cylindrical cells with components sourced from around the world transform lithium and electrons into enough energy to propel the car hundreds of kilometers, again and again, without tailpipe emissions.

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

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 24, 2021

Each of the ten chapters provides factual information as well as analysis on the following topics: What Is Covid-19, what is SARS-CoV-2, how Is it identified, how is it estimated? The timeline and historical evolution of the Corona Crisis, the devastating economic and financial impacts, the enrichment of a social minority of billionaires, how the lockdown policies trigger unemployment and mass poverty Worldwide, the devastating impacts on mental health.

America’s Public Health System Is Utterly Corrupt

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 24, 2021

Try to find an American institution that is not corrupt.  Even when presented with the Covid threat the US public health system could not rise above the greed for profit.  Effective cures, such as HCQ and Ivermectin were demonized and in many states prohibited.  Most Covid deaths are the result of non-treatment.  

How the CDC Is Manipulating Data to Prop-up “Vaccine Effectiveness”

By Kit Knightly, May 24, 2021

The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for “Covid19” in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy “vaccines” are effective at preventing the alleged disease. They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change).

The People of Palestine Have Been Terrorized

By Yasser Abed and Chris Jones, May 24, 2021

On Samos this led to the refugees from Gaza working closely with Sofiane from Open Doors to raise money and to get it through to Gaza without delay. In less than a day money was raised and sent and used to provide food parcels for those with nothing. No NGOs or the like, just ordinary people using their networks and local knowledge to get help to where it is most needed.

Weapons of War on Our Streets: The Militarization of America’s Police

By Sam Jacobs, May 24, 2021

The claim often heard from those attempting to pass more gun control legislation is that all they’re trying to do is get the “weapons of war off our streets,” but it’s simply untrue that “weapons of war” are available to the general public. You’d last about three minutes in a conventional war with an AR-15, even with one of the most aggressive builds you can get your hands on (that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for guerilla uprisings to defeat powerful enemies).

History: The Inherent Irony in the Palestinian-Israeli Struggle

By Courtenay Barnett, May 24, 2021

The word ‘irony’ sums up much that is probably inherent in human nature and manifest at times in human history, when one considers the on-going conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. Historical pogroms had been launched against Jews – ‘pogroms’ used in the widest sense of its meaning as violent attack, expulsion, or marginalisations – then the history is a long one.

COVID-19 and the PCR Test — No Pandemic, Only Junk Data!

By Gavin Phillips, May 24, 2021

Governments around the world have enforced unprecedented restrictions on people’s lives, imposing lockdowns that closed down most of society for months at a time. Stopping people from visiting their family, isolating the elderly in care homes and destroying millions of people’s livelihoods. These draconian laws were brought in to control an alleged pandemic created by a new virus called SARS-CoV-2 that creates the respiratory illness of Covid 19.

Time to End the Silence on Israel’s Nuclear Weapons

By Mehrnaz Shahabi, May 24, 2021

The attack on Natanz nuclear enrichment plant in Iran, on April 11, targeting underground centrifuges operating under (IAEA) safeguards, was an act of nuclear terror with the potential to kill and harm many thousands of human beings and irreparably contaminate the environment. Although Israel has not confirmed or denied responsibility, the media have almost universally attributed the attack to Israel, citing senior American and Israeli intelligence officials confirming Israel’s involvement.

Interpretation and Investigation: The Conspiracy Theory Trap

By Emanuel Pastreich, May 24, 2021

The creation of events that will promote irreconcilable interpretations in different interpretive communities has become a cottage industry for the rich and powerful. The radically divergent tales concerning mass shootings and attacks on minorities does wonders to exacerbate rifts between groups in the United States who might otherwise find common ground. These deep fissures in the basic assumptions about events render cooperation between these groups impossible.

Bombshell: Nobel Prize Winner Reveals – COVID Vaccine Is ‘Creating Variants’

By Renee Nal, May 24, 2021

As reported at RAIR in April of last year, Prof. Montagnier presented a powerful case that the coronavirus was created in a lab. His comments at the time offended the left-wing establishment so much that they aggressively attempted to discredit his statement. Now, the media is backpedaling on the origin of the coronavirus after prominent scientists called for further scrutiny.

COVID Vaccines May Bring Avalanche of Neurological Disease

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 24, 2021

Five months into the vaccination campaign, statistics tell a frightening story. Seneff cites research showing deaths are 14.6 times more frequent during the first 14 days after the first COVID injection among people over the age of 60, compared to those who aren’t vaccinated. That is extraordinary. You can read the full paper here.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: How the CDC Is Manipulating Data to Prop-up “Vaccine Effectiveness”
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China and the February 1, 2021 Coup d’Etat in Burma: Beijing’s Geopolitical Nightmare

Afghan Nationalism Faces Existential Challenge

May 24th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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.

***

Afghan conundrum is mutating 

The commencement of the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan by the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has got off to a flying start. So far there has been no hiccup. One significant landmark has been the vacation of the big American base at Kandahar, southern Afghanistan. 

There is some poignancy here. A recent despatch by the Washington Post reported that “The battle against the Taliban has seesawed for months on the outskirts of Kandahar city. The second-largest city in Afghanistan, Kandahar holds strategic and symbolic value. Its province was once home to the busiest NATO base in the country, shares a long, porous border with Pakistan and was where the Taliban movement first formally mobilised.”

The fact that in a matter of some three weeks alone since the troop pullout began formally on May 1, twenty percent of the withdrawal process has been successfully completed is a matter of satisfaction for the Pentagon and the Biden Administration as well as the US’ allies in Europe.  

It emerges that the latent fear in Washington and Brussels that the Taliban might taunt, harass and humiliate the retreating western forces (which includes NATO troops as well), is steadily receding. Consequently, there is a growing measure of confidence about what the future portends, which is reflected in the NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg’s statement last week about an open-ended presence of the alliance in Afghanistan beyond September, even if in a modified role. 

Notably, Stoltenberg was speaking during a meeting in Paris with the French President Emmanuel Macron. Germany is already on board as regards continued NATO presence in Afghanistan. 

Evidently, Pakistan is compelling the Taliban to “cooperate” with the US and NATO’s revised troop withdrawal schedule, notwithstanding the threatening complaints voiced by the latter from time to time as regards the Biden administration’s retraction from the core commitment given under the Doha pact by the American side on the timeline of completion of Pentagon troop withdrawal by May 1. 

Put differently, Pakistan has risen to the western expectations as regards a safe and orderly drawdown (unlike in Vietnam.) This raises in turn new possibilities. Just as Americans have a saying that there’s nothing like free lunch in a transactional relationship, it is legitimate for the Pakistani side also  to explore the quid pro quo by the Biden administration. In fact, the US-Pakistan relationship historically becomes a chronicle of “free lunches” with conditions attached. 

Inevitably, a dialectics came into being over time between the two inseparable partners indulging in “free lunches” and “quid pro quos” and sustaining and mutually reinforcing each other. All evidence points toward that familiar pattern returning in the problematic US-Pakistan relationship. This will cause some worry in both Kabul and New Delhi — and, perhaps, in Beijing, Moscow and Tehran as well. 

Thus, the repeated visits by the British top brass to Rawalpindi in the recent months must be highlighted here. To borrow the infinitely sad words expressed by the late Princess Diana in her interview with the BBC about “three people in a relationship,” there has always been a hovering British presence in the US-Pakistan relationship — which is on call, but keeping the head just below the parapet, while all dressed up raring to go at short notice. 

In particular, when it comes to the Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship, the vexing issues have been historically bequeathed to the region by Lord Curzon. Therefore, as the search for an Afghan settlement intensifies, Britain’s role becomes important. 

Unsurprisingly, at the controversial meeting in Kabul on May 10 between Pakistani army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa and Afghan President Ashraf Ghania, also present was Britain’s chief of defence staff General Nicholas Patrick Carter. (Gen. Carter and Gen. Bajwa also met separately.)

Quite obviously, London was working hard in setting up the Ghania-Bajwa encounter in Kabul for some two months since the consultations in early March that General Carter had in the Pakistani GHQ in Rawalpindi with the Pakistani COAS. Gen. Carter is well-regarded in Kabul and makes a perfect mediator. Ghania later warmly referred to the general’s presence at his May 10 meeting with Bajwa at the presidential palace: “General Carter is a mutual friend. We’ve known each other for over 10 years, since he commanded the ISAF forces in Kandahar. He’s a wonderful man. It sometimes takes special people in history to come together in a crisis.” 

Indeed, the indications are that Britain is quietly working behind the scene to bring about an understanding over the disputed Durand Line (which Kabul doesn’t recognise), which is of course a British legacy and remains intractable in the absence of a new security arrangement. The Kabul elite have generally viewed Gen.Carter’s efforts in a positive spirit, given the realisation that the Durand Line question is of fundamental importance and will continue to cast shadows on Afghan-Pakistan relations unless some mutually acceptable arrangement could be worked out alongside any Afghan peace agreement. 

Ideally, Pakistan would like to host a meeting between Ghania and Taliban chief Mawlawi Hibatullah Akhundzada in the near term as a confidence building measure. Conceivably, Kabul is veering round to the view that an understanding over the Durand Line question would be the price to pay for Pakistan’s good-neighbourly behaviour and scrupulous non-interference in Afghan affairs, especially its projection of power across the Khyber, henceforth. But then, this is a chicken-and-egg situation and that is why the old colonial power’s mediatory role can be useful to instil mutual confidence.      

Indeed, Britain would also like to take a “hands-on” role in all this. For, there is every indication that Britain will work shoulder to shoulder with the US in any future special forces operations in Afghanistan in the period ahead beyond September 11 when the western troop withdrawal will be notionally over and behind us. 

It is useful to factor in that post-Brexit Global Britain aspires to be an active participant in the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy to contain China’s rise. In anticipation of the shape of things to come, in a major reorganisation in March as part of a larger strategic shift amid great-power competition, emphasising special-operations units, British special-operations forces will henceforth see changes modelled on their US counterparts. 

The 70-page MOD document titled Defence in a competitive agepresented before the House of Commons in March, views China and Russia as Britain’s most important threats, and although the British military will downsize, it expects to be more competitive against Moscow and Beijing. The British special-operations or special-operations-capable units can be divided into two tiers — the first tier comprising the Special Air Service (SAS), Special Boat Service (SBS), Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), and Special Forces Support Group (SFSG), which focus on counterterrorism, hostage rescue, intelligence gathering, and direct action, while the second tier includes the Royal Marines Commandos, Parachute Regiment, and the 18 Signals Regiment. A Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing provides air transportation and support to all of the above units. 

All these come under the the Strategic Command that supervises joint and national mission formations and overseas operations. Interestingly, only a fortnight after the visit of General Carter to Rawalpindi in early March to meet Gen. Bajwa, the latter had another visitor from Britain — General Sir Patrick Nicholas Yardley Monrad Sanders, Commander Strategic Command, UK. 

The ISPR readout said, “During the meeting (on March 25), matters of professional and mutual interest and regional security issues were discussed. The visiting top UK military commander acknowledged and appreciated Pakistan Army’s sincere efforts in the fight against terrorism and efforts for bringing peace and stability in the region, especially the Afghan peace process.” 

Without doubt, these visits by the two topmost generals of the British armed forces in such quick succession to Rawalpindi — the chief of defence staff and the consider of the strategic command — were in the context of planning the future security operations in Afghanistan following the US withdrawal of troops. The Pentagon is well aware that the British are pioneers in special operations — be it in Afghanistan or in its neighbouring regions. 

Now, all this probably accounts for the intense curiosity about some secret joint activity being undertaken by the US and Pakistani military feverishly in Pakistan’s FATA region bordering Afghanistan — precisely, from Shelozan to Tari Mangal and Jazo Maidan areas — to construct military bases on the Pakistani side of the Durand Line. 

*

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: A Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle being loaded on to a flatbed trailer, Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan. (File photo) 

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.

***

“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

We’ve all been there before.

You’re driving along and you see a pair of flashing blue lights in your rearview mirror. Whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, you get a sinking feeling in your stomach.

You’ve read enough news stories, seen enough headlines, and lived in the American police state long enough to be anxious about any encounter with a cop that takes place on the side of the road.

For better or worse, from the moment you’re pulled over, you’re at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

This is what I call “blank check policing,” in which the police get to call all of the shots.

So if you’re nervous about traffic stops, you have every reason to be.

Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.

Try to assert your right to merely ask a question during a traffic stop and see how far it gets you.

Juanisha Brooks—black, 34 years old and on her way home at 2:20 am—was pulled over, handcuffed, arrested and charged with resisting arrest, eluding the police, reckless driving and failure to use headlights after repeatedly asking police why she had been stopped. When Brooks—a Department of Defense employee—filed a complaint, prosecutors conceded that the traffic stop had been carried out without “proper legal basis” and dropped all charges.

Caron Nazario, a uniformed Army officer returning home from his duty station, was stopped for not having a rear license plate (his temporary plates were taped to the rear window of his new SUV). Nazario, who is Black and Latino, pulled over at a well-lit gas station only to be pepper sprayed, held at gunpoint, beaten and threatened with execution.

Zachary Noel was tasered by police and charged with resisting arrest after he questioned why he was being ordered out of his truck during a traffic stop. “Because I’m telling you to,” the officer replied before repeating his order for Noel to get out of the vehicle and then, without warning, shooting him with a taser through the open window.

Despite complying with all police orders when ordered to show his identification and exit his parked vehicle, Jeriel Edwards was subjected to excessive force and brutality, including being thrown to the ground, tasered, and placed in a chokehold that rendered him unconscious and required his hospitalization for three days. Although dash cam video of the arrest confirms that Edwards was peaceful, did not defy police orders, and did nothing to provoke police, a federal court ruled that Edwards’ trouble understanding police directions during the encounter constituted “resistance” that justified the force used by the four police officers involved in the violent arrest. Edwards is African-American.

Gregory Tucker, also black, was stopped by police for a broken taillight, only to be thrown to the ground, beaten and punched in the face and body more than 20 times, then arrested and hospitalized for severe injuries to his face and arm, all for allegedly “resisting arrest” by driving to a safe, well-lit area in front of his cousin’s house before stopping.

No wonder Americans are afraid of getting pulled over by police.

Mind you, all of these individuals complied with police. They just didn’t do it fast enough to suit their purposes.

At a time when police can do no wrong—at least in the eyes of the courts, police unions and politicians dependent on their votes—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct, “we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.

Add a traffic stop to the mix, and that disadvantage increases dramatically.

According to the Justice Department, the most common reason for a citizen to come into contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop.

On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police.

According to data collected under Virginia’s new Community Policing Act, black drivers are almost two times more likely than white drivers to be pulled over by police and three times more likely to have their vehicles searched. As the Washington Post concludes, “‘Driving while black’ is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.”

Historically, police officers have been given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons.

This free-handed approach to traffic stops has resulted in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long.

Motorists can also be stopped by police for driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or rosaries), and displaying pro-police bumper stickers.

Incredibly, a federal appeals court actually ruled unanimously in 2014 that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that driving a vehicle that has a couple air fresheners, rosaries and pro-police bumper stickers at 2 MPH over the speed limit is suspicious, meriting a traffic stop.

Equally appalling, in Heien v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court—which has largely paved the way for the police and other government agents to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance—allowed police officers to stop drivers who appear nervous, provided they provide a palatable pretext for doing so.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the lone objector in the case. Dissenting in Heien, Sotomayor warned, “Giving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands this authority… One wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so.”

In other words, drivers beware.

Traffic stops aren’t just dangerous. They can be downright deadly.

Remember Walter L. Scott? Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”

Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.

Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.

Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.

Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.

Sandra Bland, pulled over for allegedly failing to use her turn signal, was arrested after refusing to comply with the police officer’s order to extinguish her cigarette and exit her vehicle. The encounter escalated, with the officer threatening to “light” Bland up with his taser. Three days later, Bland was found dead in her jail cell. “You’re doing all of this for a failure to signal?” Bland asked as she got out of her car, after having been yelled at and threatened repeatedly.

Keep in mind, from the moment those lights start flashing and that siren goes off, we’re all in the same boat. However, it’s what happens after you’ve been pulled over that’s critical.

Survival is key.

Technically, you have the right to remain silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put away your phone or stop recording them.

However, there is a price for asserting one’s rights. That price grows more costly with every passing day.

If you ask cops and their enablers what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with police, they will tell you to comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings.

Unfortunately, there are no longer any fail-safe rules of engagement for interacting with the police.

In the American police state, compliance is no guarantee that you will survive an encounter with the police with your life and liberties intact.

Every day we hear about situations in which unarmed Americans complied and still died during an encounter with police simply because they appeared to be standing in a “shooting stance” or held a cell phone or a garden hose or carried around a baseball bat or answered the front door or held a spoon in a threatening manner or ran in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch or wandered around naked or hunched over in a defensive posture or made the mistake of wearing the same clothes as a carjacking suspect (dark pants and a basketball jersey) or dared to leave an area at the same time that a police officer showed up or had a car break down by the side of the road or were deaf or homeless or old.

More often than not, it seems as if all you have to do to be shot and killed by police is stand a certain way, or move a certain way, or hold something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or ignite some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

Now you can make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings, and in fact that’s exactly what you’ll hear from politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police.

However, to suggest that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state is not only recklessly irresponsible, but it is also deluded and out of touch with reality.

To begin with, and most importantly, Americans need to know their rights when it comes to interactions with the police, bearing in mind that many law enforcement officials are largely ignorant of the law themselves.

A good resource is The Rutherford Institute’s “Constitutional Q&A: Rules of Engagement for Interacting with Police.”

In a nutshell, the following are your basic rights when it comes to interactions with the police as outlined in the Bill of Rights:

You have the right under the First Amendment to ask questions and express yourself. You have the right under the Fourth Amendment to not have your person or your property searched by police or any government agent unless they have a search warrant authorizing them to do so.  You have the right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent, to not incriminate yourself and to request an attorney. Depending on which state you live in and whether your encounter with police is consensual as opposed to your being temporarily detained or arrested, you may have the right to refuse to identify yourself. Not all states require citizens to show their ID to an officer (although drivers in all states must do so).

As a rule of thumb, you should always be sure to clarify in any police encounter whether or not you are being detained, i.e., whether you have the right to walk away. That holds true whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re essentially under arrest from the moment a cop stops you. Still, it doesn’t hurt to clarify that distinction.

While technology is always going to be a double-edged sword, with the gadgets that are the most useful to us in our daily lives—GPS devices, cell phones, the internet—being the very tools used by the government to track us, monitor our activities, and generally spy on us, cell phones are particularly useful for recording encounters with the police and have proven to be increasingly powerful reminders to police that they are not all powerful.

Knowing your rights is only part of the battle, unfortunately.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the hard part comes in when you have to exercise those rights in order to hold government officials accountable to respecting those rights.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

India on the Brink of Sanitary Catastrophe

May 24th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India on the Brink of Sanitary Catastrophe

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.

***

The battery pack of a Tesla Model S is a feat of intricate engineering. Thousands of cylindrical cells with components sourced from around the world transform lithium and electrons into enough energy to propel the car hundreds of kilometers, again and again, without tailpipe emissions. But when the battery comes to the end of its life, its green benefits fade. If it ends up in a landfill, its cells can release problematic toxins, including heavy metals. And recycling the battery can be a hazardous business, warns materials scientist Dana Thompson of the University of Leicester. Cut too deep into a Tesla cell, or in the wrong place, and it can short-circuit, combust, and release toxic fumes.

That’s just one of the many problems confronting researchers, including Thompson, who are trying to tackle an emerging problem: how to recycle the millions of electric vehicle (EV) batteries that manufacturers expect to produce over the next few decades. Current EV batteries “are really not designed to be recycled,” says Thompson, a research fellow at the Faraday Institution, a research center focused on battery issues in the United Kingdom.

That wasn’t much of a problem when EVs were rare. But now the technology is taking off. Several carmakers have said they plan to phase out combustion engines within a few decades, and industry analysts predict at least 145 million EVs will be on the road by 2030, up from just 11 million last year. “People are starting to realize this is an issue,” Thompson says.

Governments are inching toward requiring some level of recycling. In 2018, China imposed new rules aimed at promoting the reuse of EV battery components. The European Union is expected to finalize its first requirements this year. In the United States, the federal government has yet to advance recycling mandates, but several states, including California—the nation’s largest car market—are exploring setting their own rules.

Materials scientist Dana Thompson develops solvents for extracting valuable metals from spent car batteries. (Source: FARADAY INSTITUTION)

Read the full article here.

*

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

Featured image: A shredded electric vehicle battery can yield recyclable metals, but it is often cheaper for batterymakers to use new materials. (Source: ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY)

If You’ve Had COVID, Please Don’t Get Vaccinated

May 24th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

An international survey of 2,002 people found that people who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects after the COVID-19 vaccine

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm has repeatedly warned the FDA that “clear and present danger” exists for those who have had COVID-19 and subsequently get vaccinated

At issue are viral antigens that remain in the body after a person is naturally infected; the immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine may trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens exist

The inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain may be particularly at risk of such inflammation and damage, which could lead to major thromboembolic complications

Noorchashm believes that people should be screened for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins prior to COVID-19 vaccination, while vaccination should be delayed for people with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as those who have recently recovered from the virus

*

In their race to vaccinate the entire U.S. adult population, health officials are urging everyone to get a COVID shot, regardless of whether or not they’ve already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and spending billions of dollars in taxpayer funded propaganda to convince people to get the vaccine.

This is an important distinction, however, with at least one scientist warning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that “clear and present danger” exists for those who have had COVID-19 and subsequently get vaccinated.

That scientist — Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate — warned the FDA that prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins may reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.1

Unfortunately, health agencies continue to assert that everyone should get vaccinated, even if they’ve already acquired natural immunity via previous infection.

CDC: Get Vaccinated Even if You’ve Had COVID

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admits that it’s rare to get sick again if you’ve already had COVID-19. Despite this, they say those who have recovered from COVID-19 should still get vaccinated:2

“You should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have already recovered from COVID-19, it is possible — although rare — that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 again.”

Your immune system is designed to work in response to exposure to an infectious agent. Upon recovery, you’re typically immune to that infectious agent. This is why, for instance, proof of prior diagnosis with chickenpox, measles and mumps is allowed instead of vaccination to enter most U.S. public schools3 — once you’ve had the disease and recovered, you’re immune.

If you’ve had COVID-19, you have some level of immunity against the virus. It’s unknown how long it lasts, just as it’s unknown how long protection from the vaccine lasts. According to the Public Health Agency of Sweden:4

“If you have had COVID-19, you have some protection against reinfection. This means that you are less likely to become infected and seriously ill, and less likely to infect others if you are exposed to the virus again.

Over time, the protection that you get after an infection wanes and there is an increased risk of getting infected again. At present, we estimate that the protection after having had COVID-19 lasts at least six months from the time of infection.”

People With Prior COVID Have More Vaccination Side Effects

An international survey of 2,002 people who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine found that people who had previously had COVID-19 experienced “significantly increased incidence and severity” of side effects after the COVID-19 vaccine.5 Those who had previously had COVID-19 had a greater risk of experiencing any side effect, along with the following, specifically:

  • Fever
  • Flu-like illness
  • Local reactions
  • Breathlessness
  • Fatigue
  • Severe side effects leading to hospital care

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were linked to a higher incidence of side effects compared to the viral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines, but the mRNA side effects tended to be milder, local reactions. Systemic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, flu-like illness and breathlessness, were more likely to occur with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccines.

According to the researchers, the findings should prompt health officials to reevaluate their vaccination recommendations for people who’ve had COVID-19:6

“People with prior COVID-19 exposure were largely excluded from the vaccine trials and, as a result, the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccines in this population have not been previously fully evaluated. For the first time, this study demonstrates a significant association between prior COVID19 infection and a significantly higher incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after vaccination for COVID-19.

Consistently, compared to the first dose of the vaccine, we found an increased incidence and severity of self-reported side effects after the second dose, when recipients had been previously exposed to viral antigen.

In view of the rapidly accumulating data demonstrating that COVID-19 survivors generally have adequate natural immunity for at least 6 months, it may be appropriate to re-evaluate the recommendation for immediate vaccination of this group.”

Surgeon Warns of Immunological Dangers, Blood Clots

Noorchashm has written multiple letters to the FDA, warning them that people should be screened for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins prior to COVID-19 vaccination. Without such screening, he wrote in one letter to the FDA, “this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected.”7

He describes the case of 32-year-old Benjamin Goodman of New York, who died within one day of receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. “There will be many more in the coming months as we carelessly and indiscriminately vaccinate the already infected, millions a day … It is a near certainty,” he continued.8 At issue are viral antigens that remain in the body after a person is naturally infected.

The immune response reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine may trigger inflammation in tissues where the viral antigens are present. The inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain may be particularly at risk of such inflammation and damage.9 According to Noorchashm:10

“Most pertinently, when viral antigens are present in the vascular endothelium, and especially in elderly and frail with cardiovascular disease, the antigen specific immune response incited by the vaccine is almost certain to do damage to the vascular endothelium.

Such vaccine directed endothelial inflammation is certain to cause blood clot formation with the potential for major thromboembolic complications, at least in a subset of such patients. If a majority of younger more robust patients might tolerate such vascular injury from a vaccine immune response, many elderly and frail patients with cardiovascular disease will not.”

What’s more, Noorchashm quotes one of his previous medical school professors, who said, “the eyes do not see what the mind does not know.” In the case of a vaccine-induced antigen specific immune response, which may trigger thromboembolic complications 10 to 20 days after vaccination, including in those who may already be elderly and frail, the reaction isn’t likely to be registered as a vaccine-related adverse event.

Immediately Delay Vaccination for These Key Groups

In his repeated letters to the FDA, Noorchashm suggests that the FDA “immediately and at the very minimum” delay COVID-19 vaccination for people with symptomatic or asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as those who have recently recovered from the virus.

Because so many cases are asymptomatic, he recommends clinicians “actively screen as many patients with high cardiovascular risk as is reasonably possible, in order to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2, prior to vaccinating them.”11 As it stands, Noorchashm points out that by ignoring what he believes to be an imminent risk for a sizable minority of people, the FDA’s credibility, and that of the mass vaccination campaign in general, is at grave risk:12

“Can you imagine if the public, without having received any real warning from FDA, becomes aware of an increasing number of such vascular/thromboembolic complications? What do you suppose will happen to the level of ‘vaccine hesitancy’ then?

And, what kind of accountability do you think the public will demand from our experts and federal regulators — especially if they knew, or should have known, that this immunological danger might exist?

The aim of benefiting the majority of our public and saving the nation from this pandemic by quick and aggressive vaccination is an ethically sound one — but where we know of real or likely risks of harm and mortality, we ought to mitigate the risks to those in potential harm’s way.

So doing is the only reasonable, ethical, and likely legal option you can pursue as public health regulators — for in America, we no longer sacrifice the lives of minority subsets of people for the benefit of the majority.”

At least 62 cases of myocarditis, or heart inflammation, in people who received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine are being investigated by the Israel Health Ministry. Most of the cases occurred in men under the age of 30 who were in good health, and two deaths have been reported as a result.13,14

No Proof of Efficacy in People Who’ve Had COVID-19

In a high-profile report issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, 15 scientists stated that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine had “consistent high efficacy” of 92% or more among people with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.15

But according to Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky, “That sentence is wrong. There is no efficacy demonstrated in the Pfizer trial among participants with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and actually there’s no proof in the Moderna trial either.”16 In France, the health body la Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) does not recommend routinely vaccinating those who have already recovered from COVID-19, stating:17

“At this stage, there is no need to systematically vaccinate people who have already developed a symptomatic form of Covid-19 unless they wish to do so following a decision shared with the doctor and within a minimum period of time. 3 months from the onset of symptoms.”

When Massie realized that vaccination didn’t change the risk of infection among people who’ve had COVID-19, he was alarmed and contacted the CDC directly, recording his calls.

“It [the CDC report] says the exact opposite of what the data says. They’re giving people the impression that this vaccine will save your life, or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or the Moderna trial,” Massey says in a “Full Measure” report.18

CDC Allows Misinformation to Continue

Massie spoke with multiple officials on numerous occasions, who acknowledged the misinformation and implied that it would be fixed.19,20 It wasn’t until Massie’s final call with the CDC, to deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat, that it was acknowledged that a correction was necessary.

“As you note correctly, there is not sufficient analysis to show that in the subset of only the people with prior infection, there’s efficacy. So, you’re correct that that sentence is wrong and that we need to make a correction of it. I apologize for the delay,” Schuchat said. January 29, 2021, the CDC did finally issue a correction, which reads:21

“Consistent high efficacy (≥92%) was observed across age, sex, race, and ethnicity categories and among persons with underlying medical conditions. Efficacy was similarly high in a secondary analysis including participants both with or without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Instead of fixing the error, Massie believes the wording just phrases the mistake in a different way and still misleadingly suggests vaccination is effective for those previously infected.22 Meanwhile, increasing numbers of breakthrough COVID-19 cases among the fully vaccinated are being reported, which the CDC has been reporting.

As of April 26, 2021, there have been 9,245 reported cases of COVID-19 in fully vaccinated individuals, including 132 deaths.23 Note this is not total deaths from the vaccine, which is rapidly approaching 4,000.

However, May 14, 2021, the CDC announced it will no longer report breakthrough cases unless they involve hospitalization or death,24 which will obscure the actual number of breakthrough cases occurring, artificially driving down rates and making the vaccines appear to be more effective.

The CDC also changed recommendations on PCR tests for the fully vaccinated, which will further drive down the appearance of breakthrough cases by making them less likely to “test positive.”

PCR tests recommended by the WHO used to be set to 45 cycle thresholds (CTs),25 yet the scientific consensus has long been that anything over 35 CTs renders the test useless,26 as the accuracy will be extremely low, with false positives artificially driving up case numbers.

In April 2021, the CDC recommended the CT be lowered to 28, but only for people who are fully vaccinated.27 Under this guidance, someone with a CT of 30 would not be considered to have COVID-19 if they were fully vaccinated, but if they were not, then their test would be “positive.”

This is beyond obvious that they are rigging the system to create data that fit their fake narrative, which is pushing the entire population to get a vaccine they don’t need, will harm or kill them and which will generate tens of billions of dollars in annual recurring revenue for the drug companies.

In return, the drug companies have no legal risk for any complications, adverse effects or deaths and are given billions of dollars in free advertising from the U.S. taxpayers to get this dangerous gene therapy.

The Big Lie — Natural Infection Isn’t Adequate

Why is it that the media continue to promote the fake narrative that natural immunity — the type acquired by getting infected by and recovering from a virus — isn’t as powerful or long-lasting as vaccine-acquired immunity?28,29 Do you think it might be to support vaccine sales?

Did they forget that COVID-19 vaccines aren’t intended to be a long-term solution, and have NEVER been shown to provide immunity benefits? The original warp speed test only showed reduced symptoms.

Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla exacerbated this charade by stating that not only will people need a third booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine within 12 months of being fully vaccinated, but annual vaccination will probably be necessary.30

Robust natural immunity has been demonstrated, however, for at least eight months after infection in more than 95% of people who have recovered from COVID-19.31,32 A Nature study also demonstrated robust natural immunity in people who recovered from SARS and SARS-CoV-2.33

There continue to be many unanswered questions surrounding COVID-19 vaccines, many of which most of the public has never heard of, such as imprinting and Th2 immunopathology. If you choose to get a COVID-19 vaccine, you’re participating in a giant experiment, acting as a guinea pig to see what will ultimately bear out.

That being said, if you or someone you love have received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do three things:34

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the CHD website

*

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.

Notes

1 Medium February 15, 2021

2 U.S. CDC, COVID-19 Vaccination FAQs April 30, 2021

3 IDPH, Minimum Immunization Requirements Entering a Child Care Facility or School in Illinois, Fall 2020

4 Public Health Agency of Sweden February 3, 2021

5 medRxiv March 8, 2021

6 PJ Media May 18, 2021

7, 8 The Defender March 24, 2021

9, 32 The Defender April 5, 2021

10, 11, 12 The Defender January 28, 2021

13 Health April 26, 2021

14 Newsweek April 26, 2021

15 MMWR December 18, 2020

16 WWMT January 29, 2021

17 Nitag Documentation 2021

18, 19, 20, 22 Full Measure January 31, 2021

21 CDC MMWR Erratum January 29, 2021 / 70(4);144

23, 24 CDC, Breakthrough Cases

25 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT-PCR, January 13, 2020 (PDF)

26 The Vaccine Reaction September 29, 2020

27 The Defender May 7, 2021

28 MedPage Today May 5, 2021

29 Lansing State Journal May 6, 2021

30 CNBC April 15, 2021

31 Science. 2021 Feb 5;371(6529):eabf4063. doi: 10.1126/science.abf4063. Epub 2021 Jan 6

33 Nature July 15, 2020

34 The Defender January 25, 2021

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney and the Rule of Law

May 24th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

One could not accuse US Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming of having a sense of irony. For some time, she has felt her party to be the hostage of a ghoulish monster who refuses to be slayed.  And she fears her party has fallen out of love for the rule of law.

In being ousted from the third spot in the leadership of the Republican Conference in the House, Cheney has found a new morality. In her floor speech, she called Donald Trump’s canard of a stolen election a “threat America has never seen before.”  Opposing Trump’s interpretation of the result was a “duty”.

“I will not sit back and watch in silence, while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins in the former president’s crusade to undermine our democracy.” 

After her speech, she told reporters that she would “do everything” she could “to ensure that the former president never gets anywhere near the Oval Office. 

Cheney’s seemingly shabby treatment led such papers as the Washington Post to remark that truth was again under assault. “Truth is the issue upon which Cheney has made her stand – truth and her unwillingness to be silent for the supposed good of the team.” 

Peter Wehner, who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes, saw the event as a “confirmation that the Republican party is diseased and dangerous, increasingly subversive and illiberal”.  Eric Lutz, writing in Vanity Fair, called the Cheney display “defiant”, laying “bare the cowardice of her colleagues who, with their vote on Wednesday, affirmed what had long been clear: The GOP is the cult of Trump now, and fealty the price of admission.”

This is gruesomely fascinating on a few levels, given that Cheney comes from a family rather snotty about such concepts as the rule of law, verisimilitude and the Constitution.  Her father Dick Cheney, the Vice Presidential dark operator in the administration of George W. Bush, was not exactly strong on such ideas, and proved rather subversive and illiberal in a number of ways. Old Dick, along with his lawyer David Addington and John Yoo of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, did much to read executive power in a manner most imperial in nature.

For Dick Cheney, US executive power needed to be restored after the damaging effects of Watergate and the Vietnam War.  The time that followed, he lamented to reporters on Air Force Two in 2005, proved to be “the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy”. 

It is true to say that Trump also preferred a broad reading of executive power, one all too readily articulated by former Attorney General William Barr. But Cheney, Addington and Yoo were responsible for views that justified the bypassing and defanging of Congress, wiretapping of US citizens, torture of terrorist suspects, the establishment of military commissions, the breaching of international treaties and the waging of illegal wars.  Such conduct has caused more than a smattering of commentary urging the prosecution of both Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush for a range of offences in both domestic and international law.   

It would be churlish to claim that a father’s blackened record should somehow compromise that of his daughter’s.  But the co-authored father and daughter work Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America repeats the old neoconservative interventionist sins that were so important in laying the ground for a Trump victory in 2016.  Father Dick and Daughter Liz supply an apologia for such murderous disasters as Iraq while piling into President Barack Obama whom they stop short of accusing of treason.  “The touchstone of his ideology – that America is to blame, and her power must be restrained – requires a wilful blindness about what America has done in the world.”   

In 2009, Liz Cheney, along with fellow neoconservative Bill Kristol, co-founded Keep America Safe, an outfit steeped in a tattered worldview that proceeded to leave many Americans behind.  As Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic noted in a battering piece on Liz Cheney in 2013, “Most Americans understand that investing trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives in Iraq was a historic blunder.”  Not for Liz, who finds wars stirringly necessary.

Over the years, Rep. Cheney barely warranted a mention after securing the seat her father once occupied. As the third-ranking member of minority party leadership, she was a middleweight power with exaggerated expectations.  Then came President Trump.  The neoconservatives were outflanked.  Fires were lit, casting light upon her cause.  That cause, simple as ever, was an anti-Trump, using truth and democracy as crutches of polemical convenience. 

To date, Rep. Cheney is pursuing a cause of martyrdom that is, like many such causes, futile.  It was a martyrdom that was “well-planned”, as Republican political consultant Keith Naughton noted in The Hill.  “There are no reports she actually worked the GOP caucus, canvassing and counting heads.  Cheney didn’t fight back, she planned to lose.”  In losing, she hopes to rebuild a neoconservative base that has withered into oblivion.

*

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 is from Wikimedia Commons

America’s Public Health System Is Utterly Corrupt

May 24th, 2021 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A sure sign of a country’s collapse is the open corruption of its public and private institutions.  When corruption no longer has to be hidden but can be openly flouted, the values and standards that comprised the country’s soul have eroded away.

Try to find an American institution that is not corrupt.  Even when presented with the Covid threat the US public health system could not rise above the greed for profit.  Effective cures, such as HCQ and Ivermectin were demonized and in many states prohibited.  Most Covid deaths are the result of non-treatment.  

Throughout the alleged “Covid Pandemic” regulatory agencies, health bureaucracies, medical associations, state governors, media, and Big Pharma have acted to prevent any alternative to a vaccine.

From day one the emphasis was on the profits from a vaccine.  To get people to submit to an experimental and untested vaccine required the absence of cures. To keep the road open only for a vaccine even supplements such as NAC, which has shown effectiveness as both preventative and treatment of Covid, has been challenged by the FDA in its use as a supplement.  In response, amazon.com, a major online marketer of dietary supplements removed NAC from its offerings. See this.

The generation of fear was essential to stampeeding people to line up to be vaccinated.  The fear was supplemented by threats of inability to travel, to attend sports events, to resume working at one’s job.  

A Covid test, known as PCR, was intentionally run at high [amplification threshold] cycles known to result in a very high percentage of false positives.  These false positives guaranteed a high infection rate that scared people silly.  Economic incentives were used for hospitals to report all deaths as Covid deaths, thus greatly exaggerating Covid’s mortality.

As you might have noticed, last winter had no reporting of flu cases as flu was added to the Covid statistics.

A number of reports have been published that the Covid vaccine does not prevent some vaccinated people from coming down with Covid.  Other reports say that vaccinated people become spreaders of Covid.  There are also reports of a large number of deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccine. See this.

In order to suppress the facts and keep the Covid vaccine selling, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), which supported running the PCR test at high cycles in order to inflate the number of Covid cases, runs the PCR test at much lower cycles in the case of infected vaccinated people in order to minimize the number of vaccinated people who came down with Covid. 

To further create an artificial picture of the vaccine’s effectiveness, asymptomatic and mild infections are excluded from the reporting of vaccinated people who catch Covid.  Only vaccinated people who catch Covid who have to be hospitalized or die from Covid are counted among the people who caught Covid despite being vaccinated.  However, unvaccinated people with only minor symptoms or false positives from a high cycle PCR test are added to the number of Covid cases. See this.

See this also.

This is obvious and blatant manipulation of statistics in order to scare people about Covid while reassuring them about the vaccine’s effectiveness. Overstating the number of cases among the unvaccinated while simultaneously understating the number of people who caught Covid despite being vaccinated is shameless and protects the contrived picture of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine.

The falsification of statistics in order to produce massive public fear and the prevention of treatment with known safe and effective cures in order to maximize death rates produced billions of dollars in profits for Big Pharma and associated industries, with Moderna’s CEO topping the list of nine new billionaires made rich from the rollout of Covid vaccines.  These billionaires rode to their riches on the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who died from an enforced lack of treatment —mandated deaths to protect vaccine profits. See this.

Will anything be done about this extraordinary corruption of the American public health system?

*

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

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

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.

***

Here is something that can be said with great confidence. It is racist – antisemitic, if you prefer – to hold Jews, individually or collectively, accountable for Israel’s crimes. Jews are not responsible for Israel’s war crimes, even if the Israeli state presumes to implicate Jews in its crimes by falsely declaring it represents all Jews in the world.

Very obviously, it is not the fault of Jews that Israel commits war crimes, or that Israel uses Jews collectively as a political shield, exploiting sensitivities about the historical suffering of Jews at the hands of non-Jews to immunise itself from international opprobrium.

But here is something that can be said with equal certainty. Israel’s apologists – whether Jews or non-Jews – cannot deny all responsibility for Israel’s war crimes when they actively aid and abet Israel in committing those crimes, or when they seek to demonise and silence Israel’s critics so that those war crimes can be pursued in a more favourable political climate.

Such apologists – which sadly seems to include many of the community organisations in Britain claiming to represent Jews – want to have their cake and eat it.

They cannot defend Israel uncritically as it commits war crimes or seek legislative changes to assist Israel in committing those war crimes – whether it be Israel’s latest pummelling of civilians in Gaza, or its executions of unarmed Palestinians protesting 15 years of Israel’s blockade of the coastal enclave – and accuse anyone who criticises them for doing so of being an antisemite.

But this is exactly what has been going on. And it is only getting worse.

Upsurge in antisemitism? 

As a ceasefire was implemented late last week, bringing a temporary let-up in the bombing of Gaza by Israel, pro-Israel Jewish groups in the UK were once again warning of an upsurge of antisemitism they attributed to a rapid growth in the number of protests against Israel.

These groups have the usual powerful allies echoing their claims. British prime minister Boris Johnson met community leaders in Downing Street on Thursday pledging, as Jewish News reported, “to continue to support the community in the face of rising antisemitism attacks”.

Those Jewish leaders included Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, a supporter of Johnson who played a part in helping him win the 2019 election by renewing the evidence-free antisemitism smears against the Labour party days before voting. It also included the Campaign Against Antisemitism, which was founded specifically to whitewash Israel’s crimes during its 2014 bombardment of Gaza and has ever since been vilifying all Palestinian solidarity activism as antisemitism.

In attendance too was the Jewish Leadership Council, an umbrella organisation for Britain’s main Jewish community groups. In an article in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper on this supposed rise in antisemitism in the UK, the JLC’s vice-president, Daniel Korski, set out the ridiculous, self-serving narrative these community groups are trying to peddle, with seemingly ever greater success among the political and media elite.

Popular outrage over Gaza 

Korski expressed grave concern about the proliferation of demonstrations in the UK designed to halt Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. During 11 days of attacks, more than 260 Palestinians were killed, including at least 66 children. Israel’s precision air strikes targeted more than a dozen hospitals, including the only Covid clinic in Gaza, dozens of schools, several media centres, and left tens of thousands of Palestinians homeless.

The sense of popular outrage at the Israeli onslaught was only heightened by the fact that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had clearly engineered a confrontation with Hamas at the outset to serve his immediate personal interests: preventing Israeli opposition parties from uniting to oust him from power.

In his naked personal calculations, Palestinian civilians were sacrificed to help Netanyahu hold on to power and improve his chances of evading jail as he stands trial on corruption charges.

But for Korski and the other community leaders attending the meeting with Johnson, the passionate demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians are their main evidence for a rise in antisemitism.

‘Free Palestine’ chants 

These community organisations cite a few incidents that undoubtedly qualify as antisemitism – some serious, some less so. They include shouting “Free Palestine” at individuals because they are identifiable as Jews, something presumably happening mostly to the religious ultra-Orthodox.

But these Jewish leaders’ chief concern, they make clear, is the growing public support for Palestinians in the face of intensifying Israeli aggression.

Quoting David Rich, of the Community Security Trust, another Jewish organisation hosted by Johnson, the Haaretz newspaper reports that “what has really shaken the Jewish community … ‘is that demos are being held all over the country every day about this issue’ [Israel’s bombardment of Gaza].”

Revealingly, it seems that when Jewish community leaders watch TV screens showing demonstrators chant “Free Palestine”, they feel it as a personal attack – as though they themselves are being accosted in the street.

One doesn’t need to be a Freudian analyst to wonder whether this reveals something troubling about their inner emotional life: they identify so completely with Israel that even when someone calls for Palestinians to have equal rights with Israelis they perceive it as a collective attack on Jews, as antisemitism.

Exception for Israel 

Then Korski gets to the crux of the argument: “As Jews we are proud of our heritage and at the same time in no way responsible for the actions of a government thousands of miles away, no matter our feelings or connection to it.”

But the logic of that position is simply untenable. You cannot tie your identity intimately to a state that systematically commits war crimes, you cannot vilify demonstrations against those war crimes as antisemitism, you cannot use your position as a “Jewish community leader” to make such allegations more credible, and you cannot exploit your influence with world leaders to try to silence protests against Israel and then say you are “in no way responsible” for the actions of that government.

If you use your position to prevent Israel from being subjected to scrutiny over allegations of war crimes, if you seek to manipulate the public discourse with claims of antisemitism to create a more favourable environment in which those war crimes can be committed, then some of the blame for those war crimes rubs off on you.

That is how responsibility works in every other sphere of life. What Israel’s apologists are demanding is an exception for Israel and for themselves.

Lobby with the UK’s ear 

In another revealing observation seeking to justify claims of an upsurge in antisemitism, Korski adds: “We don’t see the same kind of outpouring of emotion when it comes to the Rohingya or the Uighurs or Syria, and it makes a lot of Jews feel this is about them [as Jews].”

But there are many reasons why there aren’t equally large demonstrations in the UK against the suffering of the Rohingya and the Uighurs – reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism.

The oppressors of the Rohingya and the Uighurs, unlike Israel, are not being generously armed by the British government or given diplomatic cover by Britain or being given preferential trade agreements by Britain.

But equally importantly, the states oppressing the Rohingya and Uighurs – unlike Israel – don’t have active, well-funded lobbies in the UK, with the ear of the prime minister. China and Myanmar – unlike Israel – don’t have UK lobbies successfully labelling criticism of them as racism. Unlike Israel, they don’t have lobbies that openly seek to influence elections to protect them from criticism. Unlike Israel, they don’t have lobbies that work with Britain to introduce measures to assist them in carrying out their oppression.

The president of the Board of Deputies, Marie van der Zyl, for example, pressed Johnson at the meeting this week to classify all branches of Hamas, not just its military wing, as a terrorist organisation. That is Israel’s wet dream. Such a decision would make it even less likely that Britain would be in a position to officially distance itself from Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, where Hamas runs the government, and even more likely it would join Israel in declaring Gaza’s schools, hospitals and government departments all legitimate targets for Israeli air strikes.

Pure projection 

If you are lobbying to get special favours for Israel, particularly favours to help it commit war crimes, you don’t also get to wash your hands of those war crimes. You are directly implicated in them.

David Hirsch, an academic at the University of London who has been closely connected to efforts to weaponise antisemitism against critics of Israel, especially in the Labour party under its previous leader Jeremy Corbyn, also tries to play this trick.

He tells Haaretz that antisemitism is supposedly “getting worse” because Palestinian solidarity activists have been giving up on a two-state solution. “There used to be a struggle in Palestine solidarity between a politics of peace – two states living side by side – and a politics of denouncing one side as essentially evil and hoping for its total defeat.”

But what Hirsch is doing is pure projection: he is suggesting Palestinian solidarity activists are “antisemites” – his idea of evil – because they have been forced by Israel to abandon their long-favoured cause of a two-state solution. That is only because successive Israeli governments have refused to negotiate any kind of peace deal with the most moderate Palestinian leadership imaginable under Mahmoud Abbas – one that has eagerly telegraphed its desire to collaborate with Israel, even calling “security coordination” with the Israeli army “sacred”.

A two-state solution is dead because Israel made it dead not because Palestinian solidarity activists are more extreme or more antisemitic.

In calling to “Free Palestine”, activists are not demanding Israel’s “total defeat” – unless Hirsch and Jewish community organisations themselves believe that Palestinians cannot be free from Israeli oppression and occupation until Israel suffers such a “total defeat”. Hirsch’s claim tells us nothing about Palestinian solidarity activists, but it does tell us a lot about what is really motivating these Jewish community organisations.

It is these pro-Israel lobbyists, it seems, more than Palestinian solidarity activists, who cannot imagine Palestinians living in dignity under Israeli rule. Is that because they understand only too well what Israel and its political ideology of Zionism truly represent, and that what is required of Palestinians for “peace” is absolute and permanent submission?

Better informed 

Similarly, Rich, of the Community Security Trust, says of Palestinian solidarity activists: “Even the moderates have become extremists.” What does this extremism – again presented by Jewish groups as antisemitism – consist of? “Now the movement [in solidarity with Palestinians] is dominated by the view that Israel is an apartheid, genocidal, settler-colonialist state.”

Or in other words, these pro-Israel Jewish groups claim there has been a surge in antisemitism because Palestinian solidarity activists are being influenced and educated by human rights organisations, like Human Rights Watch and Israel’s B’Tselem. Both recently wrote reports classifying Israel as an apartheid state, in the occupied territories and inside Israel’s recognised borders. Activists are not becoming more extreme, they are becoming better informed.

And in making the case for a supposed surge in antisemitism, Rich offers another inadvertently revealing insight. He says Jewish children are suffering from online “abuse” – antisemitism – because they find it increasingly hard to participate on social media.

“Teenagers are much quicker to join social movements; we’ve just had Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, #MeToo – now Jewish kids find all their friends are joining this [Palestinian solidarity] movement where they don’t feel welcome or they are singled out because they’re Jewish.”

Fancifully, Rich is arguing that Jewish children raised in Zionist families and communities that have taught them either explicitly or implicitly that Jews in Israel have superior rights to Palestinians are being discriminated against because their unexamined ideas of Jewish supremacy do not fit with a pro-Palestinian movement predicated on equality.

This is as preposterous as it would have been, during the Jim Crow era, for white supremacist Americans to have complained of racism because their children were being made to feel out of place in civil rights forums.

Such assertions would be laughable were they not so dangerous.

Demonised as antisemites 

Zionist supporters of Israel are trying to turn logic and the world upside down. They are inverting reality. They are projecting their own racist, zero-sum assumptions about Israel on to Palestinian solidarity activists, those who support equal rights for Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East.

As they did with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition, these Jewish groups are twisting the meaning of antisemitism, skewing it from a fear or hatred of Jews to any criticism of Israel that makes pro-Israel Jews feel uncomfortable.

As we watch these arguments being amplified uncritically by leading politicians and journalists, remember too that it was the only major politician to have demurred from this nonsensical narrative, Jeremy Corbyn, who became the main target – and victim – of these antisemitism smears.

Now these pro-Israel Jewish groups want to treat us all like Corbyn, demonising us as antisemites unless we fall silent even as Israel once again brutalises Palestinians.

*

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

This essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: ISRAELI BORDER POLICE OPERATING IN THE CITY OF LYDDA (LOD), MAY 11, 2021. (PHOTO: TWITTER/@IL_POLICE)

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.

***

According to the Swedish Public Health Agency, PCR technology cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralized in the immune system. As a result, these tests “cannot be used to determine whether someone is contagious or not.” They emphasize what many other experts in the field have been emphasizing during the entire pandemic, that,

“RNA from the virus can often be detected for weeks (sometimes months) after the illness but does not mean that you are still contagious. There are also several  scientific studies that suggest that the contagion of COVID-19 is greatest at the disease period.”

Even if RNA is detected at anytime, this does not mean you are infectious and capable of infecting others.

This is true, PCR tests can be positive for up to 100 days after an exposure to the virus. PCR tests do nothing more than confirm the presence of fragments of viral RNA of the target SARS CO-V2 virus in someone’s nose. While a person with COVID-19 is infectious for a one-to-two week period, non-viable (harmless) viral SARS CO-V2 fragments remain in the nose and can be detected by a PCR test for up to 100 days after exposure.

A recent article published in The Lancet medical journal explains that PCR tests can be “positive” for up to five times longer than the time an infected person is actually infectious. They explain that up to 75% of “positive” individuals are most likely post-infectious.

As a result the Swedish government recommends assessing COVID infections, and freedom from infections,

based on stable clinical improvement with freedom from fever for at least two days and that at least seven days have past since the onset of symptoms. For those who have had more pronounced symptoms, at least 14 days after the illness and for the very sickest, individual assessment by the treating doctor.”

Even if and when RNA from the the virus is detected, which the PCR test does quite well, whether or not a sample is actually infectious (containing a viable virus, capable of replicating) needs to be confirmed by lab culture. Only 44% of the “positive” samples using a Ct of 18 returned a viable lab culture, according to Dr. Jared Bullard, a paediatric infectious disease specialist and a current witness for the Manitoba government. The Manitoba government is being sued for the measures they’ve taken to combat COVID.

What is a Ct? It refers to cycle threshold. The PCR tests are not designed to detect and identify active infectious disease. Instead, it identifies genetic material, be it partial, alive, or even dead. PCR amplifies this material in samples to find traces of COVID-19.  If the sample taken from a nasal swab contains a large amount of COVID virus it will react positive after only a few cycles of amplification, while a smaller sample with small amounts of genetic material will require more cycles to amplify enough of the genetic material to get a positive result. Since the PCR test amplifies traces of COVID-19 through cycles, a lower number of cycles needed to get a positive result suggests the presence of a higher viral load for the person being tested and therefore a higher contagion potential.

An article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used,  the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%. In this case false positive means a person is not infectious or capable of transmitting the virus to others. (source)

Dr. Anthony Fauci himself told This Week in Virology in July 2020, “If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-competent are minuscule.” Why then has our national testing standard never reflected this? PCR providers should work with other labs to perform a random viral culture, as mentioned by Bullard above, on those who received positive results, to validate their tests in terms of being an indicator of infectiousness.

There are many questions to be asked here. Labs are not supplying Ct information associated with each test. In some cases should labs be counting “positive” results as “cases” when they come from a high Ct number? We just found out that high Ct numbers around 30+ can often be non infectious or incapable of spreading the virus, this nuance is important considering public health policy is being decided off of cases alone.

What percentage of cases have been a result of a lower cycle threshold, let’s say below 20? These would be the cases, at least some of them, that would be more accurate in identifying a person who is actually infectious. If these tests, as the Swedish government says, cannot be used properly to identify an infectious person, even at a low Ct why haven’t we just put measures in place that apply to symptomatically sick people?

Manitoba has confirmed that it utilizes Ct’s of up to 40, and even 45 in some cases. It’s an important question given the fact that health policy has been based on the number of cases present in a region.

Here in Ontario, Canada outdoor amenities like golf courses, basketball courts, tennis courts, parks and more have been closed based on case counts, even though COVID spreading outdoors is extremely unlikely.

Indoors, infected individuals who are asymptomatic are more than an order of magnitude less likely to spread the disease compared to symptomatic COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis of 54 studies from around the world found that within households – where none of the safeguards that restaurants are required to apply are typically applied – symptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 18 percent of instances, while asymptomatic patients passed on the disease to household members in 0.7 percent of instances.

This is why many academics have urged authorities to stop the testing of asymptomatic individuals. Combine this fact with the fact that the chances of asymptomatic spread is low, and with the fact that there is a lack of clarity around PCR testing, and we see why doctors are bring up the question.

Health policy has been guided and dictated by the number of “cases.” It’s why lockdowns and mask mandates have been put in place regardless of the damage they cause and have caused. What if the majority of “positive” cases during this pandemic have been people who are not capable of spreading the disease – who are not even sick? It would represent an astronomical mistake on the part of multiple governments and the World Health Organization (WHO). Should we not be focusing on perhaps limiting the spread via symptomatic people, instead of punishing and restricting the rights and freedoms of people who are not sick?

This has been an issue for quite some time, as far back as 2007, Gina Kolata published an article in the New York Times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t. You can read that full story here if the previous link doesn’t work.

*

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

Featured image is from Collective Evolution

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sweden Says PCR Tests “Cannot be Used to Determine Whether Someone Is Contagious”
  • Tags: ,

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.

***

The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for “Covid19” in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy “vaccines” are effective at preventing the alleged disease.

They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change).

The trick is in their reporting of what they call “breakthrough infections” – that is people who are fully “vaccinated” against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.

Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention – to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:

  1. False-postive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value)
  2. Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of “Covid case”, used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a “Covid19 case”, even if they never experienced any symptoms.

Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all, and now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated people.

Firstly, they are lowering their CT value when testing samples from suspected “breakthrough infections”.

From the CDC’s instructions for state health authorities on handling “possible breakthrough infections” (uploaded to their website in late April):

For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)

Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the world going into the 40s.

Essentially labs were running as many cycles as necessary to achieve a positive result, despite experts warning that this was pointless (even Fauci himself said anything over 35 cycles is meaningless).

But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number of “breakthrough infections” being officially recorded.

Secondly, asymptomatic or mild infections will no longer be recorded as “covid cases”.

That’s right. Even if a sample collected at the low CT value of 28 can be sequenced into the virus alleged to cause Covid19, the CDC will no longer be keeping records of breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalisation or death.

From their website:

As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. Previous case counts, which were last updated on April 26, 2021, are available for reference only and will not be updated moving forward.

Just like that, being asymptomatic – or having only minor symptoms – will no longer count as a “Covid case” but only if you’ve been vaccinated.

The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with Covid19 than vaccinated people.

Consider…

Person A has not been vaccinated. They test positive for Covid using a PCR test at 40 cycles and, despite having no symptoms, they are officially a “covid case”.

Person B has been vaccinated. They test positive at 28 cycles, and spend six weeks bedridden with a high fever. Because they never went into a hospital and didn’t die they are NOT a Covid case.

Person C, who was also vaccinated, did die. After weeks in hospital with a high fever and respiratory problems. Only their positive PCR test was 29 cycles, so they’re not officially a Covid case either.

The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a “disease” that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it.

To be clear: If these new policies had been the global approach to “Covid” since December 2019, there would never have been a pandemic at all.

If you apply them only to the vaccinated, but keep the old rules for the unvaccinated, the only possible result can be that the official records show “Covid” is much more prevalent among the latter than the former.

This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimise the other.

What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?

*

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

Featured image is from OffGuardian

How We Got Omnipotent Government

May 24th, 2021 by Jacob G. Hornberger

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.

***

We have all been born and raised under a government that wields the power of assassination. State-sponsored assassinations at the hands of the U.S. government — and specifically the Pentagon and the CIA — have become a rather ho-hum affair. They have become fully accepted as part and parcel of American life. 

Yet, when we stop to reflect on this phenomenon, we can’t help but come to the realization that this is truly an extraordinary power. It is an omnipotent power that enables the federal government to snuff out a person’s life simply on a determination that he is a communist, a terrorist, a threat to “national security,” or whatever other designation the government establishes.

The Framers and the American people in 1789 were totally opposed to living under a government that wielded the power of assassination. Don’t forget, after all, that after the break from England, Americans had lived under the Articles of Confederation for some ten years. Under the Articles, the federal government’s powers were so weak that it didn’t even have the power to tax, much less the power to assassinate.

That’s the way our American ancestors wanted it. They believed that the biggest threat to their freedom and well-being lay not with some foreign regime but rather from their very own government. That’s why they chose to live under a government with very few and very limited powers. In doing so, they felt safer and more secure.

When the delegates met in Philadelphia in what became known as the Constitutional Convention, it was with the purpose of simple amending the Articles to make the system work more efficiently. Instead, they came up with a proposal for a different type of governmental system — a limited-government republic — which would replace the Articles. 

The American people were leery because the federal government under this new system would have more powers, including the power to tax. They were concerned that this new government would end up destroying their freedom and their well-being.

But proponents of the Constitution assured Americans that this would not be a government that wielded general powers — that is, powers that would enable federal officials to do whatever they wanted in the best interests of the nation. Instead, its powers would be limited to the few powers enumerated in the Constitution itself.

The American people were especially concerned about the power of assassination. The last thing they wanted was to live under a government that wielded the power to snuff out people’s lives for arbitrary reasons. In fact, if Americans had been told that this new federal government would wield the power of assassination, they never would have approved the deal. They would instead have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation.

Americans ended up approving the deal and accepting the new government under the assumption that its powers would be limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, which did not include the power of assassination.

To ensure that federal officials got the message, however, Americans demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights, which included an express prohibition against assassination within the Fifth Amendment, which reads in part: “No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

Due process of law is a term that stretches all the way back to Magna Carta in the year 1215. Over many centuries of resistance by British subjects against their own kings, due process came to encompass two principles: notice and trial. 

Thus, under the Fifth Amendment before the federal government could assassinate someone, it would be required to provide him with formal notice of the offense for which they wish to assassinate him and then guarantee him a trial to determine whether he in fact was guilty of committing the offense. 

Notice something important about the Fifth Amendment: Its protections apply to everyone, not just American citizens.

With the Sixth Amendment, the accused could elect to have a jury of ordinary citizens, rather than a judge or tribunal, determine his guilt or innocence. Our American ancestors simply didn’t trust judges or tribunals to make that decision. 

Since a jury’s verdict of acquittal was final and non-appealable, juries were also empowered with the ability to judge the law itself in criminal cases. If they found the purported offense unconscionable, they could elect to acquit even if the accused had actually committed it, in which case there was nothing the judge or the government could do about it. The accused would walk out of the courtroom a free person.

After World War II, the federal government was converted into a third type of governmental system — a national-security state. Under this type of government, the federal government — specifically the CIA and the Pentagon — acquired the omnipotent power of assassination. 

The conversion to a national-security state was justified under the rubric of the Cold War. The idea was that since the Soviet Union and the communist world were able to operate with omnipotent powers, including the power of assassination, the only way to prevent America from being conquered by the communists would be to adopt their same type of governmental structure — a national-security state, which came with the omnipotent power of assassination. 

The conversion to a national-security state was done through legislation, not through constitutional amendment. Nonetheless, owing to the overwhelming and ever-growing power of the national-security establishment — i.e., the military, the CIA, and the NSA — the legislative conversion to a national-security state was held to operate as a nullification of the Fifth Amendment. 

Today, the Pentagon’s and the CIA’s power of assassination is omnipotent. They are the final determiners of whether any particular person is going to have his life snuffed out. Their power of assassination is non-reviewable by any court in the land, including the nation’s highest court, the U.S. Supreme Court.

And that’s how we have come to live under omnipotent government, a type of governmental structure that wields the power to assassinate anyone it wants with impunity, simply by designating a person a communist, a terrorist, a threat to “national security,” or whatever. 

*

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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.