This Month’s Most Popular Articles
February 28th, 2021 by Global Research News
Notre site en Français: mondialisation.ca
Nuestro sitio en español: GlobalizacionFebruary 28th, 2021 by Global Research News
February 28th, 2021 by Edward Curtin
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
“The CIA and the media are part of the same criminal conspiracy,” wrote Douglas Valentine in his important book, The CIA As Organized Crime.
This is true. The corporate mainstream media are stenographers for the national security state’s ongoing psychological operations aimed at the American people, just as they have done the same for an international audience.
We have long been subjected to this “information warfare,” whose purpose is to win the hearts and minds of the American people and pacify them into victims of their own complicity, just as it was practiced long ago by the CIA in Vietnam and by The New York Times, CBS, etc. on the American people then and over the years as the American warfare state waged endless wars, coups, false flag operations, and assassinations at home and abroad.
Another way of putting this is to say for all practical purposes when it comes to matters that bear on important foreign and domestic matters, the CIA and the corporate mainstream media cannot be distinguished.
For those who read and study history, it has long been known that the CIA has placed their operatives throughout every agency of the U.S. government, as explained by Fletcher Prouty in The Secret Team, The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World; that CIA officers Cord Myer and Frank Wisner operated secret programs to get some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom among intellectuals, journalists, and writers to be their voices for unfreedom and censorship, as explained by Frances Stonor Saunders in The Cultural Cold War and Joel Whitney in Finks, among others; that Cord Myer was especially focused on and successful in “courting the Compatible Left” since right wingers were already in the Agency’s pocket.
All this is documented and not disputed. It is shocking only to those who don’t do their homework and see what is happening today outside a broad historical context.
With the rise of alternate media and a wide array of dissenting voices on the internet, the establishment felt threatened and went on the defensive. It therefore should come as no surprise that those same elite corporate media are now leading the charge for increased censorship and the denial of free speech to those they deem dangerous, whether that involves wars, rigged elections, foreign coups, COVID-19, vaccinations, or the lies of the corporate media themselves. Having already banned critics from writing in their pages and or talking on their screens, these media giants want to make the quieting of dissenting voices complete.
Just the other day The New York Times had this headline:
Robert Kennedy Jr. Barred From Instagram Over False Virus Claims.
Notice the lack of the word alleged before “false virus claims.” This is guilt by headline.
It is a perfect piece of propaganda posing as reporting, since it accuses Kennedy, a brilliant and honorable man, of falsity and stupidity, thus justifying Instagram’s ban, and it is an inducement to further censorship of Mr. Kennedy by Facebook that owns Instagram.
That ban should follow soon, as the Times’ reporter Jennifer Jett hopes, since she accusingly writes that RFK, Jr. “makes many of the same baseless claims to more than 300,000 followers” at Facebook. Jett made sure her report also went to msn.com and The Boston Globe.
This is one example of the censorship underway with much, much more to follow. What was once done under the cover of omission is now done openly and brazenly, cheered on by those who, in an act of bad faith, claim to be upholders of the First Amendment and the importance of free debate in a democracy. We are quickly slipping into an unreal totalitarian social order.
Which brings me to the recent work of Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, both of whom have strongly and rightly decried this censorship. As I understand their arguments, they go like this.
First, the corporate media have today divided up the territory and speak only to their own audiences in echo chambers: liberal to liberals (read: the “allegedly” liberal Democratic Party), such as The New York Times, NBC, etc., and conservative to conservatives (read” the “allegedly” conservative Donald Trump), such as Fox News, Breitbart, etc.
They have abandoned old school journalism that, despite its shortcomings, involved objectivity and the reporting of disparate facts and perspectives, but within limits. Since the digitization of news, their new business models are geared to these separate audiences since they are highly lucrative choices. It’s business driven since electronic media have replaced paper as advertising revenues have shifted and people’s ability to focus on complicated issues has diminished drastically. Old school journalism is suffering as a result and thus writers such as Greenwald and Taibbi and Chris Hedges (who interviewed Taibbi and concurs: part one here) have taken their work to the internet to escape such restrictive categories and the accompanying censorship.
Secondly, the great call for censorship is not something the Silicon Valley companies want because they want more people using their media since it means more money for them, but they are being pressured to do it by the traditional old school media, such as The New York Times, who now employ “tattletales and censors,” people who are power hungry jerks, to sniff out dissenting voices that they can recommend should be banned. Greenwald says:
They do it in part for power: to ensure nobody but they can control the flow of information.
They do it partly for ideology and out of hubris: the belief that their worldview is so indisputably right that all dissent is inherently dangerous ‘disinformation.’
Thus, the old school print and television media are not on the same page as Facebook, Twitter, etc. but have opposing agendas.
In short, these shifts and the censorship are about money and power within the media world as the business has been transformed by the digital revolution.
I think this is a half-truth that conceals a larger issue. The censorship is not being driven by power hungry reporters at the Times or CNN or any media outlet. All these media and their employees are but the outer layer of the onion, the means by which messages are sent and people controlled.
These companies and their employees do what they are told, whether explicitly or implicitly, for they know it is in their financial interest to do so. If they do not play their part in this twisted and intricate propaganda game, they will suffer. They will be eliminated, as are pesky individuals who dare peel the onion to its core. For each media company is one part of a large interconnected intelligence apparatus – a system, a complex – whose purpose is power, wealth, and domination for the very few at the expense of the many. The CIA and media as parts of the same criminal conspiracy.
To argue that the Silicon valley companies do not want to censor but are being pressured by the legacy corporate media does not make sense. These companies are deeply connected to U.S. intelligence agencies, as are the NYTimes, CNN, NBC, etc. They too are part of what was once called Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s program to control, use, and infiltrate the media. Only the most naïve would think that such a program does not exist today.
In Surveillance Valley, investigative reporter Yasha Levine documents how Silicon valley tech companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google are tied to the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex in surveillance and censorship; how the Internet was created by the Pentagon; and even how these shadowy players are deeply involved in the so-called privacy movement that developed after Edward Snowden’s revelations. Like Valentine, and in very detailed ways, Levine shows how the military-industrial-intelligence-digital-media complex is part of the same criminal conspiracy as is the traditional media with their CIA overlords. It is one club.
Many people, however, might find this hard to believe because it bursts so many bubbles, including the one that claims that these tech companies are pressured into censorship by the likes of The New York Times, etc. The truth is the Internet was a military and intelligence tool from the very beginning and it is not the traditional corporate media that gives it its marching orders.
That being so, it is not the owners of the corporate media or their employees who are the ultimate controllers behind the current vast crackdown on dissent, but the intelligence agencies who control the mainstream media and the Silicon valley monopolies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. All these media companies are but the outer layer of the onion, the means by which messages are sent and people controlled.
But for whom do these intelligence agencies work? Not for themselves.
They work for their overlords, the super wealthy people, the banks, financial institutions, and corporations that own the United States and always have. In a simple twist of fate, such super wealthy naturally own the media corporations that are essential to their control of the majority of the world’s wealth through the stories they tell. It is a symbiotic relationship. As FDR put it bluntly in 1933, this coterie of wealthy forces is the “financial element in the larger centers [that] has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
Their wealth and power has increased exponentially since then, and their connected tentacles have further spread to create what is an international deep state that involves such entities as the IMF, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, those who meet yearly at Davos, etc. They are the international overlords who are pushing hard to move the world toward a global dictatorship.
As is well known, or should be, the CIA was the creation of Wall St. and serves the interests of the wealthy owners. Peter Dale Scott, in “The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld,” says of Allen Dulles, the nefarious longest running Director of the CIA and Wall St. lawyer for Sullivan and Cromwell:
There seems to be little difference in Allen Dulles’s influence whether he was a Wall Street lawyer or a CIA director.
It was Dulles, long connected to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, international corporations, and a friend of Nazi agents and scientists, who was tasked with drawing up proposals for the CIA. He was ably assisted by five Wall St. bankers or investors, including the aforementioned Frank Wisner who later, as a CIA officer, said his “Mighty Wurlitzer” was “capable of playing any propaganda tune he desired.” This he did by recruiting intellectuals, writers, reporters, labor organizations, and the mainstream corporate media, etc. to propagate the CIA’s messages.
Greenwald, Taibbi, and Hedges are correct up to a point, but they stop short. Their critique of old school journalism à la Edward Herman’s and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing of Consent model, while true as far as it goes, fails to pin the tail on the real donkey. Like old school journalists who knew implicitly how far they could go, these guys know it too, as if there is an invisible electronic gate that keeps them from wandering into dangerous territory.
The censorship of Robert Kennedy, Jr. is an exemplary case. His banishment from Instagram and the ridicule the mainstream media have heaped upon him for years is not simply because he raises deeply informed questions about vaccines, Bill Gates, the pharmaceutical companies, etc. His critiques suggest something far more dangerous is afoot: the demise of democracy and the rise of a totalitarian order that involves total surveillance, control, eugenics, etc. by the wealthy led by their intelligence propagandists.
To call him a super spreader of hoaxes and a conspiracy theorist is aimed at not only silencing him on specific medical issues, but to silence his powerful and articulate voice on all issues. To give thoughtful consideration to his deeply informed scientific thinking concerning vaccines, the World Health Organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc., is to open a can of worms that the powerful want shut tight.
This is because RFK, Jr. is also a severe critic of the enormous power of the CIA and its propaganda that goes back so many decades and was used to cover up the national security state’s assassinations of his father and uncle, JFK. It is why his wonderful recent book, American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, that contains not one word about vaccines, was shunned by mainstream book reviewers; for the picture he paints fiercely indicts the CIA in multiple ways while also indicting the mass media that have been its mouthpieces. These worms must be kept in the can, just as the power of the international overlords represented by the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forumwith its Great Reset must be. They must be dismissed as crackpot conspiracy theories not worthy of debate or exposure.
Robert Kennedy, Jr., by name and dedication to truth seeking, conjures up his father’s ghost, the last politician who, because of his vast support across racial and class divides, could have united the country and tamed the power of the CIA to control the narrative that has allowed for the plundering of the world and the country for the wealthy overlords.
So they killed him.
There is a reason Noam Chomsky is an exemplar for Hedges, Greenwald, and Taibbi. He controls the can opener for so many. He has set the parameters for what is considered acceptable to be considered a serious journalist or intellectual. The assassinations of the Kennedys, 9/11, or a questioning of the official Covid-19 story are not among them, and so they are eschewed.
To denounce censorship, as they have done, is admirable. But now Greenwald, Taibbi, and Hedges need go up to the forbidden gate with the sign that says – “This far and no further” – and jump over it. That’s where the true stories lie. That’s when they’ll see the worms squirm.
*
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.
Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is the author of the new book: https://www.claritypress.com/product/seeking-truth-in-a-country-of-lies/
February 28th, 2021 by AIER
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
The use of universal lockdowns in the event of the appearance of a new pathogen has no precedent. It has been a science experiment in real time, with most of the human population used as lab rats. The costs are legion.
The question is whether lockdowns worked to control the virus in a way that is scientifically verifiable. Based on the following studies, the answer is no and for a variety of reasons: bad data, no correlations, no causal demonstration, anomalous exceptions, and so on. There is no relationship between lockdowns (or whatever else people want to call them to mask their true nature) and virus control.
Perhaps this is a shocking revelation, given that universal social and economic controls are becoming the new orthodoxy. In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.
The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin, and based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models, and then merely positing that stringencies and “nonpharmaceutical interventions” account for the difference between the fictionalized vs. the real outcome. The anti-lockdown studies, on the other hand, are evidence-based, robust, and thorough, grappling with the data we have (with all its flaws) and looking at the results in light of controls on the population.
Much of the following list has been put together by data engineer Ivor Cummins, who has waged a year-long educational effort to upend intellectual support for lockdowns. AIER has added its own and the summaries. The upshot is that the virus is going to do as viruses do, same as always in the history of infectious disease. We have extremely limited control over them, and that which we do have is bound up with time and place. Fear, panic, and coercion are not ideal strategies for managing viruses. Intelligence and medical therapeutics fare much better.
(These studies are focused only on lockdown and their relationship to virus control. They do not get into the myriad associated issues that have vexed the world such as mask mandates, PCR-testing issues, death misclassification problem, or any particular issues associated with travel restrictions, restaurant closures, and hundreds of other particulars about which whole libraries will be written in the future.)
1. “A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes” by Rabail Chaudhry, George Dranitsaris, Talha Mubashir, Justyna Bartoszko, Sheila Riazi. EClinicalMedicine 25 (2020) 100464. “[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”
2. “Was Germany’s Corona Lockdown Necessary?” by Christof Kuhbandner, Stefan Homburg, Harald Walach, Stefan Hockertz. Advance: Sage Preprint, June 23, 2020. “Official data from Germany’s RKI agency suggest strongly that the spread of the coronavirus in Germany receded autonomously, before any interventions became effective. Several reasons for such an autonomous decline have been suggested. One is that differences in host susceptibility and behavior can result in herd immunity at a relatively low prevalence level. Accounting for individual variation in susceptibility or exposure to the coronavirus yields a maximum of 17% to 20% of the population that needs to be infected to reach herd immunity, an estimate that is empirically supported by the cohort of the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Another reason is that seasonality may also play an important role in dissipation.”
3. “Estimation of the current development of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Germany” by Matthias an der Heiden, Osamah Hamouda. Robert Koch-Institut, April 22, 2020. “In general, however, not all infected people develop symptoms, not all those who develop symptoms go to a doctor’s office, not all who go to the doctor are tested and not all who test positive are also recorded in a data collection system. In addition, there is a certain amount of time between all these individual steps, so that no survey system, no matter how good, can make a statement about the current infection process without additional assumptions and calculations.”
4. Did COVID-19 infections decline before UK lockdown? by Simon N. Wood. Cornell University pre-print, August 8, 2020. “A Bayesian inverse problem approach applied to UK data on COVID-19 deaths and the disease duration distribution suggests that infections were in decline before full UK lockdown (24 March 2020), and that infections in Sweden started to decline only a day or two later. An analysis of UK data using the model of Flaxman et al. (2020, Nature 584) gives the same result under relaxation of its prior assumptions on R.”
5. “Comment on Flaxman et al. (2020): The illusory effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe” by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner. June 17, 2020. Advance, Sage Pre-Print. “In a recent article, Flaxman et al. allege that non-pharmaceutical interventions imposed by 11 European countries saved millions of lives. We show that their methods involve circular reasoning. The purported effects are pure artefacts, which contradict the data. Moreover, we demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective.”
6. Professor Ben Israel’s Analysis of virus transmission. April 16, 2020. “Some may claim that the decline in the number of additional patients every day is a result of the tight lockdown imposed by the government and health authorities. Examining the data of different countries around the world casts a heavy question mark on the above statement. It turns out that a similar pattern – rapid increase in infections that reaches a peak in the sixth week and declines from the eighth week – is common to all countries in which the disease was discovered, regardless of their response policies: some imposed a severe and immediate lockdown that included not only ‘social distancing’ and banning crowding, but also shutout of economy (like Israel); some ‘ignored’ the infection and continued almost a normal life (such as Taiwan, Korea or Sweden), and some initially adopted a lenient policy but soon reversed to a complete lockdown (such as Italy or the State of New York). Nonetheless, the data shows similar time constants amongst all these countries in regard to the initial rapid growth and the decline of the disease.”
7. “Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study” by Paul Raymond Hunter, Felipe Colon-Gonzalez, Julii Suzanne Brainard, Steve Rushton. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “The current epidemic of COVID-19 is unparalleled in recent history as are the social distancing interventions that have led to a significant halt on the economic and social life of so many countries. However, there is very little empirical evidence about which social distancing measures have the most impact… From both sets of modelling, we found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders and closure of all non-businesses was not associated with any independent additional impact.”
8. “Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic” by Thomas Meunier. MedRxiv Pre-print May 1, 2020. “This phenomenological study assesses the impacts of full lockdown strategies applied in Italy, France, Spain and United Kingdom, on the slowdown of the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak. Comparing the trajectory of the epidemic before and after the lockdown, we find no evidence of any discontinuity in the growth rate, doubling time, and reproduction number trends. Extrapolating pre-lockdown growth rate trends, we provide estimates of the death toll in the absence of any lockdown policies, and show that these strategies might not have saved any life in western Europe. We also show that neighboring countries applying less restrictive social distancing measures (as opposed to police-enforced home containment) experience a very similar time evolution of the epidemic.”
9. “Trajectory of COVID-19 epidemic in Europe” by Marco Colombo, Joseph Mellor, Helen M Colhoun, M. Gabriela M. Gomes, Paul M McKeigue. MedRxiv Pre-print. Posted September 28, 2020. “The classic Susceptible-Infected-Recovered model formulated by Kermack and McKendrick assumes that all individuals in the population are equally susceptible to infection. From fitting such a model to the trajectory of mortality from COVID-19 in 11 European countries up to 4 May 2020 Flaxman et al. concluded that ‘major non-pharmaceutical interventions — and lockdowns in particular — have had a large effect on reducing transmission’. We show that relaxing the assumption of homogeneity to allow for individual variation in susceptibility or connectivity gives a model that has better fit to the data and more accurate 14-day forward prediction of mortality. Allowing for heterogeneity reduces the estimate of ‘counterfactual’ deaths that would have occurred if there had been no interventions from 3.2 million to 262,000, implying that most of the slowing and reversal of COVID-19 mortality is explained by the build-up of herd immunity. The estimate of the herd immunity threshold depends on the value specified for the infection fatality ratio (IFR): a value of 0.3% for the IFR gives 15% for the average herd immunity threshold.”
10. “Effect of school closures on mortality from coronavirus disease 2019: old and new predictions” by Ken Rice, Ben Wynne, Victoria Martin, Graeme J Ackland. British Medical Journal, September 15, 2020. “The findings of this study suggest that prompt interventions were shown to be highly effective at reducing peak demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds but also prolong the epidemic, in some cases resulting in more deaths long term. This happens because covid-19 related mortality is highly skewed towards older age groups. In the absence of an effective vaccination programme, none of the proposed mitigation strategies in the UK would reduce the predicted total number of deaths below 200 000.”
11. “Modeling social distancing strategies to prevent SARS-CoV2 spread in Israel- A Cost-effectiveness analysis” by Amir Shlomai, Ari Leshno, Ella H Sklan, Moshe Leshno. MedRxiv Pre-Print. September 20, 2020. “A nationwide lockdown is expected to save on average 274 (median 124, interquartile range (IQR): 71-221) lives compared to the ‘testing, tracing, and isolation’ approach. However, the ICER will be on average $45,104,156 (median $ 49.6 million, IQR: 22.7-220.1) to prevent one case of death. Conclusions: A national lockdown has a moderate advantage in saving lives with tremendous costs and possible overwhelming economic effects. These findings should assist decision-makers in dealing with additional waves of this pandemic.”
12. Too Little of a Good Thing A Paradox of Moderate Infection Control, by Ted Cohen and Marc Lipsitch. Epidemiology. 2008 Jul; 19(4): 588–589. “The link between limiting pathogen exposure and improving public health is not always so straightforward. Reducing the risk that each member of a community will be exposed to a pathogen has the attendant effect of increasing the average age at which infections occur. For pathogens that inflict greater morbidity at older ages, interventions that reduce but do not eliminate exposure can paradoxically increase the number of cases of severe disease by shifting the burden of infection toward older individuals.”
13. “Smart Thinking, Lockdown and COVID-19: Implications for Public Policy” by Morris Altman. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 2020. “The response to COVID-19 has been overwhelmingly to lockdown much of the world’s economies in order to minimize death rates as well as the immediate negative effects of COVID-19. I argue that such policy is too often de-contextualized as it ignores policy externalities, assumes death rate calculations are appropriately accurate and, and as well, assumes focusing on direct Covid-19 effects to maximize human welfare is appropriate. As a result of this approach current policy can be misdirected and with highly negative effects on human welfare. Moreover, such policies can inadvertently result in not minimizing death rates (incorporating externalities) at all, especially in the long run. Such misdirected and sub-optimal policy is a product of policy makers using inappropriate mental models which are lacking in a number of key areas; the failure to take a more comprehensive macro perspective to address the virus, using bad heuristics or decision-making tools, relatedly not recognizing the differential effects of the virus, and adopting herding strategy (follow-the-leader) when developing policy. Improving the decision-making environment, inclusive of providing more comprehensive governance and improving mental models could have lockdowns throughout the world thus yielding much higher levels of human welfare.”
14. “SARS-CoV-2 waves in Europe: A 2-stratum SEIRS model solution” by Levan Djaparidze and Federico Lois. MedRxiv pre-print, October 23, 2020. “We found that 180-day of mandatory isolations to healthy <60 (i.e. schools and workplaces closed) produces more final deaths if the vaccination date is later than (Madrid: Feb 23 2021; Catalonia: Dec 28 2020; Paris: Jan 14 2021; London: Jan 22 2021). We also modeled how average isolation levels change the probability of getting infected for a single individual that isolates differently than average. That led us to realize disease damages to third parties due to virus spreading can be calculated and to postulate that an individual has the right to avoid isolation during epidemics (SARS-CoV-2 or any other).”
15. “Did Lockdown Work? An Economist’s Cross-Country Comparison” by Christian Bjørnskov. SSRN working paper, August 2, 2020. “The lockdowns in most Western countries have thrown the world into the most severe recession since World War II and the most rapidly developing recession ever seen in mature market economies. They have also caused an erosion of fundamental rights and the separation of powers in a large part of the world as both democratic and autocratic regimes have misused their emergency powers and ignored constitutional limits to policy-making (Bjørnskov and Voigt, 2020). It is therefore important to evaluate whether and to which extent the lockdowns have worked as officially intended: to suppress the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and prevent deaths associated with it. Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended.”
16.”Four Stylized Facts about COVID-19” (alt-link) by Andrew Atkeson, Karen Kopecky, and Tao Zha. NBER working paper 27719, August 2020. “One of the central policy questions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is the question of which non-pharmeceutical interventions governments might use to influence the transmission of the disease. Our ability to identify empirically which NPI’s have what impact on disease transmission depends on there being enough independent variation in both NPI’s and disease transmission across locations as well as our having robust procedures for controlling for other observed and unobserved factors that might be influencing disease transmission. The facts that we document in this paper cast doubt on this premise…. The existing literature has concluded that NPI policy and social distancing have been essential to reducing the spread of COVID-19 and the number of deaths due to this deadly pandemic. The stylized facts established in this paper challenge this conclusion.”
17. “How does Belarus have one of the lowest death rates in Europe?” by Kata Karáth. British Medical Journal, September 15, 2020. “Belarus’s beleaguered government remains unfazed by covid-19. President Aleksander Lukashenko, who has been in power since 1994, has flatly denied the seriousness of the pandemic, refusing to impose a lockdown, close schools, or cancel mass events like the Belarusian football league or the Victory Day parade. Yet the country’s death rate is among the lowest in Europe—just over 700 in a population of 9.5 million with over 73 000 confirmed cases.”
18. “Association between living with children and outcomes from COVID-19: an OpenSAFELY cohort study of 12 million adults in England” by Harriet Forbes, Caroline E Morton, Seb Bacon et al., by MedRxiv, November 2, 2020. “Among 9,157,814 adults ≤65 years, living with children 0-11 years was not associated with increased risks of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 related hospital or ICU admission but was associated with reduced risk of COVID-19 death (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62-0.92). Living with children aged 12-18 years was associated with a small increased risk of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection (HR 1.08, 95%CI 1.03-1.13), but not associated with other COVID-19 outcomes. Living with children of any age was also associated with lower risk of dying from non-COVID-19 causes. Among 2,567,671 adults >65 years there was no association between living with children and outcomes related to SARS-CoV-2. We observed no consistent changes in risk following school closure.”
19. “Exploring inter-country coronavirus mortality“ By Trevor Nell, Ian McGorian, Nick Hudson. Pandata, July 7, 2020. “For each country put forward as an example, usually in some pairwise comparison and with an attendant single cause explanation, there are a host of countries that fail the expectation. We set out to model the disease with every expectation of failure. In choosing variables it was obvious from the outset that there would be contradictory outcomes in the real world. But there were certain variables that appeared to be reliable markers as they had surfaced in much of the media and pre-print papers. These included age, co-morbidity prevalence and the seemingly light population mortality rates in poorer countries than that in richer countries. Even the worst among developing nations—a clutch of countries in equatorial Latin America—have seen lighter overall population mortality than the developed world. Our aim therefore was not to develop the final answer, rather to seek common cause variables that would go some way to providing an explanation and stimulating discussion. There are some very obvious outliers in this theory, not the least of these being Japan. We test and find wanting the popular notions that lockdowns with their attendant social distancing and various other NPIs confer protection.”
20. “Covid-19 Mortality: A Matter of Vulnerability Among Nations Facing Limited Margins of Adaptation” by Quentin De Larochelambert, Andy Marc, Juliana Antero, Eric Le Bourg, and Jean-François Toussaint. Frontiers in Public Health, 19 November 2020. “Higher Covid death rates are observed in the [25/65°] latitude and in the [−35/−125°] longitude ranges. The national criteria most associated with death rate are life expectancy and its slowdown, public health context (metabolic and non-communicable diseases (NCD) burden vs. infectious diseases prevalence), economy (growth national product, financial support), and environment (temperature, ultra-violet index). Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate. Countries that already experienced a stagnation or regression of life expectancy, with high income and NCD rates, had the highest price to pay. This burden was not alleviated by more stringent public decisions. Inherent factors have predetermined the Covid-19 mortality: understanding them may improve prevention strategies by increasing population resilience through better physical fitness and immunity.”
21. “States with the Fewest Coronavirus Restrictions” by Adam McCann. WalletHub, Oct 6, 2020. This study assesses and ranks stringencies in the United States by states. The results are plotted against deaths per capita and unemployment. The graphics reveal no relationship in stringency level as it relates to the death rates, but finds a clear relationship between stringency and unemployment.
22. The Mystery of Taiwan: Commentary on the Lancet Study of Taiwan and New Zealand, by Amelia Janaskie. American Institute for Economic Research, November 2, 2020. “The Taiwanese case reveals something extraordinary about pandemic response. As much as public-health authorities imagine that the trajectory of a new virus can be influenced or even controlled by policies and responses, the current and past experiences of coronavirus illustrate a different point. The severity of a new virus might have far more to do with endogenous factors within a population rather than the political response. According to the lockdown narrative, Taiwan did almost everything ‘wrong’ but generated what might in fact be the best results in terms of public health of any country in the world.”
23. “Predicting the Trajectory of Any COVID19 Epidemic From the Best Straight Line” by Michael Levitt, Andrea Scaiewicz, Francesco Zonta. MedRxiv, Pre-print, June 30, 2020. “Comparison of locations with over 50 deaths shows all outbreaks have a common feature: H(t) defined as loge(X(t)/X(t-1)) decreases linearly on a log scale, where X(t) is the total number of Cases or Deaths on day, t (we use ln for loge). The downward slopes vary by about a factor of three with time constants (1/slope) of between 1 and 3 weeks; this suggests it may be possible to predict when an outbreak will end. Is it possible to go beyond this and perform early prediction of the outcome in terms of the eventual plateau number of total confirmed cases or deaths? We test this hypothesis by showing that the trajectory of cases or deaths in any outbreak can be converted into a straight line. Specifically Y(t)≡−ln(ln(N/X(t)),is a straight line for the correct plateau value N, which is determined by a new method, Best-Line Fitting (BLF). BLF involves a straight-line facilitation extrapolation needed for prediction; it is blindingly fast and amenable to optimization. We find that in some locations that entire trajectory can be predicted early, whereas others take longer to follow this simple functional form.”
24. “Government mandated lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths: implications for evaluating the stringent New Zealand response” by John Gibson. New Zealand Economic Papers, August 25, 2020. “The New Zealand policy response to Coronavirus was the most stringent in the world during the Level 4 lockdown. Up to 10 billion dollars of output (≈3.3% of GDP) was lost in moving to Level 4 rather than staying at Level 2, according to Treasury calculations. For lockdown to be optimal requires large health benefits to offset this output loss. Forecast deaths from epidemiological models are not valid counterfactuals, due to poor identification. Instead, I use empirical data, based on variation amongst United States counties, over one-fifth of which just had social distancing rather than lockdown. Political drivers of lockdown provide identification. Lockdowns do not reduce Covid-19 deaths. This pattern is visible on each date that key lockdown decisions were made in New Zealand. The apparent ineffectiveness of lockdowns suggests that New Zealand suffered large economic costs for little benefit in terms of lives saved.”
25. “Lockdowns and Closures vs COVID – 19: COVID Wins” by Surjit S Bhalla, executive director for India of the International Monetary Fund. “For the first time in human history, lockdowns were used as a strategy to counter the virus. While conventional wisdom, to date, has been that lockdowns were successful (ranging from mild to spectacular) we find not one piece of evidence supporting this claim.”
26. “Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19: A Tale of Three Models” by Vincent Chin, John P.A. Ioannidis, Martin A. Tanner, Sally Cripps, MedXriv, July 22, 2020. “Inferences on effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification. Claimed benefits of lockdown appear grossly exaggerated.”
27. “Assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19” by Eran Bendavid, Christopher Oh, Jay Bhattacharya, John P.A. Ioannidis. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, January 5, 2021. “Implementing any NPIs was associated with significant reductions in case growth in 9 out of 10 study countries, including South Korea and Sweden that implemented only lrNPIs (Spain had a non‐significant effect). After subtracting the epidemic and lrNPI effects, we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mrNPIs on case growth in any country. In France, e.g., the effect of mrNPIs was +7% (95CI ‐5%‐19%) when compared with Sweden, and +13% (‐12%‐38%) when compared with South Korea (positive means pro‐contagion). The 95% confidence intervals excluded 30% declines in all 16 comparisons and 15% declines in 11/16 comparisons.”
28. “Lockdown Effects on Sars-CoV-2 Transmission – The evidence from Northern Jutland” by Kasper Planeta Kepp and Christian Bjørnskov. MedXriv, January 4, /2021.”The exact impact of lockdowns and other NPIs on Sars-CoV-2 transmission remain a matter of debate as early models assumed 100% susceptible homogenously transmitting populations, an assumption known to overestimate counterfactual transmission, and since most real epidemiological data are subject to massive confounding variables. Here, we analyse the unique case-controlled epidemiological dataset arising from the selective lockdown of parts of Northern Denmark, but not others, as a consequence of the spread of mink-related mutations in November 2020. Our analysis shows that while infection levels decreased, they did so before lockdown was effective, and infection numbers also decreased in neighbour municipalities without mandates. Direct spill-over to neighbour municipalities or the simultaneous mass testing do not explain this. Instead, control of infection pockets possibly together with voluntary social behaviour was apparently effective before the mandate, explaining why the infection decline occurred before and in both the mandated and non-mandated areas. The data suggest that efficient infection surveillance and voluntary compliance make full lockdowns unnecessary at least in some circumstances.”
29. “A First Literature Review: Lockdowns Only Had a Small Effect on COVID-19” by Jonas Herby, SSRN, January 6, 2021. “How important was the economic lockdowns in the spring of 2020 in curbing the COVID-19 pan-demic and how important was the lockdown in comparison to voluntary changes in behavior? In the spring, the overall social response to the COVID-19 pandemic consisted of a mix of voluntary and government mandated behavior changes. Voluntary behavior changes occurred on the basis of information, such as the number of people infected, the number of COVID-19-deaths and on the basis of the signal value associated with the official lockdown combined with appeals to the population to change its behavior. Mandated behavior changes took place as a result of the ban-ning of certain activities deemed non-essential. Studies which differentiate between the two types of behavioral change find that, on average, mandated behavior changes accounts for only 9% (median: 0%) of the total effect on the growth of the pandemic stemming from behavioral changes. The remaining 91% (median: 100%) of the effect was due to voluntary behavior changes. This is excluding the effect of curfew and facemasks, which was not employed in all countries.”
30. “The effect of interventions on COVID-19” by Kristian Soltesz, Fredrik Gustafsson, Toomas Timpka, Joakim Jaldén, Carl Jidling, Albin Heimerson, Thomas B. Schön, Armin Spreco, Joakim Ekberg, Örjan Dahlström, Fredrik Bagge Carlson, Anna Jöud & Bo Bernhardsson . Nature, December 23, 202. “Flaxman et al. took on the challenge of estimating the effectiveness of five categories of non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)—social distancing encouraged, self isolation, school closures, public events banned, and complete lockdown—on the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). On the basis of mortality data collected between January and early May 2020, they concluded that only one of these, the lockdown, had been effective in 10 out of the 11 European countries that were studied. However, here we use simulations with the original model code to suggest that the conclusions of Flaxman et al. with regard to the effectiveness of individual NPIs are not justified. Although the NPIs that were considered have indisputably contributed to reducing the spread of the virus, our analysis indicates that the individual effectiveness of these NPIs cannot be reliably quantified.”
*
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.
Featured image is from Shutterstock
February 28th, 2021 by Dr. Stephen Malthouse
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
This text, crossposted on GR was first published in October 2020
It is of relevance in understanding the governments’ decision to enforcing a lockdown in defiance of scientific evidence.
*
.
.
October 2020
Dr. Bonnie Henry,
British Columbia Provincial Health Officer,
Ministry of Health,
Victoria, BC V8W 3C9
Dear Dr. Henry,
I am a physician who has been in family medical practice in BC for more than 40 years and a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC since 1978.
I am writing this letter with the hope that you will be able to clarify the basis of your decision-making that has led our provincial government, health ministry, regional health officers, hospitals, medical staff, WorkSafe BC, businesses, and everyday citizens to follow pandemic policies that do not appear based on high-quality scientific research and, in fact, appear to be doing everyone a great deal of harm.1
The early intent of mitigation measures to “flatten the curve”, when we knew very little about SARS-CoV-2, its mode of transmission, and the severity of COVID-19, was reasonable. I believe that most physicians in Canada, myself included, whether active or retired, prepared themselves to take part on the front lines for the expected COVID-19 tsunami. Very soon it was apparent that the expected overwhelming of the hospital system was not going to occur, and now BC physicians have questions about the appropriateness of your public health policies.
The epidemiological evidence clearly shows that the “pandemic” is over and no second wave will follow. The evidence has been available for at least 4-5 months and is irrefutable.2–4 Yet, in spite of this substantial body of research, your office is perpetuating the narrative that a pandemic still exists and a second wave is expected. This false story is being used to justify public health policies that appear to have no health benefits, have already caused considerable harm, and threaten to create more harm in the future.
As you are aware, Sweden took an entirely different approach and, as of mid-September, their infection rate reached an all-time low and Covid-19 related deaths were at zero; 22 of 31 European countries, most of which enacted strict lockdowns, had higher infection rates. Sweden has also largely escaped the financial ruin and catastrophic mental health problems experienced in other countries, including Canada and the U.S.A.
Dr. Lawrence Rosenberg, Montréal’s medical officer, has stated “this COVID virus is much like the seasonal flu”.
A group of over 400 Belgian doctors have stated “COVID is not a killer virus, but a treatable condition”.
Eighteen Canadian doctors wrote the Ontario Premier, Doug Ford, stating “your policies risk significantly harming our children with lifelong consequences”. The Ontario policies are very similar to those of British Columbia.
In 2011, a review of the literature by the British Columbia Centres for Disease Control that sought to evaluate the effectiveness of social distancing measures such as school closures, travel restrictions, and limitations on mass gatherings as a means to address an influenza pandemic concluded that “such drastic restrictions are not economically feasible and are predicted to delay viral spread, but not impact overall mortality”. [Italics added]
Specifically, there appears to be no scientific or medical evidence for5–6
According to the CDC Pandemic Severity Index, none of these measures have been warranted. The Great Barrington Declaration, signed by more than 30,000 health scientists and medical doctors from around the world, adds support for this statement.
Surprisingly, the recommendation for reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality by supplementing with vitamin D, a measure that is supported by high-quality research, has been absent from your frequent public broadcasts and professional bulletins.7
Optimizing nutrition is a convenient, inexpensive, and safe method of improving immune resistance and has been confirmed through numerous studies for both prevention and treatment of COVID19. As far as I am aware, you have never mentioned something as simple as vitamin D supplements for our most vulnerable citizens. Yet, it was the promise to protect these same citizens that was used to justify the lockdown of a healthy population and the closure of businesses.
Why are you still using PCR testing?
The Deputy Chief Medical Officer for Health in Ontario has publicly stated that the PCR test yields over 50% false positives.
A New York Times investigative report found that PCR testing yields up to 90% false positives due to excessive amplification beyond the recommendations of the manufacturer.
The PCR test was never designed, intended or validated to be used as a diagnostic tool. Even the Alberta Health Services COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group has stated “clinical sensitivity and specificity values have not been determined for lab developed RT-PCR testing in Canada”.8
Despite expert consensus, you continue to use this inappropriate and inaccurate test to report so-called “cases” and justify your decisions.9-18
The public health definition of a “case” is very broad. As all experienced doctors know, a “case” is a patient with significant symptoms who is often hospitalized. A “case” is not a person who simply has a questionably positive PCR test and presents with no symptoms or an unrelated diagnosis. Pictures of healthy young adults standing in line to get PCR tests, with a cell phone in one hand and a Starbucks coffee in the other, are everywhere in the media. These are not sick people and do not need testing.
Nevertheless, your public announcements repeatedly emphasize that the “case” counts are rising and we are in big trouble. Recently, “out-of-control” case counts were used to justify a second lockdown in Ontario and Quebec. Curfews have been put into place. People are being asked to risk their livelihoods to make sacrifices for the general good, based on Public Health’s misrepresentation of “cases” as sick people.
Meanwhile, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths from COVID-19 have dropped to pre-pandemic levels. Where are all the patients?
Why not simply tell the public that
It is your duty as the provincial health officer to provide facts, not propaganda, and make every effort to stop the public panic. The only reason for emphasizing “cases” is to induce more fear and thereby compliance in the name of promised safety.
Why are children being pursued with a new rinse-and-spit saliva test that is also based on a worthless PCR test? Children have been terrorized and are being given the message that they can never be trusted not to infect their family and friends — essentially, that they are naturally bad. The insistence on covering their faces with masks, a proven useless and even harmful measure, only worsens this sense of shame. The psychological fallout from such messaging is going to be horrific. One only needs to walk down Main Street to already see the catastrophic effects of these messages on the mental and emotional health of families.
The excess death toll from partial lockdowns, social distancing and other public health measures is staggering. The Canadian media reports that provincial measures have been shown to create 12:1 more deaths than the virus; there has been a 40% increase in heart attack deaths in Canada from fear, anxiety and cancelled hospital procedures; suicide and drug overdose deaths have increased and outnumber COVID-19 deaths by a ratio of 3:1; suicides have doubled in BC since April; and anxiety and depression, food insecurity, domestic violence, and child abuse have skyrocketed. With unnecessary school closures, the ability of teachers to identify children subject to abuse and malnourishment has been curtailed. Many of our friends, family and patients died alone, terrified, and isolated against their will in facilities and nursing homes. That cruel policy was unjustified and inhuman.
How is it possible that a doctor with your previous training and experience did not anticipate the collateral damage of your public health policies – the economic disruption, the psychological and physical health consequences, and the deaths from despair?
The mainstream media has created a religion out of public health, one based on superstition, not science, with the power to rule over an obedient public. The news channels have raised you to almost saint-like status. Tea towels, shoes and murals have been designed to celebrate your accomplishments. Yet, your public directives do not make sense, contradict the research, and are causing people a great deal of harm. As a fellow doctor, I appeal to you to re-examine your policies and change direction before Public Health causes irreparable damage to our province’s health and economic well-being. That about-face will require you to meet the obligations of your office.
Sincerely,
Stephen Malthouse, MD
Member, College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia,
Denman Island, British Columbia
Email: [email protected]
*
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.
Notes
Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons
February 28th, 2021 by Children’s Health Defense
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
According to new data released today, as of Feb. 12, 15,923 adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, including 929 deaths, have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since Dec. 14, 2020.
VAERS is the primary mechanism in the U.S. for reporting adverse vaccine reactions. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a determination can be made as to whether the reported adverse event was directly or indirectly caused by the vaccine.
The latest VAERS data show that 799 of the deaths were reported in the U.S., and that about one-third of those deaths occurred within 48 hours of the individual receiving the vaccination.
As is consistent with previous VAERS data reports, 192 of the reported deaths — or 21% — were cardiac-related. As The Defender reported earlier this month, Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric rheumatologist, warned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in December that mRNA vaccines like those developed by Pfizer and Moderna could cause heart attacks and other injuries in ways not assessed in safety trials.
Of the 929 deaths reported since Dec. 14, 2020, the average age of the deceased was 77.8 and the youngest was 23. Fifty-two percent of the reported deaths were among men, 45% were women and 3% are unknown. Fifty-eight percent of the deaths were reported in people who received the Pfizer vaccine, and 41% were related to the Moderna vaccine.
States with the highest reported number of deaths were:
CBS Detroit reported this week that a 68-year old news anchor died one day after being vaccinated for COVID of a suspected stroke.
Reports of deaths among elderly people after being vaccinated for COVID continue to surface, including the article published this week by The Defender about 46 nursing home residents in Spain who died within one month of receiving the Pfizer vaccine.
According to the latest data, 3,126 “serious” adverse reactions have been reported. Adverse reaction reports from the latest CDC data also include:
So far, only Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — approved for emergency use, but not fully licensed — are being used in the U.S.
AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine, which does not use mRNA technology, was approved for emergency use this week by the World Health Organization, paving the way for some countries to start using it. However, as The Defender reported this week, some nations have said they won’t use it, citing safety and efficacy concerns.
FiercePharma reported today that the FDA may reject the AstraZeneca vaccine over concerns relating to efficacy, especially against new COVID variants, and manufacturing issues.
News reports indicate that a growing number of people, including nearly 30% of healthcare workers, now say they don’t want the COVID vaccine, citing safety concerns.
The Washington Post reported this week that nearly a third of military personnel are opting out of the vaccines, and ESPN reported that top NBA players are reluctant to promote the vaccine.
Meanwhile, the FDA has not yet implemented systems to monitor the safety of the experimental COVID vaccines. FDA officials told The New York Times they don’t expect the systems to be up and running before the Biden administration reaches its goal of vaccinating 100 million Americans — nearly one third of the U.S. population.
As of Feb. 19, about 56.3 million people in the U.S. had received one or both doses of a COVID vaccine.
While the VAERS database numbers may seem sobering, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, the actual number of adverse events is likely significantly higher. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that relies on the willingness of individuals to submit reports voluntarily.
According to the VAERS website, healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS:
The CDC says healthcare providers are strongly encouraged to report:
However, “within the specified time” means that reactions occurring outside that timeframe may not be reported, in addition to reactions suffered hours or days later by people who don’t report those reactions to their healthcare provider.
Vaccine manufacturers are required to report to VAERS “all adverse events that come to their attention.”
Historically, however, fewer than fewer than 1% of adverse events have ever been reported to VAERS, a system that Children’s Health Defense has previously referred to as an “abject failure,” including in a December 2020 letter to Dr. David Kessler, former FDA director and now co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and President Biden’s version of Operation Warp Speed.
A critic familiar with VAERS’ shortcomings bluntly condemned VAERS in The BMJ as “nothing more than window dressing, and a part of U.S. authorities’ systematic effort to reassure/deceive us about vaccine safety.”
CHD is calling for complete transparency. The children’s health organization is asking Kessler and the federal government to release all of the data from the clinical trials and suspend COVID-19 vaccine use in any group not adequately represented in the clinical trials, including the elderly, frail and anyone with comorbidities.
CHD is also asking for full transparency in post-marketing data that reports all health outcomes, including new diagnoses of autoimmune disorders, adverse events and deaths from COVID vaccines.
Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.
*
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.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense
February 28th, 2021 by 2020 news
First published on December 25, 2020
On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).
Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies – for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers – should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design.
On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se.
Furthermore, they demand that it must be excluded, e.g. by means of animal experiments, that risks already known from previous studies, which partly originate from the nature of the corona viruses, can be realized. The concerns are directed in particular to the following points:
CALL FOR HELP: Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon ask as many EU citizens as possible to co-sign their petition by sending the e-mail prepared here to the EMA.
Nachtrag: Wegen teilweiser Überlastung der Server hier der Inhalt der E-Mail und die Kontaktadressen zum späteren Selbst-Versenden:
An: [email protected]; [email protected]
Betreff: Co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg, Germany, and Dr. Yeadon, UK (submitted on 1-Dec-2020)
Dear Sir or Madam, I am hereby co-signing the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon to support their urgent request to stay the Phase III clinical trial(s) of BNT162b (EudraCT Number 2020-002641-42) and other clinical trials.
The full text of the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon can be found here:
I hereby respectfully request that EMA act on the petition of Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon immediately. Regards
*
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.
Featured image is from 2020 news
February 28th, 2021 by Adam Dick
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Via a Monday Twitter post, President Joe Biden made an unqualified assertion that the experimental coronavirus vaccines, which are not even vaccines under the normal meaning of vaccines, the United States government is encouraging Americans to take are “safe” for everyone. However, taking a look through the fact sheets for recipients and caregivers regarding the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna experimental coronavirus vaccines, available at the website of the US government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, you find a very different representation.
If there’s one message I want to cut through to everyone in this country, it’s this: The vaccines are safe.
For yourself, your family, your community, our country — take the vaccine when it’s your turn and available. That’s how we’ll beat this pandemic.
— President Biden (@POTUS) February 22, 2021
These fact sheets warn that there are many known health risks of taking either vaccine and that there are also other potential health risks that remain unknown because the experimental vaccines went through rushed and incomplete testing.
Biden stated the following in his tweet:
If there’s one message I want to cut through to everyone in this country, it’s this: The vaccines are safe.
For yourself, your family, your community, our country — take the vaccine when it’s your turn and available. That’s how we’ll beat this pandemic.
Wow. It would be absurd to make such a claim even about the many vaccines that have gone through complete regular testing. There is a basis for arguing taking such injections for many people can be expected to provide greater benefit than detriment. But, to say outright that those vaccines are safe for any particular person is to give false assurance. And to say outright that they are safe for everyone is preposterous.
People are hurt by vaccines that have gone through the full, regular testing process. Further, recognition of the predictable heightened danger for some people taking such vaccines leads doctors to recommend that those individuals not take them at all.
Looking at the fact sheets for recipients and caregivers for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna experimental coronavirus vaccines makes clear how far off Biden’s blanket assurance of safety is. The US government is admitting there are potential negative health consequences of taking the experimental vaccines.
The first warning sign in the fact sheets for the two experimental vaccines is in the fact sheets’ titles. Both titles refer to the “emergency use authorization” of the vaccines. At the end of the fact sheets it is explained that emergency use authorization means the experimental coronavirus vaccines have “not undergone the same type of review as an FDA approved or cleared product.” Further, it is made clear that the emergency use authorization does not mean the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the vaccines are safe. Instead, “the FDA decision is based on the totality of scientific evidence available showing that the product may be effective to prevent COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.”
Unlike Biden who seems to say everyone should rush out and take the vaccines, the fact sheets explicitly say that some people should not receive the injections: people under a certain age (16 for Pfizer-BioNTech and 18 for Moderna), as well as people who have “had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose of this vaccine” (both vaccines have a two shot regimen) or “had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient” of the respective vaccines.
The fact sheets for both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna experimental coronavirus vaccines also include this section that suggests that, for particular individuals, taking one of the vaccines will carry greater risk of harm and may be better avoided:
WHAT SHOULD YOU MENTION TO YOUR VACCINATION PROVIDER BEFORE YOU GET THE [PFIZER-BIONTECH or MODERNA] COVID-19 VACCINE?
Tell your vaccination provider about all of your medical conditions, including if you:
• have any allergies
• have a fever
• have a bleeding disorder or are on a blood thinner
• are immunocompromised or are on a medicine that affects your immune system
• are pregnant or plan to become pregnant
• are breastfeeding
• have received another COVID-19 vaccine
For each of the experiment vaccines, the respective fact sheets also provide a list of some of potential health harms from receiving the vaccinations — potential health harms Biden seems to claim do not exist.
The Pfizer-BioNTech experimental coronavirus vaccine fact sheet provides these details about risks from having the shots:
WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE?
Side effects that have been reported with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine include:
• injection site pain
• tiredness
• headache
• muscle pain
• chills
• joint pain
• fever
• injection site swelling
• injection site redness
• nausea
• feeling unwell
• swollen lymph nodes (lymphadenopathy)
Similarly, the Moderna experimental coronavirus vaccine fact sheet provides these details about risks from having the shots:
WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE?
Side effects that have been reported with the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine include:
• Injection site reactions: pain, tenderness and swelling of the lymph nodes in the same arm of the injection, swelling (hardness), and redness
• General side effects: fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, chills, nausea and vomiting, and fever
Both experimental coronavirus vaccines’ fact sheets also provide this warning:
There is a remote chance that the [Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna] COVID-19 Vaccine could cause a severe allergic reaction. A severe allergic reaction would usually occur within a few minutes to one hour after getting a dose of the [Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna] COVID-19 Vaccine. For this reason, your vaccination provider may ask you to stay at the place where you received your vaccine for monitoring after vaccination. Signs of a severe allergic reaction can include:
• Difficulty breathing
• Swelling of your face and throat
• A fast heartbeat
• A bad rash all over your body
• Dizziness and weakness
These may not be all the possible side effects of the [Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna] COVID-19 Vaccine. Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. The [Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna] COVID-19 Vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials.
So, are the experimental coronavirus vaccines safe? The answer is “no” according to the fact sheets provided at the FDA website. There are significant known dangers from taking the vaccines. Also, especially given the rushed and abbreviated testing of the experimental vaccines, there may be numerous unlisted health problems that arise in people who receive the shots.
Biden says to everyone in his tweet “take the vaccine when it’s your turn and available.” A wiser course is for people to consider the potential risks carefully and make their own informed decisions regarding taking the experimental coronavirus vaccines.
The experimental coronavirus vaccines’ fact sheets are a good starting point for that risk investigation. It may also be worthwhile to take a look at a few of my earlier articles — “Everyone Should Take the Experimental Coronavirus Vaccines? Dr. Joseph Mercola Says No.” from February 3, “Worries of Coronavirus Vaccine Deaths and Injuries in America and Abroad” from January 19, “Coronavirus Vaccinations Seem to be Causing 50 Times the Adverse Events of Flu Vaccinations after Just the First of Two Shots” from January 6, and “Doctors, Normal and Abnormal” from December 19.
*
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.
Featured image is from OffGuardian
February 27th, 2021 by Brian Berletic
US foreign policy has clearly continued in the same direction, without missing a beat. Unlike in previous transitions in the White House, this time US President Joe Biden has not even really tried to promise even the faintest hope that it wouldn’t.
However, in Biden’s first speech regarding foreign policy since taking office, now posted on the White House’s official website and titled, “Remarks by President Biden on America’s Place in the World,” reveals that, if anything, US belligerence on the global stage is set to only expand.
“America is back. Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy.”
Biden’s opening remarks attempt to suggest that America has drifted away under his predecessor US President Donald Trump. But when he says “America is back,” we are left to assume he means “back” to what the US was doing under the administration of US President Barack Obama under which he served as vice president.
This was a president elected into office by the American people to end the wars of his predecessor, US President George W. Bush. Not only did he fail to end those wars – one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan – he expanded both. He also started several new wars including in Libya, Syria, and Yemen.
Under the administration of Obama-Biden, the US also overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014 precipitating deadly violence in the nation’s eastern region.
Obama also continued Bush-era policies aimed at overthrowing the government of Venezuela and instituted the so-called US “pivot” to Asia in which US meddling was expanded in a bid to peel Southeast Asian states away from China’s orbit – or create an arc of chaos to disrupt China’s rise, trying.
And in Biden’s recent foreign policy speech – he has vowed to continue all of this.
Myanmar: We will “Impose Consequences on Those Responsible” After declaring his intentions of meeting the challenges of “the growing ambitions of China to rival the United States and the determination of Russia to damage and disrupt our democracy,” he immediately set upon Myanmar – which he continuously referred to in his speech as “Burma” – the British colonial nomenclature for the now independent nation.
He would claim:
There can be no doubt: In a democracy, force should never seek to overrule the will of the people or attempt to erase the outcome of a credible election.
The Burmese military should relinquish power they have seized, release the advocates and activists and officials they have detained, lift the restrictions on telecommunications, and refrain from violence.
Indeed, the military in Myanmar seized power – removing Aung San Suu Kyi from office as well as her National League for Democracy (NLD) political party.
While Biden demands “democracy” for Myanmar – he fails to admit that democracy by definition is a process of self-determination and Washington’s role in installing Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD into power in the first place was as much a violation of Myanmar’s political independence and he claims the military’s recent move was.
The US government through the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funds over 80 programs alone in support of the now ousted government of Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD. The US has created what is essentially a parallel structure of institutions it had – until the military took power – run the country with.
Yemen War: Ending All [Relevant] American Support
President Biden’s remarks about Yemen and his desire to end the war might – at first glance appear positive.
Yet upon closer examination, the prospect of peace is much less promising.
Biden would claim (emphasis added):
This war has to end.
And to underscore our commitment, we are ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales.
Biden would quickly follow up his comment by noting attacks on Saudi Arabia – omitting the context that they are being carried out in retaliation for Saudi Arabia’s war of aggression on Yemen.
Thus, Biden is simply saying the US will not sell Saudi Arabia (directly) “relevant” weapons that will be used in the war on Yemen – but will surely continue selling Saudi Arabia weapons – a fact that will nonetheless continue to enable Saudi aggression both against Yemen and throughout the region – either directly or indirectly.
Biden’s desire to “negotiate” a settlement to the conflict means that Washington’s desire to end the war is not unconditional – but very conditional – and likely involves the necessity of a government of Washington’s choosing finding its way into power in Yemen.
It should be remembered that Biden was vice president when this US-enabled proxy war began in the first place and for the sole purpose of installing a Western-friendly regime into power.
Regarding Yemen, Biden managed to vow continued war while appearing to seek peace.
Russia’s “Interfering with our Elections, Cyberattacks, Poisoning its Citizens” is “Over”
While Biden has extended New START with Russia – his comments about Russia signal the creation of the same sort of pretext all of his predecessors have used to then walk away from other essential arms control treaties.
Biden would claim:
I made it clear to President Putin, in a manner very different from my predecessor, that the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions — interfering with our elections, cyberattacks, poisoning its citizens — are over. We will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia and defend our vital interests and our people.
The US conducted an investigation for over 2 years regarding alleged “Russian interference” in US elections and found no such evidence.
The same can be said of alleged “Russian cyberattacks,” particularly when considering experts submitting reports to US Congress on the matter were then caught themselves posing as Russians and engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior in America’s information space – and worst of all – during US elections.
The “poisoning” of Russian citizens regards the alleged poisoning of US-backed opposition figure Alexei Navalny – an extremely unpopular figure in Russian politicals with no prospect of ever holding political office. The alleged poisoning came at a time when Russia and Germany were nearly finished with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The “poisoned” Navalny was flown by a shadowy Western NGO to Germany to serve as a prop in last-minute efforts by the US to shame Germany into cancelling the project.
It is clear who had the motive to poison Navalny and it wasn’t the Kremlin.
Thus, Biden is repeating three accusations of which he has evidence for none – followed by a threat to “raise the cost on Russia” which will most certainly include the shredding of treaties, additional sanctions, and more hybrid warfare directed along Russia’s peripheries and within Russian borders themselves.
And while Biden poses as breaking away from alleged warm relations between “Trump’s” America and Russia – shredding treaties, imposing sanctions, and using hybrid warfare against Russia continued under all four years of Trump’s presidency.
“We’ll Take On Directly China”
Biden vowed to carry US hostility toward China, predicated on the same lies the Trump administration used to justify what has become a full-blown trade war between the US and China.
Biden would claim:
We’ll confront China’s economic abuses; counter its aggressive, coercive action; to push back on China’s attack on human rights, intellectual property, and global governance.
China’s “economic abuses” are simply China out-competing the US economically. “Aggressive, coercive action” most likely refers to China’s ability to leverage its growing power in defense against what was for decades unchecked Western abuses and aggression against both China directly and its neighbors.
And US claims regarding China’s “attack on human rights, intellectual property, and global governance” are three repetitive lies the US is using with more frequency against any and all nations that refuse to fall under its “intentional order.” The notion of the US taking the moral high-ground on “human rights” despite being the worst offender of human rights this century – including Biden’s own personal role in the wars in Libya, Syria, and Yemen – plums new depths of American hypocrisy.
Biden would also at one point claim (emphasis added):
If we invest in ourselves and our people, if we fight to ensure that American businesses are positioned to compete and win on the global stage, if the rules of international trade aren’t stacked against us, if our workers and intellectual property are protected, then there’s no country on Earth — not China or any other country on Earth — that can match us.
Back in reality, China is a nation with four times the population of the US, with an economy increasingly dependent on cutting edge technology, and with access to plenty of resources. Unless US President Joe Biden is suggesting that the people of China are somehow inferior to Americans – China will not only “match” the US, it will inevitably surpass it several times over.
US President Joe Biden’s first foreign policy speech was a vow to maintain America’s belligerent posture around the globe. Biden all but vowed to continue ratcheting up pressure on both Russia and China – and for reasons we know for a fact are verified lies.
He all but stated that the war in Yemen will only end when the outcome the US seeks is finally achieved.
And in the end – ultimately – Biden is making a renewed declaration of American exceptionalism – stating that no nation can “match” the US as long as the “rules” aren’t “stacked against” America.
Of course – for a nation with a smaller population and access to fewer resources – the only way for that to be possible is if the rules are instead stacked against everyone else on Earth – and that is precisely what the Biden administration is promising the world over the next four years – the continued stacking of those rules against all other nations on Earth and punishment to anyone who attempts to stop America from doing so.
Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
February 27th, 2021 by John C. A. Manley
The following article is the second in a series of interviews with a nurse who works in a hospital on the outskirts of Toronto, Ontario.
She has provided sufficient evidence, and links to public records, to satisfy me that she is indeed a nurse working for over a decade in multiple Canadian hospitals, serving both in the emergency room and intensive care unit. To protect her identity, position and family, details about her and her place of work have been changed or omitted, without altering her message.
JOHN C. A.: Are you being forced to take the COVID-19 vaccine?
NURSE ANDREA: I’ve not been forced to take it (yet). The pressure is more social, rather than a legal or occupational requirement, at this time. Most people seem to get vaxed because they want to socially signal that they “believe in science.”
The politically-induced vaccine supply restriction in Canada, that is making most people upset, is actually to my advantage. Everyone keeps asking, “Andrea, did you get the vaccine?” My standard reply is something like, “No, I already had my tubes tied; I don’t need any more medically induced infertility,” or I say, “No, I’m just exploiting everyone else’s enthusiasm for self-imposed medical experimentation.”
JOHN: How have the other staff members responded to their first injection of the COVID-19 vaccine?
NURSE ANDREA: I was just talking to a colleague who has no history of passing out easily, but she completely lost consciousness after getting the vaccine. In medical terms, this is called a syncope. Anecdotally, she was told at the vax clinic (off the record) that about one in ten people were experiencing syncope after injection. It seems to happen randomly.
My colleague said she witnessed someone pass out as they were walking to the exit! This is extremely dangerous because even if the syncope is benign, all it takes is a bump to the head on the way down resulting in severe injury or death. Imagine: a healthy young person with almost zero chance of dying from COVID, driven by media and social pressure to “believe in science,” getting jabbed with fake immune stimulation and dying. Seems kinda evil to me.
JOHN: Have you seen any adverse reactions among patients?
NURSE ANDREA: A patient came to the emergency department with severe lightheadedness and an episode of chest pain. They had a hard time standing. I was taking their history and they told me they had recently taken the corona vax.
Of course, there are other possible causes for symptoms, such as mild heart attack or recent dietary change involving severe caloric restriction. But how do we really know if the vax didn’t precipitate, or act as one (among the confluence of factors) that led to hospital admission?
The history of medicine is replete with entrenched fantasies about cause and effect — especially when the government, pharmaceutical, and agricultural big players are involved.
JOHN: Did the doctor record her condition as a possible vaccine reaction?
NURSE ANDREA: The doctor immediately dismissed the idea that the corona vax could have played any role in the patient’s symptoms. It got me thinking, how much data about possible reactions to the vax are simply not being collected because of the bias of the clinician to ignore them?
JOHN: How many of these patients, following a COVID-19 rejection, are elderly?
NURSE ANDREA: We’re seeing a surge of patients come to the hospital from the nursing homes after getting vaxed. These poor folks, in their 80s and 90s with chronic heart and lung disease, can’t handle the metabolic stimulation caused by the COVID vax.
I have to be intellectually honest and say I can’t ascribe direct causation by the vax for their presentation. It could be a urinary infection or bacterial pneumonia, for example.
But what I find shocking is how, for instance, my recent patient had “COVID” back in January (and survived despite being extremely elderly with severe heart, lung, and kidney conditions). According to the CDC, immunity for COVID is supposed to last 90 days after infection, yet my patient got vaccinated anyway, well within the window of immunity. One of my colleagues said, “Are they literally trying to kill this patient!?” And yet, the doctor in emergency says, “I think it’s COVID”. Doesn’t Occam’s razor apply if the patient is within the window of immunity from COVID, just got vaxed yesterday, and is here today with a severe immune response requiring hospitalization?
JOHN: What exactly are the symptoms you are seeing in these elderly people after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination?
NURSE ANDREA: Fever, extreme chills, tremors, headache, weakness, lightheadedness, and shortness of breath are symptoms that stand out to me. Nothing too specific which makes it hard to differentiate right away whether it’s from the vax, some other underlying problem, or combination of both, especially when patients are just walking in off the street or offloading from an ambulance stretcher.
JOHN: Are the doctors truly overlooking the correlation or are they simply not saying anything?
NURSE ANDREA: I think we clinicians in general are heavily biased toward belief in the efficacy of our interventions. For example, in hospitals, there are many routine prescriptions, such as laxatives, sedatives, and antacids that have zero evidence of benefit. Sleeping pills, sedatives, and antipsychotic medication are actually quite dangerous.
Despite the evidence of danger with these drugs, many doctors routinely prescribe them and many nurses unquestioningly administer them because they appear to work, at least in the short run.
Consider the following highly realistic scenario: a delirious elderly patient constantly wanders the hallway without a mask while touching public surfaces, which generates extra concern from staff, especially during a “pandemic” when everyone is supposed to remain distanced and surfaces remain sanitized. In response, we give the patient a drug to “settle them down.” So they sleep for a night, and the next day the nurse gives a report and says, “The patient slept well and didn’t wander after I gave the pill to help them sleep.” This gets reported to the doctor who is pleased that the patient stayed in bed and didn’t wander around disrupting other patients, causing an infection control concern, or creating an inconvenience for the staff.
Consequently, the patient continues to get drugged every night. Then, after a few days, the delirium is worse and the patient starts their usual wandering. However, now they are loaded up with sedatives and can’t keep their balance. The cascade of nightly drugging results in a fall, leading to severe maiming and/or death.
JOHN: It sounds the like this aspect of “new normal” — using unproven methods to seemingly deal with a problem — isn’t all that new.
NURSE ANDREA: The lesson here is that much of what we are doing right now in response to COVID (such as constant mask enforcement, vaccinating the elderly with limited physiologic reserves to handle the side-effects, and keeping them isolated and locked up in rooms “for their own safety”) is all part of the same myopic mindset that has always plagued medicine and the healthcare system broadly.
JOHN: It’s strange how medicine will look back and laugh at practices like blood letting, yet continue with equally unscientific and harmful practices.
NURSE ANDREA: I believe that when we look back on all this intervention for COVID — both pharmaceutical and not — we will be ashamed of what we have done. Just as countless patients in the past have been defacto murdered with tranquilizers, we are murdering people today with interventions aimed at controlling or curing COVID.
JOHN: Thank you for speaking out.
John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, naturopaths and chiropractors. Since March 2020, he has been writing articles that question and expose the contradictions in the COVID-19 narrative and control measures. He is also completing a novel, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story. You can visit his website at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca.
February 26th, 2021 by Global Research News
Video: The Stats on COVID-Vaccine Injury and Death Don’t Add Up
By
, February 26 2021There’s a big mystery that needs to be solved. It’s how many people are getting sick and dying from the Covid vaccines.
Why Joe Biden Will Continue the US War on Nord Stream 2 till the Bitter End
By
, February 26 2021Any doubts as to whether Joe Biden will continue Donald Trump’s opposition to Nord Stream 2 should now be laid to rest. With 18 companies quitting the gas pipeline project this week following threats of US sanctions, there has never been so much pressure on Angela Merkel to ditch the scheme.
There Is No Crisis for NATO’s Italian Military
By
, February 26 2021While Italy is paralyzed by the “economic crisis that the pandemic unleashed” (as Draghi defined it in his programmatic speech), there is a sector that is not affected but is in full development: the NATO Italian military sector.
SARS Variants, Spike Proteins and More All Rest on One Big Fat Assumption
By
, February 26 2021Without virus isolation, the SARS variants brainwashing theme is being increasingly pushed by the NWO (New World Order) social engineers to prop up the pandemic.
UK and Greece Collude to Push New ‘Vaccine Passport’ on Holiday Travelers
By
, February 26 2021As 21WIRE reported earlier this week, despite various public denials by UK ministers it has been revealed that the Government is indeed planning to roll-out a new Vaccine Passport.
US-China Win-Win Cooperation? The Competitive Mindset is Destined to Fail
By
, February 23 2021The simple solution to “winning the competition of the future” with China is for the US to stop perceiving relations in a zero-sum manner and instead embrace the paradigm shift of regarding them in a win-win cooperative manner.
Scientists: Vaccination Before Every Holiday May be Needed
By
, February 26 2021Scientists at Oxford University have suggested that people may need to have a coronavirus vaccination not once, not twice, but EVERY time they want to travel out of their home country.
US Doctors Propose ‘Vaccine Bill of Rights’ to Protect Citizens from Forced Shots
By
, February 26 2021With a push for vaccine mandates on the rise, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) has provided a tool to assist state law makers in protecting the rights and dignity of their constituents in the face of such intrusive, dangerous and unnecessary proposals.
The Issue of Vaccines: Open Letter to Dr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Federal President of Germany
By
, February 26 2021As an independent scientist, I am very well informed about the very questionable “efficacy” and “tolerability”, especially of the vaccines offered in Germany, due to my international networking with safe friends and colleagues, and I understand the hesitation of my fellow citizens.
Haiti Betrayed: Screening and Discussion
By
, February 26 2021To commemorate the anniversary of the US/France/Canada led overthrow of Haiti’s elected government, we are hosting a screening and discussion of Haiti Betrayed, a powerful indictment of Canada’s role in the 2004 coup and subsequent policy in the country.
US Sponsored Coup d’État: The Destabilization of Haiti
By
, February 26 2021This article was written in the last days of February 2004 in response to the barrage of disinformation in the mainstream media. It was completed and published on February 29th, the day of President Jean Bertrand Aristide’s kidnapping and deportation by US Forces.
February 26th, 2021 by Global Research News
To commemorate the anniversary of the US/France/Canada led overthrow of Haiti’s elected government, we are hosting a screening and discussion of Haiti Betrayed, a powerful indictment of Canada’s role in the 2004 coup and subsequent policy in the country.
Join us for a discussion with the filmmaker and special guests on February 28. The film will be available to watch free (in the week leading up to the event) for all those who register in advance.
s
Elaine Brière, filmmaker (Haiti Betrayed)
Jean Saint-Vil, author and activist (Solidarité Québec-Haïti)
Kira Paulemon, scholar
Brian Concannon, Blueprint Project (founder Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti)
Organizer: The Canadian Foreign Policy Institute
Co-sponsors: Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Haiti Liberté, Inter Pares
Facebook event.
Haitian Lives Matter. This fact has eluded the Canadian media, and the general Canadian population, which prefers to think of itself as, “good guys” when it comes to foreign policy—if they even give foreign policy a second thought. Elaine Briere’s deeply-researched and highly engaging documentary, “Haiti Betrayed” lays bare a hidden history that now—of all times—we all need to pay attention to.
Mark Achbar – The Corporation
This powerful film, with its heart-stopping footage, captures the brutality of what the “advanced” world has done to the people of Haiti since their heroic revolution against slavery. Canada’s shameful role – braying about human rights even as it provides political cover for the US overthrow of Haitian democracy – exposes the lie behind Canada’s good-guy image in the world.
Linda McQuaig – author, The Sport & Prey of Capitalists
The Haitian revolution established the first free country of free men in the Americas, but it drew the bitter hostility of a colonial world that has persisted through Haiti’s tortured history. This evocative film pointing to Canada’s role in the 2004 coup d’état portrays yet another chapter of sordid betrayal. This film should be a call to action.
Noam Chomsky
Haiti Betrayed may be the most important documentary ever made on Canadian foreign policy. It is a powerful indictment of Canada’s role in overthrowing the Jean-Bertrand Aristide/Lavalas democratic government in 2004 and the devastating consequences that decision had on Haitians. Haiti Betrayed also reveals the inhumanity of the Canadian military’s response to the 2010 earthquake and Ottawa’s continued backing of regressive political forces in Haiti. All Canadians should watch this film about a country born in struggle to make Black lives matter.”
Bianca Mugyenyi, Director, Canadian Foreign Policy Institute
“Canada always looks so cute, clean and a non-profit country. Nobody talks about Canada in the international news. This film is so interesting because we can see another Canada.”
Jaume Barrull – Diari Segre, Barcelona
The modus operandi of Canada remains colonial at home and abroad. This film is so important because it pulls the curtain away to show what is going on in a place far from the minds of Canadians – which is where the government would like it to stay.
Henri Robideau – photographer & social commentator
In her new film, Haiti Betrayed, Elaine Brière raises deeply disturbing questions about Canada’s active role and complicity in perpetrating neocolonial injustices over decades in Haiti. Haiti Betrayed is a film that absolutely needs to be seen.
Rita Morbia – Inter Pares
TRAILER: HAITI BETRAYED
February 26th, 2021 by Chris Humphrey
February 26th, 2021 by Andrew Korybko
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
The Alt-Media Community is suspiciously silent about the S-300s’ no-show following Biden’s latest strike in Syria despite passionately promoting them over the past few years as the solution to defending the Arab Republic from foreign attacks such as this most recent one.
The S-300 No-Show
The US just bombed alleged Iranian allies in Eastern Syrian last night, which reportedly killed at least 17 of them and thus represents the Biden Administration’s first major international strike since taking office last month. The Alt-Media Community rose in unison to condemn this attack but many of its members are suspiciously silent about the S-300s’ no-show despite passionately promoting them over the past few years as the solution to defending the Arab Republic from foreign attacks such as this most recent one. It can’t be known for sure, but they might have realized that the dispatch of these systems to Syria in late 2018 following the tragic mid-air incident with “Israel” that September was nothing more than a psy-op to placate the angry masses. At the time, Syria accidentally shot down a Russian spy plane while aiming to hit an “Israeli” jet.
The Reality Of Russian-”Israeli” Coordination In Syria
Russia condemned “Israel” for its reckless mid-air tactical evasive maneuver which led to that missile hitting its own plane instead. It also claimed that it didn’t receive adequate enough notice in advance of that attack in order to take precautionary action to avoid the tragedy that ultimately transpired. This was in violation of their 2015 military “deconfliction” pact that was agreed to in the run-up to Russia’s anti-terrorist intervention in Syria. While Russia officially regards such “Israeli” attacks as violations of international law that complicate the country’s already complex conflict, it never does anything to stop them. This explains why the SAA has yet to obtain control of the S-300s since they’d likely use them to shoot down those jets, which Moscow might believe would further escalate the situation and potentially lead to it dangerously spiraling out of control.
Russia’s “Balancing” Act
After all, Syria got lucky in February of that year when one of its outdated S-200s destroyed an “Israeli” jet, proving that the SAA does indeed have the intent to use the S-300s to bolster its defensive capabilities in the face of such unprovoked aggression against it and in full accordance with international law. Nevertheless, that outcome would run contrary to Russia’s grand strategic “balancing” act of trying to promote a so-called “compromise political solution” to the country’s conflict, one which envisions the eventual withdrawal of Iranian forces and their allies such as hezbollah in possible exchange for “Israel” and the US stopping their conventional aggression against the Arab Republic. This isn’t mere speculation either since President Putin’s Special Envoy to Syria Alexander Lavrentiev explicitly called for those forces’ departure from the country.
Moscow’s Machiavellian Machinations
The Arabic editorial of Russia’s publicly financed international media outlet Sputnik reported on his official statement in May 2018. According to Google Translate, he specified that: “We are talking about all the foreign military units present in Syria, including the Americans, the Turks, Hezbollah, and of course the Iranians.” While Moscow soon thereafter clarified that it acknowledges Tehran’s legal military presence in the country at Damascus’ request for anti-terrorist purposes, the Kremlin continues to deny the SAA the right to use the S-300s for the purpose of defending its allies from “Israeli” and American attacks against them. This observation very strongly suggests that Russia is pursuing a Machiavellian strategy whereby it unofficially hopes that “Israeli” and American strikes will result in Iran and Hezbollah’s forced withdrawal from Syria.
The De Facto Russian-”Israeli” Alliance In Syria Is Aimed Against Iran
I elaborated in detail on this hypothesis in the following analyses which should be reviewed by the reader:
The second answer in my recent interview with Iran’s Farhikhtegan newspaper also addresses this issue.
The Russian-”Israeli” Meeting On The Eve Of Last Night’s Attack
Curiously, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and “Israeli” Foreign Ministry Director General Ushpiz met in Moscow on the eve of last night’s attack to discuss the situation in Syria, according to Russian publicly financed international media outlet TASS. The official Twitter account of the Russian Embassy in “Israel” also shared a picture of their diplomatic teams smiling, laughing, and visibly enjoying themselves ahead of discussing such a serious topic as that one. It can only be speculated, but it might very well be the case that “Israel” was serving as an intermediary between Russia and the US to inform the former of the latter’s impending strike as part of the “deconfliction” agreement between their forces to avoid mid-air incidents such as September 2018’s tragic one. Sputnik later reported that Russia condemned last night’s strike, yet it did nothing to help Syria stop it.
It’s Time To Break The Taboo
At this point, honest members of the Alt-Media Community must publicly question why the S-300s haven’t yet been used for their official purpose of defending Syria from foreign attacks by “Israel” and the US. Under no circumstances should those who respectfully raise their concerns about this ultra-sensitive issue be accused of being “Zionists”, “agents”, or whatever else by the community’s gatekeepers who’ve hitherto aggressively pushed back against anyone who dares to ask this “politically incorrect” question. To the contrary, the objectively existing and easily verifiable fact that the S-300s have never even once been used to defend Syria since they were dispatched there in late 2018 for that explicit purpose very strongly suggests that those who attack others for asking this obvious question might be the real “Zionists”, “agents”, or whatever else.
Russia vs. The Resistance
There’s no “diplomatic” way to say this, but everyone in the Alt-Media Community must now declare whether they stand with Russia or the Resistance in Syria since their goals no longer overlap in the Arab Republic. They’re both against terrorism there, but that’s where their common interests end. Now that ISIS has all but been defeated, they disagree over the post-war presence of Iranian forces and their allies there. Russia’s reluctance to let the SAA operate the S-300s to defend its partners from American and “Israeli” attacks has resulted in Moscow passively facilitating those strikes against them. Everyone must now make their positions clear about whether they believe that Russia has the right to deny Syria the S-300s “for its own good” to avoid a larger escalation or if Syria should have the sovereign right to decide for itself if and when to use them.
Concluding Thoughts
Last night’s American strike against alleged Iranian allies in Eastern Syria forces everyone in the Alt-Media Community to ask why the S-300s weren’t used to defend them considering the fact that they were dispatched to the Arab Republic nearly two and a half years ago for the explicit purpose of deterring foreign attacks such as this most recent one. Only those who are dishonest will shirk away from asking this, while the provocateurs among them will attack those who respectfully do so as “Zionists”, “agents”, or whatever else. I’ve argued in this analysis that the S-300s were never really meant to be used against “Israel” or the US but were sent as part of psychological operation to placate the Arab Republic’s angry masses after the tragic September 2018 mid-air incident. Russia won’t let Syria use them because it wants “Israel” and the US to bomb Iran out of the country.
*
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.
This article was originally published on TheAltWorld.
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 TheAltWorld
February 26th, 2021 by Global Research News
February 26th, 2021 by Brett Wilkins
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
“The map raises a number of questions. Why is the United States militarily active in so many countries? Are these operations meeting the stated U.S. goals of reducing violence against Americans?”
A new report published Thursday details United States so-called “counterterrorism” operations by the U.S. military in 85 nations since 2018 as part of its “Global War on Terror,” the open-ended post-9/11 campaign that has seen over half a dozen countries attacked or invaded, hundreds of overseas military bases built, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and trillions of dollars spent—with no end in sight.
The report—published by the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute and USA Today—features an interactive map showing U.S. military operations on every inhabited continent on Earth, including combat, training, exercises, and bases.
click map to access interactive map on USA Today:
“Despite the Pentagon’s assertion that the U.S. is shifting its strategic emphasis away from counterterrorism and towards great power competition with Russia and China, examining U.S. military activity on a country-by-country basis shows that there is yet to be a corresponding drawdown of the counterterror apparatus,” the report states. “If anything, the map demonstrates that counterterrorism operations have become more widespread in recent years.”
From 2018-2020, the United States government conducted “counterterrorism” efforts in 85 countries according to a new, must-read report by @CostsOfWar @stephsavell @USATODAY. Despite talk of refocusing on great power competition, CT efforts haven't slowed. https://t.co/TD7bCkGecu
— Nick Turse (@nickturse) February 25, 2021
According to the report, the U.S. has provided “counterterrorism” training or assistance in 79 nations since 2018, with U.S. troops carrying out bombing or ground attacks in 10 countries—Afghanistan, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen—over the same period. American forces participated in training exercises in 41 nations over the past three years. Additionally, under “Section 127e” programs, U.S. special operations forces have planned, controlled, and participated in missions in numerous African nations.
Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. still maintains nearly 800 overseas military bases on six continents, according toindependent research by Base Nation author David Vine. The new report’s interactive map shows how these have proliferated during the post-World War II era, especially in the 21st century.
The report then details the approximately $6.4 trillion the U.S. has spent on the never-ending War on Terror, noting annual U.S. military spending of $731.8 billion—or more than the next 10 biggest military spenders combined.
The U.S. military spends more than $700 billion a year on weapons and combat preparedness, more than the next top 10 nations *combined*. https://t.co/PneaRsNbkE pic.twitter.com/ACouirDwzG
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) February 25, 2021
In the section on casualties, the report states that more than 15,000 U.S. troops and contractors, nearly 12,500 allied troops, 177,000 national military and police officers, 1,300 journalists and humanitarian aid workers, nearly 260,000 enemy fighters, and nearly 336,000 civilians have been killed.
Stephanie Savell, co-director of the Costs of War Project and report lead researcher, says that “the map raises a number of questions. Why is the United States militarily active in so many countries? Are these operations meeting the stated U.S. goals of reducing violence against Americans and/or other civilians around the world? If not, what could the U.S. be doing instead? What human rights abuses or other negative consequences do these U.S. engagements have for people who live in these countries? What are the financial implications of this vast expanse of activities?”
“Now, as many Americans are calling for an end to ‘endless war,’ the map is a stark reminder that this war stretches far beyond Afghanistan,” adds Savell. “If the U.S. is truly to end the post-9/11 wars and related activities around the world, then the U.S. public and its leaders must take a broader view of their reach.”
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
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.
February 26th, 2021 by Johanna Ross
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Any doubts as to whether Joe Biden will continue Donald Trump’s opposition to Nord Stream 2 should now be laid to rest. With 18 companies quitting the gas pipeline project this week following threats of US sanctions, there has never been so much pressure on Angela Merkel to ditch the scheme, which would see Russian gas transported to Germany direct.
Merkel has done well to stand her ground to date. For even her European partners aren’t backing her. The Director General of the European Commission’s energy department, Ditte Juul Jorgensen said on Tuesday that ‘For the European Union as a whole, Nord Stream does not contribute to security of supply’, emphasising that it was a decision for the German state, not the EU as to whether the project should be completed. Given the fact that European demand for Russian gas has increased, not decreased of late, however, one might think that it is in the EU’s interest to support Nord Stream 2.
Not if the US has anything to do with it. Citing concern at Russia’s increased influence over Europe if the pipeline goes ahead, Joe Biden has proclaimed Nord Stream 2 a ‘bad deal’ for Europe, which America will continue to oppose. The US claims that Russia would have more leverage over the EU politically as a result. What it really means, though, is that the US would have less leverage over Europe, and a reduced demand for its fracked gas. EU countries imported as much as 36% of American natural gas in 2019 – an increase of around 5 billion cubic metres from the previous year – a considerable amount given Russia is just on its doorstep, and also bearing in mind the EU’s environmental pledges (fracking produces heavy amounts of methane gas, responsible for global warming).
Source: InfoBrics
Nevertheless, the US is careful to package this as an energy security issue and persuade us that its real concern is the ‘Russian threat’ that comes with the gas pipeline. At the moment the US has some influence over Russian exports to Europe through Ukraine, which as Ukrainian politician Victor Medvedchuk recently emphasised, is merely a ‘colony’ now of the US. If Ukraine, the middleman, was cut out of the process, America simply wouldn’t have the same leverage over European energy supplies.
Moreover, it is clearly part of the US’ geopolitical strategy to prevent Nord Stream 2 construction. In fact, it has been stated so explicitly in a document published by the US government-affiliated think-tank RAND in 2019, entitled ‘Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground’. This is a revealing paper, as it demonstrates the extent to which the US is stuck in a 19th century-style ‘great power game’ with Russia. In the 354-page policy document, Russia’s natural gas resources are mentioned in the very first paragraph. Confronting Russia in the energy sector is seen as a priority ‘in a campaign designed to unbalance the adversary’ as it puts it:
‘…the United States can adopt policies that expand world supply and thus depress global prices, thereby limiting Russian revenue. Imposing tougher sanctions is also likely to degrade the Russian economy, and could do so to a greater extent and more quickly than maintaining low oil prices, provided the sanctions are comprehensive and multilateral.’
Hardly surprising, therefore, that ‘stopping Nord Stream 2’ is listed as the first of ‘A variety of options exist for diversifying European gas supplies and extending Russia economically’. Interestingly, in the report, Nord Stream 2 features heavily in terms of, not so much aiding Ukraine as we keep hearing about in the western media, but instead in relation to undermining Russia. Furthermore, the question of Ukraine losing out on money from transit fees, paid by Russia, which amount to around $3 billion a year, is repeatedly mentioned in the document, which emphasises the extent to which this is an economic issue for the US:
“In terms of extending Russia economically, the main benefit of creating supply alternatives to Russian gas is that it would lower Russian export revenues. The federal Russian budget is already stressed, leading to planned cuts in defense spending, and lowering gas revenues would stress the budget further.”
The RAND report looks at other ways of undermining Russia in the energy sector, describing the possibility of engineering its own pipeline project involving southern European countries and of course, mentions the development of US fracking schemes across Europe.
Aside from US policy in general towards Russia, Joe Biden has his own personal ties to Ukraine which will influence his attitude towards Nord Stream 2. One of the largest companies involved in gas exploration and production across Ukraine is Burisma, a company closely tied to Biden, as his son used to be on the board of directors. Indeed it was widely reported that when the company was involved in a corruption scandal back in 2016, Biden, then US Vice President, incredibly threatened to withhold $1 billion of US aid from Ukraine if it didn’t fire the prosecutor investigating the case.
Joe Biden’s son may no longer be involved in Burisma, but the US President still has considerable influence in Ukraine. Indeed, when Biden’s position as Vice President came to an end, it was speculated that Ukraine wouldn’t manage without him: ‘Ukraine’s government has relied heavily on its direct channel to the U.S. vice president, and Biden’s departure will leave a gaping hole’ said Foreign Policy, adding that ‘No one in the U.S. government has wielded more influence over Ukraine than Vice President Joe Biden’.
Taking both US policy on the whole towards Russia, and Joe Biden’s commitments to Ukraine, it’s therefore likely that we will see this Biden administration only ramp up pressure in the final stages of the Nord Stream 2 project. However unlikely it may seem that the US could stop the pipeline at such a late stage in the game, stranger things have happened. As usual, the US will continue to use both economic pressure in the form of sanctions, and diplomatic pressure to push Germany into a corner. So far, Merkel has been tenacious, but only time will tell if her personal determination is enough to stand up to the might of Uncle Sam.
*
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.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland. You can follow the author on Twitter.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
February 26th, 2021 by South Front
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
The United States has deployed a Patriot defense battery to Syria’s northeast, at least according to the fairy tales told by Kurdish media. This deployment reportedly took place on February 24th in an entirely different reality, since the reports claiming so are entirely fake. Several Kurdish and opposition outlets claimed that the deployment of Patriot batteries is taking place in Alomar and Al-Shaddadi. There could even be more batteries. Reports also claim that the US is improving its capabilities in al-Hasakah and Deir Ezzor as well.
The claims of Patriot batteries in northeastern Syria are currently merely fake news, as any review of the photographs, even to casual observers on Twitter, reveals that they show an entirely different location. What is fact is that Washington is truly attempting to increase its presence and capability in Syria.
In another and more realistic report from state outlet SANA, the US sent “shoulder-launched missiles” to northeastern Syria. Two American military helicopters allegedly landed in al-Shaddadi and unloaded artillery shells and shoulder-launched missiles. Prior to this, the coalition built a new airstrip in the al-Omar oil fields in southeastern Deir Ezzor. And the base in al-Hasakah is really being built. These developments, however, aren’t as major as reports make them out to be.
Saudi Arabia, a staunch US ally, one which Washington has vowed to defend and assist, is losing two of its Patriot defense batteries.
The two units in Saudi Arabia were helping to protect the Kingdom’s oil fields, but will likely be replaced by Saudi Patriot batteries. Their effectiveness – or lack thereof – was proven back in 2019, when they failed to protect Aramco’s facilities. As such, even if they were to be relocated in Syria, their usefulness remains in doubt.
Still, the Kurds as US allies are hopeful that the patriot battery remains mighty and capable of protecting its positions as they are likely hoping that it would help protect them against the Turkish Armed Forces.
Washington, though, is focused on Iran, which, especially so far in 2021, it has largely failed to contain. Iran continues expanding its influence in key areas such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen. In Syria, after being subject to ISIS attacks, Tehran’s forces are building new positions in the southern Homs countryside to protect phosphate mines in the region from the ISIS cells responsible.
Empty claims may go around the world quickly, their effectiveness, however, is dubious at this point. The United States is attempting to increase its presence and capabilities in Syria, but so far it appears to be too little too late. Iran’s presence in Syria and influence in the entire region continue to grow despite containment efforts by Washington and its allies.
*
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.
SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:
PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront
February 26th, 2021 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
„Es existiert eine unbegründete öffentliche Hysterie, die von Medien und Politikern angetrieben wird. Es ist ungeheuerlich, dies ist der größte Schwindel, der jemals an einer ahnungslosen Gesellschaft verübt wurde.“ Dies sagte der kanadische Top-Pathologe und Virologe Dr. Roger Hodkinson bereits Ende November 2020 während eines Zoom-Konferenzgesprächs den kanadischen Regierungsvertretern in Sachen Corona (1). Und er hat Recht! Diesen Pandemie-Schwindel können wir nur dann stoppen und unseren Kindern eine lebenswerte Zukunft ermöglichen, wenn wir uns darüber bewusst werden, dass wir Opfer und Täter zugleich sind.
Keinem die Macht übergeben!
Alle paar Jahre wieder wählen wir korrupte Politiker in hohe Regierungsämter und sehen sie als respektable Autoritäten an. Die Politiker verbinden mit dieser Zuschreibung umgehend Herrschaftsansprüche, schaffen ein Verhältnis der Über- und Unterordnung und setzen gegenüber den Bürgern den Willen beziehungsweise die Anweisungen der globalen Machtelite durch. Diesen verlogenen Politikern kann man weder heute noch in Zukunft vertrauen, schrieb Leo Tolstoi bereits 1905 (2).
Seit über einem Jahr schüren sie mit ihren loyalen Massenmedien ohne Grund irrationale Ängste und eine öffentliche Hysterie und Panik vor einem furchtbaren Erstickungstod. Dabei ist das bewusste Schüren von irrationalen Ängsten seit Jahrhunderten ein Disziplinierungs- und Herrschaftsinstrument skrupelloser Despoten. Sie betreiben damit das Werk des Teufels und nicht das Werk Gottes. Wir haben weltweit kein medizinisches Problem, sondern ein politisches! Wir alle sollen in Panik versetzt werden, damit wir gehorchen und sie mit uns machen können, was sie wollen.
Doch Despoten schüren nicht nur unbegründete Ängste, sie bedienen sich für ihre satanischen Pläne auch der Religion. Staat und Kirche sind seit alters her Verbündete beziehungsweise Spießgesellen! Beide wollen, dass wir an die so genannten Autoritäten glauben und einen absoluten geistigen Gehorsam zeigen – einen so genannten Kadavergehorsam! Den forderte Ignatius von Loyola, der Begründer des Jesuitenordens bereits Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts ein: Nach göttlicher Vorsehung sollten wir uns von den Oberen führen und leiten lassen, als seien wir ein toter Körper oder der Stab eines alten Mannes, mit dem man machen kann, was man will.
Wir sind Opfer…
Und genauso verhalten sich die meisten von uns auch! Viele Erwachsene reagieren auf diese Politiker wie Kinder oder wie die primitiven Urmenschen reagierten: In Form eines „magischen Autoritätsglaubens“ – kritiklos, und umnebelt von Stimmungen, Gefühlen und Glücksverheißungen. Und das hat Folgen: Die Autoritätsgläubigkeit führt unweigerlich zur Autoritätshörigkeit, die in der Regel den Reflex eines absoluten geistigen Gehorsams und eine Verstandeslähmung auslöst. Vollsinnige Erwachsene können dann nicht mehr selbstständig denken und vernünftig urteilen und übergeben die Entscheidungsgewalt sittenlosen Politikern oder einem übernatürlichen Wesen, das uns als „Gottheit“ bis ans Ende der Tage führen uns beschützen soll.
Deshalb werden Priester von der weltlichen Obrigkeit massiv finanziell und ideologisch unterstützt. Und uns Menschen wird dieser Gehorsam von Kindesbeinen an eingebläut! Dies alles führt unter anderem dazu, dass sich die Bürger weltweit:
…und Täter zugleich
Aufgrund der unbegründeten Angstreaktion, der religiös bedingten Autoritätsgläubigkeit und des absoluten geistigen Gehorsamsreflexes zeigen wir kein Mitgefühl mit unseren in Not geratenen und leidenden Mitmenschen und lassen sie im Stich. Das geht so weit, dass wir sogar unsere eigene Brut, unsere Kinder, die durch den verbrecherischen Schwindel in große Not geraten sind und zum Teil nicht mehr leben wollen, nicht mehr schützen. Damit verbauen wir unsere gesamte Zukunft. Dabei ist es das Mitgefühl mit allen Geschöpfen, was Menschen erst wirklich zu Menschen macht, meinte Albert Schweitzer.
Liebe Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürger, ich bitte Sie inständig, sich meine Worte durch den Kopf gehen zu lassen und auszusteigen
Bitte wachen Sie auf und haben Sie den Mut, ihren gesunden Menschenverstand zu gebrauchen – bevor es zu spät ist!
*
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.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, NRhZ-ONLINE.
Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist.
Fussnoten
(1) ORBIS(nju:S), Contra-Mainstream-Blog vom 22. November 2020
(2) Hänsel, R. (2020). Keinem die Macht übergeben! Ein psychologisches Manifest des gesunden Menschenverstands. Gornji Milanovac. ISBN 978-86-7432-119-5. Die „Neue Rheinische Zeitung NRhZ“ veröffentlichte den gesamten Text in drei Folgen. Eine Kurzfassung wurde ebenfalls in der NRhZ publiziert und zusätzlich in „Rubikon“ sowie in englischer Sprache in „Global Research“ (www.globalresearch.ca)
February 26th, 2021 by F. William Engdahl
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
In the unfolding extreme winter tragedy in Texas as well as many other regions of the United States not prepared for severe winter weather, a notable point is that much of the vast windmill batteries across the state, supposed to generate 25% of the state electric power grid, have frozen and are largely useless. The recent severe winter weather across not only the continental USA but also large parts of the EU, and even the Middle East, warrants a closer look at a subject that has been too long ignored by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, as well as by a new group of academics known as Climate Scientists. That is, the influence of our sun on global climate.
Cold Climate Change
On February 14, 2020 a record Arctic cold front swept from Canada far south to the southernmost parts of Texas on the Mexican border. The immediate impact has been power outages for up to 15 million Texans who as of February 17 remained without heat and electricity, as almost half the wind units were frozen and inoperable from ice storms, many permanently. Texas over the past five years has doubled its share of wind generation to the grid in a rush to adopt a green energy profile. With some 25% of the state electric grid from wind sources, almost half that is out of commission, many permanently, from the storm.
Tyler, Texas, once known as the “Rose Capital of America,” saw temperatures of near -20 C.
Gas processing plants across Texas are shutting as liquids freeze inside pipes further reducing power just as demand for heating fuel explodes. Heating fuel prices in Oklahoma jumped 4000% in two days and are rising. Wholesale prices for delivery in Texas are trading as much as $9000 per mega-watt hour. Two days before the storms price was $30. In a summer peak demand, a price of $100 is considered high.
Reduced gas supplies from Texas to Mexican power companies have led to blackouts in northern Mexico, with almost 5 million households and businesses left without power on February 15.
The Green Energy Fallacy
In addition US oil production, centered in Texas, has plunged by a third, and more than 20 Gulf Coast oil refineries are blocked as are grain barge shipments along the Mississippi River. Several analysts of the deregulated Texas grid model point out that had the state maintained a “reliable emergency backup” such as is possible with nuclear or coal power, the blackout could have been averted. Recently Texas has forced six coal power plants to close since 2018, owing to state rules that force power companies to take the subsidized wind and solar power, undercutting the cost of their own coal generation. It simply forced them to shut down functioning coal plants that generated 3.9 GW. Had those still been on line, sources say the blackouts could easily have been averted. Unlike current wind technology or solar, coal and nuclear plants can store up to a month or more capacity on site for power emergencies.
While in northern states like Minnesota where severe winters are common and prepared for, Texas has no such requirements for reserve capacity. For example, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission requires plants to have enough reserve capacity online to ensure the power stays on during extreme circumstances. Instead, Texas operates an “energy-only” market, where wholesale power prices are seen as an adequate incentive to bring more power plants online. The aim of the energy only model was to make intermittent wind and solar more profitable to increase their market share over conventional alternatives like coal or nuclear.
The state grid model forced Texas coal and nuclear plants to sell electricity at a loss on the market because they are unable to reduce their electricity output when high wind and solar output force prices into the red. Ultimately, it forced the unnecessary closing of the six coal plants, just what the green energy advocates wanted. The flaws in the model are glaring, as is the growing dependence on unreliable wind and solar options to get a dubious zero carbon footprint.
Grand Solar Minimum?
However there is a far more alarming lesson to come out of the Texas disaster. That states like Texas and countries across the globe are mandating trillions of dollars investment in Green Energy to create the UN 2030 goal of Net Zero Carbon by 2050, by turning to manifestly unreliable solar and wind to replace oil, gas and coal power, and even carbon-free nuclear power, is the opposite of what we need if solar cycle analysis is accurate. That flaw has roots in a several-decade campaign by the UN IPCC and political figures such as Al Gore and a lobby of scientists whose careers depend on ignoring the greatest factor affecting Earth Climate and climate change, one which is definitely real—solar cycles.
Unlike the computer models of the climate scientists which project a linear rise in Earth temperature as “manmade” emissions of CO2 rise, the unproven “Greenhouse Effect,” Earth temperature and climate changes are non-linear. They have been proven, going back several thousand years, to be cyclical. And CO2 emissions to not drive the cycles. If this is so, we as a human species could well be implementing policies which will leave great parts of our world totally unprepared and vulnerable to far worse and more prolonged climate changes than the recent disaster in Texas.
According to the US NASA, the planet just entered into a new solar cycle. They predict that the current 11 year solar cycle, known as Cycle 25, which began in 2020, “will be the weakest of the last 200 years.” If so that would put it in the time of what is known as the Dalton Minimum which went roughly from 1790 to 1830.
Sunspots or dark spots on the sun surface that are usually accompanied by huge magnetic energy flares out of the sun, have been measured daily since the process was begun at a Zurich, Switzerland observatory in 1749. It was noted that the number of sunspots or solar activity rose and fell in roughly 11 year cycles. Recent research has also identified more complex longer cycles of around 200 years period, and 370-400 years. Solar physicists have numbered the 11 year cycles beginning from 1749, giving us from mid-2020 the onset of Solar Cycle 25.
In 2018 a group of solar physicists and mathematicians led by Prof. Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University in the UK, developed a complex model based on the observed role of the solar background magnetic field in defining solar activity. They could predict that the next Solar Minimum which began in 2020, would approximate the most extreme recent period of solar minimum, the so-called Maunder Minimum, which went from 1645 to 1710. That was termed a Grand Solar Minimum, a prolonged period of extremely low solar activity, and began about 370 years ago.
Zharkova’s group has linked the present minima to a drastic falloff in the sun’s internal magnetic field, a roughly 70% downswing in magnetic field intensity from its average value, arising from regular variations in behavior of the very hot plasma powering our sun. In other words we could be at the early phase of drastic changes in Earth climate lasting several decades. Zharkova’s research predicts that this Grand Solar Minimum period started in 2020, and expects it to last until about 2053.
During the Maunder Minimum volcanic eruptions sending tons of ash high into the atmosphere created dense grey clouds that further blocked solar radiation. Volcanic activity and solar minimum phases are well correlated, believed to come from intensified penetration of cosmic rays on the Earth atmosphere that force greater eruptions.
During the Maunder Minimum, known in the Northern Hemisphere as the “Little Ice Age,” the temperatures across much of the northern hemisphere plunged. According to Zharkova this likely occurred because the total solar irradiance was greatly reduced, leading to severe winters.
A far milder Grand Solar Minimum, called the Dalton Minimum, from about 1790 to 1830, while less extreme than the Maunder period, led to a series of huge volcanic eruptions between 1812-1815 culminating on the record eruption in Indonesia of Mount Tambora, the world’s largest volcanic eruption during historic times. It in turn created so much cloud density from ash that 1816 was known in Europe as The Year Without a Summer.
The cold temperatures saw snow in New York in summer of 1816. Crops across North America and Europe failed in what has been called, “the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world.” In China in 1816 there was a massive famine. Floods destroyed crops. The monsoon season was disrupted, resulting in overwhelming floods in the Yangtze Valley. In India, the delayed summer monsoon caused late torrential rains that aggravated the spread of cholera from a region near the Ganges in Bengal to as far as Moscow.
Volcanic eruptions are in a recent uptick since eruption of two huge volcanoes in November 2020 in Indonesia at Lewotolo and Semeru, as the present Grand Solar Minimum began, tied to the solar-related drop in the magnetosphere, and the stronger influx of solar cosmic radiation penetrating silica-rich magma of the volcanoes.
As Sacha Dobler author of Solar Behavior notes, “As far as temperature is concerned, what is crucial is not the energy that leaves the sun, but how much of this energy is blocked by clouds and how much reaches the Earth’s surface, and how much is reflected back into space by ice and snow.”
Higher cosmic ray penetration of the atmosphere during solar minima adds to cloud nucleation as do volcanic eruptions. Dobler adds, “In a Grand Solar Minimum, cosmic rays trigger larger flash floods, hailstorms and – due to jet stream disturbance and mixing of atmospheric layers – local long-duration precipitation events… Due to the shifting jet streams and changing wind patterns, singular heat waves and more wild fires are expected.” In short we can expect unstable, irregular weather events over the coming decade to three decades if solar physicists such as Zharkova are right.
Changing Jet Stream
A significant effect of a major or Grand Solar Minimum we are now entering is changes in the position of our Jet Stream. In periods of high solar activity the jet stream forms a relatively stable belt around the Northern Hemisphere on the level of southern Canada and Siberia, keeping severe winter cold contained. In solar minima such as now, the Jet Stream, instead of forming a stable ring, becomes highly irregular or wavy. That is what allowed the unprecedented Arctic cold as far south as Texas. This irregular and weak Jet Stream allows severe cold and snowfall in some areas and unusual warm pockets in places like Siberia, as well as unusually warm and dry or wet periods. As we advance deeper into the present Grand Solar Minimum by 2030 or so, physicists expect this “extreme” weather change to intensify.
The sun is by orders of magnitude the most influential force affecting Earth climate and its climate changes. Unfortunately for mankind the prevailing group of climate scientists endorsing the narrow untested CO2 manmade global warming hypothesis do not model any effect of changing solar radiation on our climate. The IPCC dismisses the sun as an irrelevant factor, something that is proving extremely dangerous.
Are the “Powers That Be” e.g. associated with the WEF, aware of the coming solar minimum and the fact that this one is likely to be as bad or worse than the 1790-1830 Dalton Minimum? Does this explain their selection of the period 2030 to 2050 in the target for UN Agenda 2030?
If the world is spending trillions and diverting precious resources to prepare for “zero carbon,” while the worst solar effects of the past 200 years or more unfold in events such as Texas and other parts of the world experience, the world would be caught unprepared for severe crop failure and mass famine.
*
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.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Featured image is from NEO
February 26th, 2021 by Rosemary Frei
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
There’s a big mystery that needs to be solved.
It’s how many people are getting sick and dying from the Covid vaccines.
There are reports from around the world of large numbers of elderly people dying right around the time they’re vaccinated.
On rare occasions those reports of those deaths even percolate into the mainstream press. An example is this January 16, 2021, Bloomberg article. It quotes the Norwegian Medicines Agency as attributing more than a dozen deaths, perhaps many more, among people 75 and over to effects of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine such as nausea and vomiting.
And I’ve heard first-hand that a lot of people are getting sick after vaccination, particularly seniors. I’ve heard this also from others, including health care professionals.
But officials almost always quickly proclaim that deaths aren’t caused by the vaccines. Instead they tell us that serious injuries are extremely rare.
For example, at a February 11, 2021, Ontario’s top public-health official, Dr. David Williams, said there had been just four serious adverse events so far from more than 380,000 vaccine doses administered.
Two of the four were severe allergic reactions, he reported. One was a “renal injury.” The fourth was “an unusual event. And the details [of it] are not available,” Dr. Williams said. He didn’t mention any deaths.
So that’s four serious adverse events in 380,000 injections, which equates to about 1 in 100,000 or 0.001%.
That doesn’t fit with the facts on the ground.
There are at least three clues to why there is dramatic under-reporting of serious illness and death from the vaccine.
One clue is that for years now politicians and public-health bureaucrats have been saturating the airwaves, academe and health-care institutions with the messaging that vaccines are safe and effective. They tell us ceaselessly that serious adverse events are one in a million.
The same goes for the Covid vaccines. We’re told the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech and other shots were thoroughly tested in “large clinical trials” before being used in the populace at large. And that they had to be rushed into use because they’re critical for saving lives in the midst of the worldwide Covid emergency.
The second clue for here in Ontario is that the same person who’s in charge of the rushing of vaccines into millions of people’s arms also heads the office that leads death investigations, including deaths of people who died from Covid or who passed away shortly after receiving a Covid vaccine.
That person is Dirk Huyer. I’ve written previously about his prominence in pushing the official Covid narrative and rushing Covid vaccines into millions of Ontarians’ arms. (On May 11 and May 26, 2020, I documented his role in drastically changing the way deaths are handled in Ontario, making it far harder to determine whether a death attributed to Covid was instead caused by something else; and on October 20, 2020, I wrote about how Huyer has climbed the bureaucratic ladder by serving the powerful rather than the populace).
Others have also written about how the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario has performed shockingly poorly under his watch. For example, investigative journalists at the National Post, Toronto Star and Hamilton Spectator showed that Huyer and a colleague likely shut down a busy forensic-pathology unit in southwestern Ontario as revenge for the unit’s staff lodging official complaints about the pair’s bullying behaviour including interference in evidence-based decision-making.
And Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk’s 2019 annual report devotes a chapter to the Office of the Chief Coroner and the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service. Among the serious deficits she documented were that, “The Office misses the opportunity to make more effective use of its death investigation data to identify actions to improve public safety and reduce preventable deaths.”
Officially, Dirk Huyer doesn’t have a direct role in investigations of deaths related to Covid. Stephanie Rea, a spokesperson for Huyer and his office, responded to a question from me about this; she indicated that Huyer stepped back from such investigations last August.
“The Chief Coroner for Ontario has recused himself from any work the Office of the Chief Coroner is doing in regard to COVID-19 to maintain the impartiality of the death investigation system. COVID-19 related work with the Office of the Chief Coroner is overseen by two Deputy Chief Coroners,” Rea wrote in an email to me.
However, Dr. Huyer doesn’t say he’s recused himself. And he seemed to indicate in a press conference that he was involved in the investigation of a person who died after getting one of the Covid vaccines.
The third clue is that doctors seldom report adverse events. When people get really sick or die after getting a vaccination the docs attribute that to anything but the vaccines. It’s been that way for years. Anyone who wonders aloud whether the Covid vaccines or other shots cause harm is immediately branded as “anti-vax” and “anti-science.” That’s a career-threatening consequence for health professionals.
And of course on top of that there’s huge pressure to go along with the push to vaccinate billions of people in as short a time as possible.
So that’s where we’re at today. More than half a million vaccine doses have been given to people in Ontario alone. The rush is on to vaccinate all 15 million of us in the province by September. And the mainstream media are screaming for this to be sped up even more.
That all adds up to only a very slim likelihood that we’re going to be told the truth by officials about how many people are gretting sick or dying from the vaccines.
So we’ll have to solve the mystery ourselves.
I just heard that an organization called VaxxTracker has stepped into the breach. The organization’s website says they “provide those who have received any vaccination a safe place to report negative side-effects and assist developers as they work to perfect it. The VaxxTracker web site acts independently from all government, pharmaceutical, or lobbying groups. We represent those who have already received or those who are considering taking taking a vaccination.”
Perhaps with collective efforts like this we can we can bring the true stats to light.
*
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.
After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca.
Featured image is from Rosemary Frei
February 26th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
While Italy is paralyzed by the “economic crisis that the pandemic unleashed” (as Draghi defined it in his programmatic speech), there is a sector that is not affected but is in full development: the NATO Italian military sector. On February 17-18, when Italian Senate and Parliament voted their trust to Draghi’s government, the reconfirmed Minister of Defense Lorenzo Guerini (Pd, Democratic Party) was already participating in the North Atlantic Council, the first meeting with the presence of the new Biden’s Administration.
Further increase in military spending was on the agenda. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg underlined, 2021 will be the seventh consecutive year of increased military spending by European Allies, and compared to 2014 will have a 190-billion-dollar increase. USA and NATO are asking for much more. Minister Guerini conferred Italy’s commitment and the increase in military spending (in real terms) from 26 to 36 billion euros per year, adding to the Defense appropriations those expenses earmarked for military purposes by the Ministry of Economic Development: 30-billion plus 25 -billion dollars are requested from the Recovery Fund. All from public money, of course.
Italy committed to allocate at least 20% of military spending to the purchase of new armaments within NATO. For this reason, as soon as he took office, Minister Guerini signed on February 19 a new agreement with 13 NATO countries plus Finland, called Air Battle Decisive Munition, for the joint purchase of “missiles, rockets and bombs that have a decisive effect in air battle”. With this formula, similar to that of a solidarity buying group (not vegetables but missiles), savings are made and NATO claimed them to be the 15-20% without however saying how much the expenditure will be. The new generation missiles and bombs Italy is buying, will also be used to arm the Lockheed Martin F-35B fighters, embarked on the Cavour aircraft carrier, which arrived on February 13 at the US base in Norfolk (Virginia): here it will remain until April acquiring the operating certification with these aircraft. Italy, Minister Guerini proudly announced, will be one of the few countries in the world – together with the United States, Great Britain and Japan – to have a fifth generation aircraft carrier.
In this way, Italy – as Prime Minister Mario Draghi underlined – will strengthen its role as “protagonist of the Atlantic Alliance, in the wake of the Great Western democracies, in defense of their inalienable principles and values”, particularly increasing – focusing on “our projection towards areas of natural priority interest, such as the enlarged Mediterranean, with special attention to Libya and Eastern Mediterranean, and to Africa”. In the “enlarged Mediterranean” – which NATO geography extends from the Atlantic to the Black Sea and South to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean – NATO operates from Sigonella, with AGS RQ-4D drones supplied by the US, the NATO Force of “Ground surveillance”. It became operational on February 15: the announcement was made by US General Told Walters, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe (this position is always pertinent to a US general). From Sigonella (Sicily) the NATO drones “monitor” (ie spy on) this area to prepare for military actions, which are under the orders of another US General, Houston Cantwell.
Prime Minister Draghi, who considers the new US administration “more cooperative with its allies”, declared to be “confident that our relations and our collaboration will only intensify”. That is for sure. On February 17, the first meeting, sponsored by the Pentagon, where 40 Italian military industries and university research centers offered their products and services to the US Armed Forces, took place via videoconference. Title of the meeting was “Innovate to Win“. Innovation – the Ministry of Defense explained – is “the keystone not only for a competitive advantage over current and future potential adversaries on the military level, but for the recovery of the national industrial sector at the end of the crisis period due to the Covid-19 pandemic “.
*
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.
This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.
Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
February 26th, 2021 by Makia Freeman
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Without virus isolation, the SARS variants brainwashing theme is being increasingly pushed by the NWO (New World Order) social engineers to prop up the pandemic. With more people becoming aware that there is no emergency and there is no pandemic, the COVID manipulators are propagating more lies by inventing SARS variants and using them as fuel to continue the scamdemic.
Apparently, there are now South African, UK and Californian variants of which you need to be very afraid. However, whether it’s new variants, spike proteins or other SARS-CoV-2 paraphernalia, all of these stories depend on a basic assumption: that a new virus SARS-CoV-2 exists. You can’t have variants of a virus that doesn’t exist. You can’t have spike proteins on a virus that doesn’t exist. Likewise, you can’t make a true traditional vaccine (not the gene editing devices of Pfizer and Moderna) of a virus that doesn’t exist. So we keep coming back to the same point: SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated or purified, and thus so much of the current reporting about it is disinformation that cannot be true.
One Big, Fat, Unfounded Assumption
As always, Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andrew Kaufman (whom I have quoted extensively in previous articles such as this one and this one) shine light on the true state of affairs. According to them, no true isolation of a virus has EVER happened, either for SARS-CoV-2 or other viruses like HIV. In a recent discussion, they talk about the lack of scientific evidence for the proof of viruses alleged to cause disease in the context of a recently aired debate between Dr. Judy Mikovits and Kaufman. The discussion became a little tense as Kaufman prodded Mikovits to explain how she had ever isolated a virus (as she claims to have repeatedely done), when all she had done was show viruses budding out of the cell (not true isolation). Mikovits replied it had to be that way for retroviruses, because the human body would eat up loose RNA or DNA. Mikovits did however agree and explicitly state that SARS-CoV-2 had never been isolated.
Cowan makes the following point around the 16-minute mark about virus isolation:
“If they [viruses] are not isolated … they don’t exist as independent entities. These is simply no way they can cause disease, there’s no way we can characterize them, there’s no way we can take a segment and say ‘that’s unique to this’, so there’s no way we can do a PCR test.”
Kaufman brings up an interesting jaguar analogy around the 26-minute mark. Imagine a European explorer had heard of new wild cats/leopards in the South American jungle, and set out to find one. Since they are stealthy predators, he could not find one, but instead found some teeth. Would that count as proof of a new wild cat (a jaguar)? A scientist claiming discovery a new virus, amidst all the millions of tiny particles that swim around in our cells and bloodstream, is like a European explorer visiting South America for the first time and claiming he found a jaguar just because he found the tooth of a wild cat, despite not having found the skeleton or body of it. Why does a tiny piece of RNA count as proof of an alleged novel virus SARS-CoV-2?
Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)
Cowan, Kaufman and Sally Fallon Morell have together written a short document entitled Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI) where they definitively explain that, according to “common sense, the laws of logic and the dictates of science,” the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been isolated or purified. The word isolation is often defined differently by virologists trying to justify their methods (adding it to other media like milk and bovine serum, plus mixing it with chemicals like antibiotics). The SOVI statement includes the Oxford definition of the word isolation: “the action of isolating; the fact or condition of being isolated or standing alone; separation from other things or persons; solitariness.” Therefore, logically, these points follow:
The writers then outline how a person would isolate the virus if they were being scientifically rigorous and careful:
“In as concise terms as possible, here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness. Without mixing these samples with ANY tissue or products that also contain genetic material, the virologist macerates, filters and ultracentrifuges i.e. purifies the specimen. This common virology technique, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages and so-called giant viruses in every virology lab, then allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles. These particles are the isolated and purified virus.
These identical particles are then checked for uniformity by physical and/or microscopic techniques. Once the purity is determined, the particles may be further characterized. This would include examining the structure, morphology, and chemical composition of the particles. Next, their genetic makeup is characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from the purified particles and using genetic-sequencing techniques, such as Sanger sequencing, that have also been around for decades. Then one does an analysis to confirm that these uniform particles are exogenous (outside) in origin as a virus is conceptualized to be, and not the normal breakdown products of dead and dying tissues. (As of May 2020, we know that virologists have no way to determine whether the particles they’re seeing are viruses or just normal break-down products of dead and dying tissues.)”
That is how it would be done to ensure proper virus isolation. However what has happened since the outbreak of the COVID scamdemic is scientific fraud over and over and over again:
“Instead, since 1954, virologists have taken unpurified samples from a relatively few people, often less than ten, with a similar disease. They then minimally process this sample and inoculate this unpurified sample onto tissue culture containing usually four to six other types of material — all of which contain identical genetic material as to what is called a “virus.” The tissue culture is starved and poisoned and naturally disintegrates into many types of particles, some of which contain genetic material. Against all common sense, logic, use of the English language and scientific integrity, this process is called “virus isolation.” This brew containing fragments of genetic material from many sources is then subjected to genetic analysis, which then creates in a computer-simulation process the alleged sequence of the alleged virus, a so called in silico genome. At no time is an actual virus confirmed by electron microscopy. At no time is a genome extracted and sequenced from an actual virus. This is scientific fraud.
The observation that the unpurified specimen — inoculated onto tissue culture along with toxic antibiotics, bovine fetal tissue, amniotic fluid and other tissues — destroys the kidney tissue onto which it is inoculated is given as evidence of the virus’ existence and pathogenicity. This is scientific fraud.”
Mainstream Virology Claims True Virus Isolation is Impossible
Let’s return to what Mikovits said, and what many mainstream virologists say: we can’t isolate viruses from their host cell because there’s not enough of them, they’re too small or they would immediately die if we did so (and therefore must be found within the host cell). So mainstream virology redefines what isolation means when it comes to viruses. Cowan has countered this point repeatedly:
“From now on, when anyone gives you a paper that suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated, please check the methods sections. If the researchers used Vero cells or any other culture method, you know that their process was not isolation. You will hear the following excuses for why actual isolation isn’t done:
- There were not enough virus particles found in samples from patients to analyze.
- Viruses are intracellular parasites; they can’t be found outside the cell in this manner.
If No. 1 is correct, and we can’t find the virus in the sputum of sick people, then on what evidence do we think the virus is dangerous or even lethal? If No. 2 is correct, then how is the virus spread from person to person? We are told it emerges from the cell to infect others. Then why isn’t it possible to find it?”
Imaginary SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Spike Protein Changes
Predictably, both the WHO and the CDC are pushing the idea that imaginary variants of an imaginary virus are breaking out worldwide. They are even giving these so-called variants technical names: the supposed UK variant is called B.1.1.7, the supposed Brazil variant is called P.1 and the supposed California variant is B.1.427 and B.1.429 (aka CAL.20C/L452R). The supposed South African variant is B.1.351 or 501Y.V2, allegedly due to its N501Y mutation. N501Y is scientific shorthand for the substitution of one protein building block (amino acid) for another at position 501 in the part of the virus called the spike protein. Speaking of spike protein, we all have all been told since the start of this fake pandemic that this is what made the SARS-CoV-2 virus so deadly, but remember: the spike protein is part of the digital, in silico, computer database genome of the virus. They could have made up anything. There is no proof of a real virus with a real spike protein. It’s more technical gobbledygook to give the virus the appearance of existence and reality when it DOES NOT EXIST.
Once this concept is fully grasped, the implications are quite astounding. Even people who have done a great job speaking out against the COVID scamdemic – people like Dr. James Lyons-Weiler and Dr. Judy Mikovits (who deserve kudos for their courage) – are basing their conclusions on the idea that the virus has been isolated and purified when it simply has not. Lyons-Weiler has written scientific paperson the idea of pathogenic priming but that idea is based on the premise of an existing virus whose genome has been actually sequenced from a real life specimen, as opposed to a computer-generated theoretical sequence.
The Vaccine Can’t Possibly Work, Because It’s Based on an In Silico, Theoretical Virus
Vaccines are dangerous inventions, but even if you are pro-vax, the COVID vaccines can’t possibly work (the traditional ones not the mRNA ones) because the Big Pharma manufacturers never had a real viral specimen to use to develop them. They are using a theoretical virus as their starting point. This makes all the COVID vaccines even less desirable, and lowers their benefit-to-risk ratio to 0.
Conclusion
It is a famous maxim of life that you can know the tree by its fruits. Thus, if the root of a tree is poisoned, so shall be its fruit. The foundational structure of the entire COVID narrative is not just shaky but indefensible scientific fraud. Without virus isolation, the additional permutations of the COVID narratives are just more stories of no substance. By now, many people have awoken to the truth that there is not one virus, not one disease called COVID (which is essentially just reclassification of existing disease) and not one cause of that disease. Why would we assume that a deadly “virus” is the only cause of disease – not poor hygiene, poor sanitation, toxic elements, pollution, EMFs (5G), pesticides, synthetic chemicals, stress, emotional imbalance, lack of adequate exercise and deficiency of vital nutrients like vitamins B, C or D? We must keep attacking the entire narrative at its base in order to uncover the truth.
*
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.
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com. Makia is on Steemit and Parler.
Sources
https://thefreedomarticles.com/not-a-vaccine-mrna-covid-vaccine-chemical-pathogen-device/
https://thefreedomarticles.com/10-reasons-sars-cov-2-imaginary-digital-theoretical-virus/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/lN609LZMOl9A/
https://thefreedomarticles.com/sars-cov-2-stitched-together-frankenstein-virus/
https://www.andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/?#voices
https://www.who.int/csr/don/31-december-2020-sars-cov2-variants/en/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7142689/
https://thefreedomarticles.com/toxic-vaccine-adjuvants-the-top-10/
Featured image is from The Freedom Articles
February 26th, 2021 by 21st Century Wire
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
As 21WIRE reported earlier this week, despite various public denials by UK ministers it has been revealed that the Government is indeed planning to roll-out a new Vaccine Passport, and will be using the NHS COVID Track & Trace App as the initial Trojan horse vehicle for the project – transitioning the App into the “digital certificate” on smart phones to prove their supposed “immunity status” (even though the COVID vaccine does not actually provide immunity).
After managing to sneak this unprecedented bio-surveillance measure under the radar for months, the political leadership will no doubt be facing serious push-back by virtue of the fact a Vaccine Passport is a total abrogation of constitutional, civil and human rights.
Certainly, on a domestic level this would be draconian in the extreme – potentially restricting access to shops, transport, schools and other venues on the basis of one’s vaccine status. But for international travel, it’s now abundantly clear that governments are already colluding in order to normalise what can only be described as a new level of social control and medical fascism.
To soften the opposition for international travelers, conspiring governments are seeing to be providing what looks like a conciliatory gesture for travelers between regime countries by allowing the ‘non-vaccinated’ to bypass Vaccine Passport control by taking a COVID test. If they negative, they will then be allowed to pass through unhindered. This includes use of the wildly inaccurate and arbitrary PRC Test.
This is exactly what the UK and Greece governments have quietly cooked-up, proposing what is an illegal regulation behind the backs of the population – without any public debate or public consultation on the issue. It is literally pharmaceutical fascism by administrative fiat.
With summer rapidly approaching, and millions suffering under repressive lockdown measures, the governments have already engineered an artificial supply (freedom) and demand (holiday travel) for this new policy which they are in completely control of. The British government’s convenient excuse for falling into this seemingly ‘unavoidable’ situation is that a vaccine passport is “going to come on the international stage whatever” for foreign travel as “other countries would insist on it.” In other words, ‘there is no alternative.’ This is patently untrue, but by employing this policy by stealth and laundering via ‘other countries’ politicians can safely push the illegal vaccine passport regime without ever having to take a legal or ethical position on it – in effect, creating a de facto standard by fiat.
By pushing ahead in a bilateral fashion, the UK and Greek governments have created a political juggernaut – an artificial accelerator designed to pressure Brussels to ‘move quicker on the issue’ and thus bypass due process and legal considerations on this issue. The headlines are proving that this is exactly what the UK and Greece have done, with the Financial Times already reporting, “Greece presses EU to ‘move more quickly’ on vaccine passports.”
Behind closed doors, participating governments are attempting to make this highly coercive policy the ‘New Normal’ in perpetuity for international travel.
ITV reports…
Haris Theoharis said Britons who have had the Covid vaccine will be able to travel to Greece and will no longer be required to self-isolate upon arrival. Those who have not been vaccinated will require a negative Covid-19 test before traveling to Greece.
Mr Theoharis said: “We feel that the vaccination programmes is a game changer, together with rapid tests and alongside PCR tests.”
“We feel that vaccination means someone with the required certificates which will be issued by the government will mean you don’t need to have a negative test before the flight.
“But it doesn’t mean that only vaccinated people can travel. We still have the option of a negative test for those who haven’t had a vaccine.”
He added that talks are ongoing between the UK and Greek governments regarding the implementation of a vaccine passport, to prove that visitors have had a jab.
Watch Greece Tourism minister, Haris Theoharis, explain the new rushed policy here:
Here is @GreeceTourism admitting they've been quietly colluding with UK Gov to push through #VaccinePassports without ever consulting public or doing a legal review on issue. Compelling vaccines in order to travel is illegal under international law, but they're doing it anyway… pic.twitter.com/diGIXllIHE
— Patrick Henningsen (@21WIRE) February 25, 2021
*
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.
Featured image is from 21st Century Wire
February 26th, 2021 by Steve Watson
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Scientists at Oxford University have suggested that people may need to have a coronavirus vaccination not once, not twice, but EVERY time they want to travel out of their home country.
The scientists published a report in the Royal Society Journal last week that acknowledged there is little data on how efficient or long lasting the current vaccines are, and so it is likely that countries will require a recent vaccination.
Having endless vaccinations when there is no indication of how effective they are, or what long term side effects there may be sounds absolutely mental, but that is what is being suggested.
Speaking to the London Telegraph, Epidemiologist Christopher Dye, a leading author of the reports stated
“If we thought that the duration of protection was just a matter of months, then the sort of criteria that might be introduced – we’re not saying they should be – is that when one travels internationally for a short trip, going on vacation for example, that one is vaccinated each time on that occasion for that particular trip.”
The scientists also stated that vaccine passports are “feasible,” but only when global standards can be agreed upon.
“An effective vaccine passport system that would allow the return to pre-Covid activities, including travel, without compromising personal or public health, must meet a set of demanding criteria,” said Dye.
Other co-authors of the study wanted that the covid passports, which the government’s vaccines minister has repeatedly said are not going to be used domestically, “need to be fully explored.”
Professor Melinda Mills warned that such a system “could inadvertently discriminate or exacerbate existing inequalities,” adding “The intended use will have significant implications across a wide range of legal and ethical issues.”
“Is it literally a passport to allow international travel or could it be used domestically to allow holders greater freedoms?” Professor Mills further questioned.
“We need a broader discussion about multiple aspects of a vaccine passport, from the science of immunity through to data privacy, technical challenges and the ethics and legality of how it might be used,” Mills added.
In the face of globalists repeatedly pushing for the vaccination passport system, Silkie Carlo, the director of civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, has penned an important op-ed warning that we risk “emerging like some sort of China-adjunct – a high-tech dystopia where citizens flash their vaccine IDs and biological risk scores to buy a pint of milk, or government-approved facial recognition for a pint of beer.”
At this moment, the UK should be showing courage and leadership to build a freer future – to “set the people free”.
Instead, with vaccine IDs and more, the government is offering us a future of more controls, not more freedom.
— Big Brother Watch (@BigBrotherWatch) February 21, 2021
Carlo urged that we “survived the 20th century because our forebearers gave up their lives for freedom. Today, some are willing to give up their freedom for just about anything.”
(..) people can use facial recognition apps connected to government-approved identity systems to verify our age at the local pub.
Govnt is also soon to introduce a Bill to require voter ID, despite only 1 ballot box fraud case in 2017 and 3.5 million Brits who have no photo ID. pic.twitter.com/zcBA0poCUF
— Big Brother Watch (@BigBrotherWatch) February 21, 2021
*
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.
Featured image is from 21st Century Wire
February 26th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
The ghost of Edward Teller must have been doing the rounds between members of the National Commission on Artificial Intelligence. The father of the hydrogen bomb was never one too bothered by the ethical niggles that came with inventing murderous technology. It was not, for instance, “the scientist’s job to determine whether a hydrogen bomb should be constructed, whether it should be used, or how it should be used.” Responsibility, however exercised, rested with the American people and their elected officials.
The application of AI in military systems has plagued the ethicist but excited certain leaders and inventors. Russian President Vladimir Putin has grandiloquently asserted that “it would be impossible to secure the future of our civilization” without a mastery of artificial intelligence, genetics, unmanned weapons systems and hypersonic weapons.
Campaigners against the use of autonomous weapons systems in war have been growing in number. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres is one of them. “Autonomous machines with the power and discretion to select targets and take lives without human involvement,” he wrote on Twitter in March 2019, “are politically unacceptable, morally repugnant and should be prohibited by international law.” The International Committee for Robot Arms Control, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots and Human Rights Watch are also dedicated to banning lethal autonomous weapons systems. Weapons analysts such as Zachary Kallenborn see that absolute position as untenable, preferring a more modest ban on “the highest-risk weapons: drone swarms and autonomous chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons”.
The critics of such weapons systems were far away in the Commission’s draft report for Congress. The document has more than a touch of the mad scientist in the bloody service of a master. This stood to reason, given its chairman was Eric Schmidt, technical advisor to Alphabet Inc., parent company of Google, which he was formerly CEO of. With Schmidt holding the reins, we would be guaranteed a show shorn of moral restraint. “The AI promise – that a machine can perceive, decide, and act more quickly, in a more complex environment, with more accuracy than a human – represents a competitive advantage in any field. It will be employed for military ends, by governments and non-state groups.”
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 23, Schmidt was all about “fundamentals” in keeping the US ascendant. This involved preserving national competitiveness and shaping the military with those fundamentals in mind. But to do so required keeping the eyes of the security establishment wide open for any dangerous competitor. (Schmidt understands Congress well enough to know that spikes in funding and outlays tend to be attached to the promotion of threats.) He sees “the threat of Chinese leadership in key technology areas” as “a national crisis”. In terms of AI, “only the United States and China” had the necessary “resources, commercial might, talent pool, and innovation ecosystem to lead the world”. Within the next decade, Beijing could even “surpass the United States as the world’s AI superpower.”
The testimony is generously spiked with the China threat thesis. “Never before in my lifetime,” he claimed, “have I been more worried that we will soon be displaced by a rival or more aware of what second place means for our economy, our security, and the future of our nation.” He feared that such worries were not being shared by officials, with the DoD treating “software as a low priority”. Here, he could give advice on lessons learned in the spawning enterprises of Silicon Valley, where the principled live short lives. Those dedicated to defence could “form smart teams, drive hard deliverables, and move quickly.” Missiles, he argued, should be built “the way we now build cars: use a design studio to develop and simulate in software.”
This all meant necessarily praising a less repressible form of AI to the heavens, notably in its military applications. Two days of public discussion saw the panel’s vice chairman Robert Work extol the virtues of AI in battle. “It is a moral imperative to at least pursue this hypothesis” claiming that “autonomous weapons will not be indiscriminate unless we design them that way.” The devil is in the human, as it has always been.
In a manner reminiscent of the debates about sharing atomic technology in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Committee urges that the US “pursue a comprehensive strategy in close coordination with our allies and partners for artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and adoption that promotes values critical to free and open societies.” A proposed Emerging Technology Coalition of likeminded powers and partners would focus on the role of “emerging technologies according to democratic norms and values” and “coordinate policies to counter the malign use of these technologies by authoritarian regimes”. Fast forgotten is the fact that distinctions such as authoritarianism and democracy have little meaning at the end of a weapon.
Internal changes are also suggested to ruffle a few feathers. The US State Department comes in for special mention as needing reforms. “There is currently no clear lead for emerging technology policy or diplomacy within the State Department, which hinders the Department’s ability to make strategic technology decisions.” Allies and partners were confused when approaching the State Department as to “which senior official would be their primary point of contact” for a range of topics, be they AI, quantum computing, 5G, biotechnology or new emerging technologies.
Overall, the US government comes in for a battering, reproached for operating “at human speed not machine speed.” It was lagging relative to commercial development of AI. It suffered from “technical deficits that range from digital workforce shortages to inadequate acquisition policies, insufficient network architecture, and weak data practices.”
The official Pentagon policy, as it stands, is that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons systems should be “designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force.” In October 2019, the Department of Defence adopted various ethical principles regarding the military use of AI, making the DoD Artificial Intelligence Centre the focal point. These include the provision that, “DoD personnel will exercise appropriate levels of judgment and care, while remaining responsible for the development, deployment, and use of AI capabilities.” The “traceable” principle is also shot through with the principle of human control, with personnel needing to “possess an appropriate understanding of the technology, development processes, and operational methods applicable to AI capabilities”.
The National Commission pays lip service to such protocols, acknowledging that operators, organisations and “the American people” would not support AI machines not “designed with predictability” and “clear principles” in mind. But the note of warning in not being too morally shackled becomes a screech. Risk was “inescapable” and not using AI “to solve real national security challenges risks putting the United States at a disadvantage”. Especially when it comes to China.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. 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]
February 26th, 2021 by Kim Petersen
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
I learned a while back to be especially skeptical of western mass media and their governments. [1] My experience of life in China is nothing like how western demonization portrays it to be. Therefore, I looked forward to the chance to experience North Korea first hand. I traveled there with a Chinese group departing China. Starting out from Dandong, China, we crossed the Yalu River to Sinuiju, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). From Sinuiji we took a train to Pyongyang and explored other areas of the DPRK in 2017. I wrote about this in “There Are Human Beings in North Korea. Neither Wealthy Nor Poor.” My impression of North Korea was extremely positive, and I look very forward to returning there one day.
A.B. Abrams has written a comprehensive book, Immovable Object: North Korea’s 70 Years at War with American Power, [2] that is extensively footnoted and details how American imperialism works. Abrams does this by focusing on a United States-designated enemy state: the DPRK.
Abrams begins with the history. He writes about the role of Lyuh Woon Hyung (aka Yo Un Hyung) [3] and the seldom-mentioned formation of the People’s Republic of Korea at the end of World War II, a republic that was successfully functioning before the arrival of the Americans in Korea. However, the “independence and nationalist character of the People’s Republic was seen as a threat to American designs for the Korean nation…” and the republic was deposed and outlawed. (p 14)
The US split the peninsula into northern and southern states. The United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) ruled the southern half of the Korean Peninsula using the despised former Japanese occupiers to aid in ruling. Later the US brought in an Americanized Korean, Sygnmann Rhee, to be a dictator. The US staunchly opposed reunification fearing a democratic result that would bring about socialism in the entire peninsula. North Koreans formed their own government and at the outset outperformed the Republic of Korea (ROK, i.e., South Korea) economically.
To maintain a grip, the Americans and Rhee government brutally suppressed socialism in South Korea, committing many massacres. (ch 6) This helped set the stage for war on the peninsula.
Abrams casts serious doubt on the notion that the Korean war started by the North. Several South Korean attacks on North Korean communities “confirmed by U.S. and British intelligence” and the seizure of the small North Korean city of Haeju initially confirmed by South Korean sources. (p 68)
Regardless of whichever side fired the first shots, Abrams posits this may be inconsequential to the actual casus belli. He points to
… the forceful abolishment of the Korean People’s Republic and later extremely brutal suppression of its remnants by the United States Army Military Government with the assistance of youth groups–described as terrorists even by their American allies–and with the backing of the Rhee government itself. (p 59)
After the onset of war, the DPRK almost achieved a quick military victory, but after the US landing at Inchon, the forces and military equipment of the US were too much for the small republic to withstand. In addition, the DPRK was facing a United Nations coalition arranged to back the US. The US pushed back and carried out a scorched earth campaign. General Douglas MacArthur of the UN Forces in Korea referred to the devastation as “a slaughter never heard of in the history of mankind.” (p 65)
Chapters 3 to 8 in Immovable Object are a must read to grasp the magnitude of the extreme brutality and gore fomented by US warfare; the killing of civilians (including South Korean political prisoners); [4] widespread rapes and sexual violence; torture by US forces; its willfulness to lie for imperial ends; the obliteration of agriculture (to create famine), industry, cities, towns, and buildings; firebombing and the use of chemical and biological weapons along with the demands by the US military brass to use nuclear bombs.
*
It is important to realize that the US carries out it warring and provocations against foreign countries often with overwhelming approval of the American populace. Abrams writes that the majority of American citizens supported using nukes against North Korea. (p 131) American public support for warring was also evident by support for intensified bombing by the US during armistice negotiations. (p 224) This American public support was also the case during the US attacks on Muslim nations following 9-11, with 70% of Americans indicating belief in Saddam Hussein being connected to Al Qaeda. (p 390)
*
Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and My Lai are just more recent accounts of the cornucopia of American war crimes. WARNING: The following accounts are graphic!
Kim Sun Ok, 37, the mother of four children [who had been] killed by a bomb, stated that she was evacuated in the village by Americans…. The Americans led her naked through the streets and later killed her by pushing a red-hot iron bar into her vagina. Her small son was buried alive. (p 175)
Kim Sen Ai, another 11-year-old girl…, said she was in the fourth class in school when American soldiers entered her village and apprehended her and her parents. Her mother was a member of the Korean Workers’ Party, and so earned special treatment–her breasts were cut off. Her father was tortured and thrown in a river, and her four-year-old sister was then buried alive. (p 177)
Jo Ok Hi, chairman [sic] of the Haeju women’s organization, was imprisoned and submitted to slow torture. Her eyes were pulled out, and after some time her nose and breasts were cut off. (p 178)
The Commission of the Association of Democratic Lawyers issued a report that concluded:
Taking the view that excessive murders are not the result of individual excesses, but indicate a pattern of behaviour by the U.S. forces throughout the areas occupied by them… the Commission is of the opinion that the American forces are guilty of the crime of Genocide as defined by the Geneva Convention of 1948. (p 183)
With the US military approaching the Yalu River despite warnings from China to steer clear, China entered the war and together China and the DRRK pushed the US-ROK-UN forces back to the middle ground of the peninsula. China had recently emerged from a civil war, and the war on the peninsula was a costly proposition for China.
Americans threw a wrench in talks to end the war by…..
what can only be described as gross violations of the law and serious war crimes. These pertained to the brutal mistreatment of prisoners including killings, medical experimentation, torture and coercion of the most extreme kind to force them to remain behind enemy lines after the war’s end. (p 230)
China has trumpeted the end of the warring 70 years later as a victory for itself and North Korea. Abrams is more circumspect: “Which party, if any, ‘won’ the Korean War [5] remains open to interpretation.” (p 240)
The results reverberate through to today as the clean-up for unexploded American ordnance is estimated to endanger North Koreans for another century. (p 66, 242)
An armistice has been signed but no peace treaty; therefore, the foes remain technically at war. The DPRK has learned from its experience and has made itself militarily adept at defending itself. North Korea has become a leader in underground fortifications, and has placed much of its armaments and materials deep beyond easy reach of missiles. Northerners have also become technically proficient and have developed an intercontinental ballistic missile capability of striking anywhere in the continental US. These missiles can be topped with miniaturized nuclear devices and pose a most credible deterrent. And a deterrent it is, as the DPRK has pledged no first use of nukes — unlike the US. As well, it is well known that the DPRK will not hesitate to respond to provocation. The DPRK’s nuclearization has prevented any attack against it by a rational actor, as both sides would be extremely bloodied and damaged by such a conflict.
It is an important lesson that Iran ought to closely consider: the effectiveness of military strength, including nuclearization, as deterrence. In fact, much of Iran’s missile capability and fortification resulted from cooperation with the DPRK. (p 289-295)
Libya paid the price for
having ignored direct warnings from both Tehran and Pyongyang not to pursue such a course [of unilaterally disarming], Libya’s leadership would later admit that disarmament, neglected military modernisation, and trust in Western good will proved to be their greatest mistake–leaving their country near defenceless when Western powers launched their offensive in 2011. (p 296)
Has South Korea Not Also Paid a Price for Trusting Western Goodwill?
Abrams examines how the ROK has fared as an independent and sovereign state. Is South Korea independent and sovereign? [6] Asked Abrams, “Could America claim to ‘liberate’ southern Korea while at the same time occupying it, forcefully dismantling its existing government and threatening those Koreans who did not abide by its will with death?” (p 310)
Abrams describes the “apparently sadistic pleasure [American] personnel took in tormenting the [South] Korean people…,” (p 312) the objectification of “servile Korean women,” (p 313) and the massive expansion of the Japanese system of comfort station. (p 314) “Methods used to recruit comfort women to serve American soldiers involved rape and violence to disorient and break women in. They would afterwards have little choice but to ‘consent’ to sex work for the U.S. Military.” (p 327)
In contrast,
Pyongyang not only abolished the comfort women system from 1945, but strictly enforced the outlawing of prostitution entirely and establishing formal legal equality for women…. [Thus] the nation’s dignity, pride and right to self-determination were never violated–neither were its women. (p 330)
In the 1990s, the North Koreans were hit hard by weather calamities, crop failures, while the western sanctions continued to be applied, but the DPRK pulled through what they call the Arduous March.
How did the North Koreans resist? Early on, the war-ravaged homefront on the Korean peninsula ably put up a staunch defense, abetted by a Chinese peasant fighting force. North Koreans practiced Juche (self-reliance), and Songun, a military first posture that “is firmly rooted in resistance to external pressure as a means of safeguarding Korea independence.” (p 553) To this end, the DPRK emphasized modernization, advanced technologies, and providing for economic needs.
The DPRK has a no first use of nukes policy, but any strike against the DPRK will result in a lethal counter attack. It must be emphasized that the DPRK military’s orientation is: “among the most defensively oriented in the world, with its power projection capabilities negligible to non-existent–in stark contrast to the U.S. Military which is heavily oriented towards overseas power projection.” (p 437) Along with having achieved a self-sustaining economy that provides the basics for the people, it would appear that the DPRK has withstood, and some would say triumphed, against US machinations aimed at the country and its system of governance.
To be fair, it is not just a US persecution and war crimes against the DPRK. Every country that participates in the sanctions against the DPRK, arguably, has sullied itself. Take Canada, for example; Canadian peace activist James Endicott was harassed by his government for verifying American biological weapon use in the war, in which Canada was also a belligerent against the DPRK. (p 141) Reporter George Barrett wrote that Canadian troops along with US troops committed “widespread and regular rapes.” (p 168, 184) Canada was a destination for human trafficking of young girls and women from South Korea. (p 330)
It must also be pointed out that in stark contrast to western forces raping and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Korea, the Chinese and North Korean troops were highly disciplined in their conduct toward civilians and adversaries. (p 152)
A Highly Recommended Read
Abram has irrefutably laid bare the intentions of US imperialism. Immovable Object leaves no stone unturned. The sordid history of the US toward Koreans, in the north and south, is scrutinized, detailed, and substantiated. It is a battle of ideologies that drives Americans to pursue information warfare (actually a disinformation war) and economic warfare (sabotaging the economies of designated enemy states through sanctions, “a weapon of mass destruction,” and hence the well-being and lives of the people in targeted countries). In the case of imposing US hegemony to Korea, it appears that while the US is succeeding in the ROK, it has suffered ignominious failure against the DPRK.
Immovable Object: North Korea’s 70 Years at War with American Power is a superb book that I most highly recommend. There is so much more information and narrative to be gleaned from Abrams’s book that a review (even as lengthy as this) can touch on. Abrams goes into western media disinformation and propaganda campaigns against the DPRK. He answers why the DPRK state secrecy, media censorship, and why North Korean defector accounts should be regarded with deep skepticism. Read the impeccably substantiated Immovable Object and find out for yourself what undergirds the DPRK’s resistance to US hegemony.
*
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.
Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp@gmail. Twitter: @kimpetersen.
Notes
February 26th, 2021 by Stanford Environmental Law Society
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Students from over 50 leading U.S. law schools — including Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and New York University — have announced a recruiting boycott of a prominent Chevron law firm to protest its “unethical” private prosecution of U.S. human rights lawyer Steven Donziger after he helped win a $9.5 billion pollution judgment against Chevron.
“We pledge to boycott Seward & Kissel recruitment activities in response to the firm’s unethical prosecution of U.S. human rights attorney Steven Donziger,” the students wrote in a letter with signatories representing 52 law schools. “Despite a significant conflict of interest, Seward & Kissel continues to drive Mr. Donziger’s unprecedented 18-month pre-trial detention on misdemeanor contempt charges.”
The letter was organized at Stanford and several other law schools that Seward & Kissel relies on as a pipeline for new hires. Shockingly, the Seward firm is prosecuting Mr. Donziger in the name of the government even though it has a client relationship with Chevron and even though the charges were rejected by the U.S. Attorney in New York.
Seward’s targeting of Mr. Donziger is thought to be the first corporate criminal prosecution in U.S. history and has been called a violation of U.S. and international law by international lawyers who serve on a trial monitoring committee that is tracking the case. (See this background article.)
“We are proud to stand in solidarity with Steven Donziger in the face of this unprecedented assault by Chevron and its allies.” said Catherine Rocchi, the president of Stanford’s Environmental Law Society. “Human rights violations are happening in plain sight in New York City. Seward & Kissel’s behavior is an embarrassment to our courts, the legal profession, and the United States’ global image.”
“This injustice affects all of us,” added Rocchi. “As members of the legal community, we feel obliged to take a stand.”
“We are horrified by the precedent this corrupt prosecution sets,” said Elias Schultz, a Stanford law student who also organized the letter. “No matter what type of employment we will seek after law school, we must avoid firms involved in this assault on human rights lawyering. Seward’s brazen push to punish lawyers who challenge its corporate clients puts it as the top of this list.”
Donziger was instrumental in helping Indigenous peoples and rural farmers in Ecuador’s Amazon win the pollution judgment against Chevron in 2011 after the company was found liable for dumping 16 billion gallons of cancer-causing oil waste onto Indigenous ancestral lands. The judgment has been affirmed for enforcement purposes by 29 appellate judges, including the entire Supreme Courts of Ecuador and Canada.
After having insisted for years that the trial take place in Ecuador, Chevron’s lawyers later vowed never to pay the judgment and have threated the Indigenous groups with a “lifetime of litigation” if they don’t drop their claims. Chevron also pushed for Mr. Donziger to be held in criminal contempt of court after he appealed an apparently unlawful order that he turn over his computer and cell phone to the company – devices that contain highly sensitive and confidential attorney-client information.
Filed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, the contempt charges were rejected by the regular federal prosecutor in New York. Judge Kaplan then appointed the Seward & Kissel law firm to “prosecute” Mr. Donziger knowing the firm had financial ties to Chevron. Kaplan also appointed a judge to preside who is a prominent member of the Chevron-funded Federalist Society, another flagrant conflict of interest.
Even more bizarre is that the Seward firm, via lead partner Rita Glavin, never revealed it had a client relationship with Chevron while pushing for Mr. Donziger’s pre-trial home detention. Glavin herself has a history of ethical lapses that took place when she was a supervisor of the botched prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens in 2008. (See here.)
Legendary U.S. civil rights attorney Martin Garbus—who has represented Nelson Mandela—has called Seward’s prosecution of Mr. Donziger “maybe the most corrupt in contemporary U.S. history”. Mr. Donziger has been locked up in his home for 567 days without trial when the longest sentence ever imposed on a lawyer convicted of contempt is 90 days of home confinement.
Mr. Donziger also was forced to post (via friends) an exorbitant $800,000 bond – higher than the bonds imposed on the four police officers who killed George Floyd (all of whom are free pending trial.) Mr. Donziger is also the only person in U.S history with no criminal record detained on a federal misdemeanor charge, according to his lawyers.
“The unethical behavior of Seward & Kissel’s Chevron-linked prosecutors opens the door to future cases in which judges give private law firms the authority to prosecute the critics of multinational corporations—without disclosing their ties to those same industries,” the law student letter said. “We, the undersigned law students, refuse to consider employment with the firm until it withdraws from its conflicted position as Chevron’s private prosecutor.”
The Seward firm is known for its close ties to the oil and gas industry. One of its leading clients, Oaktree Capital, has two executives who have served on Chevron’s Board of Directors. Ethics expert Ellen Yaroshefsky submitted an affidavit calling on the firm to disqualify itself due to its financial ties to Chevron and Chevron-related entities in the oil industry.
Donziger has won wide support for his principled stand on behalf of his clients. Fifty-five Nobel Laureates have demanded his release and dismissal of the contempt case (here); 475 lawyers and 37 law associations around the world have protested his detention (here); and another 200 lawyers have filed a misconduct complaint against Judge Kapan for his “abusive targeting” of Mr. Donziger (here).
Last week, Amnesty International and 12 other prominent human rights groups sent a letter to incoming U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding a review of the Donziger contempt case and the removal of the Seward & Kissel law firm from its prosecutorial role. Attorney Marty Garbus also wrote a powerful memo explaining why he believes the contempt charges against Mr. Donziger have no valid legal basis.
The students come from an array of U.S. law schools from the entire country – among them the University of Arkansas, University of Arizona, University of Miami, University of Illinois, University of California at Berkeley, Boston College, University of North Carolina, University of Oregon, Georgetown, Penn, and George Washington, among many others. Students from all ten of the nation’s top-ranked law schools are represented.
“Seward and Kissel and other law firms should be put on notice that this campaign will happen repeatedly until unethical private prosecutions of any sort – but particularly those orchestrated by fossil fuel companies like Chevron – are brought to a complete halt,” said Matthew Burton, a third-year law student at Boston College Law School and a signatory.
*
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.
February 26th, 2021 by Bill Sardi
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
The politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been overlooked in the health literature. University-based researchers from different quarters conclude political party affiliation is the strongest factor in the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is a sampling:
State governors, not Federal authorities, have legal control over public health emergencies. Stay-at-home orders were issued by nearly all state governors. Republican governors were slower to adopt stay-at-home orders, if they did so at all, while Democrat governors issued stay-at-home orders of long duration. Political party affiliation was shown to be the most important predictor of state mandates to wear face masks.
The problem is that the protective measures employed to impede the spread of infection and reduce deaths were often nothing more than arbitrary rules with little or no substantiation.
My own investigation found countries where face masks are commonly worn have the highest COVID-19 death rates.
Social distancing is a farce. It is more likely someone will acquire any infectious disease at home due to close contact with family members. The social distancing could be a covert measure to block public meetings against government.
Social distancing, use of face masks and population lockdown could not have been responsible for any decline in COVID-19 infections or deaths as they only delay, not prevent, infectious disease. In fact, lockdowns just resulted in forty-percent of elderly patients getting sick from family members in the same living quarters.
PCR testing has led to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Infectious Disease, states in a July 16, 2020 podcast, says that when the PCR test is run at 35-doubling cycles or higher it cannot be believed or accepted. Most PCR tests have been conducted at 35 doublings.
The COVID-19 deaths also appear to be fraudulent, with patients on their death-bed, diagnosed with COVID-19 infection by a flawed test, are tagged with COVID-19 on their death certificates. Upon audit The Centers For Disease Control itself concedes 94% of COVID-19 deaths were accompanied by life-threatening comorbid conditions, most deaths occurring among elderly patients.
More than 90% of human populations are already positive for at least three of the “common cold” coronaviruses. Prior coronavirus infections confer protection for COVID-19.
About 9 in 10 people diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 may not be carrying enough of it to infect anyone else. The guidelines established by public health authorities to slow or halt the pandemic may be nothing more than stress relievers.
Understand all these lockdowns and social distancing and face masks were to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed while the masses wait for a vaccine. But there may never be a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.
In the end, political operatives needed deaths to frighten the public into acceptance of these draconian measures. Without scrutiny by the nation’s politically slanted news press, fear of death spread rapidly. Reports of shipping containers in hospital parking lots filled with dead bodies that could not be accommodated in hospital morgues was one fear-mongering publicity stunt.
And deaths they did produce, in at least once instance by returning hospitalized infected patients to nursing homes. Then to side-step the political heat for all the deaths, COVID-19 fatality numbers in nursing homes were not completely reported. Americans allowed this to go on because they too were sucked into applying political blame. The pandemic became political theatre. Americans were swept into the false drama. If you refused to wear a face mask you were a public threat. Americans will never face up to reality because the news press keeps beating a political drum. God help you if your loved ones got caught up in this contrived tragedy and paid for it with their lives.
*
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.
Featured image is from The Freedom Articles
February 26th, 2021 by Patrick Delaney
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
With a push for vaccine mandates on the rise, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) has provided a tool to assist state law makers in protecting the rights and dignity of their constituents in the face of such intrusive, dangerous and unnecessary proposals.
The “Vaccine Bill of Rights” (VBOR) was composed “so that state legislatures can re-affirm their commitment to individual rights of conscience, assembly, and movement,” an AFLDS announcement states.
With this draft resolution, AFLDS encourages their readers: “You are now armed with the tools to fight for your freedom. THIS IS YOUR MISSION.”
AFLDS urges everyone to contact their “state representative with a copy of the VBOR urging him/her to pass the resolution immediately.”
In order to help facilitate the dissemination of this critical and urgent appeal to state representatives, the LifeSite Action Center has sponsored a nation-wide “Alert” on its Voter Voice platform, which allows constituents to contact their state legislators in one easy step using a single simple contact form. This system will automatically match citizens to their representatives’ email and / or Twitter accounts, and with a single click they can send their message to them directly. Calling the legislators’ offices is an option provided as well.
The VBOR first reviews how such an initiative is merely an actualization of established Constitutional law as well as federal law reflecting broadly recognized international norms as articulated in the Nuremberg Code of 1947.
The Nuremberg Code came about as a result of the post-World War II trials, convictions and executions of Nazi doctors who had conducted deadly experiments, without the subjects’ consent, on prisoners of war.
The Code’s first and most extensive principle provides the strict conditions for establishing voluntary consent, including that the individual may not be exposed to “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.” In addition, they must have “sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved.”
One such necessary element of legitimate informed consent would include the fact that these experimental vaccines do not enjoy the status of being “FDA-approved,” but have only “a temporary Emergency Use Authorization as experimental (investigational) agents.” As AFLDS founder Dr. Simone Gold affirms elsewhere, this means one is being enrolled in a medical trial when they receive these injections which “almost nobody chooses to do” under normal circumstances when they are provided with this necessary information.
For these reasons and more, the VBOR confirms that it is a violation of federal law to mandate such substances (“21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3”). As the statute reads: “Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies … require … the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”
The VBOR goes on to articulate those human and civil rights it seeks to ensure according to “six general categories of protections for individuals against overweening government and attempted interventions by private businesses and organizations.” These protections include the following:
In a press release announcing the VBOR, AFLDS went on to state, “Mandates, ‘passports’ or any effort to intimidate Americans into taking a vaccine for a virus with a 99.7% survival rate not only is damaging to individual liberty, it also contradicts safe medical practice. Yet state governments, along with powerful private interests, are moving in the direction of requiring inoculations for large segments of our society as a condition to return to a ‘normal’ life. This is wrong.”
“As part of the AFLDS commitment to science-based information exchange, transparency, and accountability, our organization developed this Vaccine Bill of Rights so that state legislatures can re-affirm their commitments to individual rights of conscience, assembly, and movement. America’s Frontline Doctors encourages our representatives to immediately pass this critical measure, direct public health officials to comply, and preserve the freedom of their constituents.”
The LifeSite Action Alert clarifies that the fundamental rights listed above are “at risk of total violation thanks to extreme government efforts around the world to force people to get vaccinated.”
“The AFLDS proposal is a reasonable, responsible, and reassuring step in the right direction as we move into the next phase of the pandemic, and state legislators should either introduce its provisions as legislation or model their proposal after them,” the Alert states.
“No one – not the government, employers, nor any individual – should maintain the authority to force anyone to get vaccinated, and a Vaccine Bill of Rights in your state will ensure that they don’t.”
To access the Voter Voice system, and quickly message your state representatives on this crucial topic, please click here.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from Shutterstock
February 26th, 2021 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Mein Herr,
Am heutigen 25. Februar 2021 meldeten die deutschen Medien, dass Sie bei einem digitalen Gespräch mit Bürgern aus Bayern zur Akzeptanz aller Impfstoffe aufgerufen hätten. Laut „Deutsches Ärzteblatt“ hätten Sie bei den Bundesbürgern um Vertrauen in alle zugelassenen Impfstoffe gegen das Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 geworben. Außerdem hätten Sie kein Verständnis für die Zurückhaltung gegenüber dem einen oder anderen Impfstoff geäußert. Diese Zauderei sei ein „Luxusproblem“. Wissenschaftliche Studien zeigten laut „Ärzteblatt“, „dass alle von der Europäischen Arzneimittel-Agentur (EMA) genehmigten Impfstoffe wirksam und verträglich seien.“ Wörtlich sagten Sie:
„Das ist ein Luxusproblem, (…) Erst recht aus der Sicht von Millionen Menschen, die noch auf die erste Dosis warten. Schneller zu impfen, das ist das Gebot der Stunde. (…) Und dafür verdienen alle zugelassenen Impfstoffe unser Vertrauen.“ (See this)
Mein Herr!
Ich kann nur schwer in anständige Worte fassen, was ich bei dieser Meldung empfand. Ich bin Erziehungswissenschaftler, Diplom-Psychologe und arbeitete Jahrzehnte als Professor in der Erwachsenenbildung in Deutschland und in der Schweiz. Als unabhängiger Wissenschaftler bin ich aufgrund meiner internationalen Vernetzung mit sicheren Freunden und Kollegen sehr gut über die sehr fragliche „Wirksamkeit“ und „Verträglichkeit“ vor allem der in Deutschland angebotenen Impfstoffe informiert und verstehe das Zögern der Mitbürger.
Dass Sie mit dem Gewicht des Ersten Mannes im Staate und als Jurist und Christ in das gleiche Horn blasen wie Big Pharma und suspekte Wissenschaftler, hat mich sehr empört und erschüttert. Es bestätigte meinen Argwohn gegenüber Politikern – niedergeschrieben in einem Büchlein mit dem Titel „Keinem die Macht übergeben! Ein psychologisches Manifest des gesunden Menschenverstands“.
Am 18. Dezember 2020 schrieb ich angesichts des Corona-Pandemie-Schwindels als einem Verbrechen gegen die Zivilgesellschaften weltweit einen Artikel mit dem Titel: „Wann ist der nächste ‚Nürnberger Prozess‘ fällig?“ Darin zitierte ich einen Ausschnitt aus der Eröffnungsrede des US-amerikanischen Chefanklägers im Nürnberger Prozess, Robert H. Jackson. Er sagte am 21.11.1945:
„…Wir dürfen niemals vergessen, dass nach dem gleichen Maß, mit dem wir die angeklagten heute messen, auch wir morgen von der Geschichte gemessen werden. Diesen Angeklagten einen vergifteten Becher reichen, bedeutet, ihn an unsere eigenen Lippen zu bringen.“
Vielleicht überdenken Sie Ihre Äußerungen ja noch einmal.
Dipl.-Psych. Dr. Rudolf Hänsel
Zur Zeit: Belgrad / Serbien
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.
Featured image is CC BY-SA 3.0
February 26th, 2021 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Sir,
Today, 25 February 2021, the German media reported that you had appealed to citizens of Bavaria to accept all vaccines during a digital conversation. According to the “Deutsches Ärzteblatt”, you would have appealed to the German citizens to trust in all approved vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Moreover, you would not have expressed any understanding for the hesitation towards one or the other vaccine. This procrastination was a “luxury problem”. According to “Ärzteblatt”, scientific studies showed “that all vaccines approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were effective and tolerable.” Literally, you said:
“This is a luxury problem, (…) Especially from the point of view of millions of people who are still waiting for the first dose. To vaccinate faster, that is the order of the day. (…) And for that, all approved vaccines deserve our trust.”(See this)
Sir!
I find it difficult to put into decent words what I felt at this news item. I am an educationalist, a graduate psychologist and worked for decades as a professor in adult education in Germany and Switzerland. As an independent scientist, I am very well informed about the very questionable “efficacy” and “tolerability”, especially of the vaccines offered in Germany, due to my international networking with safe friends and colleagues, and I understand the hesitation of my fellow citizens.
The fact that you, with the weight of the First Man in the State and as a lawyer and Christian, are blowing the same horn as Big Pharma and suspect scientists, has greatly outraged and shaken me. It confirmed my suspicion of politicians – written down in a booklet entitled “Don’t hand over power to anyone! A Psychological Manifesto of Common Sense”.
On 18 December 2020, in light of the Corona pandemic hoax as a crime against civil societies worldwide, I wrote an article entitled: “When is the next ‘Nuremberg Trial’ due?” In it I quoted an excerpt from the opening speech of the US Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trial, Robert H. Jackson. He said on 21.11.1945:
“…We must never forget that by the same standard by which we measure the accused today, we too will be measured by history tomorrow. To hand these accused a poisoned cup is to bring it to our own lips.”
Perhaps you will reconsider your remarks.
Dipl.-Psych. Dr. Rudolf Hänsel
Currently: Belgrade / Serbia
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is CC BY-SA 3.0
February 26th, 2021 by Andrew McCormick
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Texas had only just frozen over. In the wake of a devastating winter storm, millions in the state were without power and struggling to find warmth. They boiled snow for water; some were dying. And against all evidence the anti-climate political right was grousing about windmills and blaming a Green New Deal that doesn’t yet exist.
“Unbeknownst to most people, the Green New Deal came to Texas,” Tucker Carlson said on February 16 on Fox News. “The power grid in the state became totally reliant on windmills. Then it got cold, and the windmills broke, because that’s what happens in the Green New Deal.” An hour later, on Hannity, routinely America’s most-watched cable news program, Texas governor Greg Abbott said his state’s predicament “shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America.” In the days that followed, similar disinformation was repeated across Fox News and Fox Business programming, on competitor right-wing outlets OAN and Newsmax, in right-leaning newspapers, and in myriad statements by Republican elected officials.
These claims were nonsense. Texas runs primarily on natural gas, and it was frozen pipelines and wells—amid an energy infrastructure not designed to withstand cold—that were most responsible for the blackouts. Moreover, in the spirit of deregulation, state officials years ago had isolated their grid from the rest of the country, meaning Texas was unable to import electricity from elsewhere to keep the lights on. Some windmills did freeze, but only because they weren’t winterized—not due to an innate vulnerability of windmills in general.
In the reality-based press, experts defended renewable energy, and outlets issued explainers debunking Republican assertions. As the saying goes, though, a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its shoes on. And so a story that should have been about Texans in need and a harrowing warning of the climate emergency turning life upside down was instead given over to a political mud fight—and that’s when it wasn’t reduced to a story about the high-flying misadventures of Ted Cruz.
Of course, disinformation is nothing new to the climate story. Exceptional investigative journalism has shown that fossil fuel companies knew as far back as the 1970s that their operations threatened humanity’s future, but they kept silent to keep their profits flowing. Now the fossil fuel industry is decidedly on the defensive—losing in the court of public opinion, shedding investors, and facing a new US president who vows expansive climate action. It’s no surprise the industry and its backers are again turning to disinformation. Judging by the chorus that followed the Texas freeze, they’re willing to get louder.
The question is, what can, and should, journalists do about that?
The best approach, simple as it sounds, is to lead with the facts, not punditry, says Kristy Roschke, managing director of the News Co/Lab at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism. Reporters should favor local sources and expertise over outsiders; coverage of the Texas storms that centered in-state climate and energy experts was exemplary. And as much as possible, journalists should focus on information that people need to make real-world decisions; if disinformation is often meant to distract, Roschke says, “the counter to distraction is usefulness.”
Above all, Roschke says, journalists must shirk the habit of framing everything as a two-sided debate. “We can’t keep reinforcing the debate when there’s no debate there,” Roschke says.
Research shows that repetition affects both how our brains imprint information and the claims we judge as true. Repeating falsehoods, then, even to debunk, can inadvertently reinforce them. A tool journalists can use to avoid this trap is what retired UC Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff calls a “truth sandwich”—that is, presenting disinformation between two statements of truth. For example: Power outages in Texas were caused mainly by gas and coal-fired power plants freezing up. Some right-wing media figures and Republican politicians have instead inaccurately blamed renewable energy and the Green New Deal. But wind and solar energy in fact fared better than fossil fuels did during the Texas cold snap, and the Green New Deal does not exist yet, either at the federal level or in the state of Texas.
Many pieces in the wake of the freeze instead led with false statements from officials, even when reporters’ intentions were to call them out. “The aspiration of journalists here is good, it’s to help people,” Roschke says. But the effect is to let disinformation drive the news agenda. By treating bad-faith arguments as worthy points of public discourse, journalists inadvertently lend credibility to false notions that climate change or the need for green energy are up for debate, when the science clearly says otherwise. “It becomes this self-perpetuating cycle,” Roschke says. “Childish behavior and posturing around a topic become news, because elected officials are noteworthy. That news then reinforces those false narratives, which makes politicians keep feeding into [the cycle].”
That’s not to say intensive fact-checking doesn’t have its place. But for the average newsroom, dedicating too much time and space to batting down untruths—from determined bad-faith actors, no less—can come at the expense of the actual news. “No, frozen windmills didn’t cause the Texas blackouts” is perhaps a satisfying headline to write. But to readers searching for the truth—who, crucially, may never read past the headline—it sustains a lie, Roschke says. (Open-ended headlines like “Did frozen windmills cause the blackouts?” are worse.)
If they’re careful, journalists can examine false narratives to gain insight into genuine concerns and questions audiences may have, says Shaydanay Urbani, who conducts research and training at First Draft, a nonprofit helping journalists and the public defend against disinformation. “Most misinformation has a kernel of truth,” Urbani says. The common charge from the political right that green energy will kill jobs, for example, is partially true, insofar as the fossil-fuel industry will necessarily contract in an energy transition. The argument ignores the fact that market forces are shifting to renewables already and that more jobs are being created in green energy than are being lost in fossil fuels. But it’s only natural that audiences would fear job loss and what change will mean for their communities—why fossil fuel backers harp on the specter of lost jobs in the first place. “What reporters can do,” Urbani says, “is dig into those narratives that misinformation plays into and then do stories that address those concerns, while emphasizing the truth.” Put differently: “Try to use the misinformation to understand the deeper concerns people have and provide reporting that answers those concerns.”
Granted, all of this is easier said than done. Disinformation is easy, because it employs simple narratives and plays to people’s emotions. Careful and nuanced reporting is hard, especially at a time when many newsrooms are strapped for resources. What’s more, the imperatives of social media and search-engine optimization make it more complicated than ever to frame a story. And even pitch-perfect stories exist in a fast-moving information ecosystem where best intentions can be effortlessly ripped out of context and repurposed to serve all manner of agendas.
At the end of the day, though, the public desires good information. With meaningful climate action now on the table, the usual suspects can be counted on to lie and obfuscate. This poses a challenge for journalists, but it could also be an opportunity to recover public trust and win over new audiences. “I think newsrooms should think of misinformation and disinformation as an opportunity to earn their audiences,” Urbani says. “We can always be doing more to connect with people.”
*
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.
Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons
February 26th, 2021 by Michael T. Klare
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Introduction
It began with fire. It ended with ice. In between, there were the storms and floods. And the extremity of it all should have caught anyone’s attention.
First, of course, there was that burning season that set staggering records across California— four million acres incinerated, double the previous high — Oregon, and Washington. Those devastating burns spread as far east as Colorado at a moment when the Southwest may well have entered a climate-change-induced “megadrought.”
Then, of course, there was that Atlantic hurricane season: a record fifth-straight above-normal season with 30 named storms stretching across two alphabets, 12 of which “landed” with often devastating effect in this country. Let’s not forget those floods either, one of which set a record in Michigan.
And finally, of course, as 2021 began, the stunning winter storms with record cold and ice that essentially turned Texas into a failed state. Millions of Texans were left without power or running water in freezing temperatures evidently caused at least in part because the Arctic is rapidly overheating, pushing frigid air southward in winter. Of course, the governor of Texas promptly went on Fox News to assure those iced-in millions that it was all the fault of alternative energy systems. (It wasn’t, not faintly.)
And keep in mind that such climate extremity is becoming the norm. After all, the last seven years have been the hottest in recorded history and 2020 tied for the warmest of them all.
Such records (a word that, when it comes to climate change, has to be used again and again) should be daunting enough to make one thing obvious, as TomDispatch regularMichael Klare, author of All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change, points out today: the two greatest greenhouse gas emitters on planet Earth, the United States and China, desperately need to collaborate to bring climate change under control. It’s so self-evident it should hardly need to be said and yet, eerily enough, as Klare has been reporting, the U.S. and China seem ever more locked into a new, increasingly militarized, cold-war-style relationship, one that the Biden administration seems by no means prepared to avert. Under the circumstances, that’s the definition of a catastrophe.
-Tom
*
A New Cold War = A Scalding Planet
by Michael T. Klare
Slowing the pace of climate change and getting “tough” on China, especially over its human-rights abuses and unfair trade practices, are among the top priorities President Biden has announced for his new administration. Evidently, he believes that he can tame a rising China with harsh pressure tactics, while still gaining its cooperation in areas of concern to Washington. As he wrote in Foreign Affairs during the presidential election campaign, “The most effective way to meet that challenge is to build a united front of U.S. allies and partners to confront China’s abusive behaviors and human rights violations, even as we seek to cooperate with Beijing on issues where our interests converge, such as climate change.” If, however, our new president truly believes that he can build an international coalition to gang up on China andsecure Beijing’s cooperation on climate change, he’s seriously deluded. Indeed, though he could succeed in provoking a new cold war, he won’t prevent the planet from heating up unbearably in the process.
Biden is certainly aware of the dangers of global warming. In that same Foreign Affairs article, he labeled it nothing short of an “existential threat,” one that imperils the survival of human civilization. Acknowledging the importance of relying on scientific expertise (unlike our previous president who repeatedly invented his own version of scientific reality), Biden affirmed the conclusion of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that warming must be limitedto 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels or there will be hell to pay. He then pledged to “rejoin the Paris climate agreement on day one of a Biden administration,” which he indeed did, and to “make massive, urgent investments at home that put the United States on track to have a clean energy economy with net-zero [greenhouse gas] emissions by 2050” — the target set by the IPCC.
Even such dramatic actions, he indicated, will not be sufficient. Other countries will have to join America in moving toward a global “net-zero” state in which any carbon emissions would be compensated for by equivalent carbon removals. “Because the United States creates only 15 percent of global emissions,” he wrote, “I will leverage our economic and moral authority to push the world to determined action, rallying nations to raise their ambitions and push progress further and faster.”
China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases right now (although the U.S. remains number one historically), would obviously be Washington’s natural partner in this effort. Here, though, Biden’s antagonistic stance toward that country is likely to prove a significant impediment. Rather than prioritize collaboration with China on climate action, he chose to castigate Beijing for its continued reliance on coal. The Biden climate plan, he wrote in Foreign Affairs, “includes insisting that China… stop subsidizing coal exports and outsourcing pollution to other countries by financing billions of dollars’ worth of dirty fossil-fuel energy projects through its Belt and Road Initiative.” Then he went further by portraying the future effort to achieve a green economy as a potentially competitive, not collaborative, struggle with China, saying,
“I will make investment in research and development a cornerstone of my presidency, so that the United States is leading the charge in innovation. There is no reason we should be falling behind China or anyone else when it comes to clean energy.”
Unfortunately, though he’s not wrong on China’s climate change challenges (similar, in many respects, to our own country’s), you can’t have it both ways. If climate change is an existential threat and international collaboration between the worst greenhouse gas emitters key to overcoming that peril, picking fights with China over its energy behavior is a self-defeating way to start. Whatever obstacles China does pose, its cooperation in achieving that 1.5-degree limit is critical. “If we don’t get this right, nothing else will matter,” Biden said of global efforts to deal with climate change. Sadly, his insistence on pummeling China on so many fronts (and appointing China hawks to his foreign policy team to do so) will ensure that he gets it wrong. The only way to avert catastrophic climate change is for the United States to avoid a new cold war with China by devising a cooperative set of plans with Beijing to speed the global transition to a green economy.
Why Cooperation Is Essential
With such cooperation in mind, let’s review the basics on how those two countries affect world energy consumption and global carbon emissions: the United States and China are the world’s two leading consumers of energy and its two main emitters of carbon dioxide, or CO2, the leading greenhouse gas. As a result, they exert an outsized influence on the global climate equation. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), China accounted for approximately 22% of world energy consumption in 2018; the U.S., 16%. And because both countries rely so heavily on fossil fuels for energy generation — China largely on coal, the U.S. more on oil and natural gas — their carbon-dioxide emissions account for an even larger share of the global total: China alone, nearly 29% in 2018; the U.S., 18%; and combined, an astonishing 46%.
It’s what will happen in the future, though, that really matters. If the world is to keep global temperatures from rising above that 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold, every major economy should soon be on a downward-trending trajectory in terms of both fossil-fuel consumption and CO2 emissions (along with a compensating increase in renewable energy output). Horrifyingly enough, however, on their current trajectories, over the next two decades the combined fossil-fuel consumption and carbon emissions of China and the United States are still expected to rise, not fall, before stabilizing in the 2040s at a level far above net zero. According to the IEA, if the two countries stick to anything like their current courses, their combined fossil-fuel consumption would be approximately 17% higher in 2040 than in 2018, even if their CO2 emissions would rise by “only” 3%. Any increase of that kind over the next two decades would spell one simple word for humanity: D-O-O-M.
True, both countries are expected to substantially increase their investment in renewable energy during the next 20 years, even as places like India are expected to account for an ever-increasing share of global energy use and CO2 emissions. Still, as long as Beijing and Washington continue to lead the world in both categories, any effort to achieve net-zero and avert an almost unimaginable climate cataclysm will have to fall largely on their shoulders. This would, however, require a colossal reduction in fossil-fuel consumption and the ramping up of renewables on a scale unlike any engineering project this planet has ever seen.
The Institute of Climate Change and Sustainable Development at Tsinghua University, an influential Chinese think tank, has calculated what might be involved in reshaping China’s coal-dependent electrical power system to reach the goal of a 1.5-degree limit on global warming. Its researchers believe that, over the next three decades, this would require adding the equivalent of three times current global wind power capacity and four times that of solar power at the cost of approximately $20 trillion.
A similar transformation will be required in the United States, although with some differences: while this country relies far less on coal than China to generate electricity, it relies more on natural gas (a less potent emitter of CO2, but a fossil fuel nonetheless) and its electrical grid — as recent events in Texas have demonstrated — is woefully unprepared for climate change and will have to be substantially rebuilt at enormous cost.
And that represents only part of what needs to be done to avert planetary catastrophe. To eliminate carbon emissions from oil-powered vehicles, both countries will have to replace their entire fleets of cars, vans, trucks, and buses with electric-powered ones and develop alternative fuels for their trains, planes, and ships — an undertaking of equal magnitude and expense.
There are two ways all of this can be done: separately or together. Each country could devise its own blueprint for such a transition, developing its own green technologies and seeking financing wherever it could be found. As in the fight over fifth generation (5G) telecommunications, each could deny scientific knowledge and technical know-how to its rival and insist that allies buy only its equipment, whether or not it best suits their purposes — a stance taken by the Trump administration with respect to the Chinese company Huawei’s 5G wireless technology. Alternatively, the U.S. and China could cooperate in developing green technologies, share information and know-how, and work together in disseminating them around the world.
On the question of which approach is more likely to achieve success, the answer is too obvious to belabor. Only those prepared to risk civilization’s survival would choose the former — and yet that’s the choice that both sides may indeed make.
Why a New Cold War Precludes Climate Salvation
Those in Washington who favor a tougher approach toward China and the bolstering of U.S. military forces in the Pacific claim that, under President Xi Jinping, the Chinese Communist regime has become more authoritarian at home and more aggressive abroad, endangering key U.S. allies in the Pacific and threatening our vital interests. Certainly, when it comes to the increasing repression of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang Province or pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, there can be little doubt of Beijing’s perfidy, though on other issues, there’s room for debate. On another subject, though, there really should be no room for debate at all: the impact of a new cold war between the planet’s two great powers on the chances for a successful global response to a rapidly warming planet.
There are several obvious reasons for this. First, increased hostility will ensure a competitive rather than collaborative search for vital solutions, resulting in wasted resources, inadequate financing, duplicative research, and the stalled international dissemination of advanced green technologies. A hint of such a future lies in the competitive rather than collaborative development of vaccines for Covid-19 and their distressingly chaotic distribution to Africa and the rest of the developing world, ensuring that the pandemic will have a life into 2022 or 2023 with an ever-rising death toll.
Second, a new cold war will make international diplomacy more difficult when it comes to ensuring worldwide compliance with the Paris climate agreement. Consider it a key lesson for the future that cooperation between President Barack Obama and Xi Jinping made the agreement possible in the first place, creating pressure on reluctant but vital powers like India and Russia to join as well. Once President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement, that space evaporated and global adherence withered. Only by recreating such a U.S.-China climate alliance will it be possible to corral other key players into full compliance. As suggested recently by Todd Stern, the lead American negotiator at the 2015 Paris climate summit, “There is simply no way to contain climate change worldwide without full-throttle engagement by both countries.”
A cold war environment would make such cooperation a fantasy.
Third, such an atmosphere would ensure a massive increase in military expenditures on both sides, sopping up funds needed for the transition to a green-energy economy. In addition, as the pace of militarization accelerated, fossil-fuel use would undoubtedly increase, as the governments of both countries favored the mass production of gas-guzzling tanks, bombers, and warships.
Finally, there is no reason to assume a cold war will always remain cold. The current standoff between the U.S. and China in the Pacific is different from the one that existed between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in Europe during the historic Cold War. There is no longer anything like an “Iron Curtain” to define the boundaries between the two sides or keep their military forces from colliding with each another. While the risk of war in Europe was ever-present back then, each side knew that such a boundary-crossing assault might trigger a nuclear exchange and so prove suicidal. Today, however, the air and naval forces of China and the U.S. are constantly intermingling in the East and South China Seas, making a clash or collision possible at any time. So far, cooler heads have prevailed, preventing such encounters from sparking armed violence, but as tensions mount, a hot war between the U.S. and China cannot be ruled out.
Because American forces are poised to strike at vital targets on the Chinese mainland, it’s impossible to preclude China’s use of nuclear weapons or, if preparations for such use are detected, a preemptive U.S. nuclear strike. Any full-scale thermonuclear conflagration resulting from that would probably cause a nuclear winter and the death of billions of people, making the climate-change peril moot. But even if nuclear weapons are not employed, a war between the two powers could result in immense destruction in China’s industrial heartland and to such key U.S. allies as Japan and South Korea. Fires ignited in the course of battle would, of course, add additional carbon to the atmosphere, while the subsequent breakdown in global economic activity would postpone by years any transition to a green economy.
An Alliance for Global Survival
If Joe Biden genuinely believes that climate change is an “existential threat” and that the United States “must lead the world,” it’s crucial that he stop the slide toward a new cold war with China and start working with Beijing to speed the transition to a green-energy economy focused on ensuring global compliance with the Paris climate agreement. This would not necessarily mean abandoning all efforts to pressure China on human rights and other contentious issues. It’s possible to pursue human rights, trade equity, and planetary survival at the same time. Indeed, as both countries come to share the urgency of addressing the climate crisis, progress on other issues could become easier.
Assuming Biden truly means what he says about overcoming the climate threat and “getting it right,” here are some of the steps he could take to achieve meaningful progress:
So, Joe, if you really meant what you said about overcoming climate change, these are some of the things you should focus on to get it right. Choose this path and guarantee us all a fighting chance to avert civilizational collapse. Opt for the path of confrontation instead — the one your administration already appears headed down — and that hope is likely to disappear into an unbearable world of burning, flooding, famine, and extreme storms until the end of time. After all, without remarkable effort, a simple formula will rule all our lives: a new cold war = a scalding planet.
*
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.
Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. He is the author of 15 books, the latest of which is All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change.
Featured image is from OneWorld
February 26th, 2021 by Jeffrey A. Tucker
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
There is a sense in the air that the pandemic is winding down, and the toxic culture of division, fear, and hatred along with it. Cases are down dramatically. Deaths too. Hospitalizations are no longer irregular. Restrictions are being repealed. You can follow all the action daily at the CDC’s new and unusually competent landing page on the virus (it only took them a year to build this).
Despite all the talk of a new normal and infinite mandates, there is hope that it could all unwind quickly, pushed by force of public impatience and frustration with restrictions, and a political scramble to avoid responsibility by running away from all that they did for the last year.
The list of signs and symbols could be made very long.
The people who have committed their careers and lives to this pandemic and the policies surrounding it might soon need to find a new raison d’etre. Then the clean up begins – how did this happen, who did it, how to make sure it never happens again – and does not end perhaps for decades.
It’s been fascinating to see the early drafts on the reasons why. There will be some perfunctory efforts to credit lockdowns, masks, human separation, and closures for somehow making the virus go away. The trouble is that there is no evidence of this. There is evidence for many other explanations having to do with herd immunity and “seasonality” (another way of saying the pathogen comes and then goes) and possibly more precision in testing.
For example, this new article by the very sensible Jennifer Beam Dowd of Oxford names many factors (while downplaying the role of vaccines) but says of masks and so on that it is “challenging to identify their specific effects, and cases are dropping in almost all states even with a wide range of policies.”
Indeed!
The reckoning will be taking place for months if not years. In the end people will be left wondering why we took such extreme measures that wrecked so many lives when the endemic equilibrium comes in time regardless of all these measures. We tried a crazy experiment in social and economic control and we are left with scant evidence that it made much difference on the virus but vast evidence that they demoralized and ruined life for billions of people.
What about the opening? There will continue to be those who will cower in fear, still dealing with the deep psychological trauma that comes from watching TV journalists scream panic for the better part of a year. But there will be an emerging majority that will be more than willing to go back to real life.
My go-to book on the pandemic and the response has been Albert Camus’s remarkable novel The Plague. He wrote it as partially autobiographical about his own quarantine. It was published in 1947. It still stands as a brilliant account of the sociology and psychology of fear during pandemic and lockdown.
As we approach the end of the novel, the plague begins to lift, not because of anything that the townspeople did or because of the restrictions on their lives. It lifts because the virus ran its pandemic course. What’s striking is how quickly the dawn of normalcy happens, followed by a new appreciation for life, fun, revelry, and exuberance.
As people begin to see the end, Camus records the fictional scene.
No doubt the plague was not yet ended—a fact of which they were to be reminded; still, in imagination they could already hear, weeks in advance, trains whistling on their way to an outside world that had no limit, and steamers hooting as they put out from the harbor across shining seas. Next day these fancies would have passed and qualms of doubt returned. But for the moment the whole town was on the move, quitting the dark, lugubrious confines where it had struck its roots of stone, and setting forth at last, like a shipload of survivors, toward a land of promise….
In streets and squares people were dancing. Within twenty-four hours the motor traffic had doubled and the ever more numerous cars were held up at every turn by merry-making crowds. Every church bell was in full peal throughout the afternoon, and the bells filled the blue and gold sky with their reverberations. Indeed, in all the churches thanksgiving services were being held. But at the same time the places of entertainment were packed, and the cafés, caring nothing for the morrow, were producing their last bottles of liquor. A noisy concourse surged round every bar, including loving couples who fondled each other without a thought for appearances. All were laughing or shouting. The reserves of emotion pent up during those many months when for everybody the flame of life burned low were being recklessly squandered to celebrate this, the red-letter day of their survival. Tomorrow real life would begin again, with its restrictions. But for the moment people in very different walks of life were rubbing shoulders, fraternizing. The leveling-out that death’s imminence had failed in practice to accomplish was realized at last, for a few gay hours, in the rapture of escape.
And so on goes the opening, slowly at first, then quickly, then all at once. The decisive turn is when the public returns to thinking rationally, refuses to be locked up anymore, and decides to trust themselves and the medical profession rather than the powerful elites who only pretend to manage disease. The trauma lasts, of course, but the healing also begins.
Last April, in a more naive time, I truly did imagine that these lockdowns and restrictions could not last. I had underestimated both the public panic and the government’s willingness to double- and triple-down on unworkable policies.
I also overestimated what I had previously imagined to be a widespread commitment to liberty and property that would have inspired some public revolt early on. So here we are a full year later, with the reports of lockdown carnage pouring in by the day and hour. It’s a gigantic mess, to be sure, but the end does seem to be in view, and thank goodness for that. Let the blowback begin.
*
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.
Jeffrey A. Tucker is Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research. He is the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and nine books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.
Jeffrey is available for speaking and interviews via his email. Tw | FB | LinkedIn
Featured image is from Inga – stock.adobe.com
February 26th, 2021 by Cuban News Agency
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
In the six decades of Cuban medical collaboration abroad, its health personnel have assisted 1.988 billion people in the world, almost a third of mankind, said Dr. Jorge Delgado Bustillo, director of the Central Unit for Medical Cooperation (UCCM).
Delgado Bustillo also assured that Cuban doctors have performed more than 14,500,000 surgical operations, 4,470,000 deliveries and have saved 8,700,000 lives, results that increase the prestige of Cuban medicine in the international arena.
Currently, when the COVID-19 pandemic causes the death of thousands of people every day, more than 30,407 Cuban health professionals are in 66 nations, distributed in permanent medical brigades and the Henry Reeve Contingent.
He pointed out that at the request of governments, this force arrived for the first time in Europe, in the Italian region of Lombardy and the city of Turin; it was also in the Principality of Andorra and in dozens of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
He also mentioned that out of the 56 brigades that were created to fight SARS-CoV-2, 25 are active, with around 2,500 collaborators.
The UCCM director affirmed that this is not the first time Cuba has taken the lead in this health emergency, and recalled its presence after the earthquake in Pakistan in 2005, and in 2010 during another earthquake in Haiti and the cholera epidemic, when Cuban doctors were the first to attend to the victims and identify the disease in that country.
There were also 265 of our professionals in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea Conakry, during the Ebola epidemic in 2014, while from Cuba another 12,000 volunteers were ready to fulfill that mission, the official stressed.
Delgado Bustillo remarked that the island has thousands of health professionals who voluntarily go to the most distant nations and under the most difficult conditions, without any pressure, since it is a spontaneous decision of each one of them.
The fraternal history with other nations dates back to 1960, when an emergency brigade went to Chile to help the victims of an earthquake of 9.5 on the Richter scale in the southern city of Valdivia, the largest earthquake ever registered in history.
Three years later, Cuban medical collaboration officially began with the sending of permanent brigades to the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, a nation that had achieved its independence after the end of an anti-colonial war with France.
Since then, Cuba has been present in more than 150 countries with more than 420,000 health professionals.
*
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.
Featured image is from Cuban News Agency
February 25th, 2021 by Global Research News
The Covid Outbreak: “Biggest Health Scam of the 21st Century.” Report by 1500 Health Professionals
By
, February 25 2021We are health professionals of the international collective : United Health Professionals, composed of more than 1,500 members (including professors of medicine, intensive care physicians and infectious disease specialists) from different countries of Europe, Africa, America, Asia and Oceania.
The Pine-eyed Boy Escapes from the Belly of the Dark Night in the Fish’s Tale
By
, February 25 2021We are now living in a world where freedom’s flashing lightning bolts have been replaced by dim grim grimaces of widespread depression and resignation as the shroud of solicitous neofascism descends on much of the world.
Scientists Show COVID Tests Are ‘Useless’, Are Based on ‘Flawed Science’
By
, February 25 2021The original scientific paper establishing RT-PCR tests as the way to identify COVID-19 in individuals, thus fueling the lockdowns across the globe, has been thoroughly debunked by scientists, who call the tests “useless” and “completely unsuitable” to find COVID-19.
Lets Us Put an End to the Corona Pandemic Hoax: We Are Victims and Perpetrators at the Same Time
By
, February 25 2021“There exists an unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It is outrageous, this is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting society.” This is what top Canadian pathologist and virologist Dr Roger Hodkinson told Canadian government officials about Corona back in late November 2020.
Democrats Ask Biden to Surrender Keys on Nuclear Weapons Launches
By
, February 25 2021House Democrats have asked President Joe Biden to give other officials the authority to launch nuclear weapons, an action which he currently has sole authority to do.
Is the Virus “Variant” Being Used to Scare People into Getting Vaccinated?
By
, February 25 2021Is this new mutation, called the “variant”, really as deadly as it’s cracked up to be or is the media conjuring up another Covid hobgoblin to scare the public into getting vaccinated?
By
, February 25 2021Today, February 24, 72 organizations and 700 individuals published an open letter calling for the Biden administration to end its illegal and destructive intervention in Haiti.
Synthetic mRNA COVID Vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis
By
, February 25 2021With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?
US Destroys Anti-fascist Forces, Stalin’s Failed Efforts to Align with West
By
, February 25 2021On 18 March 1938 Stalin proposed that Britain and France join the USSR in a conference to enforce collective security. This offer, a potential forerunner to a Franco-British-Russo alliance aimed at Hitler, was rejected.
Unrelenting, Omnipresent Covid Fear “Short Circuits the Human Brain”
By
, February 25 2021As we rapidly approach the one year anniversary of Covid madness I’ll freely admit I’ve been shocked by the millions upon millions of American’s who appear so traumatized they are unable to think clearly.
By
, February 25 2021Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year’s Eve decree to phase out use of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn.
The Empty Promise of Western-Style “Equality” and “Democracy”
By
, February 25 2021February 25th, 2021 by Jewish Voice for Peace
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
From Menlo Park to Dublin, Johannesburg to Tel Aviv-Yaffo, activists in 17 cities across the globe delivered petitions with over 54,000 signatures to Facebook corporate offices today. The petitions call on the social media giant to not include “Zionist” in its hate speech policy, as Facebook is currently considering. The COVID-safe petition delivery in New York City was live-streamed on Facebook, during a virtual petition delivery event.
Signed by leading human rights activists, academics and artists, the petition calls on Facebook to ensure that any amendments to its hate speech policy keep all people safe – and connected.
The global campaign “Facebook, we need to talk,” co-sponsored by 55 organizations, began in response to an inquiry by Facebook to assess if critical conversations that use the term “Zionist” fall within the rubric of hate speech as per Facebook’s Community Standards. Zionism is a political ideology and movement that emerged in the 19th century and led to the founding of the state of Israel on Palestinian land; It has been deeply contested since its conception, including within the Jewish community.
The petitions were delivered in-person to Facebook’s US headquarters in the San Francisco Bay Area, and to their European HQ in Dublin, Ireland. Petitions were also delivered in-person to Facebook offices in: Amsterdam, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Denver, Johannesburg, London, Los Lunas, New York City, Paris, Seattle, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Toronto, and Vancouver. In Dublin, the petition delivery also included a letter of support signed by over fifty Members of the Irish Parliament, delivered by MP Gino Kenny TD, Vice-Chair of Parliamentary Friends of Palestine.
The virtual petition delivery included live-streamed deliveries, phone and fax actions, and speeches and performances by Noura Erekat, Judith Butler, Remi Kanazi, Le Trio Joubran and Gabrielle Spears.
Judith Butler said: “As Jews, we have the choice to not be Zionist, which is the only possible just position… We refuse the argument that only Zionists are Jews – and Facebook should not claim that our criticism of Zionism is antisemitic.”
Noura Erakat said: “As Palestinians, we cannot under-estimate the impact of social media in enabling us to be seen and to actually tell our story. But when I tried to share the story of how my cousin was killed by Israeli soldiers, Facebook took it down. This is why we have to fight.”
Voices from petition deliveries around the world:
BRUSSELS, Dr. Anya Topolski, Another Jewish Voice: “We’re here today at five Facebook offices across Europe saying loud and clear: Facebook should refuse to cooperate with those who are destroying solidarity between Jews and Palestinians. Instead, Facebook should help us to connect across differences so that, together, we can dismantle all forms of racism, which includes both antisemitism and Islamophobia, as well as all forms of bigotry used to keep us apart.”
DUBLIN, Fatin Al Tamimi, Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign: “We must stand together against antisemitism! But instead, Facebook may end up preventing Palestinians from naming the ideology of the state that has colonized and oppressed us for more than seventy years. Here in Dublin, at Facebook’s European headquarters, human rights campaigners are demanding that Facebook ensure that we, indigenous Palestinians and our global allies, will not be prevented from holding the Israeli government accountable for its human rights violations.”
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, Eve Hershcopf, JVP-Bay Area: “As the home of the Free Speech movement and of Facebook’s international headquarters, Bay Area organizations have a particular responsibility to speak up against Facebook’s efforts to suppress speech critical of Zionist ideology and Israel’s actions against Palestinians.”
SYDNEY, Vivienne Porzsolt, Jews against the Occupation: “Here in Sydney, we join the global action to oppose Facebook’s support of the efforts of the Israeli government to silence opposition to the actions of the state of Israel. Labeling it ‘antisemitic’ is fundamentally dishonest. Facebook certainly shouldn’t undertake political censorship at the request of the Israeli government.”
TEL AVIV-YAFFO, Michal Sapir, human rights activist: “Today, along with a group of Israeli activists in Tel Aviv, I’m asking Facebook to help us hold all governments, including the Israeli government, accountable. I’m asking Facebook not to censor Palestinian and other voices from telling our stories and criticizing the state.”
Notable human rights activists and cultural figures such as Hanan Ashrawi, Norita Cortiñas, Wallace Shawn, Alia Shawkat and Peter Gabriel have signed the petition, which garnered over 50,000 signatures in a month. The open letter notes that if Facebook restricts the usage of the word “Zionist,” it would prevent Palestinians from talking about their daily lives, shield the Israeli government from accountability for human rights violations, and do nothing to make Jewish people safer from antisemitism.
This attempt to stifle conversations about Zionist political ideology and Zionist policies — both of which have real implications for Palestinian and Israeli people, as well as Jewish and Palestinian people around the world — is part of an emerging pattern of political censorship by the Israeli government and some of its supporters. The most prominent example of these efforts to shield the Israeli government from accountability is the current campaign to impose the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism on campuses and civil society, and to codify it in government legislation. The IHRA definition conflates antisemitism with holding the Israeli government accountable for rights violations, stifling protected political speech that is necessary for healthy, open discussions about foreign policy and human rights.
The campaign was launched by 7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, Palestine Legal, MPower Change, Jewish Voice for Peace, Independent Jewish Voices Canada, Eyewitness Palestine, BDS National Committee, American Muslims for Palestine and Adalah Justice Project. (See below for a complete list of 55 co-sponsors.)
Rabbi Alissa Wise, Deputy Director of Jewish Voice for Peace: “Across five continents, Facebook users brought a simple and urgent message to Facebook: A move to equate “Zionist” and “Jew” in your hate speech policies would harm Palestinians and Jews. In 17 cities, we brought the over 50,000 names of those across the globe who are urging Facebook to not accede to the Israeli government’s demand to shield them from accountability, and undermine our shared commitment to dismantle antisemitism.”
Linda Sarsour, Executive Director, MPower Change: “Over 52,000 people from varying faith and cultural backgrounds across the globe have come together to urge Facebook: don’t make a special exception limiting the speech of Palestinians and their allies. Facebook won’t crackdown on white supremacist groups using their platform to push antisemitic, anti-Black, and Islamophobic rhetoric — so they are targeting a marginalized people living under apartheid instead. I wish this pattern weren’t all too familiar to me as a Palestinian-American woman and committed activist. Let’s make sure they don’t set this dangerous precedent.”
Nadim Nashif, Executive Director of 7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media: “Having 50,000 signatures delivered to Facebook offices in more than a dozen cities around the world shows that there is public support for the freedom of expression of Palestinians online. ‘Zionist’ should not be part of Facebook’s hate-speech policy – and the Israeli government does not get to dictate what we can and cannot say.”
To read the full text of the open letter, list of signatories, and background about the campaign, visit facebookweneedtotalk.org. For interviews with the campaign organizers and activists who delivered the petitions, contact Sonya E. Meyerson-Knox at [email protected] or 929-290-0317. Footage of the petition deliveries is available upon request.
Campaign background
We all want to connect. And social media can be a powerful tool to help us get past walls and share our stories, grow our networks and stand up for one another. But some politicians and governments are trying to turn these necessary guardrails into walls that keep us apart, generating fear and keeping us divided so they can avoid being held accountable for their actions.
Right now, Facebook is reaching out to stakeholders to ask if critical conversations that use the term “Zionist” fall within the rubric of hate speech as per Facebook’s Community Standards. Basically, Facebook is assessing if “Zionist” is being used as a proxy for “Jewish people or Israelis” in attacks on its platform.
Launched just a month ago, an open letter calling on Facebook to not include “Zionist” in its hate speech policy already has over 50,000 signatures. The petition reads: “We are deeply concerned about Facebook’s proposed revision of its hate speech policy to consider “Zionist” as a proxy for ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish’.” “The proposed policy would too easily mischaracterize conversations about Zionists — and by extension, Zionism — as inherently antisemitic, harming Facebook users and undermining efforts to dismantle real antisemitism and all forms of racism, extremism and oppression.”
After 12 hours the petition already had thousands of signers, including: Alia Shawkat, Atilio Boron, Judith Butler, Michael Chabon, Noam Chomsky, Julie Christie, Richard Falk, Amos Goldberg, Marc Lamont Hill, Adnan Jubran, Ronnie Kasrils, Elias Khoury, Karol Cariola, Ken Loach, Miriam Margloyses, Ilan Pappe, Vijay Prashad, Prabir Purkayastha, Rima Berns-McGown, Jessica Tauane, Einat Weizman and Cornel West. (See facebookweneedtotalk.org/petition-text/english for a complete list of initial signatories.)
This move is part of a concerning pattern of the Israeli government and its supporters pressuring Facebook and other social media platforms to expand their hate speech policies to include speech critical of Israel and Zionism – and falsely claiming this would help fight antisemitism. They are hoping that by mischaracterizing critical use of the term “Zionists” as anti-Jewish, they can avoid accountability for its policies and actions that violate Palestinian human rights. Such a move would do nothing to address antisemitism, especially the violent antisemitism of right-wing movements and states — which, as recent events have shown, is the source of the most tangible threats to Jewish lives.
Attempts to stifle conversations about Zionist political ideology and Zionist policies carried out by state actors — both of which have real implications for Palestinian and Israeli people, as well as Jewish and Palestinian people around the world — are part of an emerging pattern of political censorship by the Israeli government and some of its supporters.
The most prominent example of these efforts to shield the Israeli government from accountability is the current campaign to impose the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism on campuses and civil society, and to codify it in government legislation.
If Facebook does move to restrict use of the word Zionist, this would block important conversations on the world’s largest social media platform, harm Facebook users attempting to connect across space and difference, and deprive Palestinians of a critical venue for expressing their political viewpoints to the world. Palestinians need to be able to talk about Zionism and Zionists in order to share their family stories and daily lived experience with the world. That language is essential to clearly distinguishing between Judaism and Jewish people, on the one hand, and the State actors responsible for human rights violations against Palestinians, on the other.
*
Facebook, we need to talk campaign co-sponsors:
*
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.
Featured image is from Jewish Voice for Peace
February 25th, 2021 by Jeff Harris
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
As we rapidly approach the one year anniversary of Covid madness I’ll freely admit I’ve been shocked by the millions upon millions of American’s who appear so traumatized they are unable to think clearly. They clamor for an unproven, untested, hastily cobbled together DNA altering gene therapy mislabeled as a “vaccine”.
They stand in long lines for hours to have this experimental cocktail injected into their bodies with the very real possibility of death as has already happened to hundreds of Covid Vaccine victims. At least 271 deaths, 9,845 adverse events after COVID vaccination so far: CDC data | News | LifeSite (lifesitenews.com) Who in their right mind would agree to risk their life by taking this concoction to hopefully protect themselves from a virus that according to the CDC is survivable by 99.74% of those exposed?
It doesn’t make any sense does it?
In addition there are thousands of highly credentialed medical experts who totally disagree with the official narrative that Covid is a “novel” deadly health threat. Great Barrington Declaration (gbdeclaration.org).
And while the public health “experts” loudly proclaim (maybe too loudly) that an experimental “vaccine” is our only hope, tens of thousands of doctors around the globe are having great success treating virus patients with simple, inexpensive, proven therapies. America’s Frontline Doctors – Empowering patients and physicians with independent, evidence-based medicine.
Yes, it’s certainly true that you won’t see this information on CNN or MSNBC or any other main stream media outlet. But the information is out there for any “thinking” person to discover if they can tear themselves away from thrilling episodes of “Keeping up with the Kardashian’s!” To me it seems like I’m living in a real life version of “The Twilight Zone” where the general population has been hypnotized.
And to a degree I think that’s what’s happened and here’s why. I came across an article from way back in 2013 titled, “Science Reveals the Impact of Fear on the Human Brain”. Science Reveals the Impact of Fear on the Human Brain – Learning Mind (learning-mind.com) Here are a few interesting quotes from the article:
‘The impact of fear on the human brain is very powerful: it completely changes the way we process information.
‘When people are frightened, the parts of the brain that are responsible for rational thinking cease to dominate’, Dr. Bruce Perry explains, quoted in an article published on the Time magazine website.
‘When faced with a threat, the cortex, which is responsible for risk assessment and actions, ceases to function. In other words, logical thinking is replaced by overwhelming emotions, thus favoring short-term solutions and sudden reactions.”
It might be helpful to ponder on this for a moment because I believe it explains an awful lot of what’s been going on. Fear literally changes the way our brains work, or in this case don’t work. Intense fear short circuits our brains ability to think rationally. The constant fear porn spewing out of the mainstream media 24/7 has terrorized people the world over.
Here’s another interesting quote from the article:
A traumatic event has long-term consequences. Anything that reminds us about the threat triggers an involuntary state of fear. Events of this type lead to chain reactions in the human brain: people become more anxious . . .
Think about the constant reminders we see all around us to be afraid, VERY afraid. Last March we were told by the U. S. Surgeon General, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) that healthy people should not wear face masks. US health officials say Americans shouldn’t wear face masks to prevent coronavirus — here are 3 other reasons not to wear them – MarketWatch
Then suddenly they all changed their minds (with NO hard science backing them up) and decreed that indeed everyone should wear a face mask to be SAFE.
The ubiquitous face mask is a constant reminder to be afraid. The message is there is a deadly virus that could take your life if you don’t follow the rules. It’s a great tool to ramp up the fear and indoctrinate millions into blind submission, obedience and above all else to follow the dictates of the “experts”. It’s also a great tool to “expose” the unbelievers guilty of “wrong think.”
So what’s the antidote to all this fear? It’s the truth for those able to receive it. And that’s why those of us still capable of critical thinking need to share the truth with others through whatever means we have. Of course we know most people are so frightened they’re incapable of escaping their fear cocoon and will refuse to listen to anything that doesn’t align with the main stream narrative.
We can also go about our daily lives demonstrating our fearlessness by not wearing a face mask. Please don’t delude yourself by thinking you’re showing respect to others by doing so. All you’re really doing is perpetuating a crippling lie. Yes, you’ll have to put up with being shunned, glared at and possibly being publicly ridiculed by a fear crazed mask Nazi!
But the time for bold action is right now! We don’t have the luxury of waiting for the madness to end because if we don’t stand up to the tyrants they will continue to stomp all over our hard won liberty. I will not comply!
*
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.
Featured image is from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
February 25th, 2021 by Dave DeCamp
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
William Burns, Biden’s pick for CIA chief, had tough words for China during his Senate confirmation hearing and identified countering Beijing as a top priority.
“Adversarial, predatory Chinese leadership poses our biggest geopolitical test,” Burns told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. He described China as “a formidable, authoritarian adversary.”
“Out-competing China will be key to our national security in the days ahead,” Burns said. For the CIA, he said this means “intensified focus and urgency, continually strengthening its already impressive cadre of China specialists, expanding its language skills, aligning personnel and resource allocation for the long haul and employing a whole of agency approach.”
Although he focused on China, Burns also mentioned Russia, urging the US not to underestimate what he described as a “declining power.”
Burns’ tirade against Beijing seemed to please the Senate, and he is expected to be easily confirmed. Throughout the confirmation process, Biden nominees have been grilled on Beijing, and all had harsh words for China.
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said the US should take an “aggressive stance” against Beijing. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said President Trump “was right in taking a tougher approach to China.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin identified China as the “most significant threat” to the US military.
Besides the rhetoric, the Biden administration has reshuffled the National Security Council to focus on Asia, reducing the staff that works on Middle East issues. The Pentagon is currently conducting a review of the US military’s posture in Asia and its overall China policy. The review is being led by Ely Ratner, a China hawk who co-authored an op-ed last year titled “Trump Has Been Weak on China, and Americans Have Paid the Price.”
*
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.
Dave DeCamp is the assistant news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.
Featured image is from Public Domain
February 25th, 2021 by Zero Hedge
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
In a surprise twist on the Alexei Navalny saga, and on the very day that it’s being widely reported Biden is preparing sanctions on Russia as punishment for his alleged poisoning by nerve agent last August, the human rights organization Amnesty International has withdrawn its formal designation of Navalny as a “prisoner of conscience”.
US state-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports the following on Tuesday:
Amnesty International has reportedly withdrawn its recent designation of Russian opposition politician Aleksei Navalny’s as a “prisoner of conscience” over his alleged advocacy of violence and discrimination and comments that included hate speech.
Aleksandr Artemyev, the rights watchdog’s media manager for Russia and Eurasia, confirmed the decision to Mediazona on February 23 after the news was first reported by U.S. journalist Aaron Mate.
And just like that it appears the narrative which cast Navalny and his supporters as some kind of ‘anti-Putin freedom fighters’ has been deflated.
The early February street protests following Navalny’s arrest after he arrived from Berlin where he’d been recovering from an alleged poisoning were widely supported by officials in the West, including by the US and some European embassies in Moscow.
This created tensions leading to the Kremlin expelling a handful of European diplomats, citing their stoking unrest related to ‘illegal’ protests. US mainstream media also gave the large pro-Navalny protests close coverage.
New: @AmnestyUK withdraws designation of Navalny as a "prisoner of conscience." In email, Amnesty says it's "no longer able to consider Aleksei Navalny a prisoner of conscience given the fact that he advocated violence and discrimination and he has not retracted such statements." pic.twitter.com/E9m0e6lzT8
— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) February 23, 2021
Here’s how Amnesty International previously described Navalny and his plight in a January press release:
“He has previously been tried and convicted in two separate, politically-motivated criminal cases. On 29 December, the Russian Investigative Committee levelled new charges against Navalny, accusing him of embezzling 356 million rubles (£3.6m) in donations to the Anti-Corruption Foundation and affiliated non-profit organisations. Amnesty believes these charges are trumped-up.
Navalny has been deprived of his liberty for his peaceful political activism and for exercising free speech. Amnesty considers him a prisoner of conscience and is calling for his immediate and unconditional release.”
This “prisoner of conscience” designation is what Amnesty has now walked back in a clearly humiliating and devastating blow to his cause and his supporters.
In the wake of the initial reports, an Amnesty official confirmed to independent Russian news outlet Meduza: “Yes, we will no longer use the phrase ‘prisoner of conscience’ when referring to [Navalny], insofar as our legal and political department studied Navalny’s statements from the mid-2000s and determined that they qualify as hate speech.”
As an example of Navalny’s “newly uncovered” hate speech (though long well-known inside Russia), see this…
Navalny’s infamous “Muslim migrants are cockroaches” video with English subtitles.
At the end, Navalny shoots person representing Muslim migrants from North Caucasus. [Small correction: opener is “Alexei Navalny Certified Nationalist” not “specialist”] pic.twitter.com/XERk5qBMtn— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) January 26, 2021
He was recently sentenced by a Moscow court to serve over 2.5 years in prison for probation violation stemming from a prior embezzlement case.
Amnesty’s dramatic change in designation is related to the “jailed Russian opposition politician’s past statements about migrants from Central Asia and the North Caucasus [which] constitute hate speech,” Meduza writes. But the question now remains how quickly he’ll be dropped as a darling of Western media coverage which has included a recent flurry of ‘romanticized’ reports on the anti-Kremlin activist, if at all.
*
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.
Featured image is from Flickr
February 25th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Joe Biden’s ideological commitment to Western liberal values promised to recover old US alliances, which were threatened by Trump’s nationalism – as in the European case. However, the rigid defense of these same values can apparently also hinder important points of American foreign policy, destroying other historic alliances, mainly in the Middle East.
Saudi Arabia, a historical representative of Western interests in the Middle East, remains uncertain about the future of its relations with the US, considering the rise of Biden. So far, Saudi officials have received no contact from the new American president. Not only that: Washington has already stated that it will not make a call to Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and that any matter needing dialogue will be dealt directly with King Salman.
For the Saudis, Biden’s attitude is a real affront and threatens the future of a historic friendship between these two countries. For the ideological wing of the American government, however, Biden’s attitude is fair and necessary, considering that America, as a “protector of democracy”, cannot maintain close ties with “human rights violating” nations.
Further deepening the rupture of its ties with the Kingdom, Washington completely changed its attitude towards one of the main enemies of the Saudis, the Houthis. The American government recently revised its stance on Houthis and stopped considering them a terrorist organization. The case surprised everyone, including the Houthis and other enemies of the US, who did not expect such a u-turn from the US. However, far from representing a possible solution to the conflict in Yemen, the American decision only tends to cause more problems.
But not all members of the American political elite are satisfied with this situation. The defense and intelligence sectors are concerned about Biden’s attitude and are trying to convince the president of the strategic importance of maintaining friendly relations with the Saudi kingdom in order to guarantee American positions in the Middle East. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin spoke on the phone with the Saudi prince, trying to ease tensions and establish diplomacy in order to ensure the mutual interests of the two countries. Obviously, the ideological wing of the government did not like the attitude, and this may generate internal strain in Washington.
It is important to emphasize how, with Donald Trump, Saudi Arabia was safer, despite a much less interventionist policy than the one planned and promised by Biden. The new president has an aggressive rhetoric towards the Middle East and promises to increase the number of military personnel in the region, but he is not concerned with the preservation of the old alliances and does not hesitate to create new enemies. Biden disrupted almost all of the deals Trump had previously had with Riyadh, which mainly included the sale of advanced military technology to the security forces. For example, the US government recently announced the cancellation of the sale of 7,500 guided bombs to Saudi Arabia, ending an estimated 500 million dollars deal.
Faced with the possibility of becoming a new target of American sanctions and losing the military protection guaranteed by Washington in recent decades, what remains for the Saudis is to seek new allies. In terms of arms supply and military trade, alternative options to the US abound. Russia and China, for example, will certainly be willing to negotiate fair prices as long as elementary conditions of diplomacy are preserved. Another option is to strengthen ties within the Middle East itself: considering the recent rapprochement between Arabs and Israelis, the Kingdom may tighten negotiations with Israel and seek the supply of military equipment as a condition for maintaining a peace agreement between both countries – and then opposition to Iran and the Houthis would be strengthened, with Saudis and Israelis as allies.
Still, it is necessary to consider that there is an old Gulf Cooperation Council’s project for the countries of the bloc to create a local military alliance, focused on the objective of protecting themselves from possible attacks by their regional enemies. The project is currently delayed, but American attitudes can lead to a recovery of this idea. If this happens, we will have a curious scenario, where the Arabian Gulf will assume a role of increasing autonomy in relation to Washington and will assert itself on the international stage as an independent economic and military bloc. Biden will certainly try to prevent this with sanctions and blockades, but at the same time, by sanctioning these nations, Washington will be encouraging them to do even more negotiations with other powers and become less and less dependent on the West.
As we can see, Biden’s ideological commitment is causing a series of structural changes in American politics, and that can cause different problems. The reason Biden is revising his position in relation to the Saudis is the endless list of denunciations and accusations of human rights violations in the Arab country. Certainly, a considerable part of these accusations is true, but breaking historical ties in the name of humanitarian causes seems to be an irresponsible step. After all, what will Biden do with the structural violation of human rights within the American legal system, which each year incarcerates suspected terrorists without the right to defense? If the new president really wants to be such a strong advocate for these agendas, he will have to submit his own country to international trial.
In any case, this shows how the president’s own ideological crusade, in practice, drives a process of multipolarisation by breaking historical ties and forging new alliances.
*
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.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
February 25th, 2021 by Paul Antonopoulos
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
The French Navy days ago announced that the Tonnerre amphibious assault ship and the Surcouf frigate departed from the port of Toulon on February 18 and would travel to the Pacific for a three-month mission. According to Naval News, the French warships will pass through the South China Sea twice and in May participate in joint military exercises with the U.S., Australia, India and Japan. China has strongly criticized this French move.
The fact that the French Navy sent the Surcouf and the multi-purpose landing craft Tonnere to patrol the South China Sea, which is over 10,000 kilometers away from France, proves that the disputed sea region is one of the most important geopolitical hotspots in the world. The French claim that attention is focused on ensuring navigational security as the South China Sea is a particularly important bridge between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and has influence on geopolitics and geoeconomics, not only within Asia-Pacific and the Indo-Pacific region, but for the entire world.
By sending modern warships to Asia-Pacific, France proved that they have a new approach to Vietnam, a former French colony. The recent moves by Paris marks the return of the French to Southeast Asia, not as an invader like in the previous century, but as a country willing to challenge and provoke China in its own backyard. This is something that would also appeal to Vietnam as it has centuries long enmity with China that continues to this day and is far deeper compared to the relatively short-lived French colonial era of Indochina. Another point to note is that the French energy company Total is one of the most important partners for Vietnam in the oil and gas sector. The French company is currently cooperating with Vietnam and some other countries in the region to exploit resources.
Since 2018, France has built an Indo-Pacific strategy. France is the first European country to make this move. In addition, in 2015 and 2017, French warships also passed through the South China Sea. It is likely that France will now step up its position against Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea by increasing the frequency of its activities in the region, including military exercises.
Four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council send their fleets on irregular or periodic patrols in the South China Sea, proving how important this region is for the global economy and the world’s superpowers. It should be emphasized that having a major power from outside the region deploy its modern weapons in the South China Sea is a major provocation. France, whose closest territory to the South China Sea is New Caledonia over 6,500 kilometers away, has no business in being involved in the region’s problems. But none-the-less, the French are most likely motivated to be interested in South China Sea affairs to support Total’s business plans in the area.
In the words of French Defense Minister Florence Parly, the patrol of French warships in the South China Sea is “evidence of the French navy’s ability to deploy operations in remote areas in the long run with strategic partners,” making reference to the U.S., Japan and Australia. It can be seen that France is ready to strengthen cooperation with QUAD, a coalition consisting of the U.S., India, Japan and Australia whose aim is to challenge China in the Indo-Pacific region.
France is not a member of QUAD; however, the European country can strengthen its ties with the alliance on the basis of bilateral military agreements signed with the U.S. and the other three countries. On the other hand, France is an ally of the U.S. through NATO, in which Japan and Australia are also considered Major non-NATO allies. The dispatch of two important warships to the South China Sea shows that France is ready to stand alongside the U.S., Japan, India and Australia in Indo-Pacific geostrategic, political and military issues with a focus against China.
For the U.S., the introduction of French warships to the South China Sea is an important step towards establishing an anti-China alliance on a global scale, not just at a regional level. Although China has denounced these recent provocations emanating from non-regional powers, it has not yet revealed how they may respond.
Although the French Colonial Empire is long gone, Paris is still attempting to maintain its global influence through its former colonies, not only in Southeast Asia through countries like Vietnam, but also in Africa, the South Pacific, South America and the Caribbean. However, despite France’s antagonizations, Paris does not have the capabilities to be able to challenge China unilaterally in the South China Sea, hence why it is relying on former colonial possessions like Vietnam and partners like the U.S., Australia and India. For now, there is no indication that France will successfully deter China from pursuing its interests in the South China Sea.
*
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.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons
February 25th, 2021 by Michael Haynes
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
The original scientific paper establishing RT-PCR tests as the way to identify COVID-19 in individuals, thus fueling the lockdowns across the globe, has been thoroughly debunked by scientists, who call the tests “useless” and “completely unsuitable” to find COVID-19, given they were developed without even having access to the virus itself.
The recently published report examined the original Corman-Drosten paper, in which Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR/PCR) tests were proposed as a validated means to detect COVID-19. The protocol proposed is used in around 70% of tests globally and by over one hundred governments. These tests promptly became the motivating factor behind the international phenomenon of nation-wide lockdowns, as cases of the virus were reported to rise.
But a group of 22 independent scientists, termed the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS), have studied and reviewed the Corman-Drosten (CD) paper, finding “numerous technical and scientific errors,” noting that neither the “test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication.” They dubbed the CD paper as “flawed science” and called its authors “intellectually dishonest.”
The group presents “ten fatal problems” with the Corman-Drosten paper, and concludes that there is no other choice “but to retract the publication.” Each of the problems is described as being sufficient on its own to render the PCR test “useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” The ICSLS report highlights the “worldwide misdiagnosis of infections” stemming from the CD protocols, resulting in “stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods.”
Lead author of the ICSLS report is Dr. Pieter Borger, an expert on the molecular biology of gene expression, and among the co-authors is Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President of vaccine company Pfizer.
Dr. Paul Sacré offers a brief explanation of how the PCR test works, as an aid to understand the ICSLS’s criticisms of the CD paper. The nasal or throat swab is “processed to isolate genetic material,” then primers — “engineered genetic material” — are added and bound to the viral genetic material, which begins “amplification.” During amplification, fluorescent markers “bound to the copies during PCR” are released, and if enough of these are detected, the test is termed positive.
Breakdown of scientific problems
The first “major” issue identified in the ICSLS review is that the CD paper and the trial PCR tests were written and conducted “without having virus material available,” in the words of the CD paper itself. Instead, the PCR test method was based on “silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China.” The CD paper’s aims of development and deployment of a test “are not achievable without having any actual virus material available,” according to the ICSLS.
On the day the CD paper was submitted to medical journal Eurosurveillance, Google data records only 6 deaths from the virus. This leads the ICSLS to question why the CD report predicted “a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought?”
Many errors are presented by the ICSLS. The concentration of primers used in the development of the PCR tests are “far too high” for “optimal specific amplifications of target genes.” The variations of primer pairs used in the CD paper mean, “The design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related.” Thus, various laboratories could assume they have detected a positive COVID case, using a formula that does not actually detect COVID.
In order for a PCR test to be reliable, “amplification from 3 different genes (primers) of the virus under investigation is required.” Yet the ICSLS found in the CD paper that “in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic.”
Continuing, the ICSLS notes that the proposed PCR test contains “severe design errors,” and since the test is unable to distinguish between “the whole virus and viral fragments” it “cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.” A positive test, as mentioned in the CD paper, cannot determine if one is infected with the virus, but “merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules.”
The review then deals with the amplification cycles of the tests. The CD paper does not even define what a positive or negative test result is, but does suggest that “45 PCR cycles” are to be performed. While a PCR test can have up to 60 cycles of amplification, both Dr. Sacré and the ICSLS point out that PCR test data from a cycle value of 35 or more is “completely unreliable.” “Only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with [cycle] values of 35,” the group adds, as even above 30 cycles there is “a grey area”, where a positive result cannot be trusted.
After the amplification process is complete, “biomolecular validation” is “essential” to determine the presence of COVID-19, since “amplified PCR products can be anything.” But the CD paper’s protocol does not do so, and the ICSLS consequently calls any PCR test developed on such a basis “useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
The proposed PCR tests also ignore the “essential scientific gold standard” which is to have a positive control and a negative control, by which to identify COVID-19 from other coronaviruses. Furthermore, the CD paper itself notes the gene used in the tests is not specific to COVID-19, and thus detects “a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses.”
Based on all these errors, and even drawn from text in the CD paper itself, the ICSLS warns that it is “inevitable” that “the PCR test described in the Corman-Drosten paper generates false positives.” This is echoed by Dr. Sacré, who wrote that the chief limitation of PCR tests is the “extreme sensitivity (false positive) if a suitable threshold of positivity (Ct) is not chosen.”
Swiss Policy Research has found that a positive PCR test run at 35 cycles or more, as is common in Europe and the U.S., has a 97% chance of being a false positive.
No peer review, but conflict of interest authorship
The Corman-Drosten paper appears to have received no peer review. It was received to Eurosurveillance on January 21, 2020, accepted for publication the next day, and posted online on January 23. In fact, ICSLS reports that a version of the CD paper was published on the WHO website on January 13, 2020. Evidence thus suggests no peer review has occurred, and the ICSLS writes, “Any molecular biologist familiar with RT-PCR design would have easily observed the grave errors present in the Corman-Drosten paper before the actual review process.”
The group contacted Eurosurveillance for a copy of a peer review, but was eventually told that “disclosure would undermine the purpose of scientific investigations.”
Two authors of the CD paper, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, were found to be part of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, prompting the ICSLS to say that “there is a severe conflict of interest which strengthens suspicions that the paper was not peer-reviewed.” Such an action is seen as “compromising scientific integrity.”
In addition to that, ICSLS found “severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors,” with two of the authors being the CEO and scientific advisor at PCR test producing company TIB-Molbiol.
Author’s comments on the ICSLS report
Speaking to UncoverDC.com about the Corman-Drosten paper, Dr. Kevin Corbett from the ICSLS report said, “Public Health England is a co-author on it. All the public health authorities across the EU have co-authored this paper. But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality, or the actual person, the patient.”
Responding to the point that advocates of the PCR test claim the virus has, as a matter of fact, been isolated, Corbett said, “Yes, there have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July, I think it was, where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had it to begin with. So it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.”
The ICSLS paper concludes, “In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.”
*
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.
Featured image is from Shutterstock
February 25th, 2021 by Hassan Diab Support Committee
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Thank you for your outpouring of support following the shockingly unjust decision on 27 January 2021 by a French Court of Appeal to refer Dr. Hassan Diab to trial.
According to the French newspaper Le Monde, the decision of the Court of Appeal is “exceptional, because never before, in terrorist matters, had they opposed the investigating judges: in 2018 the latter had decided to dismiss the case.”
This is further evidence of the political nature of the decision which flies in the face of evidence and the findings of the investigating judges. Instead of sacrificing Hassan as an innocent scapegoat, French authorities would better serve the victims and their families by trying to find the true perpetrators of the awful 1980 crime.
Join Us in Writing to PM Trudeau and Major Newspapers
Following the French Court of Appeal decision, numerous organizations and individuals have spoken out in support of Hassan (see links below).
We urge you to add your voice by writing to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urging the Canadian government to refuse a potential second request for Hassan’s extradition, and to put an immediate end to this continuing miscarriage of justice.
Your letter can be brief and from the heart. Please address your letter to:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, [email protected]
and copy the following politicians:
Also, please share your correspondence with us at [email protected]
Donate to Hassan Diab’s Legal Defence in France
Please consider making a donation to help cover the cost of Hassan’s ongoing legal defence in France. Your support is vital to protect Hassan’s rights and prevent his wrongful conviction. A donation of any amount is much appreciated and can make a difference!
To donate, please visit this link.
Many thanks to those who have already contributed. We greatly appreciate your kind support!
Statements by Organisations Supporting Hassan Diab
You can find statements of support by Amnesty Canada, BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), and other organisations here.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from The Canadian Press
February 25th, 2021 by Terje Maloy
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
After years of working hard to stop the voice of independent media being heard on social media channels like Twitter and Facebook, the turn has now come to strangling their funding. The financial company Patreon is the latest to join the establishment drive to marginalize and criminalize all dissenting opinions.
Over the years, many independent media outlets have relied on Patreon, which offers the ability «let your fans become active participants in the work they love by offering them a monthly membership», thereby building a financial base for people-funded news and analysis, as opposed to being dependent on handouts from very rich people or government cutouts. Given that Patreon’s business model relies heavily on independent content creators, the ones they are now evicting, the pressure applied for it to shoot itself in the foot must have been significant.
Intelligence-linked think-tanks are working to implement a financial blockade.
Right-wing activists as the thin edge of the wedge
The company has banned people before, most noticeably activist Milo Yiannopoulos in 2018. But Patreon’s most recent policy change started in October 2020, when Patreon announced that it would be taking action against accounts that use its platform to actively spread QAnon’s beliefs, «a growing threat». Patreon announced “QAnon-dedicated creators that are identified by our Policy and Trust & Safety teams will have their accounts removed from Patreon.”. However, customers «who have spread some QAnon ideas but “are not dedicated to spreading QAnon content” would be given the opportunity to recant and «bring their accounts into compliance, according to the company.» Regardless of what one might think of the authenticity of QAnon, this soon turned out to be just the thin edge of the wedge.
The European Union censors via cutout think tanks
Věra Jourová, European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, told the Financial Times in June 2020 that:
To fight disinformation, we need to mobilise all relevant players from online platforms to public authorities, and support independent fact checkers and media. While online platforms have taken positive steps during the pandemic, they need to step up their efforts.
She finished with a bizarre example of official doublespeak:
“Our actions are strongly embedded in fundamental rights, in particular freedom of expression and information.”
This has just handed another big argument for opponents of EU membership, where an undemocratic super-bureaucracy beholden to big corporations (like big pharmaceutical companies) are censoring opponents of the policies these corporations want implemented. On a smaller national level there is at least a chance that popular pressure can lead to some change.
In line with Jourová’s statement, on 18 December 2020, The European Union-funded but nominally independent EU DisinfoLab released a study questioning «whether Patreon’s efforts to tackle disinformation prioritized English-language content over that of other languages. Besides Patreon’s «failure to remove all accounts that directly reference QAnon», the study pointed to «a number of other accounts that monetize other conspiracies like COVID-19 denialism…»
The report concluded «these examples illustrate that the measures implemented by Patreon are not fully enforced», also stating that «the problem of disinformation goes far beyond QAnon and argues that «more action is needed against the spread and monetization of dangerous conspiracy theories on Patreon».
Medical misinformation
Just from my small bookmarked list of news outlets, three have so far reported of being banned by Patreon the last few days. All bans are for «medical misinformation», which means dissenting from the one and only allowed story, no matter how well sourced the information is or how mendacious the official narrative.
Removing the largest German left-wing channel KenFM
On February 19th, 2021, Patreon closed the account of KenFM the largest independent left wing media outlet in Germany, which has heavily dissented from the official Covid-19 propaganda campaign. This followed the closing of its Youtube account, a heavily blow for a channel that had over half a million followers, and of course similar restrictions from Facebook and others the last half decade.
In a sign that this is a well coordinated campaign, the outlet in February found itself in the government’s cross-hairs. Using coordinated German state government legislation as a a loophole instead of federal regulation, the local media authorities suddenly have vast powers over all online output. They can act on their own and do not have to react to complaints before removing “disinformation”. The media supervisors can order «the severest sanctions» to remove contents from the network.
If actions are coordinated, someone is coordinating them.
According to reports, the media agencies have so far sent 13 notice letters to online media that are not members of the press council, including to KenFM .
As media analyst Tobias Riegel points out “In abstract terms, it all sounds very nice: Who wanted to shut themselves off from journalistic due diligence? If this concern were to apply equally to all media, it would even be very welcome, this should be emphasized here.. The big problem with the new State Treaty arises, among other things, from the massive unequal treatment that in practice will likely occur between alternative media and the established: Should the division into good and bad media already practiced on the propaganda level now also be an «official» blessing, with the corresponding consequences?
Removing geopolitics and empire
In the same month, February 2021, Patreon declared it is going to deplatform Geopolitics & Empire, independent news and analysis radio show, unless it removed certain videos not just from Patreon, but from the entire internet. Simultaneously, YouTube gave it a “strike’ the first step before an inevitable ban, formally for having interviewed Mark Sircus, who described how the health responses to COVID-19 by authorities such as the CDC, WHO, Big Pharma, and national governments have amounted to «medical terrorism». He also presciently touched on the link between military-industrial-financial interests and the think tanks they use as fronts.
The removal from Patreon followed just after a report on conspiracy theory «superspreaders» from a department of the most crooked think tank of all, the Atlantic Council. The report, from the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, which also was a collaborator with the British covert propaganda program Integrity Initiative, mentioned an interview with professor Francis Boyle on Geopolitics & Empire – and presto, less than a week later Geopolitics & Empire was gone.
The Atlantic Council is the embodiment of the US/NATO deep state. The think tank began as an offshoot of NATO itself and maintains extremely close connections to the military alliance. It receives major funding from Western governments and weapons contractors, and its board of directors is filled to the brim with senior American war criminals, such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Henry Kissinger. Also appearing on the board are no fewer than seven former CIA directors and a number of top military generals, such as Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis, Wesley Clark, and David Petraeus.
Atlantic Council already has a firm grip on social media. In 2018, it announced it had partnered with Facebook to aid in the curation of Facebook news feeds for Facebook’s 2.2 billion users worldwide.
Removing last American vagabond
In February 2021, Patreon stated they would imminently close The Last American Vagabond, one of the best sites for well researched Covid-19 news and analysis – but distinctly different than the official narrative – unless all «Covid-19 medical misinformation» was removed at once.
The Last American Vagabond scoffed at the threat and declared it would “not stop reporting objectively on COVID-19 or any other topic».
Conclusion
It is not unlikely the other large payment companies many are using will start freezing funds or close accounts. Judging from the examples of Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, readers and journalists will leave in droves for other platforms. Geopolitics & Empire went for the payment service SubscribeStar, and others options will likely be thought out as old ones buckle. But because the censorship hit men are always scheming for new ways to sabotage, one must expect the financial blockade to intensify.
The effort to silence dissent comes at the same time as the immensely sinister program to give everyone in the world a shot in the arm for a relatively ordinary disease, leading to the thought that it is either is a billion dollar racket from pharma companies or a plan with unknown geopolitical implications (anyone remember when Trump said he could kill 10 million Afghans literally in 10 days – without using nukes?).
When Paypal, banks and credit cards stopped servicing Wikileaks in 2011, in an attempted US government blockade, it destroyed 95% of their revenue. Wikileaks was resourceful enough to find workaround solutions. This will be harder and harder in the future, especially for smaller media outlets. Other measures are probably being considered, like blocking or sabotage of domain names, or physical detentions. And the planned future abolition of «unhygienic» cash, combined with a ban on cryptocurrencies, will give the Atlantic Council and the oligarch interests they represent the ultimate blockade tool.
*
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.
This article was originally published on Midt i fleisen.
Terje Maloy is a Norwegian/Australian blogger and translator. The article is Creative Commons 4.0.
Featured image: Věra_Jourová (CC-BY-4.0: © European Union 2019 – Source: EP)
February 25th, 2021 by Timothy A. Wise
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year’s Eve decree to phase out use of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn. His administration sent an even stronger aftershock two weeks later, clarifying that the government would also phase out GM corn imports in three years and the ban would include not just corn for human consumption but yellow corn destined primarily for livestock. Under NAFTA, the United States has seen a 400% increase in corn exports to Mexico, the vast majority genetically modified yellow dent corn.
The bold policy moves fulfill a campaign promise by Mexico’s populist president, whose agricultural policies have begun to favor Mexican producers, particularly small-scale farmers, and protect consumers alarmed by the rise of obesity and chronic diseases associated with high-fat, high-sugar processed foods.
In banning glyphosate, the decree cites the precautionary principle and the growing body of scientific research showing the dangers of the chemical, the active ingredient in Bayer/Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The government had stopped imports of glyphosate since late 2019, citing the World Health Organization’s warning that the chemical is a “probable carcinogen.”
The prohibitions on genetically modified corn, which appear toward the end of the decree, have more profound implications. The immediate ban on permits for cultivation of GM corn formalizes current restrictions, ordered by Mexican courts in 2013 when a citizen lawsuit challenged government permitting of experimental GM corn planting by Monsanto and other multinational seed companies on the grounds of the contamination threat they posed to Mexico’s rich store of native corn varieties. The import ban cites the same environmental threats but goes further, advancing the López Obrador administration’s goals of promoting greater food self-sufficiency in key crops. As the decree states:
“[W]ith the objective of achieving self-sufficiency and food sovereignty, our country must be oriented towards establishing sustainable and culturally adequate agricultural production, through the use of agroecological practices and inputs that are safe for human health, the country’s biocultural diversity and the environment, as well as congruent with the agricultural traditions of Mexico.”
Chronicle of a decree foretold
Such policies should come as no surprise. In his campaign, López Obrador committed to such measures. Unprecedented support from rural voters were critical to his landslide 2018 electoral victory, with his new Movement for National Renewal (Morena) claiming majorities in both houses of Congress.
Still, industry and U.S. government officials seemed shocked that their lobbying had failed to stop López Obrador from acting. The pressure campaign was intense, as Carey Gillam explained in a February 16 Guardian expose on efforts by Bayer/Monsanto, industry lobbyist CropLife, and U.S. government officials to deter the glyphosate ban. According to email correspondence obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through Freedom of Information Act requests, officials in the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture and office of the U.S. Trade Representative were in touch with Bayer representatives and warned Mexican officials that restrictions could be in violation of the revised North American Free Trade Agreement, now rebranded by the Trump Administration as the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA).
According to the emails, CropLife president Chris Novak last March sent a letter to Robert Lighthizer, USTR’s ambassador, arguing that Mexico’s actions would be “incompatible with Mexico’s obligations under USMCA.” In May, Lighthizer followed through, writing to Graciela Márquez Colín, Mexico’s minister of economy, warning that GMO crop and glyphosate matters threatened to undermine “the strength of our bilateral relationship.” An earlier communication argued that Mexico’s actions on glyphosate, which Mexico had ceased importing, were “without a clear scientific justification.”
Nothing could be further from the truth, according to Victor Suárez, Mexico’s Undersecretary of Agriculture for Food and Competitiveness. “There is rigorous scientific evidence of the toxicity of this herbicide,” he told me, citing the WHO findings and an extensive literature review carried out by Mexico’s biosafety commission Cibiogem.
And even though most imported U.S. corn is used for animal feed, not direct human consumption, a study carried out by María Elena Álvarez-Buylla, now head of CONACYT, the government’s leading scientific body, documented the presence of GM corn sequences in many of Mexico’s most common foods. Some 90% of tortillas and 82% of other common corn-based foods contained GM corn. Mexico needs to be especially cautious, according to Suárez, because corn is so widely consumed, with Mexicans on average eating one pound of corn a day, one of the highest consumption levels in the world.
While the glyphosate restrictions are based on concerns about human health and the environment, the phaseout of GM corn is justified additionally on the basis of the threat of contamination of Mexico’s native corn varieties and the traditional intercropped milpa. The final article in the decree states the purpose is to contribute “to food security and sovereignty” and to offer “a special measure of protection to native corn.”
The ban on GM corn cultivation has been a longstanding demand ever since the previous administration of Enrique Peña Nieto granted permission to Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and a host of other multinational seed companies to begin experimental planting in northern Mexico. Such permits were halted in 2013 by a Mexico court injunction based on a claim from 53 farmer, consumer and environmental organizations – the self-denominated Demanda Colectiva – that GM corn cultivation threatened to contaminate native varieties of corn through inadvertent cross-pollination.
“It is difficult to imagine a worse place to grow GM corn than Mexico,” said Adelita San Vicente, the lead spokesperson for the plaintiffs who is now working in López Obrador’s environment ministry, when I interviewed her in 2014 for my book, Eating Tomorrow (which includes a chapter on the GM corn issue). Such contamination was well-documented and the courts issued the injunction citing the potential for permanent damage to the environment.
As Judge Walter Arrellano Hobelsberger wrote in a 2014 decision, “The use and enjoyment of biodiversity is the right of present and future generations.”
Mexico’s self-sufficiency campaign
Mexico’s farmer and environmental organizations were quick to praise the decree, though many warned that it is only a first step and implementation will be key. “These are important steps in moving toward ecological production that preserves biodiversity and agrobiodiversity forged by small-scale farmers over millennia,” wrote Greenpeace Mexico and the coalition “Without Corn There is No Country.”
Malin Jonsson of Semillas de Vida (Seeds of Life), one of the plaintiffs in the court case, told me, “This is a first step toward eliminating glyphosate, withdrawing permits for GM maize cultivation and eliminating the consumption of GM maize. To end consumption we have to stop importing GM maize from the United States by increasing Mexico’s maize production.”
Mexico imports about 30% of its corn each year, overwhelmingly from the United States. Almost all of that is yellow corn for animal feed and industrial uses. López Obrador’s commitment to reducing and, by 2024, eliminating such imports reflects his administration’s plan to ramp up Mexican production as part of the campaign to increase self-sufficiency in corn and other key food crops – wheat, rice, beans, and dairy. Mexican farmers have long complained that since NAFTA was enacted in 1994 ultra-cheap U.S. corn has driven down prices for Mexican farmers. The proposed import restrictions would help López Obrador’s “Mexico First” agricultural policies while bringing needed development to rural areas.
Will Biden Administration block action?
Industry organizations on both sides of the border have complained bitterly about the proposed bans. “The import of genetically modified grain from the U.S. is essential for many products in the agrifood chain,” said Laura Tamayo, spokeswoman for Mexico’s National Farm Council (CNA), who is also a regional corporate director for Bayer. Bayer’s agrochemical unit Monsanto makes weedkiller Roundup and the GMO corn designed to be used with the pesticide.
“This decree is completely divorced from reality,” said José Cacho, president of Mexico’s corn industry chamber CANAMI, the 25-company group that includes top corn millers like Gruma, cereal maker Kellogg, and commodity trader Cargill.
Juan Cortina, president of CNA, said his members might sue the government over the bans. “I think there will need to be legal challenges brought by all the people who use glyphosate and genetically-modified corn,” he told Reuters, adding that he also expects U.S. exporters to appeal to provisions of the USMCA trade pact to have the measures declared illegal.
Industry sources also warned that Mexico would never be able to meet its corn needs without U.S. exports and that U.S. farmers would be harmed by the presumed loss of the Mexican export market. Others quickly pointed out that Mexico was not banning U.S. exports, just GM corn exports. U.S. farmers are perfectly capable of producing non-GM corn at comparable prices, according to seed industry sources, so the ruling could encourage the development of a premium market in the United States for non-GMO corn, something U.S. consumers have been demanding for years.
Such pressures may present an early test for President Joe Biden and his nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, whose confirmation hearing is scheduled for February 25. Tai won high marks for helping get stricter labor and environmental provisions into the agreement that replaced NAFTA. Will she and the Biden administration respect Mexico’s sovereign right to enact policies designed to protect the Mexican public and the environment while promoting Mexican rural development?
Victor Suárez certainly hopes so.
“Our rationale is based on the precautionary principle in the face of environmental risks as well as the right of the Mexican government to take action in favor of the public good, in important areas such as public health and the environment,” he told me.
“We are a sovereign nation with a democratic government,” he continued, “which came to power with the support of the majority of citizens, one that places compliance with our constitution and respect for human rights above all private interests.”
*
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.
Timothy A. Wise is a senior advisor with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the author of Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food.
Featured image: Tractor caravan to Mexico City farmer protest demands “Mexico Free of Transgenics”. Credit: Enrique Perez S./ANEC
February 25th, 2021 by Julian Rose
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Within the control system’s Davos engineered programme called Agenda 2030/The Great Reset, are some striking cohabitating toxic agendas. The one I wish to highlight in this article is the Zero Carbon ‘stop climate change’ goal – and the Zero Covid ‘stop the world pandemic’ goal.
The supposed aim of both the above programmes is to wipe out something that can’t be wiped out, namely CO2 since it forms an integral part of our living world and biosphere and therefore cannot be eradicated without the eradication of life itself.
Believe it or not, the Davos agenda which seeks to replace sentient, social humanity with a robotic computer controlled cyborgian army, does indeed come very close to eradicating life ‘as we know it’.
As we recall, government commissioned climatologists, working to a formula devised by the Club of Rome and Bilderbergers, have – for at least the past three decades – set about trying to convince all and sundry that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a dangerous pollutant. One they falsely associate with the mining and combustion of fossil fuels choking the upper atmosphere; with the consequential overheating of the planet being labelled ‘the greenhouse effect’.
But as I have pointed-out in previous articles, in reality scientists have found that the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere amounts to a negligible 0.04%, coming around seventh in the list of elements associated with having an adverse effect on climate.
Similarly, the great majority of pollutants emanating out of factories and transport systems consist of toxins and particulates – e.g. nitrous oxides and carbon monoxide – that have little or nothing to do with CO2, but have been deliberately relabelled as such to sell the notion that the smoke seen rising out of factory and domestic chimneys is that ‘evil brew’ called ‘CO2’.
The entire Davos Fourth Industrial Revolution, Green New Deal and ‘Re-Set’ plan, designed as it supposedly is ‘to save the world’ through achieving ‘Zero Carbon’ by 2050, is thus an audacious and carefully planned lie. Carbon, far from being a killer that must be eradicated, is actually a primary building block of life without which we would have no plant kingdom and therefore no oxygen to breathe. No life on Earth.
Now the scene shifts to ‘Covid’ and a parallel ‘eradication scheme’ – made famous by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Here the plan is to eradicate what has been painted as a vicious and barely controllable ‘virus’. A plan that can only be described as pure scientific fraud.
Yes, viruses just happen to play a critical role in maintaining the health and welfare of living creatures, not least human beings; and their ‘eradication’ – or the eradication of just ‘one’ (if it could be isolated) would completely destabilise the health and equilibrium of anyone unlucky enough to fall foul of the perpetrators. In Covid’s case, the perpetrators’ intentions are publicly made manifest via the WHO’s Corona blitzkrieg and subsequently enforced by governments all over the world.
At this very moment, the lives of around seven billion people have been turned upside down based entirely upon the globally adopted statement of WHO chief Tedros Adhanon – supported by a posse of hand-picked ‘scientists’ – that this ‘virus’ is a deadly pathogen having the potential to lay humanity low and render normal life completely unmanageable.
But in reality, the Corona Virus from which Covid-19 is extrapolated is – according to the definition of The American Encyclopedia of Medicine – similar to ‘the common flu’; which while killing a significant number of people each year, comes well down the list of diseases commonly known to be the cause of high death rates around the globe.
Just as ‘carbon’ comes way down the list of supposedly deadly components in the upper atmosphere – and yet – due to the need of the central cabal to have an excuse to exert absolute control over humanity – is held responsible for driving the planet towards Armagedon.
Covid-19 isn’t ‘a deadly virus’ at all. And neither is Carbon a pollutant. Labelling them as such is a cunning slight-of-hand in order to hold humanity to ransom.
A huge distortion has been created by subjecting biologically essential elements to biased, quasi-scientific discrimination and political spin. A distortion that just happens to pave the way for massive profiteering by both vaccination hungry pharmaceutical companies and the political exponents of swinging carbon taxes.
As a basic rule of thumb, when a biological imbalance is believed to be occurring, the solution lies in rebalancing the offending organism/body. It never lies in trying to eradicate it.
Yet according to the political and scientific rhetoric emanating out of the WHO, UN, World Economic Forum and others, we have to ‘eradicate’ both carbon and the virus; and in order to do so, every aspect of life as we know it must be brutally re-engineered and billions of people lined-up for a premature death. This constitutes a major plank in the depopulation agenda long held as vital by the 0.1%.
It is no coincidence that Corona flu and atmospheric CO2 are both targets of gross manipulation which together form the grand alibi for the enslavement, digitalisation and murder of a large segment of humanity. In both cases, an essential component of life has been calculatedly reversed into an evil harbinger of death, using the Nazi technique of mass indoctrination and repetition to ensure every receptive brain cell is addled with fear.
The Schwab ‘Reset’ and the Gates ‘Vaxit’ are part of an overall diabolical mission to wrest the planet away from its natural evolutionary trajectory. Social, spiritual and sentient human aspiration is pushed aside in order to move rapidly into a cold and technocratic ‘New World Order’ – the original term for ‘The Great Reset.’
A world order in which non sentient, parasitic cyborg-beings seek to possess and re-engineer the fundamental genome of life, and indeed, the very soul of humanity itself. Thus completing ‘the reversal of all values’ that form the indivisible connection with the divine origins of mankind.
The totally deluded push, by a small cabal to present Zero Carbon and Zero Covid as ‘the saviours of humanity’, has reduced a large part of humanity to mind controlled zombies moving in lock-step with the commands of totalitarian regimes – disguised as governments – and supported by a bought-out slavish media.
We have now exposed the lie and thus created an opening for the liberation of those fixated by the utterings of lunatics. Only where a combination of fear and hypnotism have completely paralysed the human mind, is there no hope of freedom. The rest of us can – and must – move rapidly forward with the task of ridding our planet of the perpetrators of this despotic and deeply criminal agenda.
Let us use whatever tools we have at our disposal. Rise-up humanity! Let us resolve to overcome all hurdles erected to deceive us, for they are but phantoms when put under the spotlight of Truth.
*
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.
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info.
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
February 25th, 2021 by Paul Dobson
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Venezuela has blasted the imposition of additional European Union (EU) sanctions against nineteen politicians, state officials and security chiefs.
According to an EU statement released Monday, the individuals are penalised for their alleged role in “acts and decisions undermining democracy and the rule of law” or “as a result of serious human rights violations.”
Similarly, the EU accused some of the targeted figures of “undermining the oppositions’ electoral rights and the democratic functioning of the National Assembly” in reference to Venezuela’s parliamentary elections on December 6, 2020.
The elections, in which over 100 parties and 14,400 candidates took part, were overwhelmingly won by the ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV) and an on-the-ground international observer team deemed the contest free and fair. The EU chose not to send an observer mission and later followed Washington in claiming the results to be invalid.
Among those sanctioned this week by the EU were Zulia Governor Omar Prieto (PSUV); Vice Interior Minister Manuel Perez; National Electoral Council President Indira Alfonzo and Rectors Tania D’Amelio and Leonardo Morales; and Supreme Court Judges Luis Damiani, Calixto Ortega, Lourdes Suarez, Rene Degraves, Arcadio Delgado and Carmen Zuleta.
Equally targeted were a number of police and military chiefs, including Remigio Ceballos (Armed Forces), Jose Miguel Dominguez (FAES Special Forces), Jesus Vasquez (Military Police), Carlos Carballo and Carlos Teran (Military Counterintelligence) and Douglas Rico (CICPC investigative police).
Finally, two opposition lawmakers — Jose Brito (Justice First party) and Bernabe Gutierrez (Democratic Action party) — were also sanctioned. Both rose to lead their respective parties after the Supreme Court ruled on internal party power struggles.
Those sanctioned will have all European-based assets frozen and travel bans applied. Most had been previously sanctioned by Washington.
The EU first imposed sanctions against Venezuela in 2017, and has 55 individuals blacklisted following the latest round. Its Caracas ambassador was briefly expelled from Venezuela in 2020 after a wave of measures against the country.
While many of its member states have opted to follow the US sanctions regime to differing degrees, the EU has not copied Washington’s sweeping embargoes which have devastated Venezuela’s economy and oil industry, rather favouring arms embargoes and individual measures. Many European firms, however, have withdrawn from Venezuela in fear of secondary sanctions from Washington, including British online payment operators Skrill and Neteller over the weekend.
Nonetheless, EU sanctions, as well as those of the US and others, have been described as “collective punishment” and “human rights violations” by independent analysts and UN agencies, respectively. The Venezuelan government has filed a lawsuit at the International Criminal Court arguing that the US-led blockade amounts to a “crime against humanity.”
Maduro hits back
As the latest sanctions were announced, President Nicolas Maduro spoke at the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
During his intervention, the president denounced an “inquisition and intervention” into Venezuela’s internal affairs, as well as over 450 unilateral coercive measures against the country.
He also highlighted a recent report from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Impact of Sanctions Alena Douhan, which specified the “devastating” impact and called for them to be “revised and lifted.”
“[Sanctions regimes have] demonstrated great cruelty, even during the pandemic, as well as contravening calls from the international community,” Maduro told the Council. He went on to refer to EU and US sanctions as “ideologised provocations from a group of governments.”
Venezuela has developed a respectful working relationship with the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in recent months, heeding to demands to pardon imprisoned opposition activists and even opening a local office for the institution in Caracas. Despite being elected to the body in 2019, the Latin American nation has, however, had a more rocky relationship with the Human Rights Council, which has emitted reports on Venezuela which independent analysts described as “unbalanced.”
Venezuela demands respect for Vienna Convention
Diplomatic tensions also ran high over the weekend as Caracas denounced a wave of xenophobia against its emigrant communities and violations of the Vienna Convention in Peru.
Angry protestors attacked Venezuela’s embassy building in Lima on Saturday, causing structural damage and chanting xenophobic slogans against the populous Venezuelan community, in the wake of reports that a Venezuelan assassinated a Peruvian man in Colombia last week.
The aggression is the latest in a wave of xenophobic episodes against Venezuelans in Peru, which has seen at least one migrant killed in reprisal attacks in recent days. Venezuelan communities elsewhere have also seen widespread discrimination in recent years, especially in Colombia, Brazil and Peru.
Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry called on Peruvian authorities to safeguard the embassy on Sunday, as well as protecting its diplomatic team and Venezuelan migrants who are subject to “unacceptable discrimination and xenophobic campaigns [being used] to obtain electoral advantage.”
It likewise called on the Colombian government to launch a full investigation and arrest those responsible for the murder which sparked the protests, “regardless of origin or nationality.”
Update: On Wednesday, the Maduro government declared the EU ambassador to Caracas Isabel Brilhante Pedroso “persona non grata” and ordered her to leave the country within 72 hours. Diplomatic protests were also formally launched with the French, Spanish, Dutch and German governments over the latest sanctions.
*
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.
Featured image: EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell. (EU)
February 25th, 2021 by Brian Berletic
February 25th, 2021 by Shane Quinn
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Despite Franco-British declarations of war on Germany during 3 September 1939, the British and French governments hoped that their armies would not actually have to engage in combat against German forces. The writing was on the wall early on, as neither Britain or France did anything meaningful to come to the aid of their nominal ally, Poland.
This was not altogether surprising, for the year before the Western powers participated in the carving up of Czechoslovakia, described by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain as “a far away country” not worth fighting over. Chamberlain had similar feelings regarding Poland, which after all shared a southern frontier with Czechoslovakia.
Attempting once more to placate the insatiable Hitler, the Anglo-French governments did their best to squeeze concessions out of Poland, as they had previously done with the Czechs (1). Warsaw refused. Only then did Britain and France reluctantly declare their willingness to fight on 25 August 1939, which in any case was a ceremonial gesture, as Poland would soon discover. The outspoken Conservative MP Robert Boothby said in an interview, “We’d gone to war for the defence of Poland. In the event, we did nothing to help Poland at all. We never lifted a finger”. (2)
For historical reasons it may be important to recognise that the Soviet autocrat, Joseph Stalin, made firm overtures to Britain and France in the 18 months prior to the start of World War II. Less than a week after Hitler’s forcible annexation of Austria, which disturbed the Kremlin but had the acquiescence of the West, on 18 March 1938 Stalin proposed that Britain and France join the USSR in a conference to enforce collective security (3). This offer, a potential forerunner to a Franco-British-Russo alliance aimed at Hitler, was rejected. Chamberlain wanted to push on with his appeasement strategy, while France was lurching from one political crisis to another.
Six months later on 30 September 1938, the Russians were notably scorned when they received no invitation to attend the Munich Conference; through which the Anglo-French governments collaborated with the fascist dictatorships, of Germany and Italy, in betraying Czechoslovakia. The Czechs lost 11,000 square miles of territory, including the country’s well-fortified districts along its western boundaries. Nor had Czech diplomats been invited to the Munich Conference, as Hitler was granted everything that he wished.
From left to right: Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini, and Italian Foreign Minister Count Ciano, as they prepare to sign the Munich Agreement (CC BY-SA 3.0 de)
A few weeks after the Wehrmacht’s March 1939 occupation of all Czechoslovakia, and despite increasing doubts about Western intentions, Stalin again approached the Franco-British powers. On 16 April 1939, he submitted a formal proposition: a three-power military pact with the obvious goal of deterring Nazi aggression (4). Stalin’s diplomatic proposal mirrored the agreement in place prior to the First World War, in which Britain, France and Russia were bound together in an alliance directed against the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. Had Stalin’s approach been accepted, it can only have changed the course of history – as such a union would have ensured, right from the beginning in the event of conflict, that Hitler faced a nightmare war on two fronts.
This final Soviet offer of alliance with the West was snubbed, however, with the British in particular treating Moscow with disregard. Strong anti-Bolshevik feelings were widespread amongst the conservatives in the British government, and with Chamberlain himself. Three weeks before Stalin’s proposition, Chamberlain wrote to his sister Ida on 26 March 1939, stating that:
“I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia. I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives, which seem to me to have little connection with our ideas of liberty, and to be concerned only with getting everyone else by the ears”. (5)
Russian suspicions looked to be confirmed – the western democracies would be glad to see the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany at war with each other. Chamberlain assented to dispatching a diplomatic mission to the Kremlin, on 27 May 1939, to negotiate a modest mutual assistance treaty with Russia. Instead of having the British mission headed by a figure of authority, like Lord Halifax or Anthony Eden, Chamberlain chose an unknown Foreign Office official named William Strang. Strang was, moreover, a fervent anti-Bolshevik and a secret member of the pro-Nazi Anglo-German Fellowship.
The Soviets took Strang’s arrival as a calculated insult, which was intended. The British did agree to enter into military conversations with Moscow on 20 July 1939, but it proved a light-hearted gesture that went nowhere. Rather than flying directly from London to the Russian capital, which would have taken a few hours, the British mission travelled on a slow cargo boat which eventually arrived after six days. (6)
The above evidence, which is indisputable and has previously been documented by historians, shows that Stalin preferred to align with Britain and France, rather than Nazi Germany. Having been brushed aside, he was compelled to turn decisively towards Hitler, and on 23 August 1939 the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact was concluded. Eighty years after the start of hostilities, the EU in September 2019 passed a resolution in the European Parliament – through which they placed all of the culpability on the Soviets and Nazis for having “paved the way for the outbreak of the Second World War” and ironically refers to “distortion of historical facts” (7). There is not a mention in the EU resolution of Stalin’s repeated attempts to form a new triple entente with the West, and which would have encircled Hitler.
The Western powers, in reality, should share substantial blame for the outbreak of war. In addition, the Nazi dictatorship could have been destroyed at any time by France and Britain between 1933 to 1938, when Hitler was vulnerable and his military forces meagre. As late as September 1938, the German General Staff bluntly told Hitler that the Wehrmacht was still not strong enough to fight a European war. Yet the West did not particularly want to topple Hitler, with Britain having deep-seated financial ties to the Nazi regime, as by the late 1930s the Third Reich was London’s principal trading client. (8)
The British and French were largely responsible for the “Phoney War” that ensued from September 1939; during which the over-riding desire remained the same: that with Poland’s defeat, Hitler’s next move would again be to the east with an attack on the USSR, leaving western Europe untouched. Conservative MP Boothby recalled in the months after the German invasion of Poland, “We confined our war efforts to dropping leaflets on the German people, telling them that it was a bad idea to go to war and a pity that they’d done it. And perhaps that we might make peace”.
In the Phoney War period US business executives like James D. Mooney – in charge of General Motors’ overseas operations including in Nazi Germany – had attempted to persuade the British and Germans to resolve their conflict, in the hope of pushing Hitler towards invading Soviet Russia. Mooney, who had met senior Nazis in the past and received a decoration from Hitler, saw the dictator again in March 1940.
Mooney made a plea with him to preserve the peace in western Europe. He further informed Hitler that, “Americans had understanding for Germany’s standpoint with respect to the question of living space” (9). It meant that Washington had no problem should Germany decide to expand to the east. Joseph Kennedy, the US Ambassador to Britain and father of John F. Kennedy, likewise tried hard to persuade Berlin and London to resolve their differences. These attempts failed, as the Germans attacked westwards in the early summer of 1940, securing a series of routine military victories.
As America entered the war in December 1941 in opposition to the Axis states, mixed feelings were prevalent in Washington (10). There was little indecision at fighting the hated Japanese, but there was discomfort in the US capital at their union with the USSR, an ideological foe. This unease grew as the war dragged on. The Allied leadership would also be disconcerted at the power gained across much of the world by the anti-fascist Resistance, which often contained labour friendly and radical democratic attitudes. US-led efforts to dismantle the Resistance and other leftist factions, while reinstituting the capitalist business hierarchy, would become a global operation, picking up in intensity from the mid-1940s. It included employing notorious Nazis and fascist sympathisers.
Already in late 1942 – as the Allies captured their first chunk of territory from German control in north Africa – the Franklin Roosevelt administration, with Churchill’s backing, appointed a prominent fascist collaborator, Admiral Francois Darlan, to take over command of that expansive region (11). This decision enraged both the French Resistance and General Charles de Gaulle, who denounced Darlan by saying “You can buy traitors, but not the honour of France”.
The Big Three: Stalin, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the Tehran Conference, November 1943 (Public Domain)
From July 1943, with Allied forces landing in the far south of Italy, the US State Department and Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, sought to bring to power Dino Grandi, the far-right Italian politician. Grandi, a former high official in the Mussolini dictatorship, was described as a “moderate” by the State Department, someone who had been pushed towards fascism “by the excesses of the communists”. US support for the Italian fascists was taking up where it left off in the 1920s and 1930s, when Mussolini had enjoyed unbroken friendship, only ending as the Duce allied himself with Hitler in 1940.
Churchill wrote to president Roosevelt on 31 July 1943 that the main consideration when liberating Italy was to prevent “chaos, Bolshevisation or civil war”. Churchill warned that nothing stood in the way “between the King and the patriots who have rallied around him” and that of “rampant Bolshevism”. The Allies supported the Italian king, who had collaborated fully with Mussolini during his rule (12). Washington and London installed the right-wing dictatorship of Field Marshal Pietro Badoglio, a fascist war hero. As US and British tensions with Moscow increased, the Churchill government saw Badoglio as a bulwark against the communist threat in Italy.
A major problem from the US-British standpoint was indeed the emergence of the anti-fascist Resistance, which had won legitimacy and influence with ordinary people. The Resistance was trying to address the problems of the working class, destitute and other victims of war. These policies were viewed with misgiving by the Anglo-Saxon governments, and the big business, anti-labour interests they so often represent.
As the Allied armies continued to slowly advance northwards through Italy in 1944, they set about dispersing the anti-fascist elements, and to undermine the popular forces on which they were based (13). The Allied leadership was appalled to discover that the Italian Resistance had formed a social system, whereby the workers themselves ran their own factories, with no bosses in the capitalist method overseeing them.
Italy’s partisans, who had also fought bravely against six German divisions, were unable to prevent the US from restoring the essential structure of Mussolini’s former regime. Fascists and collaborators were returned to power and prominence. The aim was to preserve the traditional conservative world order, now under American domination. It furthermore involved the subordination of the working-class and poor to business rule, ensuring they would bear the cost relating to reconstruction and recovery. In mainstream scholarship, these actions are usually regarded as US efforts to re-establish “democracy” and “freedom” in Europe and beyond.
The American Army’s counterinsurgency literature begins with an overview of the Wehrmacht’s experience in Europe; and was written with the co-operation of Nazi officers. Large parts of these manuals were taken from the German angle, regarding which strategies worked best versus the Resistance. With little alteration, the tactics employed by the Wehrmacht and SS were absorbed into US military counterinsurgency.
There was an operation involving the Vatican, the US State Department and British intelligence, which gathered together Nazi war criminals, such as Klaus Barbie and Reinhard Gehlen; along with past associates of Adolf Eichmann, a leading perpetrator in the Holocaust, and also many other former SS, Wehrmacht and Gestapo officers (14). After organising them into cohesive units, the Americans returned them to work against the Resistance, at first in Europe; and later in the US-backed police states of Latin America.
Barbie, an ex-Gestapo chief dubbed “the butcher of Lyon”, was especially a wanted man due to the severity of his crimes in Nazi-occupied France. When his American paymasters began to take criticism on having employed Barbie in 1947, they struggled to comprehend what the problem was. The US Army had taken over from the Germans, and they needed someone who was a specialist in attacking the anti-fascist forces. Eugene Kolb, a retired colonel in the US Army’s Counterintelligence Corps, said that Barbie’s “skills were badly needed” because “His activities had been directed against the underground French Communist party and the Resistance”. Kolb continued, “We did not have any great pangs of conscience”. (15)
When Barbie could no longer be protected by his US employers, he was moved on to the Vatican ratlines in the early 1950s, where fascist priests assured him safe passage to Bolivia. An array of Nazis eluded capture to reach South America and elsewhere through the Vatican ratlines, such as psychopathic killers like Eichmann, Josef Mengele, Gustav Wagner and Walter Rauff. The latter figure, SS Colonel Rauff, created the first gas chambers used in the Holocaust.
Rauff at separate times worked for the intelligence service of West Germany (under US auspices) and, rather strangely, Israel’s Mossad agency. He had been personally responsible for at least 97,000 deaths during the war. Rauff was assisted in his escape to South America by the US authorities. (16)
Other Nazis were granted refuge in fascist Spain, where Mussolini was close to securing refuge in, before he had been caught by Italian partisans at the eleventh hour. Mussolini’s former saviour from 1943, SS commando Otto Skorzeny, ended up in Spain, having been allowed to “escape” captivity it seems by the Americans in 1948. Skorzeny, who unlike the above Nazis was not a sadist, would among other things be employed as a military adviser by governments in Egypt and Argentina; he also worked for the Mossad agency, despite his fascist beliefs. In a mysterious post-1945 existence Skorzeny – who had enjoyed a close relationship with Hitler – was seen in the most unlikely of places, from smoking casually in a Parisien cafe on the Champs-Élysées, to acquiring a farmhouse in rural Ireland where he tended his land.
In France from mid-1944, following the Vichy regime’s fall, the public’s hardship was exploited by US forces so as to harm French labour. Supported by Washington, the American Federation of Labour (AFL) dismantled dock strikes by sending over Italian scab labour funded by US corporate money. Badly needed food supplies were withheld from French civilians, in order to enforce obedience. Gangsters were organised to form goon squads and strike breakers, the results of which were later described with some pride in quasi-official US labour histories; which commend the AFL for its efforts in destabilising Europe’s labour movement. (17)
Mainly from the AFL, US labour leaders persuaded workers to accept austerity measures while employers raked in profits. The US State Department compelled the AFL’s leadership to direct some of their energies towards union-busting in Italy, which they did with gusto. The business classes, having fallen into disrepute among the public for having worked closely with the fascists, were reassured at the support bestowed to them by Washington.
With their confidence restored, business sectors pursued a rigorous class war, the final result being the reinstallment of the conservative power structure. While weakening Europe’s labour movements, the AFL further safeguarded the shipment of weaponry to French Indochina, so as to ensure that region remained under imperial control; another chief aim of the US labour bureaucracy. The CIA reorganised the Mafia to assist with arms deals, in return for the heroin trade’s recommencement. US government links to the drug industry continued for decades after. (18)
The Harry Truman administration’s Marshall Plan – which consisted of large-scale efforts to reinforce capitalist business supremacy in Europe – was based strictly on the exclusion of communists and other leftists from power, including extensive segments of the anti-fascist Resistance and labour (19). Economic programs, like the Marshall Plan, assured Washington significant leverage in directing Europe’s affairs. That was its intent from the outset, as the Marshall Plan furthermore served as important subsidies to US exporters of natural resources and manufactured products.
On 12 May 1947 Jefferson Caffery, the US Ambassador to France, informed Secretary of State George Marshall that there would be serious repercussions, should the communists win elections in France. Caffery felt in that scenario, “Soviet penetration of Western Europe, Africa, the Mediterranean and the Middle East would be greatly facilitated”. Also during May 1947, the Truman administration was applying pressure on political leaders in France and Italy to form coalition governments, in order to freeze out the communists (20). Secretary of State Marshall warned publicly that if communist politicians were voted into power, American aid would be terminated, a considerable threat under the circumstances.
Widespread US propaganda in Italy designated the Communist Party as “extremist” and “undemocratic”, while the purported Soviet threat was carefully crafted to frighten Italians. The Christian Democratic Party of Italy, under US pressure, reneged on wartime promises pertaining to workplace democracy. The Italian police, sometimes under the control of ex-fascists, was encouraged to repress labour activities.
The Vatican, which had allied itself to Mussolini for two decades, announced that anyone who voted for the communists in the 1948 election would be denied sacraments. The Vatican was supporting the conservative Christian Democrats, under the title “Either with Christ or against Christ”. The following year, 1949, Pope Pius XII excommunicated all Italian communists. CIA intervention through propaganda, violence and manipulation of aid effectively bought the critical 1948 Italian elections; in which the Christian Democratic Party, led by ex-Vatican librarian Alcide de Gasperi, won a sweeping victory as the communists were excluded from office. De Gasperi, a “founding father” of the EU, had defended the German church in 1937 by saying that it was right to favour Nazism over Bolshevism. (21)
The CIA effort to control Italy’s elections was the intelligence agency’s first major clandestine operation. CIA activities in Italy would continue through to the 1970s, as the country’s democracy was heavily eroded. This information has been in the public domain since 1976, thanks to the leaking of the congressional Pike Report, which detailed CIA interference in Italian affairs.
In Greece, as the Wehrmacht finally pulled out in the autumn of 1944, British soldiers replaced them by simply invading the country, rather than daring to leave it to the Greek Resistance. With the Germans nowhere in sight, in December 1944 Churchill ordered his men to treat Athens as a “conquered city”, and to put down the anti-fascist forces with “bloodshed” if needed (22). The British found a strong anti-fascist presence in Greece, consisting of peasants and workers led by communists.
Britain’s forces were initially able to thwart the Greek Resistance by violence, while restoring royalist factions and Nazi collaborators to power. Renewed armed opposition then surfaced which London was unable to control. In early 1947, they handed the job of pacifying Greece over to the Americans, who pursued it with a degree of fanaticism. This was the basis for the Truman Doctrine, a core tenet of which was to wipe out the resistance in Greece and elsewhere, on the pretext of containing the USSR. Another Western concern regarding Greece and Italy, which are Mediterranean states, was relating to the shipment of raw materials from the Middle East destined for the West.
US diplomat Adlai Stevenson explained later that Washington had to protect Greece from “the aggressors” who “had gained control of most of the country” (23). The aggressors comprising of those that stoically led the fight against Hitler’s troops.
The Americans were committed to state violence, torture and repression, which included the imprisonment without trial of tens of thousands of Greeks in concentration camps. London, to be fair, opposed some of these actions with a British official saying, very early on, that it was “unwise” in one incidence to round up 14,000 people, and intern them without trial in island concentration camps (24). The US Ambassador Lincoln MacVeagh said that the Greek government “had to throw their net wide to catch the right people” whom he calculated at around “a dozen key men”.
Once imprisoned, the detainees were subjected to “reindoctrination” if they “were found to have affiliations which cast grave doubt upon their loyalty to the state”, in the words of the American Mission for Aid to Greece. Elsewhere, Allied “re-education camps” were established, where hundreds of thousands of German and Italian prisoners of war were detained from 1945 to 1948. They were exposed to propaganda, forced labour and severe maltreatment, including mass executions.
The US chargé d’affaires Karl Rankin stressed in May 1948 that there should be “no leniency toward the confirmed agents of an alien and subversive influence”. Rankin went on that executions were legitimate, because even though when arrested the political prisoners may not have been “hardened communists, it is unlikely that they have been able to resist the influence of communist indoctrination organisations existing within most prisons” (25). Much of this has been forgotten, receiving scant mention when Western institutions condemn Beijing’s policies in Xinjiang province which, one might add, is within China’s internationally recognised borders.
US backing for state terror in Greece continued for many years, culminating in their support for the 1967 fascist military coup in Athens. Later on, president Bill Clinton indirectly acknowledged US interference in Greek affairs, while at the same time claiming that Washington’s “obligation” was “to support democracy” throughout the Cold War (26). The far-right putsch was praised at the time for bringing ample opportunities for US business investment.
In Korea during the late 1940s, American forces dispersed the local popular government there and instituted a harsh suppression, making use of Japanese police and other collaborators. Prior to what is known as the Korean War, through 1948 and 1949 an estimated 100,000 people were killed in South Korea by security forces installed and backed by Washington (27). The struggle on the Korean peninsula was between an anti-colonial nationalist movement, and a conservative order tied to the status quo, the latter of which the US was supporting.
The Truman administration initiated a series of military coups in Thailand from the mid-1940s, a country which the Americans would pay particular attention to. US subversion in Thailand enabled the returning to power in early 1948 of Field Marshal Phibun Songkhram, a formerly pro-Japanese, far-right dictator who admired Hitler and Mussolini and copied some of their policies, such as the fascist salute. Washington agreed to the isolation of Pridi Banomyong, leader of the Free Thai Movement who had co-operated with the Allies during the war. Pridi was the most prominent liberal democratic figure in Thailand, but his political beliefs were now eyed suspiciously in the West, and with the Japanese beaten he was no longer of any use.
The CIA’s Thailand specialist Frank Darling noted that Field Marshal Songkhram was “the first pro-Axis dictator to gain power after the war”. In 1954 the US National Security Council, under president Dwight D. Eisenhower, outlined that Thailand should be established as “the focal point of US covert and psychological operations in south-east Asia”; with the stated aim of “making more difficult the control by the Viet Minh of North Vietnam” (28). Eisenhower, an experienced general who had publicly criticised the waging of war, would not agree to outright military attacks; but, unlike Roosevelt, Eisenhower could not continue as president indefinitely and, after he left office in 1961, Thailand served as a central base of planning for the US invasions of Vietnam and later Cambodia and Laos.
*
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.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Notes
1 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 Apr. 1985) p. 326
2 Paul Beston, “The Great Documentary, The World at War, a 1973 series”, City Journal, Spring 2016
3 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 315
4 Ibid., p. 323
5 John Simkin, “Nazi-Soviet Pact”, Spartacus International, September 1997 (Updated January 2020)
6 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 324
7 European Parliament, “Importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe”, 19 September 2019
8 Guido Giacomo Preparata, Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich (Pluto Press; Illustrated edition, 20 May 2005) p. 224
9 Jacques R. Pauwels, “Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler”, Global Research, 7 June 2019
10 Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance (Penguin, 1 Jan. 2004) p. 69
11 Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy (Vintage, New edition, 3 Jan. 2006) p. 42
12 Ibid.
13 Noam Chomsky, Optimism over Despair (Penguin; 1st edition, 27 July 2017) p. 141
14 Jewish Virtual Library, “U.S. policy during World War II: The CIA & Nazi War Criminals”, (Updated February 2005)
15 Noam Chomsky, How The World Works (Hamish Hamilton; Reprint edition, 3 May 2012) The Main Goals of US Foreign Policy
16 Ibid., Historical Background, How the Nazis won the war
17 Chomsky, Optimism over Despair, p. 141
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid., p. 140
20 Ibid., p. 141
21 Paul Ginsborg, A History of Contemporary Italy: 1943-80 (Penguin; Reprint edition, 27 Sep. 1990) Chapter 2, Resistance and Liberation
22 Fraser J. Harbutt, Yalta 1945: Europe and America at the Crossroads (Cambridge University Press; 1st edition, 1 May 2014) p. 199
23 The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 3, pp. 715-716, “U.S. Calls for Frontier Patrol to Help Prevent Border Incidents Between Cambodia and Vietnam”, Statement by Adlai Stevenson to Security Council, 21 May 1964
24 Noam Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader (edited by James Peck, Serpent’s Tail; Main edition, 1 June 1988) p. 213
25 Ibid.
26 James Gerstenzang and Richard Boudreaux, “Clinton Says U.S. Regrets Aid to Junta in Cold War”, Los Angeles Times, 21 November 1999
27 Chomsky, Optimism over Despair, p. 138
28 Douglas Allen, Ngo Vinh Long, Coming to Terms: Indochina, the United States, and the War (First published 1991 by Westview Press, published 2018 by Routledge) Chapter 4, Far from an Aberration
February 25th, 2021 by Yaakov Lappin
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
The move formalizes regular military exercises among the US, Israel and Arab states, which is “crucial for developing effective theater missile defenses, as well as boosting readiness and interoperability in cyber, counterterrorism, special operations, and maritime security.”
Though the move will take some time to go into effect, the Pentagon’s recent decision to relocate Israel to the area of responsibility (AOR) of the US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM, which operates in the Middle East) is a direct operational reflection of the Abraham Accords, in which Israel normalized relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, with Saudi support.
The head of CENTCOM, General Kenneth F. McKenzie, recently told the Middle East Institute,
“We do a lot of business with Israel now just as a practical matter of fact because their threats generally emanate from the east. In a certain way, this is just a natural recognition of that at the operational level.”
In comments reported by Defense News, McKenzie said bringing Israel into CENTCOM will enable the United States to place an “operational perspective” on the Abraham Accords, setting up “further corridors and opportunities to open up between Israel and Arab countries in the region” on a military-to-military level. This, in turn, will pave the way toward a collective regional approach to common Middle Eastern threats.
McKenzie stated that the move also lines up with a US vision in which “our friends in the region do more for themselves” and in which neighbors work closely together, adding that the CENTCOM move is “a step in that direction.”
Prior to the Pentagon’s decision, a detailed report released by the pro-Israel Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which includes a number of former high-ranking American military officials as members, made the case for bringing Israel into CENTCOM’s area of responsibility.
According to JINSA’s director of foreign policy, Jonathan Ruhe, the idea initially received mixed responses from both defense establishments, but the feedback has grown consistently more positive over the past three years.
JINSA argued that such a network could lead to the creation of a region-wide missile defense network with shared early warning alerts. The cooperation could include steps to disrupt the Iranian proliferation of advanced weapons to its proxies, which target Israel and US forces, and pragmatic Sunni states alike.
A central member of the regional anti-Iranian alliance
In the face of these threats, CENTCOM can also initiate joint exercises and contingency plans for Iran-specific threats, thereby boosting cooperation, while Israel can find a new framework within which to share critical information from its “war between the wars” to disrupt Iranian force build-up in the region.
The report explained that each US military geographic combatant command (COCOM) is in charge of implementing US defense policy in its area of responsibility (AOR) while exercising unified command over all forces in its jurisdiction. Each COCOM works with and coordinates with partner militaries in its region, making them a “primary mechanism for US-led regional cooperation on strategic planning, training, doctrine, logistics, intelligence, technology, procurement, operations and other critical military activities.”
In this context, moving Israel to CENTCOM formalizes regular military exercises among the United States, Israel and Arab states. “Such training would be crucial for developing effective theater missile defenses, as well as boosting readiness and interoperability in cyber, counter-terrorism, special operations, and maritime security,” said the report.
Israel is no longer excluded by the Arab states in CENTCOM’s region; in fact, it is becoming a central member of the regional anti-Iranian alliance. The move to CENTCOM is a reflection of this historic shift.
As JINSA’s report states, the move will ultimately facilitate collective regional action to roll back Iran’s footprint in CENTCOM’s AOR while also preparing for a looming potential war and smoothing over day-to-day operational cooperation.
Israel has been under European Command’s (EUCOM) AOR since the latter’s creation in 1952, an arrangement that proved beneficial to both sides for decades.
That arrangement enabled the United States and other NATO members to partner closely with Israel, particularly post-9/11, as well as to develop close missile-defense cooperation, which saw EUCOM forces arrive in Israel for Juniper Cobra missile-defense drills every two years.
Both EUCOM and CENTCOM are undergoing changes, as JINSA’s report outlines. Preparations reflecting such changes could be found as far back as March 2018, when CENTCOM released a posture statement that for the first time listed Israel in its area as a partner for theater security cooperation and partnership in light of rising threats from Iran and the Islamic State.
That same month, CENTCOM forces took part in the Juniper Cobra exercise held between the Israel Defense Forces and EUCOM, and Gen. Joseph Votel became the first CENTCOM commander to officially visit Israel.
At CENTCOM, there is now an acute need to create a regional cooperation network that connects the US military, the IDF and the Gulf States to one another to face common threats from Iran, as well as from Islamic State.
Meanwhile, EUCOM is keen to return its primary focus to great-power competition with Russia.
An open question raised by the move is whether the United States will now be encouraged to position precision munitions on Israeli soil, which could serve both the IDF and CENTCOM in the event of a potential conflict with Iran. JINSA noted that EUCOM has no interest in replenishing this stockpile, as it wants munitions in Europe in case of conflict with Russia. CENTCOM might take a different view.
Aside from anything else, Israel’s move into CENTCOM could boost deterrence against Iran by signaling a major step in the crystallization of a regional collective military partnership that recognizes the Israeli-Sunni alliance in the face of the radical Shiite axis.
*
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.
Featured image: General Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr, USMC 14th commander of U.S. Central Command (Public Domain)
February 25th, 2021 by Edward Curtin
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
It’s hard to say where things begin, but they do, as do we, and we are somehow in them and they in us, and a story begins.
Then the story gets silently disclosed as we live it, even though most of us don’t tell it until later, if we can find our tongues. But when we tell it we are in another story, often nostalgic for the future but finding the creative past pulling us back down and deep to illuminate the present.
Life is dangerous; we can end at any time. We can also be swallowed by the inarticulate, find ourselves tongue-tied in the face of simple truth, especially the personal kind and how our small-world stories are intertwined with the larger social ones. How there is no escaping that.
There are many, of course, for whom the bell tolls before they end. As Bob Dylan sings it so beautifully in Chimes of Freedom, a song about being caught in a thunder and lightning rain storm:
In the wild cathedral evening the rain unraveled tales
For the disrobed faceless forms of no position
Tolling for the tongues with no place to bring their thoughts
All down in taken-for granted situations
Tolling for the deaf an’ blind, tolling for the mute
For the mistreated, mateless mother, the mistitled prostitute
For the misdemeanor outlaw, chased an’ cheated by pursuit
An’ we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.
We are now living in a world where freedom’s flashing lightning bolts have been replaced by dim grim grimaces of widespread depression and resignation as the shroud of solicitous neofascism descends on much of the world.
Human freedom is under widespread assault. Free speech is being attacked. Censorship is widespread and growing. Flesh and blood life is being sucked into a whirlpool of what John Steppling calls “a universe of disembodied data.” Mediated reality is replacing physical reality as the world’s elites attempt to sell their packaged and commodified stories to publics ensnared and enamored by the technology that is entrapping them. All tradition, the good and the bad, is gutted out by elites determined to create chaos and digital dementia as they coordinate their power under the banner of the “reasonable center” as distinct from the left and the right. It’s an old story that many can’t hear because they can no longer listen.
But lightning never dies since it is only in flashing that it exists, like us, and here and there you can still see and hear its messages of freedom and revolt. It comes unexpectedly. Out of the blue. It lurks in the shadowy clouds as an invisible force, always ready to strike. You have to be alert and know where to look. Listen. You have to want to see it, to catch its energy.
A year ago, right before the world was locked-down into a devastating hell, my then eleven-year-old granddaughter Sophie, who is a writer, starred in the lead role of a big production of Matilda, the play based on the book of the same name by the mischievous writer Roald Dahl, who wrote so many books extolling freedom for children – aka adults. Matilda is about a girl who refuses to be bullied by the headmistress of her school or her parents. When Sophie stepped forward boldly and defiantly looked at the audience and sang her first solo, Naughty, a shiver went down my spine, what Coomaraswamy called “the aesthetic shock.” Bold and fearless, she sang these words that flashed like Dylan’s chimes of freedom to a rapt audience wondering who this Matilda might be:
Like Romeo and Juliet
T’was written in the stars before they even met
That love and fate, and a touch of stupidity
Would rob them of their hope of living happily
The endings are often a little bit gory
I wonder why they didn’t just change their story?
We’re told we have to do what we’re told but surely
Sometimes you have to be a little bit naughty
As the historian Howard Zinn has said: Our greatest problem is civil obedience. Zinn tried to change the story but few have heeded his advice. The American story is the embrace of endless war and violence, often justified under the alibi of “the lesser of two evils,” as if lesser evil were not evil. Such evil is always presented as reasonable, the center between two extremes.
A hundred years ago, D. H. Lawrence wrote of Americans that “All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.”
In their wish to obey, so many, unlike Matilda, accede to endings that are very gory, echoing Melville’s Captain Ahab in Moby Dick: “Fool! I am the Fates’ lieutenant; I act under orders,” sometimes not knowing that they are doing so but finding comfort in their obeisance since the leaders and experts and authority figures know what’s best – just do what you’re told, as a current sage recently said. Obey orders.
Yes, these experts are the light-bringers, like Prometheus and his brother Lucifer, they bring the fire. Under orders from Lucifer whom he embodies, Ahab insanely hunts Moby Dick for three days until the great white whale rises from the depths and drags him down to hell, “and the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago.” So it goes. It’s an old story worth remembering, whether the whale be huge or invisible. To resist, you have to be a little bit naughty, and brave, for we are on a journey without maps and are now in a very dark place.
Our stories enclose one another, the largest being the story of the social world we always live within, a big story that usually eludes our understanding or focus until one day we realize it has always been the womb we have been swimming in all our lives. We are always inside one whale or another, but the biggest whale is the social story about external “realities” told by those who control the media that encloses all our smaller tales. It is crucial to understand this story through discernment and not to let the media monsters convince us of their versions, for they are not our friends. They lie for their masters.
Referring specifically to novelists, but by extension to everyone since we are the novelists of our own lives, George Orwell, in his essay “Inside the Whale,” whose primary focus was the writing of Henry Miller, wrote:
Get inside the whale – or rather, admit that you are inside the whale (for you are, of course.)
By which he meant the feeling that external forces are out of control and that as society disintegrates and the autonomous individual is stamped out of existence, “the increasing helplessness of all decent people” becomes a widespread feeling. He was not endorsing such quietism and resignation, but was describing it.
Such a feeling is clearly far more widespread today, long after Orwell penned those words. He was praising Miller for saying what regular people (his phrase was “ordinary man,” a phrase he held was accurate but “denied by some people” who believe all generalizations are piffle) thought and felt despite it being taboo to say it. It is why Miller’s books were banned; they were too truthful. He dragged “the real-politik of the inner mind into the open.”
The establishment always prefers refined bullshit to the secret thoughts of regular people, those who are fed up with the endless lies that that pour forth from the official narrators’ mouths.
My entire life has been framed by the story of America’s constant wars, their glorification and justification. From the first detonation of the nuclear device in the New Mexican desert, blasphemously called “Trinity” by Robert Oppenheimer, until this very day in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Yemen, etc., I could not understand my story without situating it within the belly of this beast called the U.S.A. This is true for most people alive today. Stories within stories.
Peel the American onion and at its heart you’ll find a bomb. “Fat Man” or “Little Boy” or whatever sick name you choose to give it.
Our smaller tales nestled in the private recesses of our minds are seemingly sometimes boring to many but illuminating to those telling them. They can and often do appear when one is bored by the repetitive nature of the screaming, fear-mongering political headlines meant to reduce people to quivering victims of false narratives. “Boredom,” wrote Walter Benjamin in The Storyteller, “is the dream bird that hatches the egg of experience. A rustling in the leaves drives him away.”
Far more than a rustling, we are living in a digital media world of cacophonous lies that drown out the silence necessary for independent thinking or dreaming.
So here I sit in the silence and try to conjure up the Pine-eyed Boy.
The boy was five or six, he can’t remember which, when his father took him to the movie theater to see Walt Disney’s Pinocchio. Just the two of them, a father with his only son, the boy’s five sisters left at home. By the time two more sisters had arrived, this intimate dream experience had penetrated deep into him. His father followed up the movie by entertaining the boy and lulling him to sleep many nights by telling him improvised Pinocchio tales, none of which the boy could remember but could never forget. These stories became the penumbra of his life.
He always remembered Thoreau saying that “it is so hard to forget what it is worse than useless to remember.” But while nodding assent to that truth, he always felt Pinocchio was different. Pinocchio must be remembered, not so much the Disney version, but the stories his father told on the theme; but more importantly, why he told them. He knew that it is so easy to forget what is important to remember, and that we often use our forgetteres to do just that.
Like most small children or adults, the complexity of this Disney film eluded him. He remembered being mesmerized and frightened and delighted in turn. The cricket, the whale, the puppet maker, his pine-eyed creation, and the Blue Fairy – all of these seemed so real to him, images that would drift through his unknowing mind unattached to words, like images in an inner mirror. Fleeting and fascinating. Moving.
When the kidnapped boys were taken with Pinocchio on the dark sea journey to Pleasure Island, he was frightened. He had no words for it, but the Coachman Barker, the kidnapper, seemed to ooze menace. But his father’s large protective presence in the aisle seat to his left seemed to enclose his fear and tell him all would be fine. He felt contained in his protective love. His father felt like a counterweight to the satanic looking Barker with the pedophile’s red laugh and demeanor. His father was his protector.
The man the boy became spent decades meditating on the meaning of his youthful encounter with Pinocchio’s story. Or was it his relationship with his father, or perhaps his relationship with his father’s encounter with Pinocchio, or maybe his father’s relationship with his father without Pinocchio but with the feeling the boy must save his father after the father wishes the boy to life and his mother dies and leaves the father all alone, trapped in the belly of a dark life.
My father’s father, my grandfather, was the Deputy Chief of the New York Fire Department, which was the highest rank for a uniformed firefighter. He had battled many dangerous fires to save people’s lives. Defeating the fire “devil” was his calling. But when my father was eighteen years old, his mother died, and my grandfather was left alone. I never asked him, but I am wondering now if my father, then aged 18, felt it was his duty to save his father from the monster of loneliness, the feeling of being shipwrecked, abandoned by God. And if that sense of obligation was connected to Pinocchio’s story, where the puppet boy is first nearly killed by putting his finger into a candle flame but is saved by his father, Geppetto, the wife-less toy maker, who puts out the fire with water, and then at the end, in a role reversal, when Pinocchio saves his father from the belly of Monstro the whale by using fire to make the whale sneeze them up to the shore.
Such an ending evokes the terrible heavy burden felt by any child whose “cricket” tells them that they must save a parent. Such role reversal exacts a heavy price.
In the Biblical story, Jonah surely felt obligated that way after he was spit up on the shore by the great fish whose belly had saved him. He did not want to do his father Yahweh’s will and tell the people of Nineveh that they must repent their ways. So he fled, only to find himself thrown overboard but saved by the God he didn’t obey.
I once asked my father to tell me about his father, whom I knew as a young child, but my memories were few and scattered and he died when I was ten-years-old. This was after my father had sent me many letters describing in detail his father’s and mother’s relatives, what some might call genealogy but which were actually mini-short stories. To my father and to me, it was the stories that counted, not the bloodline; exquisite writer that he was, my father knew that it was the gift of stories that would allow me to shape my own, and that he was, to use Benjamin’s words, starting a “web which all stories form in the end.”
Despite these detailed epistles about our family history, my father seemed hesitant to describe his father. I kept pressing him. He finally wrote that he would get the bio sketch of Pop in the works for me. “I’m afraid,” he wrote, “it will be like the closing words of St. John’s Gospel though: ‘And many other things did Dennis of Woodlawn do that are not written in this book; but these are written so that reading you may believe that Dennis was quite a man.”
My father knew his Bible, for these are the closing words of John’s Gospel: “There were many other things that Jesus did; if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the books that would have to be written.”
He never said another word about his father. I knew the comparison to Jesus was farfetched, but beside that, I was left in the lurch, except to realize that my father idolized his father, and I had learned from experience that idolization was not good, for it leads to blind obedience. I had idolized my own father, but it was only until I knew his human weaknesses and faults that I came to love him even more and idolization turned to deeper gratitude.
Ever since my father’s death and up until recently, I have felt that this missing piece of his story was a result of my father’s fear to convey the full truth about his father, despite my repeated requests to him to do so. I have changed my literal mind. I now see it as a brilliant extension of the improvised Pinocchio stories he told me as a child. Just as they always left me wondering why they never had a clear ending as I fell sleeping into the belly of the night, I see this absence of his father’s story as a present, a gift like a fairy tale. “The fairy tale tells us,” wrote Benjamin, “of the earliest arrangements that mankind made to shake off the nightmare which the myth had placed upon its chest.”
One such myth, the one that I have long felt true and that has informed much of my life is that I could save others. It is sheer arrogance. It is violence. It is a mythic nightmare that I have carried on my chest. Fr. Walter Brown, S.J., who was a guiding light in my life, once told my parents when they were visiting my high school for parents’ night: “Eddie will be fine once he gets the world off his shoulders.” And Fr. Brown didn’t know the half of it, but, being an artist of deep intuition, knew enough.
All my efforts to “save” others in the personal realm have failed, as I should have expected. No one really wants advice or counsel; to be saved; they want to be free to create or destroy their own stories.
I have also written and published many things trying to convince people through logic and facts that this is true and that isn’t; that they need to change their beliefs. I have tried to light a fire in the belly of Monstro the whale to save others from the descending shroud of solicitous neofascism that is upon us. To alert others to the overarching American story of violence that is consuming us.
In all of this, I was missing the story in the story. The absence that is the present. The transformative gift that keeps circulating because it is freely given to us by the spirit to pass on in the telling.
“It is half the art of storytelling to keep a story free from explanation as one reproduces it,” said Benjamin. I have tried.
Or as Nietzsche said of the chorus in Greek tragedy:
With this chorus, the profound Hellene, uniquely susceptible to the tenderest and deepest suffering, comforts himself, having looked boldly right into the terrible destructiveness of so-called world history as well as the cruelty of nature, and being in danger of longing for a Buddhistic negation of the will. Art saves him, and through art – life.
It’s still the same old story, especially when you know what’s missing.
*
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.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.
Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is the author of the new book: https://www.claritypress.com/product/seeking-truth-in-a-country-of-lies/
Featured image is from Pixabay
February 25th, 2021 by Jordan Lancaster
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
House Democrats have asked President Joe Biden to give other officials the authority to launch nuclear weapons, an action which he currently has sole authority to do.
California Rep. Jimmy Panetta spearheaded the Monday letter, which was signed by nearly three dozen House Democrats, Politico reported.
“Vesting one person with this authority entails real risks,” the letter reads. “Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that caused other officials to express concern about the president’s judgment.”
“While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering a nuclear attack, there is no requirement to do so,” the letter says according to the report. “The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war. Under the current posture of U.S. nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.”
The letter suggests alternative plans, such as requiring the president to get approval for a launch order from other officials in the line of succession. This includes the vice president and the Speaker of the House, “neither of whom can be removed by the president if they disagree.”
Some officials pushed for former President Donald Trump’s nuclear launch code access to be revoked following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi considered asking the military to prevent Trump from accessing the nuclear codes in order to prevent “an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike,” a statement sent from Pelosi to House Democrats said.
*
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.
February 25th, 2021 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
“There exists an unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It is outrageous, this is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting society.”
This is what top Canadian pathologist and virologist Dr Roger Hodkinson told Canadian government officials about Corona back in late November 2020 during a Zoom conference call (1). And he is right! We can only stop this pandemic hoax and give our children a future worth living if we realise that we are both victims and perpetrators.
Don’t hand over power to anyone!
Every few years we elect corrupt politicians to high government offices and regard them as respectable authorities. Politicians immediately associate this ascription with claims to power, create a relationship of superiority and subordination and enforce the will or instructions of the global power elite on the citizens. These mendacious politicians can neither be trusted today nor in the future, wrote Leo Tolstoy as early as 1905 (2).
For more than a year they have been stirring up irrational fears and a public hysteria and panic of a terrible choking death with their loyal mass media without any reason. Yet the deliberate stirring up of irrational fears has been an instrument of discipline and domination by unscrupulous despots for centuries. They are doing the work of the devil, not the work of God. We do not have a medical problem worldwide, but a political one! We are all to be panicked into obeying so they can do what they want with us.
But despots not only stir up unfounded fears, they also use religion for their satanic plans. The state and the church have been allies and henchmen, respectively, since time immemorial! Both want us to believe in the so-called authorities and show absolute spiritual obedience – a so-called cadaver obedience! Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit Order, demanded this as early as the middle of the 16th century: According to divine providence, we should let ourselves be led and guided by the superiors as if we were a dead body or the staff of an old man with which one can do what one wants.
We are victims…
And that’s how most of us behave too! Many adults react to these politicians like children or like primitive man reacted: In the form of a “magical belief in authority” – uncritical, and clouded by moods, feelings and promises of happiness. And this has consequences: Belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute spiritual obedience and paralysis of the mind. Full-headed adults can then no longer think for themselves and judge rationally, and hand over decision-making power to immoral politicians or to a supernatural being who is supposed to guide us as a “deity” until the end of days and protect us.
That is why priests receive massive financial and ideological support from the secular authorities. And this obedience is drilled into us humans from childhood! All this leads, among other things, to the fact that citizens worldwide:
…and perpetrators at the same time
Due to the unfounded fear reaction, the religiously conditioned belief in authority and the absolute spiritual obedience reflex, we show no compassion for our fellow human beings in distress and suffering and abandon them. This goes so far that we even fail to protect our own brood, our children, who have fallen into great distress as a result of the criminal swindle and some of whom no longer want to live. In doing so, we are blocking our entire future. Yet it is compassion for all creatures, that makes human beings truly human, said Albert Schweitzer.
Dear fellow citizens, I implore you to think about what I have said and to get out of the belief in authority
Please wake up and have the courage to use your common sense – before it is too late!
*
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.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, NRhZ-ONLINE.
Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Notes
(1) ORBIS(nju:S), Contra Mainstream Blog, 22 November 2020
(2) Hänsel, R. (2020). Handing over power to no one! A psychological manifesto of common sense. Gornji Milanovac. ISBN 978-86-7432-119-5. The “Neue Rheinische Zeitung NRhZ” published the entire text in three installments. An abridged version was also published in the NRhZ and additionally in “Rubikon” as well as in English in “Global Research” (www.globalresearch.ca).
February 25th, 2021 by Mike Whitney
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
In a recent front-page article, the New York Times reported that the new mutated version of the Coronavirus was likely to be more contagious or lethal than the original infection. According to the Times, this new iteration of the infection could resist conventional treatments and force lockdown nations to extend the timeline for lifting restrictions. But given that “daily Covid infections have declined by 77 percent since January” and the virus appears to be ‘on its way out’, the report in the Times seems particularly suspicious. Is this new mutation, called the “variant”, really as deadly as it’s cracked up to be or is the media conjuring up another Covid hobgoblin to scare the public into getting vaccinated? Check out this excerpt from the article:
“British government scientists are increasingly finding the coronavirus variant first detected in Britain to be linked to a higher risk of death than other versions of the virus, a devastating trend that highlights the serious risks and considerable uncertainties of this new phase of the pandemic.
The scientists said last month that there was a “realistic possibility” that the variant was not only more contagious than others, but also more lethal. Now, they say in a new document that it is “likely” that the variant is linked to an increased risk of hospitalization and death….
The reasons for an elevated death rate are not entirely clear. Some evidence suggests that people infected with the variant may have higher viral loads, a feature that could not only make the virus more contagious but also potentially undermine the effectiveness of certain treatments.
But scientists are also trying to understand how much of the increased risk of death may stem from the propensity of the variant to spread very easily through settings like nursing homes, where people are already vulnerable.
No matter the explanation, scientific advisers to the British government said on Saturday, the new findings laid bare the dangers of countries easing restrictions as the variant takes hold.” (“Covid-19: U.K.-Based Variant Is Probably More Lethal, Scientists Say”, New York Times)
We are not going to waste alot of time on this short blurb, but we will ask people to mull over the hyperbolic phraseology that’s used with the clear intention of terrifying readers. The author makes no effort to point out that there is little or no evidence that the so-called ‘variant’ has triggered a spike in cases or that it has caused more deaths. Instead, he devotes the entire 5-paragraph segment to spreading terror about an issue of which the public knows next to nothing. Why would the author do this?
We see three possible reasons:
We think the most likely answer is Number 3, that this article and the thousands others like it are part of a well-funded terror campaign directed at vaccine skeptics who have no intention of getting inoculated for an infection that affects a mere sliver of the population and that appears to be dying out by the day. Why would any reasonable person do that?
But there’s no denying that the variant is now being used to fuel the Covid hysteria and perpetuate the repressive conditions that have been imposed arbitrarily by Democrat governors acting on behalf of powerful oligarchs and climate fabulists. So, the best way to address this situation is to shed a little light on the topic itself. What we want to do, is present the views of a few respected professionals who have no ax to grind and who have a good grasp of the science. That way, readers can decide for themselves whether the Times article has any merit or is just more of the same hyperventilating drivel they regurgitate every day. First, check out this video interview with Sunetra Gupta, who is Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford, and a Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellow. Here’s what she said:
“It may well be that some of these variants are more transmissible, but the truth is, that within a system where you have alot of immunity shared, …what you tend to get is competitive exclusion so that the infection with the highest Reproductive rate wins. What that means is that even with a marginal increase in transmissibility, that could see a new variant sweep through. But that does not have much of a material effect or difference in how we deal with the virus. In other words, the surge of the virus cannot be ascribed to a new variant….
The other question is are these variants more virulent, and the truth is we don’t know, but it is unlikely because the data don’t seem to say so despite the scary headlines…Pathogens tend to evolve towards lower virulence….because that maximizes their transmissibility...It is much more probable that these strains will not be materially so different that we would have to alter our policies.” (Sunetra Gupta: Are these new variants more transmissible?” You Tube)
Repeat: “Pathogens tend to evolve towards lower virulence”
What Gupta means is that– as the number of susceptible hosts dwindles– the strain that best adapts to that new situation, is the one that will dominate. That does not mean that it will become more contagious or lethal; quite the contrary, as Gupta points out, these infections tend to weaken over time, not get stronger or more deadly. But, why?
Because the number of people who are capable of contracting Covid is shrinking all the time. Remember, the virus has already ripped through the population twice, which means the pool of potential hosts has shrunk dramatically. So, whether the new variants are modesty different or not, the number of cases, hospitalizations and fatalities will continue to fall. Infections do not have an infinite life span nor is the variant a new or novel virus. It is a slight variation of the original pathogen which means the virus is on its way out.
Notice how this analysis conflicts with the fearmongering of the article in the Times. We are trying to explain what a variant is, while the Times is trying to use the fear of a sinister and invisible pathogen to coerce a certain behavior, in this case, getting vaccinated. Our explanation is an appeal to one’s sense of reason and judgement, while the other is a manipulation of one’s darkest emotions and fear of death. Which do you prefer?
Here’s more on the topic from Diagnostic pathologist, Dr Claire Craig who provides a more technical explanation:
“SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence has ~30,000 letters. Alterations in a handful of letters will not change it’s shape much – if it did it wouldn’t function properly anyway. Fear mongering about immune escape is not needed and is irresponsible esp when no evidence to support the claims.” (Claire Craig)
In essence, Craig is saying the same thing we said earlier, that the slight mutations to the infection will not impact the immune reaction of people who already had the virus. Thus, the current crop of “variants” should not be a cause for alarm. If you have already had Covid or if you already have prior-immunity due to previous exposure to similar infections, (SARS, for example) the new strain should not be a problem.
Here’s a longer explanation that some readers might find overly technical and perhaps tedious, but it’s worth wading through in order to see that the media is deliberately misstating the science to terrify the public. This excerpt is from an article by Michael Yeadon, ex-Pfizer Vice President of allergy and respiratory research. Here’s what he said:
“The idea is planted in people’s mind that this virus is mutating in such a way as to evade prior immunity. This is completely unfounded, certainly as regards immunity..(that is) gained naturally, after repelling the virus ….
It’s important to appreciate that upon infection, the human immune system cuts up an infectious agent into short pieces. Each of these short pieces of protein are presented to other cells in the immune system, like an identity parade. Our cells have a truly astonishing range of abilities to recognize different protein structures, and there will be some which recognize each of the pieces of the invader. The cells which recognize a piece are instructed to multiply selectively so that, after a few days to a couple of weeks, our bodies contain large numbers of virus piece specific cells. These have a range of functions. Some make antibodies & others are programmed to kill cells infected by the virus, recognized by displaying on their surface signals that tell the body that they’ve been invaded.
In almost all cases,… this smart adaptive system overcomes the infection. Crucially… this event leaves you with many different kinds of long-lived ‘memory’ cells which, if you’re infected again, rapidly wipe out any attempt at reinfection.So, you won’t again be made ill by the same virus, and because the virus is simply not permitted to replicate, you are also no longer able to participate in transmission.
To mutations & variants.
Many viruses are error-prone when they replicate in your cells. They make “typos” so the virus which results is slightly different from the parent virus. Sometimes that small changes make no difference to the behavior of the virus. Other times, the change renders the virus incapable of something important to its survival. It’s possible a change makes it slightly better at surviving and so over time, it becomes a higher proportion of viruses sequenced from clinical samples. The general ‘direction of travel’ is to become less injurious but easier to transmit, eventually joining the other 40 or so viruses which cause what we collectively term ‘the common cold”.
What generally doesn’t happen is for mutants to become more lethal to the hosts (us). But the key point I wanted to get across is just how large SARS-COV-2 is. I recall it’s of the order of 30,000 letters of genetic code which, when translated, make around 10,000 amino acids in several viral proteins. Now you can see that the kinds of numbers of changes in the letters of the genetic code are truly tiny in comparison with the whole. 30 letter changes might be roughly 0.1% of the virus’s code. In other words, 99.9% of that code is not different from the so-called Wuhan strain.Similarly, the changes in the protein translated from those letter code alterations are overwhelmed by the vast majority of the unchanged protein sequences. So your immune system, recognizing as it does perhaps dozens of short pieces…. will not be fooled by a couple of small changes to a tiny fraction of these. No: your immune system knows immediately that this is an invader it’s seen before, and has no difficulty whatsoever in dealing with it swiftly & without symptoms. So, it’s a scientifically invalid…
… even if mutations did change a couple of these, the majority of the pieces…. of the mutated virus will still be unchanged & recognized by the vaccine-immune system or the virus-infected immune system & a prompt, vigorous response will still protect you. ..
I do have to urge you to do is do a little research of your own to test whether what…the Govt is telling you marries up with the pre-2020 scientific literature & official guidance…. or whether it doesn’t. If you find one occasion where what you’re being told runs directly contrary to pre-2020 science & guidance, congratulations! You’ve discovered that you’re being misled & lied to.”(“Variants, Covid”, Michael Yeadon, My Thread Reader)
While Yeadon’s explanation is much longer than Dr Craig’s, their views on the variant appear to be identical. Finally, there’s this, from an article by Rosemary Frei at the Off Guardian:
“It turns out that the case for the variants’ contagiousness and dangerousness centers largely on the theoretical effects of just one change said to stem from a mutation in the virus’s genes. And, as I’ll show in this article, that case is very shaky….
Public-health officials, politicians and the mainstream media around the world turned their collective headlights on the variants right after the publication of three theoretical-modeling papers on B.1.1.7, a variant originating in the U.K. The first was a Technical Briefing by Public Health England published Dec. 21 …, the second a paper published Dec. 23 by a mathematical-modeling group at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the third a theoretical-modeling manuscript posted Dec. 31 by a large group of UK scientists.
The main evidence that the top three theoretical-models cite as proof of stronger bonding between the N501Y form of the novel coronavirus and the RBD is from just three scientific manuscripts, and these describe experiments with the virus in mice or petri dishes, not observation of whether in fact the variants are truly more contagious or more deadly… None of the three papers was checked over for accuracy by objective observers – a process called ‘peer review.’ Nonetheless, all three were portrayed as solid science by many scientists, politicians, public-health officials and the press.
The authors of that paper themselves conclude that:
this result should be interpreted with caution. As a limited number of samples with the S-negative profile [i.e., tests that were positive for two of the three portions of the PCR test but not for the third, S-gene, portion] were sequenced, we could not exclude the presence of other S mutations associated with this profile…. Moreover we could not determine whether the deletion affected the primer or other probe-binding region as their coordinates were not available.
It’s a good bet that similar sleights of hand are behind the new wave of papers and headlines focusing on the amino-acid change dubbed E484K…. That the pronouncements about the dire danger posed by the new variants aren’t based on solid science… They appear to be aimed more at scaring the public into submitting to harsher and longer restrictions than helping to create truly evidence-based policies.
So follow the golden rules. Read the primary scientific-paper sources. Analyze them and think for yourself. Don’t let your reasoning be swept away by the 24-7, fear-filled news cycle.” (“The shaky science behind the “deadly new strains” of Sars-Cov-2“, The Off Guardian)
So the whole “variant” theory is based on 3 or 4 papers that have not been peer reviewed, do not produce solid evidence of their findings, and haven’t even been checked for accuracy. The authors might as well have been writing science fiction and yet, the media and public health experts lap it up and insist that the danger is real. But is it?
No, it’s not. The variant is just the latest in a long list of fear-generating devices that are being used to perpetuate the state of emergency, scare the public into submissive compliance, and coerce the public into injecting themselves with a toxic gene-altering cocktail that could dramatically impact fertility, longevity and survival itself.
Don’t get swept up in the hysteria. The people who are orchestrating this elaborate hoax, do not have your best interests in mind. In fact, they might want to put you in an early grave.
*
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.
This article was originally published on The Unz Review.
Featured image is from Shutterstock
February 25th, 2021 by Margaret Flowers
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Today, February 24, 72 organizations and 700 individuals published an open letter calling for the Biden administration to end its illegal and destructive intervention in Haiti. While Joe Biden and the Democrats condemned the Trump forces for not respecting the results of the U.S. election, they are supporting Jovenel Moïse’s refusal to leave office after his term as president ended on February 7, 2021. Moïse has unleashed violent gangs, the police and the military against protesters who are demanding that he respect the Constitution and step down.
“President Biden claims to care about racial equity but his actions in Haiti show the emptiness of that rhetoric,” said Ajamu Baraka of the Black Alliance for Peace. “For centuries now, the United States has employed force to dominate Haiti, the first Black Republic that was established in 1804 after the defeat of French and Spanish colonizers. President Biden has an opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to democracy and Black self-determination by ending support for the Moïse regime and denouncing the current violence.”
The past two presidents of Haiti, Michel Martelly and Jovenel Moïse, were hand-picked and forced into office by the United States during the Obama administration against the will of the Haitian people. Moïse is currently ruling by decree after dismissing most of the legislators and refusing to hold elections. With the backing of the Core Group, composed of the United States, Canada, Brazil, France, Germany, Spain, the European Union and the United Nations, Moïse is trying to push a new constitution through using a referendum in April. The new constitution being written by members of the Core Group and without any real participation of the Haitian people would grant greater power to the executive office.
Source: Danny Shaw/COHA
Since February 7, the rogue Moïse government has launched a brutal crackdown on all dissent resulting in home invasions, arrests, the firing of Supreme Court judges and a police inspector general, attacks on the media and the use of chemical agents and live ammunition to disperse protests, as documented by the U. S. Human Rights Clinics.
“The current situation in Haiti is critical,” stated Marleine Bastien, the Executive Director of the Family Action Network Movement (FANM) and a leading voice in South Florida’s Haitian community. “The Superior Council of Haiti’s Judiciary, The Haitian Bar Federation, and credible civil society organizations inside Haiti and their diaspora allies agree that President Moise’s term has in fact ended. It is time for President Biden to keep his promise and respect the democratic rights and self-determination of the Haitian people.”
*
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.
Featured image is from Danny Shaw/COHA
February 25th, 2021 by Global Research News
Malcolm X from the Grassroots to the African Revolution
By
, February 24 2021These remarks were delivered at an African American History Month virtual webinar hosted by the Moratorium NOW! Coalition on Monday February 22, 2021. The event was held in honor of Malcolm X.
A People’s History of Struggle: Liberty or Lockdown
By
, February 24 2021What began in March 2020 as a three-week lockdown to ‘save the NHS’ has turned into a year-long clampdown on fundamental liberties with the spectre of freedom through vaccination (‘COVID status certificates’) and the eventual roll out of all-encompassing digital IDs on the horizon.
By
, February 24 2021Still scope for misunderstandings, a naval clash in the South China Sea, an exchange at the border war with India, fighter jets taking matters into their hands. But the economic race with the United States is over. China has new economic goals.
The Vaccine (Dis)Information War
By
, February 24 2021It’s an absolutely safe, non-experimental, messenger-RNA vaccine that teaches your cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response, just like your body’s immune-system response, only better, because it’s made by corporations!
Social Inequities in the USA: How this Country Fails Its Most Vulnerable
By
, February 24 2021Economic crises shine a spotlight on a society’s inequities and hierarchies, as well as its commitment to support those who are most vulnerable in such grievous moments.
By
, February 24 2021A secret paper from the Swiss Federal Council (Swiss Executive) was leaked to the Swiss Newspaper “Der Blick” divulging that the Federal Council is considering granting owners of restaurants, theatres, cinemas, and more, the right to allow access to those people only, who have had their corona virus shots.
By Putting Big Pharma’s Patents before Patients, Doctors Will Further Erode Trust in Experts
By
, February 24 2021I have spent the past several years on my blog trying to highlight one thing above all others: that the institutions we were raised to regard as authoritative are undeserving of our blind trust.
What’s Not Being Said About the Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine. “Human Guinea Pigs”?
By
, February 24 2021Twenty Reasons Mandatory Face Masks are Unsafe, Ineffective and Immoral
By
, February 24 2021Masks create an irrational fear of germs and a false sense of protection from disease, leading to antisocial (or even hostile) behaviour towards those not wearing a mask.
What Planet Is NATO Living On?
By
, February 24 2021The February meeting of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Defense Ministers, the first since President Biden took power, revealed an antiquated, 75-year-old alliance that, despite its military failures in Afghanistan and Libya, is now turning its military madness toward two more formidable, nuclear-armed enemies: Russia and China.
By
, February 24 2021Via a Monday Twitter post, President Joe Biden made an unqualified assertion that the experimental coronavirus vaccines, which are not even vaccines under the normal meaning of vaccines, the United States government is encouraging Americans to take are “safe” for everyone.
Machinery of Death: When the Government Acts as Judge, Jury and Executioner
By
, February 24 2021The U.S. government continues to act as judge, jury and executioner over a populace that have been pre-judged and found guilty, stripped of their rights, and left to suffer at the hands of government agents trained to respond with the utmost degree of violence.
One Third of Freshwater Fish Face Extinction, New Report Warns
By
, February 24 2021The latest warning of the Earth’s mounting extinction crisis is coming from its lakes and rivers. A new report from a coalition of 16 conservation groups warns that almost a third of freshwater fish species face extinction because of human activity.
February 24th, 2021 by Paul Antonopoulos
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
Colonel Tormod Heier highlighted that strengthening the U.S. military presence in Norway would have negative consequences for the Scandinavian country. According to Norwegian state-owned media NRK in an article titled “Can Joe Biden become dangerous for Norway?” Colonel Heier, a professor at the Norwegian Defence College, said Norway could turn into a battlefield if tensions broke out between the U.S. and Russia.
“Norway is part of the great power rivalry between the United States and Russia. The probability increases that Norway will become a battlefield in the event of a conflict or a crisis becoming out of control between the Russians and Americans,” he said.
The military expert, who pointed out that the U.S. is afraid of Moscow’s nuclear capabilities, said Washington has recognized Norway’s important strategic role in the Arctic because it is the closest country to Russia in the region. Highlighting that the U.S. is following a strategy of deterring Russia, Heier stated that Norway should balance the two powers in the current situation and said “Norway and the U.S. are in a new Cold War with Russia.”
It was claimed earlier this year that four American B-1B Lancer-type bombers would be based in Norway. Norwegian officials did not confirm the claim. It is worth noting that B-1B Lancers were previously capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but were later reduced to carrying long-range cruise missiles. It is not a far stretch to anticipate that these bombers may once again be able to carry nuclear weapons.
Norwegian Defense Ministry spokesman Hårek Elvenes said that the temporary use of Norwegian airports for the U.S. would be nothing new and that “cooperation with our most important ally is both natural and necessary to have a good overview and control in the High North.” He then emphasized the role of “firmness and predictability” as guidelines for Norway’s security policy.
However, the activation of a U.S. military presence in Norway, including the placement of strategic bombers, does not contribute to stability and could turn the Arctic into a hot zone. In January 2020, U.S. military planes used the runway on Jan Mayen, a Norwegian island isolated in the Atlantic Ocean to the east of Greenland. Using the runway was to assess landing conditions and safety for the U.S. Air Force and its potential use of the island that is located within the Arctic Circle.
Norway has repeatedly cited Russia as one of the main threats to the country while Russia has accused Norway of taking antagonistic actions to try and contain its interests in the Arctic. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a 15-year-plan for the Arctic, titled: “On the Basics of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic for the Period Until 2035,” which was authored by the Ministry of the Far East and Arctic. The plan identifies challenges to Russia’s national security and the regions trade potential, and it is for this reason that by 2035 Russia aims to build up to 40 Arctic vessels, new railways and seaports, and upgrade regional airports.
One study found that it is estimated that the Arctic has 90 billion barrels of oil that is yet to be discovered, equal to 5.9% of the world’s known oil reserves – about 110% of Russia’s current oil reserves or 339% of U.S. reserves. The Arctic also has an estimated 1,669 trillion cubic feet of gas, equal to 24.3% of the world’s current known reserves. This equates to 500% of U.S. reserves, 99% of Russia’s reserves, and 2,736% of Canada’s natural gas reserves. There are also large quantities of metals and minerals, including gold, diamonds, copper, iron, zinc, and uranium.
In addition to this vast amount of wealth, ice is melting in the North Sea, meaning a new trade route will emerge that will cut the delivery of commercial cargo from China to Europe by 40%. Russia stands to gain the most when Arctic resources can be exploited and the new trade route linking China with Europe opens.
For these reasons, it is unacceptable for the U.S. to allow Russia to gain such an advantage. Washington is utilising all its Arctic allies, especially Norway and Canada, but also “near-Arctic” partners like the UK, to pressure Russia through provocative military actions to deter the country from exploiting its advantages in the Arctic. However, since Russia’s coastline accounts for 53% of the Arctic Ocean’s entire coastline, it renders the goal to contain Russia in the Arctic region as impossible. Although Norwegian defense experts like Colonel Tormod Heier recognizes this reality, it appears that decision makers in Oslo are yet to accept this and will continue to follow Washington’s policies against Russia in the Arctic.
*
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.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
Featured image is from US Department of Defense
February 24th, 2021 by Middle East Eye
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
The Czech Republic, Guatemala and Honduras, which have all moved their embassies or diplomatic offices to Jerusalem, will receive coronavirus vaccines from Israel, local media reported.
Israel’s public broadcaster Kann reported on Tuesday that vaccines from Israel’s stock would be given to the three countries along with the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s office told Kann that after several countries asked for assistance, Israel agreed to donate “a limited amount of vaccines that were not being used”.
“Therefore it was decided to help with a symbolic amount of vaccines for medical staff of the Palestinian Authority and for some countries that asked Israel,” the office said.
According to Gili Cohen, a diplomatic correspondent at Kann, a plane arrived in Israel from Honduras early on Tuesday to receive the vaccines.
The Czech Republic confirmed it had received a small Israeli shipment, Reuters reported.
Per @gilicohen10 : Israel will send #COVID19 vaccines to countries, in return for their support. The 1st one is Honduras.
Honduras AF 001 landing in TLV today via Paris fah-001. Photo courtesy of @avischarf https://t.co/RKAVE9lPvf pic.twitter.com/fvnMtTetTC— Yonat Friling (Frühling) (@Foxyonat) February 23, 2021
Israel has the world’s highest number of vaccines administered per capita, with nearly half of its population immunised. But its rollout has been criticised by its government’s refusal to inoculate the Palestinians.
Doctors Without Borders, also known as MSF, criticised Israel on Tuesday for failing to give vaccines to the Palestinians.
“Israel is an occupying power and has millions of vaccines. Palestine is the occupied territory and has barely a few thousand,” said Matthias Kennes, MSF’s medical adviser to Palestine.
Kennes, who works as a nurse for MSF in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, noted the lack of vaccines in the OPTs and how “you are over 60 times more likely to have a vaccination in Israel than in Palestine”.
He also highlighted how the recent delivery of vaccines to Gaza would not be enough to protect health care workers and people most vulnerable to Covid-19.
Last week, the PA criticised Israel for blocking a vaccine delivery to Gaza from the occupied West Bank. Following the backlash, Israel eventually approved the delivery.
The World Bank has warned that the Palestinians’ Covid-19 vaccination plan faces a $30m funding shortfall, and has called on Israel to cooperate with the PA and for wealthier countries to donate to ease the pandemic.
Earlier this week, Israel’s army radio reported that Netanyahu was considering donating vaccines to developing countries. Among these countries is one with which it does not have diplomatic relations, yet it would donate the vaccines in exchange for normalisation.
*
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.
Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons
February 24th, 2021 by Olivia Rosane
All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
***
The latest warning of the Earth’s mounting extinction crisis is coming from its lakes and rivers.
A new report from a coalition of 16 conservation groups warns that almost a third of freshwater fish species face extinction because of human activity.
“Nowhere is the world’s nature crisis more acute than in our rivers, lakes and wetlands, and the clearest indicator of the damage we are doing is the rapid decline in freshwater fish populations. They are the aquatic version of the canary in the coal mine, and we must heed the warning,” Stuart Orr, WWF global freshwater lead, said in a statement Tuesday announcing the report.
WWF is one of the many organizations behind the report, along with the Alliance for Freshwater Life, Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy, to name a few. Together, the groups emphasized the incredible diversity of the world’s freshwater fish and their importance for human wellbeing.
By Freshwaters Illustrated via the WWF report
There are a total of 18,075 freshwater fish species in the world, accounting for 51 percent of all fish species and 25 percent of all vertebrates. They are an important food source for 200 million people and provide work for 60 million. But their numbers are in decline. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species has declared 80 to be extinct, 16 of those in 2020 alone. The numbers of migratory freshwater fish such as salmon have declined 76 percent since 1970, while mega-fish such as beluga sturgeon have fallen by 94 percent in the same time period. In fact, freshwater biodiversity is plummeting at twice the rate of biodiversity in the oceans and forests.
Despite this, freshwater fish get much less attention than their saltwater counterparts, the report authors say. Titled “The World’s Forgotten Fishes,” it argues that policy makers rarely consider river wildlife when making decisions.
The main threats to freshwater fish include building dams, syphoning river water for irrigation, releasing wastewater and draining wetlands. Other factors include overfishing, introducing invasive species and the climate crisis.
“As we look to adapt to climate change and we start to think about all the discussions that governments are going to have on biodiversity, it’s really a time for us to shine a light back on freshwater,” Orr told NBC News.
To protect these forgotten fishes, the report authors outlined a six-point plan:
1. Let rivers flow more naturally;
2. Improve water quality in freshwater ecosystems;
3. Protect and restore critical habitats;
4. End overfishing and unsustainable sand mining in rivers and lakes;
5. Prevent and control invasions by non-native species; and
6. Protect free-flowing rivers and remove obsolete dams.
They also called on world leaders to include freshwater ecosystems in an ambitious biodiversity agreement at the upcoming UN Convention on Biological Diversity conference in Kunming, China.
By Hkun Lat/WWF-Myanmar
But the solution will require more than just government action.
“It’s now more urgent than ever that we find the collective political will and effective collaboration with private sector, governments, NGOs and communities, to implement nature-based solutions that protect freshwater species, while also ensuring human needs are met,” Carmen Revenga of The Nature Conservancy told BBC News.
Read the report here.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image is from WWF