Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

August 14th, 2024 by Colin Todhunter

Food, Dispossession and Dependency.

Resisting the New World Order

by

Colin Todhunter

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Of course, the billionaire interests behind this try to portray what they are doing as some kind of humanitarian endeavour – saving the planet with ‘climate-friendly solutions’, ‘helping farmers’ or ‘feeding the world’. In the cold light of day, however, what they are really doing is repackaging and greenwashing the dispossessive strategies of imperialism.

The following text sets out some key current trends affecting food and agriculture and begins by looking at the Gates Foundation’s promotion of a failing model of industrial, (GMO) chemical-intensive agriculture and the deleterious impacts it has on indigenous farming and farmers, human health, rural communities, agroecological systems and the environment.

Alternatives to this model are then discussed which focus on organic agriculture and specifically agroecology. However, there are barriers to implementing these solutions, not least the influence of global agri-capital in the form of agritech and agribusiness conglomerates which have captured key institutions.

The discussion then moves on to focus on the situation in India because that country’s ongoing agrarian crisis and the farmers’ struggle encapsulates what is at stake for the world.

Finally, it is argued that the COVID-19 ‘pandemic’ is being used as cover to manage a crisis of capitalism and the restructuring of much of the global economy, including food and agriculture.

About the Author

Colin Todhunter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

In 2018, he was named a Living Peace and Justice leader/Model by Engaging Peace Inc. in recognition of his writing.

Chapter I.

Toxic Agriculture – From the Gates Foundation to the Green Revolution

Chapter II.

Genetic Engineering – Value Capture and Market Dependency

Chapter III.

Agroecology – Localisation and Food Sovereignty

Chapter IV.

Distorting Development – Corporate Capture and Imperialist Intent

Chapter V.

The Farmers’ Struggle in India – The Farm Laws and a Neoliberal Death Knell

Chapter VI.

Colonial Deindustrialisation – Predation and Inequality

Chapter VII.

Neoliberal Playbook – Economic Terrorism and Smashing Farmers’ Heads

Chapter VIII.

The New Normal – Crisis of Capitalism and Dystopian Reset

Chapter IX.

Post-COVID Dystopia – Hand of God and the New World Order

Chapter I

Toxic Agriculture

From the Gates Foundation to the Green Revolution

As of December 2018, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had $46.8 billion in assets. It is the largest charitable foundation in the world, distributing more aid for global health than any government.

The Gates Foundation is a major funder of the CGIAR system (formerly the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) – a global partnership whose stated aim is to strive for a food-secure future.

In 2016, the Gates Foundation was accused of dangerously and unaccountably distorting the direction of international development. The charges were laid out in a report by Global Justice Now: ‘Gated Development – Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good?‘

The report’s author, Mark Curtis, outlined the foundation’s promotion of industrial agriculture across Africa, which would undermine existing sustainable, small-scale farming that is providing the vast majority of food across the continent.

Curtis described how the foundation works with US agri-commodity trader Cargill in an $8 million project to “develop the soya value chain” in southern Africa. Cargill is the biggest global player in the production of and trade in soya with heavy investments in South America where GM soya monocrops (and associated agrochemicals) have displaced rural populations and caused health problems and environmental damage.

The Gates-funded project will likely enable Cargill to capture a hitherto untapped African soya market and eventually introduce genetically modified (GM) soya onto the continent. The Gates foundation is also supporting projects involving other chemical and seed corporations, including DuPont, Syngenta and Bayer. It is promoting a model of industrial agriculture, the increasing use of agrochemicals and GM patented seeds and the privatisation of extension services.

What the Gates Foundation is doing is part of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) initiative, which is based on the premise that hunger and malnutrition in Africa are mainly the result of a lack of technology and functioning markets. AGRA has been intervening directly in the formulation of African governments’ agricultural policies on issues like seeds and land, opening up African markets to US agribusiness.

More than 80% of Africa’s seed supply comes from millions of small-scale farmers recycling and exchanging seed from year to year. But AGRA is supporting the introduction of commercial (chemical-dependent) seed systems, which risk enabling a few large companies to control seed research and development, production and distribution.

Since the 1990s, there has been a steady process of national seed law reviews, sponsored by USAID and the G8 along with Gates and others, opening the door to multinational corporations’ involvement in seed production, including the acquisition of every sizeable seed enterprise on the African continent.

The Gates Foundation is also very active in the area of health, which is ironic given its promotion of industrial agriculture and its reliance on health-damaging agrochemicals.

The foundation is a prominent funder of the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Gates has been the largest or second largest contributor to the WHO’s budget in recent years. Perhaps this sheds some light onto why so many international reports omit the effects of pesticides on health.

Pesticides

According to the 2021 paper ‘Growing Agrichemical Ubiquity: New Questions for Environments and Health’ (Community of Excellence in Global Health Equity), the volume of pesticide use and exposure is occurring on a scale that is without precedent and world-historical in nature; agrochemicals are now pervasive as they cycle through bodies and environments; and the herbicide glyphosate has been a major factor in driving this increase in use.

The authors state that when the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen” in 2015, the fragile consensus about its safety was upended.

They note that in 2020 the US Environmental Protection Agency affirmed that glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) pose no risk to human health, apparently disregarding new evidence about the link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as well as its non-cancer impacts on the liver, kidney and gastrointestinal system.

The multi-authored paper notes:

“In just under 20 years, much of the Earth has been coated with glyphosate, in many places layering on already chemical-laden human bodies, other organisms and environments.”

However, the authors add that glyphosate (Roundup being the most well-known – initially manufactured by Monsanto – now Bayer) is not the only pesticide to achieve broad-scale pervasiveness:

“The insecticide imidacloprid, for example, coats the majority of US maize seed, making it the most widely used insecticide in US history. Between just 2003 and 2009, sales of imidacloprid products rose 245% (Simon-Delso et al. 2015). The scale of such use, and its overlapping effects on bodies and environments, have yet to be fully reckoned with, especially outside of countries with relatively strong regulatory and monitoring capacities.”

Imidacloprid was licensed for use in Europe in 1994. In July of that year, beekeepers in France noticed something unexpected. Just after the sunflowers had bloomed, a substantial number of their hives would collapse, as the worker bees flew off and never returned, leaving the queen and immature workers to die. The French beekeepers soon believed they knew the reason: a brand new insecticide called Gaucho with imidacloprid as active ingredient was being applied to sunflowers for the first time.

In the 2022 paper ‘Neonicotinoid insecticides found in children treated for leukaemias and lymphomas’ (Environmental Health), the authors stated that multiple neonicotinoids were found in children’s cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), plasma and urine. As the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, they are ubiquitously found in the environment, wildlife and foods.

As for the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate-based formulas affect the gut microbiome and are associated with a global metabolic health crisis. They also cause epigenetic changes in humans and animals – diseases skip a generation then appear.

A French team has found heavy metals in chemical formulants of GBHs in people’s diets. As with other pesticides, 10–20% of GBHs consist of chemical formulants. Families of petroleum-based oxidized molecules and other contaminants have been identified as well as the heavy metals arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead and nickel, which are known to be toxic and endocrine disruptors.

In 1988, Ridley and Mirly (commissioned by Monsanto) found bioaccumulation of glyphosate in rat tissues. Residues were present in bone, marrow, blood and glands including the thyroid, testes and ovaries, as well as major organs, including the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, spleen and stomach. Glyphosate was also associated with ophthalmic degenerative lens changes.

A Stout and Rueker (1990) study (also commissioned by Monsanto) provided concerning evidence with regard to cataracts following glyphosate exposure in rats. It is interesting to note that the rate of cataract surgery in England “increased very substantially” between 1989 and 2004: from 173 (1989) to 637 (2004) episodes per 100,000 population.

A 2016 study by the WHO also confirmed that the incidence of cataracts had greatly increased: ‘A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks’ says that cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Globally, cataracts are responsible for 51% of blindness. In the US, between 2000 and 2010 the number of cases of cataract rose by 20% from 20.5 million to 24.4 million. It is projected that by 2050, the number of people with cataracts will have doubled to 50 million.

The authors of ‘Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology’ (Scientific Reports, 2019) noted that ancestral environmental exposures to a variety of factors and toxicants promoted the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult onset disease.

They proposed that glyphosate can induce the transgenerational inheritance of disease and germline (for example, sperm) epimutations. Observations suggest the generational toxicology of glyphosate needs to be considered in the disease etiology of future generations.

In a 2017 study, Carlos Javier Baier and colleagues documented behavioural impairments following repeated intranasal glyphosate-based herbicide administration in mice. Intranasal GBH caused behavioural disorders, decreased locomotor activity, induced an anxiogenic behaviour and produced memory deficit.

The paper contains references to many studies from around the world that confirm GBHs are damaging to the development of the foetal brain and that repeated exposure is toxic to the adult human brain and may result in alterations in locomotor activity, feelings of anxiety and memory impairment.

Highlights of a 2018 study on neurotransmitter changes in rat brain regions following glyphosate exposure include neurotoxicity in rats. And in a 2014 study which examined mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in the immature rat hippocampus, it was found that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup induces various neurotoxic processes.

In the paper ‘Glyphosate damages blood-testis barrier via NOX1-triggered oxidative stress in rats: Long-term exposure as a potential risk for male reproductive health’ (Environment International, 2022) it was noted that glyphosate causes blood-testis barrier (BTB) damage and low-quality sperm and that glyphosate-induced BTB injury contributes to sperm quality decrease.

The study Multiomics reveal non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide (2017), revealed non-fatty acid liver disease (NFALD) in rats following chronic exposure to an ultra-low dose of Roundup herbicide. NFALD currently affects 25% of the US population and similar numbers of Europeans.

The 2020 paper ‘Glyphosate exposure exacerbates the dopaminergic neurotoxicity in the mouse brain after repeated of MPTP’ suggests that glyphosate may be an environmental risk factor for Parkinson’s.

In the 2019 Ramazzini Institute’s 13-week pilot study that looked into the effects of GBHs on development and the endocrine system, it was demonstrated that GBHs exposure, from prenatal period to adulthood, induced endocrine effects and altered reproductive developmental parameters in male and female rats.

Nevertheless, according to Phillips McDougall’s Annual Agriservice Reports, herbicides made up 43% of the global pesticide market in 2019 by value. Much of the increase in glyphosate use is due to the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton seeds in the US, Brazil and Argentina.

A corporation’s top priority is the bottom line (at all costs, by all means necessary) and not public health. A CEO’s obligation is to maximise profit, capture markets and – ideally – regulatory and policy-making bodies as well.

Corporations must also secure viable year-on-year growth which often means expanding into hitherto untapped markets. Indeed, in the previously mentioned paper ‘Growing Agrichemical Ubiquity’, the authors note that while countries like the US are still reporting higher pesticide use, most of this growth is taking place in the Global South:

“For example, pesticide use in California grew 10% from 2005 to 2015, while use by Bolivian farmers, though starting from a low base, increased 300% in the same period. Pesticide use is growing steeply in countries as diverse as China, Mali, South Africa, Nepal, Laos, Ghana, Argentina, Brazil and Bangladesh. Most countries with high levels of growth have weak regulatory enforcement, environmental monitoring and health surveillance infrastructure.”

And much of this growth is driven by increased demand for herbicides:

“India saw a 250% increase since 2005 (Das Gupta et al. 2017) while herbicide use jumped by 2500% in China (Huang, Wang, and Xiao 2017) and 2000% in Ethiopia (Tamru et al. 2017). The introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton seeds in the US, Brazil, and Argentina is clearly driving much of the demand, but herbicide use is also expanding dramatically in countries that have not approved nor adopted such crops and where smallholder farming is still dominant.”

The UN expert on toxics, Baskut Tuncak, said in a November 2017 article:

“Our children are growing up exposed to a toxic cocktail of weedkillers, insecticides, and fungicides. It’s on their food and in their water, and it’s even doused over their parks and playgrounds.”

In February 2020, Tuncak rejected the idea that the risks posed by highly hazardous pesticides could be managed safely. He told Unearthed (Greenpeace UK’s journalism website) that there is nothing sustainable about the widespread use of highly hazardous pesticides for agriculture. Whether they poison workers, extinguish biodiversity, persist in the environment or accumulate in a mother’s breast milk, Tuncak argued that these are unsustainable, cannot be used safely and should have been phased out of use long ago.

In his 2017 article, he stated:

“The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child… makes it clear that states have an explicit obligation to protect children from exposure to toxic chemicals, from contaminated food and polluted water, and to ensure that every child can realise their right to the highest attainable standard of health. These and many other rights of the child are abused by the current pesticide regime. These chemicals are everywhere and they are invisible.”

Tuncak added that paediatricians have referred to childhood exposure to pesticides as creating a “silent pandemic” of disease and disability. He noted that exposure in pregnancy and childhood is linked to birth defects, diabetes and cancer and stated that children are particularly vulnerable to these toxic chemicals: increasing evidence shows that even at ‘low’ doses of childhood exposure, irreversible health impacts can result.

He concluded that the overwhelming reliance of regulators on industry-funded studies, the exclusion of independent science from assessments and the confidentiality of studies relied upon by authorities must change.

A joint investigation by Unearthed and the NGO Public Eye has found the world’s five biggest pesticide manufacturers are making more than a third of their income from leading products, chemicals that pose serious hazards to human health and the environment.

An analysis of a huge database of 2018’s top-selling ‘crop protection products’ revealed the world’s leading agrochemical companies made more than 35% of their sales from pesticides classed as highly hazardous to people, animals or ecosystems. The investigation identified billions of dollars of income for agrochemical giants BASF, Bayer, Corteva, FMC and Syngenta from chemicals found by regulatory authorities to pose health hazards like cancer or reproductive failure.

This investigation is based on an analysis of a huge dataset of pesticide sales from the agribusiness intelligence company Phillips McDougall. The data covers around 40% of the $57.6bn global market for agricultural pesticides in 2018. It focuses on 43 countries, which between them represent more than 90% of the global pesticide market by value.

While Bill Gates promotes a chemical-intensive model of agriculture that dovetails with the needs and value chains of agri-food conglomerates, there are spiralling rates of disease, especially in the UK and the US.

However, the mainstream narrative is to blame individuals for their ailments and conditions which are said to result from ‘lifestyle choices’. But Monsanto’s German owner Bayer has confirmed that more than 40,000 people have filed suits against Monsanto alleging that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma and that Monsanto covered up the risks.

Each year, there are steady increases in the numbers of new cancers and increases in deaths from the same cancers, with no treatments making any difference to the numbers; at the same time, these treatments maximise the bottom line of the drug companies while the impacts of agrochemicals remain conspicuously absent from the mainstream disease narrative.

As part of its hegemonic strategy, the Gates Foundation says it wants to ensure global food security and optimise health and nutrition. But it seems happy to ignore the deleterious health impacts of agrochemicals as it continues to promote the interests of the firms that produce them.

Why does Gates not support agroecological approaches? Various high-level UN reports have advocated agroecology for ensuring equitable global food security. This would leave smallholder agriculture both intact and independent from Western agri-capital, something which runs counter to the underlying aims of the corporations which Gates supports. Their model depends on dispossession and creating market dependency for their inputs.

A model that has been imposed on nations for many decades and which relies on the dynamics of a system based on agri-export mono-cropping to earn foreign exchange revenue linked to sovereign dollar-denominated debt repayment and World Bank/IMF ‘structural adjustment’ directives. The outcomes have included a displacement of a food-producing peasantry, the consolidation of Western agri-food oligopolies and the transformation of many countries from food self-sufficiency into food deficit areas.

Gates is consolidating Western agri-capital in Africa in the name of ‘food security’. It is very convenient for him to ignore the fact that at the time of decolonisation in the 1960s Africa was not just self-sufficient in food but was actually a net food exporter with exports averaging 1.3 million tons a year between 1966-70. The continent now imports 25% of its food, with almost every country being a net food importer. More generally, developing countries produced a billion-dollar yearly surplus in the 1970s but by 2004 were importing US$ 11 billion a year.

The Gates Foundation promotes a corporate-industrial farming system and the strengthening of a global neoliberal, fossil-fuel-dependent food regime that by its very nature fuels and thrives on unjust trade policies, population displacement and land dispossession (something which Gates once called for but euphemistically termed “land mobility”), commodity monocropping, soil and environmental degradation, illness, nutrient-deficient diets, a narrowing of the range of food crops, water shortages, pollution and the eradication of biodiversity.

Green Revolution

At the same time, Gates is helping corporate interests to appropriate and commodify knowledge. Since 2003, CGIAR and its 15 centres have received more than $720 million from the Gates Foundation. In a June 2016 article, Vandana Shiva notes that the centres are accelerating the transfer of research and seeds to corporations, facilitating intellectual property piracy and seed monopolies created through IP laws and seed regulations.

Gates is also funding Diversity Seek, a global initiative to take patents on the seed collections through genomic mapping. Seven million crop accessions are in public seed banks. This could allow five corporations to own this diversity.

Shiva says:

“DivSeek is a global project launched in 2015 to map the genetic data of the peasant diversity of seeds held in gene banks. It robs the peasants of their seeds and knowledge, it robs the seed of its integrity and diversity, its evolutionary history, its link to the soil and reduces it to ‘code’. It is an extractive project to ‘mine’ the data in the seed to ‘censor’ out the commons.”

She notes that the peasants who evolved this diversity have no place in DivSeek – their knowledge is being mined and not recognised, honoured or conserved: an enclosure of the genetic commons.

Seed has been central to agriculture for 10,000 years. Farmers have been saving, exchanging and developing seeds for millennia. Seeds have been handed down from generation to generation. Peasant farmers have been the custodians of seeds, knowledge and land.

This is how it was until the 20th century when corporations took these seeds, hybridised them, genetically modified them, patented them and fashioned them to serve the needs of industrial agriculture with its monocultures and chemical inputs.

To serve the interests of these corporations by marginalising indigenous agriculture, a number of treaties and agreements in various countries over breeders’ rights and intellectual property have been enacted to prevent peasant farmers from freely improving, sharing or replanting their traditional seeds. Since this began, thousands of seed varieties have been lost and corporate seeds have increasingly dominated agriculture.

The UN FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) estimates that globally just 20 cultivated plant species account for 90% of all the plant-based food consumed by humans. This narrow genetic base of the global food system has put food security at serious risk.

To move farmers away from using native seeds and to get them to plant corporate seeds, seed ‘certification’ rules and laws are often brought into being by national governments on behalf of commercial seed giants. In Costa Rica, the battle to overturn restrictions on seeds was lost with the signing of a free trade agreement with the US, although this flouted the country’s seed biodiversity laws.

Seed laws in Brazil created a corporate property regime for seeds which effectively marginalised all indigenous seeds that were locally adapted over generations. This regime attempted to stop farmers from using or breeding their own seeds.

It was an attempt to privatise seed. The privatisation of something that is a common heritage. The privatisation and appropriation of inter-generational knowledge embodied by seeds whose germplasm is ‘tweaked’ (or stolen) by corporations who then claim ownership.

Corporate control over seeds is also an attack on the survival of communities and their traditions. Seeds are integral to identity because in rural communities, people’s lives have been tied to planting, harvesting, seeds, soil and the seasons for thousands of years.

This is also an attack on biodiversity and – as we see the world over – on the integrity of soil, water, food, diets and health as well as on the integrity of international institutions, governments and officials which have too often been corrupted by powerful transnational corporations.

Regulations and ‘seed certification’ laws are often brought in on behalf of industry that are designed to eradicate traditional seeds by allowing only ‘stable’, ‘uniform’ and ‘novel’ seeds on the market (meaning corporate seeds). These are the only ‘regulated’ seeds allowed: registered and certified. It is a cynical way of eradicating indigenous farming practices at the behest of corporations.

Governments are under immense pressure via lop-sided trade deals, strings-attached loans and corporate-backed seed regimes to comply with the demands of agribusiness conglomerates and to fit in with their supply chains.

The Gates Foundation talks about health but facilitates the roll-out of a highly subsidised and toxic form of agriculture whose agrochemicals cause immense damage. It talks of alleviating poverty and malnutrition and tackling food insecurity, yet it bolsters an inherently unjust global food regime which is responsible for perpetuating food insecurity, population displacement, land dispossession, privatisation of the commons and neoliberal policies that remove support from the vulnerable and marginalised.

Bill Gates’s ‘philanthropy’ is part of a neoliberal agenda that attempts to manufacture consent and buy-off or co-opt policy makers, thereby preventing and marginalising more radical agrarian change that would challenge prevailing power structures and act as impediments to this agenda.

Gates and his corporate cronies’ activities are part of the hegemonic and dispossessive strategies of imperialism. This involves displacing a food-producing peasantry and subjugating those who remain in agriculture to the needs of global distribution and supply chains dominated by Western agri-capital.

And now, under the notion of ‘climate emergency’, Gates et al are promoting the latest technologies – gene editing, data-driven farming, cloud-based services, lab created ‘food’, monopolistic e-commerce retail and trading platforms, etc. – under the guise of one-world precision agriculture.

But this is merely a continuation of what has been happening for half a century or more.

Since the Green Revolution, US agribusiness and financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have sought to hook farmers and nation states on corporate seeds and proprietary inputs as well as loans to construct the type of agri-infrastructure that chemical-intensive farming requires.

Monsanto-Bayer and other agribusiness concerns have since the 1990s been attempting to further consolidate their grip on global agriculture and farmers’ corporate dependency with the rollout of GM seeds.

In her report, ‘Reclaim the Seed’, Vandana Shiva says:

“In the 1980s, the chemical corporations started to look at genetic engineering and patenting of seed as new sources of super profits. They took farmers varieties from the public gene banks, tinkered with the seed through conventional breeding or genetic engineering, and took patents.”

Shiva talks about the Green Revolution and seed colonialism and the pirating of farmers seeds and knowledge. She says that 768,576 accessions of seeds were taken from farmers in Mexico alone:

“… taking the farmers seeds that embodies their creativity and knowledge of breeding. The ‘civilising mission’ of Seed Colonisation is the declaration that farmers are ‘primitive’ and the varieties they have bred are ‘primitive’, ‘inferior’, ‘low yielding’ and have to be ‘substituted’ and ‘replaced’ with superior seeds from a superior race of breeders, so called ‘modern varieties’ and ‘improved varieties’ bred for chemicals.”

It is interesting to note that prior to the Green Revolution many of the older crops carried dramatically higher counts of nutrients per calorie. The amount of cereal each person must consume to fulfil daily dietary requirements has therefore gone up. For instance, the iron content of millet is four times that of rice. Oats carry four times more zinc than wheat. As a result, between 1961 and 2011, the protein, zinc and iron contents of the world’s directly consumed cereals declined by 4%, 5% and 19%, respectively.

The high-input chemical-intensive Green Revolution model helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which in turn have adversely affected human health.

Adding weight to this argument, the authors of the 2010 paper ‘Zinc deficiencies in Agricultural Systems’ in the International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development state:

“Cropping systems promoted by the green revolution have… resulted in reduced food-crop diversity and decreased availability of micronutrients. Micronutrient malnutrition is causing increased rates of chronic diseases (cancer, heart diseases, stroke, diabetes and osteoporosis) in many developing nations; more than three billion people are directly affected by the micronutrient deficiencies. Unbalanced use of mineral fertilizers and a decrease in the use of organic manure are the main causes of the nutrient deficiency in the regions where the cropping intensity is high.”

The authors imply that the link between micronutrient deficiency in soil and human nutrition is increasingly regarded as important:

“Moreover, agricultural intensification requires an increased nutrient flow towards and greater uptake of nutrients by crops. Until now, micronutrient deficiency has mostly been addressed as a soil and, to a smaller extent, plant problem. Currently, it is being addressed as a human nutrition problem as well. Increasingly, soils and food systems are affected by micronutrients disorders, leading to reduced crop production and malnutrition and diseases in humans and plants.”

Although India, for example, might now be self-sufficient in various staples, many of these foodstuffs are high calorie-low nutrient, have led to the displacement of more nutritionally diverse cropping systems and have arguably mined the soil of nutrients. The importance of renowned agronomist William Albrecht, who died in 1974, should not be overlooked here and his work on healthy soils and healthy people.

In this respect, India-based botanist Stuart Newton states that the answer to Indian agricultural productivity is not that of embracing the international, monopolistic, corporate-conglomerate promotion of chemically dependent GM crops: India has to restore and nurture its depleted, abused soils and not harm them any further, with dubious chemical overload, which is endangering human and animal health.

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research reports that soil is become deficient in nutrients and fertility. The country is losing 5,334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion because of the indiscreet and excessive use of fertilisers, insecticides and pesticides.

Aside from these deleterious impacts and the health consequences of chemical-dependent crops (see Dr Rosemary Mason’s reports on the academia.edu website), New Histories of the Green Revolution (Glenn Stone, 2019) debunks the claim that the Green Revolution boosted productivity, The Violence of the Green Revolution (Vandana Shiva, 1989) details (among other things) the negative impacts on rural communities in Punjab and Bhaskar Save’s open letter to Indian officials in 2006 discusses the ecological devastation.

And for good measure, in a 2019 paper in the Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences, the authors note that native wheat varieties in India have higher nutrition content than the Green Revolution varieties. This is important to note given that Professor Glenn Stone argues that all the Green Revolution actually ‘succeeded’ in doing was put more wheat in the Indian diet (displacing other foodstuffs). Stone argues that food productivity per capita showed no increased or even actually decreased.

Sold on the promise that hybrid seeds and associated chemical inputs would enhance food security on the basis of higher productivity, the Green Revolution transformed agriculture in many regions. But in places like Punjab, Shiva notes that to gain access to seeds and chemicals farmers had to take out loans and debt became (and remains) a constant worry. Many became impoverished and social relations within rural communities were radically altered: previously, farmers would save and exchange seeds but now they became dependent on unscrupulous money lenders, banks and seed manufacturers and suppliers. In her book, Shiva describes the social marginalisation and violence that resulted from the Green Revolution and its impacts.

It is also worthwhile discussing Bhaskar Save. He argued that the actual reason for pushing the Green Revolution was the much narrower goal of increasing the marketable surplus of a few relatively less perishable cereals to fuel the urban-industrial expansion favoured by the government and a few industries at the expense of a more diverse and nutrient-sufficient agriculture, which rural folk – who make up the bulk of India’s population – had long benefited from.

Before, Indian farmers had been largely self-sufficient and even produced surpluses, though generally smaller quantities of many more items. These, particularly perishables, were tougher to supply urban markets. And so, the nation’s farmers were steered to grow chemically cultivated monocultures of a few cash-crops like wheat, rice, or sugar, rather than their traditional polycultures that needed no purchased inputs.

Tall, indigenous varieties of grain provided more biomass, shaded the soil from the sun and protected against its erosion under heavy monsoon rains, but these were replaced with dwarf varieties, which led to more vigorous growth of weeds and were able to compete successfully with the new stunted crops for sunlight.

As a result, the farmer had to spend more labour and money in weeding or spraying herbicides. Furthermore, straw growth with the dwarf grain crops fell and much less organic matter was locally available to recycle the fertility of the soil, leading to an artificial need for externally procured inputs. Inevitably, the farmers resorted to use more chemicals and soil degradation and erosion set in.

The exotic varieties, grown with chemical fertilisers, were more susceptible to ‘pests and diseases’, leading to yet more chemicals being poured. But the attacked insect species developed resistance and reproduced prolifically. Their predators – spiders, frogs, etc. – that fed on these insects and controlled their populations were exterminated. So were many beneficial species like earthworms and bees.

Save noted that India, next to South America, receives the highest rainfall in the world. Where thick vegetation covers the ground, the soil is alive and porous and at least half of the rain is soaked and stored in the soil and sub-soil strata.

A good amount then percolates deeper to recharge aquifers or groundwater tables. The living soil and its underlying aquifers thus serve as gigantic, ready-made reservoirs. Half a century ago, most parts of India had enough fresh water all year round, long after the rains had stopped and gone. But clear the forests, and the capacity of the earth to soak the rain, drops drastically. Streams and wells run dry.

While the recharge of groundwater has greatly reduced, its extraction has been mounting. India is presently mining over 20 times more groundwater each day than it did in 1950. But most of India’s people – living on hand-drawn or hand-pumped water in villages and practising only rain-fed farming – continue to use the same amount of ground water per person, as they did generations ago.

More than 80% of India’s water consumption is for irrigation, with the largest share hogged by chemically cultivated cash crops. For example, one acre of chemically grown sugarcane requires as much water as would suffice 25 acres of jowar, bajra or maize. The sugar factories too consume huge quantities.

From cultivation to processing, each kilo of refined sugar needs two to three tonnes of water. Save argued this could be used to grow, by the traditional, organic way, about 150 to 200 kg of nutritious jowar or bajra (native millets).

Save wrote:

“This country has more than 150 agricultural universities. But every year, each churns out several hundred ‘educated’ unemployables, trained only in misguiding farmers and spreading ecological degradation. In all the six years a student spends for an MSc in agriculture, the only goal is short-term – and narrowly perceived – ‘productivity’. For this, the farmer is urged to do and buy a hundred things. But not a thought is spared to what a farmer must never do so that the land remains unharmed for future generations and other creatures. It is time our people and government wake up to the realisation that this industry-driven way of farming – promoted by our institutions – is inherently criminal and suicidal!“

It is increasingly clear that the Green Revolution has been a failure in terms of its devastating environmental impacts, the undermining of highly productive traditional low-input agriculture and its sound ecological footing, the displacement of rural populations and the adverse impacts on communities, nutrition, health and regional food security.

Even where yields may have increased, we need to ask: what has been the cost of any increased yield of commodities in terms of local food security, overall nutrition per acre, water tables, soil structure and new pests and disease pressures?

Chapter II

Genetic Engineering

Value Capture and Market Dependency

As for GM crops, often described as Green Revolution 2.0, these too have failed to deliver on the promises made and, like the 1.0 version, have often had devastating consequences.

Regardless, the industry and its well-funded lobbyists and bought career scientists continue to spin the line that GM crops are a marvellous success and that the world needs even more of them to avoid a global food shortage. GM crops are required to feed the world is a well-worn industry slogan trotted out at every available opportunity. Just like the claim of GM crops being a tremendous success, this too is based on a myth.

There is no global shortage of food. Even under any plausible future population scenario, there will be no shortage as evidenced by scientist Dr Jonathan Latham in his paper “The Myth of a Food Crisis” (2020).

However, new gene drive and gene editing techniques have now been developed and the industry is seeking the unregulated commercial release of products that are based on these methods.

It does not want plants, animals and micro-organisms created with gene editing to be subject to safety checks, monitoring or consumer labelling. This is concerning given the real dangers that these techniques pose.

It really is a case of old GMO wine in new bottles.

And this has not been lost on 162 civil society, farmers and business organisations that have called on Vice-President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans to ensure that new genetic engineering techniques continue to be regulated in accordance with existing EU GMO (genetically modified organisms) standards.

The coalition argues that these new techniques can cause a range of unwanted genetic modifications that can result in the production of novel toxins or allergens or in the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes. Its open letter adds that even intended modifications can result in traits which could raise food safety, environmental or animal welfare concerns.

The European Court of Justice ruled in 2018 that organisms obtained with new genetic modification techniques must be regulated under the EU’s existing GMO laws. However, there has been intense lobbying from the agriculture biotech industry to weaken the legislation, aided financially by the Gates Foundation.

The coalition states that various scientific publications show that new GM techniques allow developers to make significant genetic changes, which can be very different from those that happen in nature. These new GMOs pose similar or greater risks than older-style GMOs.

In addition to these concerns, a paper from Chinese scientists, ‘Herbicide Resistance: Another Hot Agronomic Trait for Plant Genome Editing’, says that, in spite of claims from GMO promoters that gene editing will be climate-friendly and reduce pesticide use, what we can expect is just more of the same – GM herbicide-tolerant crops and increased herbicide use.

The industry wants its new techniques to be unregulated, thereby making gene edited GMOs faster to develop, more profitable and hidden from consumers when purchasing items in stores. At the same time, the costly herbicide treadmill will be reinforced for farmers.

By dodging regulation as well as avoiding economic, social, environmental and health impact assessments, it is clear that the industry is first and foremost motivated by value capture and profit and contempt for democratic accountability.

Bt cotton in India

This is patently clear if we look at the rollout of Bt cotton in India (the only officially approved GM crop in that country) which served the bottom line of Monsanto but brought dependency, distress and no durable agronomic benefits for many of India’s small and marginal farmers. Prof A P Gutierrez argues that Bt cotton has effectively placed these farmers in a corporate noose.

Monsanto sucked hundreds of millions of dollars in profit from these cotton farmers, while industry-funded scientists are always keen to push the mantra that rolling out Bt cotton in India uplifted their conditions.

On 24 August 2020, a webinar on Bt cotton in India took place involving Andrew Paul Gutierrez, senior emeritus professor in the College of Natural Resources at the University of California at Berkeley, Keshav Kranthi, former director of Central Institute for Cotton Research in India, Peter Kenmore, former FAO representative in India, and Hans Herren, World Food Prize Laureate.

Dr Herren said that “the failure of Bt cotton” is a classic representation of what an unsound science of plant protection and faulty direction of agricultural development can lead to.

He explained:

“Bt hybrid technology in India represents an error-driven policy that has led to the denial and non-implementation of the real solutions for the revival of cotton in India, which lie in HDSS (high density short season) planting of non-Bt/GMO cotton in pure line varieties of native desi species and American cotton species.”

He argued that a transformation of agriculture and the food system is required; one that entails a shift to agroecology, which includes regenerative, organic, biodynamic, permaculture and natural farming practices.

Dr Kenmore said that Bt cotton is an aging pest control technology:

“It follows the same path worn down by generations of insecticide molecules from arsenic to DDT to BHC to endosulfan to monocrotophos to carbaryl to imidacloprid. In-house research aims for each molecule to be packaged biochemically, legally and commercially before it is released and promoted. Corporate and public policy actors then claim yield increases but deliver no more than temporary pest suppression, secondary pest release and pest resistance.”

Recurrent cycles of crises have sparked public action and ecological field research which creates locally adapted agroecological strategies.

He added that this agroecology:

“…now gathers global support from citizens’ groups, governments and UN FAO. Their robust local solutions in Indian cotton do not require any new molecules, including endo-toxins like in Bt cotton”.

Gutierrez presented the ecological reasons as to why hybrid Bt cotton failed in India: long season Bt cotton introduced in India was incorporated into hybrids that trapped farmers into biotech and insecticide treadmills that benefited GMO seed manufacturers.

He noted:

“The cultivation of long-season hybrid Bt cotton in rainfed areas is unique to India. It is a value capture mechanism that does not contribute to yield, is a major contributor to low yield stagnation and contributes to increasing production costs.”

Gutierrez asserted that increases in cotton farmer suicides are related to the resulting economic distress.

He argued:

“A viable solution to the current GM hybrid system is adoption of improved non-GM high-density short-season fertile cotton varieties.”

Presenting data on yields, insecticide usage, irrigation, fertiliser usage and pest incidence and resistance, Dr Kranthi said an analysis of official statistics (eands.dacnet.nic.in and cotcorp.gov.in) shows that Bt hybrid technology has not been providing any tangible benefits in India either in yield or insecticide usage.

He said that cotton yields are the lowest in the world in Maharashtra, despite being saturated with Bt hybrids and the highest use of fertilisers. Yields in Maharashtra are less than in rainfed Africa where there is hardly any usage of technologies such as Bt hybrids, fertilisers, pesticides or irrigation.

It is revealing that Indian cotton yields rank 36th in the world and have been stagnant in the past 15 years and insecticide usage has been constantly increasing after 2005, despite an increase in area under Bt cotton.

Kranthi argued that research also shows that the Bt hybrid technology has failed the test of sustainability with resistance in pink bollworm to Bt cotton, increasing sucking pest infestation, increasing trends in insecticide and fertiliser usage, increasing costs and negative net returns in 2014 and 2015.

Dr Herren said that GMOs exemplify the case of a technology searching for an application:

“It is essentially about treating symptoms, rather than taking a systems approach to create resilient, productive and bio-diverse food systems in the widest sense and to provide sustainable and affordable solutions in it’s social, environmental and economic dimensions.”

He went on to argue that the failure of Bt cotton is a classic representation of what an unsound science of plant protection and a faulty direction of agricultural development can lead to:

“We need to push aside the vested interests blocking the transformation with the baseless arguments of ‘the world needs more food’ and design and implement policies that are forward-looking… We have all the needed scientific and practical evidence that the agroecological approaches to food and nutrition security work successfully.”

Those who continue to spin Bt cotton in India as a resounding success remain wilfully ignorant of the challenges (documented in the 2019 book by Andrew Flachs – Cultivating Knowledge: Biotechnology, Sustainability and the Human Cost of Cotton Capitalism in India) farmers face in terms of financial distress, increasing pest resistance, dependency on unregulated seed markets, the eradication of environmental learning, the loss of control over their productive means and the biotech-chemical treadmill they are trapped on (this last point is precisely what the industry intended).

However, in recent times, the Indian government in league with the biotech industry has been trying to pass of Bt cotton in the country as a monumental success, thereby promoting its rollout as a template for other GM crops.

In general, across the world the performance of GM crops to date has been questionable, but the pro-GMO lobby has wasted no time in wrenching the issues of hunger and poverty from their political contexts to use notions of ‘helping farmers’ and ‘feeding the world’ as lynchpins of its promotional strategy. There exists a ‘haughty imperialism’ within the pro-GMO scientific lobby that aggressively pushes for a GMO ‘solution’ which is a distraction from the root causes of poverty, hunger and malnutrition and genuine solutions based on food justice and food sovereignty.

The performance of GM crops has been a hotly contested issue and, as highlighted in a 2018 piece by PC Kesavan and MS Swaminathan in the journal Current Science, there is already sufficient evidence to question their efficacy, especially that of herbicide-tolerant crops (which by 2007 already accounted for approximately 80% of biotech-derived crops grown globally) and the devastating impacts on the environment, human health and food security, not least in places like Latin America.

In their paper, Kesavan and Swaminathan argue that GM technology is supplementary and must be need based. In more than 99% of cases, they say that time-honoured conventional breeding is sufficient. In this respect, conventional options and innovations that outperform GM must not be overlooked or side-lined in a rush by powerful interests like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to facilitate the introduction of GM crops into global agriculture; crops which are highly financially lucrative for the corporations behind them.

In Europe, robust regulatory mechanisms are in place for GMOs because it is recognised that GM food/crops are not substantially equivalent to their non-GM counterparts. Numerous studies have highlighted the flawed premise of ‘substantial equivalence’. Furthermore, from the outset of the GMO project, the side-lining of serious concerns about the technology has occurred and, despite industry claims to the contrary, there is no scientific consensus on the health impacts of GM crops as noted by Hilbeck et al (Environmental Sciences Europe, 2015). Adopting a precautionary principle where GM is concerned is therefore a valid approach.

Both the Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GM crops and foods, in that they agree that GM differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GMOs are used in food or released into the environment. There is sufficient reason to hold back on commercialising GM crops and to subject each GMO to independent, transparent environmental, social, economic and health impact evaluations.

Critics’ concerns cannot therefore be brushed aside by claims from industry lobbyists that ‘the science’ is decided and the ‘facts’ about GM are indisputable. Such claims are merely political posturing and part of a strategy to tip the policy agenda in favour of GM.

Regardless, global food insecurity and malnutrition are not the result of a lack of productivity. As long as food injustice remains an inbuilt feature of the global food regime, the rhetoric of GM being necessary for feeding the world will be seen for what it is: bombast.

Take India, for instance. Although it fares poorly in world hunger assessments, the country has achieved self-sufficiency in food grains and has ensured there is enough food (in terms of calories) available to feed its entire population. It is the world’s largest producer of milk, pulses and millets and the second-largest producer of rice, wheat, sugarcane, groundnuts, vegetables, fruit and cotton.

According to FAO, food security is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.

But food security for many Indians remains a distant dream. Large sections of India’s population do not have enough food available to remain healthy nor do they have sufficiently diverse diets that provide adequate levels of micronutrients. The Comprehensive National Nutrition Survey 2016-18 is the first-ever nationally representative nutrition survey of children and adolescents in India. It found that 35% of children under five were stunted, 22% of school-age children were stunted while 24% of adolescents were thin for their age.

People are not hungry in India because its farmers do not produce enough food. Hunger and malnutrition result from various factors, including inadequate food distribution, (gender) inequality and poverty; in fact, the country continues to export food while millions remain hungry. It’s a case of ‘scarcity’ amid abundance.

Where farmers’ livelihoods are concerned, the pro-GMO lobby says GM will boost productivity and help secure cultivators a better income. Again, this is misleading: it ignores crucial political and economic contexts. Even with bumper harvests, Indian farmers still find themselves in financial distress.

India’s farmers are not experiencing hardship due to low productivity. They are reeling from the effects of neoliberal policies, years of neglect and a deliberate strategy to displace smallholder agriculture at the behest of the World Bank and predatory global agri-food corporations. Little wonder then that the calorie and essential nutrient intake of the rural poor has drastically fallen. No number of GMOs will put any of this right.

Nevertheless, the pro-GMO lobby, both outside of India and within, has twisted the situation for its own ends to mount intensive PR campaigns to sway public opinion and policy makers.

Golden Rice

The industry has for many years been promoting Golden Rice. It has long argued that genetically engineered Golden Rice is a practical way to provide poor farmers in remote areas with a subsistence crop capable of adding much-needed vitamin A to local diets. Vitamin A deficiency is a problem in many poor countries in the Global South and leaves millions at high risk for infection, diseases and other maladies, such as blindness.

Some scientists believe that Golden Rice, which has been developed with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, could help save the lives of around 670,000 children who die each year from Vitamin A deficiency and another 350,000 who go blind.

Meanwhile, critics say there are serious issues with Golden Rice and that alternative approaches to tackling vitamin A deficiency should be implemented. Greenpeace and other environmental groups say the claims being made by the pro-Golden Rice lobby are misleading and are oversimplifying the actual problems in combating vitamin A deficiency.

Many critics regard Golden Rice as an over-hyped Trojan horse that biotechnology corporations and their allies hope will pave the way for the global approval of other more profitable GM crops. The Rockefeller Foundation might be regarded as a ‘philanthropic’ entity but its track record indicates it has been very much part of an agenda which facilitates commercial and geopolitical interests to the detriment of indigenous agriculture and local and national economies.

As Britain’s Environment Secretary in 2013, the now disgraced Owen Paterson claimed that opponents of GM were “casting a dark shadow over attempts to feed the world”. He called for the rapid roll-out of vitamin A-enhanced rice to help prevent the cause of up to a third of the world’s child deaths. He claimed:

“It’s just disgusting that little children are allowed to go blind and die because of a hang-up by a small number of people about this technology. I feel really strongly about it. I think what they do is absolutely wicked.”

Robin McKie, science writer for The Observer, wrote a piece on Golden Rice that uncritically presented all the usual industry talking points. On Twitter, The Observer’s Nick Cohen chimed in with his support by tweeting:

“There is no greater example of ignorant Western privilege causing needless misery than the campaign against genetically modified golden rice.”

Whether it comes from the likes of corporate lobbyist Patrick Moore, political lobbyist Owen Paterson, biotech spin-merchant Mark Lynas, well-remunerated journalists or from the lobbyist CS Prakash who engages more in spin than fact, the rhetoric takes the well-worn cynically devised PR line that anti-GM activists and environmentalists are little more than privileged, affluent people residing in rich countries and are denying the poor the supposed benefits of GM crops.

Despite the smears and emotional blackmail employed by supporters of Golden Rice, in a 2016 article in the journal Agriculture & Human Values Glenn Stone and Dominic Glover found little evidence that anti-GM activists are to blame for Golden Rice’s unfulfilled promises. Golden rice was still years away from field introduction and even when ready may fall far short of lofty health benefits claimed by its supporters.

Stone stated that:

“Golden Rice is still not ready for the market, but we find little support for the common claim that environmental activists are responsible for stalling its introduction. GMO opponents have not been the problem.”

He added that the rice simply has not been successful in test plots of the rice breeding institutes in the Philippines, where the leading research is being done. While activists did destroy one Golden Rice test plot in a 2013 protest, it is unlikely that this action had any significant impact on the approval of Golden Rice.

Stone said:

“Destroying test plots is a dubious way to express opposition, but this was only one small plot out of many plots in multiple locations over many years. Moreover, they have been calling Golden Rice critics ‘murderers’ for over a decade.”

Believing that Golden Rice was originally a promising idea backed by good intentions, Stone argued:

“But if we are actually interested in the welfare of poor children – instead of just fighting over GMOs – then we have to make unbiased assessments of possible solutions. The simple fact is that after 24 years of research and breeding, Golden Rice is still years away from being ready for release.”

Researchers still had problems developing beta carotene-enriched strains that yield as well as non-GM strains already being grown by farmers. Stone and Glover point out that it is still unknown if the beta carotene in Golden Rice can even be converted to vitamin A in the bodies of badly undernourished children. There also has been little research on how well the beta carotene in Golden Rice will hold up when stored for long periods between harvest seasons or when cooked using traditional methods common in remote rural locations.

Claire Robinson, an editor at GMWatch, has argued that the rapid degradation of beta-carotene in the rice during storage and cooking means it is not a solution to vitamin A deficiency in the developing world. There are also various other problems, including absorption in the gut and the low and varying levels of beta-carotene that may be delivered by Golden Rice in the first place.

In the meantime, Glenn Stone says that, as the development of Golden Rice creeps along, the Philippines has managed to slash the incidence of Vitamin A deficiency by non-GM methods.

The evidence presented here might lead us to question why supporters of Golden Rice continue to smear critics and engage in abuse and emotional blackmail when activists are not to blame for the failure of Golden Rice to reach the commercial market. Whose interests are they really serving in pushing so hard for this technology?

In 2011, Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, a senior scientist with a background in insect ecology and pest management asked a similar question:

“Who oversees this ambitious project, which its advocates claim will end the suffering of millions?”

She answered her question by stating:

“An elite, so-called Humanitarian Board where Syngenta sits – along with the inventors of Golden Rice, Rockefeller Foundation, USAID and public relations and marketing experts, among a handful of others. Not a single farmer, indigenous person or even an ecologist or sociologist to assess the huge political, social and ecological implications of this massive experiment. And the leader of IRRI’s Golden Rice project is none other than Gerald Barry, previously Director of Research at Monsanto.”

Sarojeni V. Rengam, executive director of Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific, called on the donors and scientists involved to wake up and do the right thing:

“Golden Rice is really a ‘Trojan horse’; a public relations stunt pulled by the agribusiness corporations to garner acceptance of GE crops and food. The whole idea of GE seeds is to make money… we want to send out a strong message to all those supporting the promotion of Golden Rice, especially donor organisations, that their money and efforts would be better spent on restoring natural and agricultural biodiversity rather than destroying it by promoting monoculture plantations and genetically engineered (GE) food crops.”

And she makes a valid point. To tackle disease, malnutrition and poverty, you have to first understand the underlying causes – or indeed want to understand them.

Renowned writer and academic Walden Bello notes that the complex of policies that pushed the Philippines into an economic quagmire over the past 30 years is due to ‘structural adjustment’, involving prioritising debt repayment, conservative macroeconomic management, huge cutbacks in government spending, trade and financial liberalisation, privatisation and deregulation, the restructuring of agriculture and export-oriented production.

And that restructuring of the agrarian economy is something touched on by Claire Robinson who notes that leafy green vegetables used to be grown in backyards as well as in rice (paddy) fields on the banks between the flooded ditches in which the rice grew.

Ditches also contained fish, which ate pests. People thus had access to rice, green leafy veg and fish – a balanced diet that gave them a healthy mix of nutrients, including plenty of beta-carotene.

But indigenous crops and farming systems have been replaced by monocultures dependent on chemical inputs. Green leafy veg were killed off with pesticides, artificial fertilisers were introduced and the fish could not live in the resulting chemically contaminated water. Moreover, decreased access to land meant that many people no longer had backyards containing leafy green veg. People only had access to an impoverished diet of rice alone, laying the foundation for the supposed Golden Rice ‘solution’.

Whether it concerns The Philippines, Ethiopia, Somalia or Africa as a whole, the effects of IMF/World Bank ‘structural adjustments’ have devastated agrarian economies and made them dependent on Western agribusiness, manipulated markets and unfair trade rules. And GM is now offered as the ‘solution’ for tackling poverty-related diseases. The very corporations which gained from restructuring agrarian economies now want to profit from the havoc caused.

In 2013, the Soil Association argued that the poor are suffering from broader malnourishment than just vitamin A deficiency; the best solution is to use supplementation and fortification as emergency sticking-plasters and then for implementing measures which tackle the broader issues of poverty and malnutrition.

Tackling the wider issues includes providing farmers with a range of seeds, tools and skills necessary for growing more diverse crops to target broader issues of malnutrition. Part of this entails breeding crops high in nutrients; for instance, the creation of sweet potatoes that grow in tropical conditions, cross-bred with vitamin A rich orange sweet potatoes, which grow in the USA. There are successful campaigns providing these potatoes, a staggering five times higher in vitamin A than Golden Rice, to farmers in Uganda and Mozambique.

Blindness in developing countries could have been eradicated years ago if only the money, research and publicity put into Golden Rice over the last 20 years had gone into proven ways of addressing Vitamin A deficiency.

However, instead of pursuing genuine solutions, we continue to get smears and pro-GM spin in an attempt to close down debate.

Many of the traditional agroecological practices employed by smallholders are now recognised as sophisticated and appropriate for high-productive, nutritious, sustainable agriculture.

Agroecological principles represent a more integrated low-input systems approach to food and agriculture that prioritises local food security, local calorific production, cropping patterns and diverse nutrition production per acre, water table stability, climate resilience, good soil structure and the ability to cope with evolving pests and disease pressures. Ideally, such a system would be underpinned by a concept of food sovereignty, based on optimal self-sufficiency, the right to culturally appropriate food and local ownership and stewardship of common resources, such as land, water, soil and seeds.

Value capture

Traditional production systems rely on the knowledge and expertise of farmers in contrast to imported ‘solutions’. Yet, if we take cotton cultivation in India as an example, farmers continue to be nudged away from traditional methods of farming and are being pushed towards (illegal) GM herbicide-tolerant cotton seeds.

Researchers Glenn Stone and Andrew Flachs note the results of this shift from traditional practices to date does not appear to have benefited farmers. This is not about giving farmers ‘choice’ where GM seeds and associated chemicals are concerned (another much-promoted industry talking point). It is more about GM seed companies and weedicide manufactures seeking to leverage a highly lucrative market.

The potential for herbicide market growth in India is enormous. The objective involves opening India to GM seeds with herbicide tolerance traits, the biotechnology industry’s biggest money maker by far (86% of the world’s GM crop acres in 2015 contained plants resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate and there is a new generation of crops resistant to 2,4-D coming through).

The aim is to break farmers’ traditional pathways and move them onto corporate biotech/chemical treadmills for the benefit of industry.

It is revealing that, according to a report on the ruralindiaonline.org website, in a region of southern Odisha, farmers have been pushed towards a reliance on (illegal) expensive GM herbicide tolerant cotton seeds and have replaced their traditional food crops. Farmers used to sow mixed plots of heirloom seeds, which had been saved from family harvests the previous year and would yield a basket of food crops. They are now dependent on seed vendors, chemical inputs and a volatile international market to make a living and are no longer food secure.

Calls for agroecology and highlighting the benefits of traditional, small-scale agriculture are not based on a romantic yearning for the past or ‘the peasantry’. Available evidence suggests that smallholder farming using low-input methods is more productive in overall output than large-scale industrial farms and can be more profitable and resilient to climate change. It is for good reason that numerous high-level reports call for investment in this type of agriculture.

Despite the pressures, including the fact that globally industrial agriculture grabs 80% of subsidies and 90% of research funds, smallholder agriculture plays a major role in feeding the world.

That is a massive amount of subsidies and funds to support a system that is only made profitable as a result of these financial injections and because agri-food oligopolies externalise the massive health, social and environmental costs of their operations.

But policy makers tend to accept that profit-driven transnational corporations have a legitimate claim to be owners and custodians of natural assets (the ‘commons’). These corporations, their lobbyists and their political representatives have succeeded in cementing a ‘thick legitimacy’ among policy makers for their vision of agriculture.

Common ownership and management of these assets embodies the notion of people working together for the public good. However, these resources have been appropriated by national states or private entities. For instance, Cargill captured the edible oils processing sector in India and in the process put many thousands of village-based workers out of work; Monsanto conspired to design a system of intellectual property rights that allowed it to patent seeds as if it had manufactured and invented them; and India’s indigenous peoples have been forcibly ejected from their ancient lands due to state collusion with mining companies.

Those who capture essential common resources seek to commodify them – whether trees for timber, land for real estate or agricultural seeds – create artificial scarcity and force everyone else to pay for access. The process involves eradicating self-sufficiency.

From World Bank ‘enabling the business of agriculture’ directives to the World Trade Organization ‘agreement on agriculture’ and trade related intellectual property agreements, international bodies have enshrined the interests of corporations that seek to monopolise seeds, land, water, biodiversity and other natural assets that belong to us all. These corporations, the promoters of GMO agriculture, are not offering a ‘solution’ for farmers’ impoverishment or hunger; GM seeds are little more than a value capture mechanism.

To evaluate the pro-GMO lobby’s rhetoric that GM is needed to ‘feed the world’, we first need to understand the dynamics of a globalised food system that fuels hunger and malnutrition against a backdrop of (subsidised) food overproduction. We must acknowledge the destructive, predatory dynamics of capitalism and the need for agri-food giants to maintain profits by seeking out new (foreign) markets and displacing existing systems of production with ones that serve their bottom line. And we need to reject a deceptive ‘haughty imperialism’ within the pro-GMO scientific lobby which aggressively pushes for a GMO ‘solution’.

Technocratic meddling has already destroyed or undermined agrarian ecosystems that draw on centuries of traditional knowledge and are increasingly recognised as valid approaches to secure food security, as outlined for instance in the paper Food Security and Traditional Knowledge in India in the Journal of South Asian Studies.

Marika Vicziany and Jagjit Plahe, the authors of that paper, note that for thousands of years Indian farmers have experimented with different plant and animal specimens acquired through migration, trading networks, gift exchanges or accidental diffusion. They note the vital importance of traditional knowledge for food security in India and the evolution of such knowledge by learning and doing, trial and error. Farmers possess acute observation, good memory for detail and transmission through teaching and storytelling.

The very farmers whose seeds and knowledge have been appropriated by corporations to be bred for proprietary chemical-dependent hybrids and now to be genetically engineered.

Large corporations with their seeds and synthetic chemical inputs have eradicated traditional systems of seed exchange. They have effectively hijacked seeds, pirated germ plasm that farmers developed over millennia and have ‘rented’ the seeds back to farmers. Genetic diversity among food crops has been drastically reduced. The eradication of seed diversity went much further than merely prioritising corporate seeds: the Green Revolution deliberately side-lined traditional seeds kept by farmers that were actually higher yielding and climate appropriate.

However, under the guise of ‘climate emergency’, we are now seeing a push for the Global South to embrace the Gates’ vision for a one-world agriculture (’Ag One’) dominated by global agribusiness and the tech giants. But it is the so-called developed nations and the rich elites that have plundered the environment and degraded the natural world.

The onus is on the richer nations and their powerful agri-food corporations to put their own house in order and to stop rainforest destruction for ranches and monocrop commodities, to stop pesticide run-offs into the oceans, to curtail a meat industry that has grown out of all proportion so it serves as a ready-made market for the overproduction and surplus of animal feed crops like corn, to stop the rollout of GMO glyphosate-dependent agriculture and to put a stop to a global system of food based on long supply chains that relies on fossil fuels at every stage.

To say that one model of a (GMO-based) agriculture must now be accepted by all countries is a continuation of a colonialist mindset that has already wrecked indigenous food systems which worked with their own seeds and practices that were in in harmony with natural ecologies.

Chapter III

Agroecology

Localisation and Food Sovereignty

Industry figures and scientists claim pesticide use and GMOs are necessary in ‘modern agriculture’. But this is not the case: there is now sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. It is simply not necessary to have our bodies contaminated with toxic agrochemicals, regardless of how much the industry tries to reassure us that they are present in ‘safe’ levels.

There is also the industry-promoted narrative that if you question the need for synthetic pesticides or GMOs in ‘modern agriculture’, you are somehow ignorant or even ‘anti-science’. This is again not true. What does ‘modern agriculture’ even mean? It means a system adapted to meet the demands of global agri-capital and its international markets and supply chains.

As writer and academic Benjamin R Cohen recently stated:

“Meeting the needs of modern agriculture – growing produce that can be shipped long distances and hold up in the store and at home for more than a few days – can result in tomatoes that taste like cardboard or strawberries that aren’t as sweet as they used to be. Those are not the needs of modern agriculture. They are the needs of global markets.”

What is really being questioned is a policy paradigm that privileges a certain model of social and economic development and a certain type of agriculture: urbanisation, giant supermarkets, global markets, long supply chains, external proprietary inputs (seeds, synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, machinery, etc), chemical-dependent monocropping, highly processed food and market (corporate) dependency at the expense of rural communities, small independent enterprises and smallholder farms, local markets, short supply chains, on-farm resources, diverse agroecological cropping, nutrient dense diets and food sovereignty.

It is clear that an alternative agri-food system is required.

The 2009 report Agriculture at a Crossroads by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, produced by 400 scientists and supported by 60 countries, recommended agroecology to maintain and increase the productivity of global agriculture. It cites the largest study of ‘sustainable agriculture’ in the Global South, which analysed 286 projects covering 37 million hectares in 57 countries and found that on average crop yields increased by 79% (the study also included ‘resource conserving’ non-organic conventional approaches).

The report concludes that agroecology provides greatly improved food security and nutritional, gender, environmental and yield benefits compared to industrial agriculture.

The message conveyed in the paper Reshaping the European Agro-food System and Closing its Nitrogen Cycle: The potential of combining dietary change, agroecology, and circularity (2020), which appeared in the journal One Earth, is that an organic-based, agri-food system could be implemented in Europe and would allow a balanced coexistence between agriculture and the environment. This would reinforce Europe’s autonomy, feed the predicted population in 2050, allow the continent to continue to export cereals to countries which need them for human consumption and substantially reduce water pollution and toxic emissions from agriculture.

The paper by Gilles Billen et al follows a long line of studies and reports which have concluded that organic agriculture is vital for guaranteeing food security, rural development, better nutrition and sustainability.

In the 2006 book The Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects, Neils Halberg and his colleagues argue that there are still more than 740 million food insecure people (at least 100 million more today), the majority of whom live in the Global South. They say if a conversion to organic farming of approximately 50% of the agricultural area in the Global South were to be carried out, it would result in increased self-sufficiency and decreased net food imports to the region.

In 2007, the FAO noted that organic models increase cost-effectiveness and contribute to resilience in the face of climatic stress. The FAO concluded that by managing biodiversity in time (rotations) and space (mixed cropping) organic farmers can use their labour and environmental factors to intensify production in a sustainable way and organic agriculture could break the vicious circle of farmer indebtedness for proprietary agricultural inputs.

Of course, organic agriculture and agroecology are not necessarily one and the same. Whereas organic agriculture can still be part of the prevailing globalised food regime dominated by giant agri-food conglomerates, agroecology uses organic practices but is ideally rooted in the principles of localisation, food sovereignty and self-reliance.

The FAO recognises that agroecology contributes to improved food self-reliance, the revitalisation of smallholder agriculture and enhanced employment opportunities. It has argued that organic agriculture could produce enough food on a global per capita basis for the current world population but with reduced environmental impact than conventional agriculture.

In 2012, Deputy Secretary General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Petko Draganov stated that expanding Africa’s shift towards organic farming will have beneficial effects on the continent’s nutritional needs, the environment, farmers’ incomes, markets and employment.

A meta analysis conducted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and UNCTAD (2008) assessed 114 cases of organic farming in Africa. The two UN agencies concluded that organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term.

There are numerous other studies and projects which testify to the efficacy of organic farming, including those from the Rodale Institute, the UN Green Economy Initiative, the Women’s Collective of Tamil Nadu, Newcastle University and Washington State University. We also need look no further than the results of organic-based farming in Malawi.

But Cuba is the one country in the world that has made the biggest changes in the shortest time in moving away from industrial chemical-intensive agriculture.

Professor of Agroecology Miguel Altieri notes that due to the difficulties Cuba experienced as a result of the fall of the USSR it moved towards organic and agroecological techniques in the 1990s. From 1996 to 2005, per capita food production in Cuba increased by 4.2% yearly during a period when production was stagnant across the wider region.

By 2016, Cuba had 383,000 urban farms, covering 50,000 hectares of otherwise unused land producing more than 1.5 million tons of vegetables. The most productive urban farms yield up to 20 kg of food per square metre, the highest rate in the world, using no synthetic chemicals. Urban farms supply 50 to 70% or more of all the fresh vegetables consumed in Havana and Villa Clara.

It has been calculated by Altieri and his colleague Fernando R Funes-Monzote that if all peasant farms and cooperatives adopted diversified agroecological designs, Cuba would be able to produce enough to feed its population, supply food to the tourist industry and even export some food to help generate foreign currency.

A systems approach

Agroecological principles represent a shift away from the reductionist yield-output chemical-intensive industrial paradigm, which results in among other things enormous pressures on human health, soil and water resources.

Agroecology is based on traditional knowledge and modern agricultural research, utilising elements of contemporary ecology, soil biology and the biological control of pests. This system combines sound ecological management by using on-farm renewable resources and privileging endogenous solutions to manage pests and disease without the use of agrochemicals and corporate seeds.

Academic Raj Patel outlines some of the basic practices of agroecology by saying that nitrogen-fixing beans are grown instead of using inorganic fertilizer, flowers are used to attract beneficial insects to manage pests and weeds are crowded out with more intensive planting. The result is a sophisticated polyculture: many crops are produced simultaneously, instead of just one.

However, this model is a direct challenge to the interests of global agribusiness interests. With the emphasis on localisation and on-farm inputs, agroecology does not require dependency on proprietary chemicals, pirated patented seeds and knowledge nor long-line global supply chains.

Agroecology stands in sharp contrast to the prevailing industrial chemical-intensive model of farming. That model is based on a reductionist mindset which is fixated on a narrow yield-output paradigm that is unable or more likely unwilling to grasp an integrated social-cultural-economic-agronomic systems approach to food and agriculture.

Localised, democratic food systems based on agroecological principles and short supply chains are required. An approach that leads to local and regional food self-sufficiency rather than dependency on faraway corporations and their expensive environment-damaging inputs. If the last two years have shown anything due to the closing down of much of the global economy, it is that long supply chains and global markets are vulnerable to shocks. Indeed, hundreds of millions are now facing food shortages as a result of the various economic lockdowns that have been imposed.

In 2014, a report by the then UN special rapporteur Olivier De Schutter concluded that by applying agroecological principles to democratically controlled agricultural systems we can help to put an end to food crises and poverty challenges.

But Western corporations and foundations are jumping on the ‘sustainability’ bandwagon by undermining traditional agriculture and genuine sustainable agri-food systems and packaging their corporate takeover of food as some kind of ‘green’ environmental mission.

The Gates Foundation through its ‘Ag One’ initiative is pushing for one type of agriculture for the whole world. A top-down approach regardless of what farmers or the public need or want. A system based on corporate consolidation and centralisation.

But given the power and influence of those pushing for such a model, is this merely inevitable? Not according to the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, which has released a report in collaboration with the ETC Group: ‘A Long Food Movement: Transforming Food Systems by 2045‘.

It calls for civil society and social movements – grassroots organisations, international NGOs, farmers’ and fishers’ groups, cooperatives and unions – to collaborate more closely to transform financial flows, governance structures and food systems from the ground up.

The report’s lead author, Pat Mooney, says that agribusiness has a very simple message: the cascading environmental crisis can be resolved by powerful new genomic and information technologies that can only be developed if governments unleash the entrepreneurial genius, deep pockets and risk-taking spirit of the most powerful corporations.

Mooney notes that we have had similar messages based on emerging technology for decades but the technologies either did not show up or fell flat and the only thing that grew were the corporations.

Although Mooney argues that new genuinely successful alternatives like agroecology are frequently suppressed by the industries they imperil, he states that civil society has a remarkable track record in fighting back, not least in developing healthy and equitable agroecological production systems, building short (community-based) supply chains and restructuring and democratising governance systems.

And he has a point. A few years ago, the Oakland Institute released a report on 33 case studies which highlighted the success of agroecological agriculture across Africa in the face of climate change, hunger and poverty. The studies provide facts and figures on how agricultural transformation can yield immense economic, social, and food security benefits while ensuring climate justice and restoring soils and the environment.

The research highlights the multiple benefits of agroecology, including affordable and sustainable ways to boost agricultural yields while increasing farmers’ incomes, food security and crop resilience.

The report described how agroecology uses a wide variety of techniques and practices, including plant diversification, intercropping, the application of mulch, manure or compost for soil fertility, the natural management of pests and diseases, agroforestry and the construction of water management structures.

There are many other examples of successful agroecology and of farmers abandoning Green Revolution thought and practices to embrace it.

Upscaling

In an interview on the Farming Matters website, Million Belay sheds light on how agroecological agriculture is the best model for Africa. Belay explains that one of the greatest agroecological initiatives started in 1995 in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, and continues today.

It began with four villages and after good results, it was scaled up to 83 villages and finally to the whole Tigray Region. It was recommended to the Ministry of Agriculture to be scaled up at the national level. The project has now expanded to six regions of Ethiopia.

The fact that it was supported with research by the Ethiopian University at Mekele has proved to be critical in convincing decision makers that these practices work and are better for both the farmers and the land.

Bellay describes an agroecological practice that spread widely across East Africa – ‘push-pull’. This method manages pests through selective intercropping with important fodder species and wild grass relatives, in which pests are simultaneously repelled – or pushed – from the system by one or more plants and are attracted to – or pulled – toward ‘decoy’ plants, thereby protecting the crop from infestation.

Push-pull has proved to be very effective at biologically controlling pest populations in fields, reducing significantly the need for pesticides, increasing production, especially for maize, increasing income to farmers, increasing fodder for animals and, due to that, increasing milk production, and improving soil fertility.

By 2015, the number of farmers using this practice had increased to 95,000. One of the bedrocks of success is the incorporation of cutting-edge science through the collaboration of the International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology and the Rothamsted Research Station (UK) who have worked in East Africa for more than 15 years on an effective ecologically based pest management solution for stem borers and striga.

It shows what can be achieved with the support of key institutions, including government departments and research institutions.

In Brazil, for instance, administrations have supported peasant agriculture and agroecology by developing supply chains with public sector schools and hospitals (Food Acquisition Programme). This secured good prices and brought farmers together. It came about by social movements applying pressure on the government to act.

The federal government also brought native seeds and distributed them to farmers across the country, which was important for combatting the advance of the corporations as many farmers had lost access to native seeds.

But agroecology should not just be regarded as something for the Global South. Food First Executive Director Eric Holtz-Gimenez argues that it offers concrete, practical solutions to many of the world’s problems that move beyond (but which are linked to) agriculture. In doing so, it challenges – and offers alternatives to – prevailing moribund doctrinaire neoliberal economics.

The scaling up of agroecology can tackle hunger, malnutrition, environmental degradation and climate change. By creating securely paid labour-intensive agricultural work in the richer countries, it can also address the interrelated links between labour offshoring and the displacement of rural populations elsewhere who end up in sweat shops to carry out the outsourced jobs: the two-pronged process of neoliberal globalisation that has undermined the economies of the US and UK and which is displacing existing indigenous food production systems and undermining the rural infrastructure in places like India to produce a reserve army of cheap labour.

Various official reports have argued that to feed the hungry and secure food security in low-income regions we need to support small farms and diverse, sustainable agroecological methods of farming and strengthen local food economies.

Olivier De Schutter says:

“To feed nine billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available. Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live, especially in unfavourable environments.”

De Schutter indicates that small-scale farmers can double food production within 10 years in critical regions by using ecological methods. Based on an extensive review of scientific literature, the study he was involved in calls for a fundamental shift towards agroecology as a way to boost food production and improve the situation of the poorest. The report calls on states to implement a fundamental shift towards agroecology.

The success stories of agroecology indicate what can be achieved when development is placed firmly in the hands of farmers themselves. The expansion of agroecological practices can generate a rapid, fair and inclusive development that can be sustained for future generations. This model entails policies and activities that come from the bottom-up and which the state can then invest in and facilitate.

A decentralised system of food production with access to local markets supported by proper roads, storage and other infrastructure must take priority ahead of exploitative international markets dominated and designed to serve the needs of global capital.

Countries and regions must ultimately move away from a narrowly defined notion of food security and embrace the concept of food sovereignty. ‘Food security’ as defined by the Gates Foundation and agribusiness conglomerates has merely been used to justify the rollout of large-scale, industrialised corporate farming based on specialised production, land concentration and trade liberalisation. This has led to the widespread dispossession of small producers and global ecological degradation.

Across the world, we have seen a change in farming practices towards mechanised industrial-scale chemical-intensive monocropping and the undermining or eradication of rural economies, traditions and cultures. We see the ‘structural adjustment’ of regional agriculture, spiralling input costs for farmers who have become dependent on proprietary seeds and technologies and the destruction of food self-sufficiency.

Food sovereignty encompasses the right to healthy and culturally appropriate food and the right of people to define their own food and agriculture systems. ‘Culturally appropriate’ is a nod to the foods people have traditionally produced and eaten as well as the associated socially embedded practices which underpin community and a sense of communality.

But it goes beyond that. Our connection with ‘the local’ is also very much physiological.

People have a deep microbiological connection to local soils, processing and fermentation processes which affect the gut microbiome – the up to six pounds of bacteria, viruses and microbes akin to human soil. And as with actual soil, the microbiome can become degraded according to what we ingest (or fail to ingest). Many nerve endings from major organs are located in the gut and the microbiome effectively nourishes them. There is ongoing research taking place into how the microbiome is disrupted by the modern globalised food production/processing system and the chemical bombardment it is subjected to.

Capitalism colonises (and degrades) all aspects of life but is colonising the very essence of our being – even on a physiological level. With their agrochemicals and food additives, powerful companies are attacking this ‘soil’ and with it the human body. As soon as we stopped eating locally grown, traditionally processed food cultivated in healthy soils and began eating food subjected to chemical-laden cultivation and processing activities, we began to change ourselves.

Along with cultural traditions surrounding food production and the seasons, we also lost our deep-rooted microbiological connection with our localities. It was replaced with corporate chemicals and seeds and global food chains dominated by the likes of Monsanto (now Bayer), Nestle and Cargill.

Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, neurotransmitters in the gut affect our moods and thinking. Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression and Parkinson’s.

Science writer and neurobiologist Mo Costandi has discussed gut bacteria and their balance and importance in brain development. Gut microbes controls the maturation and function of microglia, the immune cells that eliminate unwanted synapses in the brain; age-related changes to gut microbe composition might regulate myelination and synaptic pruning in adolescence and could, therefore, contribute to cognitive development. Upset those changes and there are going to be serious implications for children and adolescents.

In addition, environmentalist Rosemary Mason notes that increasing levels of obesity are associated with low bacterial richness in the gut. Indeed, it has been noted that tribes not exposed to the modern food system have richer microbiomes. Mason lays the blame squarely at the door of agrochemicals, not least the use of the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate, a strong chelator of essential minerals, such as cobalt, zinc, manganese, calcium, molybdenum and sulphate. Mason argues that it also kills off beneficial gut bacteria and allows toxic bacteria.

If policy makers were to prioritise agroecology to the extent Green Revolution practices and technology have been pushed, many of the problems surrounding poverty, unemployment and urban migration could be solved.

The 2015 Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology argues for building grass-root local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on truly agroecological food production. It says that agroecology should not be co-opted to become a tool of the industrial food production model; it should be the essential alternative to it.

The declaration stated that agroecology is political and requires local producers and communities to challenge and transform structures of power in society, not least by putting the control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters, knowledge, culture and the commons in the hands of those who feed the world.

However, the biggest challenge for upscaling agroecology lies in the push by big business for commercial agriculture and attempts to marginalize agroecology. Unfortunately, global agribusiness concerns have secured the status of ‘thick legitimacy’ based on an intricate web of processes successfully spun in the scientific, policy and political arenas. This perceived legitimacy derives from the lobbying, financial clout and political power of agribusiness conglomerates which set out to capture or shape government departments, public institutions, the agricultural research paradigm, international trade and the cultural narrative concerning food and agriculture.

Chapter IV

Distorting Development

Corporate Capture and Imperialist Intent

Many governments are working hand-in-glove with the agritech/agribusiness industry to promote its technology over the heads of the public. Scientific bodies and regulatory agencies that supposedly serve the public interest have been subverted by the presence of key figures with industry links, while the powerful industry lobby holds sway over bureaucrats and politicians.

In 2014, Corporate Europe Observatory released a critical report on the European Commission over the previous five years. The report concluded that the commission had been a willing servant of a corporate agenda. It had sided with agribusiness on GMOs and pesticides. Far from shifting Europe to a more sustainable food and agriculture system, the opposite had happened, as agribusiness and its lobbyists continued to dominate the Brussels scene.

Consumers in Europe reject GM food, but the commission had made various attempts to meet the demands from the biotech sector to allow GMOs into Europe, aided by giant food companies, such as Unilever, and the lobby group FoodDrinkEurope.

The report concluded that the commission had eagerly pursued a corporate agenda in all the areas investigated and pushed for policies in sync with the interests of big business. It had done this in the apparent belief that such interests are synonymous with the interests of society at large.

Little has changed since. In December 2021, Friends of the Earth Europe (FOEE) noted that big agribusiness and biotech corporations are currently pushing for the European Commission to remove any labelling and safety checks for new genomic techniques. Since the beginning of their lobbying efforts (in 2018), these corporations have spent at least €36 million lobbying the European Union and have had 182 meetings with European commissioners, their cabinets and director generals: more than one meeting a week.

According to FOEE, the European Commission seems more than willing to put the lobby’s demands into a new law that would include weakened safety checks and bypass GMO labelling.

But corporate influence over key national and international bodies is nothing new.

In October 2020, CropLife International said that its new strategic partnership with the FAO would contribute to sustainable food systems. It added that it was a first for the industry and the FAO and demonstrates the determination of the plant science sector to work constructively in a partnership where common goals are shared.

A powerful trade and lobby association, CropLife International counts among its members the world’s largest agricultural biotechnology and pesticide businesses: Bayer, BASF, Syngenta, FMC, Corteva and Sumitoma Chemical. Under the guise of promoting plant science technology, the association first and foremost looks after the interests (bottom line) of its member corporations.

A 2020 joint investigation by Unearthed (Greenpeace) and Public Eye (a human rights NGO) revealed that BASF, Corteva, Bayer, FMC and Syngenta bring in billions of dollars by selling toxic chemicals found by regulatory authorities to pose serious health hazards.

It also found more than a billion dollars of their sales came from chemicals – some now banned in European markets – that are highly toxic to bees. Over two thirds of these sales were made in low- and middle-income countries like Brazil and India.

The Political Declaration of the People’s Autonomous Response to the UN Food Systems Summit in 2021 stated that global corporations are increasingly infiltrating multilateral spaces to co-opt the narrative of sustainability to secure further industrialisation, the extraction of wealth and labour from rural communities and the concentration of corporate power.

With this in mind, a major concern is that CropLife International will now seek to derail the FAO’s commitment to agroecology and push for the further corporate colonisation of food systems. And there does now appear to be an ideological assault from within the FAO on alternative development and agri-food models that threaten CropLife International’s member interests.

In the report ‘Who Will Feed Us? The Industrial Food Chain vs the Peasant Food Web (ETC Group, 2017), it was shown that a diverse network of small-scale producers (the peasant food web) actually feeds 70% of the world, including the most hungry and marginalised.

The flagship report indicated that only 24% of the food produced by the industrial food chain actually reaches people. Furthermore, it was shown that industrial food costs us more: for every dollar spent on industrial food, it costs another two dollars to clean up the mess.

However, two prominent papers have since claimed that small farms feed only 35% of the global population.

One of the papers is ‘How much of our world’s food do smallholders produce?’ (Ricciardi et al, 2018). The other is an FAO report, ‘Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? (Lowder et al, 2021).

Eight key organisations have just written to the FAO sharply criticising the Lowder paper which reverses a number of well-established positions held by the organisation. The letter is signed by the Oakland Institute, Landworkers Alliance, ETC Group, A Growing Culture, Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, GRAIN, Groundswell International and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

The open letter calls on the FAO to reaffirm that peasants (including small farmers, artisanal fishers, pastoralists, hunters and gatherers and urban producers) provide more food with fewer resources and are the primary source of nourishment for at least 70% of the world population.

ETC Group has also published the 16-page report ‘Small-scale Farmers and Peasants Still Feed the World‘ in response to the two papers, indicating how the authors indulged in methodological and conceptual gymnastics and certain important omissions to arrive at the 35% figure – not least by changing the definition of ‘family farmer’ and by defining a ‘small farm’ as less than 2 ha. This contradicts the FAO’s own decision in 2018 to reject a universal land area threshold for describing small farms in favour of more sensitive country-specific definitions.

The Lowder et al paper also contradicts recent FAO and other reports that state peasant farms produce more food and more nutritious food per hectare than large farms. It maintains that policy makers are wrongly focused on peasant production and should give greater attention to larger production units.

The signatories of the open letter to the FAO strongly disagree with the Lowder study’s assumption that food production is a proxy for food consumption and that the commercial value of food in the marketplace can be equated with the nutritional value of the food consumed.

The paper feeds into an agribusiness narrative that attempts to undermine the effectiveness of peasant production in order to promote its proprietary technologies and agri-food model.

Smallholder peasant farming is regarded by these conglomerates as an impediment. Their vision is fixated on a narrow yield-output paradigm based on the bulk production of commodities that is unwilling to grasp an integrated systems approach that accounts for the likes of food sovereignty and diverse nutrition production per acre.

This systems approach serves to boost rural and regional development based on thriving, self-sustaining local communities rather than eradicating them and subordinating whoever remains to the needs of global supply chains and global markets.

The FAO paper concludes that the world small farms only produce 35% of the world’s food using 12% of agricultural land. But ETC Group says that by working with the FAO’s normal or comparable databases, it is apparent that peasants nourish at least 70% of the world’s people with less than one third of the agricultural land and resources.

But even if 35% of food is produced on 12% of land, does that not suggest we should be investing in small, family and peasant farming rather than large-scale chemical-intensive agriculture?

While not all small farms might be practising agroecology or chemical-free agriculture, they are more likely to be integral to local markets and networks and to serve the food requirements of communities rather than the interests of businesses, institutional investors and shareholders half a world away.

When the corporate capture of an institution occurs, too often the first casualty is truth.

Corporate imperialism

The co-option of the FAO is but part of a wider trend. From the World Bank’s enabling the business of agriculture to the Gates Foundation’s role in opening up African agriculture to global food and agribusiness oligopolies, corporate narratives are gaining traction and democratic procedures are being bypassed to impose seed monopolies and proprietary inputs to serve the bottom line of a global agri-food chain dominated by powerful corporations.

The World Bank is pushing a corporate-led industrial model of agriculture and corporations are given free rein to write policies. Monsanto played a key part in drafting the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights to create seed monopolies and the global food processing industry had a leading role in shaping the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. From Codex to the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture aimed at restructuring Indian society, the powerful agribusiness lobby has secured privileged access to policy makers to ensure its model of agriculture prevails.

The ultimate coup d’état by the transnational agribusiness conglomerates is that government officials, scientists and journalists take as given that profit-driven Fortune 500 corporations have a legitimate claim to be custodians of natural assets. These corporations have convinced so many that they have the ultimate legitimacy to own and control what is essentially humanity’s commonwealth.

There is the premise that water, food, soil, land and agriculture should be handed over to powerful transnational corporations to milk for profit, under the pretence these entities are somehow serving the needs of humanity.

Corporations which promote industrial agriculture have embedded themselves deeply within the policy-making machinery on both national and international levels. But how long can the ‘legitimacy’ of a system persist given that it merely produces bad food, creates food deficit regions globally, destroys health, impoverishes small farms, leads to less diverse diets and less nutritious food, is less productive than small farms, creates water scarcity, destroys soil and fuels/benefits from dependency and debt?

Powerful agribusiness corporations can only operate as they have captured governments and regulatory bodies and are able to use the WTO and bilateral trade deals to lever global influence and to profit on the back of US militarism or destabilisations.

Take Ukraine, for instance. In 2014, small farmers operated 16% of agricultural land in that country but provided 55% of agricultural output, including: 97% of potatoes, 97% of honey, 88% of vegetables, 83% of fruits and berries and 80% of milk. It is clear that Ukraine’s small farms were delivering impressive outputs.

Following the toppling of Ukraine’s government in early 2014, the way was paved for foreign investors and Western agribusiness to take a firm hold over the agri-food sector. Reforms mandated by the EU-backed loan to Ukraine in 2014 included agricultural deregulation intended to benefit foreign agribusiness. Natural resource and land policy shifts were being designed to facilitate the foreign corporate takeover of enormous tracts of land.

Frederic Mousseau, policy director at the Oakland Institute, stated at the time that the World Bank and IMF were intent on opening up foreign markets to Western corporations and that the high stakes around the control of Ukraine’s vast agricultural sector, the world’s third largest exporter of corn and fifth largest exporter of wheat, constitute an overlooked critical factor. He added that in recent years, foreign corporations had acquired more than 1.6 million hectares of Ukrainian land.

Western agribusiness had been coveting Ukraine’s agriculture sector for quite some time, long before the coup. That country contains one third of all arable land in Europe. An article by Oriental Review in 2015 noted that since the mid-90s the Ukrainian-Americans at the helm of the US-Ukraine Business Council had been instrumental in encouraging the foreign control of Ukrainian agriculture.

In November 2013, the Ukrainian Agrarian Confederation drafted a legal amendment that would benefit global agribusiness producers by allowing the widespread use of GM seeds. When GM crops were legally introduced into the Ukrainian market in 2013, they were planted in up to 70% of all soybean fields, 10-20% of cornfields and over 10% of all sunflower fields, according to various estimates (or 3% of the country’s total farmland).

In June 2020, the IMF approved an 18-month $5 billion loan programme with Ukraine. According to the Brettons Wood Project website, the government committed to lifting the 19-year moratorium on the sale of state-owned agricultural lands after sustained pressure from international finance. The World Bank incorporated further measures relating to the sale of public agricultural land as conditions in a $350 million Development Policy Loan (COVID ‘relief package’) to Ukraine approved in late June. This included a required ‘prior action’ to “enable the sale of agricultural land and the use of land as collateral.”

Screenshot from IMF

In response, Frederic Mousseau recently stated:

“The goal is clearly to favour the interests of private investors and Western agribusinesses… It is wrong and immoral for Western financial institutions to force a country in a dire economic situation… to sell its land.”

The IMF and World Bank’s ongoing commitment to global agribusiness and a rigged model of ‘globalisation’ is a recipe for continued plunder. Whether it involves Bayer, Corteva, Cargill or the type of corporate power grab of African agriculture that Bill Gates is helping to spearhead, private capital will continue to ensure this happens while hiding behind platitudes about ‘free trade’ and ‘development’ which are anything but.

India

If there is one country that encapsulates the battle for the future of food and agriculture, it is India.

Agriculture in India is at a crossroads. Indeed, given that over 60% of the country’s 1.3-billion-plus population still make a living from agriculture (directly or indirectly), what is at stake is the future of the country. Unscrupulous interests are intent on destroying India’s indigenous agri-food sector and recasting it in their own image and farmers are rising up in protest.

To appreciate what is happening to agriculture and farmers in India, we must first understand how the development paradigm has been subverted. Development used to be about breaking with colonial exploitation and radically redefining power structures. Today, neoliberal ideology masquerades as economic theory and the subsequent deregulation of international capital ensures giant transnational conglomerates are able to ride roughshod over national sovereignty.

The deregulation of international capital flows (financial liberalisation) has effectively turned the planet into a free-for-all bonanza for the world’s richest capitalists. Under the post-World-War Two Bretton Woods monetary regime, nations put restrictions on the flow of capital. Domestic firms and banks could not freely borrow from banks elsewhere or from international capital markets, without seeking permission, and they could not simply take their money in and out of other countries.

Domestic financial markets were segmented from international ones elsewhere. Governments could to a large extent run their own macroeconomic policy without being restrained by monetary or fiscal policies devised by others. They could also have their own tax and industrial policies without having to seek market confidence or worry about capital flight.

However, the dismantling of Bretton Woods and the deregulation of global capital movement has led to the greater incidence of financial crises (including sovereign debt) and has deepened the level of dependency of nation states on capital markets.

The dominant narrative calls this ‘globalisation’, a euphemism for a predatory neoliberal capitalism based on endless profit growth, crises of overproduction, overaccumulation and market saturation and a need to constantly seek out and exploit new, untapped (foreign) markets to maintain profitability.

In India, we can see the implications very clearly. Instead of pursuing a path of democratic development, India has chosen (or been coerced) to submit to the regime of foreign finance, awaiting signals on how much it can spend, giving up any pretence of economic sovereignty and leaving the space open for private capital to move in on and capture markets.

India’s agri-food sector has indeed been flung open, making it ripe for takeover. The country has borrowed more money from the World Bank than any other country in that institution’s history.

Back in the 1990s, the World Bank directed India to implement market reforms that would result in the displacement of 400 million people from the countryside. Moreover, the World Bank’s ‘Enabling the Business of Agriculture’ directives entail opening up markets to Western agribusiness and their fertilisers, pesticides, weedicides and patented seeds and compel farmers to work to supply transnational corporate global supply chains.

The aim is to let powerful corporations take control under the guise of ‘market reforms’. The very transnational corporations that receive massive taxpayer subsidies, manipulate markets, write trade agreements and institute a regime of intellectual property rights, thereby indicating that the ‘free’ market only exists in the warped delusions of those who churn out clichés about ‘price discovery’ and the sanctity of ‘the market’.

Indian agriculture is to be wholly commercialised with large-scale, mechanised (monocrop) enterprises replacing small farms that help sustain hundreds of millions of rural livelihoods while feeding the masses.

India’s agrarian base is being uprooted, the very foundation of the country, its cultural traditions, communities and rural economy. Indian agriculture has witnessed gross underinvestment over the years, whereby it is now wrongly depicted as a basket case and underperforming and ripe for a sell off to those very interests who had a stake in its underinvestment.

Today, we hear much talk of ‘foreign direct investment’ and making India ‘business friendly’, but behind the benign-sounding jargon lies the hard-nosed approach of modern-day capitalism that is no less brutal for Indian farmers than early industrial capitalism was for English peasants.

Early capitalists and their cheerleaders complained how peasants were too independent and comfortable to be properly exploited. Indeed, many prominent figures advocated for their impoverishment, so they would leave their land and work for low pay in factories.

In effect, England’s peasants were booted off their land by depriving a largely self-reliant population of its productive means. Although self-reliance persisted among the working class (self-education, recycling products, a culture of thrift, etc), this too was eventually eradicated via advertising and an education system that ensured conformity and dependence on the goods manufactured by capitalism.

The intention is for India’s displaced cultivators to be retrained to work as cheap labour in the West’s offshored plants, even though nowhere near the numbers of jobs necessary are being created and that under capitalism’s ‘Great Reset’ human labour is to be largely replaced by artificial intelligence-driven technology. The future impacts of AI aside, the aim is for India to become a fully incorporated subsidiary of global capitalism, with its agri-food sector restructured for the needs of global supply chains and a reserve army of urban labour that will effectively serve to further weaken workers’ position in relation to capital in the West.

As independent cultivators are bankrupted, the aim is that land will eventually be amalgamated to facilitate large-scale industrial cultivation. Those who remain in farming will be absorbed into corporate supply chains and squeezed as they work on contracts dictated by large agribusiness and chain retailers.

A 2016 UN report said that by 2030 Delhi’s population will be 37 million.

One of the report’s principal authors, Felix Creutzig, said:

“The emerging mega-cities will rely increasingly on industrial-scale agricultural and supermarket chains, crowding out local food chains.”

The drive is to entrench industrial agriculture and commercialise the countryside.

The outcome will be a mainly urbanised country reliant on an industrial agriculture and all it entails, including denutrified food, increasingly monolithic diets, the massive use of agrochemicals and food contaminated by hormones, steroids, antibiotics and a range of chemical additives. A country with spiralling rates of ill health, degraded soil, a collapse in the insect population, contaminated and depleted water supplies and a cartel of seed, chemical and food processing companies with ever-greater control over the global food production and supply chain.

But we do not need a crystal ball to look into the future. Much of the above is already taking place, not least the destruction of rural communities, the impoverishment of the countryside and continuing urbanisation, which is itself causing problems for India’s crowded cities and eating up valuable agricultural land.

Transnational corporate-backed front groups are hard at work behind the scenes to secure this future. According to a September 2019 report in the New York Times, ‘A Shadowy Industry Group Shapes Food Policy Around the World’, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) has been quietly infiltrating government health and nutrition bodies. The article lays bare ILSI’s influence on the shaping of high-level food policy globally, not least in India.

ILSI helps to shape narratives and policies that sanction the roll out of processed foods containing high levels of fat, sugar and salt. In India, ILSI’s expanding influence coincides with mounting rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

It is worth noting that over the past 60 years in Western nations there have been fundamental changes in the quality of food. Trace elements and micronutrient contents in many basic staples have been severely depleted.

In 2007, nutritional therapist David Thomas in ‘A Review of the 6th Edition of McCance and Widdowson’s the Mineral Depletion of Foods Available to Us as a Nation’ associated this with a precipitous change towards convenience and pre-prepared foods containing saturated fats, highly processed meats and refined carbohydrates, often devoid of vital micronutrients yet packed with a cocktail of chemical additives including colourings, flavourings and preservatives.

Aside from the impacts of Green Revolution cropping systems and practices, Thomas proposed that these changes are significant contributors to rising levels of diet-induced ill health. He added that ongoing research clearly demonstrates a significant relationship between deficiencies in micronutrients and physical and mental ill health.

Increasing prevalence of diabetes, childhood leukaemia, childhood obesity, cardiovascular disorders, infertility, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis, mental illnesses and so on have all been shown to have some direct relationship to diet and specifically micronutrient deficiency.

However, this is precisely the kind of food model that ILSA supports. Little more than a front group for its 400 corporate members that provide its $17 million budget, ILSI’s members include Coca-Cola, DuPont, PepsiCo, General Mills and Danone. The report says ILSI has received more than $2 million from chemical companies, among them Monsanto. In 2016, a UN committee issued a ruling that glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup, was “probably not carcinogenic,” contradicting an earlier report by the WHO’s cancer agency. The committee was led by two ILSI officials.

From India to China, whether it has involved warning labels on unhealthy packaged food or shaping anti-obesity education campaigns that stress physical activity and divert attention from the food system itself, prominent figures with close ties to the corridors of power have been co-opted to influence policy in order to boost the interests of agri-food corporations.

Whether through IMF-World Bank structural adjustment programmes, as occurred in Africa, trade agreements like NAFTA and its impact on Mexico, the co-option of policy bodies at national and international levels or deregulated global trade rules, the outcome has been similar across the world: poor and less diverse diets and illnesses, resulting from the displacement of traditional, indigenous agriculture and food production by a corporatised model centred on unregulated global markets and transnational conglomerates.

A hard-edged Rock

While it is right to focus on the individual firms that dominate the agri-sector, we also need to shed light on the powerful asset managers who finance them and determine the financial architecture that upholds a predatory economic system.

Larry Fink is the head of BlackRock – the world’s biggest asset management firm. In 2011, Fink said agricultural and water investments would be the best performers over the next 10 years.

Fink Stated:

“Go long agriculture and water and go to the beach.”

Just three years later, in 2014, the Oakland Institute found that institutional investors, including hedge funds, private equity and pension funds, were capitalising on global farmland as a new and highly desirable asset class.

Funds tend to invest for a 10- to 15-year period, resulting in good returns for investors but often cause long-term environmental and social devastation. They undermine local and regional food security through buying up land and entrenching an industrial, export-oriented model of agriculture.

In September 2020, Grain.org showed that private equity funds – pools of money that use pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, endowment funds and investments from governments, banks, insurance companies and high net worth individuals – were being injected into the agriculture sector throughout the world.

This money was being used to lease or buy up farms on the cheap and aggregate them into large-scale, US-style grain and soybean concerns.

BlackRock is a publicly owned investment manager that primarily provides its services to institutional, intermediary and individual investors. The firm exists to put its assets to work to make money for its clients. And it must ensure the financial system functions to secure this goal. And this is exactly what it does.

Back in 2010, the farmlandgrab.org website reported that BlackRock’s global agriculture fund would target companies involved with agriculture-related chemical products, equipment and infrastructure, as well as soft commodities and food, biofuels, forestry, agricultural sciences and arable land.

Blackrock’s Global Consumer Staples exchange rated fund (ETF) was launched in 2006 and has $560 million in assets under management. Agrifood stocks make up around 75% of the fund. Nestlé is the fund’s largest holding. Other agrifood firms that make up the fund include Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Walmart, Anheuser Busch InBev, Mondelez, Danone and Kraft Heinz.

BlackRock’s iShares Core S&P 500 Index ETF has $150 billion in assets under management. Most of the top publicly traded food and agriculture firms are part of the S&P 500 index and BlackRock holds significant shares in those firms.

Professor Jennifer Clapp notes that BlackRock’s COW Global Agriculture ETF has $231 million in assets and focuses on firms that provide inputs (seeds, chemicals and fertilizers) and farm equipment and agricultural trading companies. Among its top holdings are Deere & Co, Bunge, ADM and Tyson. This is based on BlackRock’s own data from 2018.

Clapp states that, collectively, the global asset management giants – BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, and Capital Group – own significant proportions of the firms that dominate at various points along agrifood supply chains.

BlackRock et al are heavily invested in the success of the prevailing globalised system of food and agriculture.

They profit from an inherently predatory system that – focusing on the agrifood sector alone – has been responsible for, among other things, the displacement of indigenous systems of production, the impoverishment of many farmers worldwide, the destruction of rural communities and cultures, poor-quality food and illness, less diverse diets, ecological destruction and the proletarianisation of independent producers.

BlackRock currently has $10 trillion in assets under its management and to underline the influence of the firm, Fink himself is a billionaire who sits on the board of the World Economic Forum and the powerful and highly influential Council for Foreign Relations, often referred to as the shadow government of the US – the real power behind the throne.

Researcher William Engdahl says that, since 1988, the company has put itself in a position to de facto control the Federal Reserve, most Wall Street mega-banks, including Goldman Sachs, the Davos World Economic Forum Great Reset and now the Biden Administration.

Engdahl describes how former top people at BlackRock are now in key government positions, running economic policy for the Biden administration, and that the firm is steering the ‘great reset’ and the global ‘green’ agenda. BlackRock is the pinnacle of capitalist power.

Fink recently eulogised about the future of food and ‘coded’ seeds that would produce their own fertiliser. He says this is “amazing technology”. This technology is years away and whether it can deliver on what he says is another thing.

More likely, it will be a great investment opportunity that is par for the course as far as genetically modified organisms in agriculture are concerned: a failure to deliver on inflated false promises. And even if it does eventually deliver, a whole host of ‘hidden costs’ (health, social, ecological, etc.) will emerge.

But why should Fink care about these ‘hidden costs’, not least the health impacts?

Well, actually, he probably does – with his eye on investments in ‘healthcare’ and Big Pharma. BlackRock’s investments support and profit from industrial agriculture as well as the hidden costs.

Poor health is good for business (for example, see on the BlackRock website BlackRock on healthcare investment opportunities amid Covid-19). Scroll through BlackRock’s website and it soon becomes clear that it sees the healthcare sector as a strong long-term bet.

And for good reason. For instance, increased consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) was associated with more than 10% of all-cause premature, preventable deaths in Brazil in 2019 according to a recent peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The findings are significant not only for Brazil but more so for high income countries such as the US, Canada, the UK and Australia, where UPFs account for more than half of total calorific intake. Brazilians consume far less of these products than countries with high incomes. This means the estimated impact would be even higher in richer nations.

Larry Fink is good at what he does – securing returns for the assets his company holds. He needs to keep expanding into or creating new markets to ensure the accumulation of capital to offset the tendency for the general rate of profit to fall. He needs to accumulate capital (wealth) to be able to reinvest it and make further profits.

When capital struggles to make sufficient profit, productive wealth (capital) over accumulates, devalues and the system goes into crisis. To avoid crisis, capitalism requires constant growth, expanding markets and sufficient demand.

And that means laying the political and legislative groundwork to facilitate this. What matters to global agricapital and investment firms is facilitating profit and maximising returns on investment.

This has been a key driving force behind the modern food system that sees around a billion people experiencing malnutrition in a world of food abundance. That is not by accident but by design – inherent to a system that privileges corporate profit ahead of human need.

The modern agritech/agribusiness sector uses notions of it and its products being essential to ‘feed the world’ by employing ‘amazing technology’ in an attempt to seek legitimacy. But the reality is an inherently unjust globalised food system, farmers forced out of farming or trapped on proprietary product treadmills working for corporate supply chains and the public fed GMOs, more ultra-processed products and lab-engineered food.

A system that facilitates ‘going long and going to the beach’ serves elite interests well. It’s business as usual. For vast swathes of humanity, however, economic warfare is waged on them each day courtesy of a hard-edged rock.

However, ‘imperialism’ is a dirty word never to be used in ‘polite’ circles. Such a notion is to be brushed aside as ideological by the corporations that benefit from it.

Chapter V

Farmers’ Struggle in India

The Farm Laws and a Neoliberal Death Knell

Much of what appears in the following chapters was written prior to the Indian government’s announcement in late 2021 that the three farm laws discussed would be repealed. This is little more than a tactical manoeuvre given that state elections were upcoming in key rural heartlands in 2022. The powerful global interests behind these laws have not gone away and the concerns expressed below are still highly relevant. These interests have been behind a decades-long agenda to displace the prevailing agri-food system in India. The laws might have been struck down, but the goal and underlying framework to capture and radically restructure the sector remains. The farmers’ struggle in India is not over.

In 1830, British colonial administrator Lord Metcalfe said India’s villages were little republics that had nearly everything they could want for within themselves. India’s ability to endure derived from these communities:

“Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down but the village community remains the same. It is in a high degree conducive to their happiness, and to the enjoyment of a great portion of freedom and independence.”

Metcalfe was acutely aware that to subjugate India this capacity to ‘endure’ had to be broken. Since gaining independence from the British, India’s rulers have only further served to undermine the vibrancy or rural India. But now a potential death knell for rural India and its villages is underway.

There is a plan for the future of India and most of its current farmers do not have a role in it.

Three important farm bills are aimed at imposing the shock therapy of neoliberalism on India’s agri-food sector for the benefit of large commodity traders and other (international) corporations: many if not most smallholder farmers could go to the wall in a landscape of ‘get big or get out’.

This legislation comprises the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act 2020, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act 2020 and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act 2020.

This could represent a final death knell for indigenous agriculture in India. The legislation will mean that mandis – state-run market locations for farmers to sell their agricultural produce via auction to traders – can be bypassed, allowing farmers to sell to private players elsewhere (physically and online), thereby undermining the regulatory role of the public sector. In trade areas open to the private sector, no fees will be levied (fees levied in mandis go to the states and, in principle, are used to enhance infrastructure to help farmers).

This could incentivise the corporate sector operating outside of the mandis to (initially at least) offer better prices to farmers; however, as the mandi system is run down completely, these corporations will monopolise trade, capture the sector and dictate prices to farmers.

Another outcome could see the largely unregulated storage of produce and speculation, opening the farming sector to a free-for-all profiteering payday for the big traders and jeopardising food security. The government will no longer regulate and make key produce available to consumers at fair prices. This policy ground is being ceded to influential market players.

The legislation will enable transnational agri-food corporations like Cargill and Walmart and India’s billionaire capitalists Gautam Adani (agribusiness conglomerate) and Mukesh Ambini (Reliance retail chain) to decide on what is to be cultivated at what price, how much of it is to be cultivated within India and how it is to be produced and processed. Industrial agriculture will be the norm with all the devastating health, social and environmental costs that the model brings with it.

Forged in Washington

The recent agriculture legislation represents the final pieces of a 30-year-old plan which will benefit a handful of billionaires in the US and in India. It means the livelihoods of hundreds of millions (the majority of the population) who still rely on agriculture for a living are to be sacrificed at the behest of these elite interests.

Consider that much of the UK’s wealth came from sucking $45 trillion from India alone according to renowned economist Utsa Patnaik. Britain grew rich by underdeveloping India. Today, what are little more than modern-day East India-type corporations are currently in the process of helping themselves to the country’s most valuable asset – agriculture.

According to the World Bank’s lending report, based on data compiled up to 2015, India was easily the largest recipient of its loans in the history of the institution. On the back of India’s foreign exchange crisis in the 1990s, the IMF and World Bank wanted India to shift hundreds of millions out of agriculture.

In return for up to more than $120 billion in loans at the time, India was directed to dismantle its state-owned seed supply system, reduce subsidies, run down public agriculture institutions and offer incentives for the growing of cash crops to earn foreign exchange.

The details of this plan appear in a January 2021 article by the Mumbai-based Research Unit for Political Economy (RUPE), ‘Modi’s Farm Produce Act Was Authored Thirty Years Ago, in Washington DC’. The piece says that the current agricultural ‘reforms’ are part of a broader process of imperialism’s increasing capture of the Indian economy:

“Indian business giants such as Reliance and Adani are major recipients of foreign investment, as we have seen in sectors such as telecom, retail, and energy. At the same time, multinational corporations and other financial investors in the sectors of agriculture, logistics and retail are also setting up their own operations in India. Multinational trading corporations dominate global trade in agricultural commodities… The opening of India’s agriculture and food economy to foreign investors and global agribusinesses is a longstanding project of the imperialist countries.”

The article provides details of a 1991 World Bank memorandum which set out the programme for India.

It states that, at the time, India was still in its foreign exchange crisis of 1990-91 and had just submitted itself to an IMF-monitored ‘structural adjustment’ programme. India’s July 1991 budget marked the fateful start of India’s neoliberal era.

The Modi government is attempting to dramatically accelerate the implementation of the above programme, which to date has been too slow for the overlords in Washington: the dismantling of the public procurement and distribution of food is to be facilitated courtesy of the three agriculture-related acts passed by parliament.

What is happening predates the current administration, but it is as if Modi was especially groomed to push through the final components of this agenda.

Describing itself as a major global communications, stakeholder engagement and business strategy company, APCO Worldwide is a lobby agency with firm links to the Wall Street/corporate US establishment and facilitates its global agenda. Some years ago, Modi turned to APCO to help transform his image and turn him into electable pro-corporate PM material. It also helped him get the message out that what he achieved in Gujarat as chief minister was a miracle of economic neoliberalism, although the actual reality is quite different.

Some years ago, following the 2008 financial crisis, APCO stated that India’s resilience in weathering the global downturn has made governments, policy makers, economists, corporate houses and fund managers believe that the country can play a significant role in the recovery of global capitalism.

Decoded, this means global capital moving into regions and nations and displacing indigenous players. Where agriculture is concerned, this hides behind emotive and seemingly altruistic rhetoric about ‘helping farmers’ and the need to ‘feed a burgeoning population’ (regardless of the fact this is exactly what India’s farmers have been doing).

Modi has been on board with this aim and has proudly stated that India is now one of the most ‘business friendly’ countries in the world. What he really means is that India is in compliance with World Bank directives on ‘ease of doing business’ and ‘enabling the business of agriculture’ by facilitating further privatisation of public enterprises, environment-destroying policies and forcing working people to take part in a race to the bottom based on ‘free’ market fundamentalism.

APCO has described India as a trillion-dollar market. It talks about positioning international funds and facilitating corporations’ ability to exploit markets, sell products and secure profit. None of this is a recipe for national sovereignty, let alone food security.

Renowned agronomist MS Swaminathan has stated:

“Independent foreign policy is only possible with food security. Therefore, food has more than just eating implications. It protects national sovereignty, national rights and national prestige.”

The drive is to drastically dilute the role of the public sector in agriculture, reducing it to a facilitator of private capital. The norm will be industrial (GM) commodity-crop farming suited to the needs of the likes of Cargill, Archer Daniels Midlands, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and India’s retail and agribusiness giants as well as the global agritech, seed and agrochemical corporations and Silicon Valley, which is leading the drive for ‘data-driven agriculture’.

Of course, those fund managers and corporate houses mentioned by APCO are no doubt also well positioned to take advantage, not least via the purchase of land and land speculation. For example, the Karnataka Land Reform Act will make it easier for business to purchase agricultural land, resulting in increased landlessness and urban migration.

As a result of the ongoing programme, more than 300,000 farmers in India have taken their lives since 1997 and many more are experiencing economic distress or have left farming as a result of debt, a shift to cash crops and economic liberalisation. There has been an ongoing strategy to make farming non-viable for many of India’s farmers.

The number of cultivators in India declined from 166 million to 146 million between 2004 and 2011. Some 6,700 left farming each day. Between 2015 and 2022, the number of cultivators is likely to decrease to around 127 million.

We have seen the running down of the sector for decades, spiralling input costs, withdrawal of government assistance and the impacts of cheap, subsidised imports which depress farmers’ incomes. India’s spurt of high GDP growth during the last decade was partly fuelled on the back of cheap food and the subsequent impoverishment of farmers: the gap between farmers’ income and the rest of the population has widened enormously.

While underperforming corporations receive massive handouts and have loans written off, the lack of a secure income, exposure to international market prices and cheap imports contribute to farmers’ misery of not being able to cover the costs of production.

With more than 800 million people, rural India is arguably the most interesting and complex place on the planet but is plagued by farmer suicides, child malnourishment, growing unemployment, increased informalisation, indebtedness and an overall collapse of agriculture.

Given that India is still an agrarian-based society, renowned journalist P Sainath says what is taking place can be described as a crisis of civilisation proportions and can be explained in just five words: hijack of agriculture by corporations. He notes the process by which it is being done in five words too: predatory commercialisation of the countryside. And another five words to describe the outcome: biggest displacement in our history.

Take the cultivation of pulses, for instance, which highlights the plight of farmers. According to a report in the Indian Express (September 2017), pulses production increased by 40% during the previous 12 months (a year of record production). At the same time, however, imports also rose resulting in black gram selling at 4,000 rupees per quintal (much less than during the previous 12 months). This effectively pushed down prices thereby reducing farmers already meagre incomes.

We have already witnessed a running down of the indigenous edible oils sector thanks to Indonesian palm oil imports (which benefits Cargill) on the back of World Bank pressure to reduce tariffs (India was virtually self-sufficient in edible oils in the 1990s but now faces increasing import costs).

The pressure from the richer nations for the Indian government to further reduce support given to farmers and open up to imports and export-oriented ‘free market’ trade is based on nothing but hypocrisy.

On the ‘Down to Earth’ website in late 2017, it was stated some 3.2 million people were engaged in agriculture in the US in 2015. The US government provided them each with a subsidy of $7,860 on average. Japan provides a subsidy of $14,136 and New Zealand $2,623 to its farmers. In 2015, a British farmer earned $2,800 and $37,000 was added through subsidies. The Indian government provides on average a subsidy of $873 to farmers. However, between 2012 and 2014, India reduced the subsidy on agriculture and food security by $3 billion.

According to policy analyst Devinder Sharma, subsidies provided to US wheat and rice farmers are more than the market worth of these two crops. He also notes that, per day, each cow in Europe receives subsidy worth more than an Indian farmer’s daily income.

The Indian farmer simply cannot compete with this. The World Bank, WTO and the IMF have effectively served to undermine the indigenous farm sector in India.

And now, based on the new farm laws, by reducing public sector buffer stocks and facilitating corporate-dictated contract farming and full-scale neoliberal marketisation for the sale and procurement of produce, India will be sacrificing its farmers and its own food security for the benefit of a handful of billionaires.

Of course, many millions have already been displaced from the Indian countryside and have had to seek work in the cities. And if the coronavirus-related lockdown has indicated anything, it is that many of these ‘migrant workers’ had failed to gain a secure foothold in urban centres and were compelled to return ‘home’ to their villages. Their lives are defined by low pay and insecurity even after 30 years of neoliberal ‘reforms’.

Charter for change

In late November 2018, a charter was released by the All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (an umbrella group of around 250 farmers’ organisations) to coincide with the massive, well-publicised farmers’ march that was then taking place in Delhi.

The charter stated:

“Farmers are not just a residue from our past; farmers, agriculture and village India are integral to the future of India and the world; as bearers of historic knowledge, skills and culture; as agents of food safety, security and sovereignty; and as guardians of biodiversity and ecological sustainability.”

The farmers stated that they were alarmed at the economic, ecological, social and existential crisis of Indian agriculture as well as the persistent state neglect of the sector and discrimination against farming communities.

They were also concerned about the deepening penetration of large, predatory and profit hungry corporations, farmers’ suicide across the country and the unbearable burden of indebtedness and the widening disparities between farmers and other sectors.

A view of workers and farmers’ rally on Feb 23, 2021 at Barnala (Source: Countercurrents)

The charter called on the Indian parliament to immediately hold a special session to pass and enact two bills that were of, by and for the farmers of India.

If passed by parliament, among other things, the Farmers’ Freedom from Indebtedness Bill 2018 would have provided for the complete loan waiver for all farmers and agricultural workers.

The second bill, The Farmers’ Right to Guaranteed Remunerative Minimum Support Prices for Agricultural Commodities Bill 2018, would have seen the government take measures to bring down the input cost of farming through specific regulation of the prices of seeds, agriculture machinery and equipment, diesel, fertilisers and insecticides, while making purchase of farm produce below the minimum support price (MSP) both illegal and punishable.

The charter also called for a special discussion on the universalisation of the public distribution system, the withdrawal of pesticides that have been banned elsewhere and the non-approval of genetically engineered seeds without a comprehensive need and impact assessment.

Other demands included no foreign direct investment in agriculture and food processing, the protection of farmers from corporate plunder in the name of contract farming, investment in farmers’ collectives to create farmer producer organisations and peasant cooperatives and the promotion of agroecology based on suitable cropping patterns and local seed diversity revival.

Now, in 2021, rather than responding to these requirements, we see the Indian government’s promotion and facilitation of – by way of recent legislation – the corporatisation of agriculture and the dismantling of the public distribution system (and the MSP) as well as the laying of groundwork for contract farming.

Although the two aforementioned bills from 2018 have now lapsed, farmers are demanding that the new pro-corporate (anti-farmer) farm laws are replaced with a legal framework that guarantees the MSP to farmers.

Indeed, the RUPE notes that MSPs via government procurement of essential crops and commodities should be extended to the likes of maize, cotton, oilseed and pulses. At the moment, only farmers in certain states who produce rice and wheat are the main beneficiaries of government procurement at MSP.

Since per capita protein consumption in India is abysmally low and has fallen further during the liberalisation era, the provision of pulses in the public distribution system (PDS) is long overdue and desperately needed. The RUPE argues that the ‘excess’ stocks of food grain with the Food Corporation of India are merely the result of the failure or refusal of the government to distribute grain to the people.

(For those not familiar with the PDS: central government via the Food Corporation of India FCI is responsible for buying food grains from farmers at MSP at state-run market yards or mandis. It then allocates the grains to each state. State governments then deliver to the ration shops.)

If public procurement of a wider range of crops at the MSP were to occur – and MSP were guaranteed for rice and wheat across all states – it would help address hunger and malnutrition as well as farmer distress.

Instead of rolling back the role of the public sector and surrendering the system to foreign corporations, there is a need to further expand official procurement and public distribution. This would occur by extending procurement to additional states and expanding the range of commodities under the PDS.

Of course, some will raise a red flag here and say this would cost too much. But as the RUPE notes, it would cost around 20% of the current handouts (‘incentives’) received by corporations and their super-rich owners which do not benefit the bulk of the wider population in any way. It is also worth considering that the loans provided to just five large corporations in India were in 2016 equal to the entire farm debt.

But this is not where the government’s priorities lie.

It is clear that the existence of the MSP, the Food Corporation of India, the public distribution system and publicly held buffer stocks constitute an obstacle to the profit-driven requirements of global agribusiness interests who have sat with government agencies and set out their wish-lists.

The RUPE notes that India accounts for 15% of world consumption of cereals. India’s buffer stocks are equivalent to 15-25% of global stocks and 40% of world trade in rice and wheat. Any large reduction in these stocks will almost certainly affect world prices: farmers would be hit by depressed prices; later, once India became dependent on imports, prices could rise on the international market and Indian consumers would be hit.

At the same time, the richer countries are applying enormous pressure on India to scrap its meagre agricultural subsidies; yet their own subsidies are vast multiples of India’s. The end result could be India becoming dependent on imports and the restructure of its own agriculture to crops destined for export.

Vast buffer stocks would of course still exist; but instead of India holding these stocks, they would be held by multinational trading firms and India would bid for them with borrowed funds. In other words, instead of holding physical buffer stocks, India would hold foreign exchange reserves.

Successive administrations have made the country dependent on volatile flows of foreign capital and India’s foreign exchange reserves have been built up by borrowing and foreign investments. The fear of capital flight is ever present. Policies are often governed by the drive to attract and retain these inflows and maintain market confidence by ceding to the demands of international capital.

This throttling of democracy and the ‘financialisation’ of agriculture would seriously undermine the nation’s food security and leave almost 1.4 billion people at the mercy of international speculators and markets and foreign investment.

If unrepealed, the recent legislation represents the ultimate betrayal of India’s farmers and democracy as well as the final surrender of food security and food sovereignty to unaccountable corporations. This legislation could eventually lead to the country relying on outside forces to feed its population – and a possible return to hand-to-mouth imports, especially in an increasingly volatile world prone to conflict, public health scares, unregulated land and commodity speculation and price shocks.

Chapter VI

Colonial Deindustrialisation

Predation and Inequality

According to a report by Oxfam, ‘The Inequality Virus’, the wealth of the world’s billionaires increased by $3.9tn (trillion) between 18 March and 31 December 2020. Their total wealth now stands at $11.95tn. The world’s 10 richest billionaires have collectively seen their wealth increase by $540bn over this period. In September 2020, Jeff Bezos could have paid all 876,000 Amazon employees a $105,000 bonus and still be as wealthy as he was before COVID.

At the same time, hundreds of millions of people will lose (have lost) their jobs and face destitution and hunger. It is estimated that the total number of people living in poverty around the world could have increased by between 200 million and 500 million in 2020. The number of people living in poverty might not return even to its pre-crisis level for over a decade.

Mukesh Ambani, India’s richest man and head of Reliance Industries, which specialises in petrol, retail and telecommunications, doubled his wealth between March and October 2020. He now has $78.3bn. The average increase in Ambani’s wealth in just over four days represented more than the combined annual wages of all of Reliance Industries’ 195,000 employees.

The Oxfam report states that lockdown in India resulted in the country’s billionaires increasing their wealth by around 35%. At the same time, 84% of households suffered varying degrees of income loss. Some 170,000 people lost their jobs every hour in April 2020 alone.

The authors also noted that income increases for India’s top 100 billionaires since March 2020 was enough to give each of the 138 million poorest people a cheque for 94,045 rupees.

The report went on to state:

“… it would take an unskilled worker 10,000 years to make what Ambani made in an hour during the pandemic… and three years to make what Ambani made in a second.”

During lockdown and after, hundreds of thousands of migrant workers in the cities (who had no option but to escape to the city to avoid the manufactured, deepening agrarian crisis) were left without jobs, money, food or shelter.

It is clear that COVID has been used as cover for consolidating the power of the unimaginably rich. But plans for boosting their power and wealth will not stop there.

Tech giants

An article on the grain.org website, ‘Digital control: how big tech moves into food and farming (and what it means)’, describes how Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others are closing in on the global agri-food sector while the likes of Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva and Cargill are cementing their stranglehold.

The tech giants’ entry into the sector will increasingly lead to a mutually beneficial integration between the companies that supply products to farmers (pesticides, seeds, fertilisers, tractors, etc) and those that control the flow of data and have access to digital (cloud) infrastructure and food consumers. This system is based on corporate concentration (monopolisation).

In India, global corporations are also colonising the retail space through e-commerce. Walmart entered into India in 2016 by a US$3.3 billion take-over of the online retail start-up Jet.com which, in 2018, was followed by a US$16 billion take-over of India’s largest online retail platform Flipkart. Today, Walmart and Amazon now control almost two thirds of India’s digital retail sector.

Amazon and Walmart are using predatory pricing, deep discounts and other unfair business practices to lure customers towards their online platforms. According to GRAIN, when the two companies generated sales of over US$3 billion in just six days during a Diwali festival sales blitz, India’s small retailers called out in desperation for a boycott of online shopping.

In 2020, Facebook and the US-based private equity concern KKR committed over US$7 billion to Reliance Jio, the digital store of one of India’s biggest retail chains. Customers will soon be able to shop at Reliance Jio through Facebook’s chat application, WhatsApp.

The plan for retail is clear: the eradication of millions of small traders and retailers and neighbourhood mom and pop shops. It is similar in agriculture.

The aim is to buy up rural land, amalgamate it and rollout a system of chemically drenched farmerless farms owned or controlled by financial speculators, the high-tech giants and traditional agribusiness concerns. The end game is a system of contract farming that serves the interests of big tech, big agribusiness and big retail. Smallholder peasant agriculture is regarded as an impediment.

This model will be based on driverless tractors, drones, genetically engineered/lab-produced food and all data pertaining to land, water, weather, seeds and soils patented and often pirated from peasant farmers.

Farmers possess centuries of accumulated knowledge that once gone will never be got back. Corporatisation of the sector has already destroyed or undermined functioning agrarian ecosystems that draw on centuries of traditional knowledge and are increasingly recognised as valid approaches to secure food security.

And what of the hundreds of millions to be displaced in order to fill the pockets of the billionaire owners of these corporations? Driven to cities to face a future of joblessness: mere ‘collateral damage’ resulting from a short-sighted system of dispossessive predatory capitalism that destroys the link between humans, ecology and nature to boost the bottom line of the immensely rich.

India’s agri-food sector has been on the radar of global corporations for decades. With deep market penetration and near saturation having been achieved by agribusiness in the US and elsewhere, India represents an opportunity for expansion and maintaining business viability and all-important profit growth. And by teaming up with the high-tech players in Silicon Valley, multi-billion-dollar data management markets are being created. From data and knowledge to land, weather and seeds, capitalism is compelled to eventually commodify (patent and own) all aspects of life and nature.

As independent cultivators are bankrupted, the aim is that land will eventually be amalgamated to facilitate large-scale industrial cultivation. Indeed, a piece on the RUPE site, ‘The Kisans Are Right: Their Land Is At Stake‘, describes how the Indian government is ascertaining which land is owned by whom with the ultimate aim of making it easier to eventually sell it off (to foreign investors and agribusiness).

The recent farm bills (now repealed) will impose the neoliberal shock therapy of dispossession and dependency, finally clearing the way to restructure the agri-food sector. The massive inequalities and injustices that have resulted from the COVID-related lockdowns could be a mere taste of what is to come.

In June 2018, the Joint Action Committee against Foreign Retail and E-commerce (JACAFRE) issued a statement on Walmart’s acquisition of Flipkart. It argued that it undermines India’s economic and digital sovereignty and the livelihood of millions.

The deal would lead to Walmart and Amazon dominating India’s e-retail sector. These two US companies would also own India’s key consumer and other economic data, making them the country’s digital overlords, joining the ranks of Google and Facebook.

JACAFRE was formed to resist the entry of foreign corporations like Walmart and Amazon into India’s e-commerce market. Its members represent more than 100 national groups, including major trade, workers and farmers’ organisations.

On 8 January 2021, JACAFRE published an open letter saying that the three new farm laws, passed by parliament in September 2020, centre on enabling and facilitating the unregulated corporatisation of agriculture value chains. This will effectively make farmers and small traders of agricultural produce become subservient to the interests of a few agri-food and e-commerce giants or will eradicate them completely.

The government is facilitating the dominance of giant corporations, not least through digital or e-commerce platforms, to control the entire value chain. The letter states that if the new farm laws are closely examined, it will be evident that unregulated digitalisation is an important aspect of them.

And this is not lost on Parminder Jeet Singh from IT for Change (a member of JACAFRE). Referring to Walmart’s takeover of online retailer Flipkart, Singh notes that there was strong resistance to Walmart entering India with its physical stores; however, online and offline worlds are now merged.

That is because, today, e-commerce companies not only control data about consumption but also control data on production, logistics, who needs what, when they need it, who should produce it, who should move it and when it should be moved.

Through the control of data (knowledge), e-commerce platforms can shape the entire physical economy. What is concerning is that Amazon and Walmart have sufficient global clout to ensure they become a duopoly, more or less controlling much of India’s economy.

Singh says that whereas you can regulate an Indian company, this cannot be done with foreign players who have global data, global power and will be near-impossible to regulate.

While China succeeded in digital industrialisation by building up its own firms, Singh observes that the EU is now a digital colony of the US. The danger is clear for India.

India has its own skills and digital forms, so why is the government letting in US companies to dominate and buy India’s digital platforms?

And ‘platform’ is a key word here. We are seeing the eradication of the marketplace. Platforms will control everything from production to logistics to even primary activities like agriculture and farming. Data gives power to platforms to dictate what needs to be manufactured and in what quantities.

The digital platform is the brain of the whole system. The farmer will be told how much production is expected, how much rain is anticipated, what type of soil quality there is, what type of (GM) seeds and are inputs are required and when the produce needs to be ready.

Those traders, manufacturers and primary producers who survive will become slaves to platforms and lose their independence. Moreover, e-commerce platforms will become permanently embedded once artificial intelligence begins to plan and determine all of the above.

Of course, things have been moving in this direction for a long time, especially since India began capitulating to the tenets of neoliberalism in the early 1990s and all that entails, not least an increasing dependence on borrowing and foreign capital inflows and subservience to destructive World Bank-IMF economic directives.

Knock-out blow

But what we are currently witnessing with the three farm bills and the growing role of (foreign) e-commerce will bring about the ultimate knock-out blow to the peasantry and many small independent enterprises. This has been the objective of powerful players who have regarded India as the potential jewel in the crown of their corporate empires for a long time.

The process resembles the structural adjustment programmes that were imposed on African countries some decades ago. Economics Professor Michel Chossudovsky notes in his 1997 book ‘The Globalization of Poverty’ that economies are:

“opened up through the concurrent displacement of a pre-existing productive system. Small and medium-sized enterprises are pushed into bankruptcy or obliged to produce for a global distributor, state enterprises are privatised or closed down, independent agricultural producers are impoverished.” (p.16)

The game plan is clear and JACAFRE says the government should urgently consult all stakeholders – traders, farmers and other small and medium size players – towards a holistic new economic model where all economic actors are assured their due and appropriately valued role. Small and medium size economic actors cannot be allowed to be reduced to being helpless agents of a few digitally enabled mega-corporations.

JACAFRE concludes:

“We appeal to the government that it should urgently address the issues raised by those farmers asking for the three laws to be repealed. Specifically, from a traders’ point of view, the role of small and medium traders all along the agri-produce value chain has to be strengthened and protected against its unmitigated corporatisation.”

It is clear that the ongoing farmers’ protest in India is not just about farming. It represents a struggle for the heart and soul of the country.

Farmers, farmers’ unions and their representatives demand that the laws be repealed and state that they will not accept a compromise. Farmers’ leaders welcomed the Supreme Court of India stay order on the implementation of the farm laws in January 2021.

However, based on more than 10 rounds of talks between farmers representatives and the government, it seemed at one stage that the ruling administration would never back down on implementing the laws.

In November 2020, a nationwide general strike took place in support of the farmers and in that month around 300,000 farmers marched from the states of Punjab and Haryana to Delhi for what leaders called a “decisive battle” with the central government.

But as the farmers reached the capital, most were stopped by barricades, dug up roads, water cannons, baton charges and barbed wire erected by police. The farmers set up camps along five major roads, building makeshift tents with a view to staying for months if their demands were not met.

Throughout 2021, thousands of farmers remained camped at various points on the border, enduring the cold, the rain and the searing heat. In late March 2021, it was estimated that there were around 40,000 protestors camped at Singhu and Tikri at the Delhi border.

On 26 January 2021, India’s Republic Day, tens of thousands of farmers held a farmer’s parade with a large convoy of tractors and drove into Delhi.

In September 2021, tens of thousands of farmers attended a rally in the city of Muzaffarnagar in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP). Hundreds of thousands more turned out for other rallies in the state.

These huge gatherings came ahead of important polls in 2022 in UP, India’s most populous state with 200 million people and governed by Prime Minister Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In the 2017 assembly polls, the BJP won 325 out of a total of 403 seats.

Speaking at the rally in Muzaffarnagar, farmers’ leader Rakesh Tikait stated:

“We take a pledge that we’ll not leave the protest site there (around Delhi) even if our graveyard is made there. We will lay down our lives if needed but will not leave the protest site until we emerge victorious.”

Tikait also attacked the Modi-led government for:

“… selling the country to corporates… We have to stop the country from getting sold. Farmers should be saved; the country should be saved.”

Police brutality, the smearing of protesters by certain prominent media commentators and politicians, the illegal detention of protesters and clampdowns on free speech (journalists arrested, social media accounts closed, shutting down internet services) have been symptomatic of officialdom’s approach to the farmers’ struggle which itself has been defined by resilience, resoluteness and restraint.

But it is not as though the farmers’ struggle arose overnight. Indian agriculture has been deliberately starved of government support for decades and has resulted in a well-documented agrarian – even civilisation – crisis. What we are currently seeing is the result of injustices and neglect coming to a head as foreign agri-capital tries to impose its neoliberal ‘final solution’ on Indian agriculture.

It is essential to protect and strengthen local markets and indigenous, independent small-scale enterprises, whether farmers, hawkers, food processers or mom and pop corner stores. This will ensure that India has more control over its food supply, the ability to determine its own policies and economic independence: in other words, the protection of food and national sovereignty and a greater ability to pursue genuine democratic development.

Washington and its ideologue economists call this ‘liberalising’ the economy: how is an inability to determine your own economic policies and surrendering food security to outside forces in any way liberating?

It is interesting to note that the BBC reported that, in its annual report on global political rights and liberties, the US-based non-profit Freedom House has downgraded India from a free democracy to a “partially free democracy”. It also reported that Sweden-based V-Dem Institute says India is now an “electoral autocracy”. India did not fare any better in a report by The Economist Intelligent Unit’s Democracy Index.

The BBC’s neglect of Britain’s own slide towards COVID-related authoritarianism aside, the report on India was not without substance. It focused on the increase in anti-Muslim feeling, diminishing of freedom of expression, the role of the media and the restrictions on civil society since PM Narendra Modi took power.

The undermining of liberties in all these areas is cause for concern in its own right. But this trend towards divisiveness and authoritarianism serves another purpose: it helps smooth the path for the corporate takeover of the country.

Whether it involves a ‘divide and rule’ strategy along religious lines to divert attention, the suppression of free speech or pushing unpopular farm bills through parliament without proper debate while using the police and the media to undermine the farmers’ protest, a major undemocratic heist is under way that will fundamentally adversely impact people’s livelihoods and the cultural and social fabric of India.

On one side, there are the interests of a handful of multi-billionaires who own the corporations and platforms that seek to control India. On the other, there are the interests of hundreds of millions of cultivators, vendors and various small-scale enterprises who are regarded by these rich individuals as mere collateral damage to be displaced in their quest for ever greater profit.

Indian farmers are currently on the frontline against global capitalism and the colonial-style deindustrialisation of the economy. This is where ultimately the struggle for democracy and the future of India is taking place.

In April 2021, the Indian government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Microsoft, allowing its local partner CropData to leverage a master database of farmers. The MoU seems to be part of the AgriStack policy initiative, which involves the roll out of ‘disruptive’ technologies and digital databases in the agricultural sector.

Based on press reports and government statements, Microsoft would help farmers with post- harvest management solutions by building a collaborative platform and capturing agriculture datasets such as crop yields, weather data, market demand and prices. In turn, this would create a farmer interface for ‘smart’ agriculture, including post-harvest management and distribution.

CropData will be granted access to a government database of 50 million farmers and their land records. As the database is developed, it will include farmers’ personal details, profile of land held (cadastral maps, farm size, land titles, local climatic and geographical conditions), production details (crops grown, production history, input history, quality of output, machinery in possession) and financial details (input costs, average return, credit history).

The stated aim is to use digital technology to improve financing, inputs, cultivation and supply and distribution.

It seems that the blueprint for AgriStack is in an advanced stage despite the lack of consultation with or involvement of farmers themselves. Technology could certainly improve the sector but handing control over to powerful private concerns will merely facilitate what they require in terms of market capture and farmer dependency.

Such ‘data-driven agriculture’ is integral to the recent farm legislation which includes a proposal to create a digital profile of cultivators, their farm holdings, climatic conditions in an area, what is grown and average output.

Many concerns have been raised about this, ranging from farmer displacement, the further exploitation of farmers through microfinance and the misuse of farmer’s data and increased algorithmic decision-making without accountability.

Familiar playbook

The displacement of farmers is not lost on the RUPE which, in a three-part series of articles, explains how neoliberal capitalism has removed peasant farmers from their land to facilitate an active land market for corporate interests. The Indian government is trying to establish a system of ‘conclusive titling’ of all land in the country, so that ownership can be identified and land can then be bought or taken away.

Taking Mexico as an example, the RUPE says:

“Unlike Mexico, India never underwent significant land reform. Nevertheless, its current programme of ‘conclusive titling’ of land bears clear resemblances to Mexico’s post-1992 drive to hand over property rights… The Indian rulers are closely following the script followed by Mexico, written in Washington.”

The plan is that, as farmers lose access to land or can be identified as legal owners, predatory institutional investors and large agribusinesses will buy up and amalgamate holdings, facilitating the further roll out of high-input, corporate-dependent industrial agriculture.

This is an example of stakeholder-partnership capitalism, much promoted by the likes of the World Economic Forum, whereby a government facilitates the gathering of such information by a private player which can then, in this case, use the data for developing a land market (courtesy of land law changes that the government enacts) for institutional investors at the expense of smallholder farmers who will find themselves displaced.

By harvesting (pirating) information – under the benign-sounding policy of data-driven agriculture – private corporations will be better placed to exploit farmers’ situations for their own ends: they will know more about their incomes and businesses than individual farmers themselves.

Some 55 civil society groups and organisations have written to the government expressing these and various other concerns, not least the perceived policy vacuum with respect to the data privacy of farmers and the exclusion of farmers themselves in current policy initiatives.

In an open letter, they state:

“At a time when ‘data has become the new oil’ and the industry is looking at it as the next source of profits, there is a need to ensure the interest of farmers. It will not be surprising that corporations will approach this as one more profit-making possibility, as a market for so-called ‘solutions’ which lead to sale of unsustainable agri-inputs combined with greater loans and indebtedness of farmers for this through fintech, as well as the increased threat of dispossession by private corporations.”

They add that any proposal which seeks to tackle the issues that plague Indian agriculture must address the fundamental causes of these issues. The current model relies on ‘tech-solutionism’ which emphasises using technology to solve structural issues.

There is also the issue of reduced transparency on the part of the government through algorithm-based decision-making.

The 55 signatories request the government holds consultations with all stakeholders, especially farmers’ organisations, on the direction of its digital push as well as the basis of partnerships and put out a policy document in this regard after giving due consideration to feedback from farmers and farmer organisations. As agriculture is a state subject, the central government should consult the state governments also.

They state that all initiatives that the government has begun with private entities to integrate and/or share multiple databases with private/personal information about individual farmers or their farms be put on hold till an inclusive policy framework is put in place and a data protection law is passed.

It is also advocated that the development of AgriStack, both as a policy framework and its execution, should take the concerns and experiences of farmers as the prime starting point.

The letter states that if the new farm laws are closely examined, it will be evident that unregulated digitalisation is an important aspect of them.

There is the strong possibility that monopolistic corporate owned e-commerce ‘platforms’ will eventually control much of India’s economy given the current policy trajectory. From retail and logistics to cultivation, data certainly will be the ‘new oil’, giving power to platforms to dictate what needs to be manufactured and in what quantities.

Handing over all information about the sector to Microsoft and others places power in their hands – the power to shape the sector in their own image.

Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta and traditional agribusiness will work with Microsoft, Google and the big-tech giants to facilitate AI-driven farmerless farms and e-commerce retail dominated by the likes of Amazon and Walmart. A cartel of data owners, proprietary input suppliers and retail concerns at the commanding heights of the economy, peddling toxic industrial food and the devastating health impacts associated with it.

And elected representatives? Their role will be highly limited to technocratic overseers of these platforms and the artificial intelligence tools that plan and determine all of the above.

The links between humans and the land reduced to an AI-driven technocratic dystopia in compliance with the tenets of neoliberal capitalism. AgriStack will help facilitate this end game.

Chapter VII

Neoliberal Playbook

Economic Terrorism and Smashing Farmers’ Heads

While the brands lining the shelves of giant retail outlets seem vast, a handful of food companies own these brands which, in turn, rely on a relatively narrow range of produce for ingredients. At the same time, this illusion of choice often comes at the expense of food security in poorer countries that were compelled to restructure their agriculture to facilitate agri-exports courtesy of the World Bank, IMF, the WTO and global agribusiness interests.

In Mexico, transnational food retail and processing companies have taken over food distribution channels, replacing local foods with cheap processed items, often with the direct support of the government. Free trade and investment agreements have been critical to this process and the consequences for public health have been catastrophic.

Mexico’s National Institute for Public Health released the results of a national survey of food security and nutrition in 2012. Between 1988 and 2012, the proportion of overweight women between the ages of 20 and 49 increased from 25 to 35% and the number of obese women in this age group increased from 9 to 37%. Some 29% of Mexican children between the ages of 5 and 11 were found to be overweight, as were 35% of the youngsters between 11 and 19, while one in ten school age children experienced anaemia.

Former Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, concludes that trade policies had favoured a greater reliance on heavily processed and refined foods with a long shelf life rather than on the consumption of fresh and more perishable foods, particularly fruit and vegetables. He added that the overweight and obesity emergency that Mexico faces could have been avoided.

In 2015, the non-profit organisation GRAIN reported that the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) led to the direct investment in food processing and a change in Mexico’s retail structure (towards supermarkets and convenience stores) as well as the emergence of global agribusiness and transnational food companies in the country.

NAFTA eliminated rules preventing foreign investors from owning more than 49% of a company. It also prohibited minimum amounts of domestic content in production and increased rights for foreign investors to retain profits and returns from initial investments. By 1999, US companies had invested 5.3 billion dollars in Mexico’s food processing industry, a 25-fold increase in just 12 years.

US food corporations began to colonise the dominant food distribution networks of small-scale vendors, known as tiendas (corner shops). This helped spread nutritionally poor food as they allowed these corporations to sell and promote their foods to poorer populations in small towns and communities. By 2012, retail chains had displaced tiendas as Mexico’s main source of food sales.

In Mexico, the loss of food sovereignty induced catastrophic changes to the nation’s diet and many small-scale farmers lost their livelihoods, which was accelerated by the dumping of surplus commodities (produced at below the cost of production due to subsidies) from the US. NAFTA rapidly drove millions of Mexican farmers, ranchers and small businesspeople into bankruptcy, leading to the flight of millions of immigrant workers.

What happened in Mexico should serve as a warning to Indian farmers as global corporations seek to fully corporatize the agri-food sector through contract farming, the massive roll-back of public sector support systems, a reliance on imports (boosted by a future US trade deal) and the acceleration of large-scale (online) retail.

If you want to know the possible eventual fate of India’s local markets and small retailers, look no further than what US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in 2019. He stated that Amazon had “destroyed the retail industry across the United States.”

Global vs local

Amazon’s move into India encapsulates the unfair fight for space between local and global markets. There is a relative handful of multi-billionaires who own the corporations and platforms. And there are the interests of tens of millions of vendors and various small-scale enterprises who are regarded by these rich individuals as mere collateral damage to be displaced in their quest for ever greater profit.

Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s executive chairman, aims to plunder India and eradicate millions of small traders and retailers and neighbourhood mom and pop shops.

This is a man with few scruples.

After returning from a brief flight to space in July 2021, in a rocket built by his private space company, Bezos said during a news conference:

“I also want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you guys paid for all of this.”

In response, US congresswoman Nydia Velazquez wrote on Twitter:

“While Jeff Bezos is all over the news for paying to go to space, let’s not forget the reality he has created here on Earth.”

She added the hashtag #WealthTaxNow in reference to Amazon’s tax dodging, revealed in numerous reports, not least the May 2021 study ‘The Amazon Method: How to take advantage of the international state system to avoid paying tax’ by researchers at the University of London.

Little wonder that when Bezos visited India in January 2020, he was hardly welcomed with open arms.

Bezos praised India on Twitter by posting:

“Dynamism. Energy. Democracy. #IndianCentury.”

The ruling party’s top man in the BJP foreign affairs department hit back with:

“Please tell this to your employees in Washington DC. Otherwise, your charm offensive is likely to be waste of time and money.”

A fitting response, albeit perplexing given the current administration’s proposed sanctioning of the foreign takeover of the economy.

Bezos landed in India on the back of the country’s antitrust regulator initiating a formal investigation of Amazon and with small store owners demonstrating in the streets. The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) announced that members of its affiliate bodies across the country would stage sit-ins and public rallies in 300 cities in protest.

In a letter to PM Modi, prior to the visit of Bezos, the secretary of the CAIT, General Praveen Khandelwal, claimed that Amazon, like Walmart-owned Flipkart, was an “economic terrorist” due to its predatory pricing that “compelled the closure of thousands of small traders.”

In 2020, Delhi Vyapar Mahasangh (DVM) filed a complaint against Amazon and Flipkart alleging that they favoured certain sellers over others on their platforms by offering them discounted fees and preferential listing. The DVM lobbies to promote the interests of small traders. It also raised concerns about Amazon and Flipkart entering into tie-ups with mobile phone manufacturers to sell phones exclusively on their platforms.

It was argued by DVM that this was anti-competitive behaviour as smaller traders could not purchase and sell these devices. Concerns were also raised over the flash sales and deep discounts offered by e-commerce companies, which could not be matched by small traders.

The CAIT estimates that in 2019 upwards of 50,000 mobile phone retailers were forced out of business by large e-commerce firms.

Amazon’s internal documents, as revealed by Reuters, indicated that Amazon had an indirect ownership stake in a handful of sellers who made up most of the sales on its Indian platform. This is an issue because in India Amazon and Flipkart are legally allowed to function only as neutral platforms that facilitate transactions between third-party sellers and buyers for a fee.

The upshot is that India’s Supreme Court recently ruled that Amazon must face investigation by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for alleged anti-competitive business practices. The CCI said it would probe the deep discounts, preferential listings and exclusionary tactics that Amazon and Flipkart are alleged to have used to destroy competition.

However, there are powerful forces that have been sitting on their hands as these companies have been running amok.

In August 2021, the CAIT attacked the NITI Aayog (the influential policy commission think tank of the Government of India) for interfering in e-commerce rules proposed by the Consumer Affairs Ministry.

The CAIT said that the think tank clearly seems to be under the pressure and influence of the foreign e-commerce giants.

The president of CAIT, BC Bhartia, stated that it is deeply shocking to see such a callous and indifferent attitude of the NITI Aayog, which has remained a silent spectator for so many years when:

“… the foreign e-commerce giants have circumvented every rule of the FDI policy and blatantly violated and destroyed the retail and e-commerce landscape of the country but have suddenly decided to open their mouth at a time when the proposed e-commerce rules will potentially end the malpractices of the e-commerce companies.”

But this is to be expected given the policy trajectory of the government.

During their protests against the three farm laws, farmers were teargassed, smeared in the media and beaten. Journalist Satya Sagar notes that government advisors feared that seeming to appear weak with the agitating farmers would not sit well with foreign agri-food investors and could stop the flow of big money into the sector – and the economy as a whole.

Policies are being governed by the drive to attract and retain foreign investment and maintain ‘market confidence’ by ceding to the demands of international capital. ‘Foreign direct investment’ has thus become the holy grail of the Modi-led administration.

Little wonder the government needed to be seen as acting ‘tough’ on protesting farmers because now, more than ever, attracting and retaining foreign reserves will be required to purchase food on the international market once India surrenders responsibility for its food policy to private players by eliminating its buffer stocks.

The plan to radically restructure agri-food in the country is being sold to the public under the guise of ‘modernising’ the sector. And this is to be carried out by self-proclaimed ‘wealth creators’ like Zuckerberg, Bezos and Ambani who are highly experienced at creating wealth – for themselves.

It is clear who these ‘wealth creators’ create wealth for.

On the People’s Review site, Tanmoy Ibrahim writes a piece on India’s billionaire class, with a strong focus on Ambani and Adani. By outlining the nature of crony capitalism in India, it is clear that Modi’s ‘wealth creators’ are given carte blanche to plunder the public purse, people and the environment, while real wealth creators – not least the farmers – are fighting for their existence.

The agrarian crisis and the recent protests should not be regarded as a battle between the government and farmers. If what happened in Mexico is anything to go by, the outcome will adversely affect the entire nation in terms of the further deterioration of public health and the loss of livelihoods.

Consider that rates of obesity in India have already tripled in the last two decades and the nation is fast becoming the diabetes and heart disease capital of the world. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), between 2005 and 2015 the number of obese people doubled, even though one in five children in the 5–9-year age group were found to be stunted.

This will be just part of the cost of handing over the sector to billionaire (comprador) capitalists Mukesh Ambani and Gautum Adani and Jeff Bezos (world’s richest person), Mark Zukerberg (world’s fourth richest person), the Cargill business family (14 billionaires) and the Walmart business family (richest in the US).

These individuals aim to siphon off the wealth of India’s agri-food sector while denying the livelihoods of many millions of small-scale farmers and local mom and pop retailers while undermining the health of the nation.

Hundreds of thousands of farmers attended a rally in the city of Muzaffarnagar in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh on 5 September 2021. A similar number turned out for other rallies in the state.

Rakesh Tikait, a prominent farmers’ leader, said this would breathe fresh life into the Indian farmers’ protest movement. He added:

“We will intensify our protest by going to every single city and town of Uttar Pradesh to convey the message that Modi’s government is anti-farmer.”

Tikait is a leader of the protest movement and a spokesperson of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (Indian Farmers’ Union).

Until the repeal of the three farm laws, stating in November 2020, tens of thousands of farmers were encamped on the outskirts of Delhi in protest against the laws what would have amounted to effectively handing over the agri-food sector to corporates and placing India at the mercy of international commodity and financial markets for its food security.

Aside from the rallies in Uttar Pradesh, thousands more farmers gathered in Karnal in the state of Haryana to continue to pressurise the Modi-led government to repeal the laws. This particular protest was also in response to police violence during another demonstration, also in Karnal (200 km north of Delhi), during late August when farmers had been blocking a highway. The police Lathi-charged them and at least 10 people were injured and one person died from a heart attack a day later.

A video that appeared on social media showed Ayush Sinha, a top government official, encouraging officers to “smash the heads of farmers” if they broke through the barricades placed on the highway.

Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar criticised the choice of words but said that “strictness had to be maintained to ensure law and order”.

But that is not quite true. “Strictness” – outright brutality – must be imposed to placate the scavengers abroad who are circling overhead with India’s agri-food sector firmly in their sights.

As much as the authorities try to distance themselves from such language – ‘smashing heads’ is precisely what India’s rulers and the billionaire owners of foreign agri-food corporations require.

The government has to demonstrate to global agri-capital that it is being tough on farmers in order to maintain ‘market confidence’ and attract foreign direct investment into the sector (aka the takeover of the sector).

Although it has now somewhat (temporarily) with the repeal of the farm laws, the Indian government’s willingness to cede control of its agri-food sector would appear to represent a victory for US foreign policy.

Economist Prof Michael Hudson stated in 2014:

“It’s by agriculture and control of the food supply that American diplomacy has been able to control most of the Third World. The World Bank’s geopolitical lending strategy has been to turn countries into food deficit areas by convincing them to grow cash crops – plantation export crops – not to feed themselves with their own food crops.”

The control of global agriculture has been a tentacle of US capitalism’s geopolitical strategy. The Green Revolution was exported courtesy of oil-rich interests and poorer nations adopted agri-capital’s chemical- and oil-dependent model of agriculture that required loans for inputs and related infrastructure development. It entailed trapping nations into a globalised system of debt bondage, rigged trade relations and a system vulnerable to oil price shocks.

A December 2020 photograph published by the Press Trust of India defines the Indian government’s approach to protesting farmers. It shows a security official in paramilitary garb raising a lathi. An elder from the Sikh farming community was about to feel its full force.

But ‘smashing the heads of farmers’ is symbolic of how near-totalitarian ‘liberal democracies’ the world over now regards many within their own populations. In order to fully understand why this is the case, it is necessary to broaden the analysis.

Chapter VIII

The New Normal

Crisis of Capitalism and Dystopian Reset

Today, driven by the vision of its influential executive chairman Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum is a major focal point for the dystopian ‘great reset’, a tectonic shift that intends to change how we live, work and interact with each other.

The great reset envisages a transformation of capitalism, resulting in permanent restrictions on fundamental liberties and mass surveillance as livelihoods and entire sectors are sacrificed to boost the monopoly and hegemony of pharmaceutical corporations, high-tech/big data giants, Amazon, Google, major global chains, the digital payments sector, biotech concerns, etc.

Under the cover of COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions, the great reset has been accelerated under the guise of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ in which smaller enterprises are to be driven to bankruptcy or bought up by monopolies. Economies are being ‘restructured’ and many jobs and roles will be carried out by AI-driven technology.

And we are also witnessing the drive towards a ‘green economy’ underpinned by the rhetoric of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.

Essential (for capitalism) new arenas for profit making will be created through the ‘financialisation’ and ownership of all aspects of nature, which is to be colonised, commodified and traded under the fraudulent notion of protecting the environment. This essentially means that – under the pretext of ‘net-zero emissions’ – polluters can keep polluting but ‘offset’ their pollution by using and trading (and profiting from) the land and resources of indigenous peoples and farmers as carbon sinks. Another financial Ponzi scheme, this time based on ‘green imperialism’.

Politicians in countries throughout the world have been using the rhetoric of the great reset, talking of the need to ‘build back better’ for the ‘new normal’. They are all on point. Hardly a coincidence.

But why is this reset required?

Capitalism must maintain viable profit margins. The prevailing economic system demands ever-increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption and needs a certain level of annual GDP growth for large firms to make sufficient profit.

But markets have become saturated, demand rates have fallen and overproduction and overaccumulation of capital has become a problem. In response, we have seen credit markets expand and personal debt increase to maintain consumer demand as workers’ wages have been squeezed, financial and real estate speculation rise (new investment markets), stock buy backs and massive bail outs and subsidies (public money to maintain the viability of private capital) and an expansion of militarism (a major driving force for many sectors of the economy).

We have also witnessed systems of production abroad being displaced for global corporations to then capture and expand markets in foreign countries.

However, these solutions were little more than band aids. The world economy was suffocating under an unsustainable mountain of debt. Many companies could not generate enough profit to cover interest payments on their own debts and were staying afloat only by taking on new loans. Falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflows and highly leveraged balance sheets were rising everywhere.

In October 2019, in a speech at an International Monetary Fund conference, former Bank of England governor Mervyn King warned that the world was sleepwalking towards a fresh economic and financial crisis that would have devastating consequences for what he called the “democratic market system”.

According to King, the global economy was stuck in a low growth trap and recovery from the crisis of 2008 was weaker than that after the Great Depression. He concluded that it was time for the Federal Reserve and other central banks to begin talks behind closed doors with politicians.

In the repurchase agreement (repo) market, interest rates soared on 16 September. The Federal Reserve stepped in by intervening to the tune of $75 billion per day over four days, a sum not seen since the 2008 crisis.

At that time, according to Fabio Vighi, professor of critical theory at Cardiff University, the Fed began an emergency monetary programme that saw hundreds of billions of dollars per week pumped into Wall Street.

Over the last two years or so, under the guise of a ‘pandemic’, we have seen economies closed down, small businesses being crushed, workers being made unemployed and people’s rights being destroyed. Lockdowns and restrictions have facilitated this process. These so-called ‘public health measures’ have served to manage a crisis of capitalism.

Neoliberalism has squeezed workers income and benefits, offshored key sectors of economies and has used every tool at its disposal to maintain demand and create financial Ponzi schemes in which the rich can still invest in and profit from. The bailouts to the banking sector following the 2008 crash provided only temporary respite. The crash returned with a much bigger bang pre-Covid along with multi-billion-dollar bailouts.

Fabio Vighi sheds light on the role of the ‘pandemic’ in all of this:

“… some may have started wondering why the usually unscrupulous ruling elites decided to freeze the global profit-making machine in the face of a pathogen that targets almost exclusively the unproductive (over 80s).”

Vighi describes how, in pre-Covid times, the world economy was on the verge of another colossal meltdown and chronicles how the Swiss Bank of International Settlements, BlackRock (the world’s most powerful investment fund), G7 central bankers and others worked to avert a massive impending financial meltdown.

Lockdowns and the global suspension of economic transactions were intended to allow the Fed to flood the ailing financial markets (under the guise of COVID) with freshly printed money while shutting down the real economy to avoid hyperinflation.

Vighi says:

“… the stock market did not collapse (in March 2020) because lockdowns had to be imposed; rather, lockdowns had to be imposed because financial markets were collapsing. With lockdowns came the suspension of business transactions, which drained the demand for credit and stopped the contagion. In other words, restructuring the financial architecture through extraordinary monetary policy was contingent on the economy’s engine being turned off.”

It all amounted to a multi-trillion bailout for Wall Street under the guise of COVID ‘relief’ followed by an ongoing plan to fundamentally restructure capitalism that involves smaller enterprises being driven to bankruptcy or bought up by monopolies and global chains, thereby ensuring continued viable profits for these predatory corporations, and the eradication of millions of jobs resulting from lockdowns and accelerated automation.

Ordinary people will foot the bill for the ‘COVID relief’ packages and if the financial bailouts do not go according to plan, we could see further lockdowns imposed, perhaps justified under the pretext of ‘the virus’ but also ‘climate emergency’.

It is not only Big Finance that has been saved. A previously ailing pharmaceuticals industry has also received a massive bailout (public funds to develop and purchase the vaccines) and lifeline thanks to the money-making COVID jabs.

What we are seeing is many millions around the world being robbed of their livelihoods. With AI and advanced automation of production, distribution and service provision on the horizon, a mass labour force will no longer be required.

It raises fundamental questions about the need for and the future of mass education, welfare and healthcare provision and systems that have traditionally served to reproduce and maintain labour that capitalist economic activity has required. As the economic is restructured, labour’s relationship to capital is being transformed. If work is a condition of the existence of the labouring classes, then, in the eyes of capitalists, why maintain a pool of (surplus) labour that is no longer needed?

At the same time, as large sections of the population head into a state of permanent unemployment, the rulers are weary of mass dissent and resistance. We are witnessing an emerging biosecurity surveillance state designed to curtail liberties ranging from freedom of movement and assembly to political protest and free speech.

In a system of top-down surveillance capitalism with an increasing section of the population deemed ‘unproductive’ and ‘useless eaters’, notions of individualism, liberal democracy and the ideology of free choice and consumerism are regarded by the elite as ‘unnecessary luxuries’ along with political and civil rights and freedoms.

We need only look at the ongoing tyranny in Australia to see how quickly the country was transformed from a ‘liberal democracy’ to a brutal totalitarian police state of endless lockdowns where gathering and protests are not to be tolerated.

Being beaten and thrown to the ground and fired at with rubber bullets in the name of protecting health makes as much sense as devastating entire societies through socially and economically destructive lockdowns to ‘save lives’.

There is little if any logic to this. But of course, If we view what is happening in terms of a crisis of capitalism, it might begin to make a lot more sense.

The austerity measures that followed the 2008 crash were bad enough for ordinary people who were still reeling from the impacts when the first lockdown was imposed.

The authorities are aware that deeper, harsher impacts as well as much more wide-ranging changes will be experienced this time around and seem adamant that the masses must become more tightly controlled and conditioned to their coming servitude.

Chapter IX

Post-COVID dystopia

Hand of God and the New World Order

During its numerous prolonged lockdowns, in parts of Australia the right to protest and gather in public as well as the right of free speech was suspended. It resembled a giant penal colony as officials pursued a nonsensical ‘zero-COVID’ policy. Across Europe and in the US and Israel, unnecessary and discriminatory ‘COVID passports’ are being rolled out to restrict freedom of movement and access to services.

Again, governments must demonstrate resolve to their billionaire masters in Big Finance, the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, the World Economic Forum and the entire gamut of forces in the military-financial industrial complex behind the ‘Great Reset’, ‘4th Industrial Revolution, ‘New Normal’ or whichever other benign-sounding term is used to disguise the restructuring of capitalism and the brutal impacts on ordinary people.

COVID has ensured that trillions of dollars have been handed over to elite interests, while lockdowns and restrictions have been imposed on ordinary people and small businesses. The winners have been the likes of Amazon, Big Pharma and the tech giants. The losers have been small enterprises and the bulk of the population, deprived of their right to work and the entire panoply of civil rights their ancestors struggled and often died for.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) says:

“The Global Money financial institutions are the ‘creditors’ of the real economy which is in crisis. The closure of the global economy has triggered a process of global indebtedness. Unprecedented in World history, a multi-trillion bonanza of dollar denominated debts is hitting simultaneously the national economies of 193 countries.”

In August 2020, a report by the International Labour Organization (ILO) stated:

“The COVID-19 crisis has severely disrupted economies and labour markets in all world regions, with estimated losses of working hours equivalent to nearly 400 million full-time jobs in the second quarter of 2020, most of which are in emerging and developing countries.”

Among the most vulnerable are the 1.6 billion informal economy workers, representing half of the global workforce, who are working in sectors experiencing major job losses or have seen their incomes seriously affected by lockdowns. Most of the workers affected (1.25 billion) are in retail, accommodation and food services and manufacturing. And most of these are self-employed and in low-income jobs in the informal sector.

India was especially affected in this respect when the government imposed a lockdown. The policy ended up pushing 230 million into poverty and wrecked the lives and livelihoods of many. A May 2021 report prepared by the Centre for Sustainable Employment at Azim Premji University has highlighted how employment and income had not recovered to pre-pandemic levels even by late 2020.

The report ‘State of Working India 2021 – One year of Covid-19’ highlights how almost half of formal salaried workers moved into the informal sector and that 230 million people fell below the national minimum wage poverty line.

Even before COVID, India was experiencing its longest economic slowdown since 1991 with weak employment generation, uneven development and a largely informal economy. An article by the RUPE highlights the structural weaknesses of the economy and the often desperate plight of ordinary people.

To survive Modi’s lockdown, the poorest 25% of households borrowed 3.8 times their median income, as against 1.4 times for the top 25%. The study noted the implications for debt traps.

Six months later, it was also noted that food intake was still at lockdown levels for 20% of vulnerable households.

Meanwhile, the rich were well taken care of. According to Left Voice:

“The Modi government has handled the pandemic by prioritising the profits of big business and protecting the fortunes of billionaires over protecting the lives and livelihoods of workers.”

Governments are now under the control of global creditors and the post-COVID era will see massive austerity measures, including the cancellation of workers’ benefits and social safety nets. An unpayable multi-trillion-dollar public debt is unfolding: the creditors of the state are Big Money, which calls the shots in a process that will lead to the privatisation of the state.

Between April and July 2020, the total wealth held by billionaires around the world grew from $8 trillion to more than $10 trillion. Chossudovsky says a new generation of billionaire innovators looks set to play a critical role in repairing the damage by using the growing repertoire of emerging technologies. He adds that tomorrow’s innovators will digitise, refresh and revolutionise the economy: but, as he notes, these corrupt billionaires are little more than impoverishers.

With this in mind, a piece on the US Right To Know website exposes the Gates-led agenda for the future of food based on the programming of biology to produce synthetic and genetically engineered substances. The thinking reflects the programming of computers in the information economy. Of course, Gates and his ilk have patented, or are patenting, the processes and products involved.

For example, Ginkgo Bioworks, a Gates-backed start-up that makes ‘custom organisms’, recently went public in a $17.5 billion deal. It uses ‘cell programming’ technology to genetically engineer flavours and scents into commercial strains of engineered yeast and bacteria to create ‘natural’ ingredients, including vitamins, amino acids, enzymes and flavours for ultra-processed foods.

Ginkgo plans to create up to 20,000 engineered ‘cell programs’ (it now has five) for food products and many other uses. It plans to charge customers to use its ‘biological platform’. Its customers are not consumers or farmers but the world’s largest chemical, food and pharmaceutical companies.

Gates pushes fake food by way of his greenwash agenda. If he really is interested in avoiding ‘climate catastrophe’, helping farmers or producing enough food, instead of cementing the power and the control of corporations over our food, he should be facilitating community-based/led agroecological approaches.

But he will not because there is no scope for patents, external proprietary inputs, commodification and dependency on global corporations which Gates sees as the answer to all of humanity’s problems in his quest to bypass democratic processes and roll out his agenda.

India should take heed because this is the future of ‘food’. If the farmers fail to get the farm bills repealed, India will again become dependent on food imports or on foreign food manufacturers and even lab-made ‘food’. Fake or toxic food will displace traditional diets and cultivation methods will be driven by drones, genetically engineered seeds and farms without farmers, devastating the livelihoods (and health) of hundreds of millions.

World Bank Group President David Malpass has stated that poorer countries will be ‘helped’ to get back on their feet after the various lockdowns that have been implemented. This ‘help’ will be on condition that neoliberal reforms and the undermining of public services are implemented and become further embedded.

In April 2020, the Wall Street Journal ran the headline ‘IMF, World Bank Face Deluge of Aid Requests From Developing World‘. Scores of countries are asking for bailouts and loans from financial institutions with $1.2 trillion to lend. An ideal recipe for fuelling dependency.

In return for debt relief or ‘support’, global conglomerates along with the likes of Bill Gates will be able to further dictate national policies and hollow out the remnants of nation state sovereignty.

The billionaire class who are pushing this agenda think they can own nature and all humans and can control both, whether through geoengineering the atmosphere, for example, genetically modifying soil microbes or doing a better job than nature by producing bio-synthesised fake food in a lab.

They think they can bring history to a close and reinvent the wheel by reshaping what it means to be human. And they hope they can achieve this sooner rather than later. It is a cold dystopian vision that wants to eradicate thousands of years of culture, tradition and practices virtually overnight.

And many of those cultures, traditions and practices relate to food and how we produce it and our deep-rooted connections to nature. Consider that many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our forebears were built around stories and myths that helped them come to terms with some of the most fundamental issues of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These culturally embedded beliefs and practices served to sanctify their practical relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.

As agriculture became key to human survival, the planting and harvesting of crops and other seasonal activities associated with food production were central to these customs. Freyfaxi marks the beginning of the harvest in Norse paganism, for example, while Lammas or Lughnasadh is the celebration of the first harvest/grain harvest in paganism.

Humans celebrated nature and the life it gave birth to. Ancient beliefs and rituals were imbued with hope and renewal and people had a necessary and immediate relationship with the sun, seeds, animals, wind, fire, soil and rain and the changing seasons that nourished and brought life. Our cultural and social relationships with agrarian production and associated deities had a sound practical base. People’s lives have been tied to planting, harvesting, seeds, soil and the seasons for thousands of years.

For instance, Prof Robert W Nicholls explains that the cults of Woden and Thor were superimposed on far older and better-rooted beliefs related to the sun and the earth, the crops and the animals and the rotation of the seasons between the light and warmth of summer and the cold and dark of winter.

We need look no further than India to appreciate the important relationship between culture, agriculture and ecology, not least the vital importance of the monsoon and seasonal planting and harvesting. Rural-based beliefs and rituals steeped in nature persist, even among urban Indians. These are bound to traditional knowledge systems where livelihoods, the seasons, food, cooking, food processing and preparation, seed exchange, healthcare and the passing on of knowledge are all inter-related and form the essence of cultural diversity within India itself.

Although the industrial age resulted in a diminution of the connection between food and the natural environment as people moved to cities, traditional ‘food cultures’ – the practices, attitudes and beliefs surrounding the production, distribution and consumption of food – still thrive and highlight our ongoing connection to agriculture and nature.

Hand of God

If we go back to the 1950s, it is interesting to note Union Carbide’s corporate narrative based on a series of images that depicted the company as a ‘hand of god’ coming out of the sky to ‘solve’ some of the issues facing humanity. One of the most famous images is of the hand pouring the firm’s agrochemicals on Indian soils as if traditional farming practices were somehow ‘backward’.

Despite well-publicised claims to the contrary, this chemical-driven approach did not lead to higher food production and has had long-term devastating ecological, social and economic consequences.

In the book Food and Cultural Studies’ (Bob Ashley et al), we see how, some years ago, a Coca Cola TV ad campaign sold its product to an audience which associated modernity with a sugary drink and depicted ancient Aboriginal beliefs as harmful, ignorant and outdated. Coke and not rain became the giver of life to the parched. This type of ideology forms part of a wider strategy to discredit traditional cultures and portray them as being deficient and in need of assistance from ‘god-like’ corporations.

Today, there is talk of farmerless farms being manned by driverless machines and monitored by drones with lab-based food becoming the norm. We may speculate what this could mean: commodity crops from patented GM seeds doused with chemicals and cultivated for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be processed by biotech companies and constituted into something resembling food.

In places like India, will the land of already (prior to COVID) heavily indebted farmers eventually be handed over to the tech giants, the financial institutions and global agribusiness to churn out their high-tech, data-driven GM industrial sludge?

Is this part of the brave new world being promoted by the World Economic Forum? A world in which a handful of rulers display their contempt for humanity and their arrogance, believing they are above nature and humanity.

This elite comprises between 6,000 and 7,000 individuals (around 0.0001% of the global population) according to David Rothkopf – former director of Kissinger Associates (set up by Henry Kissinger), a senior administrator in the Bill Clinton administration and a member of the Council for Foreign Relations – in his 2008 book ‘SuperClass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making’.

This class comprises the megacorporation-interlocked, policy-building elites of the world: people at the absolute peak of the global power pyramid. They set agendas at the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, G-8, G-20, NATO, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization and are largely from the highest levels of finance capital and transnational corporations.

But in recent years, we have also seen the rise of what journalist Ernst Wolff calls the digital-financial complex that is now driving the globalisation-one world agriculture agenda. This complex comprises many of the companies already mentioned, such as Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Apple, Amazon and Meta (Facebook) as well as BlackRock and Vanguard, transnational investment/asset management corporations.

These entities exert control over governments and important institutions like the European Central Bank (ECB) and the US Federal Reserve. Indeed, Wolff states that BlackRock and Vanguard have more financial assets than the ECB and the Fed combined.

To appreciate the power and influence of BlackRock and Vanguard, let us turn to the documentary Monopoly: An Overview of the Great Reset which argues that the stock of the world’s largest corporations are owned by the same institutional investors. This means that ‘competing’ brands, like Coke and Pepsi, are not really competitors, since their stock is owned by the same investment companies, investment funds, insurance companies and banks.

Smaller investors are owned by larger investors. Those are owned by even bigger investors. The visible top of this pyramid shows only two companies: Vanguard and Black Rock.

A 2017 Bloomberg report states that both these companies in the year 2028 together will have investments amounting to 20 trillion dollars. In other words, they will own almost everything worth owning.

The digital-financial complex wants control over all aspects of life. It wants a cashless world, to destroy bodily integrity with a mandatory vaccination agenda linked to emerging digital-biopharmaceutical technologies, to control all personal data and digital money and it requires full control over everything, including food and farming.

If events since early 2020 have shown us anything, it is that an unaccountable, authoritarian global elite knows the type of world it wants to create, has the ability to coordinate its agenda globally and will use deception and duplicity to achieve it. And in this brave new Orwellian world where capitalist ‘liberal democracy’ has run its course, there will be no place for genuinely independent nation states or individual rights.

The independence of nation states could be further eroded by the digital-financial complex’s ‘financialisation of nature’ and its ‘green profiling’ of countries and companies.

If, again, we take the example of India, the Indian government has been on a relentless drive to attract inflows of foreign investment into government bonds (creating a lucrative market for global investors). It does not take much imagination to see how investors could destabilise the economy with large movements in or out of these bonds but also how India’s ‘green credentials’ could be factored in to downgrade its international credit rating.

And how could India demonstrate its green credentials and thus its ‘credit worthiness’? Perhaps by allowing herbicide-resistant GMO commodity crop monocultures that the GM sector misleadingly portrays as ‘climate friendly’ or by displacing indigenous people and using their lands and forests as carbon sinks for ‘net-zero’ global corporations to ‘offset’ their pollution.

With the link completely severed between food production, nature and culturally embedded beliefs that give meaning and expression to life, we will be left with the individual human who exists on lab-based food, who is reliant on income from the state and who is stripped of satisfying productive endeavour and genuine self-fulfilment.

The recent farmers’ protest in India and the global struggle taking place for the future of food and agriculture must be regarded as integral to the wider struggle concerning the future direction of humanity.

What is required is an ‘alternative to development’ as post-development theorist Arturo Escobar explains:

“Because seven decades after World War II, certain fundamentals have not changed. Global inequality remains severe, both between and within nations. Environmental devastation and human dislocation, driven by political as well as ecological factors, continues to worsen. These are symptoms of the failure of “development,” indicators that the intellectual and political post-development project remains an urgent task.”

Looking at the situation in Latin America, Escobar says development strategies have centred on large-scale interventions, such as the expansion of oil palm plantations, mining and large port development.

And it is similar in India: commodity monocropping; immiseration in the countryside; the appropriation of biodiversity, the means of subsistence for millions of rural dwellers; unnecessary and inappropriate environment-destroying, people-displacing infrastructure projects; and state-backed violence against the poorest and most marginalised sections of society.

These problems are not the result of a lack of development but of ‘excessive development’. Escobar looks towards the worldviews of indigenous peoples and the inseparability and interdependence of humans and nature for solutions.

He is not alone. Writers Felix Padel and Malvika Gupta argue that Adivasi (India’s indigenous peoples) economics may be the only hope for the future because India’s tribal cultures remain the antithesis of capitalism and industrialisation. Their age-old knowledge and value systems promote long-term sustainability through restraint in what is taken from nature. Their societies also emphasise equality and sharing rather than hierarchy and competition.

These principles must guide our actions regardless of where we live on the planet because what’s the alternative? A system driven by narcissism, domination, ego, anthropocentrism, speciesism and plunder. A system that is using up natural resources much faster than they can ever be regenerated. We have poisoned the rivers and oceans, destroyed natural habitats, driven wildlife species to (the edge of) extinction and continue to pollute and devastate.

And, as we can see, the outcome is endless conflicts over limited resources while nuclear missiles hang over humanity’s head like a sword of Damocles.

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

Update as of August 16, 2023, 2:03 AM ET: Added an entire sub-section in Chapter IV.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order
Tags: agriculture, agroecology, New World Order

Canadian Government Admits 48,780 Excess Deaths in 2022 (17% Increase in Mortality). There Is No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccines Saved a Single Life in Canada During 2021-2022

August 14th, 2024 by Dr. William Makis

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published by Global Research on December 2023

***

Nov. 27, 2023 – Statistics Canada released a fascinating report called “Deaths 2022”. Here is my analysis of the report.

The Statistics Canada Report can be accessed HERE.

Excess deaths:

Let’s start by analyzing some simple numbers.
48,780 excess deaths in 2022 compared to 2019. 17% increase in mortality.
That’s 0.128% of the population, or 1 in every 784 Canadians died in 2022.
In USA, that would be equivalent to 423,270 American deaths

What would you do?

Let’s assume you’re the Trudeau government and you’ve poisoned your population.
You recommended 7 experimental COVID-19 Vaccines that are now causing heart attacks, blood clots, collapses, cancers & sudden deaths.
These are the COVID-19 Vaccines the Canadian Government (NACI) recommended:
- 2 doses in early 2021
- 1st booster in late 2021
- 2nd booster in April 2022
- 3rd (Omicron bivalent booster) in Oct.2022
- 4th (Omicron bivalent booster) in Mar.2023
- 5th (XBB.1.5 monovalent booster) in Sep.2023
If you followed the Canadian government recommendations precisely, you would have taken 7 COVID-19 Vaccines as of right now.
It was also possible to skip the 2nd booster and wait for the Omicron bivalent, which means you would have taken 6 COVID-19 Vaccines.
We know that there is a tsunami of sudden deaths in the COVID-19 Vaccinated, but how do you present that data as the Federal Government?

What caused 48,780 deaths in 2022?

19,700 deaths from “COVID-19” in 2022, up from 15,900 in 2020.
And this after 7 COVID-19 Vaccines recommended by NACI.
This is proof that COVID-19 Vaccines did not save a single life.
It’s important to remember that 80% of COVID-19 deaths in 2020 in Canada were found to be in long term care home settings (source), where vulnerable seniors were often left to die without adequate treatment (like antibiotics), or were given euthanasia drug cocktails (midazolam, morphine).
So most COVID-19 deaths in 2020 were not true COVID-19 deaths.
In terms of vaccines protecting from “severe disease”, where is this protection on the graph below? I don’t see any protection in 2021. Hospitalizations were similar in 2021 compared to 2020.
Now look at what happened after COVID-19 mRNA 1st booster shots were rolled out in Nov-Dec.2021. This was followed by massive Omicron spikes in 2022 in Jan (BA.1), March (BA.2), July (BA.5), October (BA.5+).
Again, where is this “protection from severe illness” promised by the vaccines?
There is once again no evidence of vaccines protecting people in 2022.

Even if we accept 19,700 deaths from COVID-19 in 2022, who was dying?
BC government data (just before they deleted it in July 2022) told us 90% of those dying were Vaccinated.
So 17,730 of the 19,700 deaths (90%) were COVID-19 Vaccinated anyways.
Therefore, either:
- they died from a COVID-19 Vaccine Injury and it was falsely reported as a COVID-19 death, or
- they died from failure of their COVID-19 Vaccine (and likely Immune system injury) and they died from COVID-19.
Any way you dissect it, these 19,700 “COVID-19 deaths” are really COVID-19 Vaccine deaths.
Where is the 99% or 95% COVID-19 Vaccine efficacy we were promised?

Unspecified causes of deaths:

16,043, a stunning 375% increase from 2019 when it was 3,378!
This is the most stunning admission from the entire report.
This is also the number that has been circulated extensively on social media
We don’t actually get any plausible explanation for this number in the entire report.

Cardiac

Cardiac deaths increased by 4,000.
This is a significant number, although I suspect many cardiac deaths are hidden in the “unspecified” or “COVID-19” death categories.

Accidents (Unintentional injuries)

18,365, up almost 3,000 from 2019 (15,527)
I’m guessing they’re hiding blood clots here (strokes, falls, medical emergency while driving, etc)

Cancer

Turbo Cancer due to COVID-19 Vaccines is a signal they have to hide at all costs.
I’m not surprised to see only a small rise from 80,400 to 82,400, or +2000
This is a number that is undoubtedly tampered with.
It would be very easy to hide cancer deaths as COVID-19 deaths.

Statistics Canada:

“Life expectancy decreases for a third year in a row”.

the important detail: “In 2022, the decline was more prominent among females than among males”.
more women are vaccine injured than men.
women are losing life expectancy in Canada at faster rate than men.

“COVID-19 deaths…This increase may in part be due to the exposure to new highly transmissible COVID-19 variants and the gradual return to normalcy, eg. reduced restrictions and masking requirements”

Translation: 19,700 7x-vaccinated Canadians died from COVID-19 because of the milder new variants, no lockdowns and they stopped masking.
this explanation makes NO SENSE – if their vaccine protected them, they wouldn’t need lockdowns, wouldn’t need masks that don’t work, and they certainly wouldn’t be dying from milder variants.
so Statistics Canada has NO EXPLANATION for these 19,700 deaths.

“Deaths due to influenza and pneumonia on the rise”

“deaths due to influenza and pneumonia increased by 45.4% from 2021 to 2022”
I’ve often talked about this, this is due to COVID-19 Vaccine Immune damage.

“information on the causes of death, particularly among younger Canadians, whose deaths are more likely to result in an investigation, typically requires more time before it is reported to Statistics Canada…the data released today are preliminary”

they’re telling us that we’re not getting all the young Canadian sudden deaths in this report.
So the 48,700 Excess deaths doesn’t include an unknown number of “younger Canadians” who died suddenly.

My Take…

Statistics Canada “Deaths 2022” is data that you can reasonably expect has been thoroughly manipulated and tampered with.

It’s “preliminary” and doesn’t include many “younger Canadians” who died suddenly.

Even so, it is a devastating report.

48,780 Excess deaths in 2022 (17% increase in mortality).

I propose that the vast majority of these are COVID-19 Vaccine deaths.

These COVID-19 vaccine deaths are being concealed as:

19,716 COVID-19 deaths (not possible)
16,043 Unspecified causes (no explanation given or even attempted)
the remaining 12,000 or so they’re not hiding:
- 4,000 Cardiac
- 3,000 Accidents
- 2,000 Cancers
- 800 liver disease
- 500 kidney disease
- 500 diabetes

A reminder that 1 in every 784 Canadians died in 2022, as admitted by the Canadian government in this Nov.27, 2023 Statistics Canada report.

This is very much in line with Denis Rancourt’s work on excess deaths due to COVID-19 Vaccination.

This is what I wrote in my very first substack article on Feb.6, 2023:

“A good quick rule of thumb is: highly COVID vaccinated countries lost0.1% of their total population to “excess deaths” in 2022. That’s 1 in every 1000 people, dead.”

Statistics Canada corrected me. Not 1 in 1000.

Worse. 1 in 784.

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

Featured image is from Michael Nevradakis, PhD via COVID Intel

The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

~~Price: $11.50~~ FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page.

‘Stunning’ 620% Higher Risk of Myocarditis After mRNA COVID Vaccines. Korean Study

August 14th, 2024 by John-Michael Dumais

A large-scale peer-reviewed South Korean study has found significantly increased risks of serious cardiac and neurological conditions following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and lesser risks of several autoimmune diseases.

The nationwide population-based cohort study, published Tuesday in Nature Communications, followed nearly 4.5 million people for an average of 15 months after vaccination. First published on July 23, 2024

Screenshot from Nature

Researchers found a striking 620% increased risk of myocarditis and 175% increased risk of pericarditis in people who received the vaccine compared to historical controls.

The study also revealed a 62% increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a rare neurological disorder.

The researchers did not highlight the the cardiac and GBS risks, but only used the data to confirm the validity of their study design, which focused on determining the risks of autoimmune diseases associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers found a 16% increased chance of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE — the most common lupus type) and a 58% higher risk of bullous pemphigoid (BP — large, fluid-filled blisters).

The study also revealed that booster shots were associated with slightly increased risks of several autoimmune connective tissue diseases (AI-CTDs), including alopecia areata (patchy hair loss), psoriasis (scaly, inflamed skin) and rheumatoid arthritis.

“Given that the risk of SLE and BP was increased in certain demographic conditions such as age and sex, long-term monitoring is necessary after mRNA vaccination for the development of AI-CTDs,” the study authors noted.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer at Children’s Health Defense (CHD), noted how the authors minimized the most alarming data but told The Defender the study was otherwise “very robust.”

Hooker said several other studies also show relationships between autoimmune disorders — including systemic lupus — and mRNA vaccination.

The Nature Communications article follows another South Korean study published in May that found significant increases in the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

One of Largest Studies of Its Kind

The South Korean study, one of the largest of its kind, examined the long-term risk of autoimmune connective tissue diseases following mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Researchers analyzed data from 9,258,803 individuals who had received at least one dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The researchers then randomly split this total into a vaccination cohort of 4,445,333 people and a historical control cohort of 4,444,932 individuals.

Because of South Korea’s high vaccination rate (96.6% of adults completed the primary COVID-19 series by October 2022), the researchers studied the health history of the control cohort for the two-year period prior to their first vaccine dose, up to Dec. 31, 2020 — just before the vaccine rollout. The vaccination group was observed through Dec. 31, 2022.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at CHD, criticized the observation period for the historical control group, pointing out that this timeframe bridges the first year of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

“This makes it impossible (or really darn difficult) to disentangle results based on vaccination or infection,” he told The Defender. “Ideally this study would include a contemporary unvaccinated cohort for scientific examination.”

However, the researchers chose not to study unvaccinated people due to concerns over “inappropriate cohort selection and potential selection bias.”

The mean follow-up times were 471.24 ± 66.16 days for the vaccination cohort and 471.28 ± 66.15 days for the historical control cohort.

The researchers used comprehensive demographic data and healthcare records from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) and Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) databases, which cover over 99% of the South Korean population.

They attributed disease conditions when confirmed by the corresponding International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnostic codes through at least three inpatient or outpatient visits during the observation period.

To ensure fair comparisons between the vaccinated group and the historical control group, researchers used statistical methods to balance out differences in:

Age and sex
Income levels and place of residence
Health habits like smoking and drinking
Existing health conditions, from high blood pressure to HIV

They also accounted for changes over time, such as when people got booster shots.

High Risk of Myocarditis in Women Among Key Findings

The researchers used their assessment of increased risks for myocarditis, pericarditis and Guillain-Barré syndrome as “positive control outcomes” to validate their study methodology.

By demonstrating the known increases in risk for these outcomes, the researchers aimed to show that their study design was capable of detecting vaccine-related adverse events.

Negative control outcomes included benign skin tumors, melanoma in situ (stage 0) and tympanic membrane perforation (ruptured eardrum) — conditions less likely to be associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

This approach lends credibility to their findings on autoimmune connective tissue diseases, suggesting that the observed increases in risk for certain AI-CTDs are likely genuine effects rather than artifacts of the study design or analysis methods.

The study identified the following variations in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups, respectively:

Myocarditis: 164 cases versus 21 cases (620% increased risk)
Pericarditis: 155 cases versus 54 cases (175% increased risk)
Guillain-Barré syndrome: 123 cases versus 71 cases (62% increased risk)

Hooker told The Defender he found it odd that increased risks for these “control” sequelae were treated in passing. “It’s like, ‘Oh, everyone knows that these vaccines cause myocarditis, pericarditis and GBS … ho hum. If you have that adverse event, oh well, too bad for you.’”

Jablonowski said that given the extreme risk increase of myocarditis from vaccination found in the study, it was “stunning” that neither the paper’s title nor abstract even mentioned it. He attributed the exclusion to “the changing scope of censorship in science.”

He said:

“We know that myocarditis is most often the result of the second mRNA dose. Figure 5 of the paper further verifies this, as column C denotes a 9.17-times increase in myocarditis for those who receive only mRNA vaccinations as opposed to 2.91-times increase in myocarditis for those who are cross-vaccinated with mRNA and non-mRNA vaccines.”

Jablonowski highlighted the paper’s confirmation of other studies showing people younger than 40 are nearly twice as likely to develop myocarditis as those over 40 (12.53 times increased risk versus 6.18 times).

But he was surprised by the study’s findings that females are nearly twice as likely to develop myocarditis as males (10.53 times increased risk versus 5.26 times). “To my knowledge, this has never been shown in any population before.”

Regarding the study’s primary stated purpose, the researchers found that mRNA vaccination did not increase the risk of most autoimmune connective tissue diseases.

However, they identified a statistically significant 16% increased risk of systemic lupus erythematosus in vaccinated individuals when compared to the historic control cohort.

Gender-specific risks also emerged in the analysis. Women receiving the mRNA vaccine had a significantly higher risk — 167% — of developing bullous pemphigoid, compared to just a 2% increased risk for men.

The research also uncovered the following increased risks associated with COVID-19 booster shots: 12% for alopecia areata, 14% for rheumatoid arthritis and 16% for psoriasis.

Differences between vaccine types were also noted. Recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine had an 18% higher risk of developing SLE compared to those who received Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine, who had an 8% increased risk.

Jablonowski said he had no theory about how the two vaccine brands resulted in the different risks observed. He speculated it could have something to do with the timing of the doses, with the two Pfizer doses being recommended three weeks apart and two Moderna doses four weeks apart.

Booster Shots May Increase Amount of Free-floating DNA in Key Immune Cells

The researchers wrote that the association between mRNA vaccination and SLE remains unclear, but they admitted that vaccine-associated SLE has been found in other studies.

The researchers noted that mRNA vaccines may increase levels of certain antibodies in the blood that can react with the body’s own DNA. This process could potentially trigger autoimmune diseases like lupus.

They also referenced a study suggesting that booster shots may increase the amount of free-floating DNA in key immune cells. This could potentially disrupt normal immune function.

Hooker said that “Mechanisms regarding innate immune activation via DAMPS [damage-associated molecular patterns] have been proposed for these relationships” between mRNA vaccines and autoimmune disorders like SLE. This process involves cells releasing bits of their own DNA and other molecules, causing the immune system to overactivate and potentially attack the body’s own tissues.

The authors called for further research into the association between mRNA-based vaccines and AI-CTDs.

The researchers highlighted several key limitations to their findings.

The study’s focus on a single ethnic group, South Koreans, may limit its applicability to other populations due to genetic variations in autoimmune disease susceptibility.

The authors noted that the two-year pre-study observation period may have missed some pre-existing autoimmune conditions due to their gradual onset.

Requiring three consistent ICD-10-coded records for each person to confirm disease states may also have understated the actual rates.

Pandemic-related reductions in healthcare utilization could have led to the under-diagnosis of some conditions during the study period, they said.

Despite a mean follow-up of 471 days, one of the longest for mRNA vaccine studies, the authors noted this might still be insufficient given the potentially slow development of autoimmune connective tissue diseases.

Hooker emphasized that 15 months is “the tip of the iceberg” for this type of study. He said:

“Autoimmune sequelae could take years to develop, based on previous experience with ASIA (autoimmune/inflammatory syndromes induced by adjuvants). This is confounded by boosters ad infinitum, especially with mRNA vaccines.”

Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

John-Michael Dumais is a news editor for The Defender. He has been a writer and community organizer on a variety of issues, including the death penalty, war, health freedom and all things related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Featured image is from CHD

The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Reviews

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

~~Price: $11.50~~ FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page.

Posted in English
21 Comments
Tags: COVID mrna vaccines, COVID vaccines, myocarditis

Bill Gates Plans for New Catastrophic Contagion

August 14th, 2024 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First posted on Global Research on December 21, 2022

Over time, it’s become clear that the globalist cabal seeking to implement a one world government repeatedly tell us what they’re about to do. Table top pandemic simulations, for example, are a form of dress rehearsal.

In 2017, Johns Hopkins Center of Health Security held a coronavirus pandemic simulation called the SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 scenario. In October 2019, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in collaboration with Johns Hopkins and the World Economic Forum hosted Event 201.

As in the SPARS Pandemic scenario, Event 201 involved an outbreak of a highly infectious coronavirus, but the primary (if not sole) focus of the exercise was how to control information and keep “misinformation” in check, not how to effectively discover and share remedies.

October 23, 2022, Gates, Johns Hopkins and the World Health Organization cohosted “a global challenge exercise” dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,” involving a novel pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” (SEERS-25), which primarily affects children and teens

Enterovirus D68 is typically associated with cold and flu-like illness in infants, children and teens. In rare cases, it’s also been known to cause viral meningitis and acute flaccid myelitis, a neurological condition resulting in muscle weakness and loss of reflexes. The virus they modeled in the Catastrophic Contagion simulation appears to be something similar to enterovirus D68, but worse

Over time, it’s become clear that the globalist cabal seeking to implement a one world government repeatedly tell us what they’re about to do. They hold dress rehearsals in the form of tabletop exercises, and they’ve revealed their plans in various reports and white papers through the years.

I have been subscribed to the channel that posted the video above for some time now. She only has 10K subscribers but really gets some amazing content. I have no idea how she was able to secure this video as it is not widely circulated. Even more surprising is that her channel is not being taken down.

COVID Dress Rehearsals

For example, in 2017, Johns Hopkins Center of Health Security held a coronavirus pandemic simulation called the SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028 scenario.¹ Importantly, the exercise highlighted and stressed “communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures that could plausibly emerge” in a pandemic scenario.

In October 2019, less than three months before the COVID-19 outbreak, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in collaboration with Johns Hopkins and the World Economic Forum hosted Event 201.

As in the SPARS Pandemic scenario, this exercise involved an outbreak of a highly infectious coronavirus, but the primary (if not sole) focus of the exercise was how to control information and keep “misinformation” in check, not how to effectively discover and share remedies.

Social media censorship played prominently in the Event 201 plan, and in the real-world events of 2020 through the present, accurate information about vaccine development, production and injury has indeed been effectively suppressed around the world, thanks to social media companies and Google’s censoring of opposing viewpoints.

We now know this censorship was illegally directed by U.S. government officials, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, who was recently deposed² about his role in the online censoring of COVID information.

Both of these simulations, SPARS and Event 201, foreshadowed what eventually occurred in real life during COVID, so, when Gates hosts yet another pandemic exercise, it’s worth paying attention to the details.

‘Catastrophic Contagion’ Exercise

October 23, 2022, Gates, Johns Hopkins and the World Health Organization cohosted “a global challenge exercise” dubbed “Catastrophic Contagion,”^3,⁴ involving a novel (and as of now fictional) pathogen called “severe epidemic enterovirus respiratory syndrome 2025” or SEERS-25 for short.

Enterovirus D68⁵ is typically associated with cold and flu-like illness in infants, children and teens. In rare cases, it’s also been known to cause viral meningitis and acute flaccid myelitis, a neurological condition resulting in muscle weakness and loss of reflexes in one or more extremities.

Enteroviruses A71 and A6 are known to cause hand, foot and mouth disease,⁶ while poliovirus, the prototypical enterovirus, causes polio (poliomyelitis), a potentially life-threatening type of paralysis that primarily affects children under age 5. So, the virus they modeled in this simulation appears to be something similar to enterovirus D68, but worse.

Training African Leaders to Go Along With the Narrative

Tellingly, the Catastrophic Contagion exercise focused on getting leadership in African countries involved and trained in following the script. Participants included 10 current and former Health Ministers and senior public health officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola, Liberia, Singapore, India and Germany, as well as Gates himself.

African nations just so happened to go “off script” more often than others during the COVID pandemic, and didn’t follow in the footsteps of developed nations when it came to pushing the jabs. As a result, vaccine makers now face the problem of having a huge control group, as the COVID jab uptake on the African continent was only 6%.⁷

Not surprisingly (for those in the know), Africa has fared far better than developed nations with high COVID jab rates in terms of COVID-19 infections and related deaths.⁸

Now, the Catastrophic Contagion exercise predicts SEERS-25 will kill 20 million people worldwide, including 15 million children, and many who survive the infection will be left with paralysis and/or brain damage. In other words, the “cue” given is that the next pandemic will likely target children rather than the elderly, as was the case with COVID-19.

This is an interesting coincidence, seeing how rates of toddlers and young children hospitalized with influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is already spiking.

COVID Jabs Are Destroying People’s Immune Systems

Coincidentally, over the past year, researchers have been warning that the COVID jabs may be dysregulating and destroying people’s immune systems, leaving them vulnerable to all sorts of infections. According to a study⁹ posted on the preprint server medRxiv in May 2021, the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID jab “reprograms both adaptive and innate immune responses, causing immune depletion.”

In August 2021, a French group of pediatric infectious disease experts also warned that “immunity debt” caused by a lack of exposure to common viruses and bacteria during COVID lockdowns and school closures might predispose children to suffer more infections in the future.¹⁰

They predicted the decrease in viral and bacterial exposure that train your child’s immune system may result in a rebound of a variety of infectious diseases, including influenza and RSV) which is precisely what we’re now seeing. If a modified enterovirus gets added into the mix, it’s not difficult to see how parents might get spooked enough to start lining their kids up for more shots — including parents in African nations.

Why Manufactured Pandemics Will Continue

At this point, it’s quite clear that “biosecurity” is the chosen means by which the globalist cabal intends to seize power over the world. The WHO is working on securing sole power over pandemic response globally through its international pandemic treaty which, if implemented, will eradicate the sovereignty of all member nations.

Ultimately, the WHO intends to dictate all health care. December 13, 2022, the WHO announced Sir Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust — who colluded with Dr. Anthony Fauci to suppress the COVID lab-leak narrative — has been chosen as its new chief scientist.¹¹

The WHO’s pandemic treaty is the gateway to a global, top-down totalitarian regime, a one world government. But to secure that power, they will need more pandemics. COVID-19 alone was not enough to get everyone onboard with a centralized pandemic response unit, and they probably knew that from the start.

So, the reason we can be sure there will be additional pandemics, whether manufactured using either fear and hype alone or an actual bioweapon created for this very purpose, is because the takeover plan, aka The Great Reset, is based on the premise that we need global biosecurity surveillance and centralized response.

Biosecurity, in turn, is the justification for an international vaccine passport, which the G20 just signed on to, and that passport will also be your digital identification. That digital ID, then, will be tied to your social credit score, personal carbon footprint tracker, medical records, educational records, work records, social media presence, purchase records, your bank accounts and a programmable central bank digital currency (CBDC).

Once all these pieces are fully connected, you’ll be in a digital prison, and the ruling cabal — whether officially a one world government by then or not — will have total control over your life from cradle to grave.

COVID Is a Global Propaganda Operation

In the video above,^12,¹³ initially published in August 2021, professor Piers Robinson, Ph.D., an expert on communication, media, world politics and the role of propaganda, spoke to Asia Pacific Today about propaganda in the age of COVID.

As noted by Robinson, COVID-19 is unquestionably the largest, most sophisticated propaganda operation in history. Psychological techniques were extensively used during 2020 to incite fear in the population, while other persuasion strategies were used to get people to support and defend COVID measures such as masking, isolation, social distancing, lockdowns and jab mandates.

Indeed, propaganda is what allowed for draconian and unscientific COVID measures to be implemented. Without propaganda and simultaneous censorship of opposing views, little of what we’ve been through would have been possible.

As noted by Robinson, while the use of state propaganda could initially be justified as a necessary means to achieve a public health objective — protecting people from COVID-related illness and death — it quickly became apparent that this was not the case, and likely never was.

COVID-19 has instead been used to suspend and strip us of Constitutional rights and civil liberties, and is still being exploited to further social, political and financial restructuring objectives, entirely outside democratic processes and public scrutiny. We also know it’s not about public health since:

COVID is now nothing more than another endemic respiratory infection, much like the common cold, and
The COVID jabs don’t prevent infection or spread of the virus, which negates the entire premise for vaccine passports, yet they’re being pushed anyway

How Did Gates Become the High Priest of the COVID Narrative?

In related news, Politico recently published a special report¹⁴ detailing how Gates, who has no medical expertise whatsoever, ended up controlling the global COVID response with no oversight to speak of.

In the earliest days of the pandemic, four nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) banded together to identify vaccine makers and make “targeted investments in the development of tests, treatments and shots,” Politico explains.

These NGOs were the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Gavi (a Gates organization that provides vaccines to developing nations), the Wellcome Trust (a British research foundation led by Farrar, now selected to be the WHO’s head scientist) and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), an international vaccine research and development group cofounded by Gates and Wellcome in 2017.

In collaboration with the WHO, these four NGOs — three of which were founded by Gates — then set out to create a global distribution plan for the tests, drugs and injections they’d invested in.

Incidentally, Gates at that time was also the largest donor to the WHO, as then-President Trump had pulled the U.S. out of the WHO and stopped funding. It’s hard to imagine a situation with greater conflicts of interest. The four groups also greased the wheels of governments.

Collectively, they spent more than $8.3 million to lobby lawmakers and officials in the U.S. and Europe. A number of U.S. and EU officials, as well as WHO representatives, have also been employed by one or more of these NGOs, which helped solidify their political connections.

A number of civil society organizations that are active in developing countries, including Doctors Without Borders, have objected to Western-dominated groups making life-and-death decisions for poorer nations.

“‘What makes Bill Gates qualified to be giving advice and advising the U.S. government on where they should be putting the tremendous resources?’ asked Kate Elder, senior vaccines policy adviser for the Doctors Without Borders’ Access Campaign,” Politico writes.¹⁵

Self-Serving Consortium Is Running Our Pandemic Response

Politico’s special report continues:¹⁶

“Now, critics are raising significant questions about the equity and effectiveness of the group’s response to the pandemic — and the serious limitations of outsourcing the pandemic response to unelected, privately-funded groups. ‘I think we should be deeply concerned,’ said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University professor who specializes in public-health law.

‘Putting it in a very crass way, money buys influence. And this is the worst kind of influence. Not just because it’s money — although that’s important, because money shouldn’t dictate policy — but also, because it’s preferential access, behind closed doors.’

Gostin said that such power, even if propelled by good intentions and expertise, is ‘anti-democratic, because it’s extraordinarily non-transparent, and opaque’ and ‘leaves behind ordinary people, communities and civil society’ …

[M]any global health specialists question whether the groups are capable of performing the rigorous post-mortems necessary to build a stronger global response system for the future.

‘No one’s actually holding these actors to account,’ said Sophie Harman, professor of international politics at Queen Mary University of London. ‘And they’re the ones that are really shaping our ability to respond to pandemics’ …

Without governments stepping in to take the lead on pandemic preparedness, the four organizations, along with their partners in the global health community, are the only entities that are in a position to lead in the world’s response to a devastating outbreak — again.

‘They’re funded by their own capabilities and or endowments and trusts. But when they step into multilateral affairs, then who keeps watch over them?’ a former senior U.S. official said. ‘I don’t know the answer to that. That’s quite provocative.'”

Final Thoughts

So, in the final analysis, we already have a pseudo-one world government, in the form of Gates’ NGOs. They are making health care decisions that should be left to individual nations and/or states, and they’re making decisions that will line their own pockets, regardless of what happens to the public health-wise.

They coordinate and synchronize pandemic communication during these simulated practice runs, and then, when the real-world situation emerges that fits the bill, the preplanned script is simply played out verbatim.

African nations failed to follow the script during COVID, which is why they’re focusing on African leaders in the latest simulation. They need to get rid of the African control group by getting them onboard with mass injection and all the rest. It’s basically a recruitment effort.

Lastly, between the G20 declaration to implement an international vaccine passport under the auspice of the WHO, and the WHO’s pandemic treaty, everything is lined up to take control of the next pandemic, and in so doing, further securing the foundation for a one world government.

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Notes

¹ SPARS Pandemic Scenario

² Anthony Fauci Deposition Transcript November 23, 2022

³ Catastrophic Contagion

⁴ Catastrophic Contagion Videos

⁵ CDC Enterovirus D68

⁶ CDC Enteroviruses

⁷ First Post November 19, 2021

⁸ Yahoo News November 19, 2021

⁹ medRxiv May 6, 2021

¹⁰ Infectious Diseases Now August 2021; 51(5): 418-423

¹¹ Twitter Helen Branswell December 13, 2022

¹² Asia Pacific Today August 4, 2022

¹³ Twitter Robert Malone August 7, 2022

^14, ^15, ¹⁶ Politico September 14, 2022

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

~~Price: $11.50~~ Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page.

Posted in English
Comments Off on Bill Gates Plans for New Catastrophic Contagion
Tags: bill gates, Catastrophic Contagion, Enterovirus D68, Johns Hopkins, WHO

Planned NATO-Kiev Assassination of Putin and Defense Minister Belousov: How NATO and Neo-Nazi Junta Lunatics Nearly Blew Up the World

August 14th, 2024 by Drago Bosnic

First published on August 4, 2024

On July 28, Russia was celebrating the Navy Day with a parade in St. Petersburg. Most of the top officials were present, including President Vladimir Putin and the new Defense Minister Andrei Belousov. The former has been presiding over Russia’s resurgence to superpower status, achieving unrivaled milestones in the last nearly 25 years.

The latter is the architect of Moscow’s unprecedented economic resilience that resulted in the country zooming past both Germany and Japan, making it the fourth largest economy in the world now. Impressed by Belousov’s results, Putin entrusted him with the Ministry of Defense (MoD), a reshuffling that has been followed by a massive increase in military spending, incomparable to anything seen since the (First) Cold War ended. Thus, it can be argued that Putin and Belousov are now the Eurasian giant’s two most important policymakers.

Expectedly, all this makes both of them prime targets for Russia’s enemies. It’s virtually a given they think that removing such people would be a deadly blow to the Kremlin and it seems that’s precisely what they tried to do.

Namely, according to Moscow’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, the Neo-Nazi junta and the United States were preparing an assassination attempt on Putin and Belousov precisely during the Navy Day parade in St. Petersburg.

Russian intelligence services uncovered the plot and prevented it from going forward.

Obviously, the Kremlin was furious, but unlike Washington DC, it’s run by sane people who don’t want to see the world blown up. Thus, Defense Minister Belousov himself talked to his US counterpart Lloyd Austin and politely explained it would dawn at 3:00 AM if anything like this were to happen again.

For obvious security reasons, Ryabkov couldn’t reveal the details, leaving many to speculate on how the assassination attempt could’ve played out. Some argue that sea or even underwater drones could’ve been used, most likely launched from a neutral merchant ship, while others think it was likely a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle).

To make matters worse, the possible participation of NATO members Poland and Finland was also discussed, meaning that the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel was directly involved. As soon as Ryabkov revealed that the unprecedented assassination attempt was thwarted, the mainstream propaganda machine resorted to immediate damage control, spewing nonsense about the US allegedly “blocking” the plot, while others claim that Russia supposedly “pleaded” with America to “prevent” the assassination attempt.

However, Pepe Escobar, a colossus of geopolitical analytics, argues that’s not the case and that the Kremlin warned the Pentagon that if US services succeeded in their terrorist tactics, it would be the very last thing anyone from America would ever do, as the world’s most aggressive thalassocracy would simply cease to exist immediately after that. In other words, the warmongering lunatics and war criminals in Washington DC would be willing to not only jeopardize the lives of 330 million Americans, but also over 8 billion other people on the entire planet. I’ve had the honor of participating in a meeting with Pepe Escobar and other experts and analysts from all over the world, where he confirmed that the assassination attempt took place and that Russia indeed warned the US that the consequence of such barbarism would be the total annihilation of every single culprit.

It’s virtually a given that the mainstream propaganda machine will try to denigrate and discredit such reputable sources, calling them “conspiracy theorists”. It will also certainly engage in a cover-up, either by denying that the assassination attempt ever took place or at least trying to prevent the US from looking bad by disseminating blatant lies such as the one that it supposedly “tried to prevent the plot”. Either way, as per usual, the truth will have no part whatsoever in their activities. However, empirical and historical evidence shows that the US-led political West not only has the propensity to assassinate rival leaders, but it also regularly (and openly) brags about it. Not to mention the simple fact that several high-ranking American officials unashamedly talked about decapitation strikes on Russia, despite the perfectly clear consequences of such actions.

Others, such as the infamous Lindsey Graham didn’t even bother using any sort of euphemisms, but called for the US services to, I quote, “take Putin out”. His warmonger “buddy” John Bolton said virtually the same thing and also called for a coup in Russia.

Former US Army general and CIA director David Petraeus called for strikes on Moscow, while the Pentagon itself talked about a decapitation strike on the Kremlin.

Immediately after such statements, Russia changed its long-range strike doctrine, including the preemptive one. Moscow is also regularly upgrading its already impressive strategic arsenal, including with hypersonic weapons, while Washington DC can’t even make a basic ICBM anymore due to the very real issues with its Military Industrial Complex. And yet, this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to America’s massive issues.

Namely, its already atrocious political situation is becoming even worse now, with the border crisis escalating and assassinations of political opponents becoming the “new normal” in the US. In the meantime, stealing Russian forex reserves has become the political West’s favorite pastime and a way to partially finance its favorite Neo-Nazi puppets, whose total defeat is the only way to end the suffering of the millions of regular Ukrainians. In the meantime, the US and NATO are effectively planning yet another pandemic, a fact that the Russian military openly warned about. Worse yet, their policy of “controlled” escalation is getting out of hand, resulting in multiple actions that can only be described as a declaration of war on Russia. This includes everything from sabotage operations to both direct and indirect terrorist attacks (through Islamic radicals).

The US and NATO directly participate in the planning and execution of these black ops, resulting in the deaths and injuries of hundreds (or even thousands) of Russian civilians. The political West is also trying to drag numerous other countries into this mess, including through coercion or even direct threats. The only logical explanation is that NATO wants to trigger Moscow to react in the most violent way possible. The constant usage of legal gray areas to target Russian troops and civilians is extremely frustrating, although the Kremlin has managed to keep its cool for the most part. For now, at least, as Russian patience, although unrivaled, has its limits. This is precisely why Moscow keeps warning against further escalation, but to no avail. The political West is determined to cause the complete destruction of the entire world with its certifiably insane actions and policies.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

Posted in English
12 Comments
Tags: assassination, NATO, Russia, United States

From 1980s Neoliberalism to the Post Covid “New Normal”

August 14th, 2024 by Colin Todhunter

First published on June 2, 2021 at the hight of the Covid crisis

Sold under the pretence of a quest for optimising well-being and ‘happiness’, capitalism thrives on the exploitation of peoples and the environment. What really matters is the strive to maintain viable profit margins. The prevailing economic system demands ever-increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption and needs a certain level of annual GDP growth for large firms to make sufficient profit.

But at some point, markets become saturated, demand rates fall and overproduction and overaccumulation of capital becomes a problem. In response, we have seen credit markets expand and personal debt increase to maintain consumer demand as workers’ wages have been squeezed, financial and real estate speculation rise (new investment markets), stock buy backs and massive bail outs and subsidies (public money to maintain the viability of private capital) and an expansion of militarism (a major driving force for many sectors of the economy).

We have also witnessed systems of production abroad being displaced for global corporations to then capture and expand markets in foreign countries.

The old normal

Much of what is outlined above is inherent to capitalism. But the 1980s was a crucial period that helped set the framework for where we find ourselves today.

Remember when the cult of the individual was centre stage? It formed part of the Reagan-Thatcher rhetoric of the ‘new normal’ of 1980s neoliberalism.

In the UK, the running down of welfare provision was justified by government-media rhetoric about ‘individual responsibility’, reducing the role of the state and the need to ‘stand on your own two feet’. The selling off of public assets to profiteering corporations was sold to the masses on the basis of market efficiency and ‘freedom of choice’.

The state provision of welfare, education, health services and the role of the public sector was relentlessly undermined by neoliberal dogma and the creed that the market (global corporations) constituted the best method for supplying human needs.

Thatcher’s stated mission was to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit by rolling back the ‘nanny state’. She wasted little time in crushing the power of the trade unions and privatising key state assets.

Despite her rhetoric, she did not actually reduce the role of the state. She used its machinery differently, on behalf of business. Neither did she unleash the ‘spirit of entrepreneurialism’. Economic growth rates under her were similar as in the 1970s, but a concentration of ownership occurred and levels of inequality rocketed.

Margaret Thatcher was well trained in perception management, manipulating certain strands of latent populist sentiment and prejudice. Her free market, anti-big-government platitudes were passed off to a section of the public that was all too eager to embrace them as a proxy for remedying all that was wrong with Britain. For many, what were once regarded as the extreme social and economic policies of the right became entrenched as the common sense of the age.

Thatcher’s policies destroyed a fifth of Britain’s industrial base in just two years alone. The service sector, finance and banking were heralded as the new drivers of the economy, as much of Britain’s manufacturing sector was out-sourced to cheap labour economies.

Under Thatcher, employees’ share of national income was slashed from 65% to 53%. Long gone are many of the relatively well-paid manufacturing jobs that helped build and sustain the economy. In their place, the country has witnessed the imposition of a low taxation regime and low-paid and insecure ‘service sector’ jobs (no-contract work, macjobs, call centre jobs – many of which soon went abroad) as well as a real estate bubble, credit card debt and student debt, which helped to keep the economy afloat.

However, ultimately, what Thatcher did was – despite her rhetoric of helping small-scale businesses and wrapping herself in the national flag – facilitate the globalisation process by opening the British economy to international capital flows and allowing free rein for global finance and transnational corporations.

Referring back to the beginning of this article, it is clear whose happiness and well-being counts most and whose does not matter at all as detailed by David Rothkopf in his 2008 book ‘Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making‘. Members of the superclass belong to the megacorporation-interlocked, policy-building elites of the world and come from the highest echelons of finance, industry, the military, government and other shadow elites. These are the people whose interests Margaret Thatcher was serving.

These people set the agendas at the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, G-7, G-20, NATO, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.

And let us not forget the various key think tanks and policy making arenas like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institute and Chatham House as well as the World Economic Forum (WEF), where sections of the global elite forge policies and strategies and pass them to their political handmaidens.

Driven by the vision of its influential executive chairman Klaus Schwab, the WEF is a major driving force for the dystopian ‘great reset’, a tectonic shift that intends to change how we live, work and interact with each other.

The new normal

Under the cover of COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions, the great reset is being rolled out under the guise of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ in which smaller enterprises are to be driven to bankruptcy or bought up by monopolies. Economies are being ‘restructured’ and many jobs and roles will be carried out by AI-driven technology.

The WEF says the public will ‘rent’ everything they require: stripping the right of ownership under the guise of a ‘green economy’ underpinned by the rhetoric of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.

At the same time new (‘green product’) markets are being created and, on the back of COVID, fresh opportunities for profit extraction are opening up abroad. For instance, World Bank Group President David Malpass has stated that poorer countries will be ‘helped’ to get back on their feet after the various lockdowns that have been implemented in response to the Covid-19 crisis. This ‘help’ will be on condition that neoliberal reforms and the undermining of public services are implemented and become further embedded.

Just a month into the COVID crisis, the IMF and World Bank were already facing a deluge of aid requests from developing countries. Scores of countries were asking for bailouts and loans. Ideal cover for rebooting the global economy via a debt crisis and the subsequent privatisation of national assets and the further ‘structural adjustment’ of economies.

Many people waste no time in referring to this as some kind of ‘Marxist’ or ‘communist’ takeover of the planet because a tiny elite will be dictating policies. This has nothing to do with Marxism. An authoritarian capitalist elite – supported by their political technocrats – aims to secure even greater control of the global economy. It will no longer be a (loosely labelled) ‘capitalism’ based on ‘free’ markets and competition (not that those concepts ever really withstood proper scrutiny). Economies will be monopolised by global players, not least e-commerce platforms run by the likes of Amazon, Walmart, Facebook and Google and their multi-billionaire owners.

Essential (for capitalism) new markets will also be created through the ‘financialisation’ and ownership of all aspects of nature, which is to be colonised, commodified and traded under the fraudulent notion of protecting the environment.

The so-called ‘green economy’ will fit in with the notion of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’. A bunch of billionaires and their platforms will control every aspect of the value chain. Of course, they themselves will not reduce their own consumption or get rid of their personal jets, expensive vehicles, numerous exclusive homes or ditch their resource gobbling lifestyles. Reduced consumption is meant only for the masses.

They will not only control and own data about consumption but also control and own data on production, logistics, who needs what, when they need it, who should produce it, who should move it and when it should be moved. Independent enterprises will disappear or become incorporated into the platforms acting as subservient cogs. Elected representatives will be mere technocratic overseers of these platforms and the artificial intelligence tools that plan and determine all of the above.

The lockdowns and restrictions we have seen since March 2020 have helped boost the bottom line of global chains and the e-commerce giants and have cemented their dominance. Many small and medium-size independent enterprises have been pushed towards bankruptcy. At the same time, fundamental rights have been eradicated under COVID19 government measures.

Politicians in countries throughout the world have been using the rhetoric of the WEF’s great reset, talking of the need to ‘build back better’ for the ‘new normal’. They are all on point. Hardly a coincidence. Essential to this ‘new normal’ is the compulsion to remove individual liberties and personal freedoms given that, in the ‘green new normal’, unfettered consumption will no longer be an option for the bulk of the population.

It has long been the case that a significant part of the working class has been deemed ‘surplus to requirements’ – three decades ago, such people were sacrificed on the altar of neo-liberalism. They lost their jobs due to automation and offshoring. They have had to rely on meagre state welfare and run-down public services.

But what we are now seeing is the possibility of hundreds of millions around the world being robbed of their livelihoods. Forget about the benign sounding ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ and its promised techno-utopia. What we are witnessing right now seems to be a major restructuring of capitalist economies.

With AI and advanced automation of production, distribution and service provision (3D printing/manufacturing, drone technology, driverless vehicles, lab grown food, farmerless farms, robotics, etc), a mass labour force – and therefore mass education, mass welfare, mass healthcare provision and entire systems that were in place to reproduce labour for capitalist economic activity – will no longer be required. As economic activity is restructured, labour’s relationship to capital is being transformed.

In a reorganised system that no longer needs to sell the virtues of excessive individualism (consumerism), the levels of political and civil rights and freedoms we have been used to will not be tolerated.

Neoliberalism might have reached its logical conclusion (for now). Making trade unions toothless, beating down wages to create unimaginable levels of inequality and (via the dismantling of Bretton Woods) affording private capital so much freedom to secure profit and political clout under the guise of ‘globalisation’ would inevitably lead to one outcome.

A concentration of wealth, power, ownership and control at the top with large sections of the population on state-controlled universal basic income and everyone subjected to the discipline of an emerging biosecurity surveillance state designed to curtail liberties ranging from freedom of movement and assembly to political protest and free speech.

Perception management is of course vital for pushing through all of this. Rhetoric about ‘liberty’ and ‘individual responsibility’ worked a treat in the 1980s to help bring about a massive heist of wealth. This time, it is a public health scare and ‘collective responsibility’ as part of a strategy to help move towards near-monopolistic control over economies by a handful of global players.

And the perception of freedom is also being managed. Once vaccinated many will begin to feel free. Freer than under lockdown. But not really free at all.

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

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

Posted in English
Comments Off on From 1980s Neoliberalism to the Post Covid “New Normal”
Tags: fullpage, Klaus Schwab, Margaret Thatcher, Neoliberalism, new normal, WEF

Spatiotemporal Variation of Excess All-cause Mortality in the World (125 countries) During the COVID Period 2020-2023 Regarding Socio-Economic Factors and Public Health and Medical Interventions

August 14th, 2024 by Prof Denis Rancourt

Summary

We studied all-cause mortality in 125 countries with available all-cause mortality data by time (week or month), starting several years prior to the declared pandemic, and for up to and more than three years of the Covid period (2020-2023). The studied countries are on six continents and comprise approximately 35 % of the global population (2.70 billion of 7.76 billion, in 2019).

The overall excess all-cause mortality rate in the 93 countries with sufficient data in the 3-year period 2020-2022 is 0.392 ± 0.002 % of 2021 population, which is comparable to the historic rate of approximately 0.97 % of population over the course of the 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic.

By comparison, India (which is not included in the present study) had an April-July 2021 peak in excess all-cause mortality of 3.7 million deaths for its 2021 population of approximately 1.41 billion, which corresponds to an excess death rate of 0.26 % for 2021 alone (Rancourt, 2022).

Our calculated excess mortality rate (0.392 ± 0.002 %) corresponds to 30.9 ± 0.2 million excess deaths projected to have occurred globally for the 3-year period 2020-2022, from all causes of excess mortality during this period.

We also calculate the population-wide risk of death per injection (vDFR) by dose number (1st dose, 2nd dose, boosters) (actually, by time period), and by age (in a subset of European countries). Using the median value of all-ages vDFR for 2021-2022 for the 78 countries with sufficient data gives an estimated projected global all-ages excess mortality associated with the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts up to 30 December 2022: 16.9 million COVID-19-vaccine-associated deaths.

Large differences in excess all-cause mortality rate (by population) and in age-and-health-status-adjusted (P-score) mortality are incompatible with a viral pandemic spread hypothesis and are strongly associated with the combination (product) of share of population that is elderly (60+ years) and share of population living in poverty.

There are large North-South (Canada-USA-Mexico) differences in North America, and large East-West differences in Europe, which are due to large national jurisdictional differences, or discontinuities in socio-economic and institutional conditions. Such systematic differences in mortality and underlying structure are captured by hierarchical cluster analysis using a panel of (yearly) time series, including to some extent the likelihood of persistent excess all-cause mortality into 2023.

Excluding borderline cases, 28 countries (of 79 countries with sufficient data, 35 % of countries) have a high statistical certainty of persistent and significant excess all-cause mortality into 2023, compared to the extrapolated pre-Covid historic trend, excluding excess all-cause mortality from peak residuals extending out from 2022, and excluding accidentally large values: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Qatar, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom, and USA. More research is needed to elucidate this phenomenon.

The spatiotemporal variations in national excess all-cause mortality rates allow us to conclude that the Covid-period (2020-2023) excess all-cause mortality in the world is incompatible with a pandemic viral respiratory disease as a primary cause of death. This hypothesis, although believed to be supported by testing campaigns, should be abandoned.

Inconsistencies that disprove the hypothesis of a viral respiratory pandemic to explain excess all-cause mortality during the Covid period are seen on a global scale and include the following.

Near-synchronicity of onset, across several continents, of surges in excess mortality occurring immediately when a pandemic is declared by the WHO (11 March 2020), and never prior to pandemic announcement in any country
Excessively large country-to-country heterogeneity of the age-and-health-status-adjusted (P-score) mortality during the Covid period, including across shared borders between adjacent countries, and including in all time periods down to half years
Highly time variable age-and-health-status-adjusted (P-score) mortality in individual countries during and after the Covid period, including more-than-year-long periods of zero excess mortality, long-duration plateaus or regimes of high excess mortality, single peaks versus many recurring peaks, and persistent high excess mortality after a pandemic is declared to have ended (5 May 2023)
Strong correlations (all-country scatter plots) between excess all-cause mortality rates and socio-economic factors (esp. measures of poverty) change with time (by year and half year) during the Covid period, between diametrically opposite values (near-zero, large and positive, large and negative) of the Pearson correlation coefficient (e.g., Figure 29, first half of 2020 to first half of 2023)

One might tentatively add:

No evidence of the large vaccine rollouts ever being associated with reductions in excess all-cause mortality, in any country (and see Rancourt and Hickey, 2023)
Exponential increases with age in excess all-cause mortality rate (by population), consistent with age-dominant frailty rather than infection in the limit of high virulence

We describe plausible mechanisms and argue that the three primary causes of death associated with the excess all-cause mortality during (and after) the Covid period are:

Biological (including psychological) stress from mandates such as lockdowns and associated socio-economic structural changes
Non-COVID-19-vaccine medical interventions such as mechanical ventilators and drugs (including denial of treatment with antibiotics)
COVID-19 vaccine injection rollouts, including repeated rollouts on the same populations

In all cases ― for all three identified primary causes of death ― a proximal or clinical cause of death associated (such as on death certificates) with the quantified excess all-cause mortality is respiratory condition or infection. Therefore, we distinguish (and define) true primary causes of death from the pervasive and accompanying proximal or clinical cause of death as respiratory.

We understand the Covid-period mortality catastrophe to be precisely what happens when governments cause global disruptions and assaults against populations. We emphasize the importance of biological stress from sudden and profound structural societal changes and of medical assaults (including denial of treatment for bacterial pneumonias, repeated vaccine injections, etc.). We estimate that such a campaign of disruptions and assaults in a modern world will produce a global all-ages mortality rate of >0.1 % of population per year, as was also the case in the 1918 mortality catastrophe.

Introduction

All-cause mortality by time and by administrative jurisdiction is arguably the most reliable data for detecting and epidemiologically characterizing events causing death, and for gauging the population-level impact of any surge or collapse in deaths from any cause. Such data can be collected by national or state jurisdiction or subdivision, by age, by sex, by location of death, and so on. It is not susceptible to reporting bias or to any bias in attributing causes of death in the mortality itself (see many references in Rancourt et al., 2023a).

Rancourt and collaborators have studied all-cause mortality for many jurisdictions, while developing the analytic approaches:

several, esp. USA (Rancourt, 2020);
France (Rancourt et al., 2020);
India (Rancourt, 2022);
USA (Rancourt et al., 2021a, 2022b);
Canada (Rancourt et al., 2021b, 2022c);
Australia (Rancourt et al., 2022a, 2023b);
17 countries in the Southern Hemisphere (Rancourt et al., 2023a);
Israel (Rancourt et al., 2023b);
world, with respect to COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (Rancourt and Hickey, 2023).

Researchers at CORRELATION and collaborators continue to be engaged in a broad research program of all-cause mortality and its associations with various factors.

Here we study all-cause mortality in 125 countries with available all-cause mortality data by time (week or month). The studied countries are on six continents and comprise approximately 35 % of the global population (2.70 billion of 7.76 billion, in 2019).

Large countries which are notably excluded for lack of available data include China (1.41 billion in 2019), India (1.38 billion in 2029), Indonesia, Pakistan, and most countries in Africa, although India has previously been studied (Rancourt, 2022; and references therein).

See the Summary for an overview.

Click here to read the full report.

Spread the Truth, Refer a Friend to Global Research

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

Posted in English
No Comments
Tags: all-cause mortality, COVID pandemic, COVID vaccines, COVID-19, excess deaths

Rex 84: FEMA’s Blueprint for Martial Law. The Roadmap Towards “Police State America”

August 14th, 2024 by Allen L Roland

This incisive article by Allen L. Roland on the repeal of civil liberties and freedom of speech in America was first published by Global Research in August 2006, 18 years ago.

It brings to forefront of debate the ongoing road map towards “Police State America”.

Civil liberties are being arbitrarily repealed. There is a crackdown on freedom of information.

The Lie has become the Truth.

A fear campaign is accompanied by media propaganda.

Under the Biden administration, there is a process of social submission to higher authority.

The derogation of fundamental rights is being carried out Worldwide.

Those who question the legitimacy of government policies including the lockdown, the vaccine and the engineered disruption of economic activity are branded as “conspiracy theorists”.

Is Martial Law Contemplated?

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 16, 2023, June 7, 2024

***

We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.

The Cheney/Bush administration has a plan which would accommodate the detention of large numbers of American citizens during times of emergency.

The plan is called REX 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984. Through Rex-84 an undisclosed number of concentration camps were set in operation throughout the United States, for internment of dissidents and others potentially harmful to the state.

The Rex 84 Program was originally established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.

Existence of the Rex 84 plan was first revealed during the Iran-Contra Hearings in 1987, and subsequently reported by the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987

” These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached.”

And there you have it ~ the real purpose of FEMA is to not only protect the government but to be its principal vehicle for martial law.

This is why FEMA could not respond immediately to the Hurricane Katrina disaster ~ humanitarian efforts were no longer part of its job description under the Department of Homeland Security.

It appears Hurricane Katrina also provided FEMA with an excuse to “dry run” its unconstitutional powers in New Orleans, rounding up “refugees” (now called “evacuees”) and “relocating” them in various camps. “Some evacuees are being treated as ‘internees’ by FEMA,” writes former NSA employee Wayne Madsen.

“Reports continue to come into WMR that evacuees from New Orleans and Acadiana [the traditional twenty-two parish Cajun homeland] who have been scattered across the United States are being treated as ‘internees’ and not dislocated American citizens from a catastrophe”

We are dangerously close to a situation where ~ if the American people took to the streets in righteous indignation or if there were another 9/11 ~ a mechanism for martial law could be quickly implemented and carried out under REX 84.

Be forewarned ~ the Cheney/Bush administration will stop at nothing to preserve their power and their ongoing neocon mis-adventure and they have currently proposed having executive control over all the states National Guard troops in a national emergency.

Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, called the proposal ” one step away from a complete takeover of the National Guard, the end of the Guard as a dual-function force that can respond to both state and national needs.”

The provision was tucked into the House version of the defense bill without notice to the states, something Vilsack said he resented as much as the proposal itself.

Under the provision, the president would have authority to take control of the Guard in case of ” a serious natural or manmade disaster, accident or catastrophe” in the United States.

Do remember, to the Cheney/Bush administration ~ the Mob at the Gates that they truly fear is not terrorists but, instead, the people demanding the truth.

REX 84 AND FEMA

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/FEMA-Concentration-Camps3sep04.htm

MINDFULLY, 2004 – There over 800 prison camps in the United States, all fully operational and ready to receive prisoners.

They are all staffed and even surrounded by full-time guards, but they are all empty. These camps are to be operated by FEMA should martial law need to be implemented in the United States and all it would take is a presidential signature on a proclamation and the attorney general’s signature on a warrant to which a list of names is attached. . . The Rex 84 Program was established on the reasoning that if a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossed the Mexican/US border, they would be quickly rounded up and detained in detention centers by FEMA.

Rex 84 allowed many military bases to be closed down and to be turned into prisons.

Operation Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are the two sub programs which will be implemented once the Rex 84 program is initiated for its proper purpose. Garden Plot is the program to control the population. Cable Splicer is the program for an orderly takeover of the state and local governments by the federal government.

FEMA is the executive arm of the coming police state and thus will head up all operations. The Presidential Executive Orders already listed on the Federal Register also are part of the legal framework for this operation.

The camps all have railroad facilities as well as roads leading to and from the detention facilities. Many also have an airport nearby. The majority of the camps can house a population of 20,000 prisoners.

Currently, the largest of these facilities is just outside of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Alaskan facility is a massive mental health facility and can hold thousands of people.

Posted in Archives, English
7 Comments

Pfizer Has a Criminal Record. Did the Media or Your Government Inform You? Had You Known Would You Have Accepted to Receive the Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine?

August 14th, 2024 by US Department of Justice

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

***

Introduction

In September 2009, the U.S Justice Department attorneys and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius held a news conference “dealing with a health care-related settlement”.

Pfizer [was] ordered [2009] to pay $2.3 billion to settle charges of promoting its drugs for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

Pfizer Inc which is currently involved in the Worldwide distribution of the mRNA vaccine, was accused in 2009 of “Fraudulent Marketing”.

American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc…. has agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.

The company [Pfizer] will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion. (US DOJ)

To consult the Department of Justice’s historic decision click screenshot below

How on earth can we trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice.

People were never informed. Both the media and the governments “turned a blind eye”.

In 2009 Pfizer pleaded “Guilty to a Felony Violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.”

And that is the Big Pharma Company which is now marketing the “unapproved” mRNA vaccine, which has resulted in an upward trend of mortality and morbidity, starting immediately following the roll-out of the Covid-19 in mid-December 2020. (That was exactly three years ago)

Video. US Department of Justice. 2.3 Billion Medical Fraud Settlement

Pfizer’s CEOs Were not Arrested. They were Put on “Probation” by the U.S. DOJ

A probation officer under the auspices of the U.S. DOJ has the mandate to “investigate and supervise persons charged with or convicted of federal crimes”.

In the case of Pfizer’s probation, the DOJ had called upon the company to “cease its conduct of criminal activities”

“As part of the settlement, Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS].

That agreement provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.” (US DOJ, emphasis added)

The DOJ’s 2009 decision regarding Pfizer’s Probation with DHHS was mistaken to say the least.

In 2009, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the DHHS was headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who (to put it mildly) is known to be in “conflict of interest” in regards to his relationship with Big Pharma.

Pfizer has casually violated the conditions of its 2009-2013 four year probation.

That “similar conduct” by Pfizer has been repeated in 2020-2023 in relation to a very dangerous substance (mRNA Vaccine), on a much larger scale (compared to Bextra, Celebrex in 2009).

What is unfolding is the Worldwide “fraudulent marketing” of a “killer vaccine”.

The level of criminality is beyond description.

Amply documented the mRNA “vaccine” which was intended to protect people has resulted in an upward trend in excess mortality.

The Pfizer Confidential Report released under Freedom of Information confirms based on their own data that the vaccine is a toxic substance. To access the complete Pfizer report click here

Neither the media nor the governments of 190 countries (with some exceptions) have had the courage to inform the broader public.

From a legal standpoint, the Pfizer’s CEOs who violated the DOJ clauses pertaining to their 2009 probation should have been arrested.

Al Capone (1931) Versus Pfizer (2020-2023)

Most people in the America are aware that Al Capone was indicted in 1931 on charges of tax evasion.

There are several Hollywood productions on Al Capone and numerous press reports focussing on organized crime in Chicago.

Public opinion is well informed. Everybody knows about Al Capone.

Nobody knows about Pfizer being put on probation by the US Department of Justice.

When is the media going to wake up and inform America??

When is Hollywood going to produce a film entitled:

“The Greatest Crime against Humanity, The Roll-out of the Covid-19 Vaccine”? .

Had You known that Pfizer Had a Criminal Record Would you have Accepted to Receive the Covid-19 Jab?

The Roll-out happened Three years ago on December 15, 2020

The evidence of criminality pertaining to the mRNA “vaccine” is overwhelming.

Our thoughts are with the victims of this diabolical project

At this juncture in our history, the priority is to “Disable the Fear Campaign” and “Cancel the Vaccine” (including the repeal of the so-called “Pandemic Treaty”).

Hopefully this will set the stage for the development of a Worldwide movement of solidarity, which questions the legitimacy of the powerful “Big Money” financial elites which are behind this infamous project.

At the time of writing, in the course of the last 3 years, almost 14 billion doses of the Covid-19 killer vaccine have been administered Worldwide to a population of 8 billion people. (Data of the WHO)

In the last two months, Worldwide, humanity has taken a stance. A mass movement has unfolded in solidarity with the People of Palestine, who are the object of a criminal undertaking by the Netanyahu government which has resulted in countless deaths of civilians including women and children.

While the vaccine rollout is by no means comparable, it is ultimately (in both cases) the value of human life which is at stake.

The evidence regarding the loss of life pertaining to the Covid-19 “vaccine” is overwhelming: See Pfizer’s “Secret Report”, See the carefully documented impacts of the “vaccine” by Dr. William Makis: health workers, school children, students, pregnant women and new born babies (and many more).

And that is why we need a mass movement against the Covid-19 “Vaccine”.

The Vaccine should be discontinued. And the main actors behind the Covid-19 vaccine should be the object of a criminal investigation.

Video

Interview with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media:

The Covid Vaccine and the “Secret” Pfizer Report”

Michel Chossudovsky Puts Forth a Strategy and Legal Procedure to Confront Big Pharma with a view to Withdrawing the Covid-19 Vaccine Worldwide

[Click upper title and right corner to enter fullscreen]

Click here to leave comment

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, December 15, 2023

Transcript

***

Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History

Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing

WASHINGTON – American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together “Pfizer”) have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.

Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called “off-label” uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA.

Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.

….

As part of the settlement, Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. That agreement provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.

Access entire document

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.

Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
Comments Off on Pfizer Has a Criminal Record. Did the Media or Your Government Inform You? Had You Known Would You Have Accepted to Receive the Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine?
Tags: Pfizer, US FDA

The COVID-19 “Vaccine” and the Nuremberg Code. Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide

August 14th, 2024 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

First published three years ago on September 16, 2021

Introduction

“We, the survivors of the atrocities committed against humanity during the Second World War, feel bound to follow our conscience. …

Another holocaust of greater magnitude is taking place before our eyes. We call upon you to stop this ungodly medical experiment on humankind immediately. It is a medical experiment to which the Nuremberg Code must be applied.”

(Rabbi Hillel Handler, Hagar Schafrir, Sorin Shapira, Mascha Orel, Morry Krispijn et al, see complete text here)

***

The mRNA vaccine is “experimental’ and unapproved. Since December 2020, it has resulted in a worldwide upward trend in deaths and injuries.

Numerous scientific studies confirm the nature of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine which is being imposed on all humanity.

The stated objective is to enforce the Worldwide vaccination of 7.9 billion people in more than 190 countries, to be followed by the imposition of a digitized “vaccine passport”.

Needless to say this is a multi-billion dollar operation for Big Pharma. In a bitter irony, Pfizer which is playing a dominant role in marketing the vaccine at the level of the entire planet, has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice (for more details see below).

The national health authorities cannot say: we did not know. Nor can they say that the objective is “to save lives”. This is a killer vaccine. And they know it.

The latest official figures (September 15, 2021) point to approximately:

40,666 mRNA vaccine reported and registered deaths in the EU, UK and US (combined) and

6.6 Million reported “adverse events”.

EU/EEA/Switzerland to 11 September 2021 – 24,528 Covid-19 injection related deaths and 2,292,967 injuries, per EudraVigilance Database.

UK to 1 September 2021 – 1,632 Covid-19 injection related deaths and 1,186,844 injuries, per MHRA Yellow Card Scheme.

USA to 3 September 2021 – 14,506 Covid-19 injection related deaths and 3,146,691 injuries, per VAERS database.

TOTAL for EU/UK/USA – 40,666 Covid-19 injection related deaths and 6,626,502 injuries reported as at 15 September 2021.

But only a small fraction of the victims or families of the deceased will go through the tedious process of reporting vaccine related deaths and adverse events to the national health authorities.

Those death and injury figures (EU, UK, US) SOFAR are at least ten times higher than the official reported cases.

410,000 deaths, 66 million injuries out of a population of approximately 850 million.

Moreover, the health authorities are actively involved in obfuscating the deaths and injuries resulting from the mRNA “vaccine”, while inflating the number of Covid-19 related deaths. (“autopsies not required”).

Video: Michel Chossudovsky provides a broad picture of the ongoing crisis which is destroying people’s lives Worldwide.

To view the video on Bitchute, enter a comment, click the link below:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/uBzx3eYozeXz/

Spread the Word. Forward this video.

Digital Tyranny at a Global Level

The vaccine is being applied and imposed Worldwide. The target population is 7.9 billion. Several doses are contemplated. It is the largest vaccination program in World history.

“Never before has immunization of the entire planet been accomplished by delivering a synthetic mRNA into the human body”.

The WHO “Guidelines” for establishing a Worldwide Digital Informations System for issuing so-called “Digital Certificates for Covid-19” are generously funded by the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations.

The mRNA vaccine is not a project of a UN intergovernmental body (WHO) on behalf the member states of the UN: This is a private initiative. The billionaire elites which fund and enforce the Vaccine Project Worldwide are Eugenists committed to Depopulation.

Big Pharma: Pfizer Seeks Worldwide Dominance

The global vaccine project entitled COVAX is coordinated Worldwide by the WHO, GAVI, CEPI, the Gates Foundation in liaison with the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Wellcome Trust, DARPA and Big Pharma which is increasingly dominated by the Pfizer-GSK partnership established barely four months before the onset of the Covid-19 crisis in early January 2020.

Pfizer –which has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice– is playing a “near monopoly role” in the marketing of the mRNA “vaccine”. Already in the EU, Pfizer is slated to deliver 1.8 billion doses which is equivalent to four times the population of the European Union.

In a historic US Department of Justice decision in September 2009, Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges. It was “The Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement” in the History of the U.S. Department of Justice.

In addition to compliance and enforcement, the “vaccine poison” imposed at the level of the entire planet is produced by a pharmaceutical company which has been indicted by the DOJ on charges of “fraudulent marketing”.

Compliance: No Jab, No Job

“Fraudulent Marketing” in relation to the mRNA vaccine is a gross understatement. The health authorities as well as Big Pharma not to mention the WHO, the Rockefellers and the Gates foundation are fully aware that the vaccine has resulted in countless deaths and injuries, including blood clots, infertility, brain damage, myocarditis, etc.

And yet the governments (with the 24/7 support of the media) are pressuring people to take the jab. “It will save lives”.

The health risks are known and documented, yet at the same time people are not only misinformed, they are forced into accepting the vaccine. Or else…

No career, no income, no future… It’s an issue of compliance. And no access to education and health services if you are not vaccinated.

If they refuse the jab, they loose their job.

Students are barred from attending schools, colleges and universities, health workers and high school teachers who do not conform are fired, civil society is precipitated into a state of chaos.

Relevance of the Nuremberg Code

Focussing on the experimental nature of the mRNA vaccine and its devastating health impacts, legal analysts have raised the issue of the historic Nuremberg “Nazi Doctors Trial’ (1946-47) in which Nazi doctors were charged for war crimes, specifically in the conduct of medical experiments on both prisoners in the concentration camps and civilians.

The Medical Case, U.S.A. vs. Karl Brandt, et al. (also known as the Doctors’ Trial), was prosecuted in 1946-47 against twenty-three doctors and administrators accused of organizing and participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the form of medical experiments and medical procedures inflicted on prisoners and civilians.

Karl Brandt, the lead defendant, was the senior medical official of the German government during World War II; other defendants included senior doctors and administrators in the armed forces and SS. See Harvard Documents

Resulting from the verdict on August 19, 1947, the Nuremberg Code was enacted. Reviewed below are the Ten Principles of the Nuremberg Code. Several of these principles –in relation to the mRNA vaccine and the vaccine passport– have been blatantly violated.

The first principle of the “Nuremberg Code.” states that “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential,” And that is precisely what is being denied in relation to the “vaccine”(see sentences in bold below).

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

emphasis added

Entire populations in a large number of countries are under threat to comply and get vaccinated.

With reference to the Nuremberg Code, they are unable:

“to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion” (Nuremberg 1 above).

Amply documented, there is an upward trend in mRNA vaccine deaths and injuries Worldwide and the health authorities are fully aware of the “health risks”, yet they have not informed the public. There is no informed consent. And the media is lying through their teeth:

“No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur” (Nuremberg 5 above).

That “a priori reason” outlined in Nuremberg principle 5, is amply documented: Deaths and disabling injuries are ongoing at the level of the entire planet. They are confirmed by the official statistics of mRNA vaccine mortality and morbidity (EU, US, UK).

Video: The mRNA vaccine was launched in mid to late December 2020. In many countries, there was a significant shift in mortality following the introduction of the mRNA vaccine

Source: HeathData.org

Nazi “Medical Experiments”

Let us recall the categorization of specific crimes pertaining to Nazi “medical experiments” conducted on concentration camp prisoners. These included “the killing of Jews for anatomical research, the killing of tubercular Poles, and the euthanasia of sick and disabled civilians in Germany and occupied territories. …”

Karl Brandt and six other defendants were convicted, sentenced to death, and executed; nine defendants were convicted and sentenced to terms in prison; and seven defendants were acquitted.

The trial documents and evidence are all on file. The defendants were charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Nuremberg Doctors Trial

The Scale and Size of the Worldwide Covid-19 Vaxx Operation

I have not been able to review the relevant documents in detail with a view to establishing the number of victims resulting from the Nazi medical experiments.

While the Nuremberg principles are of utmost relevance to the Covid-19 vaccine project, simplistic comparisons should be avoided. The context, the history and the mechanisms of compliance pertaining to the mRNA “vaccine” are fundamentally different.

The scale and size of the Worldwide Vaxx operation as well as its complex organizational structure (WHO, GAVI, Gates Foundation, Big Pharma) is unprecedented.

Humanity in its entirety is the objective of the Vaxx project. The target population for vaccine experimentation of the Covid-19 vaccine is the entire population of Planet Earth:

7.9 billion people, involving several doses.

Multiply the World’s population by 4 doses (as proposed by Pfizer): the order of magnitude is 30 billion doses Worldwide.

The numbers are in the billions. The likely impacts on mortality and morbidity are beyond description.

Big Money is behind this public-private partnership project.

We are dealing with a Worldwide process of crimes against humanity. Entire populations in a large number of member states of the UN are subject to compliance and enforcement (without the Rule of Law).

If they refuse the vaccine, they are socially marginalized and confined, rejected by their employers, rejected by society: no education, no career, no life. Their lives are destroyed.

If they accept the vaccine, their health and their life are potentially in jeopardy. The evidence of mortality and morbidity resulting from vaccine inoculation both present (official data) and future (e.g. undetected microscopic blood clots) is overwhelming.

And that’s just the beginning.

Extensive crimes against humanity Worldwide are being committed.

The mRNA “vaccine” modifies the human genome at the level of the entire Planet. It’s Genocide.

It’s a “Holocaust of Greater Magnitude, Taking Place before our Eyes”.

***

About the Author

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

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

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

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

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on Global Research

Posted in English
Comments Off on The COVID-19 “Vaccine” and the Nuremberg Code. Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide

Israeli Army’s Mistreatment of Palestinian Children: Australian TV Dares to Show the Real Occupation

August 14th, 2024 by Jonathan Cook

This Happened 10 Years Ago, February 12, 2014

I never thought I would see it. A mainstream TV programme, this one made by Australian channel ABC, that shows the occupation in all its inhuman horror.

The 45-minute investigative film concerns the Israeli army’s mistreatment of Palestinian children. Along the way, it provides absolutely devastating evidence that the children’s abuse is not some unfortunate byproduct of the occupation but the cornerstone of Israel’s system of control and its related need to destroy the fabric of Palestinian society.

Omar Barghouti has spoken of Israelis’ view of Palestinians as only “relatively human”. Here that profound racism is on full show.

There are, of course, concessions to “balance” – in the hope of minimising the backlash from Israel – but they do nothing to dilute the power of the message.

This is brave film-making of the highest order.

It is an indication of quite how exceptional this film is that it has cornered Australia’s foreign minister, Julie Bishop, into expressing her “deep concern“. That’s the same Bishop who last month doubted that the settlements in the West Bank were illegal.

—

If the video above is removed, you can also watch the film here:

www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/02/10/3939266.htm

– See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2014-02-11/aussie-tv-dares-to-show-the-real-occupation/#sthash.i5YI7K0N.dpuf

Synopsis of ABC Australia TV program

The Israeli army is both respected and feared as a fighting force. But now the country’s military is facing a backlash at home and abroad for its treatment of children in the West Bank, occupied territory.

Coming up, a joint investigation by Four Corners and The Australian newspaper reveals evidence that shows the army is targeting Palestinian boys for arrest and detention. Reporter John Lyons travels to the West Bank to hear the story of children who claim they have been taken into custody, ruthlessly questioned and then allegedly forced to sign confessions before being taken to court for sentencing.

He meets Australian lawyer Gerard Horton, who’s trying to help the boys who are arrested, and talks to senior Israeli officials to examine what’s driving the army’s strategy.

The program focuses on the stories of three boys. In two cases the army came for the children in the middle of the night, before taking them to unknown locations where they are questioned. A mother of one of the boys described the scene…

Posted in English
Comments Off on Israeli Army’s Mistreatment of Palestinian Children: Australian TV Dares to Show the Real Occupation

America’s Perpetual War: Six Questions

August 14th, 2024 by Prof. Joseph H. Chung

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

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

First published on June 12, 2023, this article by Professor Joseph Chung provides us a carefully documented history of America’s Perpetual War.

***

Introduction

Former American President Jimmy Carter said in 2018 that in America, there were 226 years of wars since its independence which took place 242 years ago thus leaving only 16 years of peace.

Since WWII, there were 32 American military conflicts involving dozens of countries. Some of these military conflicts have lasted for over twenty years and some others are still continuing.

In other words, the U.S. is a country of perpetual war. War is terribly destructive human activity. Millions of human beings have been sacrificed. Tens of trillions of dollars worth of housing, school, factories, hospitals and other infrastructure facilities have been destroyed in the countries which have been the target of American military attacks.

The perpetual war has destroyed the very foundation of freedom and democracy; it has prevented healthy and equitable economic development of the world; it has led to the violation of human rights; it has ruined traditional values of many countries and, above all, it has caused lasting human suffering.

America’s multi-trillion dollar perpetual war has denied and deprived millions of Americans of decent income, adequate housing, needed foods, necessary health care, safety on the street, reliable infrastructure facilities, essential education and other goods and services needed for descent living.

Before I go any further, I would like to quote the historical statement of President Dwight Eisenhower.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of children. (President Dwight Eisenhower address to the North American Society of News editors, April 16, 1953)

In this paper, I am asking the following six questions:

How many wars has the U.S. undertaken since WWII?
How are the American wars organized?
What is the purpose of the American wars?
Who are the beneficiaries of the American wars?
What are the negative impacts of the American wars?
Will the American wars continue?

How many wars has the U.S. undertaken since WWII?

There are undoubtedly several ways of defining war. In this paper, I define war in terms of American military interventions. Defined thus, I have counted 32 wars undertaken by the U.S. since WWII.

I have classified these wars in terms of the following categories:

invasion (23 cases),
“civil war” (7 cases), and
multi-target war (2),

which gives 32 wars that took place since the WWII, in the course of the so-called “post war era”.

There are reasons to believe that there are still many undeclared military interventions conducted by war contractors and Special Operation Forces units spread in 1,000 bases in 191 countries. The following shows the list of American wars.

Invasions,

Korean War (1950-1953),
Vietnam War (1955-1975);
Cuban,Bay of Pigs (1961),
Lebanon (1982-1984),
Grenada (1983),
Libya bombing (1984),
Tanker War-Persian Gulf (1984-1987),
Panama (1989-1990),
Gulf War (1989-1991),
Iraq War (1991-1993),
Bosnia War (1992-1995),
Haiti (1994-1999),
Kosovo (1998-1999),
Afghanistan (2001-2021),
Yemen (2002-present),
Iraq (2003-2011),
Pakistan (2004-2018),
Somalia (2007-present)
Libya (2011),
Niger (2013-present)
Iraq (2014-2021),
Syria (2014-present),
Libya (2015-2019).
[Ukraine, yet to be categorized]

Civil Wars:

Indo-China (1959-1975),

Indonesia (1958-1961)

Lebanon (1958),

Dominican Republic (1968-1966),

Korea DMZ (1966-1969),

Cambodia (1967-1975)

Somalia (1991-present).

Multi-target wars:

Operation Ocean Shield: location, Indian- Ocean (2008-2016), Operation Observant Compass: location, Uganda and Central Africa (2011-2017).

How are the American Wars Organized?

To understand the nature and the implication of the perpetual war in the U.S., it is necessary to introduce the concept of American Pro-War Community (APWC).

In literature and media, we use the notion of military-industrial complex (MIC) to describe the vast system of perpetual U.S. wars. But, actually, the system of perpetual war involves many more individuals and organizations than in the MIC.

The APWC is a tightly knit community promoting its interests at the expense of the wellbeing of ordinary Americans and the interests of the people of the target countries. It is so well organized and so well rooted and so powerful that it is quasi impossible to dissolve it.

The AWPC’s core group comprises the war corporations and the federal government led by the Pentagon, the Congress, the Senate and other government agencies.

There are two supporting groups comprising all sorts of institutions and organizations.

There is the group supporting the supply of war goods and services.

Then, there is the group supporting the creation of demand for war goods and services.

The efficiency of the whole system of producing and selling war goods and services depends on how the core group and the supporting groups can work in harmony together to attain the objectives of wars, namely, the maximization of profit and the intra-APWC sharing of the profit.

Supply of War Goods and Services

The supply of war goods and services is assured by war corporations which produce weapons, building contractors which build all sorts of buildings and manage them, catering services companies that provide foods and drinks for the GIs, information firms which offer information needed for wars and even the academics that offers ideas and technologies.

In the U.S. 40 major war corporations have annual sales of almost $ 600 billion.

The following table shows the importance of the five leading war corporations in U.S.

Table 1. Five major War Corporations: Annual Sales ($ billion) 2022 and Growth (recent years: %)

Note: LM (Lockheed Martin), NG (Northrop Grumman); GD (General Dynamics) Source

The combined annual sale of the five leading firms in 2022 was as much as $ 241.8 billion of which $183.3 billon was for the sale of military goods and services, or 75.8% of the total sale.

The supply of war goods and services relies on the extensive production chain involving foreign and domestic providers of raw materials and intermediary products. In addition, the academics and information firms offer information, technology and other services needed for the production of weapons.

The following is a list of the well known universities which are deeply involved in American wars. Each one of these universities produces, for the war industry, a variety of war products and services.

In this paper, for each academic institution, just one typical product or service is mentioned.

No less than 70% of university research projects are funded by the Pentagon:

The Boston College helps the Air Force
The University of Massachusetts Lowell develops mono-technology for the Army.
Tufts University improves of soldiers cognitive and physical performance
MIT is producing so many war goods ns services that it is known as a “war corporation.”
Columbia University and Brown University develops, for DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Project Agency), the neural engineering system
Princeton University produces hardware for design and verification of open-source integrated circuit
Dartmouth University sells machine learning
Pennsylvania University develops artificial intelligence.
Stanford University develops technology for chemical warfare and so many other war goods and service that it is considered to be in partnership with war corporations
Harvard University develops educational materials for the war and it is the main source providing human resources to the war industries. By the way, it produced the napalm bomb widely used in the Korean War, Vietnamese War and other wars
John Hopkins University makes tools needed for the evaluation of alternative offensive capability needed for battles in air sea, cyberspace

The sad story is that American universities depend on war money so much that they are losing their original mission.

Understanding the War Industry eBook : Christian Sorensen: Kindle Store - Amazon.com

Christian Sorensen (Understanding the War Industry, Clarity Press 2022) has something to say about this problem. He seems to think that universities are neglecting their original mission of producing and diffusing truth.

“But its intricate ties to the War Department show the university’s true colour carrying more about government funding than the nobility of academia.” (Sorenson: p.221)

By the way, I have found many useful information, data and ideas in Sorensen’s book, which is surely a significant addition to the critical literature of perpetual wars.

The information-technology corporations are also actively participating in the American wars. In fact, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google provide, for the military, clout computing which facilitates the reduction of human and material cost of wars.

Demand for War Products and Services

What distinguishes the war economy from the peace economy is the amazing fact that the supply generates the demand.

In the American war economy, the final demand for war goods and services is determined by the Pentagon (the Department of Defence) and some foreign countries.

However, the Pentagon does not have all the information needed to estimate the demand for war so that it relies on the information provided by the war corporations.

Therefore, the war corporations which are supplier of war goods and services have the amazing role of determining the demand.

In this way, in the market of war goods and services, the supply determines the demand.

This is the root of perpetual nature of American wars and the making of profit going to the APWC.

Now, to have war, one has to have enemies. But, the war corporations do not have the research capacity to find real enemies or produce fabricated enemies. The role of finding or fabricating enemies goes to the think tanks which are lavishly funded by the war corporations.

When the think tanks find or manufacture enemies, new wars or the continuation of old wars are justified.

Now, on the other hand, the pressure groups put pressure on law makers and policy makers to recognize the identities of enemies produced by the think tanks; this is done through lobbying (bribes giving).

As for the media, they have the role of preparing the mind and the souls of Americans to accept the monstrous defence budget without being aware of the destructive consequences of the perpetual wars.

It goes without saying that both the pressure groups and the media are funded by the war corporations.

The demand for war goods and services created by these pro-war individuals and organizations is translated into the annual defence budget of the U.S amounting, in 2023, to as much as $886 billion.

Imagine this. Washington’s 2023 defence budget is 50% of South Korea’s 2023 GDP of $1.8 trillion. The American defence budget is 40 % of the global defence budget of $ 2.2 trillion.

The big five: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics gets as much as $150 billion out of the defence budget.

Think Tanks

The think tanks play major role in perpetuating the American wars. Their function is to produce reports and papers to show the seriousness of crisis and the need for increasing military budget so that the crisis can be tackled by military force.

The following shows how some major think tanks are lavishly funded by war corporations. The data are provided by a Global Research paper (Amanda Yee: Six War Managing Think Tank and the Military Contractors that fund them, March 7, 2023).

The Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS)

The CSIS received in 2022 $100,000 or more from following war corporations: Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, SAIC, Bechtel, Cummings, Hitachi, Hanhwa Group, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Mitsubishi Corp., Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, Raytheon, Samsung.

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS)

The CNAS received in 2021, $50,000 or more from the following war corporations: Huntington Ingalls Group, Neal Blue, BAE System, Booz Allen, Hamilton Intel Corp, General Dynamics.

Hudson Institute (HI)

The HI got, in 2021, $50,000 or more from the following war corporations: General Atomics, Linden Blue, Neal Blue, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Mitsubishi.

The Atlantic Council (AC)

In 2021, the AC received $50,000 or more from the following war corporations: Airbus, Neal Blue, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and SAIC.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)

The IISS was given, in 2021, $25,000 or more by the following war corporations: BAE System, Boeing, General Atomics, Raytheon, Rolls-Royce, Northrop Grumman.

There was a case where a think tank expressed an “expert opinion” in order to protect the interest of its sponsor (war corporation). It happened on August 12, 2021.

The huge military contractor CACI which had a contract of $907 million for 5 years in Afghanistan was disappointed of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which meant its profit loss.

Its think tank was the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). The president of ISW, Kimberly Kagan declared that the U.S. withdrawal would make Afghanistan become a second ground of Jihadism. By the way, retired General Jack Keane is a member of IWS.

Pressure Group

The pressure groups are led by individuals well connected to war corporations, the Pentagon and the congress. The following is the partial list of pressure groups.

The Aerospace Industry Association(AIA): Its CEO is the former vice-president of a company producing rockets. AIA represents more than 340 aerospace and defence corporation
The National Defence Industry Association (NDIA) has 1,600 members
The political Action Committee
The Association of United States Army(AUSA): It produces Industry Guide for war corporations
Business Executives for National Security (BENS), It is composed of non-profit 450 business executives who discuss security issues
The Association of Old Crows (AOC), It is a brotherhood of electronic war veterans and leaders of war. It is supported by war corporations such as AECOM and Raytheon
The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronomics (AIAA)
The National Security Resource Board
The War Dept Defence Policy Board

Pro-War Media

Most of American media are pro-war. There are several reasons why the media are not critical of the perpetual war, if not being outright pro-war.

First, Being corporate media, they are mainly concerned with making money rather than being concerned with the collective wellbeing of the American society.

The Corporate Media including CNN, MSMBC, Fox News attach program priority to the rating.

They have no opinion about the awfully destructive consequences of the perpetual war. Even if they have some useful opinions they do not dare to express them. When they express an opinion, they are usually referring to the opinion of the elite class.

Second, it has been the long tradition in the U.S. that the media do not criticize the government.

Third, the government censor the media, especially, the off-line media.

Fourth, the numbers of media are directly related to the war industry. For example, in Defence News, T. Michael Mosely, retired 4-star Air Force general wrote in April 2019 that the Air Force was woefully under equipped.

There is a long list of pro-war media mostly armed forces related media.

Fifth, war corporations openly put pressure on the media not to mention the root of war. For example,

“General Dynamics wants corporate media never to question the root cause of the war.” (Sorensen p: p.72)

Sixth, the Smith Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 allows greater propaganda on corporate media.

To sum up, the demand for war is formed by the coordinated pro-war opinions created by the war corporations, the think tanks, the pressure groups and the media.

These opinions are transmitted to the Pentagon, which determine the size of financial and human resources to be allocated to the war.

The remarkable coordination among these individuals and organizations looks like a well prepared symphony orchestra.

The think tanks play violin to make sweet sound for the war corporations;

The pressure groups play trumpet to make the sound louder;

The media play drums to draw attention of the public to the necessity of wars.

All these players are conducted by the war corporations.

What is the purpose of American wars?

There can be defensive purposes and offensive purposes of war. The defensive purposes can include the protection of national territory and national values such as religion, democracy and national assets representing the national tradition.

Then, there can be offensive purposes of war which can include the imperial invasion of a foreign country in order to change the political and economic regime, change religion, to appropriate the foreign country’s natural resources and maintain America’s hegemonic domination.

There is one more offensive purpose, namely,

In all probabilities, the defensive purposes are not relevant. No country dares to challenge American territory and its values. On the other hand, all of offensive purposes are relevant.

However none of the offensive “purposes” of American wars seem to have been attained.

Christianity had for a long time hidden its presence.
American democracy is falling rapidly.
Regime-change war has ended up with regime destruction.
America’s global hegemony has to overcome several challenges.

As for the expropriation of foreign countries natural resources, American imperialism should have been a success made possible through the worldwide value chain. Its main beneficiaries are American multinational corporations.

Now, with regard to the impact of the Perpetual American war on the American economy, the usual analysis model is military Keynesianism. A series of economic studies show that it can have a short run positive effect on the national economy, but in the medium term, it will harm the economy’s growth potential. In other words, war is harmful to the national (civilian) economy.

“After initial demand stimulus, the effect of increased defence spending turns negative around six years .After 10 years of higher defence spending, there would be 464,000 jobs less than the base line scenario with lower spending.” (Dean Baker, economist quoted in journals.openedition.org)

In short, American wars are not needed for the realization of defensive objectives.

Nor are they useful means for the materialization of offensive ends with the exception of the expropriation of natural resources of foreign countries.

Then, why does the U.S. continue its wars?

If the war continues despite its dubious results, there must be some people who find in the war some benefits. The inevitable conclusion is that these same people are the members of the American Pro-War Community (APWC).

Who are the Beneficiaries of American wars?

In order that the AWPC receive benefit from wars, the profit of war corporations must be abnormally maximized. In fact, the profit of war corporations must be very high due to these reasons.

First, war corporations receive the Pentagon’s research grants and tax incentives from the federal government.

Second, the use of Artificial Intelligence-based production systems can save greatly the cost of the war corporations’ production of war goods and services.

Third, war corporations enjoy the quasi monopoly status through corporate merging in the sector of highly specialized weapon production. The merging of Lockheed with Martin is a typical example.

Fourth, in a situation of Pentagon-war corporation collusion, the Pentagon’s acceptance of a high contractual price is of significance.

The Privatization of War. The Everlasting Corruption Culture

Once the high corporate profit is assured, the next step of keeping perpetual wars is the intra-AWPC sharing of the corporate profit.

This is done through bribes. Having received bribes, pro-war policy makers and pro-war law makers must go along with war corporations lobbying in favor of “more wars”.

Bribes are given to the policy makers and law makers so that they accept what the war corporations ask for. This is the beginning of an everlasting corruption culture.

The following cases illustrate some of the dimensions of the corruption culture:

In 2012, the war corporations gave $30 million and in 2014 they gave $ 25.5 million to the Senate Armed Service Committee.

Christian Sorensen shows the source of corporate funds given to the 25 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The following gives some examples.

John McCain (R): General Electric, Raytheon and several other war corporations
Jeanne Shaheen (D): Boeing General Electric
Lindsey Graham (R): Northrop Grumman, Raytheon
Bill Nelson (D): Lockheed Martin, Raytheon

A former CIA lobbyist made a meaningful statement regarding the state of corruption:

“Years of legalized bribery had exposed me to the worst elements of our country’s political working. Not even my half million-a-year salary could weigh my conscience…Today, most lobbyists are engaged in a system of bribery but it is legal kind, the kind that runs rampant in the corridors of Washington.” (Sorensen: p.65)

For the last presidential election, Lockheed Martin donated $ 91 million. Fifty eight members of the House Armed Service Committee received in average $79,588 from the sector (war industry), or three times more than other representatives. Lobbying expenditures by the member of the warmongering community was $247 billion during the last two presidential elections.

The Swinging-Door Relationship

However, in addition to the bribe system, there is the swinging-door relationship between the war industry and the Pentagon.

The swinging-door relations result in the industry’s direct participation in the defence policy making. In fact, the decision makers in the Pentagon and the decision makers in the war industry are the same people.

The first swinging door allows the two way traffic of corporation leaders and the Pentagon leaders. Here are some cases of swinging door system of decision making.

Ryan McCarthy assistant to Robert Gate, War Secretary went back to Lockheed Martin. He is now Under Secretary of Army.
General James Mattis is now on the Board of Directors of General Dynamics, then, he became Secretary of War, then back to General Dynamics
An Assistant Secretary of War was president of Goldman Sachs focus on oil and gas
An administrator of the Defence Technical Information (DTC) has directorship in multiple corporations
The Under Secretary of War in charge of the finance of the Pentagon was partner of an accounting firm, Kearney which has strong business with the Pentagon
Lester Lyle, director general of General Dynamics was Air Force National Commander
Wilbur Ross, US Commerce Secretary had the following members of his advisory group: CEOs of Apple, Visa, Walmart, Home Depot, IBM, US Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Community College.

There are also what we might describe as the “three way traffic swinging-doors”, namely

“The Corporations, Pentagon and Think Tanks Triad”

Some of the key members of the Washington war camp work for war corporations, the Pentagon and think tanks. In this dynamics, The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is often implicated.

The bribery system and the swinging-door apparatus of policy making is necessarily supportive of the culture of corruption.

“Corporate America as a whole was also corrupting hearts and minds numbing the public with entertainment and deluging with commercialism.” (Sorensen: p.60)

What are the negative impacts of American wars?

There are internal and external negative impacts of American wars. The internal negative impacts of the American wars include human cost and economic cost.

The human cost of American perpetual war is high. Nobody knows how many Americans are killed or wounded. But some estimates say that as many as 50,000 Americas have been wounded in addition to tens of thousands of GIs who have been killed due to the perpetual wars.

“There is no honest accounting of the where how and why we are killing-how United States citizens are being protected and what security benefits are actually accruing to the United States in continuing perpetual war.” (William M. Arkin: Newsweek)

The economic and social costs are high. The destruction of America’s potential economic growth is attributable to insufficient investments in education, health and infrastructure.

The U.S. invests almost $1.0 trillion a year to sustain its perpetual wars, forcing Americans to contribute $2,200 a year (in taxes) to finance the wars.

The opportunity cost of American wars is high. The opportunity cost means investments which have been avoided due to the wars.

Here are some examples of “opportunity costs”:

$70 billion to fight poverty;
$42 billion to repair 43, 586 deficient bridges;
$10.6 billion for the proposed program for the Center for Disease Control;
$11.9 billion for the Environment Protection Agency;
$17 billion for children who are starving.

Besides, Washington needs money to save 100,000 Americans who die every year from drug overdoses.

Washington must finds way to eliminate street killings which happen four times every single day.

More than 10 % of Americans are not covered by medical insurance. Even those who do have medical insurance, the insurance cost is beyond the reach of the majority of Americans.

Another serious internal negative impact of the war is increasing public debt.

In 2023, the U.S. public debt is $ 31 trillion as against $ 27 trillion for its GDP. This means that public debt is 14.8% more than GDP.

A good part of this debt is attributable to wars. In fact, the Iraq war produced a U.S. public debt of $3 trillion.

This is a very dangerous situation, because with this kind of public debt, the country’s fiscal policy becomes utterly useless.

Now, as for the external negative impact of American wars, the impacts are beyond description.

Almost 1.3 million people were killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan alone, not to mention. the flow of millions of refugees.

Over the years, the perpetual American wars have ruined national economies; they have undermined religions and traditional values; they took away the hope for better life of the people of the countries which have been the targets of American wars.

What is really disturbing is this. The American wars are supposed to promote and keep world safer. But, in reality, the American wars have instead worsened global security and safety of civilians.

“After two decades of fighting, in fact, not one country in the Middle East – not a country in the world – can argue that it is safer than it was before 911. Every country that is now a part of the expanding battle field of perpetual war is a greater disaster than it was than decade ago.” (newsweek.com ibid).

So, who are benefitting from American wars? Sorensen offers an answer.

“The only people who ultimately benefit from militarized drugs war are perfidious flag officers, the D.C. regime executives, war corporations and a few native American elites.” (Sorenson: p. 298)

I may go further. I say that the beneficiaries are the members of the APWC.

Will the American wars continue?

Despite its terribly negative impact, these wars will continue, because it is beneficial to the APWC.

The perpetual war requires the following strategies: perpetual existence of enemies on the one hand and, on the other, the adoption of invisible and politics-free war.

If there is no demand for the war, there will be no war.

Hence, in order that the war perpetuates, there must be sustained demand for war.

But, in order that there be demand for war, there must be crisis and there should be crisis making countries or individuals. These countries and individuals become enemies of America.

There have allegedly been several waves of military crises in the eyes of APWC.

The first wave of crisis: the spread of communism, 1950-1989

The second wave of crisis: the threat of terrorism, 1990-present

The third wave of crisis: danger of nuclear proliferation, 1950-present

The fourth wave of crisis: the war on drugs, 1990-present

The fifth wave of crisis: human right violations 2001-present

Thus, there are several ongoing crisis and enemies. Hence, the APWC has little to be concerned with the lack of enemies.

According to William M Arkin, Washington has bombed or is bombing these countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Niger, Mali, Uganda Moreover, there are ten more countries which might be bombed. These are mostly African countries including Cameron, Chad, Kenya and 7 other countries.

Moreover, the APWC is used to invent enemies. The probable next crisis target could be the “Yellow-Peril crisis” involving China and other Asian countries.

President, Joe Biden has decided to intervene in case of “crisis” in foreign countries even without the authorization of the countries involved. This can provide a lot of potential enemies.

Anyway, as far as the existence of enemies is concerned, the AWPC has little to be worried about. There will be plenty of them, if not, the APWC will invent them.

For instance, not-being pro-U.S. could be treated as crisis and crisis-maker, categorized as an enemy of America.

The next hurdle to overcome for APWC is to tackle the anti-war movement in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world.

The solution is to find ways of making wars invisible, saving American lives but profitable. This can be done through the use of unmanned weapons and production cost saving by using AI-based technology, which allows long-distance warfare by virtue of “hub-spoke” war strategy under which one can attack the enemy without being present at the battle ground.

More and more, war is undertaken by a system of hub-spoke. In the current war against terrorism, hubs are located in several Middle East countries, Kuwait being the Army hub and Bahrain being the Navy hub. The spokes are spread throughout the world, especially in the Middle East and Africa.

William M. Arkin describes the efficiency of the hub-spoke model of war.

“It is so little understood, so invisible, so efficient,, even so as four successive presidents have promised and then tried to stop warfare, the spokes have grown and expanded.”

The reason for developing this type of warfare is the need for being free from anti-war public and anti-war politics.

“The War Brings Money”. The Vicious Circle of Human Greed

But the most important reason for the perpetuity of America wars is the vicious circle of human greed.

The war brings money;
Money invites wars;
Wars bring in more money;
More money leads to even more wars and ad infinitum.

This is the vicious circle of human greed.

Since human greed has no boundary, American wars will remain perpetual.

Thus, American wars can go on and on until there will be no more valuable enemies.

In other words, the war will go on until the total destruction of the world.

So, to save the world, the perpetual American wars should be stopped.

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM), he is member of the Center of Research on Integration and Globalization of (CEIM-UQAM). He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from The Unz Review

Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
Comments Off on America’s Perpetual War: Six Questions

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”: Divide, Conquer and Rule the “New Middle East”

August 14th, 2024 by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

This carefully researched article by Mahdi Nazemroaya was first published by Global Research in November 2011

The name “Arab Spring” is a catch phrase concocted in distant offices in Washington, London, Paris, and Brussels by individuals and groups who, other than having some superficial knowledge of the region, know very little about the Arabs. What is unfolding amongst the Arab peoples is naturally a mixed package. Insurgency is part of this package as is opportunism. Where there is revolution, there is always counter-revolution.

The upheavals in the Arab World are not an Arab “awakening” either; such a term implies that the Arabs have always been sleeping while dictatorship and injustice has been surrounding them.

In reality the Arab World, which is part of the broader Turko-Arabo-Iranic World, has been filled with frequent revolts that have been put down by the Arab dictators in coordination with countries like the United States, Britain, and France. It has been the interference of these powers that has always acted as a counter-balance to democracy and it will continue to do so.

Divide and Conquer: How the First “Arab Spring” was Manipulated

The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire.

Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.

During the “Great Arab Revolt” the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called “repression” of the Ottomans.

In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity.

Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the “Arab Spring” is being manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.

The Yinon Plan: Order from Chaos…

The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.

The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.

Securing the Realm: Redefining the Arab World…

Although tweaked, the Yinon Plan is in motion and coming to life under the “Clean Break.” This is through a policy document written in 1996 by Richard Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” for Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel at the time.

Perle was a former Pentagon under-secretary for Roland Reagan at the time and later a U.S. military advisor to George W. Bush Jr. and the White House.

Aside from Perle, the rest of the members of the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” consisted of James Colbert (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs), Charles Fairbanks Jr. (Johns Hopkins University), Douglas Feith (Feith and Zell Associates), Robert Loewenberg (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), Jonathan Torop (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), David Wurmser (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), and Meyrav Wurmser (Johns Hopkins University).

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is the full name of this 1996 Israel policy paper.

In many regards, the U.S. is executing the objectives outlined in Tel Aviv’s 1996 policy paper to secure the “realm.” Moreover, the term “realm” implies the strategic mentality of the authors.

A realm refers to either the territory ruled by a monarch or the territories that fall under a monarch’s reign, but are not physically under their control and have vassals running them. In this context, the word realm is being used to denote the Middle East as the kingdom of Tel Aviv. The fact that Perle, someone who has essentially been a career Pentagon official, helped author the Israeli paper also makes one ask if the conceptualized sovereign of the realm is either Israel, the United States, or both?

Securing the Realm: The Israeli Blueprints to Destabilize Damascus

The 1996 Israeli document calls for “rolling back Syria” sometime around the year 2000 or afterward by pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing the Syrian Arab Republic with the help of Jordan and Turkey. This has respectively taken place in 2005 and 2011.

The 1996 document states:

“Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” [1]

As a first step towards creating an Israeli-dominated “New Middle East” and encircling Syria, the 1996 document calls for removing President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim “Central Iraq.” The authors write:

“But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the ‘natural axis’ with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula.

For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria’s territorial integrity.” [2]

Perle and the Study Group on “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000” also call for driving the Syrians out of Lebanon and destabilizing Syria by using Lebanese opposition figures.

The document states:

“[Israel must divert] Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.” [3] This is what would happen in 2005 after the Hariri Assassination that helped launch the so-called “Cedar Revolution” and create the vehemently anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance controlled by the corrupt Said Hariri.

The document also calls for Tel Aviv to “take [the] opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime.” [4]

This clearly falls into the Israeli strategy of demonizing its opponents through using public relations (PR) campaigns. In 2009, Israeli news media openly admitted that Tel Aviv through its embassies and diplomatic missions had launched a global campaign to discredit the Iranian presidential elections before they even took place through a media campaign and organizing protests in front of Iranian embassies. [5]

The document also mentions something that resembles what is currently going on in Syria. It states:

“Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.” [6]

With the 2011 upheaval in Syria, the movement of insurgents and the smuggling of weapons through the Jordanian and Turkish borders has become a major problem for Damascus.

In this context, it is no surprise that Arial Sharon and Israel told Washington to attack Syria, Libya, and Iran after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. [7] Finally, it is worth knowing that the Israeli document also advocated for pre-emptive war to shape Israel’s geo-strategic environment and to carve out the “New Middle East.” [8] This is a policy that the U.S. would also adopt in 2001.

The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East

It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya.

Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq.

Coinciding with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective.

In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to leave.

Iran’s Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world.

Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze.

Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means for balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states.

The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too.

The new head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch, the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, has expressed his fears about a purging of Arab Christians in the Levant and Middle East.

Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi and many other Christian leaders in Lebanon and Syria are afraid of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Syria. Like Iraq, mysterious groups are now attacking the Christian communities in Syria. The leaders of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, have also all publicly expressed their grave concerns. Aside from the Christian Arabs, these fears are also shared by the Assyrian and Armenian communities, which are mostly Christian.

Sheikh Al-Rahi was recently in Paris where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is reported that the Maronite Patriarch and Sarkozy had disagreements about Syria, which prompted Sarkozy to say that the Syrian regime will collapse. Patriarch Al-Rahi’s position was that Syria should be left alone and allowed to reform.

The Maronite Patriarch also told Sarkozy that Israel needed to be dealt with as a threat if France legitimately wanted Hezbollah to disarm.

Because of his position in France, Al-Rahi was instantly thanked by the Christian and Muslim religious leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic who visited him in Lebanon.

Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon, which includes most the Christian parliamentarians in the Lebanese Parliament, also lauded the Maronite Patriarch who later went on a tour to South Lebanon.

Sheikh Al-Rahi is now being politically attacked by the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance, because of his stance on Hezbollah and his refusal to support the toppling of the Syrian regime. A conference of Christian figures is actually being planned by Hariri to oppose Patriarch Al-Rahi and the stance of the Maronite Church. Since Al-Rahi announced his position, the Tahrir Party, which is active in both Lebanon and Syria, has also started targeting him with criticism. It has also been reported that high-ranking U.S. officials have also cancelled their meetings with the Maronite Patriarch as a sign of their displeasure about his positions on Hezbollah and Syria.

The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which has always been a popular minority (even when it was a parliamentary majority), has been working hand-in-hand with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the groups using violence and terrorism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called Salafist groups from Syria have been coordinating and holding secret talks with Hariri and the Christian political parties in the March 14 Alliance. This is why Hariri and his allies have turned on Cardinal Al-Rahi. It was also Hariri and the March 14 Alliance that brought Fatah Al-Islam into Lebanon and have now helped some of its members escape to go and fight in Syria.

There are unknown snippers who are targeting Syrian civilians and the Syrian Army with a view of causing chaos and internal fighting. The Christian communities in Syria are also being targeted by unknown groups. It is very likely that the attackers are a coalition of U.S., French, Jordanian, Israeli, Turkish, Saudi, and Khalij (Gulf) Arab forces working with some Syrians on the inside.

A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It has been reported that Sheikh Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer.

It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be either the resettling of the Christian communities outside of the region or demarcate them into enclaves. Both could be objectives.

This project is meant to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations and falls into accordance with both the Yinon Plan and the geo-political objectives of the U.S. to control Eurasia. A major war may be its outcome. Arab Christians now have a lot in common with black-skinned Arabs.

Re-Dividing Africa: The Yinon Plan is very Much Alive and at Work…

In regards to Africa, Tel Aviv sees securing Africa as part of its broader periphery. This broader or so-called “new periphery” became a basis of geo-strategy for Tel Aviv after 1979 when the “old periphery” against the Arabs that included Iran, which was one of Israel’s closest allies during the Pahlavi period, buckled and collapsed with the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In this context, Israel’s “new periphery” was conceptualized with the inclusion of countries like Ethiopia, Uganda, and Kenya against the Arab states and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is why Israel has been so deeply involved in the balkanization of Sudan.

In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets: (1) ethno-linguistics; (2) skin-colour; and, finally, (3) religion. To secure the realm, it also so happens that the the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), the Israeli think-tank that included Perle, also pushed for the creating of the Pentagon’s U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway. It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called “Black Africa” and a supposedly “non-Black” North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be “Arabs” and so-called “Blacks.”

This objective is why the ridiculous identity of an “African South Sudan” and an “Arab North Sudan” have been nurtured and promoted. This is also why black-skinned Libyans have been targeted in a campaign to “colour cleanse” Libya. The Arab identity in North Africa is being de-linked from its African identity. Simultaneously there is an attempt to eradicate the large populations of “black-skinned Arabs” so that there is a clear delineation between “Black Africa” and a new “non-Black” North Africa, which will be turned into a fighting ground between the remaining “non-Black” Berbers and Arabs.

In the same context, tensions are being fomented between Muslims and Christians in Africa, in such places as Sudan and Nigeria, to further create lines and fracture points. The fuelling of these divisions on the basis of skin-colour, religion, ethnicity, and language is intended to fuel disassociation and disunity in Africa. This is all part of a broader African strategy of cutting North Africa off from the rest of the African continent.

Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”

It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected.

The chessboard is being staged for a “Clash of Civilizations” and all the chess pieces are being put into place.

The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created.

These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups.

Under this scheme, there can no longer be a melding transition between societies and countries. This is why the Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Copts, are being targeted. This is also why black-skinned Arabs and black-skinned Berbers, as well as other North African population groups which are black-skinned, are facing genocide in North Africa.

After Iraq and Egypt, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic are both important points of regional destabilization in North Africa and Southeast Asia respectively. What happens in Libya will have rippling effects on Africa, as what happens in Syria will have rippling effects on Southeast Asia and beyond. Both Iraq and Egypt, in connection with what the Yinon Plan states, have acted as primers for the destabilization of both these Arab states.

What is being staged is the creation of an exclusively “Muslim Middle East” area (excluding Israel) that will be in turmoil over Shiite-Sunni fighting. A similar scenario is being staged for a “non-Black North Africa” area which will be characterized by a confrontation between Arabs and Berber. At the same time, under the “Clash of Civilizations” model, the Middle East and North Africa are slated to simultaneously be in conflict with the so-called “West” and “Black Africa.”

This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective Western European societies. [9] Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the “Clash of Civilizations” which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.

In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multiculturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies:

“[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.

Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the ‘Global War on Terror’].” [10]

Brzezinski’s next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars:

“[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms.” [11]

Risking being redundant, it has to be mentioned again that it is precisely with the intention of breaking these cultural affinities between the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region and the so-called “Western World” and sub-Saharan Africa that Christians and black-skinned peoples are being targeted.

Ethnocentrism and Ideology: Justifying Today’s “Just Wars”

In the past, the colonial powers of Western Europe would indoctrinate their people. Their objective was to acquire popular support for colonial conquest. This took the form of spreading Christianity and promoting Christian values with the support of armed merchants and colonial armies.

At the same time, racist ideologies were put forth. The people whose lands were colonized were portrayed as “sub-human,” inferior, or soulless. Finally, the “White Man’s burden” of taking on a mission of civilizing the so-called “uncivilized peoples of the world” was used. This cohesive ideological framework was used to portray colonialism as a “just cause.” The latter in turn was used to provide legitimacy to the waging of “just wars” as a means to conquering and “civilizing” foreign lands.

Today, the imperialist designs of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have not changed. What has changed is the pretext and justification for waging their neo-colonial wars of conquest. During the colonial period, the narratives and justifications for waging war were accepted by public opinion in the colonizing countries, such as Britain and France. Today’s “just wars” and “just causes” are now being conducted under the banners of women’s rights, human rights, humanitarianism, and democracy.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an award-winning writer from Ottawa, Canada. He is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal.

He was a witness to the “Arab Spring” in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign he was Special Correspondent for the syndicated investigative KPFA program Flashpoints, which is aired from Berkeley, California.

NOTES

[1] Richard Perle et al., A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (Washington, D.C. and Tel Aviv: Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies), 1996.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Barak Ravid, “Israeli diplomats told to take offensive in PR war against Iran,” Haaretz, June 1, 2009.
[6] Perle et al., Clean Break, op. cit.
[7] Aluf Benn, “Sharon says U.S. should also disarm Iran, Libya and Syria,” Haaretz, September 30, 2009.
[8] Richard Perle et al., Clean Break, op. cit.
[9] Robert Marquand, “Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism,” Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011.
[10] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p.211.
[11] Ibid.

Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
3 Comments

Israel’s “Hit List” and Alleged “Information Terrorists”. Scott Ritter, Ali Abunimah, Al Mayadeen, …

August 13th, 2024 by Rima Najjar

What do Scott Ritter, Naser al-Laham, Ali Abunimah and Khaled Barakat have in common? They are all purveyors of truthful information (journalists/writers) about crimes committed by Israel and its Western allies. In an Orwellian inversion of reality, they are all dubbed “information terrorists,” thus becoming targets of repression or worse.

I begin with Scott Ritter, because he has recently articulated what “worse” means in this context. Scott Ritter is a former US Marine intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union and is now an outspoken and widely watched critic of US foreign policy in Ukraine and Israel.

In a video clip broadcast on June 4th on Judging Freedom Podcast, he describes how, with the guidance and direction of the US State Department, Ukraine established a center for countering disinformation. That center now has a blacklist of “information terrorists” targeted for assassination. He and other Americans are on this hit list. Ritter goes on to say,

“… they said that an information terrorist must be hunted down and brought to justice the same way any terrorist would.

And I have been accused of saying things that make the Ukrainian government unhappy. They now say I must be hunted down and arrested, detained, killed as with any other terrorist in the world … with the US State Department’s support, [they] put out a weekly list that, you know, a weekly list where they say I am the number one of threat to truth.” (Minute 25:05 in the video below)

This is how we must understand what Israel is doing in renewing its ban on the broadcasts of Al Mayadeen Media Network, both visual and online. Israel has labeled the Network’s correspondents in Palestinian 1948 occupied territories and the occupied West Bank as “terrorists.” In a statement that describes the move as being, in itself, a form of terrorism, Al Mayadeen has this to say:

“The network emphasizes that labeling its correspondents in Palestinian 1948 occupied territories and the occupied West Bank as ‘terrorists’ is, in itself, a form of terrorism. Al Mayadeen warns against inflicting any harm on its journalists and asserts that it will not yield to any form of extortion or pressure, regardless of its impact or extent.

It is clear that the occupation views Al Mayadeen as an outlet that enjoys a strong presence and influence, exhibiting the utmost credibility and commitment to its morals. That is why the occupation reacts to the news outlet with a hysterical and puzzling degree of confusion when dealing with every word, image, and on-the-field presence, especially when Al Mayadeen contributes to quelling sedition, exposing and debunking lies, and calling out the crimes for what they are.”

Nasser al-Laham is one of those journalists that Israel is targeting as “information terrorists.” His achievements include being the editor-in-chief and founder of Ma’an News Agency, Director of Al Mayadeen’s bureau in occupied Palestine, and a member of the Palestinian National Council. He has published several books in Arabic: Tel Aviv: A City with No Secrets (2002); Fatah: The Sword and the Pen (2003); The Popular Front: Learn Well, Fight Well (2005); Media under Hamas (2007); The Blind Do Not Like Carrots (2011); and Body Language in the Israeli Media (2015).

The threat to al-Laham, whose house was raided and his two sons detained in October 2023 by Israeli forces, and to his colleagues is not idle. Read ‘Israel’ deliberately kills Al Mayadeen’s crew in South Lebanon.

Germany as well indulges in similar shameful banning of journalists and writers who speak truth about Israel and puts a target on their backs. Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse, was recently threatened by authorities with prison for giving a speech via Zoom to an audience in Germany attending Palestine Conference in Exile (July 25 -26) on Germany’s role in Israel’s ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza.

Abunimah writes:

“About two hours before my scheduled talk on 26 July, I received via a lawyer in Germany a 15-page notice from government authorities in Berlin informing me that I am prohibited from participating in the conference by any means, including online. The penalties include fines and up to one year in prison.”

Ali Abunimah was probably not surprised to get such a notice from the German authorities. The Electronic Intifada had published an article in 2019 titled, “Germany threatens journalist with prison for speaking about Palestine.” That journalist is Khaled Barakat, a Palestinian-Canadian writer and activist and founder of Masar Badil (the Palestinian Alternative Revolutionary Path Movement). He was prevented by Berlin police from speaking at a community event about USA’s “deal of the century” and subsequently expelled from the country. He and his wife Charlotte Kates, the international coordinator of Samidoun (the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network), were banned from entering the EU in October 2022.

Samidoun operates internationally, advocating for Palestinian prisoners and opposing Israeli policies. Israel designated Samidoun as a terrorist organization in 2021, citing its alleged ties to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). On Nov 2nd, 2023, Germany banned Samidoun from operating within the country and passed an order to stop all activities of the group along with the activities of any other organization operating in Germany that supports Hamas.

Without a shred of evidence, Israeli and right-wing Canadian media continue to allege ties between Khaled Barakat, Samidoun and Masar Badil on the one hand, and Palestinian groups designated as terrorist by Israel, the US and EU on the other. These allegations are false and dangerous. According to Influence Watch, American national security officials “don’t have that information yet” and have “questioned the Israeli government’s decision on Samidoun and related groups.” In August 2022, US Department of State spokesman Ned Price expressed the administration’s concern about the terrorism-associate label. The allegations and bans I described above put a target on the backs of Palestine advocates and their organizations and chill free speech.

The concept of “information terrorism” emerged as a subset of cyberterrorism, which involves the use of the internet and digital tools to carry out terrorist activities. This term gained more prominence in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as the internet became a critical infrastructure for communication, commerce, and governance. It is now being used by the US and Israel as a legal mechanism to criminalize human rights and antigenocidal activism by silencing, in one way or another, those who speak and act nonviolently against their policies.

But suppression of this nature, like the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, does nothing but strengthen the determination of individuals, organizations and groups to report with honesty and integrity and to advocate for Palestinian resistance and liberation.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

This article was originally published on the author’s blogsite.

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

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Al Mayadeen correspondent Naser al-Laham reporting from Bethlehem (Source: Rima Najjar)

Video: “Following Orders”. 24-Year-Old Soldier Left Disabled by COVID-19 Vaccines

August 13th, 2024 by Dr. William Makis

Army and National Guard accused of abandoning 24-year-old soldier with “debilitating heart condition” that internal memo “linked” to COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.

New military records confirm the soldier’s heart injury was “In Line of Duty,” and details her account of “complications since receiving the second dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.”

Moderna did not respond to our questions.

Army Specialist Karoline Stancik now faces over $70,000 in medical debt.

Click here to watch the video

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Reviews

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

~~Price: $11.50~~ FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page.

Posted in English
3 Comments
Tags: COVID vaccines, Moderna, mRNA COVID vaccines

Palestine: More Than 100 Days and 75 Years of Genocide.

August 13th, 2024 by Sarah Abushaar

Risk Stratification: COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Cardiac Arrest

August 13th, 2024 by Dr. Peter McCullough

We continue to see vaccinated persons suffer cardiac arrests three years after most took the shots in 2021. Both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA have been found in human heart muscle at autopsy. Spike protein has been stained in biopsy samples of young men suffering from myocarditis.

Victims have been found to have circulating Spike protein but ineffective antibodies, probably IgG4 subclass, that fail to neutralize Spike and allow its assault on the heart.

Positron emission tomography data have disclosed a shift from free fatty acid to glucose in the human heart of virtually everyone who has taken a COVID-19 vaccine.

The PET pattern looks like global ischemia. This could be due to vaccine Spike protein hemagglutination in myocardial capillaries or cellular changes in mitochondrial respiration and substrate metabolism. Small patches of dysfunctional, inflamed, or scarred myocardium are sufficient to serve as a nidus for re-entrant ventricular tachycardia that can degrade to ventricular fibrillation and lead to cardiac arrest.

Hulscher et al have demonstrated cardiac arrest within a few weeks of vaccination is caused by vaccine myocarditis with no prior premonitory phase that allows for detection.

With the passage of time, we have learned much from the clinical evaluation of a large number, 5-10% of vaccine victims, who have symptoms months to years after injection.

Among those with clinical myocarditis early after injection and reported to VAERS, Rose et al has reported a mortality rate of 2.9%.

Takada et al have reported the mortality rate of COVID-19 vaccine myopericarditis in the Japanese Drug Adverse Event Reporting System is 9.6% at 62 days.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

Credit to the owner of the featured image

Posted in English
1 Comment
Tags: cardiac arrest, COVID vaccines, mRNA vaccines, myocarditis, spike protein

Netanyahu Bent on Setting Middle East Ablaze and Dragging Washington Into Larger War?

August 13th, 2024 by Uriel Araujo

For a long time, Israel and Iran have been waging a so-called “shadow war”. As I wrote, for years a complicated game has been played out between Washington and Tel Aviv in which the latter, time and again, threatens to attack Iranian nuclear sites while the former avoids opposing such a plan too much (publicly) whereas at the same time signaling this would be an unnecessary not to say dangerous move that it does not approve of at all (and will not support it).

Sometimes, the United States itself also signs that it possesses the ability to prevent any Iranian counterattack in case the Jewish state strikes. In 2012 it blocked the Strait of Hormuz. Washington has supported its Israeli ally for years and for years it has denounced the Islamic Republic as a “threat” to Israel and other states in the region. And yet the US has consistently feared that any Iranian response to an Israeli attack could destabilize the entire area, there being uncertainties about the Iranian nuclear program. The whole game, you see, has been about managing such tensions. The problem is that the situation might be becoming unmanageable by now – and the assassination of Hamas Leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran is the latest sign of it.

Last week, in his newsletter, Prof. John. J. Mearsheimer described the policies Israel is pursuing as “directly at odds” with the incumbent US administration (although it remains unclear who is running the US now) – the latter wants to avoid an escalation into a regional war involving Lebanon and Iran into which it would be forced to take part. Mearsheimer is a University of Chicago Political Science Professor, and a prominent American scholar of international relations. He argues, to exemplify the above point, that the current Democrat presidency in Washington “desperately wants” a ceasefire in Palestine, whereas Netanyahu’s government is “committed to making sure the negotiations for a ceasefire fail” (and thus fair they have indeed failed).

More importantly, Mearsheimer makes the point that avoiding a direct war with Iran is one of the Biden’ administration goal, while Israel, on the other hand, has tried to “drag” Washington into precisely such a war twice already (on April 1, by attacking the Iranian embassy in Damascus and, more recently, on 31 July, by assassinating Ismail Haniyeh). Other points of divergence for the scholar include Netanyahu’s desire to “provoke a war” with Hezbollah. Basically, Washington has “a deep-seated interest” in some degree of stability in the Middle East, and Netanyahu, on the other hand, is “willing to set the region ablaze,” in the words of Alon Pinkas, Israeli diplomat writing for Haaretz.

The aforementioned diplomat argues that Netanyahu has gone “rogue” and so has Israel, by defying “international law and norms of international behavior.” He goes so far as to claim that, for the last 15 years, the Jewish state has had no foreign policy, properly speaking, and that is because of Netanyahu. This situation, more recently, has strained Israel’s relationship with its American ally, and has brought about some degree of mistrust. The Israeli leader, for example, clearly lied to Biden about the hostages situation, prompting the latter to tell him, in a very American way, “stop bullshitting me”

It is easy enough to blame Netanyahu for all of Israel’s sins and for the humanitarian disaster in Palestine and it sure is equally easy, for some, to portray Washington as committed to ensuring the Middle East remains stable. Reality is a bit more complicated than that. Israel has targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure and has denied Arab Palestinians their full ethnopolitical rights for a very long time; for decades, it has illegally occupied Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights, in Syria – to name just a few examples. The United States in turn seems to lack a clear stance on the Middle East, unable to decide whether it should “leave” the region or “stay” there.

I’ve written before on the core geopolitical contradiction within the Atlantic Superpower’s foreign policy, namely its attempt to behave as both a “sea power” (as envisioned by Alfred Thayer Mahan) and as a “land power” (to use Mackinder’s dichotomy). Washington basically wants it all. Unable to exercise restraint, the US seems to be “stuck” with pivoting away from the Middle Eastern region (towards the Pacific) while simultaneously keeping troops there, which can only invite tension, without effectively “constraining” their Iranian rival. Iran in fact has emerged as the main winner of this US disaster in Iraq.

Despite all the American rhetoric about a “War on Terror” it is an undisputed fact that the main actors who have actually cooperated to combat terrorism in the Levant have been Iranian and Russian forces as well as Hezbollah itself. They have done so by fighting ISIS (also known as Daesh) in Syria, for instance, for over a decade. The same actors have guaranteed the safety of Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in a region where Wahhabi radicals such as the infamous Daesh were beheading, enslaving and kidnapping many of them. The US on the other hand provided military aid to insurgents in Syria, including radicals and terrorists.

On top of that, for years, the US Caesar Act has been used as a weapon against the Syrian economy and its reconstruction, thereby also impacting Lebanon. This is the context that has enabled Iran to project its influence with its “oil diplomacy” (and has also further empowered Hezbollah) amid the local energy crisis.

It is not that Washington is interested in a “stable” Middle East at all. It certainly has sought to destabilize the region – but, here is the catch, just not too much. In the same way, it has been actively provoking the Russian Great Power since the nineties (with the different stages of NATO expansion) and all the way to the 2014 Maidan and onwards. It wanted to encircle and contain Russia, but – again – just not too much. The problem with managing tensions in such a way, is that sometimes, tensions will burst and escalate (as they did in 2014 and in 2022 in Eastern Europe), thereby spiraling out of control in unpredictable ways. Netanyahu is sure enough bent on setting the Middle East ablaze – but the American superpower is the one who has been supplying him with the fuel for the fire and ironically is also the one who now does want to see a fire out of control. Such policy could indeed be described as irresponsible.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Uriel Araujo, PhD, is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Voyeurism, Celebrity and Surveillance: A Straight Line

August 13th, 2024 by Dr. Emanuel Garcia

Many years ago, while sitting somewhat mournfully in a dentist’s office after I had returned from overseas, I chanced upon a magazine in the waiting room: People. I leafed through a few pages of the new publication, recently launched, and which I’d never heard about, before tossing it back, shaking my head and saying to myself ‘This won’t go anywhere.’

Many years after that episode, I had heard about the new website Facebook that had elbowed its way onto the online scene, and I remember saying to myself, ‘I don’t think this will fly.’ I myself eventually joined Facebook for a total of five days before trying to delete my membership. I don’t believe it’s possible to delete a Facebook account, but I tried. In any case, when I read about posts discussing supermarket chips and breakfast choices, I had had enough.

My judgment about what appeals to the general public is obviously awful. People went on to become a juggernaut, and Facebook,well, Facebook is humming along quite dominantly.

People – real people, not the mag – seem endlessly curious about the lives of others, particularly those who have the advantages of wealth and notoriety. It’s not far different from how I imagine the ancient Greeks engaged with the intrigues of the Olympic gods and goddesses. Fair enough. But this is itself a reflection of the apparently endless human fascination with itself.

As I open up my browser and delve into YouTube, there are countless heads and faces, countless opinions, countless human images accorded varying degrees of importance and themselves a kind of magnet for our wandering attention.

Then too, with the advent of the internet, virtually everything is recorded – the ‘lifelog’ that became the precursor to Facebook doesn’t let any of us get away with anything, it seems. I was pulled over by the police a few years ago while making a home visit to a patient in a poorer part of the region. The officer was genial and I said something like, ‘I can’t remember the last time I had a traffic violation’. He replied, ‘You were given a speeding ticket in 2008’ (10 years before).

Oh, well.

I remember as a kid playing schoolyard basketball not far from where our basketball heroes, the Philadelphia Seventy-Sixers played at the Spectrum, and fantasizing about having a camera to record our keen exploits on the court, with replays of course. Now, since everyone has a phone camera in hand, those dreams can be realized quite easily, though it’s the very last thing I’d desire.

It’s as if there is nothing we humans do that should not be recorded, preferably in images, for the delight (?) of everyone, or anyone, or ourselves … that no calm and blissful, or beautifully pleasurable, or quietly nice moment – no meal, no stroll along a beach, no three-point shot, no hike in the woods, no curious new amalgamation of cooking spices devised on the spur of the moment – in short, it seems that nothing can not be recorded, displayed, posted and put about universally.

There is always and everywhere an audience, there’s always a little bird on our shoulders chirping to remind us to make a record of our every move. We are now all celebrities, I suppose, or all worthy of being noticed and marked down for notice in the stream of our glory.

We have cheerfully and voluntarily surrendered our privacies for the permanently fleeting taste of fame. To what end?

I think we know. It’s the very end the State, or the Governing Globalist Cabal, or whatever you wish to call the Establishment Authorities, want: an absolute and total record of all of our activities, movements and even thoughts.

Vax passes, health records, Google Map timelines, credit card transactions tagged at specific locations, bank records revealing every purchase – all augmented by our own personally crafted records of our incredibly fascinating daily lives. We’ve gotten what we, in our naive and splendid collective narcissism, deserve.

I like privacy. I like living in answer to nobody but myself. I like enjoying a beautiful moment without the itch to ‘preserve’ it by disturbing the field of experience. I don’t want to see blogs of every friend’s or relative’s outings, of every nook and cranny of their journey to the supermarket or the summit of Mount Everest. They can tell me about it when I meet up with them – if, that is, they are capable of a pleasant and articulate talk, in private.

And as for the Gods and Goddesses of Hollywood and the Stage of Political Theatre, I wish they’d go about their daily business without preening and shouting. Nobody’s all that beautiful or exciting or smart all day long.

We should be turning our heads and attentions away from exhibitionists and towards good works and good deeds, and towards the great godliness that transcends human pettiness and folly.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

India: Neglect of Land Reforms by the Country with the World’s Largest Rural Population Has High Costs

August 13th, 2024 by Bharat Dogra

Harijanpur is a hamlet of about 140 households in Manikpur block of Chitrakut district (state of Uttar Pradesh). When some of the poorest people settled here about seven decades back, what helped them the most was a move initiated by the first woman Chief Minister in India Sucheta Kriplani to ensure that the poorest of the poor should also have some access to farmland. Even though this land was not considered very productive, it provided some essential base and food security to the people of this hamlet. Fortune smiled about two decades later when, making good use of the government’s Food for Work program, two voluntary organizations took up water conservation work. The irrigation from this tank has helped the people to meet their food needs in a reasonably assured way since then.

Image: Sucheta Kriplani (Source)

Gaya Prasad Gopal, an 85-year-old social activist who had played a crucial role in creating the tank in this village and at this age still insisted on accompanying me to this village on a hot afternoon, says—

“An extremely important lesson of my development experiences of about six decades has been that wherever we could secure some farmland for the rural poor, some secure base for food security could be created while those who remained landless also remained more vulnerable to hunger.”

There is increasing evidence that if properly used, even a small plot of just one or two acres of farmland can contribute a lot to the sustainable livelihood of a rural household. Bhuniya is a woman farmer of village Teraih (in Lalitpur district) who by combining multi-layer growth of vegetables, fruit trees and dairying with mixed organic farming of grain and legumes has created a highly creative and sustainable livelihood from a very small landholding of about 2 acres, an option not available to someone who is entirely landless.

This is a conclusion that is shared by several learned scholars and officials sympathetic to the cause of the rural poor, but unfortunately despite this the cause of land reforms has been increasingly neglected in recent times in India.

After independence from British rule in 1947, India’s land reforms efforts started with the aim of helping landless farm toilers to become small peasants owning small plots of farmland. Seventy years later we can see that achievements regarding this have been very small. On the reverse side, several factors have combined to turn many small and middle farmers into landless workers. This is due to massive displacement, land-grab, indebtedness, high costs, ecological ruin and other factors. What started as the noble aim of helping the landless farm workers to become farmers got reversed into the harsh reality of turning farmers into landless workers.

In the 2001 census, 127.3 million farmers were recorded while in 2011 census 118.7 million farmers were recorded, a reduction of 8.6 million farmers in one decade, at the rate of 2300 farmers per day or 100 per hour. Simultaneously there was an even bigger increase in landless farmer households, implying that farmers and some artisan households had been turned into landless workers.

Women farmers are even more vulnerable to land loss. Rukha, in Baraicha village of Banda district, was twice beaten by a big landowner who had his eyes on grabbing her small piece of farmland which was close to his sprawling house. It was only due to the intervention of activists that Rukha’s land could be saved.

Any comprehensive land reforms effort should include both these essential components – providing land to landless peasants and protecting land rights of existing farmers.

Such a land reform effort can be more useful than any other programme in reducing poverty, increasing productivity, ensuring food security as well as bringing peace and justice to Indian villages. What is more, such a programme can create the most enthusiastic mass base for a programme of ecological regeneration.

The Planning Commission of India had repeatedly expressed its agreement with this key role of land reforms. In the Tenth Plan document the commission stated, “the structure of land ownership is central to the well-being of the people.”

While acknowledging the crucial importance of land reforms, this official document also admitted the government’s growing reluctance (even opposition) to take up this important task,

“Land reforms seem to have been relegated to the background in the mid-1990s. More recently, initiatives of state governments have related to liberalising of land laws in order to promote large-scale corporate farming.”

The report of the Working Group on Land Relations for Formulation of the Eleventh Five Year Plan (the WGLREP Report) stated even more frankly,

“There is also immense pressure on the government to make available land to private parties either through land acquisition process or from its own pool of land meant for distribution to the landless and the small and marginal farmers. Land being a state subject, some state governments have already made changes in this direction in their legislations.”

Small farmers are likely to cultivate their fields more intensively and carefully, working hard to improve land fertility and productivity. Particularly in the context of sustainable farming practices and organic farming practices, it is the ability of farmers to carefully nurture and cultivate their fields, prepare organic manure and pest-repellents which is more important. This is clearly better achieved on small farms and family farms.

For somewhat similar reasons land reforms can also lead to a rise in farm productivity, that too on the farms of the poor. This view in supported by several international studies.

In a widely quoted publication titled ‘Agriculture Towards 2000’ the FAO has emphasised that more equal land distribution is likely to increase productivity of land,

“It is important to stress here that yields per hectare are as high on small as on large farms or, under traditional agriculture, even higher. With a few notable exceptions, total output per hectare is higher on small farms, chiefly because their intensity of land use is higher.”

The report by the FAO referred to above said in the specific context of India,

“Redistribution of only 5% of farmland in India, coupled with improved access to water, could reduce rural poverty levels by 30% under what they would be, so that in Indian conditions land and water reform would be a key approach.”

Making a comparison with the land reforms effort of other countries, S.R. Sankran a distinguished senior official who was Secretary of Rural Development, Govt. of India wrote,

“…the extent of land redistributed was 43 per cent of agricultural land in China, 37 per cent in Taiwan, 32 per cent in South Korea, and 33 per cent in Japan, whereas in India, the efforts of the central and state government to enact, revise and implement the ceiling laws, spread over 35 years, resulted in the redistribution of only 1.25 per cent of the operational area.”

Despite the tribal communities bearing the biggest share of the burden of many sided displacements and the high level of land-alienation, there was a flicker of new hope when during 2005-2008 the Scheduled Tribes and Traditional Forest Dwellers Forest Rights Act (briefly called Forest Rights Act or simply FRA) was passed and its rules framed. This Act hoped to correct the ‘historical injustice’ that had been caused to farmers.

But the real picture emerging from the implementation of FRA so far is very different. Firstly, the number of rejection of claims is very high. Those whose claim is rejected are often not even informed about it. Secondly, a significant number of deserving households have been simply left out as they could not send their claims properly on time. Lastly, even in the case of those whose claims were accepted, more often the acceptance is only for a small part of the land cultivated by them, hence even in acceptance cases the livelihood situation may be actually eroded. Hence the FRA, as presently implemented, may instead of correcting ‘historic injustice’ has the possibility of actually accentuating it.

Due to the denial of homestead land to hundreds of thousands of rural people, they have to live in very precarious and uncertain conditions. Sometimes the real or claimed ownership of the land on which they are living by big landowners ties the poor to a relation of bondage with them.

About homeless people of rural areas the WGLREP report says,

“In the vision of an emerging India, the right to a roof over one’s head needs to be seen as a basic human right, along with the right to freedom from hunger and a right to basic education.”

This report says,

“An estimated 13 to 18 million families in rural India today are reported to be landless of which about 8 million lack homes of their own. They live either in spaces provided by landlords (in case of farm labour), or park on government land, or on village common land, and so on. None of these options provide basic human security.”

It is in this wider context that the proposal for a law ensuring minimum land holding for all long-term resident rural households acquires many sided significance. Such a law could lay down, for instance, that all long-term residents of a village will have rights to homestead land and at least about an acre of cultivation land. However the size of the land holding can differ in hill and plain areas, and in irrigated and desert areas.

While land reforms with emphasis on some land for the landless need to be increasingly emphasized, India has been increasingly drifting towards an agribusiness led model which pays scant attention to the landless. Hence this is a particularly important juncture of India’s development journey for re-emphasizing land reforms.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Man over Machine, Protecting Earth for Children and Planet in Peril. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Pixhive

“Another Massacre”: The Bombing of the Tabeen School in Gaza City

August 13th, 2024 by Caitlin Johnstone

They bombed the Tabeen school in Gaza City with so much explosive force that not a single full body was recovered.

It was just pieces of people everywhere. They bagged body parts in 70-kilogram piles to try and estimate a death toll.

It was impossible to identify bodies or sort out which parts belonged where. Just one big stretch of undifferentiated carnage. Kind of like how the entire Gaza onslaught is starting to feel.

"Not a single full body"

When Israel bombs schools, it uses American bombs that shred every child's body into pieces, rendering them unrecognizable and unidentifiable.

Just calling for a ceasefire but refusing to use arm sales as leverage is untenable, @vp Harris. https://t.co/LWEUbkPldM

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) August 11, 2024

These massacres are all starting to blur together, like the lifeless bodies ripped apart and mixed together in bags. We westerners say “another massacre” when we talk about it, referring to it as just one more nightmare in an uninterrupted deluge of nightmares that’s been going on for ten months.

But it wasn’t “another massacre” for the people who were there. For the woman whose foot that used to belong to. For the boy who used to own that arm. For the man whose intestines those once were. For them it was the end of the world. For their loved ones it was unfathomable anguish.

Each and every one of these victims in each and every one of these massacres felt as much as you and I, cared as much as you and I, hoped and dreamed and loved and longed like you and I, and was just as capable of suffering as you and I.

Their bodies intermingle in the wreckage and the massacres intermingle in our memories, but we can’t just let it all blur together into background white noise. We can’t let this become our baseline. Our new normal. We can’t let them do that to us. We can’t let them rob us of our humanity like that.

Heart-wrenching scenes: A young girl cries and screams as she searches for her father among the bodies of martyrs after the massacre committed by the occupation at Al-Tabeen School.pic.twitter.com/lWu7SkN82M

— عبدالعظيم عزالدين (@abdulathemez) August 11, 2024

Do not let them harden you. On top of everything else they’ve taken from this world, don’t let them take your caring and sensitivity as well. Every death in that school was just as significant as the earliest deaths when this nightmare first began. The only thing making us see it as “another massacre” is our reflex to avoid feeling it all for the first time from moment to moment.

But this is all happening for the first time. That woman had never died before. Neither had that boy, or that man. All their hopes and dreams and plans were cut off for the very first time. All their experiences. All their relationships. Everything they had to share. Those endings deserve a bit more weight and a bit more reverence than having been part of just “another massacre”.

It’s safe to feel. It might hurt, but it won’t harm. We can just pause, put our hands over our hearts, feel the feelings deeply and respectfully all the way through, and then get back into the fight to try and stop this thing.

The victims deserve our sorrow. We deserve to have wide open hearts full of compassion. And the monsters who are doing this absolutely do not deserve to take it away from us.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

Featured image: The location is a series of narrow buildings, with sections open to each other and lacking any equipment, where dozens of Palestinian families had taken refuge after being forcibly displaced from their homes (Source)

Posted in English
2 Comments
Tags: Gaza, Génocide, idf, Palestine, Tabeen school

US Troops Return to Oil-rich Kirkuk Despite Talks to Withdraw from Iraq

August 13th, 2024 by The Cradle

Troops from the US-led international coalition have returned to the K-1 military base in the oil-rich Iraqi city of Kirkuk for the first time since 2020, The New Arab (TNA) reported on 6 August.

An informed Kurdish source told TNA,

“The force, comprising about 40 soldiers and 10 to 15 US-made armored Hummer vehicles, was sent from Erbil and deployed at the K-1 military base.”

The US-led coalition did not respond to requests for comment.

The reason for the new US deployment of troops to Kirkuk after four years is unclear.

The source suggested that it may be a response to increased ISIS activities in the disputed province, which leaders of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) have long wished to annex to the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq (IKR).

Another source, also speaking on condition of secrecy, told TNA that ISIS has recently resumed its insurgency in and around the Diyala province in eastern Iraq.

The Iraqi armed forces have increased security along the country’s western border with Syria following the release of hundreds of ISIS fighters from prison camps controlled by the US-backed and Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

In mid-July, authorities from the SDF-controlled Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) issued a general amnesty that has so far secured the release of over 1,500 Syrian ISIS fighters convicted of terrorism-related offenses, provided they “did not participate directly in combat” against the SDF.

Informed Iraqi sources speaking with The Cradle stated the US military ordered the release of the ISIS prisoners.

The US-backed SDF holds thousands of ISIS fighters and their family members in around two dozen prison camps in occupied northeast Syria. These include 2,000 foreigners whose home countries have refused to repatriate them.

The deployment of US and coalition troops to Kirkuk follows the Iraqi government’s signing on 1 August of a deal with UK oil giant BP to develop oil and gas fields in Kirkuk.

Iraqi Oil Minister Hayan Abdul Ghani and BP CEO Murry Auchincloss signed a memorandum of understanding, according to a statement from the office of Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani.

“The memorandum includes the rehabilitation and development of the four oil fields of the North Oil Company in Kirkuk, namely the Kirkuk oil field and the Bai Hassan, Jambur, and Khabbaz oil fields,” Sudani’s office said.

The US and Iraqi governments have been in negotiations for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq for months. In January, Prime Minister Mohammad Shia al-Sudani stated that US forces are no longer needed to maintain security in the country. US military leaders claim they must remain in Iraq to counter ISIS.

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a coalition of Iran-backed groups, has carried out attacks against US forces, including at the Ain al-Assad airbase on Monday, to pressure US leaders to order their withdrawal.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

Featured image: US soldiers in Kirkuk, Iraq on 29 March 2020 [Murtadha Al-Sudani/Anadolu Agency]

Posted in English
2 Comments
Tags: ISIS, Kirkuk, Terrorism, US military

Resisting AUKUS: The Paul Keating Formula

August 13th, 2024 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Thailand Aborts the Colour Revolution

August 13th, 2024 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

Japan’s Remilitarization — Maintain or Disrupt Regional Stability?

August 13th, 2024 by Alan Callow

Ucrânia praticando terrorismo nuclear em Kursk

August 12th, 2024 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Foto : A ZNPP, que foi construída entre 1984 e 1995, é a maior da Europa e está entre as 10 maiores usinas nucleares do mundo. Localizada no sudeste da Ucrânia, perto da cidade de Enerhodar, a usina gera 20% da eletricidade da Ucrânia. Os seis reatores, cada um com uma capacidade líquida de 950 megawatts, podem fornecer energia para quase 4 milhões de residências com uma produção total de eletricidade de 5.700 megawatts.

A escalada continua no sul da Rússia. Desde 6 de agosto, as hostilidades estão ocorrendo no oblast russo de Kursk. De acordo com notícias e informações recentes, o alvo real do ataque à região de Kursk é uma tentativa ucraniana de tomar e sabotar a usina nuclear de Kurchatov.

O alvo do ataque à região de Kursk é a NPP de Kurchatov. Os combates na região de Kursk estão acontecendo desde a manhã de 6 de agosto até o momento.

O assessor do chefe do gabinete do presidente da Ucrânia, Mykhailo Podolyak, disse que operações como as da região de Kursk “afetarão positivamente” as prováveis negociações com a Federação Russa, que podem ocorrer no outono de 2024.

Na verdade, Kiev tem planos de tomar a NPP de Kursk [foto abaixo] para começar a chantagear Moscou e realizar uma possível troca pela NPP de Zaporizhzhya, que atualmente é controlada pela Federação Russa como parte de seus Novos Territórios.

Fighting is ongoing а few dozen kilometres from Kursk Nuclear Power Plant – local authorities | Ukrainska Pravda

As ações terroristas do regime de Kiev há muito deixaram de surpreender todo o mundo ocidental, e muitos países de fato o apoiam diretamente. Assim, o Departamento de Estado dos EUA chamou o ataque à região de Kursk de uma questão soberana da Ucrânia. Os Estados Unidos mantêm contatos com a Ucrânia sobre a “operação” na região de Kursk, as decisões sobre tais ações permanecem com Kiev, como disse Matthew Miller, porta-voz do Departamento de Estado.

A Ucrânia tem o direito de determinar independentemente quais operações conduzir e quais objetivos perseguir, Miller declarou em um briefing. Ele também enfatizou que a administração dos EUA está consultando as autoridades ucranianas sobre o ataque das Forças Armadas Ucranianas na região de Kursk, o que confirma diretamente o envolvimento direto dos EUA na preparação e condução desta operação infame – que pode levar a um “segundo Chernobyl”, já que mísseis ucranianos foram repetidamente abatidos sobre Kurchatov (onde a NPP de Kursk está localizada) nos últimos dois dias.

Para aqueles que se esqueceram dos eventos em Chernobyl, vamos lembrar que o acidente da Usina Nuclear de Chernobyl ocorreu em 26 de abril de 1986. A destruição foi de natureza explosiva, a zona ativa do reator foi completamente destruída e uma grande quantidade de substâncias radioativas foi liberada no meio ambiente. O acidente é considerado o maior do gênero na história da energia nuclear, tanto em termos do número estimado de pessoas mortas e feridas por suas consequências, quanto em termos de danos econômicos. Aparentemente, a Ucrânia está correndo o risco de – ou até mesmo procurando – gerar um novo desastre dessa natureza.

Além disso, de acordo com a Forbes, soube-se que pelo menos três brigadas das Forças Armadas da Ucrânia, totalizando até 6.000 soldados, armados com equipamentos da OTAN, estão avançando na região de Kursk (veículos blindados de transporte de pessoal Stryker dos EUA e veículos de combate de infantaria Marder alemães, lançadores múltiplos de foguetes HIMARS, canhões autopropulsados Krab e outros equipamentos com eles), o que mais uma vez confirma o envolvimento direto do Ocidente na execução de chantagem terrorista contra a Rússia.

Podemos dizer com segurança que as ações do Ocidente e de seu fantoche ucraniano podem levar a uma nova catástrofe nuclear, uma espécie de “Chernobyl do século 21”, com a morte de milhares de civis – sem mencionar a moagem inútil de soldados ucranianos, que há muito são ignorados, porque a mobilização forçada na Ucrânia continua e não poupará ninguém.

Esta situação mostra muito claramente a natureza brutal e misantrópica do regime neonazista – algo que pode ser revertido apenas por meio da vitória militar russa.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Artigo em inglês :

Ukraine Using Nuclear Terrorism in Kursk. Towards a “Second Chernobyl”?, Global Research, 12 de Agosto de 2024.

Publicado primeiro no site VT Foreign Policy, 10 de Agosto de 2024

Imagem VT Foreign Policy

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

Posted in English, Português
2 Comments

US-NATO Are Afraid China Will Play an Active Role in Ukraine

August 12th, 2024 by Drago Bosnic

After the unfortunate dismantling of the USSR and Ukraine’s formal independence, the country was awash with high-tech weapons, industries, massive human capital and an enormous pool of natural resources “just waiting” to be exploited by foreigners.

As all of it found itself outside of the Soviet Union’s tight-knit command economy, it stopped functioning as intended. This colossal system that was previously very clear about everything and everyone’s role suddenly became divided into 15 “independent” parts that still needed each other to function. Initially, it still worked somehow, but the political West soon exploited the situation in the now defunct USSR and used its economic “hitmen” to launch the so-called “shock therapy” which effectively destroyed the economies of most former Soviet republics (with the notable exception of Belarus, where Alexander Lukashenko preserved the state system).

In such a situation, Russia found itself on the receiving end of those policies and couldn’t do much even if it wanted to, while China was still building its global power status. Thus, Beijing sought to acquire as many critical technologies and resources as possible, with a special focus on surface naval assets that it found strategically important. The crown achievement of this was the acquisition of the “Varyag”, a Soviet Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier that was wasting away in the Nikolayev Shipyard. After years of delays and American attempts to prevent the deal, China finally got the ship in 2002. The Asian giant also acquired an unfinished Su-33 (T-10K-3 prototype) from Ukraine, which was then reverse-engineered into the carrier-based J-15. Seeing just how many Soviet technologies China was getting from Ukraine, the United States was determined to prevent this at all costs.

This was to be accomplished either by dismantling (or simply destroying) various enterprises in the country or just putting them under the control of various puppet regimes in Kiev. The Zaporozhye-based “Motor Sich” was a particularly prized Soviet-era aircraft engine manufacturer that Beijing sought to acquire and transfer its technological know-how to China. However, in the aftermath of the NATO-backed Neo-Nazi coup, resulting in the start of the Ukrainian conflict, the US prevented any and all deals that it deemed “a national security risk”. Thus, “Motor Sich” was cut off from both Russia and China, the former being its biggest client, while the latter nearly became one. The company ameliorated this to some degree by cooperating with Turkey, but this was nowhere near its old Soviet-era glory. Either way, this showed China and the world that Ukraine simply lacks sovereignty.

Incapable of honoring international agreements, the Kiev regime has been kept under a firm US (neo)colonial grip for over a decade at this point, leaving Beijing uninterested in building closer ties with it. On the other hand, many elements within the Neo-Nazi junta itself wanted to thwart any potential for cooperation with China. One of the most prominent proponents of Sinophobic tendencies in the Kiev regime was the late General Viktor Gvozd, a former head of the infamous GUR, as well as the SZR (Foreign Intelligence Service), a rough counterpart to Russia’s SVR. Under Gvozd, the US and NATO acquired exclusive control over the Ukrainian intelligence apparatus. He was tasked with “purging Russian elements” from all services (or more precisely, any that weren’t pro-Western), making sure that the new NATO-backed Neo-Nazi regime fully controls the country by any means necessary, including through terror and brutality.

It can be argued that General Gvozd’s “restructuring” of former Ukrainian intelligence along NATO lines effectively turned these agencies into terrorist organizations, as evidenced by their close ties to Islamic radicals and various other extremists within Russia and other countries, with the goal of sowing discord and chaos. Naturally, the US, UK and EU/NATO also helped with this process. It should be noted that Gvozd was just as hostile to China, making sure that even remotely cordial relations between Beijing and the new NATO-backed authorities in Kiev were virtually impossible. General Gvozd perished after a diving accident in Egypt back in 2021, but the Neo-Nazi junta is still using his legacy to prevent somewhat normal relations with China. Dubbing him the “hero of the fight against Chinese expansion”, the Kiev regime media are even suggesting that “Beijing might’ve had a hand in his untimely demise”.

Although there’s no evidence to support such claims, this is a perfect excuse to ensure that China’s role in a potentially peaceful settlement in Ukraine can never be achieved. Washington DC and Brussels are interested in suppressing Beijing’s influence on the processes in Ukraine, as they view China as an ally of Russia. The goal of any new potential “peace summits” is to create the illusion that Moscow is “alone”, while the political West can continue faking the role of the so-called “international community” (a laughable attempt to present less than 18% of the global population as “the world”). The presence of China or any other BRICS member in any meaningful decision-making capacity would only undermine this “US + NATO + other vassals/satellite states are the world” narrative. The role of non-Western and non-Western-aligned countries is to be nothing more than an “inert audience”.

Expectedly, China and the rest of the actual world (you know, all of us “jungle people”) isn’t too keen on taking part in this “theater of the absurd”. This is precisely why Beijing was clear about not wanting to attend yet another pointless “Ukraine peace summit” without Russia’s presence. This was one of the reasons why the Neo-Nazi junta frontman Volodymyr Zelensky had a “sudden” change of heart, offering Moscow “a seat at the table”. On the other hand, the Kremlin is not very interested in talks with the Kiev regime that simply cannot keep its word, in part because it’s not sovereign, and in part because it’s clinically Russophobic (courtesy of NATO-backed Neo-Nazi elements of the Ukrainian society). Either way, as long as the West controls political processes in Ukraine, there’s no viable way to achieve peace and it’s clear that China itself doesn’t want to play a part in such a charade.

The only way to just scratch the surface of a non-military solution in Ukraine is to ensure that the political West is kept in check, meaning that the entire multipolar world should be included in the peaceful resolution of the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. However, for the US and its vassals and satellite states, this would mean they’d have to recognize BRICS as an equal in terms of international law and global balance of power. And yet, doing this would only give the multipolar world more legitimacy, which is a terrifying prospect for the world’s most aggressive racketeering cartel and the geopolitical outgrowth of Nazi German-led Axis powers. As one of the premier multipolar leaders, China is particularly disliked in the US-led power pole. Its unprecedented economic might and influence are seen as “dangerous”, as it cannot be exploited (or at least controlled) by the political West.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is by Dionne Gain/FAIRFAX MEDIA

Censorship on Steroids: Truthteller Alert

August 12th, 2024 by Joachim Hagopian

In the history books we learned about Nazis infamously burning books to censor truth in the past. In today’s computer age, the internet has served a similar function as the modern-day Gutenberg press that centuries ago began producing written language books as a milestone to early human achievement and scholarship. After all, knowledge is power and with today’s war against the truth, elites are dumbing us down to keep us both ignorant and powerless.

To a large degree, current censorship is manifesting as what’s called shadowbanning, defined as the act of muting a user or their content on an internet social media platform without informing them. An exponential surge of shadowbanning is now occurring as a form of major censorship on today’s web.

It turns out that the same powerbroking controllers that systematically bribe, blackmail and extort virtually all major government puppets in the world, invent divide and rule enemies to make nonstop war, impose bioweapon pandemics with mandated lockdowns and deadly bioweapons masquerading as vaccines, collapse national economies, cut off essential food and fuel supplies to render housing, food and fuel unaffordable to an increasing number of people on our planet, are also responsible for the tsunami of censorship on the internet.

At this late hour, on an unprecedented scale, globalists are now embarking on the modern equivalent to book burning, aggressively censoring internet access to the truth by using AI logarithms to silence the truthteller community attempting to inform the global masses of the latest destructive antihuman developments rapidly unfolding in our perilously troubled world. Those who are both active podcasters on various social media platforms as well as users of the popular platforms in the last few days are encountering a level of censorship never seen before. Those journalists writing for independent alternative news outlets are likewise seeing their work censored by all the major algorithmic search engines like Google. Today’s information war against truth is multipronged, and pervasively far reaching.

This article is an emergency information alert attempting to inform consumers/users of alternative news outlets and social media platforms whereby an increasing percentage of people that no longer use mainstream media for its proven false propaganda and mass manipulation. As a result, the CNNs and New York Times of this world are increasingly suffering massive layoffs and corporate downsizing because their customer base is drying up and dwindling in numbers as are numerous Big Tech giant social platforms like Facebook. Younger generations especially have turned to independent alternative news and less censored social media platforms for a more accurate account of news and information outflow today.

Today the powers-that-be, whose self-interests are to keep people ignorant, uniformed and fearful for control purposes, are resorting to aggressive censorship to willfully hide the truth from internet users. Since a small minority of powerbrokers engaging in criminal, treasonous behavior obviously wants the masses kept in the dark and oblivious, a growing effort to eradicate from the internet truthtellers by suppressing and concealing the free flow of truth and accurate journalism publicly exposing the elites is of utmost top priority to the controllers, especially since they are currently engineering unprecedented deadly crises targeting humanity for depopulation purposes.

This week many podcasters and independent journalists along with their growing number of consumers are reporting unprecedented levels of over-the-top censorship. Thousands, if not millions of internet users have abruptly found that their download and upload capabilities are now near zero, meaning the optimal levels of near 30 megabits per second (MBPS) for downloading and uploading that is generally the norm is overnight been reduced so significantly that it becomes nonfunctional for reaching website, viewing podcasts or even sending and receiving email.

Independent podcaster Maverick Artist Victor-Hugo Vaca and myself as an independent journalist-author have suddenly encountered massive censorship of our work on both social media and algorithmic search engines. Those of us truthtellers that are hitting the target exposing the criminal truth of our puppet governments and their puppet masters, have become the target of unprecedented levels of censorship intended to systemically silence us and deny those who seek information and news from online sources from access to inconvenient truths the controllers do not want people to know. Thus, internet users’ access to websites, especially the heavily censored ones like YouTube, Rumble, and even Bitchute now, are increasingly inaccessible. Broadcasts are algorithmically censored whereby increasing stretches of dialogue are also cut out in silence. This is clearly a First Amendment violation of both free expression and free speech.

Repeated, failed attempts by consumers to download and watch a given video that’s been intentionally altered and “buffered to death,” whereby constant intermittent freeze-ups occur, for instance, causing a short two-minute clip to take twenty minutes to get through it. This typically becomes so frustrating that consumers are no longer able to listen/watch video content on an alarmingly increasing number of platform venues suddenly this last week, essentially shutting down podcasts and podcasters from providing vital key information to consumers. The link to two recent podcasts that Victor-Hugo did with myself can be found here and also one with broadcast journalist Max Igan can be found here illustrating the obvious sabotage tampering. Also note the consumer comments. Victor’s podcast exposing the skullduggery is entitled “Censorship On Steroids Behind The Scenes Of The Information War Censored Podcast Of Censored Podcast” can be found here. Finally, a link to more comments about the sudden censorship can be found here.

Upon encountering the aforementioned problem, individual internet users may unwittingly conclude that the presence of increased technical problems, limitations and the inherently ensued frustration encountered may be caused from their own personal end based on their internet provider/server or their own electronic device rather than accurately attribute the problem to rampant malevolent censorship on steroids, willfully imposed by those afraid of the truth empowering people toward activism, revolt and opposition demanding accountability and justice. The elites are clearly afraid of our wrath as more of us awaken daily to the diabolical criminality that bloodline overlords are regularly and increasingly resorting to in order to escape justice.

The implications of this grave violation is designed to incapacitate our individual autonomy by effectively cutting off our informational access to the truth, and sabotaging and limiting our viably important communication. Just as the pathological agenda of lockdowns is/was to cut off human to human contact and radically lower the opportunity for the people to communicate with friends, family and their social network, the same consequence applies to limiting information gleaned from internet sources within its social milieu. This unprecedented and blatant straightjacketed lockdown on our internet informational exchange portends a foreboding future of what’s to imminently come our way as both a nation and human species.

The expanding imminent Israeli war and genocide in the Middle East where Bibi the Butcher Netanyahu is at will engaging in targeted assassinations of top Hamas, Hezbollah and even Iran Islamic resistance leaders is taking the war to a whole new, never before seen, dangerous level. Moreover, Israel publicly proclaiming probable pre-emptive major attacks on Lebanon, Syria and even Iran are clearly aimed to forcibly manipulate its cash cow military ally United States to enter into what amounts to a World War III Armageddon bloodbath on a historic, potentially unfathomable, devastating scale.

Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt and the mainstream fascist Big Tech factchecking industry are notoriously imposing censorship bans like there is no tomorrow. They are self-righteously proclaiming that any and all criticism of the genocidal murder perpetrated by Israel and its criminal co-accomplice America is blasphemously antisemitic, now increasingly criminalized as so-called “hate speech” when in fact it is neither. It is the ethical and moral stand that all moral people must take against unacceptable crimes against humanity. Yet this incessant criminal attack on our constitutional First Amendment rights of free speech and free press are currently being treasonously trampled on and destroyed. We must hold the violating traitors fully accountable. Our freedom and liberty are under unprecedented attacks by the growing authoritarian tyranny weaponized against today’s human population.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

This article was originally published on James H. Fetzer.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In Los Angeles he found himself battling the largest county child protective services in the nation within America’s thoroughly broken and corrupt child welfare system.

The experience in both the military and child welfare system prepared him well as a researcher and independent journalist, exposing the evils of Big Pharma and how the Rockefeller controlled medical and psychiatric system inflict more harm than good, case in point, the pandemic hoax and kill shot genocide. As an independent journalist for the last decade, Joachim has written hundreds of articles for many news sites, including Global Research, lewrockwell.com and currently https//jameshfetzer.org, Inteldrop.org and https://thegovernmentrag.com. As a published author of a 5-book volume series entitled Pedophilia & Empire: Satan, Sodomy & the Deep State, Joachim’s books and chapters are Amazon bestsellers in child advocacy and human rights categories. His A-Z sourcebook series fully document and expose the global pedophilia scourge and remain available free at https://pedoempire.org/content s/. Joachim also hosts the weekly Revolution Radio broadcast “Cabal Empire Exposed” on Friday morning at 7AM EST (ID: revradio, password: rocks!).

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Ukraine Using Nuclear Terrorism in Kursk. Towards a “Second Chernobyl”?

August 12th, 2024 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

Escalation continues in southern Russia. Since August 6, hostilities have been happening in Russian Kursk oblast. According to recent news, information, the actual target of the attack on the Kursk region is a Ukrainian attempt to take, sabotage the Kurchatov NPP.

Adviser to the head of the office of the President of Ukraine Mykhailo Podolyak said that such operations as in the Kursk region will “positively affect” the probable negotiations with the Russian Federation, which may take place in the fall of 2024.

In fact, Kiev has plans to seize the Kursk NPP (image below) in order to begin blackmailing Moscow and carry out a possible exchange for the Zaporizhzhya NPP, which is currently controlled by the Russian Federation as part of its New Territories.

Fighting is ongoing а few dozen kilometres from Kursk Nuclear Power Plant – local authorities | Ukrainska Pravda

The terrorist actions of the Kiev regime have long ceased to surprise the entire Western world, and many countries indeed directly support it. Thus, the US State Department called the attack on the Kursk region a sovereign matter of Ukraine. The United States maintains contacts with Ukraine regarding the “operation” in the Kursk region, decisions regarding such actions remain with Kiev, as said by Matthew Miller, spokesman for the State Department.

Ukraine has the right to independently determine what operations to conduct and what goals to pursue, Miller stated at a briefing. He also emphasized that the US administration is consulting with the Ukrainian authorities regarding the attack of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the Kursk region, which directly confirms the direct involvement of the US in the preparation and conduct of this infamous operation – which could ultimately lead to a “second Chernobyl”, since Ukrainian missiles have been repeatedly shot down over Kurchatov (where the Kursk NPP is located) over the past two days.

This photo was taken from a helicopter several months after the explosion. The destroyed Chernobyl reactor, one of four units operating at the site in Ukraine in 1986. No units operate today. (Chernobyl, Ukraine, 1986) Copyright: IAEA Imagebank Photo Credit: USFCRFC / Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

For those who have forgotten about the events in Chernobyl, let’s remind that the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident occurred on April 26, 1986. The destruction was explosive in nature, the active zone of the reactor was completely destroyed, and a large amount of radioactive substances were released into the environment. The accident is considered the largest of its kind in the history of nuclear energy, both in terms of the estimated number of people killed and injured from its consequences, and in terms of economic damage. Apparently, Ukraine is taking the risk to – or event looking for – generate a new disaster of such nature.

In addition, according to Forbes, it became known that at least three brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, numbering up to 6,000 soldiers, armed with NATO equipment, are advancing on the Kursk region (US Stryker wheeled armored personnel carriers and German Marder infantry fighting vehicles, HIMARS multiple rocket launchers, Krab self-propelled guns and other equipment with them), which once again confirms the direct involvement of the West in carrying out terrorist blackmail against Russia.

We can safely say that the actions of the West and their Ukrainian puppet can lead to a new nuclear catastrophe, a kind of “Chernobyl the 21st century”, with the death of thousands of civilians – not to mention the useless grinding of Ukrainian soldiers, who have long been ignored, because forced mobilization in Ukraine continues and will not spare anyone.

This situation shows very clearly the brutal, misanthropic nature of the neo-Nazi regime – something that can be reversed only through Russian military victory.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

This article was originally published on VT Foreign Policy.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

Featured image: Kursk NPP. Autumn 2010 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

Ireland: Financialisation of Housing and Elections – Where Do We Go From Here?

August 12th, 2024 by Eugene McCartan

The airways and newspapers have been full of discussion around the “housing crisis”, its nature and possible causes and effects. What was clear from the recent local election results is that the majority of those who voted did so for parties who support the status quo, who support the economic system we live under, or at least voted for no significant challenge or change to it, albeit with a desire to tinker around the edges.

The dominant ideology is still shaping how people act and respond to issues that affect them.

Housing is/was believed by most of the left to be the critical issue and thereby a vote catcher. They see housing as an easy attack on the soft underbelly of the powerful elites that run and control our lives.

Maybe there is a need for a reassessment of the impact of the “housing crisis”. The establishment are not interested in building large scale public housing. Rising house prices reinforce support for Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in their core voter base, which will ensure they keep getting elected. Rising house prices, asset inflation, is built into the system and reflects the financialisation of housing, leading to the financialisation of politics. That is why housing is not the electoral issue that some on the left think it is.

To a significant voting section of the electorate it is in their material self interest to want housing prices to keep rising. In addition, the state will protect the banks and financial institutions at all costs. A significant section of the voting population are people who are up to their necks in debt through mortgage repayments. So long as those prices keep going up, the stability of the financial sector is the critical priority for the state.

A significant number of voters are mortgaged to the hilt and don’t want negative equity, instead they want house prices to rise. While for workers with no pension, their house is their only asset for retirement, and for others’ end of life care, the “Fair Deal Scheme”. The political establishment and the state have forged many mechanisms to control people and their capacity to buck the system. The current system suits workers who already have a home. Increased household debt has also been proven to be connected to reduced industrial militancy in the unionised working class.

In relation to the private rental market, having a plentiful supply of cheaper public housing would undermine the private and corporate landlords, and the profitability and capitalisation levels of Irish Banks. This is reflected in the situation where many urban and rural councils have adopted a policy of securing long-term leases on privately developed housing for rent, with regular rent reviews built in to their contracts. Thus giving landlords private and corporate guaranteed rental income for 25 years, after which the asset will be returned to them refurbished by the state, and with 25 years of value accumulated.

The state has effectively stitched into the housing market permanent financialisation with interlocking interests. There will be a slow drip-feed of private housing to buy in order not the flood the market and thereby causing a possible negative equity.

So the demand for public housing owned and controlled by the state has to prevent the massive and ongoing transfer of public wealth to the owners of private capital. The need for public housing and reasonable rents can really only be delivered by a government who is willing to challenge powerful financial interests, both domestic and foreign. Here, the question of nationalisation of all corporate housing stock currently being rented by the state has also to be considered as a necessary step.

To address the housing crisis meaningfully is a significant challenge to the economic system in Ireland today, but to get there there is a need to both understand and unravel the various ways in which a section of the working class’ own material interests are tied to rising house prices.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

Featured image is from SV

Germany Must Reconsider Its Extreme Support for Israeli Aggression

August 12th, 2024 by Bharat Dogra

One of the most surprising as well as distressing aspects of the international response to the middle-east crisis relates to the almost unconditional support that Germany has extended to Israel’s genocidal actions against the people of Gaza. How can the government of Germany, which in the past has been speaking so much of protecting human rights, possibly justify this? Both its policy and the grounds on which it is supposed to be based should be questioned and challenged.

If in addition if it can be shown more effectively that this policy is harmful for Germany’s own interests and its international standing as well, then the case for changing this policy and instead have a more balanced and justifiable policy can be strengthened further.

The basic issues that are involved have been summarized well in a recent paper published at the website of German Institute for Development and Sustainability (IDOS) on May 2, 2024, titled ‘Germany’s support for Israel’s government changes the rules-based order’, written by Furness Mark and Max-Otto Baumann.

This paper states,

“Since the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, Germany has used the term ‘Staatsrason’ to justify its political and military backing for Israel’s war on Gaza. The principle is based on Germany’s responsibility for the holocaust and its consequent moral obligation to protect the Jewish people and their homeland, and is considered a moral foundation of the German state.”

After describing position of the German response, this paper also presents its critique of the same,

“By strictly adhering to Staatsrason in the current Middle-East crisis, the German government has backed itself into a corner…The unconditional support for the Israeli government undermines the moral responsibility to safeguard human life on which Staatsrason is based.”

In another review of this issue published earlier on April 2, 2024 in Stimson Center website titled ‘Germany’s blanket support for Israel has undermined its utility as a Middle-East mediator’ the author Sajjad Safaei has written

“Both at the level of discourse and policy, the country’s (Germany’s) ruling elites have emerged as among the most hawkish European’s supporters of Israel’s disproportionate response…At home German authorities stand accused of cracking down on public support for the Palestinian cause, effectively jeopardizing fundamental freedoms such as the right to protest.”

A report by BBC dated April 9 2024 titled ‘Germany says ‘history’ drives its support for Israel in ICJ case’ states, in the context of arguments at a case at the International Court of Justice against Germany filed by Nicaragua to press for stopping its very heavy weapons supply to Israel, states that according to the stand taken by Germany at the Court, support for Israel is at the core of its foreign policy. In this case Nicaragua accused Germany of breaking the UN genocide convention by supplying military hardware to Germany.

“Nicaragua says Germany’s arms sales to Israel which totaled $326 million last year (in 2023)—a tenfold increase on 2022—make it complicit in Israel’s alleged crimes. On the other hand Germany says that our history is the reason why Israel’s security has been at the core of Germany’s foreign policy.”

However this is more likely to be a case of seriously misreading history, or drawing all the wrong lessons from this. The lesson to be learnt is never, never again to destroy human life on a mass scale, particularly by targeting specially identified people.

Instead Germany is supporting genocidal actions of Israel for 10 months by supplying 30% of its weapon exports in 2023 and continuing these at high levels in 2024. In addition Germany has provided diplomatic and other support for these genocidal actions and turned away its eyes from the most terrible tortures. It has refused to be a part of hope-giving efforts aimed at permanent ceasefire. In the process Germany has increased the capacity of Israel to carry on its genocidal actions, and has done much harm to its reputation as a force of peace, justice and human rights. There is a very strong case for Germany to adopt a more balanced policy. European countries like Norway and Spain have adopted much better and credible policies within the constraints of being NATO members. Why can’t Germany do so?

Before concluding another question may be raised—how could Germany’s exports of arms to Israel increase ten-fold in 2023, compared to 2022? How is such a massive sudden increase of exports possible? The Stimson Center report quoted above tells us that 185 of the 218 arms export licenses generated in 2023 in Germany were after the Israeli offensive started. How can such a big increase in exports take place suddenly? So was there earlier sounding that a big increase of exports will be needed in and after October 2023 and to be prepared for this? If so, how could Israeli authorities know in advance that they will require a big increase in arms exports during and after October 7?

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, A Day in 2071, Man over Machine and Protecting Earth for Children. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

Posted in English
3 Comments
Tags: Gaza, Génocide, germany, human rights, israel, Palestine

Will the U.S. Continue to Help Israel Kill Palestinians and Steal Their Land Right Up to the November Elections?

August 12th, 2024 by Jay Janson

With coverage of the Paris Olympics and the novelty of a woman presidential candidate, and her ever provocative rival former President Trump vying for public attention, it will be some time before much CIA-overseen main stream media attention, if any, will revert to modest coverage of the colossal loss of Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank.

Will Any Powerful Global South Media Source Arise in the Meantime to bring public attention…

– to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians with U.S. weapons and ammo? – to the Israeli seizure of Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? – to the generations long illegal Israeli military occupation of Palestine? – to Israeli ‘right’ to imprison all of Gaza’s population? – to Israeli denial of Palestinian freedom as a nation.

BBC, Jun 7, 2024 — The UN has added the Israeli military to a list of offenders failing to protect children.

CNN, June 7, 2024 — UN adds Israel to global list of offenders that harm children

Will the Global South See the Murderous Nature of the U.S. Gov. in the Many Thousands of Murdered and Maimed Dear Palestinian Children

Quoting from “Gaza genocide enters month 11 as Israel provokes regional war in Palestine” by Maureen Clare Murphy, 08/08/2024, Counter Currents, Kerala, India

The government media office in Gaza says that since the beginning of Israel’s offensive in early October, more than 39,650 fatalities had been received at hospitals, including 16,365 children and more than 11,000 women, indicating that the vast majority of Palestinians killed were civilians. An additional 10,000 people remain missing under the rubble or their bodies not yet recovered from the streets or inaccessible areas.

The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor estimates that at least an additional 51,000 Palestinians have died as a result of Israel’s siege on Gaza and its deliberate collapse of the medical sector in the territory, as well as the widespread destruction of infrastructure and mass displacement of civilians, leading to the spread of disease.

Nearly three dozen hospitals and 68 health centers in Gaza have been knocked out of service due to Israel’s assault. Israel’s military offensive has inflicted $33 billion in “direct initial losses” overall, the government media office added.

After more than 300 days of genocide, the media office said, more than 91,500 people in Gaza had been injured, at least 36 people had starved to death, while nearly 900 medical workers and nearly 80 civil defense members were killed.

That the Israeli military had dropped 82,000 tons of explosives on Gaza, according to the office, destroying homes, universities, schools, mosques, churches, government buildings, sports and recreation facilities, water and hygiene infrastructure, and archaeological and heritage sites.

Meanwhile, Gaza has gone 300 days without electricity, the government media office said on Friday after Israel cut off the supply of power on 7 October and the only power plant in the territory was forced to shut down four days later after running out of fuel.

In what is widely cited as proof of Israel’s genocidal intent, Ghassan Alian, the head of the military body that deals with the civil administration of the occupation, said back in early October that “Israel has imposed a total blockade on Gaza, no electricity, no water, just damage.”

The absence of electricity has prevented the normal operation of vital infrastructure and services for Gaza’s population, which before the war stood at 2.3 million Palestinians. This includes health, water and sanitation facilities, schools, flour mills and bakeries. The resulting environmental catastrophe has allowed for the spread of diseases and the emergence of the highly infectious polio virus and meningitis.

The devilish commander of this living hell, Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was recently given standing ovations by most of the senators and representatives of a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

About 90 percent of children in Gaza lack nutrition and face “severe” threats to their “survival, growth and development”, according to the United Nations children’s agency, UNICEF.

The petty suppositions and calumny floated from all angles on mainstream media during the usual U.S. TV exaggerated extravaganza of a presidential election will not make the world at large forget the continuing genocidal inhumanity of the governments of U.S.A. and Israel.

Western media presenting U.S.A. election as of paramount importance will not diminish the ever growing outrage over the ghastly extirpation of the children of Gaza as this genocide gains more and more world wide shocking attention shaming the self-centred preoccupation of Americans and Israelis.

Bombing famine malnutrition disease deaths could reach near million proportion by November.

By November will not most all Jewish American voters will feel shame for the monstrous Israeli/U.S. Palestinian genocide.

On the other hand, will anti-semitism play a role in Trump voter turnout?

As he continues to super champion Israel, might Trump not come to realise that he could awake considerably long-standing traditional anti-Jewish fervour inherent within his far right constituency and thus might lessen voter turnout for Trump in November?

Your writer as a 93 year old is able to remember painfully and calculate approximately how many tens of millions of dear children in poor countries have been put to death by the military forces of his American government during his lifetime, always of course excused as not having been accomplished intentionally, but as “collateral damage” even if it is done day after day, year after year for decades past and/or an indeterminate time in the future in Gaza.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

This article was originally published on Countercurrents.

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India, in Germany & Sweden Einartysken,and in the US by Greanville Post, Dissident Voice; Global Research; Information Clearing House; Counter Currents; Minority Perspective, UK,and others; now resides in NYC; First effort was a series of articles on deadly cultural pollution endangering seven areas of life emanating from Western corporate owned commercial media published in Hong Kong’s Window Magazine 1993; Howard Zinn lent his name to various projects of his; Weekly column, South China Morning Post, 1986-87; reviews for Ta Kung Bao; article China Daily, 1989. Is coordinator of the Howard Zinn co-founded King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign, and website historian of the Ramsey Clark co-founded Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now Campaign, https://prosecuteuscrimesagainsthumanitynow.blogspot.com/ which contains a history of US crimes in 19 nations from 1945 thru 2012.

Featured image source

Posted in English
3 Comments
Tags: Gaza, israel, Palestine, US elections

9th Circuit: Feds Free to Censor ‘Anti-Vaccine’ ‘Misinformation’ Via Pressure on Social Media Companies

August 12th, 2024 by Ben Bartee

What a wild coincidence: one branch of government (judiciary) doesn’t mind another branch of government (executive) doing whatever it likes extraconstitutionally.

That’s called Democracy™, boys and girls, and it’s sacred.

Via Reuters (emphasis added):

“Meta Platforms defeated an appeal by Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine group founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., challenging its censorship of Facebook posts that spread misinformation about vaccines’ efficacy and safety.

In a decision on Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California, said the nonprofit did not show that Meta worked with or was coerced by federal officials to suppress views challenging “government orthodoxy” on vaccines.

Children’s Health Defense sued in 2020, saying that Meta had violated its constitutional rights by flagging “vaccine misinformation” as false, and taking away its right to advertise on Facebook.”

Not being a legal scholar, I’m sure there’s a good answer to this, but I’m not clear: why would CHD sue Meta and not the government for violating its First Amendment rights, when it was at the government’s behest that Meta acted?

Via Children’s Health Defense (emphasis added):

“CHD’s suit accused the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal agencies of “privatizing” the First Amendment by teaming up with Facebook to censor speech which, “under the Bill of Rights, the Government cannot censor.”

According to the lawsuit, filed in August 2020 — and amended in December 2020 — the CDC and the World Health Organization “collaborated closely with Facebook to suppress vaccine safety speech by using a ‘warning label’ and other similar types of notices which, while purporting to flag misinformation, in reality censor valid and truthful speech, including content posted by plaintiff on its Facebook page regarding vaccines.”

This collaboration amounted to “state action” and was in violation of the First Amendment, CHD said…

The court… ruled that CHD failed to allege any facts that would suggest an agreement between the government and Meta that “required Meta to take a particular action in response to misinformation about vaccines or that the government coerced Meta into implementing a specific policy.””

I must have skipped the day in Constitution Law at Valdosta State University when we learned that the Constitution carves out special powers for the government to interfere in a private company’s affairs in order to cajole them into suppressing speech it finds distasteful. My mistaken impression was that the First Amendment covered that whole issue pretty decisively.

Maybe it’s the ambiguous “promoting the general welfare” clause, which has been invoked in all manner of absurd government social engineering over the years.

These are not two people “talking to each other.” This is one entity — the government — with immense power to regulate, tax, and even shut down the other entity — Meta — if it doesn’t go with the program a la TikTok.

And Meta is massively exposed in multiple ways: it turns over private user data to shady third parties for cash; it breaches anti-trust laws; it colludes with hostile foreign governments, to name a few. Were the government so inclined, it could flush Meta down the memory hole into oblivion in a heartbeat.

But, this being anarcho-tyranny, it doesn’t, because Meta heels when it’s commanded to heel. Mark Zuckerberg is a good boy who behaves himself for his masters.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.

Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Follow his stuff via Substack. Also, keep tabs via Twitter.

Featured image is from Shutterstock/mundissima

Posted in English
2 Comments
Tags: 9th circuit, anti-vaccine, United States

The Serbian Government Is Inadvertently Responsible for the Latest Color Revolution Intrigue

August 12th, 2024 by Andrew Korybko

The problem is systemic and due to Serbia’s “national model of democracy” that’s taken root under Aleksandar Vucic during his decade in power as Prime Minister and now President.

The so-called “Bulldozer Revolution” that toppled the erstwhile Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic in 2000 is considered to be the first Color Revolution even though the concept of weaponized protests predates that drama. It’s for that reason why observers, especially those who support the emerging Multipolar World Order, take claims of another Color Revolution there very seriously. Such was the case over the past week after a Serbian newspaper warned about the opposition’s plot to seize power on Saturday:

“In the last phase of the plan for August 10, the organizers of the protest, if they think that there are enough people in the crowd that ready to resort to violence, will call on protesters to suddenly move toward the presidential palace and, amid unrest, attempt to capture and then assassinate President Vucic.

If they succeed, they will start a campaign of unprecedented proportions through their own media and friendly foreign media, with the aim to show that the assassination was a result of a spontaneous expression of general popular discontent and not an act of organized crime by the opposition and foreigners.

As their ‘reasoning,’ they will use the narrative that the so-called environmental protests were a genuine popular uprising from the beginning, even though so far we have seen and documented countless examples that almost all protests were organized by opposition parties and their satellites.”

Their article was followed the day after by President Aleksandar Vucic telling reporters that Russia passed along intelligence about an impending coup, thus lending credence to this scenario. Earlier that week, Bangladesh’s long-serving Prime Minister was deposed in its own Color Revolution that readers can learn more about here, so observers braced for the worst in Serbia. Although that didn’t transpire, the authorities still claimed that Saturday’s protest followed “the scenario of Color Revolutions”:

“The Serbian Ministry of Interior reports that after the end of protests on Terazije Square, serious violations of public order and law were committed. The organizers and instigators were warned by the police both before and during the protest that their actions were against the law. All those who committed crimes and misdemeanors will be prosecuted.”

What’s missing from their report is the fact that there’s genuine patriotic furor over Serbia’s deal with the German-led EU last month to restore Rio Tinto’s license to extract lithium from the country after it was rescinded in 2022 under popular pressure. President of the Srebrenica Historical Project Stefan Karganovic wrote about this in early July in his analysis for the Strategic Culture Foundation titled “The Lithium cabal defeated in Bolivia, but winning in Serbia.”

He lambasted the Serbian government’s corrupt practices and disregard for the people’s welfare with this deal, which many believe to be economically unfair and fraught with potentially devastating environmental consequences, warning that nationwide protests might follow. There had been two other large-scale protest movements in the past year over gun violence and alleged electoral irregularities, which were analyzed in these two pieces at the time:

7 June 2023: “Serbia’s Anti-Government Protesters Are A Mix Of Color Revolutionaries & Patriots”
25 December 2023: “The West Isn’t Content With Vucic’s Many Concessions And Wants Full Control Over Serbia”

To summarize, the first drew attention to how patriotic groups participated in last summer’s unrest in order to raise awareness of their concerns that the government is buckling under Western pressure on Russia and Kosovo. Although Serbia hasn’t sanctioned Russia, it voted against it at the UNGA and Vucic expressed a nonchalant attitude towards Serbian arms being funneled to Ukraine. As regards Kosovo, his government doesn’t formally recognize it, but certain moves in the past suggested informal recognition.

Regarding the second analysis, its content is self-explanatory: the West always wants more from its partners, who it treats as vassals, and considers each of their concessions to be a step closer to the goal of full control instead of compromises made under duress out of desperation to relieve pressure. In the Serbian case, they want Vucic to sanction Russia, openly transfer arms to Ukraine, and formally recognize Kosovo, none of which he can do though without risking a patriotic revolt.

This insight places the latest events into context. The Rio Tinto deal served as the trigger event for politically mobilizing a broad swath of anti-government activists, which includes bonafide Western assets, legitimate patriotic forces, and average citizens, each in advance of their own agenda. The involvement of the aforesaid assets suggested that their patrons might try to carry out a Color Revolution, hence Russia’s warning, but not all of the protesters were Color Revolutionaries.

Therein lies the crux though since Color Revolutionaries rely on the participation of other people in order to exploit them as de facto “human shields” behind which the rioters can hide for deterring the state from using forcible measures for restoring order as they try to seize control of the state. At the same time, despite being aware of these mechanisms given the “Bulldozer Revolution” from nearly one-quarter of a century ago, legitimate patriotic forces and average citizens still spilled into the streets.

They didn’t do this to aid the Color Revolutionaries but to make the point that they won’t let a few rotten apples spoil the whole batch and discredit anti-government protests in principle. About that, some have suspected that the government hypes up Color Revolution threats in order to pressure people from participating in protests, which then facilitates their alleged electoral irregularity schemes. After all, speculative rigging is easier to pull off if there aren’t frequent anti-government protests.

In any case, there wouldn’t have been any large-scale protests over the weekend had Serbia not restored Rio Tinto’s lithium extraction license, the decision of which will now be briefly analyzed. Depending on one’s perspective, it was either done with noble intentions, as part of some corrupt pact, or was yet another compromise made under duress out of desperation to relieve Western pressure. Whatever the motive may be, it brought Color Revolutionaries and legitimate patriotic forces alike into the streets.

It’s for this reason that observers can conclude that the Serbian government is inadvertently responsible for the latest Color Revolution intrigue since there wouldn’t have been any protests on Saturday had it not been for clinching that controversial deal last month. By doing so, the state created its own trigger event for politically mobilizing a broad swath of anti-government activists, within which were bonafide Western assets whose participation was hyped up to discredit everyone else’s.

Color Revolutionaries will take advantage of any cause to push their agenda, even patriotic and environmental ones, but that doesn’t mean that legitimate patriotic forces, environmental activists, and average citizens are all part of a foreign regime change plot. The reason why Serbia appears to regularly be on the brink of a Color Revolution is because there aren’t many – some would even that there aren’t any – viable pressure valves that people can resort to for channeling their frustrations with the state.

Protests are seen by some as the only form available for drawing attention to their concerns since most private media is either de facto controlled by the state or the West. Those Serbs who have no regime change intentions and just want to make the state aware of how upset they are with some of its policies can therefore only do so through mass demonstrations that are always at risk of being hijacked by Color Revolutionaries. This in turn creates a self-sustaining cycle of mutual mistrust and political escalation.

The problem is systemic and due to Serbia’s “national model of democracy” that’s taken root under Vucic during his decade in power as Prime Minister and now President. By fearmongering that every protest is a Color Revolution plot and depriving his people of viable pressure valves for channeling their frustrations, he brought a lot of this upon himself and risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unless this changes, Serbia will always appear (whether rightly or not) to be on the brink of another regime change.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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 regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

Posted in English
1 Comment
Tags: Aleksandar Vucic, Bulldozer Revolution, color revolution, Serbia

Genfer Gericht: Eltern dürfen Geschlechtsumwandlung ihrer 16 Jahre alten Tochter nicht verhindern

August 12th, 2024 by Christoph Pfluger

Die Eltern werden gezwungen, die dafür erforderlichen Dokumente herauszugeben. Bereits vor einem Jahr wurde die Tochter – damals 15 – gerichtlich von den Eltern getrennt.

Begonnen hatte das Drama 2021, als die damals 13-jährige Tochter im Zusammenhang mit psychischen Schwierigkeiten am Ende der Pandemie äusserte, ihre Geschlechtsidentität sei männlich.

Die Eltern schickten sie in psychotherapeutische Behandlung. «Aber die Schule führte gemeinsam mit dem Jugendamt und sowie der staatlich finanzierten Transgender-Lobbyorganisation Le Refuge gegen den ausdrücklichen Willen eine ‹soziale Transition› durch», wie die «Alliance Defending Freedom International» (ADF) schreibt. Die Tochter erhielt einen neuen Namen, männliche Pronomen und wurde als Junge behandelt.

Nachdem die Eltern den ärztlich angeordneten Einsatz von Pubertätsblockern ablehnten, wurde ihnen im April 2023 die Tochter per Gerichtsentscheid weggenommen und in einem Heim untergebracht. Sie bliebt aber offensichtlich unter dem Einfluss von Le Refuge, nach eigener Darstellung eine «Anlaufstelle für LGBTIQ+ Jugendliche in Schwierigkeiten», die u.a. vom Bundesamt für Gesundheit und vom Kanton Genf finanziell unterstützt wird.

Heute, mit 16 Jahren will die Tochter offenbar die Geschlechtsumwandlung vornehmen. Damit sie vollzogen werden kann, sind Ausweise nötig, zu deren Herausgabe die Eltern nun vom Berufungsgericht des Kantons Genf gezwungen werden.

Gemäss Artikel 30b des Schweizerischen Zivilgesetzbuchs ist die Zustimmung des gesetzlichen Vertreters für eine Geschlechtsumwandlung nicht erforderlich, wenn die betreffende Person das 16. Altersjahr vollendet hat. Die Entscheidung über die eigene Identität sei ein rein persönliches Recht, das der Tochter zugestanden werden müsse, argumentierte das Gericht.

Gemäss ADF hielt dem die Verteidigung der Eltern entgegen, dass die langfristigen gesundheitlichen Folgen einer „Transition“ von einem Teenager mit psychischen Problemen nicht eingeschätzt werden könnten. Dieser Umstand hätte nach geltendem Recht in Betracht gezogen werden können.

Felix Böllmann, deutscher Anwalt und bei ADF International für den Fall verantwortlich, sagte:

«Das Gericht sollte das Kindeswohl und die Rechte der Eltern hochhalten, statt mit ideologischen Konzepten Kinder und Eltern auseinanderzureissen. Die Schweizer Behörden sollten lieber einen Blick nach UK wagen, wo das Höchstgericht das Verbot von Pubertätsblockern gerade bestätigt hat. Die Schweiz sollte dem britischen Vorbild folgen: Kindeswohl und Elternrechte haben Vorrang.“

Die Eltern erwägen einen Weiterzug an das Bundesgericht.

Ein skandalöser Fall. Im Hintergrund steht die Ideologie, dass das Geschlecht nicht mehr durch die Biologie bestimmt wird, sondern durch eine gefühlsmässige Selbstwahrnehmung, die man dann durch medizinische Eingriffe zur biologischen Realität machen will. Dass das keine gute Idee ist, zeigt eine Studie aus Dänemark von 2023, die erste landesweite ihrer Art. Resultat:

Transgender-Personen versuchen sich achtmal häufiger das Leben zu nehmen als Nichttransgender-Personen, vollendete Selbstmorde sind dreieinhalb mal häufiger. Das wäre doch wieder einmal ein Stück Wissenschaft, das man ernst nehmen sollte.

Quellen:

ADF Int.: Schweizer Gericht verurteilt Eltern zur Herausgabe von Personalausweis für rechtlichen „Geschlechtswechsel“ der 16-jährigen Tochter. 31.7.2024

ADF Int. (youtube): Parents lose daughter to trans ideology: “They took our daughter away”

Infosperber: Die unerwünschten Folgen einer Geschlechtsumwandlung. 30.8.2023

NZZ: Immer mehr Mädchen wollen Jungen sein – und Ärzte geben dem Transgender-Trend trotz Risiken nach. 5.11.2020

Emma: England verbietet Pubertätsblocker. 14.3.2024

Univadis: Stark erhöhte Rate an Suizid-Versuchen unter Transgender-Personen. 29.7.2024

Posted in Deutsch, English
2 Comments

Geneva Court: Parents May Not Prevent Their 16-year-old Daughter’s Sex Change

August 12th, 2024 by Christoph Pfluger

Introduction

This case describes a crime imposed upon the world by the international WOKE agenda, which is against all common laws, superseded by the so-called Rules-based Order — or better, the Rules-based Disorder, made up by a small ultra-wealthy elite, self-declared rulers of the world.

The story is a concrete case happening right on the doorsteps of the Swiss citizenry, but hardly anyone knows about it. The mainstream media does not regularly cover it.

The Swiss Court is citing Article 30b of the Swiss Civil Code, according to which gender changes for persons age 16 and above, do no longer require parental approval.

However, what this Article 30b does not cover is that the LGBTIQ+ propaganda in public schools started at least three years earlier, when the girl was a mere 13 years old, certainly an illegal move, either coming down from the highest level of the Swiss Government, or tolerated by it.

This Woke Agenda is playing out throughout Europe, the United States and the Western world in general.

Why? Is it because Queers and transgender people do not have children?

The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Great Reset, as well as the Club of Rome, headquartered in Winterthur Switzerland, outlined in its first infamous report, “Limits to Growth” (1972) that the world is overpopulated and requires a massive population reduction.

See this recent video (also below) by one of the original authors of Limits to Growth – Dennis Meadows, who is also a member of the WEF.

Since this topic is scarcely covered by the media, this concrete case should be brought to international attention, so that citizens of the world may identify with their own cases and resist.

—Peter Koenig, 12 August 2024

***

Geneva court: parents may not prevent sex change for their 16-year-old daughter

By Christoph Pfluger, 4 August 2024, translated from German

The parents are forced to hand over the necessary documents. A year ago, the daughter – then 15 – was separated from her parents by court order.

The drama began in 2021 when the then 13-year-old daughter expressed that her gender identity was male. This, in connection with psychological difficulties at the end of the pandemic.

The parents sent her to psychotherapy. “But the school, together with the youth welfare office and the state-funded transgender lobby organization Le Refuge, carried out a ‘social transition’ against the expressed wishes of her parents.” So, writes the Alliance Defending Freedom International (ADF). The daughter was given a new name, male pronouns and was treated as a boy.

After the parents refused the medically prescribed use of puberty blockers, their daughter was taken away from them by court order in April 2023 and placed in a home. However, she apparently remained under the influence of Le Refuge, a “drop-in center for LGBTIQ+ young people in difficulty”, which is financially supported by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health and the Canton of Geneva, among others.

Today, at the age of 16, her daughter apparently wants to undergo gender reassignment surgery. For it to be carried out, identification documents are required, which the parents are now being forced to hand over by the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Geneva.

According to Article 30b of the Swiss Civil Code, the consent of the legal representative is not required for a gender reassignment if the person concerned has reached the age of 16. The court argued that the decision about one’s own identity is a purely personal right that must be granted to the daughter.

According to the ADF, the parents’ defense countered that the long-term health consequences of a “transition” could not be assessed by a teenager with mental health problems. This circumstance could have been taken into consideration under the applicable law.

Felix Böllmann, German lawyer and responsible for the case at ADF International, said:

“The court should uphold the best interests of the child and the rights of the parents instead of using ideological concepts to tear children and parents apart. The Swiss authorities would do better to look to the UK, where the Supreme Court has just upheld the ban on puberty blockers. Switzerland should follow the British example: Child welfare and parental rights take precedence.”

The parents are considering an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.

A scandalous case. In the background is the ideology that gender is no longer determined by biology, but by an emotional self-perception, which is then to be turned into a biological reality through medical interventions. A study from Denmark in 2023, the first nationwide study of its kind, shows that this is not a good idea.

Results of the study show that transgender people are eight times more likely attempting to take their own lives than non-transgender people, and completed suicides are three and a half times more common. Once again, that would be a piece of science that should be taken seriously.

Sources (in German – for the links see link to German article, at beginning of this English version):

ADF Int: Swiss court orders parents to hand over ID card for 16-year-old daughter’s legal “gender change”. 31.7.2024

ADF Int (youtube): Parents lose daughter to trans ideology: “They took our daughter away”

Infosperber: The undesirable consequences of gender reassignment. 30.8.2023

NZZ: More and more girls want to be boys – and doctors are giving in to the transgender trend despite the risks. 5.11.2020

Emma: England bans puberty blockers. 14.3.2024

Univadis: Highly increased rate of suicide attempts among transgender people. 29.7.2024

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

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

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

Featured image: © KEYSTONE / PETER SCHNEIDER

Occupation of Palestine Is Illegal – ICJ

August 12th, 2024 by Jimmy Doran

The day after the ruling elites of the EU elected pro-Israel Ursula Von der Leyen as President of the European Commission, the International Court of Justice ruled that the occupation of Palestine is illegal. There has been almost no coverage of this historic ruling by the western media.

In December 2022 the 193 countries of United Nations general assembly agreed to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) two questions:

To give its opinion on the policies and practices of Israel towards Palestinians.

The legal status of occupation of the Palestinian territories.

A record number of countries, over 50, intervened on behalf of Palestine in this case and made arguments at the ICJ. Israel’s backers, the United States, Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia and others voted against it and argued for the court to drop the case. The ICJ rejected their arguments.

On the 19^th of July 2024 the court gave their opinion, that the ICJ:

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful;

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible;

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has the obligation to make reparations for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

Is of the opinion that all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

Is of the opinion that international organizations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

Is of the opinion that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly, which requested this opinion, and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to bring to an end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Israelis have built 160,000 illegal settlements housing 700,000 people in The West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967.

All countries now are obliged under international law to stop all relations with Israel, no trade, no aid, no complicity, no arms, no assistance of any kind, no money, no actions of any kind to support Israel’s illegal occupation, apartheid and genocide against the Palestinian people.

A resolution reflecting this will now be put forward at the UN general assembly.

This is a historic step towards Justice, everything Palestinians have been saying for decades has just been enshrined in law at the highest level. Under international law, Israel does not have a right of “self-defence” against a territory that it occupies and, more than that, people in the occupied territory in Gaza have the right of armed resistance against their occupier. Israel’s propaganda and lies are no more, the ICJ has exposed Israel for what it is, a genocidal apartheid state propped up by EU, US and British Imperialism.

Palestinian officials have hailed the International Court of Justice ruling as a “watershed moment” in their decades-long fight for justice. Israel quickly condemned Friday’s decision, while its top ally the United States also criticised it.

The day after the ruling Israel bombed three countries – Yemen, Lebanon and Palestine – killing and maiming many civilians. The genocidal ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people continues and is barely reported by the complicit western media.

Nothing is going to change without people of the world uniting to put pressure on governments to act and to force Boycott, Divestment and Sanction on Israel until this illegal occupation and slaughter ends. The old world is dying and a new one struggles to be born.

Don’t stop talking about Palestine!

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

Featured image is a UN Photo / licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Posted in English
1 Comment
Tags: ICJ, Israeli occupation, Palestine

Sudan Is Starving and Ignored

August 12th, 2024 by Steven Sahiounie

While the eyes of the world is focused on the Israeli genocide on Gaza, Sudan is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis as widespread hunger and malnutrition plague the nation. The Sudan starvation crisis emerged as a direct consequence of armed conflict. There is a need for immediate international intervention to stop the starvation of millions in Sudan.

There are more than nine million people across 18 states of Sudan that are facing food shortages that have caused malnutrition and death. More than 800,000 of those are at risk of immediate starvation.

According to an analysis by Save the Children, some 16.4 million children, or three in every four in the country, are now facing ‘crisis’, ’emergency’ or ‘catastrophe’ levels of hunger – up from 8.3 million just last December.

The United Nations reported that there are more than 10 million people who have been displaced in Sudan since the conflict began in April 2023 and nearly 25 million people are in need of aid, according to the UN.

undefined

A screengrab from VOA’s Number of Refugees Who Fled Sudan for Chad Double in Week. This is a refugee camp in Chad. (From the Public Domain)

Escalating Conflict and Displacement

The Sudanese conflict started in April 2023 between the Sudanese army under Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by his former deputy, Mohamed Hamdan Daglo. Sudan’s army suggested to the RSF to unite and form one national army, but General Mohamed Hamdan Daglo “Hemedti” refused and started attacking Sudan’s army.

Sudan has been bearing the brunt of political instability for decades. Internal conflicts, fueled by ethnic tensions, political power struggles, and resource disparities, have created an environment of violence and insecurity. By 2024, these factors reached a boiling point, resulting in widespread displacement of communities, disruption of agricultural activities, and destruction of vital infrastructure. As a consequence, access to food, clean water, and healthcare services significantly diminished, pushing the nation further down a path of starvation.

The Two Sides of the Conflict of Sudan

General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as “Hemedti”, is the leader of RSF. He came to prominence as the deputy leader of a transitional council launched after former strongman Omar al-Bashir was overthrown in 2019. Dagalo was born around 1974 into the Mahariya tribe of the Rizeigat community in Darfur, the nephew of a tribal chief in the camel-trading branch of the Rizeigat. According to human rights groups have accused the Janjaweed of war crimes – including killings, rapes and torture of civilians – throughout the conflict in Darfur.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said doctors and nurses have been killed and wounded, and many health facilities have been damaged by shelling and airstrikes since the conflict broke out in mid-April last year.

The first appearance of the RSF was in 2013 under Dagalo’s leadership. It combined elements of the Janjaweed into a new force under the auspices of al-Bashir and his National Intelligence and Security Services.

Abdel Fattah al-Burhan

Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan is known to be a powerful military commander who has for years been a de facto leader of the African nation. Little known before 2019, General al-Burhan rose to power in the tumultuous aftermath of the military-led coup that ousted Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the authoritarian leader who was deposed after popular uprisings in 2019.

Economic Instability and Food Inflation

The Sudanese economy has been marred by mismanagement, corruption, and the effects of economic sanctions, resulting in skyrocketing inflation and a depreciating currency. High food prices have pushed a significant portion of the population into extreme poverty, making it even harder for them to secure adequate nutrition. Basic commodities, including grains and meat, have become unaffordable for the majority of the Sudanese people, pushing them further into the grip of starvation.

According to Sudanese economical experts, the Sudanese pound continues to collapse against foreign currencies, exacerbating the financial strain on millions of Sudanese who have lost most of their income due to the ongoing conflict. The Sudanese national bank “Bank of Khartoum” offered to buy dollars at 1,860 pounds and sell them at 1,873 pounds while offering the Saudi riyal for purchase at 501.49 pounds and selling it at 505.25 pounds.

Economic expert Mohamed Al-Nayer told the media that while a decline in the national currency is expected during the war, the government’s inaction in addressing the issue is concerning. Al-Nayer urged authorities to implement measures to halt the currency’s deterioration, such as withdrawing large pound denominations from circulation, restricting luxury imports, boosting exports, rationalizing public spending, and increasing revenue. Mohamed Al-Nayer highlighted that 95% of the money supply being held by the public contributes to the imbalance that fuels the parallel currency market, necessitating urgent intervention.

Health Crisis in Sudan

Because of the conflict there is More than 70% of health facilities in conflict-affected regions are inoperable or closed. Disease outbreaks, including measles and cholera, are rampant, with the number of suspected cholera cases surpassing 11,000 as of May 2024.

Food Insecurity

18 million people are experiencing severe levels of acute food insecurity, with 5 million at risk of catastrophic hunger. High rates of malnutrition, a debilitated health system, and low levels of immunization exacerbate the crisis.

The Urgent Need for International Intervention

While the Sudanese government has made efforts to address the growing crisis, the scale and complexity of the situation require immediate international support. The international community must step up efforts to provide humanitarian aid, including food supplies, clean water, and medical resources. Furthermore, long-term investments are crucial to rebuilding Sudan’s agriculture and infrastructure, promoting sustainable livelihoods, and improving climate resilience.

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) is on the ground, providing vital support through economic empowerment services, health and nutrition programs, water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services, and protection and empowerment services for women and children.

A Sudanese woman, age 46, who escaped from the conflict said that her and her nine children had to flee their home in Khartoum. Now in Gedaref, they face the challenge of living in temporary housing with limited protection from weather conditions.

Collaborative Efforts and Sustainable Solutions

Sudan’s rival groups have arrived in Geneva after the United Nations invited them discuss the protection of civilians through possible local ceasefires, UN officials said Thursday. But one side did not show up for the talks on the first day.

The talks come on the back of two UN Security Council resolutions on Sudan passed earlier this year.

“The focus is based on the resolutions: measures to be undertaken to ensure the distribution of humanitarian assistance to all the Sudanese population in need, and options to ensure the protection of civilians across Sudan,” said Mr. Vellucci, the UN envoy to Sudan.

The conflict in Sudan is not something new. For decades they have been suffering conflicts, starvation, political unrest, and climate change challenges, but because of racism many don’t care about the suffering of the African people in general, and the Sudanese people.

The 2024 Sudan starvation crisis paints a grim picture of a nation battling multiple fronts—a complex interplay of armed conflict, economic instability, climate change, and shattered infrastructure. The international community must recognize the urgency of the situation and extend immediate support to alleviate the suffering of millions. Empowering the Sudanese people, aiding in agriculture and economic stability, and promoting sustainable practices will be crucial in building a brighter and more resilient future for Sudan. Let us unite in our efforts to combat starvation and ensure that Sudan’s citizens are not forgotten.

One Month Before Global Research’s Anniversary

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

Vladimir Putin and Klaus Schwab “Go Way Back”. Does Putin Support the Covid Vaccine?

August 12th, 2024 by Riley Waggaman

Schwab meets both Putins. In each case, Masonic thumbs get a workout.

Putin is a Rothschild boy like all world mis-leaders.

Mankind is the victim of a diabolical plot to start WW3.

“Sputnik V” Is the Model Great Reset Drug

With the Most Obvious Direct Ties to the World Economic Forum

Yet it’s the one “vaccine” that isn’t being linked to it

Source

In January of 2021, Putin gave a keynote (virtual) address before the World Economic Forum. The theme: “The Great Reset.”

Beginning his speech with a warm “dear Klaus,” Putin recalled how he first met Mr. Schwab in 1992 and since then had regularly attended events organized by the Fourth Industrial Revolution visionary.

Putin used his address to urge for “expanding the scale of [COVID] testing and vaccinations” across the globe–policies that have ushered in worldwide medical apartheid.

Echoing the sentiments of western leaders, Putin also argued that the global economy would need to be rebuilt from the ground up by central banks:

[T]he key question today is how to build a program of actions in order to not only quickly restore the global and national economies affected by the pandemic, but to ensure that this recovery is sustainable in the long run, relies on a high-quality structure and helps overcome the burden of social imbalances. Clearly, with the above restrictions and macroeconomic policy in mind, economic growth will largely rely on fiscal incentives with state budgets and central banks playing the key role.

The Russian president has repeatedly stated vaccination should be voluntary—but his personal opinion has had no impact on actual policy. All 85 regions of Russia now have decrees requiring certain segments of the population to get the shot.

On December 17, 2021, Putin voiced support for a nationwide QR code law—one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in recent Russian history. The introduction of digital health IDs would in essence make vaccination compulsory for those who want to partake in life’s most ordinary activities.

In late November, after the health ministry approved “Sputnik-M”—Russia’s COVID shot for ages 12-17—Putin suggested authorities begin “thinking about” vaccinating children starting from the age of two.

How many two-year-olds have died from COVID in Russia? (Trick question: the Russian government doesn’t disclose COVID-linked deaths by age group. In fact, the Russian government refuses to publish lots of highly important COVID-related data, including statistics on post-vaccination side effects. Why?)

Time for a Rethink?

In October, RT.com ran a provocative op-ed describing the Great Reset as a “cartoonish fantasy that will hand the global elite even more power.”

The piece lists various world leaders–including Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, and Angela Merkel–as devout followers of Schwab. No mention of Russia anywhere.

The irony, of course, is that Sputnik V is practically the official vaccine of the WEF–and the Russian government is among Schwab’s biggest fans.

ANNEX

Relevant Videos (Selected by Global Research)

President Putin on the Covid Vaccine, Address to WEF, June 2021

Address by President Putin at the World Economic Forum on the Global Economy and the Pandemic

(27 January 2024)