First published by GR in December 2015

On April 26, 2018 the National Archive released 19045 classified documents on the JFK assassination:  

In accordance with President Trump’s direction on October 26, 2017, the National Archives today posted 19,045 documents subject to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act).   Released documents are available for download.  The versions released today were processed by agencies in accordance with the President’s direction that agency heads be extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement.

***

The following essay is based on a talk given by Peter Dale Scott at the Third Annual JFK Assassination Conference in Dallas, 2015. (Produced by TrineDay Books, Conscious Community Events, and the JFK Historical Group.). It was first published by Who What Why and Global Research on December 24, 2015 

(This is Part 1 of a three-part series. For Part 2, please go here, and for Part 3, go here.)

Why Helms Perjured Himself

I wish in this essay to show how Richard Helms first lied to the Warren Commission about the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald. I argue that his performance, and that of other CIA officials up to the present, constituted significant obstruction of justice with respect to one of this country’s most important unsolved murder cases.

image right: Peter Dale Scott

Furthermore, we can deduce from the carefully contrived wording of Helms’s lies what the CIA most needed to hide: namely, that the CIA had recently launched a covert operation involving the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (and perhaps Oswald himself), only five weeks before President Kennedy was killed.

That operation—either in itself, or because it was somehow exploited by others—would appear to have become a supportive part of the assassination plot. It seems almost certain moreover that the “Oswald operation” became the focal point of the ensuing CIA cover-up, and of Helms’s perjury.

As I relate in my book Dallas ’63: The First Revolt of the Deep State Against the White House, there was culpable lying and cover-up from many others in high places, including individuals in the FBI, the Secret Service, ONI, and probably still more military intelligence agencies.

For example, the FBI first reported truthfully to both LBJ and the Secret Service on November 23 that a recording of someone calling himself “Lee Oswald” in Mexico City had been listened to by FBI agents in Dallas, who were “of the opinion that [the man in Mexico] was not Lee Harvey Oswald”.[1]

Two days later Dallas FBI agents, along with the FBI Legat in Mexico City, reported falsely on November 25 that “no tapes were taken to Dallas”.[2] Subsequently the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) used this false report, compounded by false and misleading logic, to conclude that there was no “basis for concluding that there had been an Oswald imposter”.[3]

We should not conclude from the change in the FBI’s story about the tapes that either it, or still less the HSCA, was involved in the Kennedy assassination. It does however seem extremely likely that further investigation of the Oswald imposter in Mexico City would have, one way or another, have led to exposure of the CIA’s Oswald operation exposed in this essay.

The CIA and FBI were not alone in their post-assassination falsification of facts about Oswald. At one point even the Mexican government participated in this high-level cover-up: It supplied when needed a falsified bus manifest and later a falsified version of its statement taken from Cuban Consulate official Silvia Durán.[4]

Without doubt the post-assassination cover-up of what happened was high-level, and widespread.

But the CIA lies differ from those of other agencies in two important respects. First, the CIA was lying about Oswald before the assassination, as well as after. Specifically the CIA lied about Oswald on October 10, 1963, in two important and lengthy outgoing cables, DIR 74673 and 74830, about which I shall say much more.[5] Second, the CIA lies have also continued over time, and can be construed as an on-going obstruction of justice.

One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize this. Tim Weiner, a New York Times journalist, has written a well-informed book about the CIA, Legacy of Ashes. In that book he, like other mainstream journalists, describes Oswald as a lone assassin. And yet he still acknowledges that the conduct of James Angleton, the CIA’s Chief of Counterintelligence (CI), was “an obstruction of justice.”[6]

Richard Helms Lies to the Warren Commission, March 1964

Let us now look at Helms’s informative lies about the CIA and Oswald. On March 6, 1964, from Richard Helms sent an important memo to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission staff. This memo was the first page of what we know as Warren Commission Document 692, the so-called “CIA’s Official Oswald Dossier.” In this memo, which was declassified in 1973, Helms wrote, “There is attached an exact reproduction of the Agency’s official dossier on Lee Harvey OSWALD beginning with the opening sheet dated 9 December 1960.”[7]

There was a lot concealed by this sentence. To begin with, the CIA did not have just one “official dossier” on Oswald but at least two. Helms was referring to the so-called 201 Counterintelligence file on Oswald. But there was at least one other official Oswald file, in the Office of Security. In addition we know of a so-called “soft file” on Oswald maintained in the Soviet Russia division of the CIA’s Department of Plans, and there may have been more.

Much more importantly, what Helms gave the Commission was far from “an exact reproduction” of the actual Counterintelligence Oswald file. Instead he transmitted a radically curtailed version of it in a new file of March 1964  (XAAZ 22592), which the CIA much later acknowledged was a file “prepared [the CIA’s word] for the Warren Commission.”[8] The word “prepared” is important. Like ONI, and almost certainly the FBI, Helms and the CIA did not deliver “an exact reproduction” of an original Oswald file, but of a file that had been belatedly “prepared” in March for others to see.[9]

CIA Lies about Oswald, October 1963

In the redaction of this 201 file prepared for the Warren Commission the CIA removed the most sensitive and relevant portion of the original: a series of cables in and out of CIA Headquarters concerning Oswald, beginning just six weeks before the assassination.[10] (It is clear from a much later CIA document that the original copies of these cables were located in Oswald’s Counterintelligence file, 201-289248).[11] In their place was a sanitized and in some respects inaccurate description of these messages, supplied earlier as Warren CD 347 of January 31, 1964. In September 1992 a CIA Memo to the National Archives admitted that these cables were only “added [i.e. restored] to the ‘pre-assassination’ [CIA’s quotes] file (XAAZ 22592) after the file was prepared for the Warren Commission.”[12]

(Helms’s memo described the January 1964 memo in the “prepared” file as covering “all substantive developments affecting CIA in the matter of Lee Harvey OSWALD from 9 October to 22 November 1963.” We shall have more to say about this contorted legal language below, when we come to discuss Helms’s perjury.

As most assassinations researchers know, the suppressed materials began with MEXI 6453, a cable from Mexico City on October 9, reporting that “an American male who… said his name [was] Lee Oswald” had spoken of meeting in the Soviet Embassy with the “Consul, whom he believed [to] be Valeriy… Kostikov.”[13] (The source for this cable was LIENVOY, a CIA tap on the Soviet Embassy telephone, which produced the tape listened to on November 23 by FBI agents in Dallas.)

The news in this cable was, if true, important and indeed explosive information. Kostikov was a known KGB agent, and the FBI believed he was also an assassination agent. True or false, the news would become even more sensitive after the Kennedy assassination was blamed on Oswald, setting off what I have called the “Phase One” story that the KGB night have been responsible for the president’s murder. It is now firmly established that this Phase One story (later replaced by the more innocuous Phase Two story that the president was killed by a lone nut) was the story used by Johnson to persuade Chief Justice Ear Warren and others to serve on the Warren Commission.

CIA headquarters, in response to this report, sent out two cables on October 10, which transmitted more information about Oswald that was in places both false and mutually contradictory. The cable to CIA Mexico began with the claim “Lee Oswald who called Sovemb 1 Oct probably identical Lee Henry Oswald… born 18 Oct 1939,” even though the authors of the cable knew very well the real name of the man born in 1939 was Lee Harvey Oswald; “Lee Henry Oswald” was a name invented in 1960 by one of the cable’s authors and used only in some CIA records.[14]

Of the other falsehoods, one will deserve further attention: the claim that “Latest HDQS info was [State] report dated May 1962 saying [State] had determined Oswald is still US citizen and both he and his Soviet wife have exit permits and Dept State had given approval for their travel with their infant child to USA.” [15]

This claim that CIA last heard of Oswald when he was still in Russia was not just absurdly false, it was a lie. The CIA had received many FBI reports since his return, and we know from their CIA Routing Sheets that some of those signing off on the October 10 cable had seen these reports. Just two weeks before the cable, the CIA had received an FBI report of September 24 on Oswald’s arrest in New Orleans; and the Routing Sheet for that report shows that two of the CIA officers who signed off on the cable (John Whitten and Jane Roman) had read it.[16]

(After the two falsified cables were released, CIA Counterintelligence officer Jane Roman was interviewed about them by John Newman and Jefferson Morley. Faced with the clear evidence of falsehood, Roman conceded, “Yeah, I mean I’m signing off on something that I know isn’t true.”[17])

Explanation for CIA October Lies about Oswald: a Counterintelligence LCIMPROVE Operation

One explanation for these pre-assassination falsehoods is relatively clear: the cables were part of a counterintelligence operation. This was confirmed by the release of the MEXI 6453 cable in 1993 with its “action indicator,” LCIMPROVE, no longer redacted.

An LCIMPROVE operation, the CIA later explained to the House Committee on Assassinations, referred to  “Counter Espionage involving Soviet intelligence services (worldwide)”,[18] LCIMPROVE operations had targeted Soviet officials in Oswald’s orbit since at least 1959, when one target was the Soviet consul in Finland (Gregory Golub) who issued Oswald a visa to enter the Soviet Union.[19] Another LCIMPROVE target in 1963 was a Soviet Embassy companion of Valeriy Kostikov, who was himself a target of a CIA recruitment operation (“REDCAP”).[20]

Another sign that the cables were part of an operation is that the October 10 reply to Mexico was authenticated by William Hood, the Chief of Operations for the CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division.[21] In other words, a lie on October 10 in a cable about Oswald was not necessarily culpable, merely evidence of a counterintelligence operation.

As I have written in Dallas ’63, falsified copies of documents about Oswald, notably from the State Department, had been used as part of a mole hunt by CI Chief James Angleton from the time of Oswald’s 1959 “defection” to Russia.[22] However the CIA cables about Oswald in October 1963 were unprecedented: the first time that the CIA initiated false information about Oswald and shared it with other agencies.

All of this may have been authorized as part of a counterintelligence operation. But after the assassination Helms’s concealment of the existence of this operation from the Warren Commission was a different matter.

Endnotes:

[1] Church Committee Staff memo of  March 5, 1976, 1; Miscellaneous Records of the Church Committee, NARA 157-10014-19168 , 3(LBJ); AR 250 (Secret Service). Cf. Memorandum of Belmont to Tolson of 11/23/53: “Dallas agents who listened to the tape allegedly of Oswald…and examined the photographs… were of the opinion that neither the tape nor the recording pertained to Oswald.” Quoted in NARA 157-10014-19168, 5; HSCA, “Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City” (aka “Lopez Report”), Addendum to Footnote 614, 11 (518). [Throughout these footnotes WR, WH, and WCD refer to the Report, Hearings, and unpublished Documents of the Warren Commission (1964); AR and AH refer to the Report and Hearings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations or HSCA (1979). Legat refers to the FBI representative in Mexico City. NARA #000-00000-00000 refers to a document RIF (reference) number in the National Archives. All those cited in this essay can be seen on line by searching for them by the RIF 13-digit number on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website, http://www.maryferrell.org.]

[2] AR 250 (Dallas FBI agents); Lopez Report, 12 (519) (Legat). The Legat cable is reproduced in NARA 157-10014-19168, 8, but is mostly illegible.

[3] AR 250: “The committee determined that CIA headquarters never received a recording of Oswald’s voice. The Committee concluded, therefore [sic], that the information [that the two voices had been compared and found to be different] was mistaken and did not provide a basis for concluding that there had been an Oswald imposter.” But it was the Dallas FBI, not the CIA, who listened to the recording, which in any case was precisely not “a recording of [Lee Harvey] Oswald’s voice.“ The HSCA Report also said that “at 7:23 p.m. (CST) on November 23, `953, Dallas Special Agent-in-Charge Shanklin advised Director Hoover that only a report of this conversation was available, not an actual tape recording” (AR 250). In fact Shanklin’s cable read, “the actual tape from which this transcript was made has been erased” (Lopez Report, 12 (519).  Shanklin’s claim was based on an FBI cable to him from Mexico City saying “CIA has advised that these tapes have been erased” (FBI Cable of November 23 from Eldon Rudd to SAC, Dallas; FBI file MX 105-3702-12, NARA #124-10230-10430). This false claim by the CIA was reversed on November 24; see Scott, Dallas ’63, 25.

[4] Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 95-96, citing 24 WH 673, 682; 25 WH 736 (bus manifest); Peter Dale Scott, Oswald, Mexico, and Deep Politics (New York: Skyhorse, 2013), 118-21 (Durán statement).

[5] NARA #104-10015-10052; NARA 3104-10015-10048.

[6] Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 230: Angleton’s “conduct was an obstruction of justice.”

[7] Warren CD 692, 1.

[8] Memo of 4  September “1982” [i.e. 1992] for NARA Reviewers, “Oswald 201 File, Pre-Assassination File,” 201-289248, p. 211, http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95567&search=%22Oswald_201+File%2C+Pre-Assassination+File%22#relPageId=2&tab=page.

[9] For the ONI file prepared for Assistant Secretary of Defense McNaughton, see Peter Dale Scott, Dallas ’63: The First Deep State Revolt Against the White House, 83-84. The FBI HQ file on Oswald deposited in the National Archive, 105-82555, appears to have been falsified: what is now included as the first recorded serial, 105-82555-1, is apparently a substitute for the original first recorded serial; for the document, a 1959 news story from the Corpus Christ Times about Oswald’s defection, is clearly stamped “NOT RECORDED”.

[10] These cables, together with a CIA Mexico memo of October 16, 1963, are now in the National Archives (and MFF website) as records 104-10015-10047 through 104-10015-10053.

[11] “Russ Holmes Work File,” NARA # 104-10406-10009, 7.

[12] Memo of 4  September “1982” [i.e. 1992] for NARA Reviewers, “Oswald 201 File, Pre-Assassination File,” 201-289248, p. 211. The prepared file that became CD 692 with Helms’s memo of March 1964 was XAAZ 22595 (NARA # 1993.07.20.15:16:21:930270), not “22592” as reported in the 1982 CIA memo. The January 1964 summary (CD 347) was XAAZ 22594 (“A Collection of Cables,” CIA, NARA #104-10422-10021, p, 12/13). XAAZ 22593 concerned the “unidentified individual” who may or may not have been the person who identified himself as “Lee Oswald” in a phone call to the Soviet Embassy (CIA Draft Document, NARA # 104-10213-10022, p. 38). XAAZ 22593 is not on the MFF website.

[13] MEXI 6453 of 9 Nov 1963 to DIR, NARA #104-10015-10047.

[14] DIR 74830 of 10 Oct 1963 to Mexico City, NARA #104-10015-10048.

[15] DIR 74673 of 10 Nov 1963  to State, FBI and Navy, Subject: Lee Henry Oswald, NARA #104-10015-10052.

[16] CIA Routing and Record Sheet for DBA 52355, NARA #104-10015-10046.

[17] Jefferson Morley, “What Jane Roman Said; Part 3: The Interview,” http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morley3.htm\; John Newman, Oswald and the CIA (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1995), 405.

[18] “LIST OF NAMES RE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION INVESTIGATION,” NARA #104-10061-10115, 23 “Counter Espionage involving Soviet intelligence services (worldwide”), 23; cf. 22. Cf. Bill Simpich, “The JFK Case; the Office that Spied on its Own Spies,” http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/THE-JFK-CASE–THE-OFFICE-by-Bill-Simpich-100310-266.html.

[19] Bill Simpich, The JFK Case: The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend, Part Two: An Instant Visa Gets the Marine into Moscow,” http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-JFK-CASE–THE-TWELVE-by-Bill-Simpich-100830-157.htmll. Cf. e.g.  NARA #104-10172-10294, CIA Dispatch of 28 August 1959, REDCAP/LCIMPROVE, “Procuring of Female Companionship for Grigoriy Ye. Golub,”.

[20] E.g. NARA 104-10162-10316, Dispatch of 27 September 1963 from COS Mexico to Chief WH, REDCAP KOSTIKOV, HMMA-22179. September 27, the date of this dispatch, is the day “Lee Oswald” is reported to have entered the Soviet Embassy and Cuban Consulate.

[21] DIR 74830 to MEXI of 10 October 1963; NARA #104-10015-10048,.

[22] Scott, Dallas ’63, 43-74.

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.

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.

***

The State Department announced on August 15 that the US views the improvement in relations between Beijing and Moscow with “concern.” The announcement was made only days after the US sent warships to monitor Chinese and Russian ships engaged in joint naval exercises in international waters. Nonetheless, the statement is contradictory since the US forced, with their aggressive actions, the tightening of relations between Beijing and Moscow.

State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel addressed a summit between the US, Japan, and South Korea, where the focus is the People’s Republic of China. When asked whether US efforts to “re-establish communication channels with China” could be undermined, Patel said no but expressed concerns about ties between Beijing and Moscow.

“We also have been clear about the continued concern of the PRC and Russia closening their relationship and the steps that they’ve taken as well. So I don’t think these things are zero-sum. We can continue to pursue all of these things appropriately,” he said.

Patel’s remarks come after Washington sent several guided missile destroyers to monitor a group of Russian-Chinese ships that sailed close to the coast of Alaska during a joint military exercise. A US Northern Command spokesperson told CNN that the Russian-Chinese joint naval exercises were a show of force that prompted a US military response but did not pose a threat to the US or Canada.

This did not stop a deluge of claims from the Republicans that US President Joe Biden was failing to deal with the Russia-China alliance. The Republicans unsurprisingly omitted how Washington’s aggressive behaviour first brought the two countries into a close relationship. Russia and China were forced to strengthen their defence and economic ties due to the US emboldening Ukraine to war with Russia and arming and manipulating Taiwan to serve as a pressure point against mainland China. 

Trade between Russia and China continues to increase after reaching historic highs in 2022, with imports and exports growing at a double-digit pace since the beginning of this year, according to data released on August 8 by the General Administration of Customs. According to the agency, bilateral trade grew 36.5% between January and July compared to last year, reaching $134.5 billion. During the analysed period, Chinese exports to Russia increased by 73.4% compared to the previous year, reaching $62.5 billion.

Chinese imports from Russia increased by 15.1% to $72 billion. Only in July, the volume of business between the two countries reached $19.4 billion, with Chinese exports of $10.2 billion, slightly surpassing imports from Russia of $9.2 billion. As of the end of 2022, trade between Russia and China grew by 29.3% year-on-year to a record $190.3 billion and is expected to surpass the target of $200 billion soon.

Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed in June at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that over 80% of trade settlement between Russia and China is now conducted in Russian rubles and Chinese yuan. His comments came just a month after Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said that energy trading between China and Russia had been settled in their local currencies.

Nonetheless, the dollar is still the most used currency for trade globally, and according to the International Monetary Fund, nearly 60% of international reserves are held in dollar-denominated assets. Western-led sanctions against Russia are making other countries wary of the potential consequences of angering Washington, none more so than China.

Economic ties between Moscow and Beijing have been bolstered by the two countries’ decision to conduct most transactions in national currencies rather than the US dollar to protect themselves from sanctions. Moscow and Beijing were forced to increase efforts to reduce dependence on the dollar and the euro in international trade since Russia is under sanctions and the trade war between the US and China continues.

However, Russia and China cooperate in more than just the economic sphere and the de-dollarisation process. They are also extending their ties in the military sphere.

China’s defence minister Li Shangfu addressed the Moscow Conference on International Security on August 15, his second to Russia since assuming his role as defence chief only earlier this year, thus demonstrating the importance of bilateral ties.  He also met with his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu to discuss cooperation between the two countries’ militaries, which have been more regularly carrying out joint exercises – including the joint naval patrol off the Alaskan coast previously mentioned.

The fact that the US has “concerns” about improving relations between Beijing and Moscow demonstrates the weak strategic thinking and planning in Washington since their decision to attack these countries simultaneously economically and wage psychological military pressure has resulted in bringing their ties closer.

*

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.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

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.

*** 

 

 

.

Part I of this study introduced the subject and discussed the psychological and political methods used to control our minds.

The Elite’s 5,000-Year War on Your Mind Is Climaxing. Can We Defeat It?

Part 2  (below) considers the medical and technological methods used and explain what is necessary to win this war.

**

Medical Mind Control

Mind control methods extend far beyond childhood terrorization reinforced by other psychological as well as political methods in their various forms.

Most notoriously, no doubt, among his other ‘experiments’, Dr. Josef Mengele supposedly studied mind-control at Auschwitz, with these ‘medical’ experiments sometimes leading to the death of his subjects.

A Freedom of Information document in 2010 exposed the ongoing, if relabeled, work of MK-Ultra – the illegal human experimentation program initiated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the 1950s which employed many former Nazi and (Italian) fascist scientists (discussed further below) – including some of its less savoury elements such as its torture of children ostensibly in its conduct of ‘mind control’ experiments.

See ‘MK-ULTRA: CIA Mind Control, Sleeper Cells and Child Kidnappings’.

Other research has documented how much of MK-Ultra’s ‘medical torture’ was conducted within and beyond US borders, secretly and without the consent of those impacted, including on indigenous children and black prisoners. One Canadian victim testified in court that she had been held against her will and that her torturers ‘drugged her with LSD and other substances, subjected her to electroshock treatments, and exposed her to auditory indoctrination’ as part of their attacks on her mind.

See ‘New Docs Link CIA to Medical Torture of Indigenous Children and Black Prisoners’.

But for a reasonably comprehensive and horrific overview of the US government’s longstanding and ongoing efforts to subvert the autonomy, including mental autonomy, of its citizenry – including identification and description of key programs beyond MK-Ultra, such as ‘Cointelpro’ (‘a series of secret projects conducted by the FBI between 1956 and 1971 aimed at “neutralizing political dissidents”… [by] “making them incapable of engaging in political activity by whatever means.”’)

– see ‘U.S. Government Projects & Programs That Have Included Criminal and Unethical Actions Against Civilians’.

This account documents many US government programs, such as that labeled ‘Project Bluebird’ (later relabeled ‘Project Artichoke’), which was designed to deliberately create dissociative identity disorder (multiple personalities) ‘using trauma and inhumane practices for the purposes of mind control’, and ‘Northwoods’, designed ‘to trick the American public and international community into supporting a war by attacking and killing innocent U.S. citizens and blaming it on terrorism’.

See ‘Trauma-Based Victimization & Mind Control – Overview’. But there are many other examples carefully described, documented and illustrated on this website.

These projects, like others, were not the work of some fringe agency but again used Nazi scientists as well as a long list of prestigious US institutions, corporations and military bases as locations for the experimentation.

See ‘Project Monarch: Nazi Mind Control’.

But medical mind control is not limited to secretive work by government agencies, corporations and ‘research’ institutions. Many versions of it are imposed openly on society with devastating consequences.

Most notably, since early in his now very long career, ‘the conscience of psychiatry’ Dr Peter Breggin has ‘continued to develop the brain-disabling principle of psychiatric treatment. It states that all physical treatments in psychiatry – drugs, electroshock and psychosurgery – disable the brain and that none improve brain function.’ See ‘The Brain-Disabling Principle of Psychiatric Treatment’ in ‘Psychiatric Reform Accomplishments’.

Most horrifically, this has included the extensive use of a range of psychiatric interventions – notably including psychiatric drugs (see, for example, Medication Madness: A Psychiatrist Exposes the Dangers of Mood-Altering Medications), electroshock and lobotomy (‘psychosurgery’) (see, for example, Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock, and the Psychopharmaceutical Complex) – extensively documented by Breggin to have seriously incapacitated or killed substantial numbers of children and adults, including in racist contexts (see ‘Campaigns against racist federal programs by the center for the study of psychiatry and psychology’), particularly in North America and Europe.

In his extensive body of work – elaborated in The Conscience of Psychiatry: The Reform Work of Peter R. Breggin, MD – Breggin has exposed and often effectively campaigned to halt a long series of invasive psychiatric interventions against those people unfortunately targeted by ‘organized psychiatry, drug companies, and government agencies’. The book also offers ‘a probing critique of the psychopharmaceutical complex.’ If you prefer to read a summary (up to 2008) of Dr Breggin’s work to defend the human mind, you can do so at

‘Psychiatric Reform Accomplishments of Peter Breggin, M.D., 1954 to the Present’.

But Dr Breggin, with the support of his wife Ginger, is still campaigning to defend your mind, most recently against the threats posed by the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ with its mind- and life-destroying ingredients including nanotechnology (which is discussed further in the section headed ‘Technological Mind Control’ below).

See ‘Blurring Lines: Nanotechnology, Vaccines, and Control’.

Beyond these measures, however, the public has long suffered the deliberate release into communities of both ‘approved’ pharmaceutical drugs and ‘illegal’ drugs which are designed to control the mind of those impacted, even if it is just done by making people mentally and, hence, socially dysfunctional.

The most obvious examples of this are, respectively, the widespread administration of injections approved by government health authorities, which have triggered an epidemic of attention disorders such as autism, and the CIA’s distribution of illicit drugs – from LSD to crack cocaine – among targeted US communities of politically aware people and in black neighborhoods particularly to psychologically and socially disrupt those impacted.

See ‘Vaccine Industry Watchdog Obtains CDC Documents That Show Statistically Significant Risks of Autism Associated with Vaccine Preservative Thimerosal: Biochemist Brian Hooker, scientific advisor to A Shot of Truth, reveals CDC knew risks for over a decade’ and

‘CIA Conspiracy to Flood Black Communities with Crack Exposed in Explosive Netflix Documentary’. 

Of course, medical mind control is also deployed as one of the weapons used to control victims of torture in which psychiatrists have also long been willingly complicit. See ‘Defeating the Violence of Psychiatry’.

Technological Mind Control

Unfortunately, however, as horrifically effective as long-standing psychological, political and medical mind control measures have been already, there are many new weapons in the arsenals of those intent on controlling our minds. These mind control weapons are technological and, with most of the research driven by the intelligence and military communities within national governments, these efforts have been well funded and made steady progress during the C20^th and advanced rapidly after World War II.

Hence, a human future worth living – which presumably includes a mind capable of conceiving and manifesting individual identity, freedom and free will – now hangs by a thread.

So this means that, in addition to the four points explained in the ‘Rage Against the War Machine’ article cited above, the traditional focus by antiwar activists on the threat posed by wars generally and the threat posed by nuclear weapons particularly is failing to take into account two vital elements of the overall threat: the ancient war on the mind that is now being enhanced by a wide range of technocratic control weapons and, as an extension of this, the manner in which war-fighting is being technocratized to remove humans from the picture altogether.

The latter development which, to reiterate, is an extension of the rapidly advancing mind control, means that we are almost at the point when a transhuman individual suitably placed in the chain of command could be ‘ordered’ by an artificial intelligence (AI) program to launch full-scale nuclear war.

Image is licensed under Wikimedia Commons

Or an AI program could initiate a nuclear launch directly.

See ‘How Might Artificial Intelligence Affect the Risk of Nuclear War?’, ‘Autonomous Nuclear Weapons: Should We Give Control Of America’s Nukes To AI?’,

‘Assessing the Dangers: Emerging Military Technologies and Nuclear (In)Stability’,

‘Never Give Artificial Intelligence the Nuclear Codes’ and

‘AI Versus AI And Human Extinction as Collateral Damage’.

And that is assuming that AI does not induce human extinction directly.

See ‘Statement on AI Risk: AI experts and public figures express their concern about AI risk’. But that is an issue to be explored another time.

Which means that the challenges for both freedom activists and anti-war activists, as well as any ‘ordinary’ human being, are far greater in this rapidly advancing technocratic age than at any previous time in human history.

Let me explain a little more about what is happening but then focus on how it is happening, the challenges it presents and how we can strategically resist these developments, which are a critical component of the Elite program to imprison and enslave those left alive after humanity has been ‘depopulated’ by the various measures being employed to achieve that end.

See ‘We Are Being Smashed Politically, Economically, Medically and Technologically by the Elite’s “Great Reset”: Why? How Do We Fight Back Effectively?’

Building on long-standing techniques to manipulate previously terrorized people into feeling, thinking and doing what they are told, particularly since World War II the Elite has sought technological means of mind control as well.

At its simplest, this has included the use of television as a weapon for mass mind control, which was already happening extensively by the 1960s. In a documentary demonstrating this, the presenters illustrate how a variety of techniques are used to manipulate viewers into holding the views endorsed by those intent on controlling the narrative. How this is done varies and, for example, ranges from the messaging itself – which might be overt or be concealed in such a way that it is only perceived unconsciously – to the rate of flicker which can alter the state of consciousness to make one more receptive to some form of programming.

Watch ‘Ultimate TV Mind Control Documentary’.

Beyond this, however, enormous effort has gone into much more technologically direct forms of mind control.

Most notably, Yale University psychiatrist Dr José M.R. Delgado’s 1969 book Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society carefully documented techniques used in the illegal human experimentation program initiated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the 1950s which employed many former Nazi and (Italian) fascist scientists. Known as MK-Ultra, the project was designed to develop procedures to manipulate the mind, thus beating Elon Musk’s neuralink chip by a mere 75 years.

See ‘Mind Control is Nothing New’ and watch ‘This Is How Elon Musk’s Neuralink Microchip Will Be Put In Your Brain’.

Nevertheless, and despite the physically invasive nature of his earlier work, Delgado’s later work was done wirelessly, ‘with his most advanced efforts developed without electrode implants used at all’. That is, ‘he achieved the brain manipulating effects at a distance, without any physical contact or devices attached to the living creature being manipulated’. By changing the frequency and waveform on an experimental subject, ‘he could completely change their thinking and emotional state’.

See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP pp.140-141.

Consequently, since the 1950s, a long series of technologies has been or is being developed which enhance the Elite capacity to control our minds in an enormous variety of ways, compromise our health, disable us, alter us genetically or kill us, as they choose. Needless to say, in the United States such efforts have garnered significant CIA and Defense Department support. Here is a sample of more of these technologies.

Image: HAARP antenna grid (By Secoy, A/CC BY 4.0)

Among its other weapons possibilities, researchers Dr Nick Begich and Jeane Manning have explained how the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program – known as HAARP, a joint project of the United States Air Force and Navy based in Alaska and designed to study the ionosphere in order to develop new weapons technology – ‘could be used against humanity in a way that would change what people think, believe and feel.’ See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP p.8.

Citing Michael Hutchison’s 1990 book – see Mega Brain, New Tools and Techniques for Brain growth and Mind Expansion – which described how new technologies were being used to improve learning and memory but also for human behavior modification, Begwich and Manning noted that ‘External stimulation of the brain by electromagnetic means can cause the brain to be entrained or locked into phase with an external signal generator… overriding the normal frequencies causing changes in the brain waves; which then cause changes in brain chemistry; which then cause changes in brain outputs in the form of thoughts, emotions or physical condition…. brain manipulation can be either beneficial or detrimental to the individual being impacted.’

Writing in 2001, Begich and Manning go on to note that ‘The work in this area is advancing at a very rapid rate with new discoveries being made regularly…. Radio frequency radiation, acting as a carrier for extremely low frequencies (ELF), can be used to wirelessly entrain brain waves…. The power level needed to achieve a measure of control over brain activity is very small – from 5 to 200 microamperes – which is thousands of times less than the power needed to run a 60 watt light bulb…. The new tools include electrical cranial stimulation devices, sound systems, light pulse systems and a large variety of other brain entrainment and feedback devices.’

See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP pp.134-135.

Commenting on Hutchison’s 1994 sequel – see Mega Brain Power: Transform Your Life with Mind Machines and Brain Nutrients – which also highlighted the rapidity of developments in the field, Begich and Manning note that Hutchison was using his periodical Megabrain Report: The Psychotechnology Newsletter to discuss ‘technologies for healing nervous system disorders, correcting attention deficit and hyperactive disorders in children and curing drug and alcohol dependencies among other things.’ However, while they claimed that ‘Electromedicine of this type is emerging as one of the most exciting areas of medical research’, they lamented that ‘military research continues to look at these technologies as weapon systems rather than as human potential enhancing tools.’ The book devotes considerable attention to military research in the field that is not classified.

See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP p.135.

In their detailed investigation of the mind control issue, Begich and Manning drew attention to the work of Dr. Patrick Flanagan, ‘one of America’s most gifted inventors’, who was ‘recognized for inventing what was the most advanced brain entrainment device, and possibly human-to-computer interface, on the planet – the Neurophone.’ That was in 1962. Years later, Flanagan noted that the HAARP project could be ‘the biggest brainentrainment device ever conceived’. According to HAARP records, at full power the device can send VLF and ELF waves using many wave forms at energy levels sufficient to affect entire regional populations.

See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP p.136.

But why impact only ‘entire regional populations’?

Building on earlier work he had done investigating the psychophysiological impacts of ELF (extremely low frequency) field waves on living organisms – see ‘Psychophysiological Effects of Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields: A Review’ – in a 1995 paper published in Perceptual and Motor Skills, Professor Michael A. Persinger concluded that ‘Within the last two decades… a potential has emerged which was improbable but which is now marginally feasible. This potential is the technical capability to influence directly the major portion of the approximately six billion brains of the human species through classical sensory modalities by generating neural information within a physical medium within which all members of the species are immersed.’

See ‘On the Possibility of Directly Accessing Every Human Brain by Electromagnetic Induction of Fundamental Algorithms’. And, of course, all human beings are immersed within the medium known as Earth’s atmosphere.

Begich and Manning discuss a range of mind control technologies including ‘brain biofeedback’ – which enables a person to learn how to manipulate their own brain waves, using a computer initially, in profound ways – thus offering the opportunity ‘to take greater control of ourselves through better control of our minds’. At its most benign, this technology has assisted people to reach higher meditative states, helped children suffering from attention deficit disorders and enabled adults to break drug and alcohol dependencies. Unfortunately: ‘It is disturbing to realize that governments are interested in these technologies, not for beneficial individual uses but in order to gain increased control over populations they view as dangerous. These technologies offer both great promise and a high potential for abuse.’ See Angels Don’t Play This HAARP p.138.

If you would like to watch an articulate, straightforward account of the development of some of the early technological methods of mind control, Dr Nick Begwich offers one in about eleven minutes from the 12:45 mark of this video: ‘NWO – The Battle For Your Mind & Body’. But an internet search will reveal a wide range of videos in which Begwich presents his research findings as well as his concerns.

Of course, this concern about how the technology could be deployed is shared by others.

In his own research on the subject, the founder of the ‘International Movement for the Ban of Manipulation of Human Nervous System by Technical Means’, Czech writer Mojmír Babáček concluded his 2004 study with this warning:

One clear consequence of the continuation of the apparent politics of secrecy surrounding technologies enabling remote control of the human brain is that the governments, who own such technologies, could use them without having to consult public opinion. Needless to say, any meaningful democracy in today’s world could be disrupted, through secret and covert operations. It is not inconceivable that in the future, entire population groups subjected to mind control technologies, could be living in a ‘fake democracy’ where their own government or a foreign power could broadly shape their political opinions by means of mind control technologies. See ‘Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons: The Remote Manipulation of the Human Brain’.

Despite Babáček’s well-founded concern and long-standing efforts, research on technological control of the human mind has continued to expand without regulation, with much of this research done in secret, which Babáček has long resisted as well.

See ‘The Ways to Defeat the Secrecy Surrounding the Existence of Mind Control Technology’.

Among other outcomes, this ongoing research meant that, by 2011, the McGovern Institute for Brain Research was able to control the brain using light. Research in this area by several organizations is pursued vigorously and continues to make progress.

See ‘Controlling nerve cells with light opened new ways to study the brain’.

And in 2018, Professor Antoine Jérusalem explained progress made in using sound waves to control the human mind. Describing ‘non-invasive neuromodulation – changing brain activity without the use of surgery’ Jérusalem explains it thus: ‘the principle of non-invasive neuromodulation is to focus ultrasound waves into a region in the brain so that they all gather in a small spot. Then hopefully, given the right set of parameters, this can change the activity of the neurons.’ The aim is to control the neuronal activity without damaging the brain tissue. While keen to acknowledge potential benefits, Jérusalem concedes inherent problems. How dystopian could it get? ‘I can see the day coming where a scientist will be able to control what a person sees in their mind’s eye, by sending the right waves to the right place in their brain.’ He advocates regulation.

See ‘Mind control using sound waves? We ask a scientist how it works’.

Of course, research in the field of technological manipulation of the mind is not confined to the West with countries like China doing considerable research in the field as well. The People’s Liberation Army is considering a variety of psychological warfare technologies ‘that it envisions leveraging for future operations. These include advanced computing, especially big data and information processing; brain science, especially brain imaging; and legacy proposals that remain of interest, including sonic weapons, laser weapons, subliminal messaging, and holograms.’

See ‘Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States’.

As you might have expected, the most recent efforts at technological mind control have included research into the use of nanotechnology. In their research on the subject, Prithiv K. R. Kumar & Albert Alukal explained, with a sequence of images, how nanotechnology could be delivered into a specific part of the brain and what constituents would be required to achieve particular outcomes, including in relation to brain damage repair.

See ‘Control of Mind using Nanotechnology’.

And Tyler Nguyen and colleagues wrote another paper that cites shortcomings in some approaches to ‘brain stimulation’ and goes on to discuss the possibility of using ‘magnetoelectric nanoparticles’ (MENs) which was originally proposed in 2012 but later demonstrated. ‘The nanoparticles can be injected into a vein or via intranasal administration, forced to cross the blood–brain barrier (BBB) and consequently localized to a target region by applying a magnetic field gradient…. The unique properties of MENs, due to their small size (~ 30 nm)… may provide significant improvements over currently used techniques in efficacy and tissue penetration for noninvasive brain stimulation.’

See ‘In Vivo Wireless Brain Stimulation via Non-invasive and Targeted Delivery of Magnetoelectric Nanoparticles’.

But as Ana Maria Mihalcea MD, PhD elaborates her own research in this field, she highlights ‘the capability of the Nanotechnology in the C19 injections as well as the Nanotechnology we inhale via geoengineering chemtrails and food supply to control the human mind.’ She goes on to write: ‘All aspects of human functioning can be altered in the brain without the recipient of the technology knowing it…. Quantum Dots, Carbon Nanotubes (Graphene) and Lipid Nanoparticles creating Hydrogel are all components discussed previously in my posts.’ See the following article and earlier ones accessible below it:

‘“Control of Mind Using Nanotechnology” – 2020 Scientific Paper Explains Complete Thought and Brain Control through Nanotechnology’.

And lest you think that geoengineering nanoparticles can’t be a serious problem, Dane Wigington’s recent interview of an anonymous whistleblowing scientist working in the agricultural sector in the U.S. reveals a program that sprays 40 million tons of nanoparticles onto the Earth’s surface annually. Of course, given the range of functions that nanoparticles can be designed to perform, we can only speculate on the proportion of these nanoparticles sprayed that might be devoted to mind control.

Watch ‘Nanoparticle Contamination Cover-up: Answers from a Scientist’.

But further to her research on nanotechology in human blood and its implications for mind control, Mihalcea has also drawn attention to military research – see ‘Brain-Computer Interfaces: U.S. Military Applications and Implications, An Initial Assessment’ – concerned with exploiting such technologies in conjunction with artificial intelligence: ‘rewriting neuronal function in my vocabulary means total mind control, human enslavement, and ultimately may mean human extinction’.

See ‘Brain Computer Interfaces: US Military Applications and Implications’.

And in the last of her trilogy of books on geoengineering,

Geoengineered Transhumanism: How the Environment Has Been Weaponized by Chemicals, Electromagnetism & Nanotechnology for Synthetic Biology Elana Freeland notes that ‘Millions of “neurograins” collecting and communicating data to remote hubs are now in all human brains…. “Absolute limits” are now about tininess, the micro, nano, pico, and femto of particles whose extraordinary power is disguised as insignificant but actually hands over the keys to the kingdom of remote control over bodies and brains to those who control technology proximate to the subatomic quantum threshold.’

In an interview on the subject, Freeland simply observes: ‘They prepped us for 20 years with what we breathed in [the nanoparticles – mainly metals such as  Barium, Strontium, Aluminum (the worst for humans), Chromium, Lithium… – they dropped on us] and now one of the things that’s going in through the jab [Covid-19 injection] is software and hardware, microprocessors, so that the 5G, 6G systems – and notice I am including 6G I want to make that clear: There is 6G out as well. It’s just that they have not announced it but it’s up and running – … this nanotechnology that I am talking about can run our behaviour, our thoughts, our feelings and our emotions. And I am not talking about the future.’

Watch ‘Slobodni podcast #27 Elana Freeland’.

Given the dangers posed by the capacity of certain technologies to control the human mind, which he continues to oppose to this day –

see ‘Is Mankind Able to Prevent Abuse of New Technologies Against Democracy and Human Rights?’ and

‘Control The Human Brain, Control the World. Neurotechnology and the Ban of Mind Control Weapons: If Democracy Is to Win in This World, the United Nations Must Become Democratic’ – on 18 June 2022 Mojmír Babáček and fellow signatories sent an

‘Open letter to the governments and parliaments of the world to create legislation to protect people’s brains and bodies against attacks by neurotechnologies’ and in May 2023 Babáček challenged national governments around the world to follow the example set by the Chilean government, which adopted a law in 2021 guaranteeing Chilean citizens ‘the rights to personal identity, free will and mental privacy’ and ‘prove that they are not planning to transform their states into totalitarian states where the elite turn citizens into bio-robots, controlled by supercomputers.’

See ‘People’s Brains and Bodies Are Not Protected Against Attacks by Electromagnetic Waves and Neurotechnologies: The sixth generation of cell phone telephony plans to connect human brains to the internet’.

As much as I appreciate Babáček’s long-standing efforts, there is no prospect of this happening given Elite plans to control the mind of every individual living.

Hence, we must resist it ourselves.

Strategically Resisting

Efforts to Control Our Minds

Elite efforts to control our minds are long-standing, multifaceted and sophisticated although most trigger people’s (unconscious) fear as a basic component of their efforts.

Terrorized during childhood into submissive obedience to authority, bamboozled by a staggering array of mind control techniques and technologies of which there is almost zero public awareness, entranced by the latest technological gadget while reassured by the delusional promise of greater ‘privacy, security and convenience’, only a rare human is perceiving how these individual components are just parts in an overarching program that is progressively drawing us into a trap which will render those of us left alive into transhuman slaves within the technocratic walls of the Elite’s ‘smart’ cities.

Thus, for example, the vast number of people who accept payment to do Elite bidding – including those working in the public relations, propaganda, censorship and technological mind control industries – have clearly been terrorized out of their moral autonomy and, hence, are incapable of perceiving and acting in concert with the general human interest.

But most people are already so entrapped by a combination of Elite measures that there is no realistic prospect, in the timeframe available, of helping them to escape Elite influence sufficiently to survive the current range of threats to their identity, privacy, security, freedom and life by resisting these threats effectively.

Unfortunately, this includes most people who were able to perceive the delusions presented to us in relation to the ‘virus’, injectables and the various mandates.

Thus, the number of people capable of resisting effectively (that is, strategically) the foundational components of the Elite program is relatively few.

But if you regard yourself as one of these individuals, then here are the key things you need to be doing to maximize the prospects of your children having minds of their own and to defend a future worth living.

Consider making ‘My Promise to Children’. To be able to make this commitment, you might need to spend some time becoming more aware of your own emotional Self.

See ‘Putting Feelings First’.

To fulfill your promise to children, you will certainly need to be able to listen, deeply, to them – see ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’ –

and to understand the hazards of the existing education system. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’

Tragically, we are at a point in human history when the obstacles to retaining autonomy over one’s mind are enormous. But how a child is parented is the most crucial variable in the ultimate outcome for the individual.

And if you have retained sufficient control over you own mind, then you will know, intuitively if not intellectually, that resisting the Elite’s complex and sophisticated program is going to require considerable effort both by you as an individual and by those we can mobilize to respond powerfully too. And this will not include lobbying or petitioning Elite agents.

See ‘The Elite Coup to Kill or Enslave Us: Why Can’t Governments, Legal Actions and Protests Stop Them?’

In essence, this means that your resistance to the Elite program must be strategic. If it is not, Elite insanity will ensure that sufficient and, if necessary, overwhelming violence will be inflicted on us to compel compliance with their will.

See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

So if you are committed to being strategic in your resistance to the ‘Great Reset’ and its related agendas, you are welcome to participate in the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ campaign which identifies a list of 30 strategic goals for doing so.

More simply, and as a minimum, you can download the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 23 languages (Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Malay, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Slovak and Turkish) with more languages in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: ‘One-page Flyer’.

You are also welcome to consider sharing the article ‘Policing the Elite’s Technocracy: How Do We Resist This Effectively?’ with your local police. Resistance by police will be vital to the success of our resistance efforts.

And you might also consider organizing or participating in a local strategy to halt the deployment of 5G, given its crucial role in making the Elite’s ‘smart city’ technocratic prisons function. See ‘Halting the Deployment of 5G’.

If you like, you can also watch, share and/or organize to show, a short video about the campaign here: ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ video.

Moreover, if this strategic resistance to the ‘Great Reset’ (and related agendas) appeals to you, consider joining the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ Telegram or Signal groups (with links accessible from the website).

Conclusion

Most humans laud the idea of ‘a free society’ and’ freedom of the individual’ but don’t even realise that what we most need is freedom of the mind. We pay lip service to the rights to freedom of thought, expression and conscience but lack the powerful mind necessary to meaningfully exercise these rights, often settling for superficial symbols of ‘freedom’ such as the right to choose the form of our employment, how we spend our spare time, the sporting team we support, and the style and color of our hair and clothing.

The reality is that we are terrorized throughout childhood into submissive obedience to authority leaving us highly vulnerable to the comprehensive range of psychological, political, medical and technological weapons directed against our minds. In this circumstance, identifying the truth about what is really happening in the world is a challenge far too great for most people.

Moreover, in the situation we now face, even among those who have been able to perceive the most obvious delusions being presented to them, the bulk of these individuals have proven incapable of doing little more than complaining powerlessly, begging an Elite agent to ‘go easy’ on them (by lobbying or petitioning a government or international organization such as the World Health Organization), cross-posting the latest irrelevant post from one social media platform to another, possibly advocating unspecified ‘resistance’ (or strategically irrelevant action), or attending a protest demonstration.

Seeking out and applying strategic means of resistance to the overall Elite program – the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ with its fourth industrial revolution (technocratic), eugenicist and transhumanist components – or recognizing it when offered, has remained beyond them.

Hence, any candid assessment of the evidence presented above leads to one conclusion: The Elite war on human minds is now so advanced and effective that death or transhuman slavery for everyone on Planet Earth is virtually inevitable.

As Steve Biko noted all those years ago: ‘The most potent weapon of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.’

*

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.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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.

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.

*** 

Australian Voters Continue to be Disturbed by So Much Moral Blindness

For the past six years, Ron Morgan Research has been investigating consumers’ use and views of web browsers and search engines, while asking more than 2,000 Australian’s every month questions pertaining to geo-political issues and such things as which brands, products and companies they trust or distrust the most.

The results have shown that Australians have never been more distrusting of Corporate Australia than they are in 2023. Their research has revealed that, since the onset of COVID, Australians are angry and distrustful of, among many things, companies like PwC, Optus, Telstra, Medibank, Facebook, Meta, Harvey Norman since its ‘Job Keeper Scandal’, even Quantas has fallen from one of the countries most trusted brands to one of its most distrusted. But especially the monster mining enterprise Rio Tinto since its wilful, malicious  destruction, in 2020 in Western Australia, of the Juunkan Gorge’s Aboriginal World Heritage site. Yet, in a matter of minutes, this 40,000 year-old precious shelf of seminal Aboriginal rock art, as a gift to all of humanity, was blasted into smithereens, just so Rio Tinto’s mining executives could access a mere $135 million dollars worth of iron ore. Which brings the tensions front and centre to 2023; what with one of Australia’s now most contentious referendums ever held between First Nation Aboriginal peoples, Torres Strait Islanders and the descendants of Australia’s early settler colonist peoples.

What the Yes Versus No Voice in Parliament Are Saying

An Australia-wide ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ referendum is to be held on the inherent rights of the original Aboriginal people, and Torres Strait Islanders, after over two centuries of being muzzled, to finally have ‘A Voice in Parliament’; ‘Their Voice in Parliament’.

A map of the Torres Strait Islands. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

But Yes and No campaigns, drafted by parliamentarians on both sides of this divisive question, have since established blistering yay or nay arguments that since have been published on the Australian Electorate Commission’s website. Australian Electoral Commission (aec.gov.au)

What follows is this writer’s attempt, as one who has been married to an Aussie for nearly five decades, and lived in and passionately loved that dry and brown land, its peoples and ancient, ever-evolving heritage, to try to make some sense out of it all.

Whatever voter pamphlets are yet be distributed or posted, hopefully, they will shed more light on some of the ‘facts’ than this writer has so far been able to discern.

Some critics of the referendum process contend that the vote is flawed for two reasons. First of all, apparently, by the fact that the Australian Labor Government, who currently holds power, hasn’t yet distributed to the electorate voter a pamphlet that is strictly focused on just the ‘Facts’ about what the legalization, if codified, will henceforth mean to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, as well as every other non-aboriginal Australian. Secondly, that the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ positions be published in entirely separate, unedited and unformatted documents, exactly as they have been received. Thirdly, regarding the ‘No’ Vote on a Voice in Parliament, there must be a clearly stated clarification of claims that have been made about the nation’s National Indigenous Australian’s Agency, as well as a clearer definition of what any future treaty made between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples would mean, and whether or not a constitutional convention will precede any constitutional changes yet to be made.

Constitutional Recognition Overseas

Other nations, with similar settler-colonial histories, like Canada, New Zealand and the United States, formally recognized their own First Nations decades ago.

FACT – In 2017, the then Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, accurately stated, The Australian Constitution is the only constitution of a First World Nation with a colonial history that does not recognize its first peoples.”

The Canadian Constitution was altered to specifically name the “aboriginal peoples of Canada – the Indian, Inuit and Metis people -, while affixing their existing treaty rights and guarantees that the rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or deregulate from any aboriginal treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Furthermore, that any changes yet to be made to relevant sections of Canada’s constitution would have to be made in consultation with representatives of those aboriginal peoples.

FACT – Though New Zealand has no single constitution, it is considered to be a constitutional monarchy which has “constitutional practices” that recognize its Maori people in the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 between the British and various Maori chiefs.

FACT – In the United States, aboriginal people are referred to in the U.S. Constitution, since 1789, for the purpose of trade and commerce, which legal experts agree is a formal recognition of their rights. Though the U.S. Constitution only mentions ‘Indian Tribes’, as it empowers the Federal Government to regulate commerce with them, legal experts agree it establishes the importance of its aboriginal peoples and their places which became the USA.

A Voice in Parliament Is Step One Towards Future Treaty’s and Truth-telling

FACT – Treaties between Settler-Colonial Governments and Aboriginal Peoples already have been successfully negotiated elsewhere. In Canada, for example, the government has signed 26 such treaties since 1975 (and another 70 between 1701 and 1923)

FACT – The ‘No’ Vote pamphlet, as it reads, incorrectly suggests that any treaty between Aboriginal peoples and the Australian Government would be “merely an agreement between one group of Australian citizens and the Government.”

FACT –By the fact that the Australian Government already is a signatory to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Australian Government already has recognized that “Indigenous Australians are members of their own nation, and the Australian Nation.” This dual recognition is key to any Indigenous-State Treaty that the ‘No’ pamphlet discounts. Consistent with the UN Declaration, a treaty can be made, say, between Australia’s Wurundjeri people and the State of Victoria, with the Wurundjeri represented by their own governance body.

FACT – The same treaty negotiation process between Australia’s State government with their First Nation peoples could be negotiated throughout the entire nation’s other states.

National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA)

FACT- The ‘No’ Vote attempts to discredit the ‘Yes’ Vote by arguing there already exists hundreds of indigenous bodies at all levels of government, such as the NIAA, with its huge 1400 member staff, as an example of just one more bureaucracy and not the answer.

FACT – The NIAA is staffed by public servants with the Departments of the PM and his Cabinet, and not an independent body in the same way that A Voice To Parliament’ would be.

FACT – The NIAA is not an entirely indigenous organization, with only 22% of the staff identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders.

Closing the Gap

FACT – The ‘Yes’ Voice in Parliament seeks to argue for the need to severely ’close the gap’ between Australia’s Aboriginal peoples and the descendants of its Settler-Colonial’ peoples

FACT- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have a life expectancy 8 years shorter than non-indigenous Australians; a worse rate of disease, infant mortality, and; a suicide rated twice as high as it is for non-indigenous Australians

FACT- Within the 19 socio-economic targets of Australia’s National Agreement on Closing The Gap to measure progress in life outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders aren’t to be found among the four targets on track to be met by the government.

1967 Referendum

FACT – A constitutionally-enshrined ‘Voice to Parliament’ would unite Australians, 90% of whom, in 1967, voted ‘Yes’ to change the constitution so that Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander people would be counted in the population in the same way as everyone else.

FACT- The ‘Yes Vote To a Voice in Parliament’ proposes to remove from the Australian Constitution the words that declare Parliament shall have the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with regard to the people of any race, or that prohibits Australia’s Commonwealth government from excluding First Nation Australia from the official population count.

FACT – The ‘No’ Vote for a Voice in Parliament falsely claims that the current referendum has received less scrutiny than previous attempts to change the constitution. Yet the ‘Yes’ Vote for a Voice in Parliament clearly points out that the intense scrutiny that preceded the 2017 First Nations National Convention produced The Uluru Statement From the Heart, that called for a constitutionally-enshrined Voice to Parliament.

These are but a few of the facts that should be considered in deciding whether or not a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ vote should be considered paramount in this all-important referendum. The future of Australia and a great deal more hangs in the balance. Consider the below sources of what all is entailed in the vote. Let world opinion weigh into the outcome.

*

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.

The writer Jerome Irwin is a Canadian-American writer who originally was a Criminology student working in one of America’s local police departments. For decades, Irwin has sought to call world attention to problems of environmental degradation and unsustainability caused by a host of environmental-ecological-spiritual issues that exist between the conflicting world philosophies of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

Irwin is the author of the book, “The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey” (www.turtle-island-odyssey.com), a spiritual odyssey among the native peoples of North America that has led to numerous articles pertaining to: Ireland’s Fenian Movement; native peoples Dakota Access Pipeline Resistance Movement; AIPAC, Israel & the U.S. Congress anti-BDS Movement; the historic Battle for Palestine & Siege of Gaza, as well as; the many violations constantly being waged by industrial-corporate-military-propaganda interests against the World’s Collective Soul. The author and his wife are long-time residents on the North Shore of British Columbia.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

 

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.

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.

***

Vladivostok, located in Russia’s Far East, hosted the 8th Eastern Economic Forum (EEF), on 10th to 13th September 2023, in an attempt to define further the development of this remote region. Since the introduction of the EEF in 2015, until the Covid-19 that was followed by Russia’s own ‘special military operation’ in neighbouring Ukraine, has largely focused on harnessing resources from Asia-Pacific, the United States and Europe to the Far East region of the Russian Federation.

Speeches and all kinds of remarks highly praised Western, European and Asia-Pacific participating countries and corporate enterprises, under resonating themes such as ‘A Common Economic Space from the Atlantic to the Pacific: The Greater Eurasian Partnership’ which was framed to develop trade and economic cooperation from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Research shows that the EEF held previously, especially the first three in 2015 to 2018, strategically aimed at broadening international cooperation, and promoting Far East as the gateway to the Asian-Pacific region. 

Despite the series of sanctions, corporate European businesses are still highly interested in Russia and Russia recognizes the enormous significance and invaluable contributions of these businesses in its economy. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, during those hay years, had always been the guest speaker during the Association of European Business (AEB), an organization which unites European companies in the Russian Federation.

“We value opportunities for dialogue with European entrepreneurs aimed at pushing forward a pragmatic, politics-free and mutually beneficial agenda designed to improve the wellbeing of the people in Russia,” Lavrov said, and rained a lot of praises when the AEB marked its 25th year early October 2020.

The interest in strengthening and diversifying trade and economic ties had grown since Soviet collapse. According to statistics, the European Union investment in Russia reached almost US$300 billion back in 2019.

Russia is ready to build its relations with the European Union along some principles. The European Union remains as its important trade partner. As before, there is optimism that both are open to cooperation, European partners are keen on building businesses in the economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, this vast country and in the Eurasian region.

Obviously, the future Russia and European business relations could still be consolidated despite the current political differences. After all, Russia and the EU countries not only belong to the same cultural and civilizational matrix, but are also linked by many ties in trade and investment cooperation, scientific and technological exchange and personal contacts. More and more Russians spend their vacation in Europe. There are visible signs that Europeans are interested in Far East development projects and participating in diverse spheres in the economy there.

Even long before Covid-19, Russia continued working on attracting investment to the Far East from external countrues and enterprises. Outcomes of 2019 forum (that was the 5th forum) released by the forum organizers, for instance, showed that among the 65 countries represented were Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and the United States. 

The 2019 forum business dialogues included ‘Russia-Europe’ among the six for that year. And one of the expert business lectures was United Kingdom on economics and international relations. The session was moderated Sergei Brilev, Russia TV Channel Anchor and Deputy Director and President of the Bering Bellingshausen Institute for the Americas. And there at the session, Vladimir Putin acknowledged hosting over 8,500 participants from 65 countries. Since the first forum, representation had increased more than twofold, a convincing indication of growing colossal interest in opportunities offered by the Russian Far East.

Prime Minister of Japan Shinzō Abe:

“I want you to spread the wings of imagination and see the new opportunities Japan can bring into your future. Let us create history together, let us pave the way.” 

Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Bin Mohamad:

“It was great to hear that of all regions, Russia is going to develop the Far East. Russia is one of the few countries that is located both in Europe and in Asia. Its unique geographical location makes it a bridge between East and West, between Europe and Asia. I suppose this unique situation will help Russia play an in important role in both Europe and the Far East.”

“We are still going to aim high. At the same time, if prior to the first EEF five years ago you would have asked me to guess the future – I don’t think I would have said 1800 projects. Perhaps, I would have been ambitious enough to guess 300, and I would have thought that daring. 1800 projects launched in the Far East – it is simply amazing. I am confident: the preferential economic policy, initiated at the behest of the President of the Russian Federation works,” said Yuri Trutnev, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoy to the Far Eastern Federal District. 

“The 5th anniversary Eastern Economic Forum was record-breaking in terms of participation numbers and the total worth of contracts signed during the event. These accomplishments prove that the Forum became a significant platform to promote international cooperation and discuss relevant global and regional economic issues,” said Anton Kobyakov, Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation, Executive Secretary of the Eastern Economic Forum Organizing Committee.

Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad, President of Russia Vladimir Putin joined the 2019 Eastern Economic Forum (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

Over the past few years, brief analytical summaries show an increasing trade relations between Russia and China. In particular, and from geopolitical point of view, China is moving towards attaining its global status within the evolutionary processes of multipolarity. China is building on its potential facilities and institutional tools to penetrate through the Far East to central Asia and former Soviet republics.

That however, with the complexities and contradictions of the geopolitical situation, Russia has abandoned its initial post-Soviet Western and European dreams. United States, Europe and the Baltics were all deleted from Russia’s radar. Russia is partitioning rather than pursuing an integrative multipolar world. At least, these are visible within the framework of its foreign policy.

Outcomes of the 4th EEF (September 2018) held under the theme ‘The Far East: Expanding the Range of Possibilities’ was significantly not different. It featured the President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping, President of Mongolia Khaltmaagiin Battulga, Prime Minister of Japan Shinzō Abe, Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea Lee Nak-yon. 

President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping emphasized:

“The Eastern Economic Forum, established by the initiative of President Putin, has already been successfully held three times and has become an important platform for consolidating brainpower and discussing key cooperation-related matters. This year the Forum is attended by an unprecedented number of guests and friends from different countries.”

President of Mongolia Khaltmaagiin Battulga said:

“The Annual Eastern Economic Forum is becoming an important discussion platform for outlining further ways of cooperation for the APR countries. Each year the level of participants is rising, and the Forum is expanding.” 

Prime Minister of Japan Shinzō Abe:

“Russian–Japanese relations are now going through a breakthrough period with unprecedented acceleration. The plan of bilateral cooperation that we discussed with President Putin includes over 150 projects. Over a half of them are already being implemented or are approaching this stage.”

Prime Minister of the Republic of Korea Lee Nak-yeon said:

“Leaders of the Northeast Asian states have gathered at this platform to consolidate efforts and ideas for the development of the Far East and ensure peace and well-being for the region. This is crucial.”

Over 340 heads of foreign businesses took part in the forum. There were 6,002 delegates and 220 agreements worth 3.108 billion roubles were signed (only agreements, the value of which does not constitute a commercial secret). The most significant agreements were:

• Baimskaya Mining Company, KAZ Minerals PLC, Government of Chukotka Autonomous Area and the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia signed an agreement in the amount of 360 billion roubles on the implementation of the investment project to develop the Baimskaya ore zone (Chukotka Autonomous Area);
• United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) and Aeroflot signed an agreement in the amount of 210 billion roubles on the consignment of Sukhoi Superjet 100 aircrafts;
• Nakhodka Fertilizer Plant and Far East Development Corporation signed an agreement to create a clean methanol and ammonia production facility;
• NOVATEK, Government of Kamchatka Territory and Ministry for the Development of the Russian Far East signed an agreement in the amount of 69.5 billion roubles on the construction of a terminal for transshipment and storage of liquefied natural gas;
• Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Japanese conglomerate Marubeni Corporation and AEON corporation signed an agreement on the terms for financing the construction of a chemical cluster in Volgograd;
• The Russian Direct Investment Fund, Alibaba Group, MegaFon and Mail.Ru Group announced a new strategic partnership to integrate Russia’s key consumer internet and e-commerce platforms and launch a leading social commerce joint venture in Russia and the CIS
• Leonid Petukhov, CEO of the Far East Investment and Export Agency, and Yoichi Nishikawa, CEO of Iida Group, signed an agreement in the amount of 14.960 billion roubles on cooperation in the implementation of the project for the construction of a wood processing complex for the production of sawn timber for wooden model houses, as well as the construction and sale of wooden low-rise houses; 
• Aysen Nikolayev, Acting Head of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), and Yuri Korotaev, CEO of Duracell Russia, signed the agreement in the amount of 15 billion roubles on interaction in the area of social and economic development of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia);
• Dmitry Kobylkin, Minister of Natural Resources and Environment of Russia, and Yuri Korotaev, CEO of Duracell Russia, signed an agreement on mutually beneficial cooperation in the establishment of a new class 2 waste management system;
• Rosneft and Beijing Gas Group Co. Ltd. signed an agreement to secure the essential conditions for the establishment of a joint venture for the construction and operation of a network of gas filling compressor stations (CNGS) in Russia;
• Gazprom and Mitsui & Co. Ltd. signed a memorandum of understanding on the Baltic LNG project, in order to consider the opportunities for cooperation in the project;
• Far East Development Corporation and Rostelecom PJSC signed an agreement on connecting the 18 advanced special economic zones in the Far East to fiber-optic communication lines;
• Novatek and Rosatomflot signed an agreement on the intention to jointly develop and build an icebreaker fleet operating on LNG.

The 6th Eastern Economic Forum (2021) held at the time when restrictions were still in place due to the risk posed by the coronavirus. This, of course, affected the number of participants at the event. Nevertheless, more than 4,000 participants, including more than 400 heads of companies. Western and Europeans disappeared from the forum. Online guest speakers included President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and President of Mongolia Ukhnaagiin Khürelsükh. There were also video greetings by President of China Xi Jinping, Prime Minister of the Republic of India Narendra Modi, and Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand Prayuth Chan-o-cha.

In addition to the usual discussion on Far East, there was on the agenda the Greater Eurasian Partnership. A range of topics came under the spotlight, including the values of young people from the Far East, obstacles encountered by young entrepreneurs, the education system, the impact of social media, the future of the financial market, copyright, raising investment, getting young people involved in developing the urban environment, career guidance, cooperation with young people in other countries, and the adaptation of the tourist industry.

But a record 380 agreements were signed worth a total of RUB 3.6 trillion, (excluding agreements where the figures were classified as commercial secrets), according to the official documents. Twenty-four of these were signed with foreign and international companies, ministries, and government bodies, including nine with China, six with Japan, three with Kazakhstan, and one each with Austria, Vietnam, Canada, Serbia, South Korea, and Ethiopia.

Quite recently, the 7th Eastern Economic Forum concluded also in September 2022. With the major challenges that Russia is facing from sanctions, the macro-region’s importance is growing rapidly. Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that enormous contribution to building business ties between Russia and the countries of the Asia-Pacific region. He remarked that “there is already a trend of the Asia-Pacific region becoming a centre of world economic activity, along with the gradual extinction of industrial centres in Europe and the United States.”

It was the first post-COVID forum and was attended by more than 7,000 guests, according the forum documents. Despite the sanctions and external pressure, 2,729 investment projects are being implemented in the Far East. More than 290 agreements were signed for a total of RUB 3.27 trillion, including agreements on infrastructure and transport projects, the development of large mineral deposits, as well as construction, industry, and agriculture. More than 7,000 participants from 68 countries and Russia’s territories, including 1,700 business representatives from 700 companies. Western and Europeans disappeared at the 2022 forum. Asian countries have become new centres of economic and technological growth and points of attraction for human resources, capital and industries.

Adviser to the Russian President and Executive Secretary of the EEF 2022 Organizing Committee, Anton Kobyakov, remarked that “Vladivostok could become Russia’s international tourist gateway to the Asia-Pacific region. Let foreign tourists come and bring their relatives and friends.” But the new opportunities mean work needs to be intensified with only friendly countries.

Under the theme “The Path to Partnership, Peace and Prosperity” for the year 2023, Southeast Asian business community, in particular, expressed an active interest in Russian projects and a readiness not only to talk but also to take concrete action, according to Business & Financial newspaper Izvestia. 

“The main issue is agreements on cooperation, technological interaction and the creation of joint ventures. And one thing is certain: The Far East becomes the primary location for potential developments and availability of multiple opportunities,” Georgy Ostapkovich, Director of the Center for Market Studies at the Higher School of Economics (HSE University), noted. He emphasized that it is currently difficult to quantify the number and value of contracts signed at the event. Analysts had predicted that the number of contracts inked at EEF-2023 would be the same as last year, which came in at around 3.2 trln rubles (US$33.08 bln).

Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the opening session that the government would not allow the pace of development to slacken in the Russian Far East as it is a strategic region for the country.

“We will definitely not be scaling down the pace of development in the region because the development of the Far East is an absolute priority for Russia, a direct priority for Russia as a whole for the entire 21st century, because it is a colossal region with a small population but huge potential. Of course, this is a strategic interest for the country,” the president said at the Eastern Economic Forum, which Vladivostok hosted on September 10-13.

The Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) is held annually in cooperation with the Far East regional administration in the city of Vladivostok. Three years of COVID-19, followed by Russia’s ‘special military operation’ and the current geopolitical situation, have not affected this corporate business event, as Russia looks towards the East and makes the main focus on developing the Far East. One of the crucial elements or components, which is missing to see the most essential results since its launch in 2015. 

For the past few years, Western and European businesses have largely been missing in this forum. And those from Asia and the Pacific are getting used to the EEF format as speeches have the same message relating to world geopolitics. Analysts, expressing much concern, say business people are really looking for corporate business opportunities, not hard geopolitics. From the perspective of investors, the region is of serious interest, but there is an imbalance between practical investment and economic potentials in the region.

Many of the speakers were very frank and objective in their speeches, highlighted possible ways for modernizing the region. It is equally important to highlight concrete success stories. In other words, reshaping and scaling up efforts are necessary leading to cutting the white ribbons marking the completion of projects. The Eastern Economic Forum was established by decree of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in 2015 to support the economic development of Russia’s Far East and to expand international cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. 

Given the vast territory of the Far East, 6.3 million people translates to slightly less than one person per square kilometer, making the Far East one of the most sparsely populated areas in the world. Until 2000, the Russian Far East lacked officially-defined boundaries. A single term “Siberia and the Far East” often referred to Russia’s regions east of the Urals without drawing a clear distinction between “Siberia” and “the Far East”. That however, the Far East is generally considered as the easternmost territory of Russia, between Lake Baikal in Eastern Siberia and the Pacific Ocean.

* 

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

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 on April 9, 2023

***

France24, Quartz, and the Wall Street Journal (paywall-free link) report that the EU abandoned its much-ballyhooed transition to electric cars, which was supposed to culminate with a total ban on gasoline cars in 2035.

 

The EU’s reversal allows “the sales of new cars with combustion engines that run on synthetic fuels,” which sounds very environmentally friendly. But synthetic fuels are similar to gasoline or diesel, so the decision allows internal combustion cars to continue being produced. While electric cars will still be produced and incentivized, there is no longer a 100% mandate by 2035.

This transition was announced with a lot of pomp:

The transition was supposed to go on for 13 years after its announcement in 2022 but was abandoned only a year after its adoption. What happened?

Prodded by climate activists, the EU was pressured to ban fossil fuel vehicles and replace them with battery-powered vehicles. The problem is that such a transition is impossible:

• Transitioning to electric passenger vehicles will increase electricity demand by 25%.
• Transitioning to electric trucks will further raise electricity demand to a total of 40% increase.
• EU is phasing out fossil fuel generation and replacing it with unreliable solar and wind generation – thus decreasing power availability instead of increasing it to meet greater demand.
• As cars and especially trucks are charged at night, solar and wind power cannot contribute to charging.

Are electric cars more efficient?

Running a gasoline car involves:

• Burning gas in the internal combustion engine and converting thermal energy to mechanical energy. That’s it.

Charging an electric car’s battery from the grid and driving the car involves:

• Burning gas at the power station and converting thermal energy of gas to mechanical energy of the gas turbine. This is only moderately more efficient in a power station than gasoline cars.
• Then, losses begin:
• Converting the mechanical energy of the turbine into electrical energy in the generator involves generator losses
• Converting medium voltage from the generator into high transmission voltage involves transformer losses
• Transmitting the power along the high voltage lines involves transmission losses
• Stepping down the voltage in several substations involves transformer losses again
• In a home charging station, converting 220v power into DC for car charging again involves conversion losses
• A chemical process in the battery being charged heats the battery, involving charging losses
• Running the car’s electrical motors from the battery requires inverter losses to generate electricity for traction motors and motor losses.

Take a look at what happens when a driver needs heat in the cab:

• Heating a gasoline car in winter involves redirecting waste heat (hot antifreeze) from the engine into the cab heater, thus not requiring additional fuel.
• Heating an electric car requires a resistance heater or a heat pump, needing to eventually consume more energy from the grid – with all the above conversion losses included.

Which process (gasoline car vs. electric) is more efficient at converting fuel, burnt directly in the car engine or at distant power stations, into usable energy to propel a car traveling on a highway? The gas engines win outright.

The situation would be different if we had a clean, weather-independent, and inexpensive electrical power source. But, alas, we do not have that yet.

Last December, eugyppius wrote a nice post about Switzerland banning electric cars due to a lack of electricity to charge them.

The fact that a pompously announced thirteen-year “electric car transition” was canceled only one year after it was adopted strongly suggests that the original idea was untenably stupid.

The Stupidity of the “CO2 Transition”

As I mentioned above, a 13-year policy canceled in its second year surely is stupid, almost by definition. However, the EU is not alone. California and New York, the bastions of virtue-signaling climate activism, are still going full speed ahead, banning gasoline cars while phasing out fossil fuel generation and doing nothing for nuclear power.

This so-called transition will make much money for the movers and shakers but is technologically unfeasible due to the lack of cheap, carbon-neutral baseload energy (baseload means not depending on weather).

The best outcome would be to see such plans canceled under the pretense of “unforeseen circumstances,” like it just happened in the EU.

The worse outcome would be our collective inability to have enough energy to heat our homes and drive cars. That would necessitate living in cramped “15-minute cities” that are being proposed everywhere.

We Are Responsible For Our Planet

I want to share a thought that many people may disagree with. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

• Social experiments like banning gasoline cars and simultaneously killing reliable power generation are dangerous; most readers of this substack would agree.
• Geoengineering experiments such as darkening the skies by spewing millions of tons of sulfur dioxide are dangerous. Most readers of this substack would agree with that as well.
• But emitting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere yearly is also a potentially dangerous geoengineering experiment.

The climate change field is full of crooks and is directed by those who recently gave us a non-working and dangerous Covid vaccine.

I do not believe them or their paid scientists any more than I believe the dishonest “Covid science.”

However, even though I do not believe those people, I have a concern and a feeling of responsibility for our planet.

We only have one planet. So we better be careful with it.

Somehow or other, honest humans need to band together and reach a better understanding of climate and the Earth.

At the same time, if a fraction of the billions of dollars wasted on electric cars and climate grandstanding were spent on nuclear fusion, we’d possibly have a clean, safe, and limitless energy source much sooner.

What do you think?

*

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.

Featured image is from the author

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.

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.

***

Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) constitute a buoyant $5.3 Billion dollar business (2022) which is slated to increase to $12.9 Billon dollars by 2027. This profit-driven military-industrial market is dominated by six “Defense Contractors” including Raytheon, Northrup Grunman, BAE Systems (plc), Boeing, Lockheed Martin and L3Harris Technologies.

According to Raytheon:

 “The development of directed energy (DE) technology is used to counter the drone threat”. 

There are several sophisticated Directed Energy Weapons technologies: High Energy Laser (Hel), High Power Radio Frequency Weapons, Sonic Weapons, Electromagnetic Weapons. (For details see Table below entitled Directed Energy Market Highlights).

While DEWs are largely intended for military use, so-called “non lethal” and/or “less lethal” Directed Energy Weapons are also envisaged for so-called “Homeland Security applications” (See table below).

The Evidence: Were Directed Energy Weapons Used in Hawaii?

Images confirm the extent and nature of devastation and destruction. (see videos below). 

They also suggest that the damage incurred was not attributable to “natural causes”. 

The evidence suggests that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) may have been used (yet to be fully ascertained) and that the acts of destruction were deliberate.

Video: Houses are Targeted? Green Trees Remain Untouched

Watch below an aerial footage. The location of this Wildfire remains to be confirmed. It may have been in Southern Oregon. [August 19, 2023]

How is it possible to have totally burned down houses in between undamaged trees?

 

Burned out houses between green trees? pic.twitter.com/j8OfYh7Oad

— David Wolfe (@DavidWolfe) August 16, 2023

Video: “Intentional Destruction”?

 

Note the above CBS report points to “A Wildfire Disaster”.

Thousands of families have lost their homes, burnt to the ground. The devastating impacts resulting from possible DEW attacks are not mentioned.

Entire buildings including homes and businesses razed completely to the ground.

It would appear that the buildings were targeted. Several of the surrounding wooden fences within proximity of the razed houses remain intact. 

 

The official statements point to “Natural Causes”: 

“Can you imagine calling up a family that has just seen their home burn to the ground and offering to buy their land for below market value?

This is apparently happening in Hawaii right now on a massive scale.”  Michael Snyder, (August 17, 2023)

***

Among the six private companies of the military industrial complex, Raytheon and BAE Systems are also involved in ENMOD technologies on behalf of the U.S. Air Force. 

There is a flourishing international market. DEWs are exported Worldwide. There are various technologies including Electromagnetic weapons. 

The usage for so-called “Homeland Security applications” includes “non-lethal” civilian applications including Airport protection, riot controls, protection of infrastructure (see below). 

A Citizens’ Criminal Investigation?

Are these so-called “non-lethal or “less lethal” DEWs available for acquisition or purchase by private sector and/or governmental entities? Are sales and non-lethal usage of DEWS subject to regulation?

According to MarketandMarkets.com, non military “non-lethal” applications constitute more than 41.2% of the North American market:

“Rising demand for laser weapons for security across land, air, and sea, new development of directed energy weapons, and the adoption of non-lethal weapons are driving the market growth.

A citizens’ investigation is required to establish what is behind this devastating process of destruction in Hawaii and in various  parts of America.  

Our thoughts today are with the people of Hawaii. 

Below is an examination of the Directed Energy Weapons Market by: 

Marketandmarkets.com

click image below to access the complete document

---

---

 

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.

This important article by Peter Koenig was first published on February 9, 2023, in the immediate wake of the earthquake. It was updated on February 22, 2023, following the testimony of Serdar Hussein and on September 16, 2023 in relation to  recent extreme climatic events including the earthquake in Morocco, the floods in Libya, the wildfires in Hawaii.  

Author’s Introductory Note

While there is no absolute proof that the 6 February 2023 (7.8 Richter) earthquake was manmade, caused by ENMOD / HAARP technologies (Environmental Modification / High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program), more than circumstantial evidence is growing that we are living in a geoengineering war – where weather and climate are manipulated by highly sophisticated technologies – which are also able to create earthquakes – and are presented as “climate change”. 

The recent – 8 September 2023 – seism (6.8) – in Morocco has characteristics similar to the ones of the February 2023 Turkey quake.

In addition, for those who are still believing the CO2-manmade “climate change” narrative, please consider the extreme weather conditions, the historic September monster-floods killing thousands of people in Libya, a country destroyed in 2011 by France, US, and NATO – which also lynched their leader, Muammar Gaddafi, who wanted to free Africa from the French, UK, and US predators, with a common African currency, the Gold Dinar.

Also look at extreme heatwaves in China in July 2023, followed by extreme flooding, never recorded in known history, as well as the simultaneous hurricanes hitting the southern Chinese East Coast. 

The destruction of Lahaina, the capital of Maui, Hawaii, also the seat of the Hawaiian Kingdom, through Directed Energy Weapons (DEW), capable of generating electromagnetic blueish laser-type beams with temperatures of up to 6000 degrees C, literally blowing up buildings, melting cars, but leaving trees intact, killing possibly thousands of people. All make-believe “climate change”.

We, the People, must open our eyes to these realities and the lies from the small but powerful financial-digital-military elite dominating the mainstream with daily misinformation.

Peter Koenig, September 16, 2023

Update. The Testimony of Serdar Hussein, the Head of the Turkish Space Agency

Waking-up is a conscientious trigger that must occur in the soul of each one of us to safe humanity and our civilization.

The conclusion of “No Evidence So Far” in the title referred to the strong suspicion that this horrendous quake was the result of an ENMOD engineered disaster. (Environmental Modification Techniques). Up to this day it killed more than 48,000 people, injured more than half a million, and still tens of thousands are missing.  

Will there ever be justice?

Will the presumed perpetrators be brought to trial?  

The “no evidence” statement is wearing thinner and thinner, especially, when listening to Serdar Hussein, the Head of the Turkish Space Agency talking on Russian TV.

He uses hyperbolic emblematic speech, when talking about the hard titanium alloy material being launched to the Earth. It refers to using the titanium alloy rods to send these deadly, super-power beams of energy to earth, deep into the ground to cause the earthquake:  

Transcript (Translation)

The head of the Turkish Space Agency, Serdar Hussein Yildirim, on weapons capable of causing earthquakes:

You know those power poles on the streets. They are similar to these pillars, about 8-10 meters high. Metal rods.

There is nothing inside the rod, no explosives, nothing, but it’s a metal rod made of a hard titanium alloy material.

They put them in a satellite. A certain amount of. And then they aim and launch them to Earth. It’s like a stick with a sharp point. For example, God forbid, it falls somewhere, we will not name the disaster scenario now, but as soon as it falls to the ground, it penetrates up to 5 km deep into the earth.  

This happens very quickly and creates an earthquake of magnitude 7-8.

As a result of the impact, everything that is there will be destroyed. Look, there are no weapons here, no explosives, no bombs, nothing like that. Simple sticks [rods]. But there is such a force that comes from outer space, and you have no chance to see it, stop it, or defend yourself.”  

See video here

Serdar Hussein’s statement remains to be verified.

Peter Koenig, February 22, 2023

***

According to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan “More than 13 million people have been affected by the devastating earthquake in Turkey.” (quoted by Tass, February 7, 2023)

“The earthquake has caused colossal damage. It was the biggest-ever calamity not only in our country’s history but in the history of the entire world,” Erdogan was quoted telling local television channels.

“We are living through the most painful days in our history. Two powerful earthquakes, with the epicenters in Pazarcik and Elbistan in Kahramanmaras, [close to the city of Gaziantep] have caused large-scale damage in ten provinces. Around 13.5 million [out of 85 million Turkish population] of our citizens have been affected on these territories,” he said.

Early Monday morning at around 4 AM on February 6, 2023, a massive 7.8 magnitude earthquake rocked southeast Turkey and Syria. According to the US Geological Survey, the earthquake’s epicenter hit an area about 30 km from Gaziantep (2.1 million population), a major city and provincial capital 100 km from the Syrian border. The quake was centered about 18 km deep.

It was followed by a strong 6.7 magnitude aftershock about 10 minutes later. Read more here. See also NY Post drone video below of some of the devastated areas.

The death toll from the earthquake so far exceeds 5,400, and some 32,000 people were injured. This is only after day two, when most of the destruction and rubble has not yet been searched for survivors or bodies.

The earthquake also hit northern Syria, leaving so far at least 1,200 deaths and thousands of injured. (See 2 google maps to the left).

By comparison, the 1960 Chile earthquake hitting the Santiago area was one of the most devastating tremors in recent history, killing some 1,700 people, plus the ensuing tsunami with a death toll of between 2000 and 2,500, and tens of thousands of injured.

A Gigantic Act of Terror?

If President Erdogan is right, that this is one of the world’s largest calamities ever – and it looks very much like he is right – wars notwithstanding, is this an act of terror?

What has Turkey done to elicit such a devastating reaction – by whom?

The US of A? NATO, which as far as command goes is also Washington and the Pentagon?

A few recent initiatives by Turkey – a key member and heavy-weight of NATO for her strategic geographic location between east and west – may have provoked the wrath of her NATO allies.

Not necessarily in order of priority:

1. Turkey has entered an alliance with Russia – which for a NATO-member is like “sleeping with the enemy”. (Michel Chossudovsky) See this and this. Such a partnership with a NATO enemy is indeed an absolute no-go for the west.

2. Under this alliance, Turkey has decided to buy theRussian S-400 Air Defense system, instead of the US Patriot system, as it would behoove for a NATO member, especially one as crucial as is Turkey. Patriot (standing for Phased Array Tracking Radar for Intercept on Target) is a surface-to-air missile and anti-ballistic system. It is NATO’s air defense system. Instead, Turkey’s decision for the more sophisticated, more precise and effective Russian S-400 is a strong backbone for her alliance with Russia.

3. President Erdogan brokered in 2017 a US$ 2.5 billion deal with President Putin for the S-400. First deliveries of the S-400 missile batteries arrived in 2019.

4. The S-400 system is said to pose a risk to the NATO alliance as well as the F-35, America’s most expensive weapons platform. Turkey was severely sanctioned at the time by President Trump, notably by a foreign-manipulated currency devaluation of the Turkish Lira – which had a devastating impact on Turkey’s economy. It is unusual, almost unheard of, for Washington to “punish” a NATO member for misbehavior. 

5. US warship USS Nitze barred from entering the Black Sea through the Turkish controlled Bosporus. According to USNI News, the US warship USS Nitze, a US destroyer, was spotted in early February 2023, operating near the Black Sea. It is said to be the closest a US warship has come to Russia since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine began.

6. On February 3rd, the Nitze was seen at the lower edge of the Bosphorus Strait, en route to a port call in Turkey. The last US warship to pass through the strait was the USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51), which left the Black Sea on December 15, 2021. See Google map below, followed by video on the USS Nitze

 

7. In February 2022, Turkey closed the Bosphorus passage from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea for all vessels which do not have a national port within the Black Sea. This means, US war ships are not allowed to cross from the Med-Sea through the Bosporus into the Black Sea, from where Russia may be vulnerable for cruise missiles form US destroyers, for example the USS Nitze. In the meantime, Nitze has scheduled a port call at Gölcük Naval Base, in the Sea of Marmara (see Google map above).

8. Turkey, a key NATO country, between East and West, with the crucial Bosphorus as the dividing line, is closing a critical strategic passage to her NATO ally – NATO commander – protecting Russia, the US enemy – may not be seen with joy by Washington.

9. Turkish – Syrian rapprochement, is certainly not what Washington wants. It is the latest development in regional surprises, as reported by Arab Center Washington DC – see this.

10. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s interest in a rapprochement with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is the latest chapter in his delicate domestic and regional balancing act, and it has his friends and enemies alike, especially the US, scrambling for how this development might impact them. The rapprochement, if it succeeds, would further complicate the domestic and regional dynamics in northern Syria without securing any clear advantage for Erdogan beyond, perhaps, in the upcoming Turkish elections.

11. Remember the Russian Involvement in Syria – when the US was chased out of Syria? At the request of President Bashar al-Assad – Russian military, mostly air force interference from September 2015 until the end of 2017, was largely responsible for Washington’s significant withdrawal, albeit not complete, from Syria. In 2017, when “mission accomplished”, Russian combat troops were withdrawn, but Russia keeps a nominal military police presence in Northern Syria.

12. Turkey’s Bombshell – a few days ago, rejecting Sweden as NATO member, may have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. For a new country to become a NATO member, ALL NATO nations must approve the new candidate.

13. Sweden says they cannot meet some of the Turkish conditions. Among them are Turkey’s accusations that Sweden is supporting members of the Kurdish Working Party – the PKK, archenemies of Erdogan’s.

14. According to a Turkish Crisis Group, some 30,000 to 40,000 people are estimated to have died in fighting between the PKK and Turkish government, since 1984.

15. Maybe there were also some Russian interests at stake in Turkey’s rejection of Sweden as a NATO member. Although peace has prevailed between Sweden and Russia, since 1809, the two countries never achieved a close relationship, unlike the situation with other neighbors. This is particularly the case with the current Swedish Government.

Turkish General Elections on 14 May 2023.

If the timing of the earthquake was part of a plan, it would fit perfectly into the coming General Elections on 14 May 2023. President Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AK Party), are currently not doing well in popularity polls.

Depending on his dealing with the consequences of the earthquake, he and his Party may gain or lose in approval ratings. Usually, „natural“ disasters do not bode well for the governments in place, regardless of whether they bear any responsibility.

In any case, new elections bring new “opportunities”. In the meantime, it is clear to most analysts, that no elections are truly “democratic” – that there is literally no election in the world in which the decisive vote – the decisive influence – is not exerted by the Anglosaxon western empire.

Replacing Erdogan with a US stooge, might bring Turkey back as the desired all obedient NATO country, no alliance with Russia, no more “sleeping with the enemy”.

Is it a coincidence that just a few days after Turkey rejected Sweden’s candidacy for NATO membership, a massive, deadly and all-destructive earthquake hits Turkey, with serious  ramification for Syria, and even impacting on Cyprus and Lebanon.

Was The Earthquake the Consequence of A Terror Attack? No Evidence

Artificial earthquakes have been prompted before. For example, the 12 January 2010 earthquake off Port-au-Prince, capital city of Haiti, is suspected having been prompted by underwater / underground explosions, in order to bring huge oil reserves lodged largely around the shores of the Caribbean Sea, closer to the surface to be easier accessible and exploitable. William Engdahl’s “Strategic denial of oil in Haiti?” points clearly in this direction.

F. William Engdahl says Geo-physics suggest there could be massive oil and mineral deposits in and off-shore Haiti. See this 9-min video from 30 January 2010.

The US Air Force’s Weather Warfare 

Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report,  “offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary”:

‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.”

The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP)

The US Air Force’s “Weather Warfare” is related to The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) which was developed in the early 1990s.

A scientific report (HAL Id: hal-01082992) regarding HAARP (2011, 2014) explains that high-power ELF radiation generated by modulated HF heating of the ionosphere could cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and localized heating. The paper by Fran De Aquino Maranhao summarized the scientific findings as follows:

“HAARP is currently [2014], [the project was closed in Gakona, Alaska and transferred in 2014] the most important facility used to generate extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation in the ionosphere. In order to produce this ELF radiation, the HAARP transmitter radiates a strong beam of high frequency (HF) waves modulated at ELF.

This HF heating modulates the electrons’ temperature in the D region ionosphere and leads to modulated conductivity and a time-varying current which then radiates at the modulation frequency. Recently, the HAARP HF transmitter operated with 3.6GW of effective radiated power modulated at frequency of 2.5Hz. It is shown that high-power ELF radiation generated by HF ionospheric heaters, such as the current HAARP heater, can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and strong localized heating.”

The patents used to develop the HAARP program are owned by Raytheon through its E-Systems subsidiary.

It should be noted that with the closing down of  The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) program in Gakona, Alaska in 2014 for another location, the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been actively involved in ENMOD research, most of which is classified. See this

At the time of writing, there is suspicion, but no concrete evidence that the Turkey-Syria Earthquake was an Act of Terror, triggered by Environmental Modification Techniques.

The above statements remain to be fully ascertained.  

 

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image: The earthquake destroyed buildings in the town of Jandaris, near Afrin, Syria.Credit: Rami al-Sayed/AFP/Getty

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.

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.

***

This article first published on March 30, 2011 documents an issue of significance in the current context (See the latest Nuclear Posture Review documents) namely: 

a planned nuclear attack against a non-nuclear State in 1996, using a mini-nuke, namely a tactical earth penetrating tactical nuclear weapon.

Michel Chossudovsky, August 23, 2023, September 16, 2023

 ***

A war on Libya has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 20 years. Using nukes against Libya was first envisaged in 1996.  

On April 14th 1986, Ronald Reagan ordered a series of bombings directed against Libya under “Operation El Dorado Canyon”, in reprisal for an alleged Libya-sponsored terrorist bombing of a Berlin discotheque. The pretext was fabricated. During these air raids, which were condemned by both France and Italy, Qadhafi’s residence was bombed killing his younger daughter.

Barely acknowledged by the Western media, a planned attack on Libya using nuclear weapons had been contemplated by the Clinton Administration in 1996, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. 

The Department of Defense had developed a new generation of bunker buster tactical nuclear weapons for use in the Middle East and Central Asia: 

“Military officials and leaders of America’s nuclear weapon laboratories [had] urged the US to develop a new generation of precision low-yield nuclear weapons… which could be used in conventional conflicts with third-world nations.” (Federation of American Scientists, 2001, emphasis added)

The B61-11 earth-penetrating weapon with a nuclear warhead had not been tested. It was part of the B61 series, coupled with a so-called “low yield” nuclear warhead. According to US military sources: “If used in North Korea, the radioactive fallout [of the B61-11] could drift over nearby countries such as Japan.” (B61-11 Earth-Penetrating Weapon, Globalsecurity.org). The B61-11 earth-penetrating version of the B61 was configured initially to have a “low” 10 kiloton yield, 66.6 percent of a Hiroshima bomb, for post-Cold War battlefield operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. 

The Pentagon’s Plan to Nuke Libya

The B61-11 tactical nuclear weapon was slated by the Pentagon to be used in 1996 against the “Qadhafi regime”:

“Senior Pentagon officials ignited controversy last April [1996] by suggesting that the earth-penetrating [nuclear] weapon would soon be available for possible use against a suspected underground chemical factory being built by Libya at Tarhunah. This thinly-veiled threat came just eleven days after the United States signed the African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, designed to prohibit signatories from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against any other signatory, including Libya.” (David Muller, Penetrator N-Bombs, International Action Center, 1997)

Tarbunah has a population of more than 200,000 people, men, women and children. It is about 60 km East of Tripoli. Had this “humanitarian bomb” (with a “yield” or explosive capacity of two-thirds of a Hiroshima bomb) been launched on this “suspected” WMD facility, it would have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, not to mention the nuclear fallout.

Image: Harold Palmer Smith Junior

The man behind this diabolical project to nuke Libya was Assistant Secretary of Defense Harold Palmer Smith Junior. “Even before the B61 came on line, Libya was identified as a potential target”. (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – September/ October 1997, p. 27, emphasis added)

Harold Palmer Smith had been appointed by President Bill Clinton to oversee nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs with a focus on “the reduction and maintenance of the US arsenal of nuclear weapons”. From the outset, his actual mandate was not to “reduce” but to “increase” the nuclear arsenal by promoting the development of a new generation of “harmless” mini-nukes for use in the Middle East war theater.

“Testing” the B61-11 Nuclear Bomb on an Actual Country

The Department of Defense’s objective under Harold Smith’s advice was to fast-track the “testing” of the B61-11 nuclear bomb on an actual country: 

Five months after [Assistant Defense Secretary] Harold Smith called for an acceleration of the B61-11 production schedule, he went public with an assertion that the Air Force would use the B61-11 [nuclear weapon] against Libya’s alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah if the President decided that the plant had to be destroyed. “We could not take [Tarhunah] out of commission using strictly conventional weapons,” Smith told the Associated Press. The B61-11 “would be the nuclear weapon of choice,” he told Jane’s Defence Weekly.

Smith gave the statement during a breakfast interview with reporters after Defense Secretary William Perry had earlier told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on chemical or biological weapons that the U.S. retained the option of using nuclear weapons against countries armed with chemical and biological weapons. (http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/B61-11.htm, emphasis added)

While the Pentagon later denied its intention to bomb Libya’s Tarbunah plant, it nonetheless confirmed that “Washington would not rule out using nuclear weapons [against Libya]”. (Ibid., emphasis added.)

Nukes and Mini-Nukes: Iraq and Afghanistan

The US military contends that “mini-nukes” are “humanitarian bombs” which minimize “collateral damage”. According to scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon, they are “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground.”

The B61-11 is a bona fide thermonuclear bomb, a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) in the real sense of the word.  

Military documents distinguish between the Nuclear Earth Penetrator (NEP) and the “mini-nuke”, which are nuclear weapons with a yield of less than 10 kilotons (two-thirds of a Hiroshima bomb). The NEP can have a yield of up to a 1000 kilotons, or seventy times a Hiroshima bomb.

This distinction between mini-nukes and the NEP is in many regards misleading. In practice there is no dividing line. We are broadly dealing with the same type of weaponry: the B61-11 has several “available yields”, ranging from “low yields” of less than one kiloton, to mid-range, and up to the 1000 kiloton bomb.

In all cases, the radioactive fallout is devastating. Moreover, the B61 series of thermonuclear weapons includes several models with distinct specifications: the B61-11, the B61-3, B61- 4, B61-7 and B61-10. Each of these bombs has several “available yields”.

What is contemplated for theater use is the “low yield” 10 kt bomb, two-thirds of a Hiroshima bomb.

The Libya 1997 “Nuclear Option” Had Set the Stage…

Neither the Bush nor the Obama administrations have excluded using thermonuclear bunker buster bombs in the Middle East war theater. These weapons were specifically developed for use in post Cold War “conventional conflicts with third world nations”.  They were approved for use in the conventional war theater by the US Senate in 2002, following the adoption of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review.

In October 2001, in the immediate wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld envisaged the use of the B61-11 in Afghanistan. The stated targets were Al Qaeda cave bunkers in the Tora Bora mountains.

Rumsfeld stated at the time that while the “conventional” bunker buster bombs “‘are going to be able to do the job’… he did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons.” (Quoted in the Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001, emphasis added.)

The use of the B61-11 was also contemplated during the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. In this regard, the B61-11 was described as “a precise, earth-penetrating low-yield nuclear weapon against high-value underground targets”, which included Saddam Hussein’s underground bunkers:

“If Saddam was arguably the highest value target in Iraq, then a good case could be made for using a nuclear weapon like the B61-11 to assure killing him and decapitating the regime.” (Defense News, December 8, 2003, emphasis added) 

“All options are on the table”… Sheer madness. Nukes to implement “regime change”… What Rumsfeld had proposed, as part of a “humanitarian mandate”, was the use of a nuclear bomb to “take out” the president of a foreign country. 

[Author’s note: There is no documentary evidence that the B61-11 was used against Iraq.]

Is a Nuclear Attack on Libya Still on the Pentagon’s Drawing Board?

“The Coalition of the Willing” under US-NATO mandate is currently involved in “a humanitarian war” on Libya to “protect the lives of innocent civilians”. 

Is the use of a nuclear bomb excluded under the Alliance’s R2P (Responsibility to Protect) Doctrine? 

The Bush administration’s 2001 nuclear doctrine contained specific “guidelines” regarding “preemptive” nuclear strikes against several countries in the broader Middle East Central Asian region, which explictly included Libya.

As revealed by William Arkin in early 2002, “The Bush administration, in a secret policy review… [had] ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons [the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review approved by the Senate in late 2002] against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the “axis of evil”–Iraq, Iran, and North Korea–but also China, Libya and Syria.” (See William Arkin, “Thinking the Unthinkable”, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002) 

In addition, the U.S. Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And, it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against chemical or biological attacks, as well as “surprising military developments” of an unspecified nature. These and a host of other directives, including calls for developing bunker-busting mini-nukes and nuclear weapons that reduce collateral damage, are contained in a still-classified document called the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was delivered to Congress on Jan. 8. (ibid)

The preemptive nuclear doctrine (DJNO) –endorsed by the Obama Administration– allows for the preemptive use of “mini nukes” in conventional war theaters directed against “rogue states”. While the “guidelines” do not exclude other (more deadly) categories of nukes in the US/NATO nuclear arsenal, Pentagon “scenarios” in the Middle East and North Africa are currently limited to the use of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11 bunker buster bomb. 

The fact that Libya had been singled out by the Pentagon for a possible 1997 mini-nuke “trial run” was a significant element in the formulation of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).

It is worth noting that tactical B61 nuclear weapons have also been deployed by America’s NATO partners: five European “non-nuclear states”, including Belgium, The Netherlands and Italy, which are directly participating in the Libya bombing campaign, have B61 mini-nukes stockpiled and deployed under national command in their respective military bases. (Michel Chossudovsky, Europe’s Five “Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States“, February 10, 2010) 

These European-based mini-nukes are earmarked for targets in the Middle East. While Libya is not mentioned, according to “NATO strike plans”, the European-based thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs could be launched “against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran” (quoted in National Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe, February 2005).  

In the context of the ongoing war against Libya, “all options are on the table”, including the preemptive nuclear option, as part of a “humanitarian mandate” to protect the lives of innocent civilians.

In 2007, a Secret 2003 STRATCOM Plan was revealed, which confirmed Washington’s resolve to wage preemptive nuclear attacks against Iran, Syria and Libya. While the concepts and assumptions of this document were derived from the 2001 NPR, the Plan formulated by Strategic Command headquarters (USSTRATCOM) focused concretely on issues of implementation.

The use of  nuclear weapons including the B61-11 against Libya in the course of the current military campaign, as initially envisaged by the Department of Defense in 1997 and subsequently embodied in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) cannot, therefore, be ruled out.

Shortly after the commencement of the Libya bombing campaign on March 19, the Pentagon ordered the testing of the B61-11 nuclear bomb. These tests announced in an April 4 press release, pertained to the installed equipment and weapon’s components. The objective was to verify the functionality of  the nuclear bomb…..  

The B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber is the “chosen carrier” of the B61 -11 nuclear bombs. The B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber out of Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri was not only sent on a mission to bomb Libya at the very outset of the air campaign, it was subsequently used in the testing of the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb. 

The B61-11 has a yield of two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb. Why were these tests of the equipment and functionality of a tactical nuclear weapon scheduled shortly after the onset of the Libya bombing campaign?

Why now?

Is the timing of these tests coincidental or are they in any way related to the chronology of the Libya bombing campaign?

U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, which is responsible for the coordination of US bombing operations directed against Libya was also involved in the testing of the B61-11 nuclear bombs.   

Both the bombing of Libya by the B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber (see image above) on March 19-20, as well as the testing of the functionality of the B61-11 nuclar bomb (announced April 4) were implemented out of the same US Air Force base in Missouri. 

Thinking the Unthinkable. The Pentagon’s Plan to Nuke Libya

The Pentagon had envisaged  the use of the B61-11 nuclear bomb against Libya. Categorized as a mini-nuke, the B61-11 is a 10 kiloton bomb with a yield equivalent to two thirds of a Hiroshima bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Planed Nuclear Attack on Libya, Global Research, March 25, 2011)

The Pentagon’s 1996 plan to nuke Libya had been announced in no uncertain terms at a press briefing by Assistant Secretary of Defense Harold P. Smith:  

“[The] Air Force would use the B61-11 [nuclear weapon] against Libya’s alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah if the President decided that the plant had to be destroyed. ‘We could not take [Tarhunah] out of commission using strictly conventional weapons,’ Smith told the Associated Press. The B61-11 ‘would be the nuclear weapon of choice,’ he told Jane Defence Weekly. (The Nuclear Information Project: the B61-11)

Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Perry –who was present at the press briefing– had earlier told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “the U.S. retained the option of using nuclear weapons against countries [e.g. Libya] armed with chemical and biological weapons.” (Ibid, See also Greg Mello, The Birth Of a New Bomb; Shades of Dr. Strangelove! Will We Learn to Love the B61-11? The Washington Post, June 01, 1997)

The Department of Defense’s objective was to fast track the “testing” of the B61-11 nuclear bomb on an actual country and that country was Libya:

“Even before the B61 came on line, Libya was identified as a potential target”. (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – September/ October 1997, p. 27). (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, America’s Planned Nuclear Attack on Libya, March 2011) 

While the 1996 plan to bomb Libya using tactical nuclear weapons was subsequently shelved, Libya was not removed from the “black list”: “The Qadhafi regime” remains to this date a target country for a pre-emptive (“defensive”) nuclear attack.

As revealed by William Arkin in early 2002, “The Bush administration, in a secret policy review… [had] ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the “axis of evil” Iraq, Iran, and North Korea but also China, Libya and Syria.” (See William Arkin, “Thinking the Unthinkable”, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002).

According to the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, adopted by the Senate in 2002, Libya is on the “Pentagon’s list”. Moreover, it is also important to emphasize that Libya was the first country to be tagged and formally identified (at a Department of Defense press briefing) as a possible target for a US sponsored nuclear attack using the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb. This announcement was made in 1996, five years prior to the formulation of  the pre-emptive nuclear war doctrine under the Bush administration (i.e the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review).

The Testing of the B61-11 Nuclear Bomb (Announced on April 4, 2011)

What is the relevance of the history of the B61-11 nuclear bomb and earlier threats directed by the Clinton administration against Libya?

Has the project to nuke Libya been shelved or is Libya still being contemplated as a potential target for a nuclear attack?

Shortly after the commencement of the Libya bombing campaign on March 19, the US Department of Defense ordered the testing of the B61-11 nuclear bomb. These tests pertained to the installed equipment and weapon‘s components of the nuclear bomb.

The announcement of these tests was made public on April 4; the precise date of the test was not revealed, but one can reasonably assume that it was in the days prior to the April 4 press release by the National Nuclear Security Administration. (NNSA. Press Release, NNSA Conducts Successful B61-11 JTA Flight Test, Apr 4, 2011)

The B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber is the US Air Force’s chosen “carrier” for the delivery of the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb. In late March or early April (prior to April 4), the B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber from the 509th Bomber Wing operating out of Whiteman Air Force Base, was used in the so-called “Joint Test Assembly” (JTA) of the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb.

In other words, the B61-11 was tested using the same B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers out of Whiteman Air Force Base, which were used to bomb Libya at the very outset of the air campaign.

B61-11 Simulation

The Joint Test Assembly (JTA) of the B61-11

This JTA testing was undertaken by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) together with the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, which coincidentally is responsible for the coordination of US bombing operations directed against Libya as well as ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The JTA was produced by the NNSA in support of the Joint Surveillance Flight Test Program between the Department of Defense and the NNSA” (Press release, op cit)

The Joint Test Assembly (JTA) in the case of  the B61 Mod 11 nuclear bomb, requires testing the equipment of the B61-11 using a proxy conventional non-nuclear warhead. Essentially what is involved is to test all the installed equipment on the nuclear bomb and ensure its functionality without actually having a nuclear explosion. The JTA test “was built to simulate the actual B61-11 weapon configuration utilizing as much war reserve hardware as feasible.  It was assembled at the Pantex plant in Amarillo, Texas and was not capable of nuclear yield, as it contained no special nuclear materials.”  (Press Release, NNSA Conducts Successful B61-11 JTA Flight Test, Apr 4, 2011)

“JTA tests [are to ensure] that all weapon systems [e.g. B61-11 nuclear bomb] perform as planned and that systems are designed to be safe, secure and effective,”…. A JTA contains instrumentation and sensors that monitor the performance of numerous weapon components [e.g of the B61-11] during the flight test to determine if the weapon functions as designed. This JTA also included a flight recorder that stored the bomb performance data for the entire test. The data is used in a reliability model, developed by Sandia National Laboratories, to evaluate the reliability of the bomb. (Ibid)

B61 Model 11 nuclear bomb at Whiteman Air force base 

The B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber operating out of the Whiteman Air Force Base was reported to have “delivered and released” the B61-11 JTA at the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada, which is routinely used to test nuclear ordnance. (See Press Release, op cit.).

The Tonopah Test Range while owned by the US Department of Energy, is managed and operated by Sandia National Laboratories, a division of America’s largest weapons producer Lockheed-Martin (under permit with the NNSA). (See this)  

Aerial View of Tonopah Test Range where the B61 11 JTA was tested using a B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber. Source NASA. 

The Deployment of B-2 Stealth Bombers to Libya

Why were these JTA tests of the equipment and functionality of a tactical nuclear weapon scheduled shortly after the onset of the Libya bombing campaign?

Why now?

Is the timing of these tests coincidental or are they in any way related to the chronology of the Libya bombing campaign?

It is worth noting that the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command was in charge of both the JTA tests of the B61-11 as well as the deployment of three B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers to Libya on March 19.  

“Three B-2 Spirit bombers, piloted by two men each, made it back after the 11,418-mile round trip from the Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri – where they are kept in special hangars – to Libya, where they hit targets on forces loyal to Colonel Gaddafi and back again.”(Libya-crisis-B2-stealth-bombers-25-hour-flight-Missouri-Tripoli, Daily Mail, March 21, 2011)

In other words, both the deployment of the B-2s to the Libya war theater as well as the JTA  test (using the B-2 bomber for delivery) were coordinated out of Whiteman Air Force base.

“Humanitarian war” is carried out through a “Shock and Awe” Blitzkrieg. Three B-2 Spirit Stealth bombers were sent on a bombing mission at the very outset of the Libya bombing campaign. According to the reports, they returned to Whiteman Air Force base on March 21st. The reports suggest that the three B-2s were carrying bunker buster bombs with conventional warheads.

The report suggests that the B-2 Stealth bombers dropped 45 one ton satellite guided missiles on Libya, which represents an enormous amount of ordnance: “At $2.1bn, they are the most expensive warplanes in the world and rarely leave their climate-controlled hangars. But when it does, the B-2 bomber makes a spectacularly effective start to a war – including during this weekend’s aerial attack on Libya’s air defences. (Daily Mail, March 21, 2011, op cit)  

While we are not in a position to verify the accuracy of these reports, the 45 one-ton bombs correspond roughly to the B-2 specifications, namely each of these planes can carry sixteen 2,000 pound (900 kg) bombs.

Whiteman Air Force Base

Concluding Remarks: The Decision to Use Nuclear Weapons

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, the B61-11 “mini-nuke” is presented as an instrument of peace rather than war.

In an utterly twisted logic, low yield tactical nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. 

In this regard, US nuclear doctrine ties in with the notion that the US-NATO war under Operation Odyssey Dawn is a humanitarian undertaking.  

The important question addressed in this article is whether the recent test of a B61-11 is “routine” or was it envisaged by the DoD directly or indirectly in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, implying the possible deployment of mini nukes at some future stage of the Libya bombing campaign. There is no clear-cut answer to this question.

It should be emphasized, however, that under the doctrine of “pre-emptive nuclear war” mini nukes are always deployed and  in “a state of readiness” (even in times of peace). Libya was the first “rogue state” to be tagged for a nuclear attack in 1996 prior to the approval of the mini nukes for battlefield use by the US Congress.

The Pentagon claims that “mini-nukes” are harmless to civilians because  “the explosion takes place under ground”.  Not only is the claim of an underground explosion erroneous, each of these ‘mini-nukes’,  constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945…. 

We are at a dangerous crossroads: The rules and guidelines governing the use nuclear weapons have been “liberalized” (i.e. “deregulated” in relation to those prevailing during the Cold War era). The decision to use low yield nuclear nuclear weapons (e.g. against Libya) no longer depends on the Commander in Chief, namely president Barack Obama. It is strictly a military decision. The new doctrine states that Command, Control, and Coordination (CCC) regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be “flexible”, allowing geographic combat commanders to decide if and when to use of nuclear weapons: 

Known in official Washington, as “Joint Publication 3-12”, the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for “integrating conventional and nuclear attacks” under a unified and “integrated” Command and Control (C2).

It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process, where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.

Military planning focuses on “the most efficient use of force”, i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be “part of the tool box”, from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with “evolving circumstances” in the “war theatre”. (None of these weapons in the Pentagon’s “tool box”, including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as “weapons of mass destruction” when used by the United States of America and its “coalition” partners). Michel Chossudovsky, Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? Global Research, February 22, 2006  

*

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.

---

ANNEX  The B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber

The B-2 Spirit aircraft is described as “deadly and effective’ yet at the same time it is upheld as an instrument  of “humanitarian warfare”. Used at the outset of Operation Odyssey Dawn, this aircraft has the mandate under UN Security Councill resolution 1973 to   “protect the lives of civilians”.

“An assessment published by the USAF showed that two B-2s armed with precision weaponry can do the job of 75 conventional aircraft. That makes it a powerful weapon to strike targets including bunkers, command centres, radars, airfields, air defences.” (Ibid) The mission is said to have have dropped  a total of 45 one ton satellite guided missiles, which broadly corresponds to the 15 out of the 16 2000 pound bombs mentioned above.(Ibid) 

The B-2 Spirit as carrier of the B61 mod 11 bunker buster bomb, is equipped to accommodate 16 B61-11 mini-nukes of about 1,200 lb (540 kg).

See the following videos: 

Northrop Grunman Video Clip on the B-2

Military PR videoclip on the B-2
The B-2 was brought down by the Yugoslav air defense system in 1999, which the video does not mention

Returning to Whiteman Air force base on March 21, see this and this

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

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.

***

The UK is falling even further behind Europe in its efforts to remove chemicals harmful to both human health and the environment from the market.

There are presently 36 pesticides – including 13 categorised as highly hazardous – authorised for use in the UK that are prohibited in EU nations, according to a study by Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK).

This group includes four pesticides that pose a high toxicity risk to bees, one that contaminates water, and another that is highly toxic to aquatic organisms. The UK will continue to employ these 13 hazardous pesticides for an additional two to five years compared to EU nations.

Protect

Nick Mole, policy officer at PAN UK, said:

“The UK is becoming the toxic poster child of Europe. The government has repeatedly promised that our environmental standards won’t slip post-Brexit. And yet here we are, less than four years later, and already we’re seeing our standards fall far behind those of the EU.

“With UK bees and other pollinators in decline, and our waters never more polluted, now is the time to be taking steps to protect nature. Instead, the government is choosing to expose British wildlife to an ever-more toxic soup of chemicals.”

Additionally, PAN UK’s study unveiled an increasing concern for human health, displayed by the following list of 36 pesticides permitted in the UK, but prohibited in the EU.

Permitted Pesticides

• 12 are classified as carcinogens, capable of causing different types of cancer, including leukaemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma;
• Nine are endocrine disruptors (EDCs), which interfere with hormone systems and can cause birth defects, developmental disorders and reproductive problems, such as infertility;
• Eight are ‘developmental or reproductive toxins’, which have adverse effects on sexual function and fertility in both adults and children, and can reduce the number of functionality of sperm and cause miscarriages;
• Two are cholinesterase inhibitors, reducing the ability of nerve cells to pass information to each other and can impair the respiratory system, causing confusion, headaches and weakness;
• One is classified as acutely toxic, meaning that adverse health effects can result either from a single exposure or from multiple ones in a short period of time (usually 24 hours).

Health

The majority of the chemicals in question (30) were allowed for use in the EU when the UK left on 31st January 2020, but have since been removed from the EU market. The remaining six chemicals have been approved by the UK government, but not in the EU, since Brexit.

One of the primary reasons for the disparity in standards originates from a decision made by the UK government. They have granted an automatic three-year extension to all pesticides with licenses set to expire before December 2023, indicating limited governmental capacity for re-approving pesticides. 

Previously, the UK had a policy of granting a maximum 15-year license to pesticides before requiring re-approval, acknowledging the substantial risks these chemicals pose to both human health and the environment.

“The UK government promised to drive a reduction in pesticide use back in 2018 and yet we’re still waiting for them to take action”, added Mole.

These measures will also affect trade deals between the UK and EU, explained Mole:

“The emerging gap between the UK and EU pesticide standards is incredibly concerning for our human health and environmental protections, but also for the future of UK agriculture as our standards fall further and further behind those of our largest trading partner.

Trading

“UK food exports containing pesticides that EU growers aren’t allowed to use, are likely to be rejected. Given that the EU still accounts for around 60% of UK agricultural exports, the impact on farmers could be devastating.”

PAN UK urges the UK government to, at the very least, maintain alignment with EU pesticide norms and prevent any further deterioration of existing UK standards. 

Additionally, PAN UK advocates for the immediate implementation of long-overdue measures, including pesticide reduction targets, the halt of pesticide use in urban areas, and the enhancement of state support for farmers to reduce their reliance on agrochemicals.

The UK pesticide policies will have far-reaching effects, impacting not just the health of individuals and the environment, but also our farmers and our trade agreements with the EU, our largest trading partner.

*

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.

Monica Piccinini is a freelance writer, focused on environmental, health and human rights issues.

Featured image: Barrie Williams / Crown copyright / Scottish Government / Creative Commons 2.0

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.

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.

***

The growing US’ geopolitical competition with Russia and China marks the end of the post-Cold War world order, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, speaking at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies on Wednesday.

“What we are experiencing now is more than a test of the post-Cold War order. It’s the end of it,” he noted.

“Decades of relative geopolitical stability have given way to an intensifying competition with authoritarian powers, revisionist powers.”

This statement appears to be a rallying cry for a “new cold war.”

Since the post-Cold War order is coming to an end, what kind of new world order does the US want?

Various signs indicate that the US wants major power competition and camp confrontation in order to maintain its global hegemony, even at the expense of the interests of other countries, including allies, and partner nations.

However, the reality is that major power competition goes against the trend of the times and cannot solve the US’ own problems and the challenges facing the world. It will only further divide the world, leading the world to slide toward a more dangerous cliff edge.

Regarding Blinken’s remarks, there are two main points to consider.

Firstly, Blinken was creating a sense of crisis in the world. The underlying message to US allies and other countries is that there are challengers, particularly China and Russia, who want to change the existing order.

Secondly, Blinken’s remarks also reflect a sense of anxiety in the US. The US is attempting to slow down China’s rise through strategic competition, while hoping to sustain its hegemony without jeopardizing its own interests. However, it seems that the US has no clear solution to this dilemma.

China is one of the beneficiaries of the existing system and does not seek to challenge or subvert this order. However, the US has viewed any legitimate demand made by China, even those that reflect the reasonable demands of the majority of developing countries, as a challenge and ill-intentioned sabotage.

Xin Qiang, deputy director of the American Studies Center of Fudan University, believes that US irrational crackdown on China will only irritate China and other developing countries.

Many developing countries share common demands with China, but the US opposes whatever China proposes and intends to strangle its legitimate right for development. This will ultimately lead to the destruction of the existing international order and be counterproductive to the US’ goals.

The US believes that by containing China, it will gain an advantage. However, whatever damage they’re doing to China, it also backfires on the US and even the world.

The US now sees China as a competitor and challenger, opposing and obstructing anything that may benefit China, regardless of its impact on the US. This approach not only fails to maintain US hegemony but also leads it further away from the right direction.

Today, the US is embroiled in simultaneous confrontations with China and Russia. The US needs to think carefully, as it will be more difficult to engage in a “new cold war” compared to the previous one. In the 1970s, the US GDP accounted for nearly one-third of the global total, but now it is only one-fourth. Its two major opponents are the nuclear power Russia and the economic powerhouse China. In order to defeat Russia, the US must ultimately dismantle its nuclear deterrence, which would be a thrilling adventure.

As for China, the US is attempting to stifle its development by imposing unlimited technological restrictions, but it is unable to completely decouple from China economically. For the US and its main allies, China is either their largest single trading partner or one of the largest. Today, the US is a reckless strategic aggressor, attempting to unite its relatively weaker strength with its allies to wage a new cold war. It should be noted that the power of US allies has declined significantly, and the unity of the “West” is crippled due to the US transitioning from a “blood donor” to a “vampire”.

The current generation of American elites arrogantly seeks to replicate the victory of the Cold War, but they will never succeed. Instead, the US will face a different ending.

*

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.

Featured image: Tony Blinken At His Confirmation Hearing, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jan. 19, 2021. (Screenshot via Mondoweiss)

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.

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.

***

 

 

 

 

On August 20, Bernardo Arévalo was elected president of Guatemala, defeating conservative Sandra Torres. An anti-graft crusader, Arévalo has promised to root out corruption and create a large public jobs program by improving services like water sanitation.

Political analyst Edgar Ortiz Romero called Arévalo “the most progressive candidate to get this far since 1985” when democracy was restored to Guatemala after three decades of military rule following a 1954 CIA-orchestrated coup.

Arévalo, 64, is the son of Juan José Arévalo, Guatemala’s president from 1945 to 1951, who is exalted for creating Guatemala’s social security system and guaranteeing freedom of speech.

A philosophy professor, Arévalo was elected as Guatemala’s first democratic leader following a popular uprising against U.S.-backed dictator Jorge Ubico who served the interests of the United Fruit Company in Guatemala, which owned most of the country’s best land.

Advocating for a “spiritual socialism,” Arévalo refused international loans that would compromise Guatemala’s national sovereignty, and increased Guatemala’s government budget from $24 million in 1945 to $60 million, directing the extra funds into building new roads and schools and providing better social services.

In 1951, Arévalo ceded power to Jacobo Arbenz, who angered the United Fruit Company by trying to purchase some of their fallow land, and was overthrown in the 1954 CIA coup.

Mural in Guatemala City on 50^th anniversary of CIA coup. [Source: sott.net]

Born in 1959, Bernardo Arévalo grew up in exile because his father was forced to flee Guatemala after the coup.

In 1956, Juan José Arévalo published a devastating indictment of U.S. imperialism in Latin America, The Shark and the Sardines (an English version of the book appeared in 1961). It lamented the “subordination of the White House” to a “syndicate of millionaires” that were intent on plundering Latin America’s natural resources in order to sustain North America’s industrial productivity and get even richer.

Arévalo wrote that, beginning in the early 20^th century, the U.S. “became great while progress in Latin America was brought to a halt. And when anything or anyone tried to interfere with the bankers or the companies, use was made of the Marines,” including in “Panama, 1903, Nicaragua, 1909, Mexico and Haiti, 1914, [and] Santo Domingo, 1916.”

A key case study in the book was Nicaragua, where Arévalo detailed how Brown Brothers came to dominate Nicaragua’s economy and pushed for regime change and the sending of the Marines.

The shark tried to swallow the sardines again in Venezuela to enforce the interests of the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil dynasty after Venezuela’s first freely elected President Rómulo Gallegos stood against them.

According to Arévalo, Gallegos was “the finest, most honorable and most generous man who could be imagined in politics” who was “torn down from the presidency by the force of dollar guided guns and bayonets.”^[1]

According to historian Stephen G. Rabe, U.S. officials resented Arévalo’s bitter critique of U.S. foreign policy in The Shark and the Sardines and blamed Arévalo for Guatemala’s leftward drift during the 1940s and 1950s.^[2]

In November 1959, the U.S. ambassador to Guatemala, Lester D. Mallory, the architect of the U.S. embargo policy on Cuba, informed Guatemalan President Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes that the prospect of Arévalo coming to power or even being physically present in Guatemala would be “nothing short of disastrous.”^[3]

In August 1961, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Edwin Martin concluded that “there was no proof that he [Arévalo] was a communist but reason to suspect that he would be more open to both their ideas and party members than we would like a Guatemalan president to be.” President John F. Kennedy in turn judged Arévalo to be “quite a risk,” while Secretary of State Dean Rusk called him “a menace.”^[4]

The CIA consequently kept Arévalo under tight surveillance while he was living in Mexico City and immediately informed U.S. national security officials when he arrived in Guatemala on March 27, 1963, after flying in on a private airplane.

The CIA was angry that Ydígoras Fuentes had allowed Arévalo into the country, saying that he had acted duplicitously, and supported a military coup against Fuentes led by Colonel Enrique Peralta Azurdia.

According to Rabe, the Kennedy administration went through the motions of disapproving the coup and very briefly suspended diplomatic relations, but on the day of the coup inquired whether the new regime needed equipment to put down potential public disorder. As Assistant Secretary Martin put it: “We were disposed to want to be helpful.”^[5]

Between 1961 and 1963, the Kennedy administration sent $4.3 million in military aid to Guatemala, compared to $950,000 in military aid that Eisenhower delivered between 1956 and 1960, and began providing Guatemalan military officers with counterinsurgency training in a new center established in Guatemala. The U.S. also continued to provide Alliance for Progress aid after the coup, though it was understood that the military regime would block land and tax reform and universal public education as “communist.”

The State Department tried to pressure Peralta to restore constitutionalism, leading to the election of a “non-extremist liberal government,” and precluding the election of Arévalo “or any other extremist or pro-communist candidate.” The Guatemalan officer corps eventually scheduled an election, which led to the victory of Julio César Méndez Montenegro, a political moderate, in March 1966, though Guatemala subsequently descended further into civil war.^[6]

The political landscape has changed considerably since the 1960s as the political left in Guatemala was crushed during the years of civil war and U.S.-backed genocide in the 1980s.^[7]

Though influenced by his father, Bernardo Arévalo is less of a threat to the U.S. because there does not exist a strong left-wing movement pushing him to undertake major economic reforms that would undercut U.S. business interests in Guatemala, including by amending a corporate friendly tax system.

Fighting a rear-guard battle against the extreme right, Bernardo Arévalo’s platform is center-left, focused on fighting corruption and initiating modest social improvements and public works projects.

Arévalo at the same time has not denounced U.S. imperialism in terms similar to his father, and has criticized alleged human rights abuses in socialist Venezuela and the supposed authoritarianism of Daniel Ortega’s left-wing government in Nicaragua.^[8]

Ortega was the leader of the 1979 socialist Sandinista Revolution which overthrew the U.S.-backed Somoza dynasty and survived a U.S. coup attempt in 2018.

He has helped Nicaragua assert its economy autonomy and is a symbol of resistance to Yankee imperialism. Juan José Arévalo as such would have celebrated him, given the history of U.S. imperialism in Nicaragua that he reviewed in The Shark and the Sardines.

*

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.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

1. Juan José Arévalo, The Shark and the Sardines (New York: Lyle Stuart, 1961). 

2. Stephen G. Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World: John F. Kennedy Confronts Communist Revolution in Latin America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 74. 
3. Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World, 74. Ydígoras Fuentes was a representative of the oligarchic elite who had served in the regime of Jorge Ubico. John Muccio, the U.S. ambassador to Guatemala and former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, said that President Ydígoras reminded him of Syngman Rhee because “he’d say yes to everything, as long as he was on the receiving end.” Rhee was installed by the U.S. in the late 1940s and terrorized the political left, killing around 100,000 of his own people. State Department officials said that Ydígoras’s government suffered from “run of the mill graft, maladministration, and some disregard for personal liberties.” Although the antithesis of the “decent democrat” called for in the Alliance, the Kennedy administration tolerated President Ydígoras because he fervently supported its Cold War policies, according to Rabe. In 1960-61, he permitted the CIA to use a political crony’s private estate on the southern coast of Guatemala to train Cuban exiles in preparation for the Bay of Pigs invasion. 
4. Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World, 74. 
5. Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World, 75. 
6. Rabe, The Most Dangerous Area in the World, 77. 
7. See Greg Grandin, The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War, rev ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011). 

8. While campaigning, Arévalo said of the situation in Nicaragua: “We think it is a disaster. Our foreign policy will be to promote democracy, always, both abroad and at home.” Arévalo also criticized Russia over the war in Ukraine and has no stated plans to recognize China over Taiwan. Asked for a leader he admires, he named José Pepe Mujica, the progressive ex-president of Uruguay, where he was born during his father’s exile. 

Featured image: Bernardo Arevalo (Licensed under the Public Domain)

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.

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.

***

The United States is gunning for war with China. By cozying up to Taiwan and arming it to the teeth, President Joe Biden is undermining the “One China” policy which has been the cornerstone of U.S.-China relations since 1979.

The Biden administration is enlisting South Korea and Japan to encircle China. The U.S. military is conducting provocative military maneuvers that exacerbate the conflict in the South China Sea. Biden is escalating tensions with China and intensifying the danger of nuclear war in the Asia-Pacific. And Republican presidential candidates are also fanning the flames of war with China.

In March, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines called China the “leading and most consequential threat to U.S. national security.” Chinese President Xi Jinping stated,

“Western countries — led by the U.S. — have implemented all-round containment, encirclement and suppression against us.”

The Biden administration has “doubled down on the most insanely bellicose aspects of Trump administration policies, especially over Taiwan, which the U.S. had long recognized as part of China,” Peter Kuznick, professor of history and director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, told Truthout.

More than 90 percent of the most advanced microchips in the world are manufactured in Taiwan. The chips are used to power our smartphones, train artificial intelligence systems and guide missiles. The Trump administration imposed heavy tariffs on Chinese imports to cut off China’s access to the software technology and equipment required to build the advanced chips.

Biden has maintained and dramatically expanded Trump’s coercive economic measures and imposed a blockade on advanced semiconductors. “Official U.S. policy is to make a nation of almost a billion and a half people poorer,” David Brooks wrote in The New York Times.

In 1979, the United States declared that the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was “the sole legal Government of China.” That policy was consistent with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, which recognized the PRC as the only legitimate government of China and one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

“But now the ‘One China’ policy seems a relic of a foregone era and the U.S. seems hellbent on militarizing the Pacific in order to contain China,” Kuznick, who is coauthor with Oliver Stone of the New York Times best-selling book and documentary film series The Untold History of the United States, said. “This reckless policy will, if we are lucky, lead to a new Cold War. If we are unlucky, it portends a third world war — one that our species might not survive.”

Biden has repeatedly stated that the United States would use military force to defend Taiwan if it is attacked by China. The Biden administration has provided Taiwan with $619 million worth of high-tech arms.

Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in August 2022, angering China, which staged extensive war games around Taiwan in response.

In April, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen met with a bipartisan U.S. congressional delegation in Simi Valley, California, the most high-profile meeting between U.S. and Taiwanese leaders on U.S. soil since 1979. The Chinese Embassy called the encounter a “serious mistake.” The foreign ministry responded by pledging to “take resolute and forceful measures” to defend its territorial integrity.

At the G20 summit in Indonesia in November 2022, Xi told Biden in no uncertain terms:

“The Taiwan question is at the very core of China’s core interests, the bedrock of the political foundation of China-U.S. relations, and the first red line that must not be crossed.”

The U.S. Is the “Most War-Making Country” in the World

Speaking on a panel at the Veterans For Peace (VFP) annual convention on August 25, Kuznick remarked that China has not been at war with any country since 1979. By contrast, the United States has had only 16 years of peace in its 247 years. “The U.S. is the most war-making country” in the world, Kuznick said.

K.J. Noh, an activist scholar who writes about the geopolitics of the Asian continent, also spoke on the VFP panel. Noh described South Korea as key to the U.S.’s escalating war on China. “The United States has operational control over South Korean troops,” Noh said. The U.S. is also “weaponizing Taiwan into an imperial outpost for war.”

The third panelist was Simone Chun, a researcher and activist specializing in inter-Korean relations and U.S. foreign policy on the Korean Peninsula. She echoed Noh’s comments, calling South Korea a “pawn in Washington’s march to war against China.” South Korea, Chun said, is a “subcontractor in the new Cold War.”

In an article for Truthout in March, Chun characterized “[t]he U.S. military encirclement of China” as threatening “to escalate into an Asia-Pacific war, with the Korean Peninsula at the focal point of this dangerous path.” South Korea has 30,000 combat-ready U.S. troops on 73 U.S. military bases in the small country.

Since the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” in 2012, 60 percent of U.S. naval forces have been transferred to the Asia-Pacific, and 400 of the 800 U.S. military bases worldwide and 130,000 troops “are now circling China,” Chun wrote. The U.S.’s “goal is to force China’s hand by triggering and escalating a hybrid war on multiple fronts, including military, technology, economy, information and media.”

South Korea and Japan are encircling China from the north, and Australia and Indonesia are surrounding China from the south. South Korea’s right-wing president, Yoon Suk-yeol, welcomes the deployment of U.S. tactical weapons to South Korea and intends to arm his country with nuclear weapons, according to Chun.

The U.S., U.K. and Australia (“AUKUS”) announced in March that Australia would buy three nuclear-powered submarines by the “early 2030s.” The Chinese mission to the UN condemned the deal, tweeting, “The irony of AUKUS is that two nuclear weapons states who claim to uphold the highest nuclear non-proliferation standard are transferring tons of weapons-grade enriched uranium to a non-nuclear-weapon state, clearly violating the object and purpose of the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty].”

The nuclear submarine cooperation plan released today by #AUKUS is a blatant act that constitutes serious nuclear proliferation risks, undermines international non-proliferation system, fuels arms races, and hurts peace and stability in the region.

— Chinese Mission to UN (@Chinamission2un) March 13, 2023

In October 2022, the U.S. announced it would deploy as many as six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to northern Australia, within striking range of China.

U.S. Promotes Expansion of NATO Into the Asia-Pacific

The United States is promoting the expansion of NATO into the Asia-Pacific “to close the military circle around China,” Chun writes. The U.S. seeks to extend the influence of NATO to Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

Chun identifies three significant aspects of the U.S. strategy: 1) stepped-up remilitarization of Japan; 2) “revitalization of extremist hardline North Korea policies” in Washington and Seoul and 3) escalation of “belligerent wargames targeted at China and North Korea.”

After World War II, the United States imposed a “peace constitution” on Japan but later pushed aggressively for Japanese rearmament to further the U.S.’s strategy to dominate the Asia-Pacific. The United States considers the remilitarization of Japan “the linchpin of U.S. security interests in Asia,” Chun notes.

The U.S. policy on North Korea is aimed at magnifying the purported “North Korea threat” and using it as a pretext to enlist South Korea and Japan in its scheme to contain China. Moreover, the joint military exercises between the U.S. and South Korea are dress rehearsals for an attack on and occupation of North Korea and the “decapitation” of its leadership — a “plan for regime collapse and occupation,” Chun writes.

The South China Sea Is a Flashpoint

There are competing claims of sovereignty over bodies of land and their contiguous waters in the South China Sea. Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei oppose China’s historical claim to 90 percent of the South China Sea. This has led to tensions that have been exacerbated by U.S. military maneuvers in the sea.

The South China Sea is one of the busiest maritime shipping routes, connecting it with China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Singapore, the Strait of Malacca and the Pacific Coast of the U.S. In 2016, more than 21 percent of global trade, totaling $3.37 trillion, transited through the South China Sea.

In July 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal in The Hague ruled for the Philippines in its case against China. The tribunal determined that China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and its actions toward the Philippines did not comply with international law. China refused to abide by the ruling.

“American warships regularly move around the restricted area of China’s major islands under the range of Chinese guns, and at any time, due to some incident, military conflict between the two powerful superpowers could explode,” Professor Dmitri Valentinovic Mosiakov wrote in the International Review of Contemporary Law of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. “US military expeditions, which are supposed to demonstrate the US commitment to the defense of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, in fact only reinforce and justify such activities of China’s military preparation.”

Mosiakov added that in July 2022, “the United States decided that it was necessary to remind the People’s Republic of China who was to determine the rules of navigation in the South China Sea. Another US destroyer sailed into waters where China had declared a ban for military ships.”

The U.S. military does not belong in the South China Sea and its provocative actions compound the danger of an already tense situation.

“The greatest threat to peace and stability in northeast Asia is the U.S. Indo-Pacific military encirclement of China,” Chun wrote.

Likewise, Kuznick told Truthout, “U.S. policy makers seem so terrified by China’s extraordinary growth and challenge to U.S. hegemony in the Pacific that they are willing to risk nuclear annihilation to prevent it.”

We must heed Daniel Ellsberg’s admonition shortly before he died. He implored us to pursue “the urgent goal of working with others to avert nuclear war in Ukraine or Taiwan (or anywhere else).”

*

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.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. She is founding dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. She is co-host of “Law and Disorder” Radio.

She is a regular contributor to Global Research

Featured image: The U.S.S. Nimitz conducts routine operations while transiting the South China Sea on February 4, 2023. (Source: NAVY PETTY OFFICER 2ND CLASS DAVID ROWE)

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.

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.

***

The AAPS statement of patients’ freedoms provides that patients have the right to be informed about the risks and benefits of any medical intervention, and have the right to refuse medical treatment.

The use of masks and other face coverings, as a public health measure or otherwise, are a type of medical intervention to which the above informed consent rights apply.

Government recommendations and mandates regarding face coverings have been contradictory, provided to the public as authoritative without evidence, are in conflict with the available data, and neglect to mention any potential harm from use of coverings or masks.

Concerning efficacy, in addition to the indisputable failure of mask mandates to prevent outbreaks of COVID, the Cochrane systematic review of available empirical evidence concluded that studies “did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks,” and  “[t]here were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.”

Concerning the potential for harm, there are at least 60 studies and reports that illuminate downsides of masking and face-coverings in different scenarios and among varied patient groups. Examples of harm found in the peer-reviewed literature, include:

• Prolonged use of mask is not a neutral event and in fact can cause harm. “Prolonged use of N95 and surgical masks by healthcare professionals during COVID-19 has caused adverse effects such as headaches, rash, acne, skin breakdown, and impaired cognition in the majority of those surveyed.”
• Findings indicate that wearing the N95 mask for 14 hours significantly affected the physiological, biochemical, and perception parameters in a negative fashion.
• The possibility that masks hinder the acquisition of speech and language in children exists. “Overall, the research to date demonstrates that the visible articulations that babies normally see when others are talking play a key role in their acquisition of communication skills. Research also shows that babies who lip-read more have better language skills when they’re older. If so, this suggests that masks probably hinder babies’ acquisition of speech and language.”
• Experimental data has shown “carbon dioxide content in inhaled air rises on average to 13,000 to 13,750 ppm no matter whether children wear a surgical or an FFP2 mask. This is far beyond the level of 2,000 ppm considered the limit of acceptability and beyond the 1,000 ppm that are normal for air in closed rooms. This estimate is rather on the low side, as we only measured this after a short time without physical exertion.”
• Society requires facial recognition as a most basic component of interaction and communication. Studies in individuals with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) have shown that “Poor face perception in AMD is an important domain contributing to impaired social interactions and quality of life”.  Voluntary masking with no gain contributes to societal alienation.

Therefore, be it stated:

As mask mandates are contrary to the fundamental medical principle of informed consent, all masking mandates currently in place must be rescinded, and no future mandates should be imposed. 

Furthermore, since mask mandates for viral illnesses provide no clear benefits, while creating potential for harm, individuals should be empowered to choose to not observe such mandates that are either currently in existence or that may be imposed in the future.

*

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.

Featured image is from AAPS

---

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. 

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.

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.

*** 

This report is designed to help readers think about some big topics: how to really prevent pandemics and biological warfare, how to assess proposals by the WHO and its members for responding to pandemics, and whether we can rely on our health officials to navigate these areas in ways that make sense and will help their populations.

We start with a history of biological arms control and rapidly move to the COVID pandemic, eventually arriving at plans to protect the future.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Chem/Bio

Traditionally, the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have been labelled Chemical, Biological, Radiologic, and Nuclear (CBRN).

The people of the world don’t want them used on us—for they are cheap ways to kill and maim large numbers of people quickly. And so international treaties were created to try to prevent their development (only in the later treaties) and use (in all the biological arms control treaties). First was the Geneva Protocol of 1925, following the use of poison gases and limited biological weapons in World War I, banning the use of biological and chemical weapons in war. The US and many nations signed it, but it took 50 years for the US to ratify it, and during those 50 years the US asserted it was not bound by the treaty.

The US used both biological and chemical weapons during those 50 years. The US almost certainly used biological weapons in the Korean War (see this, this, this and this) and perhaps used both in Vietnam, which experienced an odd outbreak of plague during the war. The use of napalm, white phosphorus, agent orange (with its dioxin excipient causing massive numbers of birth defects and other tragedies) and probably other chemical weapons like BZ (a hallucinogen/incapacitant) led to much pushback, especially since we had signed the Geneva Protocol and we were supposed to be a civilized nation.

In 1968 and 1969, two important books were published that had a great influence on the American psyche regarding our massive stockpiling and use of these agents. The first book, written by a young Seymour Hersh about the US chemical and biological warfare program, was titled Chemical and Biological Warfare; America’s Hidden Arsenal. In 1969 Congressman Richard D. McCarthy, a former newspaperman from Buffalo, NY wrote the book The Ultimate Folly: War by Pestilence, Asphyxiation and Defoliation about the US production and use of chemical and biological weapons. Prof. Matthew Meselson’s review of the book noted,

Our operation, “Flying Ranch Hand,” has sprayed anti-plant chemicals over an area almost the size of the state of Massachusetts, over 10 per cent of its cropland. “Ranch Hand” no longer has much to do with the official justification of preventing ambush. Rather, it has become a kind of environmental warfare, devastating vast tracts of forest inorder to facilitate our aerial reconnaissance. Our use of “super teargas” (it is also a powerful lung irritant) has escalated from the originallyannounced purpose of saving lives in “riot control-like situations” to the full-scale combat use of gas artillery shells, gas rockets and gas bombs to enhance the killing power of conventional high explosive and flame weapons. Fourteen million pounds have been used thus far, enough to cover all of Vietnam with a field effective concentration. Many nations, including some of our own allies have expressed the opinion that this kind of gas warfare violates the Geneva Protocol, a view shared by McCarthy.

A Biological Weapons Convention

Amid great pushback over US conduct in Vietnam, and seeking to burnish his presidency, President Nixon announced to the world in November 1969 that the US was going to end its biowarfare program (but not the chemical program). Following pointed reminders that Nixon had not eschewed the use of toxins, in February 1970 Nixon announced we would also get rid of our toxin weapons also, which included snake, snail, frog, fish, bacterial, and fungal toxins that could be used for assassinations and other purposes.

It has been claimed that these declarations resulted from careful calculations that the US was far ahead technically of most other nations in its chemical and nuclear weapons. But biological weapons were considered the “poor man’s atomic bomb” and required much less sophistication to produce. Therefore, the US was not far ahead in the biological weapons arena. By banning this class of weapon, the US would gain strategically.

Nixon told the world that the US would initiate an international treaty to prevent the use of these weapons ever again. And we did so: the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, or Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) for short, which entered into force in 1975.

But in 1973 genetic engineering (recombinant DNA) was discovered by Americans Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen, which changed the biological warfare calculus. Now the US had regained a technological advantage for this type of endeavor.

The Biological Weapons Convention established conferences to be held every 5 years to strengthen the treaty. The expectation was that these would add a method to call for ‘challenge inspections’ to prevent nations from cheating and would add sanctions (punishments) if nations failed to comply with the treaty. However, since 1991 the US has consistently blocked the addition of protocols that would have an impact on cheating. By now, everyone accepts that cheating occurs and is likely widespread.

A leak in an anthrax production facility in Sverdlovsk, USSR in 1979 caused the deaths of about 60 people. While the USSR tried a sloppy cover-up, blaming contaminated black market meat, this was a clear BWC violation to all those knowledgeable about anthrax.

US experiments with anthrax production during the Clinton administration, detailed by Judith Miller et al. in the 2001 book Germs, were also thought by experts to have transgressed the BWC.

It has taken over 40 years, but in 2022 all declared stocks of chemical weapons had been destroyed by the USA, by Russia, and the other 193 member nation signatories. The chemical weapons convention does include provisions for surprise inspections and sanctions.

It is now 2023, and during the 48 years the Biological Weapons Convention has been in force the wall it was supposed to build against the development, production, and use of biological weapons has been steadily eroded. Meanwhile, especially since the 2001 anthrax letters, nations (with the US at the forefront) have been building up their “biodefense” and “pandemic preparedness” capacities.

Under the guise of preparing their defenses against biowarfare and pandemics, nations have conducted “dual-use” (both offensive and defensive) research and development, which has led to the creation of more deadly and more transmissible microorganisms. And employing new verbiage to shield this effort from scrutiny, biological warfare research was renamed as “gain-of-function” research.

How Would You Create a Biological Warfare Agent?

Gain-of-function is a euphemism for biological warfare research aka germ warfare research. It is so risky that funding it was banned by the US government (but only for SARS coronaviruses and avian flu viruses) in 2014 after a public outcry from hundreds of scientists. Then in 2017 Drs. Tony Fauci and Francis Collins lifted the moratorium, with no real safeguards in place. Fauci and Collins even had the temerity to publish their opinion that the risk from this gain-of-function research was ‘worth it.’

What does gain-of-function actually mean? It means that scientists are able to use a variety of techniques to turn ordinary or pathogenic viruses and bacteria into biological weapons. The research is justified by the claim that scientists can get out ahead of nature and predict what might be a future pandemic threat, or what another nation might use as a bioweapon. The functions gained by the viruses or other microorganisms to turn them into biological warfare agents consist of two categories: enhanced transmission or enhanced pathogenicity (illness severity).

1) improved transmissibility may result from:

a) needing fewer viral or bacterial copies to cause infection,

b) causing the generation of higher viral or bacterial titers,

c) a new mode of spread, such as adding airborne transmission to a virus that previously only spread through bodily fluids,

d) expanded range of susceptible organs (aka tissue tropism); for example, not only respiratory secretions but also urine or stool might transmit the virus, which was found in SARS-CoV-2,

e) expanded host range; for example, instead of infecting bats, the virus is passaged through humanized mice and thus acclimated to the human ACE-2 receptor, which was found in SARS-CoV-2,

f) improved cellular entry; for example, by adding a furin cleavage site, which was found in SARS-CoV-2,

2) increased pathogenicity, so instead of causing a milder illness, the pathogen would be made to cause severe illness or death, using various methods. SARS-CoV-2 had unusual homologies (identical short segments) to human tissues and the HIV virus, which may have caused or contributed to the late autoimmune stage of illness, impaired immune response and ‘long COVID.’

Funding for (Natural) Pandemics, Including Yearly Influenza, Was Lumped Together with Biological Defense Funding

Perhaps the comingling of funding was designed to make it harder for Congress and the public to understand what was being funded, and how much taxpayer funding was going to gain-of-function work, which might lead them to question why it was being done at all, given its prohibition in the Biological Weapons Convention, and additional questions about its value. Former CDC Director Robert Redfield, a physician and virologist, told Congress in March of 2023 that gain-of-function research had not resulted in a single beneficial drug, vaccine, or therapeutic to his knowledge.

Nonprofits and universities like EcoHealth Alliance and its affiliated University of California, Davis veterinary school were used as intermediaries to obscure the fact that US taxpayers were supporting scientists in dozens of foreign countries, including China, for research that included gain-of-function work on coronaviruses.

Perhaps to keep the lucrative funding going, fears about pandemics have been deliberately amplified over the past several decades. The federal government has been spending huge sums on pandemic preparedness over the past 20 years, routing it through many federal and state agencies. President Biden’s proposed 2024 budget requested “$20 billion in mandatory funding across DHHS for pandemic preparedness” while the DHS, DOD, and the State Department have additional budgets for pandemic preparedness for both domestic and international spending.

Although the 20th century experienced only 3 significant pandemics (the Spanish flu of 1918-19 and 2 influenza pandemics in 1957 and 1968) the mass media have presented us with almost non-stop pandemics during the 21st century: SARS-1 (2002-3), avian flu (2004-on), swine flu (2009-10), Ebola (2014, 2018-19), Zika (2016), COVID (2020-2023), and monkeypox (2022-23). And we are incessantly told that more are coming, and that they are likely to be worse.

We have been assaulted with warnings and threats for over 2 decades to induce a deep fear of infectious diseases. It seems to have worked.

The genomes of both SARS-CoV-2 and the 2022 monkeypox (MPOX) virus lead to suspicion that both were bioengineered pathogens originating in laboratories. The group of virologists assembled by Drs. Fauci and Farrar identified 6 unusual (probably lab-derived) parts of the SARS-CoV-2 genome as early as February 1, 2020 and more have been suggested subsequently.

I do not know if these viruses leaked accidentally or were deliberately released, but I am leaning toward the conclusion that both were deliberately released, based on the locations where they first appeared, the well-orchestrated but faked videos rolled out by the mass media for COVID, and the illogical and harmful official responses to each. In neither case was the public given accurate information about the infections’ severity or treatments, and the responses by Western governments never made scientific sense. Why wouldn’t you treat cases early, the way doctors treat everything else? It seemed that our governments were trading on the fact that few people knew enough about viruses and therapeutics to make independent assessments about the information they were being fed.

Yet by August 2021, there was no corresponding course correction. Instead, the federal government doubled down, imposing vaccine mandates on 100 million Americans in September 2021 in spite of  ‘the science.’ There has been no accurate statement yet from any federal agency about the lack of utility of masking for an airborne virus (which is probably why the US government and WHO delayed acknowledging airborne spread by COVID for 18 months), the lack of efficacy of social distancing for an airborne virus, and the risks and poor efficacy of 2 dangerous oral drugs (paxlovid and molnupiravir) purchased by the US government for COVID treatment, even without a doctor’s prescription.

Never have any federal agencies acknowledged the truth about the COVID vaccines’ safety and efficacy. Instead, the CDC turns definitional and statistical cartwheels so it can continue to claim they are “safe and effective.” Even worse, with all that we know, a third generation COVID vaccine is to be rolled out for this fall and the FDA has announced that yearly boosters are planned.

All this goes on, even a year after we learned (with continuing corroborations) that children and working age adults are dying at rates 25 percent or more above the expected averages, and the vascular side effects of vaccination are the only reasonable explanation.

Maiming with Myocarditis

Both of the two US monkeypox/smallpox vaccines (Jynneos and ACAM2000) are known to cause myocarditis, as do all 3 COVID vaccines currently available in the US: the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and the Novavax vaccine. The Novavax vaccine was first associated with myocarditis during its clinical trial, but this was downplayed and it was authorized and rolled out anyway, intended for those who refused the mRNA vaccines due to the use of fetal tissue in their manufacture.

Here is what the FDA’s reviewers wrote about the cardiac side effects noted in the Jynneos clinical trials:

Up to 18.4% of subjects in 2 studies developed post-vaccination elevation of troponin [a cardiac muscle enzyme signifying cardiac damage]. However, all of these troponin elevations were asymptomatic and without a clinically associated event or other sign of myopericarditis. p. 198

The applicant has committed to conduct an observational, post-marketing study as part of their routine PVP. The sponsor will collect data on cardiac events that occur and are assessed as a routine part of medical care. p. 200

In other words, while the only way to cause an elevated troponin level is to break down cardiac muscle cells, the FDA did not require a specific study to evaluate the extent of cardiac damage that might be caused by Jynneos when it issued the vaccine’s 2019 license.

How frequently does myocarditis occur after these vaccines?  If you use elevated cardiac enzymes as your marker, ACAM2000 caused this in one in thirty people receiving it for the first time. If you use other measures like abnormal cardiac MRI or echo, according to the CDC it occurs in one in 175 vaccinees. I have not seen a study with rates of myocarditis for Jynneos, but there was an unspecified elevation of cardiac enzymes in 10 percent and 18 percent of Jynneos recipients in two unpublished prelicensure studies available on the FDA website. My guess for the mRNA COVID vaccines is that they cause myocarditis in this general range (between 1 in 10 and 1 in 250 recipients per dose), while the vast majority of cases are probably asymptomatic and never diagnosed.

Why would our governments push 5 separate vaccines all known to cause myocarditis on young people who are at extremely low risk from COVID?  Monkeypox simply causes a few eruptions (like shingles) for 1-4 weeks unless the infected person is severely immunocompromised.

Why dangerous vaccines are being pushed on young, low-risk populations for whom the health risks from vaccination are considerably greater than the risks from the disease is an important question. It does not make medical sense. Especially for a vaccine that probably does not work. 

Jynneos didn’t prevent infection in the monkeys in whom it was tested, nor did it do well in people. And the CDC has failed to publish its trial of Jynneos vaccine in the ~1,600 Congolese healthcare workers in whom the CDC tested it for efficacy and safety in 2017. The CDC announced it was conducting the trial, and posted it to clinicaltrials.gov as required, but has not informed its advisory committee that reviewed the vaccine, nor the public, of the trial’s results. We can safely guess that had the vaccine been safe and effective in its only field trial, CDC’s advisors and the public would have been informed.

There can be no question about it: our health agencies are guilty of malfeasance, misrepresentation, and deliberate infliction of harm on their own populations.

The health agencies first incited terror with apocalyptic predictions; then demanded patients be medically neglected; and finally enforced vaccinations and treatments that were tantamount to malpractice. 

COVID Vaccines: The Chicken or the Egg?

The health authorities could have just been ignorant—that could possibly explain the first few months of the COVID vaccines’ rollout. But once they figured out, and even announced in August 2021 that the vaccines did not prevent catching COVID or transmitting it, why did our health authorities still push COVID vaccines on low-risk populations who were clearly at greater risk from a vaccine side effect than from COVID? Particularly as time went on and newer variants were less and less virulent?

Once you acknowledge these basic facts, you realize that maybe the vaccines were not made for the pandemic, and instead the pandemic was made to roll out the vaccines. While we cannot be certain, we should at least be suspicious. And the fact that the US contracted for 10 doses per person (review purchases here, here, here, here and here) and so did the European Union (here and here) and Canada should make us even more suspicious–there is no justification for agreeing to purchase so many doses for vaccines at a time when the vaccines’ ability to prevent infection and transmission was questionable, and its safety suspect or worrying.

Why would governments want ten doses per person? Three maybe. But ten? Even if yearly boosters were expected, there was no reason to sign contracts for enough vaccine for the next nine years for a rapidly mutating virus. Australia bought 8 doses per person. By December 20, 2020 New Zealand had secured triple the vaccines it needed, and offered to share some with nearby nations. No one has come forward to explain the reason for these excessive purchases.

Furthermore, you don’t need a vaccine passport (aka digital ID, aka a phone app that in Europe included a mechanism for an electronic payments system) unless you are giving out regular boosters. Were the vaccines conceived of as the means for putting our vaccinations, health records, official documents–and most importantly, shifting our financial transactions online, all managed on a phone app? This would be an attack on privacy as well as the enabling step to a social credit system in the West. Interestingly, vaccine passports were already being planned for the European Union by 2018.

A Pandemic Treaty and Amendments:  Brought to You by the Same People who Mismanaged the Past 3 Years, to Save Us from Themselves?

The same US and other governments and the WHO that imposed draconian measures on citizens to force us to be vaccinated and take dangerous, expensive, experimental drugs, withheld effective treatments, and refused to tell us that most people who required ICU care for COVID were vitamin D-deficient and that taking vitamin D would lessen COVID’s severity–decided in 2021 we suddenly needed an international pandemic treaty. Why? To prevent and ameliorate future pandemics or biological warfare events… so we would not suffer again as we did with the COVID pandemic, they insisted. The WHO would manage it.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the words, “I’m from the WHO, and I’m here to help” should be the most terrifying words in the English language after the COVID fiasco.

What the WHO and our governments conveniently failed to mention is that we suffered so badly because of their medical mismanagement and our governments’ merciless economic shutdowns and mismanagement. According to the World Bank, an additional 70 million people were forced into extreme poverty in 2020 alone. This was due to policies issued by our nations’ rulers, their elite advisers and the World Health Organization, which came out with guidance to shut down economic activity that most nations adopted without question. The WHO is acutely aware of the consequences of economic lockdowns, having published the following:

Malnutrition persisted in all its forms, with children paying a high price: in 2020, over 149 million under-fives are estimated to have been stunted, or too short for their age; more than 45 million – wasted, or too thin for their height…

Starvation may have killed more people than COVID, and they were disproportionately the youngest, rather than the oldest. Yet the WHO prattles on about equity, diversity, and solidarity—having itself caused the worst food crisis in our lifetime, which was not due to nature but was man-made.

How can anyone take seriously claims by the same officials who mishandled COVID that they want to spare us from another medical and economic disaster–by using the same strategies they applied to COVID, after they masterminded the last disaster? And the fact that no governments or health officials have admitted their errors should convince us never to let them manage anything ever again. Why would we let them draw up an international treaty and new amendments to the existing International Health Regulations (IHR) that will bind our governments to obey the WHO’s dictates forever?

Those dictates, by the way, include vaccine development at breakneck speed, the power to enforce which drugs we will be directed to use, and which drugs will be prohibited, and the requirement to monitor media for “misinformation” and impose censorship so that only the WHO’s public health narrative will be conveyed to the public.

The WHO’s Pandemic Treaty Draft Requires the Sharing of Potential Pandemic Pathogens. This Is a Euphemism for Bioweapons Proliferation.

Obviously, the best way to spare us from another pandemic is to immediately stop funding gain-of-function (GOF) research and get rid of all existing GOF organisms. Let all nations build huge bonfires and burn up their evil creations at the same time, while allowing other nations to inspect their biological facilities and records.

But the WHO in its June 2023 Bureau Text of the Draft Pandemic Treaty has a plan that is the exact opposite of this. In the WHO’s draft treaty, which most nations’ rulers appear to have bought into, all governments will share all viruses and bacteria they come up with that are determined to have “pandemic potential” — share them with the WHO and other governments, putting their genomic sequences online. No, I am not making this up. (See screenshots from the draft treaty below.) Then the WHO and all the Fauci’s of the world would gain access to all the newly identified dangerous viruses. Would hackers also gain access to the sequences? This pandemic plan should make you feel anything but secure.

Fauci, Tedros, and their ilk at the WHO, and those managing biodefense and biomedical research for nation states are on one side, the side that gains access to ever more potential biological weapons, and the rest of us are on the other, at their mercy.

This poorly conceptualized plan used to be called proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—and it is almost certainly illegal. (For example, see Security Council resolution 1540 adopted in 2004.) But this is the plan of the WHO and of many of our leaders. Governments will all share the weapons.

The Genomic Sequencing Conundrum

And governments are to commit to building biolabs that must include genomic sequencing. No explanation has been forthcoming about why each nation needs to install its own genome sequencing laboratories. Of course, they would sequence the many viruses that will be detected as a result of the pathogen surveillance activities nations must perform, according to the WHO treaty draft. But the same techniques can be used to sequence human genomes. The fact that the EU, UK, and US are currently engaged in projects to sequence about 2 million of their citizens’ genomes provides a hint they may want to collect additional genomes of Africans, Asians, and others.

This might fly as simply sharing state-of-the-art science with our less-developed neighbors. But it is curious that there is so much emphasis on genomics, compared to the absence of any discussion about developing repurposed drugs for pandemics in either the draft treaty or IHR amendments. 

We must not forget that virtually all developed nations, in lockstep, restricted the use of safe generic hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and related drugs during the pandemic. In retrospect, the only logical explanation for this unprecedented action was to preserve the market for expensive patentable drugs and vaccines, and possibly to prolong the pandemic. 

US law only allows unlicensed, emergency use authorized (EUA) vaccines and drugs to be used if there is no adequate, approved (licensed) and available drug for the same purpose.  If the US government admitted that existing, approved drugs could prevent and/or treat COVID, it would need to immediately revoke all the EUA vaccines and drugs for COVID.  This is one explanation of why these drugs have been vilified and suppressed by our state and federal agencies.

Genomes offer great potential profits, as well as providing the substrate for transhumanist experiments that could include designer babies among other things.

The latest version (aka the WHO Bureau draft) of the pandemic treaty can be accessed here. I provide screenshots below to illustrate additional points.

Draft pages 10 and 11:

The WHO Treaty Draft Incentivizes Gain-of-Function Research

What else is in the Treaty? Gain-of-Function research (designed to make microorganisms more transmissible or more pathogenic) is explicitly incentivized by the treaty. The treaty demands that administrative hurdles to such research must be minimized, while unintended consequences (aka pandemics) should be prevented. But of course, when you perform this type of research, some leaks and losses of agents will always occur. The joint CDC-USDA Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) keeps track of research on potential pandemic pathogens.  As the FSAP describes itself,

“The Federal Select Agent Program oversees the possession, use and transfer of biological select agents and toxins, which have the potential to pose a severe threat to public, animal or plant health or to animal or plant products.”

FSAP reports reveal that there are about 200 accidents or escapes yearly from labs situated in the US.  (There is no accounting of accidents outside the US.)  The FSAP annual report for 2021 notes: 

“In 2021, FSAP received 8 reports of losses, 177 reports of releases, and no reports of thefts.”

While scientists do their best to protect themselves and maintain lab safety, research on deadly pathogens simply cannot be performed without risks both to the researchers and the outside world.

Draft page 14:

Vaccines Will be Rolled Out Speedily Under Abbreviated Future Testing Protocols 

Vaccines normally take 10-15 years to be developed. In case you thought the COVID vaccines took too long to be rolled out (326 days from availability of the viral sequence to authorization of the first US COVID vaccine) the WHO treaty draft has plans to shorten testing. There will be new clinical trial platforms. Nations must increase clinical trial capacity. (Might that mean mandating people to be human subjects in out-of-the-way places like Africa, for example?) And there will be new “mechanisms to facilitate the rapid interpretation of data from clinical trials” as well as “strategies for managing liability risks.”

Draft page 14:

Vaccines Will be Rolled Out Speedily Under Abbreviated Future Testing Protocols

Manufacturer and Government Liability for Vaccine Injuries Must be “Managed”

Nations are supposed to use “existing relevant models” as a reference for compensation of injuries due to pandemic vaccines. Of course, most countries do not have vaccine injury compensation schemes, and when they do the benefits are usually minimal.

Is the US government’s program to be a model of what gets implemented internationally?

There is only one way under US law to obtain compensation for an injury sustained from an EUA product.  This is because under the PREP Act, lawsuits against manufacturers, government administrators and medical personnel administering vaccines and drugs are prohibited. 

The sole US government scheme for injuries due to COVID pandemic products is called the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program or CICP.  It is extremely difficult to obtain any benefits through this program, even if your doctors assert that your injury resulted from an EUA product.  Therefore, few people bother to apply, and few are even aware the program exists. 

The statute of limitations for the CICP is a very brief twelve months, which means you must have documented that your injury was due to a vaccine or drug within 12 months of receiving the medical product.  This can be extremely difficult when the federal health agencies deny such injuries exist. 

Furthermore, the program will only pay for lost wages or health expenses that have not been covered by insurance.  The CICP is a “payor of last resort,” so if your health insurance covered your injury and your disability insurance covered lost wages, you are ineligible to collect benefits.  The CICP will provide no compensation for attorney fees, expert witnesses, document preparation or pain and suffering, although the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for childhood vaccine injuries pays those costs.  There is no time limit by which a case must be adjudicated, so most cases languish for years without a decision. The program is purely administrative, and decisions regarding eligibility for benefits are made by the DHHS.  There are no courts or judges and no published standards.

All pandemic EUA drugs and vaccines convey immunity from legal liability to their manufacturers and to everyone else involved in their use.

The CICP has compensated exactly 4 (yes, four) of the 12,000 applications for COVID product-related injuries as of August 1, 2023.  The total amount paid out for the first 3 of the 4 compensated claims was $4,635, or less than $1,600 apiece, on average.

Slightly more than 1,000 claims have been adjudicated, while 10,887 are pending review.

In summary, 2% of the COVID cases reviewed by the CICP were deemed eligible for benefits, while only 0.2% of all COVID injury applications have received a payment from the CICP.  No wonder so few people even bother to apply.

Regulatory Strengthening

The pandemic treaty draft also demands weakening the strict national regulation of medical drugs and vaccines during emergencies, under the rubric of “Regulatory Strengthening.” As announced in the UK recently, ‘trusted partner’ approvals will be used to speed licensure of medical products. This means that if a drug or vaccine has been approved by a partner country, the UK can adopt the partner’s decision on licensure and bypass an independent analysis by UK regulators.  What this does is move nations in the direction of a single regulatory agency approval or authorization, which would be immediately adopted by other nations. (p 25). 

 

One might predict that the least rigorous regulator would quickly be selected by product manufacturers to make licensing decisions on their products.  Most nations’ drug regulators are funded by pharmaceutical firms, who pay for the evaluations.  It should come as no surprise that the % of their budgets that is funded by pharma is directly related to the % of drug approvals issued.  We might even see the prices of drug evaluations paid by Pharma go up as the quality of the evaluations goes down.  Below is fascinating information on the regulators of drugs and vaccines around the world and the public versus private funding they receive.

Next Up: Vaccines Developed in 100 Days

A plan to develop vaccines in 100 days and have them manufactured in 30 additional days has been widely publicized by the vaccine nonprofit CEPI, founded in 2017 by Bill Gates and Dr. Jeremy Farrar, who is now the WHO’s Chief Scientist. The plan has been echoed by the US and UK governments and received some buy-in from the G7 in 2021. This time frame would only allow for very brief testing in humans, or would limit testing to animals. Why would any country sign up for this?  Is this what we want, to vaccinate the entire world, then find out the bad news later?

The plan furthermore depends on the vaccines only being tested for their ability to induce antibodies, which is termed immunogenicity, rather than being shown to actually prevent disease, at least during the initial vaccine rollout. My understanding of FDA regulation is that antibody levels are not an acceptable surrogate for immunity unless they have been shown to correlate with protection.

However, the FDA’s recent vaccine decisions have ignored that requirement and vaccines are now being approved based on antibody levels alone. But the induction of antibodies does not tell you whether they prevent infection.  Sometimes they have promoted infection.

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee has asked for better indicators of efficacy than just antibody levels for COVID vaccines.  But despite lacking such data, the advisers voted anyway to approve or authorize vaccines over the past year, without knowing whether they actually work.  I learned this from watching the FDA vaccine advisory meetings, as I provide a live blog of them and often detailed summaries on my substack.

We all know how long it took for the public to become aware that the COVID vaccines failed to prevent transmission and only prevented cases for a period of weeks to months. The US government has still not officially admitted this, even though CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer the truth about transmission on August 6, 2021, 8 months after the Pfizer vaccine launched. How long will it take to learn whether vaccines launched in 100 days actually work?

You Can’t Do Safety Testing for 100 Day Vaccines

It is really important for the public to understand that safety testing can only be accomplished in human beings, as animals react differently to drugs and vaccines than humans do. Therefore, limited testing in animals would mean there was no real safety testing. But testing vaccines in humans for only short periods is also unacceptable.

Testing vaccines during brief trials in humans (the Pfizer trials only followed a minority of subjects for a median of two months when the vaccine was authorized) allowed COVID vaccines to be rolled out without the public being aware they could cause any serious side effects, let alone myocarditis and sudden deaths.

You Can’t Assess the Soundness of the Manufacturing Process for 100 Day Vaccines

Finally, following this rapid manufacturing plan, thorough testing for potential failures in the manufacturing process could not be performed.  Scaling up from producing pilot lots to large scale manufacturing requires a whole new evaluation.  With the current plan for far-flung, decentralized manufacturing facilities that are said to be necessary to achieve vaccine equity for all, there are nowhere near enough regulators who know how to inspect vaccine manufacturers.

Will the WHO Respect Human Rights?

The need to respect “human rights, dignity, and freedom of persons” is embedded in the current International Health Regulations (IHR), as well as other UN treaties. However, the language guaranteeing human rights, dignity, and freedom of persons was peremptorily removed from the proposed IHR Amendments, without explanation. The removal of human rights protections did not go unnoticed, and the WHO has been widely criticized for it.

The WHO apparently is responding to these criticisms, and so the language guaranteeing human rights that was removed from the drafts of the International Health Regulations has been inserted into the newest version of the pandemic treaty.

Conclusions

As long predicted by science fiction, our biotech, cyber and surveillance achievements have finally gotten away from us. We can produce vaccines in 100 days and manufacture them in 130 days–but there will be no guarantees that the products will be safe, effective, or adequately manufactured. And we can expect large profits, but no consequences for the manufacturers from any injuries to the public.

If we do face another pandemic, being able to access repurposed drugs will be the only rapid and safe solution. Yet existing drugs have been deliberately excluded by the WHO’s IHR amendments and treaty draft, because no one gets rich off non-patentable and available old drugs.

Our genes can be decoded by genomic sequencing, and the fruits of personalized medicine made available to us. Or perhaps our genes will be patented and sold to the highest bidder. We might be able to select for special characteristics in our children, but at the same time, a human underclass of test-tube babies could be created.

Our electronic communications can be completely monitored and censored, and uniform messaging can be imposed on everyone. But for whom would this be good?

New biological weapons will be discovered or engineered. They will be shared. We can hope the GOF research that studied and created them will speed up the development of vaccines and therapeutics for the public, but it never has yet.  

Who really benefits from the gain-of-function scam?  Those who seek to control us.  It is the public who pays the cost of the research, then pays again for the accidents and deliberate leaks. Wouldn’t it be better to end gain-of-function research entirely, by restricting funding or closing the laboratories, rather than encouraging the proliferation of biological weapons?  If we want a decent future, it is crucial that we control these weapons instead of proliferating them. 

These are important issues for all of humanity, and I encourage everyone to pay attention to them, think about them, and become part of this very important conversation.

*

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. Meryl Nass is a National Merit Scholar. She has entered MIT before completing high school; BS Biology 1974, MD 1980, Board Certified in Internal Medicine 1986. She has practiced medicine for 41 years. Traveled to over 50 countries, has 2 children, single parent. She was the first person in the world to study an epidemic and show it was due to biological warfare.

Selected publications on Biological Warfare, beginning 1991:

• The Labyrinth of Biological Defense
• Anthrax Epizootic in Zimbabwe, 1978-1980: Due to Deliberate Spread?
• Can Biological, Toxin, and Chemical Warfare be Eliminated?
• Anthrax Vaccine:: Model of a Response to the Biological Warfare Threat

Featured image is from Brownstone Institute

---

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. 

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.

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.

***

April 20, 2023 – 34 year old Kim Kardashian look-alike model Christina Ashten Gourkani, died from cardiac arrest right after a minor cosmetic surgery (silicone implants into her buttocks).

The statement went on to describe the harrowing moment someone called Christina’s family at 4.30am screaming, ‘Ashten is dying, Ashten is dying!’

“The family spokesperson then described the ‘living nightmare’ of watching her health decline in hospital following her cardiac arrest.”

Aug. 26, 2023 – 34 year old Suellen Pamela de Moura from the city of Ribeirao Preto, Brazil, died of blood clots (pulmonary embolism) three days after she went through a tummy tucking procedure on Wednesday August 23.

The 34-year-old woman was reportedly discharged the day after the surgery, and began developing shortness of breath and chest pain two days later on Friday, August 25. She was then reportedly rushed to the hospital’s Emergency Care Unit (UPA), where medics diagnosed her with pulmonary embolism.

Aug. 9, 2023 – Etobicoke, ON – 28 year old Riley Connor died suddenly after “unexpected heart surgery complications.”

Aug. 4, 2023 – Franklin, NC – Ben Ledford had surgery to repair a disc in his back, the surgery was successful but he did not wake upon removal of anesthesia.

July 28, 2023 – Espoo, Finland – 49 year old Timo Hirvonen, Finnish professional hockey player died suddenly July 28, 2023 from complications of surgery for cancer.

July 19, 2023 – Peabody, MA – 40 year old Police Officer Henry Breckenridge died suddenly on July 19, 2023 from complications that arose from a “non-emergency” surgery.

June 30, 2023 – New Zealand motorbike racer 28 year old Damon Rees died suddenly on June 30, 2023 after battling a “sudden medical condition”. “He had surgery but was doing well” the day before he died suddenly.

May 31, 2023 – 32 yo social media star Jacklyn Smith, aka Jacky Oh, died suddenly on May 31, 2023. She was found unresponsive in Miami hotel room on evening of May 31, 2023 after having cosmetic surgery.

May 21, 2023 – Brisbane, Australia – 26 year old Dani Duchatel died suddenly in front of her family while playing cards after dinner, on May 21, 2023. Doctors believe a blood clot from a recent operation on her leg travelled to her lung causing a pulmonary embolism.

April 1, 2023 – UK – 28 year old Shannon Bowe, died during an operation to insert a band which reduces the size of the stomach, a surgery she did in Turkey on April 1, 2023.

Mar. 17, 2023 – UK – TikTok Star 30 year old Jehane Thomas died suddenly. She had been suffering from crippling headaches for several months, was diagnosed with Optic Neuritis, went to have an unspecified surgery, stayed in hospital for a week, was discharged but soon returned with migraines and then died.

Feb. 19, 2023 – Liverpool, UK – 35 year old Sam Mercer died suddenly on Feb.19, 2023. He was at home recovering from surgery on Feb.14 for a snapped femur.

Jan. 28, 2023 – 21 year old university student Karen Julieth Cárdenas Uribe had rhinoplasty surgery in Colombia. She fainted as she arrived home, rushed back to hospital where they found her lungs were full of blood. She died after 6 cardiac arrests on Jan. 28, 2023.

Nov. 30, 2022 – Boulder, CO – Tom Day died suddenly and unexpectedly after making significant gains in his recovery from heart surgery a few weeks prior.

Aug. 25, 2022 – Agoura Hills, CA – 15 year old Carter Stone, football player at Agoura High School went into cardiac arrest during routine shoulder surgery after doctors found tumor on his heart, undiagnosed T-cell leukemia. He died on Aug. 25, 2022.

Aug. 22, 2022 – 48 year old Keith Carrington, beloved Principal at North Division High School and Security Guard for the Milwaukee Bucks, died suddenly of sepsis while recovering from foot surgery.

My Take… 

Cosmetic procedures are generally associated with increased risks of postoperative pulmonary embolism. (Kalmar et al)(Jiangwei Kong)

However, how does one explain sudden deaths of so many young people after a minor surgery?

I am seeing this same phenomenon in pregnant women during and shortly after giving birth. Sudden, unexpected deaths. Mostly blood clots but also cardiac arrests.

Doctors are NOT talking about this phenomenon.

I hypothesize that COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated individuals may be at significantly HIGHER risk of peri-operative and post-operative complications, most of which will be related to blood clotting problems that doctors are currently not recognizing.

UK government data (UK Dept of Work & Pensions) clearly shows skyrocketing blood clotting problems.

2022 Hematological Disabilities: +522%

• Blood clotting disorders +162%
• platelet disorders +221%
• Blood disorders +137%

*

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.

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.

***

The Biden administration is reportedly close to authorizing yet another weapons system for Ukraine that it had previously ruled out. According to ABC News and the Financial Times, the US will send Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, a high priority for Kiev and its most hawkish backers. The long-range missiles, which travel up to 190 miles, would bolster Ukraine’s capacity to hit Crimea and possibly mainland Russia.

The White House previously invoked that very capability to rule out the ATACMS as too dangerous an escalation. As National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan explained in June 2022, President Biden was “not prepared to provide” long-range missiles, given the “key goal” of avoiding “the road towards a third world war.”

Just over one year later, the road towards a third world war is no longer closed.

Helping matters is what ABC News describes as “a surprising discovery”: according to two US officials, the US “has found it has more ATACMS in its inventory than originally assessed.”

The “surprising discovery” for the war effort is reminiscent of another fortuitous find. In June, the Pentagon claimed that an “accounting error” had freed up more than $6.2 billion in new funds to buy weapons for Ukraine.

It will be of no surprise to anyone who has followed the Ukraine proxy war that the Biden administration is once again crossing its own red line. From the start, the White House has publicly resisted sending major weapons systems only to later relent. The arsenal of rejected-turned-authorized weapons includes HIMARS rocket artillery, Patriot missiles, Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets, cluster munitions, and depleted uranium.

The threat of world war has not changed. Instead, by supplying just enough weapons to continue the fight, the US can achieve its primary aim: not help defend Ukraine and end the war, but use Ukraine to “lock Russia in a quagmire” that will leave Moscow “weakened” or even regime changed.

As Edward Stringer, ex-head of operations for the UK Defense Staff, put it, the NATO weapons supply has been a “drip-feed” that offers “just enough for Ukraine not to lose,” and ultimately amounts to “just prolonging the war.”

At the NATO summit in Lithuania this past June, Western officials admitted that their policies fuel an endless fight. According to the New York Times, “several American and European officials acknowledged” that their “commitments” to Ukraine “make it all the more difficult to begin any real cease-fire or armistice negotiations.” Additionally, US-led “promises of Ukraine’s eventual accession to NATO — after the war is over —create a strong incentive for Moscow to hang onto any Ukrainian territory it can and to keep the conflict alive.”

To keep the conflict alive, the Biden administration is also backtracking on its prior vow to limit Ukrainian attacks inside Russia. Back in June 2022 – the same month as his colleague Sullivan ruled out ATACMS — Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that Ukraine has “given us assurances that they will not use” US multiple-launch rocket systems “against targets on Russian territory.” Fast forward to today, and Blinken is shrugging off the possibility that the even more powerful ATACMS will hit those very targets. “It’s their decision, not ours,” Blinken told CNN.

Even Blinken’s tepid deferral was quickly contradicted. Speaking remotely to a conference in Kiev, Victoria Nuland, the Acting Deputy Secretary of State, said that one “axis” of current US strategy is to help Ukraine “have what it needs to be able to put some of Russia’s most precious assets at risk” – an apparent green-light for striking assets deep inside of Russia.

Blinken’s claim is additionally contradicted by established battlefield protocol. When Ukrainian forces use advanced US-provided rocket systems, the Washington Post reported in February, they “require coordinates provided or confirmed by the United States and its allies for the vast majority of strikes.” Accordingly, Ukraine “usually chooses not to strike without U.S. confirmation.”

To complement their plans to strike “Russia’s most precious assets”, the White House is claiming that Ukraine’s faltering counteroffensive is in fact a growing success. The Ukrainian military, Blinken claims, has made “real progress in recent weeks.” And overall, he asserts, “Ukraine has taken back more than 50 percent of the territory that Russia seized from it since February 2022.”

It is unclear where Blinken is seeing this “real progress” and seismic territorial reconquest. As one senior Western official told the New York Times, Ukraine’s most successful advances of late, “while noteworthy, do not yet represent a major operational breakthrough.” And according to the Washington Post, Russia has gone from controlling a high of 51,000 square miles of Ukrainian territory in March 2022, to 41,000 square miles today – a Ukrainian recapture rate of about 20 percent.

To continue the Ukraine war, therefore, the Biden administration is sending weapons systems that it had previously ruled out; ignoring its own stated pledge to restrict their targets; and offering a deceptively optimistic assessment of Ukraine’s progress to date.

Perhaps, as always, the prevailing strategy will bear fruit, and Ukraine will expel Russian forces without having to make any agreement with Moscow or allied Donbas rebels. Alternatively, Ukraine will continue to sacrifice countless lives as it draws yet another dangerous infusion from Washington’s war-prolonging drip-feed.

*

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.

Featured image: An ATACMS missile being launched from an M270 MLRS (Licensed under the Public Domain)

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.

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.

***

The reality of the West’s trademark current foreign policy – marketed for the past two decades under the principle of a “Responsibility to Protect” – is all too visible amid Libya’s flood wreckage.

Many thousands are dead or missing in the port of Derna after two dams protecting the city burst this week as they were battered by Storm Daniel. Vast swaths of housing in the region, including in Benghazi, west of Derna, lie in ruins. 

The storm itself is seen as further proof of a mounting climate crisis, rapidly changing weather patterns across the globe and making disasters like Derna’s flooding more likely.

But the extent of the calamity cannot simply be ascribed to climate change. Though the media coverage studiously obscures this point, Britain’s actions 12 years ago – when it trumpeted its humanitarian concern for Libya – are intimately tied to Derna’s current suffering.  

The failing dams and faltering relief efforts, observers correctly point out, are the result of a power vacuum in Libya. There is no central authority capable of governing the country.

But there are reasons Libya is so ill-equipped to deal with a catastrophe. And the West is deeply implicated.

Avoiding mention of those reasons, as Western coverage is doing, leaves audiences with a false and dangerous impression: that something lacking in Libyans, or maybe Arabs and Africans, makes them inherently incapable of properly running their own affairs.

‘Dysfunctional Politics’

Libya is indeed a mess, overrun by feuding militias, with two rival governments vying for power amid a general air of lawlessness. Even before this latest disaster, the country’s rival rulers struggled to cope with the day-to-day management of their citizens’ lives. 

Or as Frank Gardner, the BBC’s security correspondent, observed of the crisis, it has been “compounded by Libya’s dysfunctional politics, a country so rich in natural resources and yet so desperately lacking the security and stability that its people crave.”

Meanwhile, Quentin Sommerville, the corporation’s Middle East correspondent, opined that “there are many countries that could have handled flooding on this scale, but not one as troubled as Libya. It has had a long and painful decade: civil wars, local conflicts, and Derna itself was taken over by the Islamic State group – the city was bombed to remove them from there.” 

According to Sommerville, experts had previously warned that the dams were in poor shape, adding: “Amid Libya’s chaos, those warnings went unheeded.”

“Dysfunction”, “chaos”, “troubled”, “unstable”, “fractured”. The BBC and the rest of Britain’s establishment media have been firing out these terms like bullets from a machine gun.

Libya is what analysts like to term a failed state. But what the BBC and the rest of the Western media have carefully avoided mentioning is why.

Regime Change

More than decade ago, Libya had a strong, competent, if highly repressive, central government under dictator Muammar Gaddafi. The country’s oil revenues were used to provide free public education and health care. As a result, Libya had one of the highest literacy rates and average per capita incomes in Africa.

That all changed in 2011, when Nato sought to exploit the “Responsibility to Protect” principle, or R2P for short, to justify carrying out what amounted to an illegal regime-change operation off the back of an insurgency.

The supposed “humanitarian intervention” in Libya was a more sophisticated version of the West’s similarly illegal, “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq, eight years earlier.

Then, the US and Britain launched a war of aggression without United Nations authorisation, based on an entirely bogus story that Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, possessed hidden stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

In Libya’s case, by contrast, Britain and France, backed by the United States, were more successful in winning a UN security resolution, with a narrow remit to protect civilian populations from the threat of attack and impose a no-fly zone. 

Armed with the resolution, the West manufactured a pretext to meddle directly in Libya. They claimed that Gaddafi was preparing a massacre of civilians in the rebel-stronghold of Benghazi. The lurid story even suggested that Gaddafi was arming troops with Viagra to encourage them to commit mass rape. 

As with Iraq’s WMD, the claims were entirely unsubstantiated, as a report by the British parliament’s foreign affairs committee concluded five years later, in 2016. Its investigation found:

“The proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence.”

The report added:

“Gaddafi’s 40-year record of appalling human rights abuses did not include large-scale attacks on Libyan civilians.”

Bombing Campaigns

That, however, was not a view prime minister David Cameron or the media shared with the public when British MPs voted to back a war on Libya in March 2011. Only 13 legislators dissented.  

Among them, notably, was Jeremy Corbyn, then a backbencher who four years later would be elected Labour opposition leader, triggering an extended smear campaign against him by the British establishment. 

When Nato launched its “humanitarian intervention”, the death toll from Libya’s fighting was estimated by the UN at no more than 2,000. Six months later, it was assessed at nearer 50,000, with civilians comprising a significant proportion of the casualties. 

Citing its R2P mission, Nato flagrantly exceeded the terms of the UN resolution, which specifically excluded “a foreign occupation force of any form”. Western troops, including British special forces, operated on the ground, coordinating the actions of rebel militias opposed to Gaddafi. 

Meanwhile, Nato planes ran bombing campaigns that often killed the very civilians Nato claimed it was there to protect.

It was another illegal Western regime-overthrow operation – this one ending with the filming of Gaddafi being butchered on the street.

Slave Markets

The self-congratulatory mood among Britain’s political and media class, burnishing the West’s “humanitarian” credentials, was evident across the media.

An Observer editorial declared: “An honourable intervention. A hopeful future.” In the Daily Telegraph, David Owen, a former British foreign secretary, wrote: “We have proved in Libya that intervention can still work.”  

But had it worked?

Two years ago, even the arch-neoconservative Atlantic Council, the ultimate Washington insider think-tank, admitted:

“Libyans are poorer, in greater peril, and experience as much or more political repression in parts of the country compared to Gaddafi’s rule.” 

It added:

“Libya remains divided politically and in a state of festering civil war. Frequent oil production halts while lack of oil fields maintenance has cost the country billions of dollars in lost revenues.”

The idea that Nato was ever really concerned about the welfare of Libyans was given the lie the moment Gaddafi was slaughtered. The West immediately abandoned Libya to its ensuing civil war, what President Obama colourfully called a “shitshow”, and the media that had been so insistent on the humanitarian goals behind the “intervention” lost all interest in post-Gaddafi developments. 

Libya was soon overrun with warlords, becoming a country in which, as human rights groups warned, slave markets were once again flourishing. 

As the BBC’s Sommerville noted in passing, the vacuum left behind in places like Derna soon sucked in more violent and extremist groups like the head-choppers of Islamic State. 

Unreliable Allies

But parallel to the void of authority in Libya that has exposed its citizens to such suffering is the remarkable void at the heart of the West’s media coverage of the current flooding.

Floods in Libya, September 2023 (Source: ERCC – Emergency Response Coordination Centre / Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

No one wants to explain why Libya is so ill-prepared to deal with the disaster, why the country is so fractured and chaotic.

Just as no one wants to explain why the West’s invasion of Iraq on “humanitarian” grounds, and the disbanding of its army and police forces, led to more than a million Iraqis dead and millions more homeless and displaced. 

Or why the West allied with its erstwhile opponents – the jihadists of Islamic State and al-Qaeda – against the Syrian government, again causing millions to be displaced and dividing the country. 

Syria was as unprepared as Libya now is to deal with a large earthquake that hit its northern regions, along with southern Turkey, last February. 

This pattern repeats because it serves a useful end for a West led from Washington that seeks complete global hegemony and control of resources, or what its policymakers call full-spectrum dominance. 

Humanitarianism is the cover story – to keep Western publics docile – as the US and Nato allies target leaders of oil-rich states in the Middle East and North Africa that are viewed as unreliable or unpredictable, such as Libya’s Gadaffi and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.

A Wayward Leader

WikiLeaks’ release of US diplomatic cables in late 2010 reveals a picture of Washington’s mercurial relationship with Gaddafi – a trait paradoxically the US ambassador to Tripoli is recorded attributing to the Libyan leader.

Publicly, US officials were keen to cosy up to Gaddafi, offering him close security coordination against the very rebel forces they would soon be assisting in their regime-overthrow operation.

But other cables reveal deeper concerns at Gaddafi’s waywardness, including his ambitions to build a United States of Africa to control the continent’s resources and develop an independent foreign policy. 

Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. And who has control over them, and profits from them, is centrally important to Western states.

The WikiLeaks cables recounted US, French, Spanish and Canadian oil firms being forced to renegotiate contracts on significantly less favourable terms, costing them many billions of dollars, while Russia and China were awarded new oil exploration options.

Still more worrying for US officials was the precedent Gaddafi had been setting, creating a “new paradigm for Libya that is playing out worldwide in a growing number of oil producing countries”. 

That precedent has been decisively overturned since Gaddafi’s demise. As Declassified reported, after biding their time, British oil giants BP and Shell returned to Libya’s oilfields last year.  

In 2018, Britain’s then ambassador to Libya, Frank Baker, wrote enthusiastically about how the UK was “helping to create a more permissible environment for trade and investment, and to uncover opportunities for British expertise to help Libya’s reconstruction”.

That contrasts with Gaddafi’s earlier moves to cultivate closer military and economic ties with Russia and China, including granting access to the port of Benghazi for the Russian fleet. In one cable from 2008, he is noted to have “voiced his satisfaction that Russia’s increased strength can serve as a necessary counterbalance to US power”. 

Submit or Pay

It was these factors that tipped the balance in Washington against Gaddafi’s continuing rule and encouraged the US to seize the opportunity to oust him by backing rebel forces.

The idea that Washington or Britain cared about the welfare of ordinary Libyans is disproved by a decade of indifference to their plight – culminating in the current suffering in Derna.

The West’s approach to Libya, as with Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, has been to prefer that it be sunk into a quagmire of division and instability than allow a strong leader to act defiantly, demand control over resources and establish alliances with enemy states – creating a precedent other states might follow.

Small states are left with a stark choice: submit or pay a heavy price.

Gaddafi was butchered in the street, the bloody images shared around the world. The suffering of ordinary Libyans over the past decade, in contrast, has taken place out of view.

Now with the disaster in Derna, their plight is in the spotlight. But with the help of Western media like the BBC, the reasons for their misery remain as murky as the flood waters.

*

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.

Jonathan Cook is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at www.jonathan-cook.net

Featured image is from World Meteorological Organization

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.

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.

***

Retired Ukrainian Major General Sergey Krivonos slammed Volodymyr Zelensky in an interview for presenting inexplicably optimistic reports on the situation at the front. In his words, Zelensky presents the situation “optimistically” even though the expert consensus, except among the most extremist corners in Ukraine and the West, is that the much-lauded counteroffensive has been a catastrophic failure. The failure of the counteroffensive, which has contributed to half a million Ukrainian deaths, will inevitably lead to an eventual diminishing of Western support for Ukraine as financing the war will be a major topic in next year’s US presidential election runup.

“The president speaks optimistically, but I don’t know who writes these texts for him. At certain times, I get worried,” said the retired general.

According to Krivonos, Zelensky speaks about what is happening at the front by using a tone as if Ukrainian forces have practically won. He added that Zelensky should not count on a process of demoralisation among Russian troops and warned that the Russian Army is experienced and well-trained.

The revelation by Krivonos comes after it was recently announced that Ukraine had already lost around half a million troops since the start of the Russian special military operation in February 2022. According to the advisor to the acting head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DRP), Yan Gagin, the numbers were projected through intelligence, open data, and sources.

“We can understand these losses from the intelligence information we receive from our sources in Ukraine, and there are also public sources. For example, just a week ago, maybe a little more, in Ukraine, one of the mobile operators (MTS-Ukraine) posted an online video stating that around 400,000 recipients will never answer the phone again,” Gagin said.

The 400,000 figure is data from just one of several mobile operators in Ukraine. According to Gagin, the video was immediately hushed up and removed from everywhere, so the numbers are accurate.

He also recounted how Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, at a meeting of the European Parliament, when asked about 500,000 deaths in Ukraine, said defectively that they did not promise it would be easy. Effectively, he confirmed the number with his silence.

“Therefore, the number of about half a million Ukrainians who died during the conflict with the military, I think, is close to the truth,” Gagin emphasised.

These data do not include the losses represented by the injured. Among them are those who will return to the frontline and those who will be incapacitated and unable to fight.

It is recalled that earlier in the month, the British think tank Royal United Services Institute published a report claiming that rushing the counteroffensive is causing “unsustainable losses” on the Ukrainian side. According to the analysis prepared by two members of the London-based think-tank, Ukrainian forces face enormous equipment losses, while the training provided by the West is not adapted to the type of battle they are fighting against Russia.

The report observed that the counteroffensive was being affected, among other reasons, by the poor training of Ukrainian soldiers. In addition, the methods taught by NATO are designed for forces with configurations different from Ukrainian troops.

The failure of the counteroffensive and the high casualty rate will inevitably lead to harsh criticism of the ruling Democrat’s policy on Ukraine. Republicans in the US House of Representatives harshly criticised and will vote against the next aid package for Ukraine, saying they have “sound reasons” to question the policy.

Many Republicans consider the counteroffensive to have yielded little results at a high cost, which naturally leads to the view that more aid to Ukraine is a waste of money. A similar view is that more aid discourages Ukrainians from accepting an agreement and only prolongs an unnecessary expenditure.

For this reason, Western media is completely silent about the statements made by the likes of Krivonos and Gagin because it will be even more difficult than it currently is to maintain support for Ukraine as people will become horrified by the high death rate and the impossibility of winning the war. Gagin estimates 500,000 deaths on the Ukrainian side since February 2022, and according to Russian President Vladimir Putin, 75,500 Ukrainian troops have been killed since the counteroffensive began in the first week of June.

These harrowing figures, which will only be catastrophically worse by the time the next US presidential election rolls around in November 2024, will undoubtedly become a central discussion point that the Republicans will use to criticise the Democrats. At this juncture, it appears that Biden will continue strongly supporting Ukraine in the short term, but this will inevitably slowly diminish as elections approach.

*

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.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

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.

***

Part I 

Do Vaccines Cause Autism? A History of Institutional Corruption

By Helen Buyniski, Richard Gale, and Dr. Gary Null, August 29, 2023

Part II

Do Vaccines Cause Autism? The Evidence Against Vaccine Safety

By Helen Buyniski, Richard Gale, and Dr. Gary Null, September 05, 2023

 

 

---

Aluminum

Aluminum is an adjuvant, a chemical booster added to vaccines to induce an immune response. Most vaccines in the CDC schedule contain an aluminum compound. Furthermore, there is a large body of scientific research to support a connection between aluminum and neurotoxicity.

It is worth noting that the federal health agencies have admitted to the many dangers posed by aluminum exposure, such as the 357 page document titled “Toxicological Profile for Aluminum” released in 2008 by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The document, which was thoroughly vetted by CDC scientists, states:

“There is a rather extensive database on the oral toxicity of aluminum in animals. These studies clearly identify the nervous system as the most sensitive target of aluminum toxicity and most of the animal studies have focused on neurotoxicity and neurodevelopmental toxicity.”[122]

Screenshot from ATSDR

Despite the government’s tacit recognition of aluminum’s health risks, the CDC and other federal agencies have made no effort to further investigate the cumulative toxicological impact of the current vaccine schedule.

Another culpable ingredient now used in most childhood vaccinations, and also associated with adverse neurological effects, is the adjuvant aluminum. Because the viruses in vaccines have been weakened or killed, they are unable to trigger a sufficient immune response in the body. Therefore, an adjuvant is used to hyperstimulate the immune system to start producing antibodies. Without an adjuvant, vaccines would largely be ineffective. The critical question raised by Generation Rescue co-founder and author of How to End the Autism EpidemicJonathan “JB” Handley is, “Could an ingredient in vaccines whose purpose is to hyperstimulate the immune system trigger immune activation in the brain at critical points during brain development?”[123]

Since 2000, as thimerosal was being phased out, children’s aluminum adjuvant burden has increased, with more vaccines being added to the CDC’s vaccination schedule.[124] Aluminum compounds — either as aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate — are the most used adjuvants found in vaccines, including the hepatitis A and B vaccines, DTP, Hib, Pneumococcus, and the HPV vaccine or Gardasil. Each is given to children, the HPV now starting at 10 years. Handley notes that in the mid-1980s, a fully vaccinated child would have received 1,250 mcg of aluminum before turning 18 years of age. Today, that same fully vaccinated child would be injected with over 4,900 mcg, a four-fold increase.[125] A child’s actual aluminum exposure is likely much greater because aluminum sulfate is used in the purification of municipal water. Drinking water may contain levels up to 1,000 mcg/L. An early 1996 study published in the American Academy of Pediatrics monthly journal acknowledged aluminum toxicity and adverse effects in premature infants receiving intravenous fluid therapy.[126]

The aluminum compounds used as adjuvants in vaccines are selected despite known neurotoxicity and a preponderance of evidence that they cause brain inflammation and other autoimmune symptoms. Dr. Roman Gherardi has found that aluminum is extremely biopersistent and that far from remaining localized at the site of injection, aluminum adjuvant is taken up in the bloodstream and travels all over the body, building up in the brain over the course of years of vaccinations instead of being quickly eliminated as vaccine apologists claim.[127] A 2018 study by Mold et.al. found “some of the highest values for aluminum in human brain tissue yet recorded” in the teenage autistic patients the researchers examined – rates 10 times higher than what would be expected in an adult, let alone a child. The location of the aluminum within the brain also suggested it had traveled there via immune pathways, appearing in inflammatory non-neuronal cells called microglia. The researchers concluded this unusual distribution was a “standout observation” in autistic brain tissue and likely played a role in the development of the disorder.[128]

A common argument against vaccine opponents, who blame aluminum for a variety of health conditions, including autism, is that the metal is the third most prevalent element on earth. What they fail to acknowledge is our gastric-intestinal system is rather impervious to aluminum absorption. About 2% of orally consumed aluminum from the environment is actually absorbed and much of this is later expelled from the body by other means. However, injectable and intravenous aluminum compounds directly entering the bloodstream are a completely different matter. This is why the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines carries a high neurodegenerative and autism risk. Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants after intravenous feeding, which then contained alum, was observed back in 1997 and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.[129] Thirty-nine percent of infants receiving aluminum-containing solutions developed learning problems upon entering schools compared to those receiving aluminum-free solutions.

Similar to thimerosal, aluminum is a heavy metal that contributes to oxidative stress leading to neuroinflammation and microgliosis, an intense adverse reaction of the central nervous system microglia that leads to a pathogenic results characteristic in some ASD conditions.[130] The National Library of Medicine lists over 2,000 references about aluminum’s toxicity to human biochemistry. Aluminum’s dangers, often found as alum or aluminum hydroxide in vaccines and food preparations, have been known since 1912, when the first director of the FDA, Dr. Harvey Wiley, later resigned in disgust over its commercial use in food canning; he was also among the first government officials to ever warn about tobacco’s cancer risks back in 1927.[131] The medical profession cannot argue against aluminum’s ill effects on children.

Dr. James Lyons Weiler at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge has noted that aluminum levels found in vaccines are based on increasing immune efficacy and completely ignore the body weight safety of a child, especially infants and toddlers. But even more negligently, the safety codes for aluminum vaccine doses rely on dietary studies in mice and rats, not human children! Lyons-Weiler notes, “On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.”[132] The author is referring to the Hepatitis B vaccine given immediately after birth.

Infancy and the neonatal states are the most vulnerable periods of human development, a time when individuals are most susceptible to transfer and uptake of toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury — if a pregnant mother received a thimerosal-laced flu shot — into the brain tissue.

Newborns also vary in size, organ development, genetic disposition, and mother’s environment in utero.

Fetal elimination of toxins is also vastly different that the later stages of development in life. Research investigating the elimination of ethylmercury or aluminum in an adult has little relevance to that of a fetus. Nevertheless, vaccines adhere to a one-size-fits-all model for their formulation, and much of the argument for vaccine ingredient safety is solely based upon published studies on adults, not fetuses and infants. Worse, JB Handley’s investigations realized that “aluminum was grandfathered into pediatric vaccines without safety testing.”[133]

In other words, injecting aluminum into the bloodstreams of small children has NEVER best tested. This is supported by Drs. Christopher Shaw and Lucjia Tomljenovic at the University of British Columbia’s Neural Dynamics group, who has been investigating aluminum toxicity diligently in their laboratory. In their paper “Mechanisms of Aluminum Adjuvant Toxicity and Autoimmunity,” the authors state, “It is somewhat surprising to find that in spite of over 80 years of use, the safety of AL adjuvants continues to rest on assumptions rather than scientific evidence. For example, nothing is known about the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of AL adjuvants in infants and children.”[134]

Shaw and Tomljenovic have conducted extensive research over the years to determine the neurotoxicological effects of vaccine aluminum and its correlation with the rise of autism spectrum disorders. There is already a strong correlation between children in countries with the highest autism rates and aluminum levels from vaccine exposure. As stated above, the FDA established its measurement for aluminum allowance based upon the amount necessary to trigger the vaccine’s antigenicity rather than concerns about toxicity or safety. In an earlier 2009 study published in the Journal of Neuromolecular Medicine, Dr. Shaw and his team demonstrated that the extreme toxicity of aluminum adjuvant contributed to motor neuron death associated with Gulf War illness.[135] It was the first study to test aluminum in vaccines within a biological setting.

Some of the research to discover aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines’ toxic levels and their adverse effects has found the following:


• Aluminum inflicts strong neurotoxicity on primary neurons.[136]

• Aluminum-laced vaccines increase the aluminum levels in murine brain tissue leading to neurotoxicity.[137]

• Aluminum hydroxide, the most common form of adjuvant used in vaccines, deposits mostly in the kidney, liver and brain.[138]

• Long term exposure to vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide (which is today an ingredient in almost all vaccines) results in macrophagic myofascitis lesions.[139]

Sealey et al. published a 2016 article titled “Environmental factors in the development of autism spectrum disorder.” The authors conducted a comprehensive literature search, the result of which implicated environmental factors in autism, including heavy metals, especially aluminum used in vaccines as an adjuvant. Also implicated are pesticides, phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls, solvents, air pollutants, fragrances, and the weed killer glyphosate (RoundUp).[140]

The work of Dr. Roman Gherardi at the University of Paris has also recently come to light, showing that when an aluminum adjuvant is injected in a mouse, it will find its way to the brain a year later. The significance of this discovery would confirm that many cases of autism progress gradually, and symptoms do not necessarily appear immediate upon or several days after vaccination. Gherardi and his colleagues also discovered in a later 2015 study that aluminum adjuvant remains in the tissues far longer than originally assumed.

The principle argument offered by the pro-vaccine community and health officials is that aluminum is quickly eliminated from the body. However, the Paris University study raises a serious concern over aluminum’s biopersistence, which Gherardi calls a “Trojan horse mechanism.” The adjuvant can lodge and accumulate in brain tissue for years, decades or perhaps a lifetime. This should also further raise a question whether vaccines are now also contributing to the epidemic in dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease that has also been associated with brain neuroinflammation caused by the buildup of aluminum plaque. Back in the US, Dr. Carlos Pardo-Villamizar at Johns Hopkins University published his paper “Neuroglial Activation and Neuroinflammation in the Brain Patterns of Patients with Autism.” His conclusions: autistic brains are permanently inflamed. This was the first independent study to actually look at the brains of people with autism.

This brings us to the critical research and findings of Prof. Christopher Exley at Keele University in the UK and their investigation into the brain tissue of autistic patients to measure aluminum levels. Exley’s finding, reproduced by JB Handley, is shocking. He reports,

“While the aluminum content of each of the five brains (of people with autism) was shockingly high, it was the location of the aluminum in the brain tissue which served as the standout observation…. The new evidence strongly suggests that aluminum is entering the brain in ASD via pro-inflammatory cells which have become loaded up with aluminum in the blood and/or lymph, much as has been demonstrated for monocytes at injection sites for vaccines including aluminum adjuvants.”

Why is this so critical? Because Exley has identified a biomolecular pathway directly leading to vaccine-caused brain inflammation. It is the monocytes or macrophages at the injection sites, the point where a child has been vaccinated, that have become the carriers of aluminum to the brain.

The alarming health consequences of aluminum were reported in a  2011 study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry by Drs. Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw at the University of British Columbia. The study revealed that rates of autism spectrum disorder among children are greater in countries where children are exposed to the highest amounts of aluminum in vaccines.

The authors also noted “the increase in exposure to Al [aluminum] adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD [autism spectrum disorder] prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades” Applying a statistical measure used to assess the causation inherent in a correlation, they were able to confirm that “the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal.”[141] An additional article by Dr. Tomljenovic, and published in a 2014 issue of the journal Immunotherapy, discussed the neurotoxic effects of aluminum on the central nervous system. The article mentions the role played by the metal in triggering autoimmune and inflammatory responses, altering genetic expression and contributing to neurodevelopmental disorders.[142]

These findings are further supported by MIT researcher Dr. Stephanie Seneff. Seneff’s scientific investigation into the pathology of autism has turned up evidence that the neurotoxicity of aluminum is greatly increased when combined with glyphosate, Monsanto’s very widely used pesticide which is sprayed on crops around the world. Seneff posits that not only do these two agents combine to promote neurodevelopmental conditions but can also disrupt the gut’s microbiome, potentially leading to leaky gut syndrome, kidney failure, and other serious complications.[143]

In a comprehensive overview of the literature on aluminum adjuvants, Tomljenovic and Shaw bring together studies confirming these molecules are not only neurotoxic but also endocrine disruptors, genotoxins, immunotoxins, and pro-inflammatories; they also interfere with glucose metabolism, membrane receptor signaling, mitochondrial function and ATP energy transfer, among other homeostatic functions.[144] While aluminum’s environmental ubiquity is a source of harms on its own, the body is able to excrete much of what it consumes through food and drink. When injected, however, the human brain doesn’t stand a chance: dozens of studies have confirmed that aluminum adjuvant particles can cross the blood-brain barrier, triggering a devastating inflammatory response in brain tissue. During infancy and childhood, the blood-brain barrier is at its most permeable, rendering the administration of adjuvant-containing vaccines especially destructive. Vargas et.al. published a paper on the link between microglial activation and autism in 2004, demonstrating that autistic patients suffered from lifelong low-level immunoexcitation of the brain, in a study that has been replicated many times.[145]

A 2017 study by Crépeaux et.al. required a wholesale reevaluation of everything we know about aluminum adjuvants. The researchers found, counterintuitively, that it was actually the smallest doses of the adjuvant Alhydrogel (brand name for aluminum oxyhydroxide, the most common adjuvant used in vaccines) that produced the worst neurotoxic effects. Higher doses were seen to trigger the formulation of protective “granulomas” – a function of the body’s natural immune defenses against hostile foreign intruders – but in small doses the aluminum nanoparticles were taken up by monocytes (white blood cells) as part of the immune response to the vaccine, riding those cells all the way to the brain. The low-dose subjects were those who displayed marked neurobehavioral deterioration.[146]

No studies were ever conducted to evaluate the safety of aluminum adjuvants before drugmakers decided to use them in vaccines – indeed, the FDA’s ceiling on how much aluminum a vaccine can contain is based on the substance’s efficacy in enhancing the vaccine’s antigenicity, not how it is tolerated in the body. The mechanism by which aluminum acts as an immune adjuvant is poorly understood,[147] yet its use is considered safe beyond question as a matter of faith, even though the CDC limits aluminum in parenteral feeding solutions for safety reasons.[148] With a vaccine schedule that only expands, never contracts, children today are injected with many times the aluminum load of children 30 years ago, and the weight of the evidence that this substance is toxic cannot be ignored.

A study published in 2018 points to fluoride as another possible trigger for the immunoexcitotoxicity that has been indisputably linked to autism. Strunecka et.al. discovered that the synergistic effects of aluminum and fluoride exposure resulted in far worse inflammation in neural tissue than aluminum or fluoride alone. Worse, the combination of the two neurotoxins has a marked effect on cell signaling, nervous system function, and neurodevelopment when present in lower concentrations than either substance alone. Because the US is one of the dwindling number of countries that persists in adding the industrial byproduct fluoride to its drinking water despite the overwhelming burden of scientific proof of its negative health effects, most children exposed to excessive aluminum through their vaccination schedules are also consuming excessive fluoride – doubly dangerous in conjunction with the biopersistent adjuvant.[149]

The CDC knows aluminum adjuvants are as toxic and damaging as thimerosal and has exploited this knowledge in the studies it has conducted to “prove” vaccines have no connection to autism. The agency’s scientists administer a “placebo” to the control group that still contains the deadly adjuvant, ensuring they too will be poisoned and thus not differ noticeably in autism rates from the active-vaccine group. At this point, with so many papers in the peer-reviewed literature proving the neurotoxicity of aluminum adjuvants, such a “mistake” in research methodology can only be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the reality.[150] To administer an inert placebo would be to open up the trial to the possibility of meaningful results, a mistake they vowed never to make again at Simpsonwood.

The indictment of aluminum adjuvants should have been complete with a 2015 Chinese study published in the Journal of Neuroimmunology. The study compared three groups – one receiving a tuberculosis vaccine that contained no aluminum adjuvant; one receiving the aluminum-containing hepatitis B vaccine typically given to babies on their first day outside the womb; and one control group. The hepatitis B group manifested heightened levels of IL-6, the cytokine marker for autism, and impeded synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus, a brain area particularly sensitive to the effects of neuroinflammation. The tuberculosis group showed lower levels of IL-6 and increased synaptic plasticity.[151] The study seems to confirm that it is not the vaccines as such that have caused such a devastating increase in neurodevelopmental disorders, but medical authorities’ refusal to address the presence of a neurotoxic adjuvant in one of their most lucrative products.

Formaldehyde

Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring metabolite commonly added to bacterial and viral vaccines. According to the FDA “It is used to inactivate viruses so that they don’t cause disease (e.g., polio virus used to make polio vaccine) and to detoxify bacterial toxins, such as the toxin used to make diphtheria vaccine.”[152] Though formaldehyde may neutralize potentially harmful pathogens in vaccines, the World Health Organization lists it as a “known human carcinogen.”

According to a report by the US’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), ingesting “formaldehyde can be fatal, and long-term exposure to low levels in the air or on the skin can cause asthma-like respiratory problems and skin irritation such as dermatitis and itching.” The report also cites formaldehyde as “a cancer hazard.”[153] More evidence suggests formaldehyde exhibits neurotoxic properties as well.[154]

The response from our health officials is that formaldehyde is contained in such small doses in vaccines that it doesn’t threaten human health. However, there is a conspicuous lack of research into the effects of formaldehyde exposure through multiple vaccines in pediatric populations. Given that infants and small children possess a much greater sensitivity to toxins compared to adults and that formaldehyde is introduced to children through immunizations containing a host of other toxic ingredients, it is crucial that we reevaluate its use in vaccines.

Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)

Monosodium glutamate, also known as MSG, has been used as a food additive for over a century, imparting a savory flavor that appeals to many people. It has also made its way into vaccines. Dr. Russell Blaylock notes that MSG is classified as an excitotoxin, or a compound which over stimulates cell receptors to such an extent that the cell ceases to function normally, resulting in damage to nerve cells and contributing to seizures.[155, 156, 157]

In Blaylock’s 2009 three part series, “A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders,” he wrote:

“There is compelling evidence from a multitude of studies of various design indicating that foodborne excitotoxin additives can elevate blood and brain glutamate to levels known to cause neurodegeneration and in the developing brain, abnormal connectivity. Excitotoxins are also secreted by microglial activation when they are in an activated state. Recent studies, discussed in part 1 of this article, indicate that chronic microglial activation is common in the autistic brain. The interaction between excitotoxins, free radicals, lipid peroxidation products, inflammatory cytokines, and disruption of neuronal calcium homeostasis can result in brain changes suggestive of the pathological findings in cases of autism spectrum disorders. In addition, a number of environmental neurotoxins, such as fluoride, lead, cadmium, and aluminum, can result in these pathological and biochemical changes.”[158]

Animal and Human DNA

Animal and even human tissues are used as a culture medium to grow the targeted virus or bacteria used in vaccines. Today, vaccine viruses are cultured in chicken fibroblast cells and embryos, chick retinal and kidney cells, monkey and dog kidney cells, aborted human fetal lung fibroblast cells and mouse brain tissue, to name a few.[159] In 2013, the FDA approved the use of insect cells instead of chicken eggs for the influenza vaccine.

Unfortunately, viral filtration of the substrate that will be used  in the vaccine is a primitive manufacturing process. A significant amount of foreign DNA and genetic debris from the culture finds its way into the vaccine that is eventually administered to children. DNA fragments can recombine with our body’s host cells thereby triggering undesirable autoimmune reactions. Considering the exponential increase in autoimmune diseases over the past 25 years, it is reasonable to suspect that the large amount of foreign genetic debris injected into our bodies is wreaking havoc with natural immune functions. There are also instances of certain vaccines causing a specific autoimmune response, such as a Haemophilus influenza B vaccine and type 1 diabetes association, and a Hepatitis B-Multiple Sclerosis relationship, which were observed after widespread administration of these vaccines.[160, 161, 162]

Polysorbate 80

Polysorbate 80 is a chemical agent used as an emulsifier in vaccines. Research suggests that exposure to polysorbate 80 can “cause severe nonimmunologic anaphylactoid reactions.”[163] Another study found a connection between this substance and Crohn’s disease.[164]

Triton X-100

A type of detergent used in some flu vaccines, Triton X-100 has been found to promote cell death and cause intestinal damage in animal studies.[165, 166]

Phenol

Phenol is a type of preservative commonly used in vaccines. A study looking into the viability of preservatives in vaccines noted that phenol, like Thimerosal, is neurotoxic. The authors suggested that “(f)uture formulations of US-licensed vaccines/biologics should be produced in aseptic manufacturing plants as single dose preparations, eliminating the need for preservatives and an unnecessary risk to patients.”[167]

2-Phenoxyethoanol

The compound known as 2-Phenoxyethoanol is commonly used as an antibacterial agent in vaccines. Among its known. Reports link this chemical to kidney, liver, and neurological toxicity.[168]

Vaccine-Autism Research

Scientists at the University of Pittsburgh investigated the effects of vaccination on the neurodevelopment of baby macaque monkeys. The monkeys were given a course of vaccinations typical of the 1990s vaccine schedule. In comparison with the control group, vaccinated monkeys displayed abnormal patterns of brain growth and dysfunction of the amygdala – both strong indicators of autism when they appear in children.[169]

In 2002, the Journal of Biomedical Science published research carried out by scientists at Utah State University’s Department of Biology analyzing the effects of the MMR vaccine on the central nervous system. In their evaluation, the group discovered that autistic children who receive the MMR possess a higher titer of certain antibodies related to measles. These antibodies trigger an abnormal autoimmune response that effectively damages the brain’s myelin sheath. Evidence suggests that such damage to the myelin sheath may impair normal brain activities and cause autism.[170]

The University of California San Diego and San Diego State University published a study showing a higher incidence of autism among children who were given the MMR vaccine and subsequently took acetaminophen or Tylenol. Their findings were published in the medical journal Autism.[171]

There are more articles to summarize than fit within the scope of this article. The website How Do Vaccines Cause Autism? has compiled “the body of research supporting vaccine autism causation.” The compilers introduce the subject:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics FALSELY states that ‘Vaccines are not associated with autism.’

Autism is a largely immune mediated condition, and the purpose of a vaccine is to change the behavior of the immune system. Vaccines and their ingredients can cause the underlying medical conditions that are commonly found in children who have been given an autism diagnosis. These conditions include immune system impairment, autoimmune conditions, neuroinflammation, gastrointestinal damage, neurological regression, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, glial cell activation, interleukin-6 secretion dysregulation, damage to the blood–brain barrier, seizures, dendritic cell dysfunction, mercury poisoning, aluminum toxicity, gene activation and alteration, glutathione depletion, impaired methylation, impaired thioredoxin regulation, impairment of the opioid system, cellular apoptosis, endocrine dysfunction, and other disorders.”

This website, https://howdovaccinescauseautism.org/, is available for the perusal of anyone interested in familiarizing themselves with the science. Studies with their abstracts and author and publication information are posted, and relevant sections highlighted. A full list of the studies featured on this site have been kindly provided to us, and are listed as an appendix to this article.

“Unanswered Questions from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program”

Aside from the pursuit to understand autism through scientific observation and experimentation, with its many threads leading back to vaccines, there is the story being told in parallel in the courts, specifically the separate, specially designated “vaccine court.” An in presentation of the story of this court, and the information its proceedings have to offer in untangling the autism/vaccine knot, is presented by Mary Holland, Louis Conte, Robert Krakow, and Lisa Colin in a 2011 public law and legal theory research paper titled Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: a Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury.[172] This article is a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand what autism is, the vaccine-autism connection, the workings of the VICP, and its underbelly. The VICP appears to be one of the primary tools used to cover up the autism-vaccine connection by nature of its blanket refusal to compensate autism cases as such, before and since the Hannah Poling case.

But by compensating many families of individuals who were brain damaged by vaccines, the US government has all but admitted to the connection between vaccines, neurological disorders and autism.

The VICP, housed under the the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, is the only forum in which a parent may bring a claim for her child’s vaccine injury. In this court, the vaccine manufacturer does not stand trial; attorneys fees are paid by the vaccine court, which is funded by consumers through a special tax on vaccines; the case is not heard by a jury; and court cases take several years to be heard, as costs for families of injured children pile up.[173] It is a “no fault” program that requires parents to file first in the VICP before any other court.[174] It was created with the passing of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, legislation now infamous among vaccine-safety advocates.

This act was drafted for the purpose of creating the national immunization program which is commonplace today. A second purpose of this legislation was to shield the vaccine industry and the medical profession from liability, requiring parents to bring suit not against the vaccine manufacturer or healthcare provider, but against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[175]

“Starting in 1988, no vaccine manufacturer was liable for a vaccine-related injury or death from one of the recommended vaccines ‘if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.’”[176]

However, the Act permits vaccine manufacturers the right “not to disclose known risks to parents or guardians of those being vaccinated,” leaving this to the discretion of the doctor.[177] Also, the statute of limitations for petitions made to VICP is 3 years, shorter than many state tort law statues.[178]

Rather shockingly, the VICP was established expressly to compensate “vaccine-related injury or death.” “Congress enacted the statue to compensate children who had been injured while serving the public good”[179] — though as infants and toddlers, they could never have known they were serving this “good,” nor did they willingly volunteer to do so. Here we have, in 1986, an admission from the federal government that vaccines are inherently unsafe — otherwise, what need would there be for this program? Since no prior studies had looked at the cumulative effect of giving many vaccines all at once to newborns and very young children, it starts to look like these children were subject to medical experimentation without informed consent.

Not only is this an outright admission of the inherent dangers of vaccines in general, but the proceedings of this court have revealed a direct connection between vaccines and autism specifically, though this connection is still officially denied.

At its inception, only certain injuries were recognized as vaccine injuries under the VICP, and these injuries were meant to be compensated quickly without requiring the petitioner to prove the vaccine caused the injury — if the injury was noticed within 30 days of vaccination.[180] These recognized injuries include encephalopathy and residual seizure disorders, among others (such as death). Recognized injuries are listed in an official Vaccine Injury Table. But for those injuries which were not included in the Table, “petitioners would have to prove these injuries based on a preponderance of the evidence, a ‘more likely than not’ standard.”[181]

The Unanswered Questions paper looks in detail at the DSM-IV definitions of “autistic disorder” and of “encephalopathy, seizures and sequela” and note they do not contradict each other. In fact, “when put side by side, [they] show significant similarities.”[182]

The report explains the Autism Omnibus legal proceedings which went on between 2002 and 2009,[183] a mind-bending arrangement in which the court examined six “test cases” of autism as exemplars of theories that attempt to explain vaccine-autism causation. If these theories were concluded by the Special Masters overseeing the court to be correct, that would establish a precedent that autism can be caused by vaccines. Awaiting the decision of these six test cases were another 5,000 petitioners who had also filed claims alleging that MMR and thimerosal had caused their children’s autism. (Many more thousands of claims were barred from inclusion due to the statute of limitations[184]). The decisions made on the test cases were then to apply to all the petitioners.

The Omnibus proceedings were marked by significant aberrations, apparent abuse, red flags and hanging questions, as the authors explain in detail. Ultimately and predictably, the Omnibus ended in the decision that vaccination did not cause the children’s autism in each of the test cases. However, during proceedings, a court document was leaked to the press, in which HHS conceded that in one of the slated test cases, the famous Hannah Poling case,[185] her autism was indeed “triggered” by vaccination. According to the authors,

“The Poling concession left unclear just how Hannah Poling might differ from the other five thousand claims of vaccine-induced autism in the Omnibus… [It] raised key questions about the VICP’s transparency and equitable treatment of petitioners. Just how different was Hannah Poling’s case?”[186]

After the Poling revelations, journalists wanted to find out whether more cases among those compensated by VICP resembled or resulted in autism.[187]

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) oversees the VICP as well as the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), a separate injury compensation program established under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act[188] to compensate injuries resulting only from “countermeasures” to public health emergencies, namely vaccines. (See note at end).

When queried by a journalist, David Bowman of the HRSA conveyed by email the following HRSA-approved statement, admitting that the very administration that runs the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program does not track autism:

“The government has never compensated, nor has it ever been ordered to compensate, any case based on a determination that autism was actually caused by vaccines. We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries may have shown signs of autism before the decision to compensate, or may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this bases.”

The author of the original inquiry which elicited this response, journalist David Kirby, then filed a Freedom of Information Act request to HHS “asking whether it would be possible to obtain information and documents regarding compensated vaccine injury claims.” He received a response that such an undertaking would take four to five years and would cost approximately $750,000. HHS’s response to the request states, “If you will send us a deposit for half of the estimated costs — $377,312.50 — we will proceed with assembling and reviewing these records.”[189]

This effective denial is the point from which the authors of the Unanswered Questions paper began meticulous and thorough efforts to uncover for themselves the data on cases accompanied by autism or neurological injury with “autism-like symptoms” listed in the DSM-IV, such as “decreased level of consciousness,” speech regression and speech disorders, and damaged ability to connect with others.[190]

The Unanswered Questions report lists 83 cases in which families have been compensated for cases of vaccine-induced encephalopathy and residual seizure disorder associated with autism. Included are brief but heartbreaking descriptions of each child’s devastating injuries and disabilities:

“He would bang his head approximately six times and then return to normal. He has the cognitive skills of a two or three year old… After the third DPT vaccination… He lost milestones and development…”[191]

In 21 of these cases, the word “autism” is actually used in court documents to describe the injuries that resulted from vaccination.

But regardless of whether the child’s injuries ultimately “resulted in” autism, the special masters were ready with their dysfunctional logic to skirt around discussing this, or blaming vaccines for that autism:

“It was noted at the hearing that Kienan’s neurologic disorder has features that might cause it to be labeled as ‘atypical autism,’ a condition within the category of ‘autistic spectrum disorder.’ I note, however, that even assuming that Kienan’s disorder is correctly classified within the ‘atypical autism’ category, that is essentially irrelevant to my ruling… As Dr. Kinsbourne explained, Kienan’s autistic-type features seem to be a result of the brain damage caused by his severe mental retardation. As Dr. Kinsbourne further explained, brain damage is one of the many possible causes of autism. Thus, I cannot see why the fact that Kienan’s disorder may fall within the autism spectrum has any substantial relevance to the question of what caused Kienan’s seizure disorder and mental retardation.”[192]

Another:

“Respondent argues that Eric’s current behavioral manifestations and retardation ‘fit the pattern of autistic spectrum disorders with severe mental retardation.’ Dr. Spiro summarizes: ‘This child had a [DPT-related febrile] reaction following his DPT booster, but it is clear that he currently fits into the autistic spectrum disorder with retardation. This group of disorders is totally unrelated to DPT, it usually constitutes a group of genetically determined or idiopathic disorders (without a clear known etiology [or origin]).”[193]

The obvious conclusion is that, in paying these claims, the government has implicitly acknowledged a link between vaccination and autism.[194]

The authors explain why they think there may be many more such cases, “that autism is often associated with vaccine-induced brain damage.”[195] They recommended a Congressional Inquiry into compensated cases of vaccine-induced injury to find out how frequently this association occurs. The invitation is still open. They also recommend that the scientific community “investigate all compensated cases of vaccine injury to gain a fuller understanding of the totality of consequences of vaccine injury.”[196]

Since the 2011 publication of this paper, Wayne Rohde, author of two books on the vaccine injury compensation programs, may have found more. Rohde maintains a database of over 15,000 vaccine injury petitions that have been adjudicated or are pending. He says he has identified 26 more possible cases, which cannot be confirmed without official medical oversight. He determined these additional cases by looking “at a few of the compensated awards and the lifecare plan that was awarded to them. If the plan shows certain types of therapies or medical treatments that are common for kids with autism,” he marks the case as a possible autism case. He said, “I can not be certain until the families are interviewed by medical staff. That is the problem. No one wants to speak due to the extreme media pressure that will come their way. CNN, HuffPost, Fortune, Newsweek plus all the online news sites that CDC uses for PR will come after them.”[197]

In the collection of the United States government’s published records of decisions made in the United States Court of Opinions in the care of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 1,905 opinions on vaccine injury cases have been published since the beginning of January 2023. Of these twenty-four decisions have been made on cases for which the record contain the word “encephalopathy.”[198] In one of these, the decision reads,

“On August 2, 2019, Michelle Carroll (“Petitioner”) filed a petition in the National Vaccine Injury Program on behalf of J.W., a minor child, alleging that as a result of receiving the pneumococcal conjugate (“PCV13”), Haemophilus influenzae type B (“Hib”) (abbreviated in the record as HIB-PRP-T), inactivated poliovirus (“IPV”), diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (“DTaP”), and rotavirus vaccines on August 3, 2016, and PCV13 and rotavirus vaccines on October 11, 2016, J.W. suffered injuries including encephalopathy with residual seizure disorder and global developmental delay.”[199][emphasis added]

Sounds awfully like autism.[200] But as David Bowman mentioned, the government isn’t keeping track. If you’d like, you can keep track for yourself.[201]

The United States Court of Federal Claims publishes annual reports of vaccine cases.[202] However, since the 2016,[203] no annual judgment reports have been posted, only statistical reports, making these cases more difficult to follow, and with no disclosures of specific cases.[204]

According to HRSA, in the life of the vaccine court, almost half of all petitions filed have been dismissed, while some have not yet been heard. Less than half of all those cases which have been heard by the court to date have received compensation. In 2011, at the time of the publication of the Unanswered Questions paper, only one in five cases had received compensation. The authors conducted telephone interviews with caregivers of the autistic children who made petitions to the VICP. In answer to the questions about their experiences in the vaccine court, caregivers made comments such as “It was a war” and “The court spends way too much time looking for ways NOT to compensate families.”[205] The authors also noted abuse and scorn directed to the petitioners and their advocates by the court’s judges in the Autism Omnibus proceedings.[206] When the court was set up to “quickly and easily” compensate families of children who were injured by vaccines “with certainty and generosity,”[207] and when these vaccines have been made mandatory for a child’s normal participation in society,[208] these are unsettling comments.

A report from the Department of Justice showed that within a three month period from November 2014- February 2015, 117 vaccine-induced injuries and deaths were compensated by VICP. The majority of the injuries listed in the report were caused by the flu vaccine and the most common injury linked to the flu vaccine was Guillain-Barré Syndrome, an uncommon illness in which the immune system attacks and damages the body’s neurons, sometimes resulting in permanent nerve damage or even death.[209]

Is this what we want for “public health”?

But for a moment, let’s leave aside altogether whether autism is “caused by” vaccines, or whether it’s just “triggered” by them, whether vaccines can “result in” autism or “lead to” autism, rather than, God forbid, “cause” it. Though it is critically important to determine whether autism is caused by vaccines, it is not the only injury resulting from vaccines. Over 10,000 cases compensated by HHS and over $4.5 billion attest to this.[210]

Let the captured judges and medical “experts” continue until the end of time to make their official proclamations that autism is not caused by vaccines. But what if the public woke up? Is the 1986 Act constitutional? What would happen if this legislation were repealed, and the national childhood vaccination program and state mandates dismantled? What if families were allowed to sue first the companies and doctors who injured their children? Would Big Pharma go bankrupt? Would the tidal wave of autism, too, recede? Do we want to find out?

What was the purpose of the 1986 Act and the Vaccine Injury Compensation program, which have made the proliferation of childhood vaccines possible? Holland and colleagues wrote:

The 1986 Law outlined an ambitious agenda for vaccine research, production, procurement, distribution, promotion, and purchase of vaccines. It established the VICP to compensate ‘vaccine-related injury or death.’ In its legislative history, Congress asserted that the purpose of the program was ‘to establish a federal no-faults program under which awards can be made to vaccine-injured personas quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity.’ Congress enacted the statue to compensate children who had been injured while serving the public good.[211]

Was this legislation good for the public, or good for Pharma? Was this legislation set up to protect public health? Or pharmaceutical profits? In setting up the VICP to compensate “vaccine-related injury or death” in order to facilitate a national vaccination program, ostensibly intended to protect public health, the 1986 Act’s stated purpose contradicts and nullifies itself. If this were a moral and democratic country, it would never have come to pass. It is apparent, by the very grounds upon which the vaccine court is laid, that what is actually happening in America has nothing to do with protecting public health. Children, who are taken to the pediatrician’s office by their parents as infants, before they are even conscious of what is happening to them, are being subjected to a game of Russian roulette with their health, before their lives have even begun, before they can make choices for themselves. The view of the individual life in this situation is that it is expendable. The child’s life has no inherent sanctity. Her life does not belong to her — her choice isn’t even a consideration.

According to this view, public health is meaningless. What is the public but a collection of individuals? All of whose lives are sacrosanct — that is why they are to be protected. Is a product which is capable of killing and maiming some children somehow safe for others? Is it not to be considered a poison which always has the potential to harm, and may only harm? This harm may appear in different degrees, and in some cases may go unnoticed. In some cases the injury may never be connected with the vaccine at all. If even one child’s life is not protected, it is not in the interest of public health. That one individual’s health is destroyed, by a measure to which she would never have been exposed if she had not been sacrificed, and not of her own volition, for “the public good.” There is no public good outside of the good of individuals, all of whom must be protected if the measure is to protect the good of all.

If there is some circumstance in which some lives must be sacrificed for some greater good, it can only be moral and therefore right, if it is done with the full informed consent of the individual who is to be sacrificed. She is the public, he is the public, we are each the public. If it was not for their good, it is not for our good. If even one life is not protected, no life is — it could be any one of us. As Barbara Loe Fischer wrote, “When it happens to your child, the risks are 100%.” Any one person could be the one to die or, perhaps worse, suffer a lifetime of incarceration in the smallest and most confining prison, an incapacitated body and a dysfunctional mind. The risks of this “game” are hidden from parents, who are placed in the unenviable position of pulling the trigger, aiming the gun at their own child. How can these parents and children then be expected to live with the consequences? What if the consequences are the annihilation of the child’s health, of his capacity to think, speak, interact with others, grow, develop and support himself for the rest of his life? Indeed, the consequence may be death.

Why should public health be based on a lottery of losses? Why should the supposed “health” of the masses be paid for with the death or maiming of a minority — if the maiming is in fact only of a minority, a subject which has not been properly investigated? The United States pretends to hold at its center the protection of the individual. Government is supposed to spring from the sole purpose to defend and guard individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The national vaccination program, as it stands now, can only be justified because the information we have just presented has been hidden. It’s time to end this inexplicable, criminal assault on children. We must refuse to participate in this risky game and we must demand an end to the medical fascism behind it.

Note on the CICP:

It’s worth noting that the Covid-19 vaccine caused far and away the greatest number of injuries of any vaccine in history for which the CICP has received petitions, as well as have ever been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.[212] 56 percent of all injuries reported to VAERS, and 12,025 out of 12,576 total claims ever filed in the CICP were for the Covid-19 vaccines. This would be strikingly apparent if the data for the CICP[213] appeared alongside the VICP data[214] instead of in another dataset, as it is now. Around 26,000 petitions have been filed in the history of VICP, or almost double the number of petitions filed to CICP for the Covid-19 vaccine. 

*

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.

Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. Her work has appeared on RT, Global Research, Ghion Journal, Progressive Radio Network, and Veterans Today. Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski or follow her on Twitter at @velocirapture23. 

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Notes

122 “Toxicological Profile for Aluminum”, Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22.pdf

123 Handley, JB. How to End the Autism Epidemic. Chelsea Green Publishing. 2018. https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/how-to-end-the-autism-epidemic/

124 Brown IA, Austin DW. Maternal transfer of mercury to the developing embryo/fetus: is there a safe level? Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 94:8. 1610-1627. doi:10.1080/02772248.2012.724574 . WOS:000309707700013 . https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/reference_id/2304586

125 Handley, JB. How to End the Autism Epidemic. Chelsea Green Publishing. 2018. https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/how-to-end-the-autism-epidemic/

126 Aluminum Toxicity in Infants and Children Pediatrics March 1996, VOLUME 97 / ISSUE 3 114(4):1126 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/97/3/413

127 Gherardi, RK et.al. “Macrophagic myofasciitis: characterization and pathophysiology.” Lupus. 2012 Feb;21(2):184-189. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3623725/

128 Mold, Matthew et.al. “Aluminium in brain tissue in autism.” Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. 2018 Mar;46:76-82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763

129 Bishop NJ, Morley R, Day JP, Lucas A. Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions. New England Journal Medicine. May 29, 1997 336(22):1557-61

130 Seneff S, Davidson RM, Liu JJ. Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure. September 24, 2012

131 http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/whatwedo/history/centennialoffda/harveyw.wiley/default.html

132 James Lyons-Weiler and Robert Ricketson Reconsideration of the immunotherapeutic pediatric safe dose levels of aluminum Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology Volume 48, July 2018, Pages 67-73 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17300950#!

133 Handley, JB. How to End the Autism Epidemic. Chelsea Green Publishing. 2018. https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/how-to-end-the-autism-epidemic/

134 Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations. Lupus. 2012 Feb;21(2):223-30. doi: 10.1177/0961203311430221. PMID: 22235057. https://vaccinesafetycouncilminnesota.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Mechanisms-of-aluminum-adjuvant-toxicity-and-autoimmunity-in-pediatric-populations.pdf

135 Shaw C. Aluminum adjuvant linked to gulf war illness induces motor neuron death in mice. Neuromolecular Medicine, 2007

136 Kawahara M et al. Effects of aluminum on the neurotoxicity of primary cultured neurons and on the aggregation of betamyloid protein. Brain Res. Bull. 2001, 55, 211-217

137 Redhead K et al. Aluminum adjuvanted vaccines transiently increase aluminum levels in murine brain tissue. Pharacol. Toxico. 1992, 70, 278-280

138 Sahin G et al. Determination of aluminum levels in the kidney, liver and brain of mice treated with aluminum hydroxide. Biol. Trace. Elem Res. 1994. 1194 Apr-May;41 (1-2): 129-35

139 Gherardi M et al. Macrophagaic myofastitis lesions assess long-term. Brain. 2001. Vol. 124, No. 9, 1821-1831

140 Sealey LA, Hughes BW, Sriskanda AN, Guest JR, Gibson AD, Johnson-Williams L, Pace DG, Bagasra O. Environmental factors in the development of autism spectrum disorders. Environ Int. 2016 Mar;88:288-298. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.12.021. Epub 2016 Jan 28. PMID: 26826339. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26826339/

141 Tomljenovic, L. et.al. “Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism?” Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159

142 Shaw, Christopher A, Dan Li, and Lucija Tomljenovic. “Are There Negative CNS impacts of Aluminum Adjuvants Used in Vaccines and Immunotherapy?” Immunotherapy 6, no. 10 (2014): 1055-071. Accessed November 17, 2015. doi:10.2217/imt.14.81.

143 “Autism Explained: Synergistic Poisoning from Aluminum and Glyphosate”. Stephanie Seneff, May 24, 2014, http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/glyphosate/Seneff_AutismOne_2014.pdf

144 Tomljenovic, Lucija. “Answers to Common Misconceptions Regarding the Toxicity of Aluminum Adjuvants in Vaccines.” Vaccines and Autoimmunity. 2015. pp:43-56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300631720_Answers_to_Common_Misconceptions_Regarding_the_Toxicity_of_Aluminum_Adjuvants_in_Vaccines

145 Vargas, DL et.al. “Neuroglial activation and neuroinflammation in the brain of patients with autism.” Annals of Neurology. 15 Nov 2004;57(1). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ana.20315

146 Crépeaux, G. et.al. “Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: Selective low dose neurotoxicity.” Toxicology. 2017 Jan 15;375:48-57. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27908630

147 Masson, JD et.al. “Critical analysis of reference studies on the toxicokinetics of aluminum-based adjuvants.” Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry. 2018 Apr;181:87-95. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29307441

148 Tomljenovic, op.cit.

149 Strunecka, A. et.al. “Immunoexcitotoxicity as the central mechanism of etiopathology and treatment of autism spectrum disorders: A possible role of fluoride and aluminum.” Surgical Neurology International. 2018;9:74. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5909100/

150 Shardlow, Emma et.al. “Unraveling the enigma: elucidating the relationship between the physicochemical properties of aluminium-based adjuvants and their immunological mechanisms of action.” Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology. 2018;14:80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223008/

151 Li, Q. et.al. “Neonatal vaccination with bacillus Calmette-Guérin and hepatitis B vaccines modulates hippocampal synaptic plasticity in rats.” Journal of Neuroimmunology. 2015 Nov 15;288:1-12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26531688

152 Common Ingredients in U.S. Licensed Vaccines. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. May 1, 2014. Archive accessed August 17, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20150801000000*/www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm

153 OSHA Factsheet: Formaldehyde. Occupational Health and Safety Administration. 4/2011. Web archive from September 6, 2015. Archive accessed August 17, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20150906021018/https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/formaldehyde-factsheet.pdf

154 Pitten FA, Kramer A, Herrmann K, Bremer J, Koch S. Formaldehyde neurotoxicity in animal experiments. Pathol Res Pract. 2000;196(3):193-8.

155 Blaylock RL. A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 1. Altern Ther Health Med. 2008 Nov-Dec;14(6):46-53. PMID: 19043938.

156 Blaylock RL. A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 2: immunoexcitotoxicity. Altern Ther Health Med. 2009 Jan-Feb;15(1):60-7. PMID: 19161050.

157 Blaylock RL. A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 3: the role of excitotoxin food additives and the synergistic effects of other environmental toxins. Altern Ther Health Med. 2009 Mar-Apr;15(2):56-60. PMID: 19284184. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19284184/

158 Blaylock RL. A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 3: the role of excitotoxin food additives and the synergistic effects of other environmental toxins. Altern Ther Health Med. 2009 Mar-Apr;15(2):56-60. PMID: 19284184. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19284184/

159 Roberts, Janine, Fear of the Invisible, Impact Investigative Media Productions, 2008

160 Wahlbert J, et al, “Vaccinations May Induce Diabetes-related Autoantibodies in One Year old Children,” Annals of NY Academy of Sciences, 2003 Nov; 1005; 404-88.

161 Classen JB, Classen DC, “Clustering of Cases of Insulin Dependent Diabetes Occurring Three Years After Haemophilus Influenza B Immunization Supports Causal Relationship Between Immunization and IDDM,” Autoimmunity 2002 Jul; 35 (4); 247-53.

162 Jane Doe v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, January 16, 2009

163 Coors, Esther A., Heidi Seybold, Hans F. Merk, and Vera Mahler. “Polysorbate 80 In Medical Products And Nonimmunologic Anaphylactoid Reactions.” Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 95, no. 6 (2005): 593-99.

164 Roberts, C. L., A. V. Keita, S. H. Duncan, N. O’kennedy, J. D. Soderholm, J. M. Rhodes, and B. J. Campbell. “Translocation of Crohn’s Disease Escherichia Coli across M-cells: Contrasting Effects of Soluble Plant Fibres and Emulsifiers.” Gut 59 (2010): 1331-339. doi:doi:10.1136/gut.2009.195370.

165 Strupp, W., G. Weidinger, C. Scheller, R. Ehret, H. Ohnimus, H. Girschick, P. Tas, E. Flory, M. Heinkelein, and C. Jassoy. “Treatment of Cells with Detergent Activates Caspases and Induces Apoptotic Cell Death.” Journal of Membrane Biology 173, no. 3 (2000): 181-89.

166 Oberle, R.l., T.j. Moore, and D.a.p. Krummel. “Evaluation of Mucosal Damage of Surfactants in Rat Jejunum and Colon.” Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods 33, no. 2 (1995): 75-81

167 Geier DA, Jordan SK, Geier MR “The Relative Toxicity of Compounds Used as Preservatives in Vaccines and Biologics.” Medical Science Monitor 2010;16(5): SR21-SR27.

168 Material Safety Data Sheet 2-Phenoxyethanol MSDS. Science Lab: Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment. Archived September 9, 2015. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20150909031738/https://sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926486

169 Hewitson L, Lopresti BJ, Stott C, Mason NS, Tomko J. “Influence of pediatric vaccines on amygdala growth and opioid ligand binding in rhesus macaque infants: A pilot study.” Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2010;70(2):147-64.

170 Singh VK, Lin SX, Newell E, Nelson C. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autrism. J. Biomed Science. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64.

171 Schultz, S. T., H. S. Klonoff-Cohen, D. L. Wingard, N. A. Akshoomoff, C. A. Macera, and Ming Ji. “Acetaminophen (paracetamol) Use, Measles-mumps-rubella Vaccination, and Autistic Disorder: The Results of a Parent Survey.” Autism, 2008, 293-307. Accessed November 9, 2015.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18445737.

172 Holland M et al “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury,” Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 28, Issue 2, Winter 2011.

173 About Vaccine Court. Michigan Vaccine Injury. Last accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.michiganvaccineinjury.org/reporting

174 Holland, 484

175 Holland, 484, 486

176 Holland, 488

177 Holland, 488

178 Holland, 487

179 Holland, 484

180 Holland, 485

181 Holland, 485-486

182 Holland, 495-496

183 Holland, 496-501

184 Holland, 496

185 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS (E-Filed: January 28, 2011) HANNAH POLING, a minor, by her Parents and Natural Guardians, TERRY POLING AND JON POLING, Petitioners v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Respondent. No. 02-1466V. Special Master Campbell-Smith; Clifford J. Shoemaker, Vienna, VA, for petitioners Catharine E. Reeves, Washington, DC, for respondent. Last accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/CAMPBELL-SMITH.POLING012811.pdf

186 Holland, 501

187 Holland, 501

188 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act. Public Health Emergency. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Archived page, last update dated October 8, 2021. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20211221230549/https://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/prepact/Pages/default.aspx

189 Holland, 538

190 Holland, 503-530

191 Holland, 508

192 Holland, 508

193 Holland, 507

194 Holland M et al “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury,” Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 28, Issue 2, Winter 2011.

195 Holland, 531

196 Holland, 531

197 Email communication August 10, 2023.

198 Search Results: You Searched For: publishdate:range(2023-01-02,) and encephalopathy and vaccine. gov.info. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/search/%7B%22offset%22%3A0%2C%22query%22%3A%22publishdate%3Arange(2023-01-02%2C)%20and%20encephalopathy%20and%20vaccine%22%2C%22historical%22%3Atrue%2C%22facets%22%3A%7B%22accodenav%22%3A%5B%22USCOURTS%22%5D%2C%22personnamesnav%22%3A%5B%22SECRETARY%20OF%20HEALTH%20AND%20HUMAN%20SERVICES%22%5D%7D%2C%22filterOrder%22%3A%5B%22accodenav%22%2C%22personnamesnav%22%5D%2C%22sortBy%22%3A%223%22%2C%22pageSize%22%3A100%7D

199 In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS Filed: March 10, 2023. MICHELLE CARROLL, on behalf of UNPUBLISHED J.W., a minor child, Petitioner, No. 19-1125V v. Special Master Dorsey SECRETARY OF HEALTH Interim Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Jessica Ann Wallace, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Aventura, FL, for Petitioner. Ryan Daniel Pyles, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. Case 1:19-vv-01125-UNJ Document 104 Filed 04/04/23. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01125/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_19-vv-01125-0.pdf

200 Shan L, Feng JY, Wang TT, Xu ZD, Jia FY. Prevalence and Developmental Profiles of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children With Global Developmental Delay. Front Psychiatry. 2022 Jan 18;12:794238. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.794238. PMID: 35115968; PMCID: PMC8803654.

201 United States Court of Federal Claims: USCFC Vaccine-Reported. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/7

202 Reports and Statistics. United States Court of Federal Claims. Last accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/reports-statistics

203 Lisa Reyes. Annual Report of the United States Court of Federal Claims for the year ended September 30,2016 as required by Section 791(c), Title 28, United States Code. January 9, 2017. Office of the Clerk of Court. United States Court of Federal Claims. Last accessed August 17, 2023. http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FY16-Report-to-Congress.pdf

204 STATISTICAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER 1, 2021 – SEPTEMBER 30, 2022. United States Court of Federal Claims. Last Accessed August 17, 2023. http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/AOstats-2022.pdf

205 Holland, 526

206 Holland, 497

207 Holland, 484

208 State Vaccination Requirements. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/laws/state-reqs.html

209 Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines. March 5, 2015. Health Resources and Services Administration. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Archived September 6, 2015. Archive accessed August 17, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20150906143041/https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/accvmeetingbookmarch52015.pdf

210 Petitions Filed, Compensated and Dismissed, by Alleged Vaccine, Since the Beginning of VICP, 10/01/1988 through 08/01/2023. (Vaccine Injury Compensation Data: Most Recent Data Report). Updated 08/01/2023. Health Resources and Services Administration. Accessed August 8, 2023. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vicp/vicp-stats-08-01-23.pdf

211 Holland, 484

212 The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Results: Data current as of 08/04/2023. CDC Wonder Database. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=CF2DCF4FE6CC4A14B23A103191F3

213 Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) Data. Health Resources and Services Administration. Updated August 1, 2023. Accessed August 14, 2023. https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/cicp-data

214 Petitions Filed, Compensated and Dismissed, by Alleged Vaccine, Since the Beginning of VICP, 10/01/1988 through 08/01/2023. (Vaccine Injury Compensation Data: Most Recent Data Report). Updated 08/01/2023. Health Resources and Services Administration. Accessed August 8, 2023. https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vicp/vicp-stats-08-01-23.pdf

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.

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.

***

The war in Ukraine will go on no matter who wins the 2024 US presidential elections according to Russian President Vladimir Putin according to Reuter’s ‘Putin signals he expects long war in Ukraine, is not betting on Trump’ said that 

“Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday indicated he was bracing for a long war in Ukraine, saying that Kyiv could use any ceasefire to rearm, and that Washington would continue to see Russia as an enemy no matter who won the 2024 U.S. election.” 

Putin was speaking at an economic forum in Vladivostok when he told the audience that

“There will be no fundamental changes in the Russian direction in U.S. foreign policy, no matter who is elected president,” Putin said. “The U.S. authorities perceive Russia as an existential enemy.” 

Former US President Donald Trump claims that if he wins the 2024 US elections, he will end the Russia-Ukraine War in 24 hours, 

“If it’s not solved, I will have it solved in 24 hours with Zelensky and with Putin,” Trump told war propagandist Sean Hannity of FOX News. 

Well, remember when Trump was the president, he authorized weapons sales to Ukraine on numerous occasions.  In early 2017, ABC News published a report based on Trump’s authorization for the Military Industrial Complex to sell Ukraine weapons titled ‘Trump approves sale of new arms to Ukraine amid escalated fighting’ said that

“President Donald Trump has approved the sale of more lethal arms to Ukraine as the country fights off Russian-backed fighters in its east — despite the president’s recent overtures for cooperation with Russian President Vladimir Putin.”  

Then in 2019, Trump once again approved another arms sale to Ukraine according to ABC News once again stating that “The Trump administration has approved the $39 million sale of defensive lethal weapons to Ukraine, according to two U.S. officials and another source familiar with the plan.” In this case, actions speak louder than words so who could blame Putin for not being optimistic for any chance of peace? No US presidential candidate, whether a Democrat (except with the possibility of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who is against the war but has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination) or Republican would end the war.  

The US-NATO alliance wants Russia destroyed.  Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov once said that

“The actions of countries of the collective West and (Ukrainian President) Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is controlled by them, confirm the global nature of the Ukrainian crisis” and that “It is no secret that the strategic goal of the US and its NATO allies is victory over Russia on the battlefield as a mechanism for significantly weakening or even destroying our country.” 

Trump or the Democrats will continue their war against Russia at all costs no matter who wins the election. Putin is not optimistic about any of the US presidential candidates including Donald Trump. 

The world is dangerously close to a major war led by the US-NATO alliance so Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are preparing for the inevitable outcome, a war with Western powers that will have an impact on every man, woman, and child on the planet.

Why is the US establishment willing to risk such a destructive war that can result in the deaths of millions or even billions of people, especially if nuclear weapons are used? Perhaps the US establishment and their globalist partners believe that hiding in their bunkers in Patagonia, Argentina, or in New Zealand or any other place far from a world war will keep them safe, who knows. 

One thing is certain, the US and NATO believe that destroying Russia would allow them to maintain their power over the rest of the world no matter what the cost is even if it means using nuclear weapons to achieve that goal. 

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said it best,

“This is no longer a war between Russia and Ukraine, it is a war of the NATO-led, US-led imperialists who are trying to destroy Russia in order to impose themselves as masters of the planet.” 

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCN

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.

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.

*** 

 

 

 

 

Former Federal government analyst Richard C. Cook became a world-famous whistleblower when he released the documents that proved NASA’s advance knowledge of the flaws in the O-ring booster rocket joints that destroyed Space Shuttle Challenger and took the lives of its seven-person crew on the frigid morning of January 28, 1986.

Cook’s subsequent testimony to a Presidential Commission led to disclosures by contractor engineers that they tried but failed to stop the flight the night before launch due to their certain knowledge that the booster rockets would fail in sub-freezing temperatures at the Kennedy Space Center. Subsequently, the Commission identified some but not all of the causes of the disaster.

Richard C. Cook’s later research determined that NASA refused to stop flights to fix the known flaws in the O-ring joints because they were in a rush to convert the Shuttle into a testing platform for President Reagan’s “Star Wars” weapons-in-space program. NASA also failed to postpone the Challenger launch until the weather had improved in order to have Teacher-in-Space Christa McAuliffe in orbit prior to Reagan’s state-of-the-union address that night. In 2007, Cook published his findings in a post-retirement book, Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Worst Tragedy of the Space Age. A reviewer called it “the most important spaceflight book in twenty years.”

Cook never returned to NASA after his testimony, spending the next twenty-one years as an analyst for the US Treasury Department. Through developing training courses on US monetary history, he acquired a deep understanding of how British, European, and US bankers hijacked the American monetary system by placing it under control of the Money Trust through the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

It was the Federal Reserve that financed the British takedown of rival Germany that became World War I and eventually World War II. It was the Federal Reserve that triggered the Great Depression by shipping US gold to Britain and Europe. It was the Federal Reserve that led to the Bretton Woods agreements, the creation of the International Monetary Fund, and the Marshall Plan which combined to place the world’s economy under the control of the US dollar.

In order to frighten the American people into acquiescence, the CIA and other security agencies, in league with the US Mainstream Media, elevated the Soviet Union into a bogeymen to justify the vast quantity of Federal Reserve “money printing” required for an out-of-control war budget and hundreds of US military bases around the world. President Eisenhower warned against the power of the military-industrial complex, but to no avail.

These measures led to worldwide dollar supremacy under control of the Rockefeller dynasty, with the US National Security State—aka today’s “Deep State”—being set up to enforce the bankers’ financial hegemony that has lasted until now. It was also the Rockefellers that oversaw the CIA, leading directly to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and the launching of the Vietnam War.

After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Deep State began a long-term assault on a host of foreign countries threatening to break away from dollar hegemony. A trigger was the 9/11 false-flag attack used to justify the phony “War on Terror.” As Russia began to recover from the 1990s looting of its resources by US banks, the Deep State identified Russia under its President Vladimir Putin as the next big enemy to take down. Beyond Russia stood the growing power of China.

In the meantime, the US financial system crashed due to massive fraud but was bailed out by President Barack Obama with trillions of dollars of public funds, leading to today’s hyperinflating economy.

Today’s crisis started with Ukraine having become independent with the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Deep State overthrew Ukraine’s neutral government in a 2014 coup aided by neo-Nazi factions that murdered bystanders with sniper fire. The US then instigated a Russian invasion by a series of Ukrainian provocations intended to lead to war. The US and EU immediately launched a host of pre-planned sanctions designed to take down the Russian economy and provoke regime change against Putin.

The sanctions have failed to undermine the strength of Russia’s resource-based infrastructure. The US then launched a massive program of arming Ukraine with billions of dollars of weapons and pressured the NATO member states of Europe to do the same. Finally, in an act of terrorist sabotage, the US blew up Nord Stream 1 and 2 to sever the energy supplies from Russia to Germany in order to keep the nations of the EU permanently in the Russia orbit. But with Russia refusing to back down, the world is increasingly facing the prospect of a nuclear exchange with the Collective West that would launch World War III.

Make no mistake: the goal of the US is world conquest. Late in the 19^th century, Cecil Rhodes, the British diamond and gold magnate, conspired with Lord Nathan Rothschild and the Round Table to “recover America for the British Empire.” The US is now heir to age-old British ambitions. But what the US has become has absolutely nothing in common with the principles by which our nation was founded.

The US today has been further subverted by an alien ideology that gained control through the rise of the Neocon faction, beginning with the Reagan Administration. It is the Neocons, led by figures allied with Israel and coming out of the Project for a New American Century, who control the executive branch and Congress and are determined to lead the world into nuclear war and oblivion, meanwhile imagining that they will be the rulers over everyone and everything when it is all over. One of their tools is biological warfare, of which the Covid pandemic is likely an example.

In his new book, Richard C. Cook takes us through a journey of discovery that gives us some of the concepts to launch a new dawn for the American republic.

Along the way, he introduces us to the stories of his own American ancestors, including his first Puritan forebear to land on the shores of Massachusetts in 1636. We meet an ancestor who was killed in a famous Revolutionary War battle and another who was granted land in Illinois for service in the War of 1812.

We hear the story of pioneer farmers from the mid-West and men who served in the Civil War. We meet Cook’s great-grandfather, who rode in an Oklahoma land rush and became a friend to the Shawnees, joining their dances and learning their language. We hear the stories of later generations who served in World War I and II. We also learn about Cook’s own Native American roots through early French Canadian settlers..

Finally, Cook describes his government career, including service in the Jimmy Carter White House, where he witnessed the catastrophes of the “Reagan Revolution” and the Challenger disaster. Then in the early 2000s, he began to grasp the horror of the takeover of the US by the Money Trust, the Federal Reserve, and the Deep State.

His response was to work with Stephen Zarlenga, author of The Lost Science of Money, on drafting the American Monetary Act, followed by contacts with Congressman Dennis Kucinich. The result was Kucinich’s NEED Act of 2011, the most important monetary reform legislation ever introduced in the US Congress. The NEED Act would set up a program reminiscent of President Lincoln’s Greenback currency measures but in a modern context with administrative mechanisms suited to today’s conditions.

*

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.

---

Our Country, Then and Now

by Richard C. Cook

ISBN: 9781949762853

E-book ISBN: 978-1-949762-86-0

Year: 2023

Our Country Then and Now takes us on a 400-year journey through America’s history, providing unique snapshots from African enslavement, native dispossession, financial scandals, and wars of expansion and aggression, interspersed with tales from author Richard C. Cook’s ancestry—from Puritan forebears to fighters in the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War, to Midwest Pioneer farmers and their relations with native nations.

Click here to order.

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.

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.

*** 

Much has been made of the September 9, 2023 simultaneous reports in The New York Times and Vanity Fair of the claims of a former Secret Service agent, Paul Landis, who was part of the security detail in Dallas, Texas when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.  Like so many reports by such media that have covered up the truth of the assassination for sixty years, this one about “the magic bullet” is also a red herring.

It encourages pseudo-debates and confusion and is a rather dumb “limited hangout,” which is a strategy used by intelligence agencies to dangle some truth in order to divert attention from core facts of a case they are desperate to conceal. With these particular articles, they are willing to suggest that maybe the Warren Commission’s magic bullet claim is possibly incorrect. This is because so many people have long come to realize that that part of the propaganda story is absurd, so the coverup artists are willing to suggest it might be wrong in order to continue debating meaningless matters based on false premises in order to solidify their core lies.

Despite responses to these two stories about Landis that credit them for “finally” showing that the “magic bullet” claim of the Warren Commission is now dead, it would be more accurate to say they have revived debate about it in order to sneakily hide the fundamental fact about the assassination: that the CIA assassinated JFK.

We can expect many more such red herrings in the next two months leading up to the sixtieth anniversary of the assassination.

They are what one of the earliest critics of The Warren Commission, Vincent Salandria, a brilliant Philadelphia lawyer, called “a false mystery.” He said:

After more than a half century, the historical truth of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has been finally established beyond rational dispute. The Kennedy assassination is a false mystery. It was conceived by the conspirators to be a false mystery which was designed to cause interminable debate. The purpose of the protracted debate was to obscure what was quite clearly and plainly a coup d’état. Simply stated, President Kennedy was assassinated by our U.S. national security state in order to abort his efforts to bring the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion.

That the corporate mainstream should trumpet these reports as important is to be expected, but that they are also so greeted by some people who should know better is sad.  For there is no mystery about the assassination of President Kennedy; he was assassinated by the CIA and the evidence for this fact has long been available. And the Warren Commission’s claim that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the so-called “magic bullet” – Commission Exhibit 399 – that entered JFK’s back and exited his neck and then went into the back of Gov. John Connally, who was sitting in the front seat, zigzagging in multiple directions, causing him five wounds and then emerging in pristine condition, has always been risible.  Only fools or those ignorant of the details have ever believed it, but desperate conspirators led by the late Arlen Specter, the future Senator, did desperate things for The Warren Commission in order to pin the rap on the patsy Oswald and cover-up for the killers.

I could spend many words explaining the details of the government conspiracy to assassinate JFK, why they did it, and have been covering it up ever since.  But I have done this elsewhere. If you wish to learn the truth from credible sources, I would highly recommend that you watch the long version of Oliver Stone’s documentary JFK Revisited; Through the Looking Glass and then closely read the transcripts and interviews in James DiEugenio’s crucial compendium of transcripts and interviews for the film.  You will immediately realize that these recent revelations are a continuation of the coverup.

This should be immediately intuited by the titles of the two pieces. The New York Times’ article, written by its chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, who previously worked for the Washington Post for twenty years, including four years as its Moscow bureau chief, is entitled JFK Assassination Witness Breaks His Silence and Raises New Questions. (The Times and Washington Post have long been the CIA’s mouthpieces.) The Vanity Fair article is written by James Robenalt, a colleague of John Dean of Watergate infamy, and is entitled A New JFK  Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held “Lone Gunman” Theory.

For anyone with a soupçon of linguistic analytical skill and a rudimentary knowledge of the JFK assassination, those titles immediately induce skepticism. “New questions”? Don’t we already have the answers we need. “Could Upend the Long-Held ‘Lone Gunman’ Theory”? So we must keep debating and researching the obvious. Why? To protect the CIA.

Both articles go on to expound on how the sympathetically described poor conscience-stricken old guy Landis’s claim that he found the so-called pristine magic bullet on the top back of the car seat where JFK was sitting and placed it on Kennedy’s stretcher in Parkland Hospital without telling anyone for all these decades is an earth shattering revelation. And as they do so, they make sure to slip in a series of falsehoods to reinforce the essence of the government’s case.

If anyone is interested in the facts concerning the physical evidence, all one need do is read Vincent Salandria’s analysis here. Once you have, you will realize the hullabaloo about Landis is a pseudo-debate.

These articles about Landis reinforce what Dr. Martin Schotz describes in his book History Will Not Absolve Us, and what he said in a talk twenty-five years ago. He made a distinction between the waters of knowledge and the waters of uncertainty. In the case of the JFK assassination, the public is allowed to think anything they want, but they are not allowed to know the truth, although since the Warren Commission was released it was evident that “no honest person could ever accept the single bullet theory.” And he then added this about pseudo- debates :

The lie that was destined to cover the truth of the assassination was the lie that the assassination is a mystery, that we are not sure what happened, but being free citizens of a great democracy we can discuss and debate what has occurred. We can petition our government and join with it in seeking the solution to this mystery. This is the essence of the cover-up.

The lie is that there is a mystery to debate. And so we have pseudo-debates. Debates about meaningless disputes, based on assumptions which are obviously false. This is the form that Orwell’s crimestop has taken in the matter of the President’s murder. I am talking about the pseudo-debate over whether the Warren Report is true when it is obviously and undebatably false. . . . Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo-debate is a benign activity. That it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo-debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo-debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo-debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise. It is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise—that there is uncertainty to be resolved—seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.

That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions—the media, the universities and the government—once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self-protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.

And to mention just one false premise of the Landis saga (beside the one that there is uncertainty to be resolved; and there are many others, but one will suffice, since I don’t want to enter into a pseudo-debate), it is that the so-called magic bullet in evidence – CE 399 – the one discussed in these articles, is not even the one said to be found somewhere in Parkland Hospital, and the chain of custody for that bullet – or some bullet – is broken in many places (see James DiEugenio, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass ).

Phantom bullets and plenty of magic go into the creation and destruction of this tall tale told to camouflage the CIA’s guilt in its killing of President Kennedy. If you believe in magic and mystery, The New York Times’ Peter Baker has these words for you, if you can understand them:

Mr. Landis’s account, included in a forthcoming memoir, would rewrite the narrative of one of modern American history’s most earth-shattering days in an important way. It may not mean any more than that. But it could also encourage those who have long suspected that there was more than one gunman in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, adding new grist to one of the nation’s enduring mysteries.

Yes, those four English lads said it in 1967: “The magical mystery tour is hoping to take you away” into an enduring mystery, even though the case was solved long ago.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from the author

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.

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.

***

Sep. 6, 2023 – Coomera, QLD, Australia – 38 year old Heidi Strbak lived an active life of bushwalking, horse riding and served 4.5 years in the army. She has a 7 year old son. On Dec. 31, 2021 at 14 weeks of her 2nd pregnancy she took one Pfizer dose. It destroyed her life and killed her baby. Here is her story:

My Take…

On Sep. 12, 2023, the Canadian government announced that new Moderna COVID-19 mRNA boosters (XBB.1.5) were approved, and recommended that all pregnant women get the shots, at all stages of pregnancy, despite NO STUDIES done to ensure safety in pregnancy.

This is medical malpractice, medical malfeasance, this is criminal.

I have written 12 substack articles on the dangers of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in pregnancy, both to the fetus and to mom.

The dangers of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in pregnancy can be summarized as follows: 

• 1st trimester (0-12 weeks) – congenital malformations of heart, brain, limbs, fetus stops growing, miscarriage
• 2nd trimester (13-26 weeks) – fetus stops growing, cardiac arrest, pulmonary hemorrhage, miscarriage, stillbirth
• 3rd trimester (27-40 weeks) – fetus stops growing, cardiac arrest, pulmonary hemorrhage, STILLBIRTH, preterm labor
• at all stages of pregnancy (mom) – high risk of mom having cardiac arrest, blood clots, blood pressure issues, aneurysms, brain bleeds, strokes, turbo cancer, dying in their sleep, sudden death
• during delivery – increased risk of death during delivery, mostly from bleeding and clotting issues
• postpartum period (baby)
  • baby can develop myocarditis
  • baby can develop rare cancers
  • baby can suffer sudden infant death
• postpartum period (mom)
  • mother can suffer blood clots (most common), infection and sepsis, depression, psychosis, stroke, turbo cancer, sudden cardiac arrest, sudden death
• breastfeeding – breast milk contains LNPs/mRNA/spike protein
  • baby can suffer seizures, swollen lymph nodes, rashes, blood in urine and stool and can suffer sudden death
  • discoloration of breast milk with unknown consequences
  • decrease and cessation of milk production
  • mother can suffer bleeding, miscarriage of new pregnancy

CONCLUSION: None of the COVID-19 vaccines were ever tested for safety in pregnancy.

AstraZeneca and J&J are now off the market for clotting issues. It is unknown how many pregnant women and babies were harmed by them.

Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines continue to injure and kill pregnant women and their babies by the thousands.

Newly approved (Sep.12, 2023) Pfizer & Moderna COVID-19 mRNA boosters XBB.1.5 are just as dangerous as previous versions of these vaccines – manufacturing process and poor quality control are the same, same LNPs, same contaminants (DNA plasmids, metallic fragments). 

These products must be taken off the market immediately and everyone involved in authorizing, recommending and administering these products to pregnant women must be criminally prosecuted.

*

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.

---

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. 

Bill Gates Is Funding a Scheme to Cut Down 70 Million Acres of Forests in North America

Rhoda Wilson, September 8, 2023

The Elite’s 5,000-Year War on Your Mind Is Climaxing. Can We Defeat It?

Robert J. Burrowes, September 13, 2023

Children’s Hearts Destroyed by COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines. Their Heart Transplants Are Not Going Well, with Complications

Dr. William Makis, September 12, 2023

9/11 and “The Unspeakable”: Award Winning Actor William Hurt: “It took me a long time to face what I knew to be true about 9/11”

William Hurt, September 7, 2023

Malice Aforethought on the COVID-19 Pandemic: “This is a global coup d’etat and intentional mass murder.” Dr. Mike Yeadon

Dr. Mike Yeadon, September 11, 2023

Morocco – Earthquake Preceded by Mysterious Blue Lights

Peter Koenig, September 14, 2023

J.F.K. Assassination Witness Breaks His Silence. Evidence of a Second Shooter. “The Magic Bullet” Theory Is an Outright Lie

Peter Baker, September 11, 2023

Mystery ‘Blue Lights’ Flash in Sky Moments Before Horror Morocco Earthquake that Killed More Than 2,000

Juliana Cruz Lima, September 12, 2023

9/11 Analysis: “Who Is Osama Bin Laden?”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 11, 2023

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the COVID Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence Is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 14, 2023

The Military Situation in the Ukraine. Jacques Baud

Jacques Baud, September 10, 2023

Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Vaccines Attack Bone Marrow Stem Cells and Drastically Alter Gene Expression

Dr. William Makis, September 11, 2023

9/11 – The Onslaught of an Endless War on Humanity

Peter Koenig, September 12, 2023

Video: Dr. Naomi Wolf Uncovers Pfizer’s Depopulation Agenda, as Evidenced by Its Own Documents

The Vigilant Fox, September 9, 2023

JFK Assassination Witness Breaks 60-Year Silence and Blows Up Key Government Claim Regarding the President’s Death – Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Responds

Cullen Linebarger, September 11, 2023

Video: Lahaina Truths and Newly Emerged Satellite Images Tell a Dark Story. Matt Roeske

Reinette Senum, September 1, 2023

9/11 After 22 years

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 11, 2023

Chance Encounters as the Walls Close In…

Edward Curtin, September 12, 2023

The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account of 911 Cannot be True

David Ray Griffin, September 11, 2023

Video: New Zealand’s “River of Freedom”: Protest Movement Against Illegal COVID Vaccine Mandates, Political Thuggery, Divisive and Illegal Acts. “Demolition of Fundamental Human Rights”

Dr. Emanuel Garcia, September 12, 2023

A Personal Journey Through the National Security State. Dr. Philip M. Giraldi

By Philip Giraldi, September 14, 2023

I spent 18 years in CIA nearly all overseas where I worked almost exclusively on counter-terrorism against groups that were initially nearly all European, starting with the Italian Red Brigades in 1976 and ending up with the Basque and Catalan separatists in Spain in 1992.

ICC’s Jurisdiction Crumbling Barely Six Months After Putin Indictment

By Drago Bosnic, September 15, 2023

Less than six months ago, the so-called “International Criminal Court” (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights. The glorified NGO posing as an “international justice institution” accused Putin and Lvova-Belova of supposed “war crimes” in Ukraine, alleging that they kidnapped Ukrainian children and forcefully relocated them to Russia.

mRNA Vaccines Now Headed for Shrimp. “Can Shrimp be Vaccinated?” Genetic Manipulation

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 14, 2023

Shrimp are slated to become the latest food source exposed to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, courtesy of ViAqua Therapeutics, an Israeli-based biotechnology startup. The company has secured $8.25 million in funding from venture capitalists for its oral RNA-based shrimp vaccine, which is intended to target white spot syndrome virus (WSSV).

Libya Climate Crisis Linked to Pentagon-NATO Intervention of 2011

By Abayomi Azikiwe, September 14, 2023

Two devastating events have struck the North African states of the Kingdom of Morocco and Libya leaving thousands dead and tens of thousands more unaccounted for by international humanitarian agencies.

Video: Your Guide to 5th-Generation Warfare. James Corbett

By James Corbett and The Corbett Report, September 14, 2023

We are in the middle of a world-changing war. This is no ordinary war, however. Most of the victims of this warfare aren’t even able to identify it as war, nor do they understand that they are combatants in it. It’s called fifth-generation warfare, and I’m here to tell you all about it.

From Where Will the Breakthrough Come for Julian Assange?

By Barbara Nimri Aziz, September 14, 2023

Delegates from Australia’s parliament are headed to Washington to appeal to the U.S. Congress on behalf of the Wikileaks founder. While anyone who recognizes the injustice of Washington’s insistence on extradition of the jailed journalist and publisher, this effort by representatives of several parties may be too late. In any event, it is very late.

Armenia’s Prime Minister Pashinyan’s “Failed Policy to Remove Russia has No NATO Guarantee”

By Abraham Gaspayan and Steven Sahiounie, September 14, 2023

Armenia continues to be under attack by Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region which has simmered between Armenia and Azerbaijan for 30 years. Russian peacekeeping troops try to maintain calm, but recent comments concerning Armenia and NATO have put nerves on edge.

Kim Jong-un’s Visit to Russia — Strengthened Russia-North Korea Cooperation?

By Karsten Riise, September 14, 2023

Kim Jong-un’s visit to Russia is far-far beyond any ordinary stateman visit. The two leaders Putin and Kim spend a day together, including several hours both with delegations which has a military component, and just the two of them. Kim visits Russia’s Eastern Cosmodrome, indicating a coming Russia collaboration with North Korea in ballistic rocket technology and “satellites”.

Is “Exercise Sea Breeze” a Prelude to False Flag in Ukraine?

By Renee Parsons, September 14, 2023

On the verge of a catastrophic US defeat as predicted by Col. Douglas MacGregor, it might have only been a matter of time before Ukraine would attempt to ratchet up the conflict and launch a major attack against Russia’s state-of-the-art naval base in the Crimea located at Sevastopol on the Black Sea. 

Why They Hate Us — US Interventionism Following the 9/11 Attack

By Jacob G. Hornberger, September 14, 2023

The reason that foreigners bore such deep anger and rage toward the United States was because of the U.S. government’s deadly and destructive interventionist antics in the Middle East after the ostensible end of the Cold War.

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.

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.

***

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.

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.

*** 

 

The head of the medical service of the Far-Right unit Da Vinci’s Wolves of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Alina Mykhailova, spoke about the difficult situation and, even more surprisingly, admitted to huge losses on the front.

“We are suffering great losses. There is no romance in this. What is happening at the front now is something you will not read in the news,” she said in an interview with Ukrainian media on September 12.

Mykhailova added that for the first time in her life, she was ready to give up absolutely everything and talk to anyone so that her battalion would survive. She also admitted that there is no prospect of a Ukrainian victory in the near future.

“The population is very calm with statements that today or tomorrow there will be victory. It will not happen today, nor tomorrow, nor, unfortunately, in a year,” Mykhailova, who is also a deputy in the Kiev City Council, concluded.

Since the beginning of June, the Ukrainian military has been conducting a counteroffensive in Donetsk, Artyomovsk and Zaporozhye with NATO-trained brigades and Western military equipment. However, they have achieved no success.

Although Mykhailova did not give a casualty figure, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently revealed that the counteroffensive has stalled and led to over 75,500 Ukrainian casualties – shocking for only four months of active combat. Many American and European journalists and military experts also argue that Kiev’s counteroffensive failed and noted the effectiveness of Russian defences.

US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley pointed out on September 10 that Ukraine may only have about 30-45 days of fighting left. However, despite this small timeframe left in the regular fighting season and the huge losses suffered by Kiev, the US and NATO are not fazed and continue to send more military shipments and money into the financial blackhole that Ukraine has become.

The Ukrainian military will be unable to advance any further from their already paltry gains once the season changes. Ukraine and the West have exhausted their ammunition stockpile, and they cannot get supplies quickly enough. Effectively, the Ukrainians cannot do much at this point, even if they want to.

Despite the Ukrainians not being able to do much at this point, as affirmed by Mykhailova, it did not prevent Milley from falsely claiming,

“There’s still a reasonable amount of time, probably about 30 to 45 days’ worth of fighting weather left, so the Ukrainians aren’t done. There’s battles not done… they haven’t finished the fighting part of what they’re trying to accomplish.”

The West wants to see the offensive continue even though it has very evidently failed. For this reason, the US continues to increase aid even further, and the indications are that the West will continue this or at least try to sustain it.

US President Joe Biden has provided Kiev with $43.7 billion in military aid since Russia launched its special military operation in Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy. Recently, the US announced a new security package worth $600 million for Ukraine, which will include ammunition and anti-aircraft equipment.

By providing such equipment, Washington hopes to coerce Kiev to continue the offensive for another 30 days, perhaps even through the winter. For this reason, there has been a huge uptick in rhetoric about Ukraine supposedly breaking Russia’s first line of defence and making slow but steady gains. None of this corresponds with reality.

In the US, most people do not support the current policy of sending more money down the drain in Ukraine. Considering the 2024 presidential election, the Biden administration is under domestic pressure from a chorus of voices calling for a focus on domestic issues. This could be part of the West’s attempt to transfer responsibility for the failure of the counteroffensive to Ukraine itself.

The US has brazenly admitted it worked with the Ukrainians to plan the offensive for months, arming and training the military. Now, the West is criticising Ukraine for its failures.

As US elections are looming and Ukraine cannot win the war, the Biden administration needs to shift the blame and is pinning it directly on the Eastern European country. This demonstrates the confused nature of US policy as, on one hand, it is encouraging Ukraine to continue fighting by sending more weapons and money, but at the same time, narratives are being concocted to explain to US voters why billions of dollars have been wasted on a lost cause. Meanwhile, as Mykhailova highlighted, “there is no romance,” nor any victory for Ukraine through this war.

*

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.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu below the author’s name as well as on the top banner (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

Minor Editing, February 28, 2023

Click here to read this article in Turkish. (bu makaleyi türkçe oku)

.

Destruction, social devastation and the loss of life. Our thoughts are with the people of Turkey and Syria.

***

Since the February 2023 earthquakes in Turkey and Syria, several regions of the World have experienced “extreme weather conditions” and “climate events” including earthquakes, floods, and wildfires. Were these events the result of environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) and geo-engineering (e.g. Morocco, Libya, Hawaii…)? 

Was the February 6, 2023 earthquake in Southern Anatolia the result of environmental modification techniques  (ENMOD)? 

While no direct evidence or proof can be firmly established, there has not been a single “major earthquake” in Southern Anatolia in the course of more than 700 years.

Does that not “tell us something” regarding the “probability” or “likelihood” of a “major earthquake” occurring in Southern Turkey? 

Michel Chossudovsky, September 14, 2023

***

Update: The Political and Social Implications of the February 2023 Earthquakes

The economic, social and geopolitical impacts of the February 2023 two earthquakes in Southern Anatolia are far-reaching. 

Within Turkey, the earthquakes have not only resulted in economic, social and political chaos to the detriment of the Erdogan government, they have also been followed by attempts on the part of US-NATO to undermine Erdogan’s reelection (May 14, 2023), largely in view of Ankara’s unspoken strategic alliance with Moscow, not to mention its rapprochement with Teheran. 

Turkey is both a “NATO Heavyweight” as well as “An Ally of Russia”. Sounds Contradictory 

Turkey abandoned NATO’s Air Defence System in favor of Russia’s “State of the Art” S-400. That acquisition of Russian military technology was part of a concurrent military cooperation agreement as well an alliance between Turkey and Russia established in the immediate aftermath of the failed July 2016 US sponsored coup d’Etat, not to mention the unsuccessful assassination plot directed against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 

Washington is fully aware that you cannot win a war against Russia when the second largest military power member state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization namely Turkey is “sleeping with the enemy”. 

Moreover, while Russia controls a large part of the Northern and Eastern coastlines of the Black Sea, the entire Southern coastline as well as access from the Mediterranean under the Montreux Protocol is under Turkey’s jurisdiction.

Finland and Sweden’s Accession to NATO

Also of significance, Turkey was involved in the months prior to the earthquake in blocking (on behalf of Moscow?) both Sweden and Finland from joining NATO. 

In the immediate wake of earthquakes, pressured by Washington to comply, Ankara approved in late March Finland’s application to join NATO:

The Turkish Parliament voted unanimously in favor of Finland’s membership on [March 30], clearing the last hurdle in the accession process. (CNN, March 31, 2023)

May 14, 2023 Turkey Elections

In regards to Turkey’s May 14 presidential and parliamentary elections, Washington’s objective is to: “Replace Erdogan” with an obedient US proxy. 

No easy task: Their chosen successor to Erdogan is leader of the opposition Kemel Kılıçdaroğlu, who heads a six-party coalition “united by the sole aim of removing Erdoğan from power”. 

Erdogan’s Justice and Development party (AKP) is nonetheless poised (according to Western media reports) to suffer losses in the parliamentary elections, which may also be accompanied by a “Color Revolution” resulting in a process of engineered social chaos and mass protests against Erdogan. 

Washington’s ultimate objective is to dismantle the Russia-Turkey alliance, while reintegrating Turkey back into the Atlantic Alliance as an “obedient NATO country”, no more “sleeping with the enemy”.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, April 23, 2023

 

Introduction 

.

The latest reports point to a death toll in Turkey and Syria well in excess of 50,000, more than half a million injured, tens of thousands of people missing. The social devastation and destruction is beyond description. The first and second earthquakes on February 6, 2023 in Kahramanmaras province in Southern Turkey were respectively of the magnitude of 7.6 and 7.8 (Richter scale).

A third earthquake of a magnitude of 6.3 was recorded on February 20th. 

In Turkey, some 530,000 people have been evacuated from the disaster area. Ankara confirms that “173,000 buildings have so far been recorded as collapsed or severely damaged, with more than 1.9 million people taking refuge in temporary shelters or hotels and public facilities.“

In the words of President Recep Tayyip  Erdogan: ““We are living through the most painful days in our history”. 

In Syria, the earthquakes have largely affected the cities of Aleppo, Lattakia and Hama which are within proximity of Syria’s Northwestern border with Turkey. The latest announced death toll in Syria was 5,914, with 8.8 million people affected. 

President Bachar Al Assad underscored that US-NATO has been at war with Syria for almost 12 years, while emphasizing that “Syria has not been an earthquake area for about two and a half centuries”.

In this article, Part I will focus on the History of Earthquake Activity in Turkey, while underscoring the fact that prior to the February 6, 2023 earthquake, there was no recent evidence or historical record of “major earthquake” activity in Southern Anatolia. 

Part II will provide a Review of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD).

Part III will focus on The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, ratified in 1977 by the UN General Assembly.

What is significant in regards to the Turkey-Syria earthquake disaster is that the 1977 UN Convention (cited above) contains provisions for the conduct of an investigation in regards to “destruction, damage or injury” incurred by the “State Parties”, under the auspices of a UN “Consultative Committee of Experts”.

There are also provisions in the Convention for referral to the United Nations Security Council on behalf of the “State Parties”. These issues are  outlined in Part IV. 

 

I

History of Earthquake Activity in Turkey

 

In regards to Turkey, geological analysis suggests the following:

“earthquake activities mainly occur “on the Anatolian plate, a small wedge-shaped tectonic plate that is being squeezed westwards as the Arabian plate to the east slams into the Eurasian plate“. (emphasis added).

What characterizes Turkey’s earthquake activity is: 

“a sequence along the North Anatolian Fault that started in 1939, causing large earthquakes that moved progressively from east to west over a period of 60 years” 

 

The February 6, 2023 earthquakes with epicentres in Pazarcik (7.8) and Ekinozu (7.5) respectively in proximity of Gaziantep and Kahramanmaraş are the largest “major earthquakes” in recent history. (See Table in Annex, Graph below).

On February 6, around 4:15 a.m. local time, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck south-central Turkey near the Turkey/Syria border. Just 11 minutes later, a magnitude 6.7 aftershock shook the region. Nine hours later a magnitude 7.5 quake followed. (USGS – National Earthquake Information Center)

The Map Below identifies the epicentres of the February 6, 2023 earthquakes, located in the South, within proximity of Syria’s Northwestern border.

Epicentre of Ekinozu, Pazarcik earthquakes, February 6, 2023

Recent “Major Earthquakes”

Historically, the largest earthquakes in Turkey have epicentres in North Western Anatolia, in proximity of Istanbul, Western Anatolia as well as in the Northeastern region.

The North Anatolian Fault

Seven large (MS) 7.0 earthquakes in the period from 1939 through 1999 along the North Anatolian Fault. See map above

These earthquakes have ruptured the fault progressively from east to west. Following are data for the seven large earthquakes that have progressively ruptured the North Anatolian fault:

• 1939 December 26. Magnitude (MS) 7.9 – 8.0. 30,000 deaths. Fault length about 360 km. Initiated the eastward migration of significant earthquakes on the North Anatolian fault. (Termed the 1939 Erzincan earthquake, North Anatolia)
• 1942 December 20. Magnitude (MS) 7.1. Fault length about 50 km. (Termed the 1942 Erbaa earthquake, North Anatolia)
• 1943 November 26. Magnitude (MS) 7.6. Fault length about 280 km. (Termed the 1943 Tosya earthquake, Northern Anatolia)
• 1944 February 01. Magnitude (MS) 7.3. Fault length about 165 km. (Termed the 1944 Bolu-Gerede earthquake, Northern Anatolia)
• 1957 May 26. Magnitude (MS) about 7. Fault length about 30 km. (Termed the 1957 Abant earthquake, Northern Anatolia)
• 1967 July 22. Magnitude (MS) 7.1. Fault length about 80 km. (Termed the 1967 Mudurnu Valley earthquake, Northern Anatolia)
• 1999 August 17. Ismit. Magnitude (MS) 7.8; MW 7.4-7.5) North Western Anatolia

Below are the reports of the 5 largest earthquakes since 1950 all of which are along the North Anatolian Fault

Bingol: a magnitude 6.9 and occurred in the eastern city of Turkey on May 22, 1971.

City of Izmit: August 17, 1999, 90 km southeast of Istanbul, 7.6 magnitude. The earthquake occurred in the industrialized and most densely populated urban areas of Istanbul, Sakarya, Golcuk, Darica, and Derince.

Düzce Quake, 12 November 1999, A major earthquake occurred 70 kilometers (45 miles) east of Adapazari or 170 km (105 mi) northwest of Ankara, A magnitude of 7.2.

The city of Van. 23 October 2011. A magnitude 7.1 earthquake, northeastern city close to border with Iran.

Izmir: of  30 October 2020, a magnitude 7.0 with an epicentre about 14 km northeast of the Greek island of Samos

epicentre of Izmit-Golcuk earthquake in Northwestern Anatolia 

Nota Bene: None of these major earthquakes (1939-1999) are in Southern Anatolia.

Long-Term History of Earthquakes in Turkey (342 AD -1999)

The history of “major earthquakes” is on record since 342 AD based on data compiled by the USGS – National Earthquake Information Center (See Table in Annex).

In the 13th Century, a “major earthquake” (60,000 deaths) was recorded in Adana in 1268 (Southern Anatolia). Moreover, since the 15th Century, all “major earthquakes” have occurred in Northwestern, Western and Northeastern Anatolia. (See Annex)

Southern Turkey Earthquakes

Reuters has categorized the initial major earthquake (February 6, 2023)  “as the most powerful in the region in at least a century”. That is an understatement. In regards to Southern Anatolia, it is the largest earthquake in more than seven centuries. (Adana in 1268, see Table in Annex)

On record in Southern Turkey, is the Ceyhan-Adana earthquake on 27 June 1998, with magnitude of 6.3, affecting the cities of Ceyhan and Adana, 146 deaths. The Ceyan earthquake, however, is not categorized as “a major earthquake” (in excess of 7.0)

As outlined above, the major earthquakes in Turkey are along the North Anatolia Fault.

Prior to February 6, 2023

Not a single “major earthquake” in Southern Anatolia in the course of more than 700 years: Does that not “tell us something” regarding the “probability” or “likelihood” of a “major earthquake” occurring in Southern Turkey?

Earthquake “Forecasting”

Earthquake forecasting is routine. An earthquake can be forecasted up to months ahead. “Forecasting” however must not be confused with “seismological prediction”:

Dutch seismologist Frank Hoogerbeets, who works for the Solar System Geometry Survey (SSGS) in the Netherlands, predicted the earthquake in Turkey on February 3, 2023, three days before its occurrence. 

No Firm Evidence of a Terrorist Attack 

While there may be doubts at a political level, there is at this stage no firm evidence that this was a terrorist attack. Based on information in the public domaine (as opposed to classified information), there is no tangible evidence that “environmental modifications techniques” were used against Turkey and Syria.

Of significance, however, there was an unofficial statement (yet to be confirmed) by Serdar Hussein, the Head of the Turkish Space Agency in an interview on Russian TV. He referred to hard titanium alloy rods sending powerful beams of energy to earth, deep into the ground.

Below is the translation of his interview.

Transcript (Translation)

The head of the Turkish Space Agency, Serdar Hussein Yildirim, on weapons capable of causing earthquakes:

You know those power poles on the streets. They are similar to these pillars, about 8-10 meters high. Metal rods.

There is nothing inside the rod, no explosives, nothing, but it’s a metal rod made of a hard titanium alloy material.

They put them in a satellite.  And then they aim and launch them to Earth. It’s like a stick with a sharp point. For example, God forbid, it falls somewhere, we will not name the disaster scenario now, but as soon as it falls to the ground, it penetrates up to 5 km deep into the earth.  

This happens very quickly and creates an earthquake of magnitude 7-8.

As a result of the impact, everything that is there will be destroyed. Look, there are no weapons here, no explosives, no bombs, nothing like that. Simple sticks [rods]. But there is such a force that comes from outer space, and you have no chance to see it, stop it, or defend yourself.”  (emphasis added)

See video here

 

II

Environmental Modification Techniques

 

There is a vast literature on weather modification techniques for military use much of which is classified. The US and Russia are on record. They possess advanced ENMOD technologies.

The US Military can control the weather. This is confirmed by a US Air Force document entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025“ 

The late World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirmed that “US military scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon.  Already in the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen in his book “Between Two Ages” that:

“Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised…”

Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich who was actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP– described HAARP as:

“A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything — living and dead.”

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of “unconventional weapons” using radio frequencies. He refers to “weather war,” indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already

“mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s.”

My article entitled Weather Warfare first published by The Ecologist on May 22 2008 provides a summary of several in-depth and detailed articles I wrote at an earlier period on environmental modification (ENMOD) techniques for military use:

 

The CBC Documentary on HAARP

“Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather”

 

III

The 1977 U.N. Convention

on the Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

.

 

The historic 1977 Convention ratified by the UN General Assembly banning “military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.”

 

….Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military … use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva, May 18, 1977. Entered into force: 5 October 1978, see full text of Convention in Annex)

To Read the full text of the UN Convention, click here

The List of countries which have ratified or signed the Treaty 

As of 2022, 78 countries have ratified or acceded to the treaty including Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, the U.S. and the Russian Federation. Israel has not ratified the Treaty.

Official UN document 

European Parliament Committee’s Motion for Resolution

It is also worth noting that in February 1998, the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in Brussels on the HAARP program. The Committee’s “Motion for Resolution” submitted to the European Parliament:

“Considers HAARP… by virtue of its far-reaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body…; [the Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration… to give evidence to the public hearing …into the environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program.” (emphasis added)

 

 

IV

“An Expert Investigation” into “Hostile Use of ENMOD” 

.

In view of the gravity of the Turkey-Syria earthquake, the loss of life, the devastating social and economic impacts, an “expert investigation” should be conducted predicated on the 1977 International Convention banning “military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques”.

I should mention that since the ratification of the 1977 UN Convention cited above, ENMOD techniques for military use have become increasingly sophisticated.

Can we trust the United Nations? The two “State Parties”, namely Turkey and Syria should collaborate and conduct their own internal investigation prior to the conduct of an expert investigation under UN auspices.

The Terms of Reference of this Investigation are contained in the Articles of Agreement of the UN Treaty.

I will be referring to Article I, II and V (excerpts) which identify the nature of the Expert Investigation. (emphasis added). Click here, to consult the complete list of Articles

Article I. 1.

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

Article II refers to ENMOD techniques including earthquakes:

Article II

As used in article 1, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Article V

1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to co-operate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and co-operation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. These international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations, as well as of a Consultative Committee of Experts as provided for in paragraph 2 of this article.

2. For the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the Depositary shall within one month of the receipt of a request from any State Party to this Convention, convene a Consultative Committee of Experts. …

3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting ItS validity.

4. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties of the results of the investigation.

In Annex to the Text of the Convention is the Following:

1. The Consultative Committee of Experts shall undertake to make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised pursuant to paragraph 1 of article V of this Convention by the State Party requesting the convening of the Committee.

emphasis added

Concluding Remarks 

We are in solidarity with the people of Turkey and Syria.

At this stage, it would be unwise and premature to draw simplistic conclusions.

There is a forbidden truth. I have attempted to provide a framework of analysis and understanding.

The damage and loss of life is beyond description: The issue should be the object of analysis, dialogue and debate, with reference to the 1977 International Convention banning “military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques”.

Turkey and Syria as “State Parties” must, as a first step, conduct their own internal investigation before referring it to the UN Consultative Committee of Experts and/or to the United Nations Security Council.

 

 

---

Annex  

Source: This Information was provided by USGS – National Earthquake Information Center

The following are the sources and footnotes 

ISK: Earthquake catalog of Kandilli Observatory, Bogazici University, Istanbul, supplied by NOAA/NGDC (Meyers and Von Hake), Boulder CO, 1985.

ITU: K. Ergin, U. Guclu and Z. Uz, A Catalog of Earthquakes for Turkey and Surrounding Area (11 AD to 1964 AD), Technical University of Istanbul, Faculty of Mining Engineering, 1967.

AFAD: Earthquake Risk Map by AFAD, Department of Disasters and Emergency Management, 2018.

NG(n): R. Ganse and J. Nelson, Catalog of Significant Earthquakes 2000 BC – 1979 Including Quantitative Casualties and Damage, NOAA/NGDC Report SE-27, Boulder CO, 1981. The number in parentheses is from their references table, as listed below:

2: Lomnitz, Global Tectonics and Earthquake Risk, 1974.

3: Bath, Introduction to Seismology, 1978.

5b: (there is no source 5b — probably should be 55?).

7: Meyers and von Hake, Earthquake data file summary, 1976.

51: Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft, World Map of Natural Hazards, 1978.

55: Milne, Catalogue of Destructive Earthquakes, 1911.

73: U.S. Congress, Great Earthquakes, 1888.

99: Karnik, Seismicity of the European Area, 1971.

120: Alsinawi and Galih, Historical Seismicity of Iraq, 1978.

138: Ambraseys, Middle East A Reappraisal of Seismicity, 1978.

 

Outstanding analysis by Randy Ananda, originally published by GR on Nov 3, 2013.

This article provides an understanding of  ongoing “extreme weather conditions and climate events” in different regions of the World (e.g earthquakes, floods, wildfires) resulting from geo-engineering and environmental modification techniques  (ENMOD)

***

Developed in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the UN’s World Meteorological Organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) maintains its silence on military weather modification applications which continue to skew the data.

“Extreme weather and climate events” are linked to climate change while no mention is made of government programs deliberately aimed at modifying the weather and inducing earthquakes, drought, rain, and tsunamis.

The modern weather modification program, at least in the US, is over 70 years old. Public service announcements printed in newspapers back in the 1960s warned of government intention to modify the weather.

Life Magazine, back in the 50s and 60s, continually covered US weather modification programs, including Project Stormfury which redirected and reduced hurricane intensity from 1962 to 1983. The IPCC’s continuing and absolute silence on such programs is deafening.

With insider knowledge, a chapter in the 1968 book, Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, predicts the development of technologies that will use the planet itself as a weapon. The chapter, “How to Wreck the Environment,” [2] was penned by geophysicist and member of President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee, Dr. Gordon J.F. MacDonald, wherein he states:

“The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of the environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy.”

The chapter envisions four planetary weapons which MacDonald predicted would be fully developed by the 21st century, based on the then-current state of research:

• Climate modification;
• Earthquake generation;
• Tsunami generation and direction; and
• Mass behavior control via electromagnetic manipulation of the ionosphere.

The idea is carried forward in several geoengineering schemes detailed in Eli Kintisch’s Hack the Planet, in a chapter entitled “The Pursuit of Levers,” explained as “small changes in Earth’s system that can have profound global effects.” [3]

As LBJ’s Science Advisor, MacDonald surely knew of the military’s weather modification program known as Operation Popeye, which ran from 1967 thru 1972 in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. By seeding clouds, the US military caused torrential downpours that inhibited enemy truck and troop movements. Initially exposed by investigative journalist Jack Anderson, the existence of the project was later corroborated in The Pentagon Papers.

In 1996, world renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who served on the Bhopal and the Chernobyl Medical Commissions, and was a recipient of the Right Livelihood Award, published “Background on HAARP,” [4] describing Dr. Bernard Eastlund’s brainchild, the US High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project, as follows:

“It would be rash to assume that HAARP is an isolated experiment which would not be expanded. It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature.”

In 2000,  Dr Bertell told The Times of London (23 November 2000).

“US military scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods.” [5]

HAARP’s use of the ionosphere through radio frequencies, explains Dr. Nick Begich, co-author of Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, also triggers earthquakes and volcanoes. [6] Begich quotes Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, who said in 1997 at a conference on terrorism:

“Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.” [7]

Pragmatically, the US wouldn’t be worried about such weapons unless they knew with certainty that they were feasible and had, in all likelihood, already developed them itself.

In “Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,” which was named the 9^th most censored story in 2012 by Project Censored, a brief history of known geoengineering events was published. [8] From that report, the IPCC’s co-founder, the World Meteorological Organization, complained six years ago, in 2007, that:

“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” [9]

But the IPCC remains mum on these projects, except to deny they exist, while at the same time urging in its Summary that they must continue or global warming will spike. The 2013 IPCC report states:

“Theory, model studies and observations suggest that some Solar Radiation Management (SRM) methods, if practicable, could substantially offset a global temperature rise and partially offset some other impacts of global warming, but the compensation for the climate change caused by greenhouse gases would be imprecise (high confidence).” [emphasis in original]

To claim that solar radiation management methods (which include chemtrails and HAARP-induced changes) are “unimplemented and untested” is patently absurd, and contradicts a library of evidence.

Geoengineering Patents

On March 26, 2013, the US Patent and Trademark Office granted a patent to Rolls-Royce PLC to prevent contrails from forming. [10] By using an electromagnetic wave generator, contrails would not be visible, nor would artificial clouds develop.

It’s not the first such patent. Back in 1962 the US Air Force wanted to add caustic chemicals to hide contrails and prevent unintentional cirrus cloud formation. Patent No. 3,517,505 was granted eight years later, in 1970. Patent, No. 5,005,355, granted in 1988 to Scipar, Inc., used various species of alcohol, which effectively lowered the freezing point of water to avoid contrail formation. The 2013 patent characterized both of these earlier patents as environmentally inappropriate for commercial purposes.

For a partial list of patents for stratospheric aerial spraying programs from 1917 thru mid-2003, see Lori Kramer’s “Patently Obvious: A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies.” [11] Weather Warfare by Jerry Smith also includes an appendix of HAARP-related patents. [12]

A Note on Persistent Contrails

What some see as chemtrails, the IPCC and others recognize as persistent contrails that are a normal effect of today’s jet exhaust.

In the 2006 book, Weather Warfare, Jerry Smith explains that persistent contrails are not necessarily chemtrails. From the 1990s on, he explains, all jet engines were modified with a “high bypass turbofan” which increased fuel efficiency and, as a side effect, left persistent contrails that hazed into cirrus clouds after several hours. This is the timeframe when chemtrail sightings begin.

The reason today’s jets now form persistent contrails, explains Marshall Smith, a former NASA-Ames aeronautical engineer, is that the sooty particulates in older jet exhaust provided a nucleus around which ice crystals would form (giving us a contrail). But because of its dark color, the sooty particulate absorbed solar energy which melted the ice crystals, dissipating the contrail. Today’s cleaner and thus clearer jet exhaust allows solar energy to pass right through it, and so contrails persist and spread into high cirrus clouds lasting 24-36 hours.

Smith admits that this development does not disprove chemical, biological or metallic dispersants from jets, and he also states that such dispersants can be sprayed without leaving a chemtrail, depending on the particulate, and on the humidity and atmospheric temperature. But, later, in 2009, he published the following:

“‘Chemtrails’ theory then, is that ‘normal’ jet aircraft contrails disappear in a few minutes, whereas ‘chemtrails’ persist for hours, and therefore are not ‘normal’ and must contain some covert element to make them persist…. Persistent jet contrails can be entirely explained by science without having to resort to a ‘conspiracy theory’ scenario. They appear to be no more than the natural result of the introduction of the hi-bypass turbo fan, improved jet fuel (JP-8) and ‘global warming.’” [13]

The transition to more efficient jet fuel and cold-flow additives supports this explanation, but none of that can explain the following image, taken earlier this year in Raglan, New Zealand:

The dot-dash effects seen in the sky, Smith explains, are the result of the jet exhaust passing thru sections in the atmosphere that are warmer, creating a broken line or dotted contrail. The following image makes that explanation implausible. Instead, it illustrates that as the plane passed, an on-off switch was thrown several times. It’s hardly likely the ambient temperature and humidity uniformly varied where the plane traveled.

The IPCC specifically addressed the impact of global aviation on the atmosphere in a 2000 report, noting that aircraft were then responsible for up to a half a percent of all of Earth’s cirrus cloud coverage, and that cirrus clouds tend to warm the surface of the planet. [14]

However, the high-bypass turbo fan and better grade fuel do not explain the grid pattern often seen which is clearly not normal air traffic lanes. Below are two images showing the grid pattern. The first, a generic one found on the web , is one of many such images uploaded by concerned citizens who reasonably fail to recognize a normal set of flight lanes.

This next image is a satellite view looking down at the Celebes Sea, showing chemtrails and their shadows. (NASA)

Finally, the fine dusting of web-like filaments referred to as chemwebs can be explained by a natural arachnid phenomenon known as Gossamer Showers or Gossamer Filaments. Spiders are known to balloon, spreading their webs over the land for miles. Referred to throughout history, naturalist Henry Christopher McCook wrote about them in his 1890 book, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork. [15]

Unless lab results prove otherwise, these webs are natural and should remain outside the chemtrails discussion.

Impossible to Regulate?

Weather Warfare also spends a good deal of time covering the international agreements against environmental modification (ENMOD). The first major one came in 1978, after the US was exposed for weaponizing weather during the Vietnam War. Smith points out that none of these agreements cover “national defense” which is how governments are able to avoid the ban.

That 1978 agreement specifically objected to hostile use of ENMOD. In 2010, the UN banned friendly ENMOD. [16] The 193-member Convention on Biodiversity agreed by consensus to a moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments, which governments promptly ignored. With no teeth to that moratorium, it’s not too surprising that such programs continue unabated.

Not two months later, in Cancun, Mexico, at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the IPCC opened the 2010 conference by promoting geoengineering options. [17]

On a practical level, notes the International Risk Governance Council:

“Countries and firms routinely fly various aircraft in the stratosphere, or send rockets through the stratosphere into space. These activities release significant quantities of particles and gases. A requirement for formal prior approval of small field studies, just because they are directed at learning about SRM and its limitations, is probably unenforceable because judging intent is often impossible.” [18]

In Hack the Planet, Kintisch opposes an outright global ban on geoengineering, fearing that governments will simply go underground with it. This is bad, he stresses, because it will “worsen perceptions that [geoengineering is] a quasi-military strategy or a technocratic means of control.” Going further, he states:

“A vibrant community of conspiracy theorists is under the belief that geoengineering is already being deployed by governments by releasing so-called chemtrails in the sky.”

But de facto moratoria already exist for such projects, as mentioned above, and Kintisch lists some others, including the London Protocol, the London Convention and a German restriction limiting iron-seeding to coastal waters only. The only element missing in Kintisch’s reasoning is his refusal to believe that governments have already gone underground with it and that geoengineering is already underway.

Kintisch, like all government propagandists, wields the “conspiracy theorist” label like a club, without once offering any logical counter-argument to explain what thousands of sky watchers have observed and documented with photographs, videos, and soil and water tests.

Conspiracies are argued and decided by the thousands in courts all over the world, every day. Most crimes are not committed by lone actors, yet condemning those who recognize a conspiracy pattern has become a simple and lazy way to crush investigation into inconsistencies in government position statements. Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Wikileaks, along with Daniel Ellsberg, Karen Hudes and W. Mark Felt, certainly prove that governments are the most dangerous conspirators facing humanity today.

Though he offers dozens of reasons why geoengineering the planet would be a bad idea, Kintisch comes out in support of the notion, likening it to a terrarium, “an enclosed controlled garden,” leaving the reader with a sense that planet hacking is a necessary evil that should be regulated.

Modifying the Weather for Profit

In related news, the ecocidal giant, Monsanto, just dropped nearly a billion dollars to get into the weather insurance game, buying Climate Corporation. Forbes reports, “The idea is to sell more data and services to the farmers who already buy Monsanto’s seed and chemicals.” [19]

Already closely tied to the military, how easy would it be for Monsanto to know in advance of a geoengineered drought or deluge? Monsanto expects its climate insurance business to generate $20 billion in revenue beyond its seed and chemical business.

Likewise, how easy would it be for a nation with decades of experience in modifying the weather and in triggering geophysical events to create the problem of climate change (or exaggerate its significance) to induce the world into approving, even demanding, geoengineering? With decades of patents providing a history of capabilities, could this entire drama, including “extreme weather events” be orchestrated for the simple pursuit of profit?

Isn’t this precisely how the Hegelian Dialect works? Problem→Reaction→Solution (Thesis→Antithesis→Synthesis). In other words, those in a position of power invent a problem, anticipating the public’s reaction to it, and use that reaction to generate demand for the “solution” which was the intended program power-holders wanted to implement in the first place.

At the very least, while the veil may be lifting on geoengineering practices, there is still an apparent effort to conceal the extent to which the planet is already being engineered.

Notes:

[1] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” Sept. 2013 at http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/. The following link is to the Summary, downloaded Nov. 2, 2013 (in case the original Summary is modified in the future): http://abact.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ipcc-policy-summary-2013.pdf

[2] Nigel Calder, Ed. Unless Peace Comes: A Scientific Forecast of New Weapons, Allen Lane Publishers, London, 1968. Cited chapter by Gordon J. F. MacDonald, ‘How to Wreck the Environment,’ available at http://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1968-macdonald-how-to-wreck-the-planet.pdf

[3] Eli Kintisch, Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope or Worst Nightmare for Averting Climate Catastrophe. John Wiley & Sons. 2010.

[4] Sister Dr. Rosalie Bertell, “Background on HAARP,” 1996. Available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45492.html

[5] Michel Chossudovsky, “Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change,” 4 Jan. 2002. Available at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html

[6] Nick Begich. Interview by Russell Scott, The West Coast Truth. “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP & Tesla Technology w/ Dr. Nick Begich ,” 22 Sept. 2012. Available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33XGrXK6jnI

[7] William S. Cohen, “Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy,” Sam Nunn Policy Forum, Conference on Terrorism. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 28 April 1997. Speech. Available at http://www.fas.org/news/usa/1997/04/bmd970429d.htm

[8] Rady Ananda, “Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,” Global Research, 30 July 2010. Available at http://www.globalresearch.ca/atmospheric-geoengineering-weather-manipulation-contrails-and-chemtrails/20369

[9] World Meteorological Organization, “Executive Summary of the WMO Statement on Weather Modification,” WMO Documents on Weather Modification Approved by the Commission for Atmospheric Sciences Management Group, Second Session, Oslo, Norway, 24-26 September 2007. CAS-MG2/Doc 4.4.1, Appendix C. Available at http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WM_statement_guidelines_approved.pdf

[10] Frank G Noppel, et al., (assigned to Rolls-Royce PLC). “Method and apparatus for suppressing aeroengine contrails.” Patent No. 8,402,736. 26 March 2013. Available at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8402736.PN.&OS=PN/8402736&RS=PN/8402736

[11] Lori Kramer, “Patently Obvious: A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies, n.d. Available at http://www.seektress.com/patlist.htm

[12] Jerry Smith, Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan to Draft Mother Nature, Adventures Unlimited Press: 2006.

[13] Jerry Smith, “The Painful Truth About ‘Chemtrails,” Sovereign Mind Magazine: May/June 2009. Available at http://www.jerryesmith.com/index.php/156

[14] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Aviation and the Global Atmosphere,” November 2000. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/

[15] Henry Christopher McCook, American Spiders and Their Spinningwork, Vol. II. Self-published, 1890. Available at Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=mccook+spiders#/titles

[16] ETC Group, “BREAKING: UN Bans Chemtrails,” 28 Oct. 2010. Available at http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/un-votes-to-ban-chemtrails/

[17] Rady Ananda, “UN Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club,” 6 Dec. 2010. Available at http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/un-climate-concern-morphs-into-chemtrail-glee-club/

[18] M. Granger Morgan and Katharine Ricke, “Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management: The need for research and an approach to its governance,” International Risk Governance Council, 2010. Available at http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdf

[19] Bruce Upbin, “Monsanto Buys Climate Corp for $930 Million,” 2 Oct. 2013. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/10/02/monsanto-buys-climate-corp-for-930-million/

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.

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.

*** 

ViAqua Therapeutics, an Israeli-based biotechnology startup, has secured $8.25 million in funding for its oral RNA-based shrimp vaccine

The vaccine targets white spot syndrome virus (WSSV), which leads to a 15% reduction in global shrimp production each year

ViAqua plans to administer its RNA-based product via coated feed; the RNA molecules can inhibit gene expression, silencing disease-affected genes

Shrimp lack an adaptive immune system, the type that “remembers” exposures to infectious agents, so it’s long been assumed that shrimp cannot be vaccinated; now it’s becoming clear that shrimp do have some defense against viruses, which is only beginning to be understood

The risks of tinkering with shrimp genetics, and using mRNA shots in pigs, cattle and other animals intended for food, are completely unknown

*

Shrimp are slated to become the latest food source exposed to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, courtesy of ViAqua Therapeutics, an Israeli-based biotechnology startup.

The company has secured $8.25 million in funding from venture capitalists for its oral RNA-based shrimp vaccine, which is intended to target white spot syndrome virus (WSSV).

With plans to administer its RNA-based product via coated feed, ViAqua suggests the RNA molecules can inhibit gene expression, silencing disease-affected genes with every meal.¹ WSSV is a devastating condition in shrimp, leading to a 15% reduction in global shrimp production each year — an annual loss of about $3 billion.²

ViAqua says challenge tests show its RNA-based formulation improved shrimp survival against WSSV, but at what cost? The use of mRNA in the food supply is controversial for good reason — no one knows what the long-term consequences will be.

RNA Vaccines Coming for Shrimp

ViAqua is using RNA interference (RNAi) particles, provided as a feed supplement, to manipulate gene expression in shrimp, one of the most widely consumed forms of seafood worldwide. In a 2022 proof of concept study that used a polyanhydride nanoparticle delivery platform to deliver RNA to shrimp orally, it’s stated:³

“RNA interference (RNAi) in invertebrates is an antiviral cellular mechanism by which a trigger, such as double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) or small interfering RNA (siRNA) starts sequence-specific degradation of target mRNA, thereby preventing viral gene expression.

… In aquaculture systems, the concept of RNAi-based vaccines has been championed for several reasons: (a) RNAi works as an antiviral immune response in shrimp; (b) it is pathogen-specific; and (c) it generates a long-term protective immune response.” 

The study found that the “nanovaccine” was about 80% effective in protecting against WSSV in shrimp, when administered via reverse gavage to “mimic an oral route.”⁴ ViAqua has brought the potential for oral delivery to the next level, with plans to begin producing its RNAi capsule products in India in 2024.⁵ Shai Ufaz, ViAqua’s chief executive officer, stated:⁶

“Oral delivery is the holy grail of aquaculture health development due to both the impossibility of vaccinating individual shrimp and its ability to substantially bring down the operational costs of disease management while improving outcomes … We are excited to bring this technology to market to address the need for affordable disease solutions in aquaculture.”

Can Shrimp be Vaccinated?

Shrimp lack an adaptive immune system, the type that “remembers” exposures to infectious agents so it can mount a better response the next time it comes around. Because of this, it’s long been assumed that shrimp cannot be vaccinated. According to the Global Seafood Alliance:⁷

“Scientific literature on shrimp has often adopted terms and approaches from mammalian immunology, but not always in a correct way. Such is the case in the use of the term “vaccination” in crustaceans. The principle of vaccination is based on two key elements of the immune system: specificity and memory. These two properties are not recognized in the immune systems of shrimp and other invertebrates.”

However, while shrimp don’t have adaptive immunity in the traditional sense, it’s becoming clear that they do have some defense against viruses, which is only beginning to be understood. In 2008, researchers with Australia’s University of Queensland explained, “There is mounting evidence for specific immune memory in crustaceans, including shrimp,” adding:⁸

“It has been widely assumed that no such adaptive systems exist in invertebrates, thus vaccines have not been routinely developed and used in shrimp aquaculture. Invertebrates were considered to rely solely on an innate immune system characterized by generalized immune responses to conserved molecular structures of invading pathogens such as bacteria and fungi.

Some of these pathways are relatively well understood, involving an array of pattern recognition receptors interacting with serine proteases to initiate encapsulation, phagocytosis and an antimicrobial cascade based on the phenoloxidase enzyme system.

However, what is becoming more apparent is that the diversity and sophistication of innate responses in invertebrates is far greater than previously assumed. The invertebrate immune response to viruses is particularly poorly understood.”

ViAqua’s RNAi product claims to “enhance resistance to viral infections” in shrimp,⁹ and they have plans to develop additional mRNA vaccines for fish and other biotechnology products targeting additional shrimp viruses and other pathogens.¹⁰

But shrimp pathogens of one kind or another are virtually guaranteed to persist in the intensive aquaculture farms where many shrimp are raised. Further, the risks of tinkering with shrimp genetics are completely unknown.

mRNA Shots Already Used in Pork

The media has been pretty quiet about the up-and-coming genetic manipulation of shrimp. This seems to be par for the course. Few are aware that, since 2018, pork producers have been using customizable mRNA-based “vaccines” on their herds — as it largely slipped by under the radar.¹¹

It wasn’t until attorney Tom Renz began promoting new legislation in Missouri (House Bill 1169,¹²which he helped write) that would require labeling of mRNA products that it began to receive attention.¹³ In an April 1, 2023, tweet, Renz stated:¹⁴

“BREAKING NEWS: the lobbyists for the cattleman and pork associations in several states have CONFIRMED they WILL be using mRNA vaccines in pigs and cows THIS MONTH. WE MUST SUPPORT MISSOURI HB1169. It is LITERALLY the ONLY chance we have to prevent this … NO ONE knows the impacts of doing this but we are all potentially facing the risk of being a #DiedSuddenly if we don’t stop this.”

Even though the bill asks only for transparency — not a ban of the mRNA-based shots — industry pushback has been enormous. They don’t want you to know that they’re using mRNA and similar products, because then they’d have to admit that the resulting foods may have gene-altering effects. And it’s not just pork, either.

Cattle Groups Urge Caution Over mRNA

The first RNA-based livestock vaccine, a swine influenza (H3N2) RNA shot developed by Harrisvaccines was licensed in 2012.¹⁵ The company followed up with an avian influenza mRNA shot in 2015.¹⁶

Concerns that mRNA injections could end up “in the global protein supply chain” also prompted warnings from cattle producers and calls for mandatory country of origin labeling (MCOOL) so consumers can choose meat from countries that don’t allow mRNA shots in meat animals.¹⁷

In an April 2023 news release, Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA), a nonprofit that represents interests of independent U.S. cattle producers, shared concerns about the use of mRNA shots in cattle and other meat animals. Max Thornsberry, DVM, R-CALF’s animal health committee chair, met with medial doctors and a molecular biologist before briefing the R-CALF USA board:¹⁸

“Thornsberry reported that some researchers have found that mRNA and its coded virus is likely passed from an injected human to a noninjected human, and to humans who have consumed dairy products or meat from an mRNA-injected animal.

He said that because the research on mRNA is still in its infancy, no one really knows the full impact it has on either humans or animals, particularly its long-term impact. He said this itself warrants more extensive mRNA research focused on safety, heightened public vigilance, and greater transparency.”

In a commentary, R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard also urged caution regarding mRNA injections, stating:¹⁹

“It’s not a vaccine as we typically understand vaccines. So, for the rest of this discussion, I’ll refer to it as an injection. It’s an injection of a laboratory-produced substance into humans or livestock that is coded with a particular virus, such as COVID-19, that produces an immune response against the particular virus.

And what does mRNA do? Well, it hijacks living cells, tricking them into producing some level of immunity against human viruses like COVID-19 and livestock viruses such as foot-and-mouth disease or lumpy skin disease. It does this by rewriting the instructions from the body’s DNA. And what are the potential risks to humans and livestock?

The truthful answer is we don’t yet know the long-term effects of mRNA injections in either humans or livestock.

… There is great concern that living cells excrete the mRNA over time and the mRNA can then be transferred to animals and humans that have never received the mRNA injection. It is believed, for example, that humans can contact mRNA by eating meat from livestock that have received the injection.

The reason mRNA is an issue today is that pharmaceutical firms have found that it takes very little of it to hijack a cell, and it can be produced cheaper than typical virus vaccines.”

Is it possible that mRNA or RNAi nanoparticles could persist in the meat and shrimp you’re eating? Penny Riggs, associate research professor of functional genetics at Texas A&M, stated, “The estimate is that half of the mRNA from a vaccine is gone in about 20 hours, and completely destroyed within a few days.”²⁰

However, Thornsberry cited²¹ one study, published in Biomedicines, that found mRNA from injections can be detected in blood 15 days post-shot.²²

The proof-of-concept study for the shrimp RNA nanovaccine also found the particles persisted long after administration: “The nanoparticles localized to tissue target replication sites for WSSV and persisted through 28 days post-administration.”²³ Again, the consequences of consuming these nanoparticles remains to be seen.

Antibiotic Resistance Widespread in Shrimp

Farm-raised seafood is among the most contaminated foods you can eat, shrimp included. Antibiotics are commonly used on farmed shrimp in an attempt to slow down pathogens.²⁴ Not surprisingly, shrimp is often contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria as a result.

One investigation by CBC News Marketplace found 17% — nine of the 51 packages of shrimp imported from Vietnam, Thailand, China, India and Ecuador — were contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.²⁵ Among them, all but one showed resistance to multiple antibiotics.

Investigators purchased imported shrimp labeled “organic” as well as some with the “Best Aquaculture Practices” certification, which maintains that farmers only use antibiotics minimally.

So, while shrimp can be a healthy addition to your diet, it’s important to avoid farm-raised shrimp, which is the type served in most restaurants and the variety that’s slated to receive a gene-altering nanoparticle vaccine in its feed. When it comes to purchasing high-quality shrimp, look for those that are either wild caught or locally produced.

*

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.

Notes

¹ The Times of Israel July 9, 2018

^{2, 5, 6, 9} Fish Farmer September 5, 2023

^3, 4, 23 Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Sep; 10(9): 1428

⁷ Global Seafood Alliance January 1, 2007

⁸ Vaccine. 2008 Sep 8;26(38):4885-92. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.07.019. Epub 2008 Jul 29

¹⁰ ViAqua Therapeutics, Our Solution

¹¹ YouTube Global Ag Media 2018

¹² Missouri House Bill 1169

¹³ Conservative Treehouse April 9, 2023

¹⁴ Twitter Tom Renz April 1, 2023

¹⁵ Watt Poultry October 2, 2012

¹⁶ Merck Animal Health September 21, 2015

^17, 18, 19 R-CALF USA April 20, 2023

²⁰ Tri-State Livestock News June 16, 2023

²¹ R-CALF USA May 22, 2023

²² Biomedicines. 2022 Jul; 10(7): 1538

²⁴ Feed Navigator September 5, 2023

²⁵ CBC News Marketplace March 15, 2019

Featured image is from 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.

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.

***

Read Part I:

Oil and Gas and Climate Change Fakery

By Prof. Anthony J. Hall, September 07, 2023

---

The British North American Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982 

Canada’s Constitution was formulated in two big spurts. One led to the ratification of the British North American Act in 1867 by the Mother Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Scotsman John A. Macdonald was the primary figure who both envisaged and implemented the plan to pull together into a single polity all the British colonies and corporations in North America. His plan was to edify and elaborate the British Empire, not to break free from the imperial connection as had been done by the founders of the United States. By sharing in the power of the British Empire, the makers of the Dominion of Canada were able to withstand the pull of the United States whose population and economy have historically been about ten times that of the Canadian Dominion.

The job of creating a coast-to-coast-to-coast Dominion in North America was extremely ambitious. It included the transformation of the financial and territorial organization of the Hudson’s Bay fur trade company into the structure of finance and privatized land integral to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.

Formed in 1858, the Pacific Coast colony of British Columbia joined the Dominion in 1871 based on the promise that the government of Canada would build a railway to eastern and central Canada through the legally-transformed Hudson’s Bay Company lands. The overall project succeeded, resulting in the creation of the second largest country in the world.

The main outlines of the plan were successfully implemented over a period of about 20 years between 1864, when the Fathers of Confederation met in Quebec City, and 1885, when the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed. At the Quebec Conference many plans were mounted leading to the enactment in 1867 by the British Parliament of the British North American Act.

The Fathers of Confederation Met at Quebec City in 1864 to Consider Creating a Union of British North American Polities .

The British North American Act created the Dominion of Canada, originally a confederation of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. Ontario and Quebec were previously known as Upper and Lower Canada before being amalgamated in 1840 as the Province of Canada.

Lower Canada, a seed of the current province of Quebec, was and is predominantly inhabited by French-speaking people whose Roman Catholic ancestors had founded and developed New France, a colony sometimes described as Canada. Often the inhabitants of New France referred to themselves as canadiens, a name that still describes Montreal’s hockey team. So the original Canada—-a jurisdiction that has gone through many incarnations— is much older than the United States of America.

The second spurt of constitution making was initially connected to the twists and turns of the Quebec independence movement, a movement that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau enthusiastically fought against. This movement for Quebec independence outside the bounds of English-speaking Canada had culminated in 1980 in a referendum organized by Premier René Lévesque, the founder and leader of the Parti Québécois.

Canada’s Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, led the campaign to defeat Lévesque’s YES campaign to bring about Quebec’s independence. In the campaign led by Trudeau, he promised Quebeckers that, with their NO vote, they would be setting in motion a positive renewal of Canadian federalism. The renewal was to be expressed by coming up with the contents of what was supposed to be Canada’s last request to the imperial Parliament in Great Britain. The core of that request was to move to Canada the means of making and amending Canada’s own constitution.

This procedures addressed the problem that so many of Canada’s core institutions of government had deep British roots that only the government of Great Britain had the legal means of changing. This last resort to the British Parliament was sometimes referred to as the “patriation” of Canada’s constitution. As we shall see, this vehicle of patriation, the Constitution Act, 1982, became a platform for many instruments meant to renovate the legal design of Canadian federalism. One of the ironic outcomes was to widen the legal divide between the National Assembly of Quebec and the governments of the other Canadian provinces.

Trudeau and his constitutional lieutenant, Jean Chrétien, went to work on this project with a directive from the Supreme Court that they would need a significant measure of provincial support if their mission was to succeed.

With this guidance from Canada’s top judges, Trudeau and his Team went to work to induce provincial premiers to buy into the patriation initiative. By late 1982 Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and 9 of the 10 provincial premiers came up with a document they all backed. The text of the Constitution Act, 1982 was ratified by the Parliament of Canada, the Parliament of Great Britain, and by the legislatures of nine Canadian provinces.

The whole procedure was subsequently ratified by Queen Elizabeth in a signing ceremony on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill.

The fact that Quebec continues to be part of Canada while staying outside the ratification process of Constitution Act 1982 sets a precedent that Alberta might choose to adopt or adapt in some fashion.

Could the people and government of Alberta withdraw from some elements of the Canadian Constitution while, like the people and government of Quebec, continuing to be part of those aspects of the Canadian federation that serve their purposes? Some Albertans have been carefully studying Quebec’s independence movement for examples of how Canada’s only predominantly French-speaking province gained such a sweet deal for itself in Confederation.

One element of the Constitution Act 1982 is known as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We can now see this Charter as a farcical construction that provided zero protections for Canadian citizens during its first major test beginning with the forced imposition of multiple COVID restrictions and mandates in 2020. See this.

Another part of the Constitution Act, 1982, amended the British North American Act of 1867. These new provisions, to which Quebec never agreed, added a new subsection to section 92 of the BNA. Section 92 (A) of the altered Constitution Act, 1867, explicitly details a list of Natural Resource powers, rights and responsibilities that adhere to the provincial legislatures. See this.

The new section, 92 (A), states,

Laws respecting non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources and electrical energy

92A (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to

(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;

(b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and

(c) development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.

Subsection 2 and 3 of 92 (A) involves the provincial export within Canada of electricity and non-renewable resources. In the subsections below there is a stipulation that the imperative of Parliament to govern trade and commerce must “prevail” when it comes to matters pertaining to this export.

Export from provinces of resources

(2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or in supplies exported to another part of Canada.

Authority of Parliament

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) [of 92 (A)] derogates from the authority of Parliament to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to in that subsection and, where such a law of Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.

It is very clear that those in Canada and Great Britain who drafted the British North American Act meant the Dominion government, now dubbed the federal government, to prevail over provincial jurisdiction. The Dominion was endowed with a Parliament whereas as the provinces have legislatures.

Similarly, the Canadian Crown was embodied in the person of a Governor-General whereas the embodiments of the provincial Crowns were described as Lieutenant-Governors. This subordination of provincial legislatures is signified by the BNA Act’s investment in Parliament of the power to disallow provincial legislation. This provision has been used over 100 times by the Canadian government.

Parliament still has the legal authority to disallow provincial legislation. Indeed, some Canadians were recently faced with the spectacle of a CBC journalist trying to bully and badger Trudeau’s intergovernmental Affairs Minister, Dominic LeBlanc, into unleashing the federal power of the disallowance provision on the Alberta Sovereignty Act.

Canada’s CTV Television network gave University of Alberta Law Professor, Eric Adams, a segment to give his explanation of why he thinks the Alberta Sovereignty Act is a disaster for Canada. According to Prof. Adams, everything was going great in Canada until Danielle Smith showed up as premier. Our courts were just humming away dispensing impartial justice by the truckload as all Canadians were perfectly content to just sit back and trust the politically-appointed judges to sort out problems, including jurisdictional disputes between Ottawa and the provinces.

From his comfortable academic perch as one of Ottawa’s Liberal fixers in Alberta’s capital, Adams seems uncomprehending of the reality that many in Canada have come to deeply distrust the judiciary since it joined so intimately with the political branch of government in 2020. Justice Minister Lametti and and Chief Justice Wagner formally collaborated in highly inappropriate ways with the effect of eliminating the protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms just when we needed them the most. When the issue of the Charter finally came before the Federal Court in the the autumn of 2022, a Trudeau-appointee declared that the issue of Charter rights had become “moot.” See this.

Adams speaks as an apologist for the legal establishment including the discredited judiciary. With blasé disregard of the unusual nature of these times, he speaks from the podium of a University that, like most so-called centres of higher learning, went along uncritically with the mass jabbing of students, staff and faculty. The cumulative worldwide effects of this globally-replicated procedure, have killed and maimed many millions. This reality, however, will not be reported by the likes of CBC or CTV, networks that censor many voices that do not conform to increasing dangerous and demented uniparty line.

The big media cartels in Alberta did not only reported on the Alberta’s recent provincial election. They participated in the campaign as partisan proponents of NDP leader Rachel Notley. Thus when Notley lost to Danielle Smith, the media also lost its own partisan campaign which continues nevertheless, through, for instance, made-for-TV smear campaign to try to deprive the Alberta Sovereignty Act of public support.

Who Takes Ownership of the Indian Lands? The Dominion Government or the Provincial Governments of Canada? 

Constitutions can be made by politicians and sometimes by citizens in referendums. In many cases it is, however, judges that step in to sort out disagreements which stop short of civil war. From 1867 until 1949, the highest court in arbitrating constitutional disagreements between the Dominion and provincial governments was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the House of Lords of the British Parliament. See this.

Especially under Lord Watson and then under Lord Haldane, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) tended to edify the authorities and powers of provincial governments. In doing so the imperial jurists tended to side against the claims and assertions of the Dominion Government. One of the seminal rulings of the JCPC on the BNA Act was handed down in 1888.

The St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Case tested the claims of the Canadian and Ontario governments when it came to the issue of the ownership of lands subject to the authority of section 91(24) of the BNA Act. This provision assigns to the Dominion Parliament jurisdiction over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians.”

Prime Minister John A. Macdonald decided that section 91(24) enabled the Dominion government to assign some land rights to the St. Catherine’s Milling Company. These land rights could be traced back to an exchange of commitments in the making of Treaty #3 in 1873 between agents of Queen Victoria and Ojibway leaders in the Kenora era on the western boundaries of Ontario. Under Premier Oliver Mowat, the government of Ontario challenged the legitimacy of this transaction by charging the Milling Company with a crime for cutting trees that did not belong to them. This Company was defended by lawyers paid for and also representing the government of Canada.

The provincial government won the case on the basis of the arguments put forward by former Liberal Party Leader, William Blake. Citing a series of cases going back to the Crusades, Blake asserted that the Indians were subject to the old doctrine that when new territories are annexed, “the laws of the infidel  are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature.”

Blake went further. He maintained that Indians in Canada were such an “inferior race,” in such an “inferior state of civilization” that they “have no government and no organization, and cannot be regarded as holding land.” Since property is a “creature of law,” then Indians characterized as having “no government and no organization,” could not be regarded as owners of any solid title to their ancestral lands.

The JCPC did not go as far as to sanction all of Blakes’ arguments in agreeing to the plantiff’s position that The St. Catherine’s Milling Company and the Dominion government of Canada had together violated the law. The JCPC did recognize the rights of Indians to a very shallow usufuctuary interest in their own ancestral lands. They could use the land but now own it. Gradually the idea developed that the Indian right to land was a “burden” on Crown title. This burden lies was said to lie on the metaphorical surface of a deeper proprietary sovereignty that Canada inherited from the original North American claims of the British imperial monarchy.

No living Indian people were afforded any status whatsoever to participate in the constitutional dispute in the late 1880s between the governments of Canada and Ontario. The Indians were excluded from the constitutional proceedings concerning the delegation of authority to govern Indians and the lands said to be “reserved” for Indians. This exclusion confirmed a pattern that carried on for slightly more than a century.

One feature of this exclusion was that, until the early 1960s, registered Indians in Canada were excluded from the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. They could not vote, run for office, own real estate, borrow money from banks, sign contracts or hold jobs that required them to sign documents.

A key constitutional provision that came under close judicial scrutiny in the St. Catherine’s Milling case was section 109 of the BNA Act. That provision asserts,

109. All Lands, Mines, Minerals, and Royalties belonging to the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the Union, and all Sums then due or payable for such Lands, Mines, Minerals, or Royalties, shall belong to the several Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any Trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any Interest other than that of the Province in the same.

Section 109 is silent on the question of the status of lands that would later form the basis of new provinces. The BNA of 1867 was silent, for instance, on the status of the new jurisdictions that would be carved from the vast fur trade domain about to be acquired by the Dominion from the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1869-70. The new provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, were created in 1905 by the authority of the Dominion of Canada.

Like the province of Manitoba created in 1871 by the Dominion of Canada on some of the land it had recently acquired from the Hudson’s Bay Company, Alberta and Saskatchewan were conceived of as junior provinces. These new polities did not acquire formal title to the lands and natural resources on which they sat until 1930. In 1930 the governments of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan obtained from the Dominion government proprietorship over lands and resources within their boundaries.

One could argue that what can be given can also be taken away by the same party that originally did the giving. In normal times the prospect of the federal government taking back the natural resources in the three prairie provinces, would be almost inconceivable. These times, however, are not normal.

The Constitutional Legacy Of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 in the Transformation of the Legal Status of Natural Resources in Canada

The outcome of the St. Catherine’s Milling case did not permanently shut down the raising of various constitutional issues concerning Aboriginal peoples and their lands. What the ruling did do, however, was to contribute significantly to the sidelining of Native peoples from the core institutional mechanisms of law, politics, and economics during the crucial century in Canada’s remaking.

During this century of much of Canada was transformed from a fur trade preserve for the Indian people to a realm favouring the commercial enterprises of European immigrants and their descendants.

Some aspects of legacy of the St. Catherine’s Milling case do not stand up well to the test of time. The positions advanced on behalf of the Ontario government by Edward Blake were similar to those supporting the ownership of slaves in the era before US Civil War. They were similar to the justifications in the 1830s of the Trail of Tears, a uprooting and forced march of Cherokees from Georgia to a new Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River.

The Trail of Tears was part of a larger scheme hatched by US Thomas Jefferson and attempted by President Andrew Jackson. This scheme aimed to make the Mississippi the dividing point in a continent-wide system of Indian-Non-Indian apartheid. A smaller-scale replication of this policy was attempted in British North America. The author of the policy attempted to draw the Native peoples from the farming areas of Upper Canada to a segregated Indian Territory on Manitoulin Island on Lake Huron.     

Throughout the twentieth century there was much discussion about the Aboriginal title to lands and resources in British Columbia. In British Columbia, Church of England missionaries worked closely with the political organizations of Aboriginal peoples to demand that the principles of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 should be applied in Canada’s westernmost province. Officials of the Anglican Church pursued this goal on the understanding that the head of their Church, who was also the British sovereign, had inherited special responsibilities to protect the rights and territorial interests of the Aboriginal peoples in British North America.  

Coastal Salish People as They Were Before the Creation of British Columbia

Already in the proceeding of the St. Catherine’s Milling case, an understanding began to develop that the reference in the British North America Act to “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians” repeated the constitutional language introduced by King George III in the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

The Indian provisions of the Royal Proclamation opened up a split among settlers in the Anglo-American colonies that helped fuel a secessionist movement. This rise of this movement was a major factor in the founding of the United States of America in 1776 and 1783.

The King’s constitutional pronouncement in 1763 outlined new jurisdictions and procedures to govern the North American lands recently acquired from France. Besides creating the fourteenth British North American colony of Quebec, King George created a huge area in the eastern portion of the Mississippi Valley and in the Great Lakes area to be “reserved for the Indians as their hunting grounds.”

After the USA was created, this phrase in the Royal Proclamation continued to describe much about the legal nature of the large portion of North America that continued under the rule of the British imperial government. In the era of New France and in the era of British imperial Canada before 1867, the elaborate exchanges between Native peoples with Scots and canadien traders were essential to to the health of Canada’s political economy.

From the early 1800s until 1929, treaties were negotiated with the Aboriginal peoples in accordance with the Royal Proclamation’s requirement that Crown agents were required to obtain Indian consent before new areas were opened for non-Indian settlements and businesses.

Maps by Anthony Hall, Originally published in Hall, The American American Empire and the Fourth World (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University, 2004)

Plucked from its original geographic setting, the Royal Proclamation’s procedures were widely applied from the banks of the Ottawa River the heights of the Rocky Mountains marking the BC-Alberta border. In spurts of activity agents of the Crown negotiated treaties with Aboriginal peoples.

Some would say that those treaties, even with all their shortcomings, did not extinguish Aboriginal title but rather formalized Canada’s recognition of an unextinguishable Aboriginal estate in Canada to exist for as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow. But when has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, whose history is tied up with the negotiation of Crown-Aboriginal treaties, ever enforced  this principle?

By the 1970s the push to apply the Indian provisions of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 began to gather traction in British Columbia. A crucial step in this direction was taken when the of Anglican Church in British Columbia and the Nisga’a Indians of the Nass River Valley retained Thomas Berger as their lawyer.

Together the partners set in motion legal and political initiatives that resulted in the making of the first Crown-Aboriginal treaty in Canada’s westernmost province. It’s coming into force in 1998 renewed the most prolonged Covenant Chain of constitutional enactments in North America.

The extension of the process of making Crown-Aboriginal Treaties to BC drew on constitutional traditions of Canada far older the British North America Act of 1867. The act of making modern-day treaties with Aboriginal peoples has helped shape the nature of Canada’s institutional growth in Northern Quebec, the Inuit realm of Nunavut, in Yukon in what remains of the North West Territories.  

See Anthony J. Hall, “A Note on Canadian Treaties,” on Tom Molloy, The World Is Our Witness: The Historic Journey of the Nisga’a into Canada (Calgary: Fifth House, 2000)

Preparing the Canada Act for a Final Ritual of Ratification by the British Parliament

While in the midst of Canada’s reclamation of the constitutional principles and procedures of the Royal Proclamation, the federal delegation led by Pierre Trudeau entered into final negotiations with the delegations of the nine provincial delegations. The Quebec delegation of René Lévesque was not invited to take part in the negotiation in November of 1981 of an instrument to “patriate” the constitution from Great Britain to Canada.

On November 5 a draft of the document meant to be put before the British Parliament as the Canada Act, was introduced Canadian public. When Canada’s First Ministers had initiated the final negotiations, the text contained a provision that the “Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”

This provision, one inserted into the proceedings by the Aboriginal wing of Canada’s NDP Party, was dropped from the text in the last minute alterations. A sharp focus on this attempted hatchet job, exposes much about the volatility of Aboriginal Affairs in the current structures of federal-provincial relations.

In Canada, Aboriginal issues should not be treated as a footnote to the big issues of constitutional law. Interactions with Native peoples on Canada’s expanding resource frontiers have insinuated their way into many facets law and politics including the dynamics of how federal-provincial relations on Energy Policy are unfolding now.

The placing of “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians” under federal jurisdiction threatens the proprietary treasure trove of natural resources created for Canada’s provinces by section 109 of the British North America Act. Section 109 acknowledges the basis of the provincial claims to “lands, mines, minerals and royalties” except those “subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof.” An obvious basis for one such “trust” would be the federal responsibility to preserve and safeguard “lands reserved for the Indians.”

The idea of a federal responsibility to safeguard Indian lands and resources represents a significant threat to some proponents of the provincial rights movement. Probably there is no provincial premier who has felt more menaced by section 91(24) of the British North American Act than Alberta’s former Premier, Peter Lougheed. In the final phase of the negotiation of the text of the Constitution Act, 1982, Lougheed led the demand by the nine provincial premiers to remove the provision affirming Aboriginal and treaty rights. The provincial premiers were so intent on extinguishing the rights of Aboriginal peoples they made this erasure the final condition for signing the patriation deal.

Given the absence of any Aboriginal representation on the final night of negotiations, the responsibility was clearly on the shoulders of the Canada’s prime minister to exercise his fiduciary duty to protect Aboriginal and treaty rights from provincial assault. To his great discredit, Trudeau failed to do so before going public with his deal.

This betrayal of his responsibilities was hardly an isolated case. One of Trudeau’s worst assaults on Canadian interests was his decision to take away sovereign control over the issuance of near-interest-free money from the Bank of Canada. In 1974 this money power power was handed over to the private central bankers in the Rothschild-dominated Bank of International Settlements in Switzerland.

The exclusion of Aboriginal peoples from representation in the negotiation of the Constitution Act, 1982 is reminiscent of their being excluded from any role whatsoever in the proceedings of the St. Catherine’s Milling case. It seems that bad things happen when Aboriginal people are not present to defend themselves, their lands and their treaties with the Crown in the course of important transactions concerning federal-provincial relations.

Aboriginal peoples and their supporters created sufficient political leverage that section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 was reinstated with one modification. That slightly revised provision proclaims that “the existing Aboriginal and Treaty of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.” The Aboriginal peoples of Canada are defined as “Indians, Inuit and Metis.”

Justin Trudeau Wildly Signals His Virtue as a Wannabe Fixer of the Climate

In his first term as Prime Minister beginning in 2015 Trudeau tried to navigate his way through a wide array of contradictory demands. For instance, Trudeau tried his hand at building pipelines, negotiating treaties with Aboriginal peoples in BC, conserving the majesty of some of BC’s wild places, helping to facilitate overall economic prosperity, and contending with the extremism of some climate-change zealots.

If Trudeau had been invested with a decent skill set, a comprehending mind, and reasonable awareness of history, he would have been able to soldier on. He would have been able to bring about viable compromises, necessary trade offs, and political accommodations to safeguard the rights as well as to advance the interests of all the Canadian people.

This kind of outcome, however, cannot be expected of leaders who attack their own citizens to advance the globalist agendas of the Davos billionaires’ club.  This kind of outcome is certainly not consistent with the limited capacity and attention span of Justin Trudeau, a perpetual adolescent who is well known as a stoner video game addict.

As the extent of Trudeau’s failures and scandals mounted, he was drawn to follow the line of least resistance. Especially after participating in the Glasgow Climate Pact in 2021, Prime Minister upped his infatuation with carbon taxes and pictured himself as the superman of anti-climate change.

In adopting the religion of climate change fanaticism, Trudeau radically turned against the Canadian oil and gas industry centred in Alberta where the Prime Minister has many enemies and few political allies. See this.

After Trudeau failed in 2021 for the second time to achieve a majority government in Parliament, he went for broke by appointing Greenpeace activist Steven Guilbeault as his Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dubbed by La Presse as “the Green Jesus of Montreal,” Guillbeault made a name for himself in 2001 by climbing Toronto’s CN Tower to protest Canada’s poor environmental record. See this.

Once he took office, Guilbeault began slapping increasingly harsh and compressed trajectories of caps on carbon emissions, allegedly a basis of so-called greenhouse gases. This attack on Alberta’s oil and gas industry was a major factor that helped him create the conditions that put in place both Premier Danielle Smith and her work-in-progress, the Alberta Sovereignty Act.

Premier Smith views the issuance of emission caps by Ottawa as basically the same thing as putting caps on oil and gas production. Such federal caps on production, Smith argues, amount to a federal intrusion into Alberta’s realm of exclusive provincial sovereignty.

Premier Smith derives her view that the federal government does not have a right to dictate the rate of the production of oil and gas, from the 1982 amendments in the Constitution Act, 1867. The relevant provision states,

92A (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to

(b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and

Premier Smith has alleged that if Ottawa persists in forcing its agenda on Alberta, the result will be the fairly quick elimination of about half of Alberta’s oil and gas production. Cutting half the production would result in the loss of about half of the well-paying Oil Patch jobs that have long employed hard-working men and women from all across Canada.

A citizen of Quebec, Guilbeault is helping to spark the widespread resentment of Albertans. Many Albertans are well aware that much of the wealth generated by Alberta’s Oil Patch ends up in equalization transfer payments that go in significant measure to the government of Quebec. 

Quebec has significant oil and gas resources of its own. Those controlling Quebec’s government, however, do not want to develop these resources because it would halt the transfer payments from Alberta. This decision deprives many Quebecers of employment that would raise their standard of living. This kind of improvement for Quebec citizens, however, is deemed secondary to feeding off the labour of Albertans.

Smith asserted on 30 August that Guilbeault is showing “utter contempt for Alberta.” See this.

The concerted attack by the government of Canada on the continued development of Canada’s most valuable natural resource flies in the face of common sense. The attack by Ottawa on Alberta in 2023 is even more aggressive than Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Policy of the early 1980s. Moreover the current interventions by Trudeau junior fly in the face of recent international developments the world over.

The news is getting out that there is no viable Plan B to replace any time soon the relatively cheap and efficient industrial muscle of oil and gas. The secret is out that wind power and solar power are both ephemeral as well as costly and environmentally problematic in a multiplicity of ways.  

This return to the fundamentals of the oil and gas industry in Alberta and many other jurisdictions, is reflected in the decision of Rich Kruger, the CEO of Suncor, “to refocus on its oil and gas assets.” See this.

Responding from China where Guilbeault [allegedly] seems to be yet another Liberal Party agent working for the Chinese government, the Climate Change Minister lashed out in a very threatening way, aiming especially at Kruger and Suncor. Guilbeault has already put in place the mechanisms to criminalize those that don’t agree to march to Ottawa’s climate-change dictates.

Guilbeault was upset “to see the leader of a great Canadian company say he is basically disengaging from climate change and sustainability… it’s all the wrong answers. If I was convinced before we needed to do regulation, I am even more convinced now.” See this.

The implications of abandoning oil and gas in favour of the ridiculous campaign to stop the climate from changing, are already generating dire consequences.  The consequences will include more unemployment, more poverty, more suicide, and more exposure to arbitrary controls like climate-change lockdowns, manufactured famines and social credit penalties. Net zero sums it up well.

Premier Smith is trying to fix the limitations Alberta is facing as a landlocked jurisdiction, with a dearth of pipeline connections providing easy access to ocean transport.

Premier Smith is joining together with the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well as an Aboriginal corporation, NeeStanNan, to establish a transportation corridor to a new Deep Sea port. That port is to be at the mouth of the Nelson River flowing into the coastline of southwest Hudson’s Bay. See this.

Transport from Europe into the deep North American interior through Hudson’s Bay has long and venerable place in Canadian history. This transportation route was the key to the success of the Hudson’s Bay Company from 1671 to 1871, when Manitoba and Canada’s North West Territories was created.

The decision of the United States to knock out trade in oil and gas between Russia and Germany as well as the rest of the European Union, has heightened the geopolitical imperative to open up a Deep Sea port on Hudson’s Bay. For the time being, this initiative is being pushed forward primarily from the foundation of provincial and Aboriginal jurisdiction as the federal government continues to signal its virtue as a supposed fixer of the climate.

*

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.

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.

Dr. Anthony Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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.

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.

***

Two devastating events have struck the North African states of the Kingdom of Morocco and Libya leaving thousands dead and tens of thousands more unaccounted for by international humanitarian agencies.

The flooding from Storm Daniel and two dam bursts in the North African state of Libya in and around the city of Derna is clearly related to the destruction of the country in 2011 at the aegis of the United States, Britain, France and their allies within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Since February 2011, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), State Department and the White House under former President Barack Obama set out to overthrow the ruling Jamahiriya socialist system led by the martyred statesman and Pan-Africanist Col. Muammar Gaddafi. Hillary Clinton, the then Secretary of State under Obama, laughed publicly about the assassination of Gaddafi which occurred amid the blanket bombing of the country by Pentagon and NATO forces.

After the overthrow of the Jamahiriya government there has been complete chaos in Libya as the imperialist states have attempted to remake the oil-rich nation in a framework of neo-colonial subservience to the leading western industrial states. There has been the absolute failure to form a unified administration with at least two centers of purported authority. One in Tripoli, the dysfunctional “Government of National Unity”, and yet another putative regime in the northeast of the country in Tobruk.

The capital in Tobruk, the so-called “House of Representatives” of the eastern region which claims to be the legitimate regime as well, was set alight during protest in 2022. Mass demonstrations occurred across the country in reaction to the disunity which has become institutionalized since the 2011 U.S.-NATO engineered counter-revolution. 

These divisions and the lingering impact of the imperialist-instigated war of 2011 has left Libya defenseless in regard to preparations for the severe weather events which are plaguing areas all across Africa and the world. The necessary maintenance of two dams in the northeast areas of Libya have not taken place due to the lack of uniformity and the ongoing clashes between the western-backed factions which continue to battle over the ruins of the Libyan state. 

At present the flooding and mass deaths are being reported in a distorted manner by the corporate and government-controlled media outlets based in the imperialist countries. One source, CBS News, said of the present situation:

“More than 2,000 bodies had been collected as of Wednesday (Sept. 13) morning. More than half of them were quickly buried in mass graves in Derna, according to Othman Abduljaleel, the health minister for the government that runs eastern Libya, the Associated Press reported. But Libya effectively has two governments – one in the east and one in the west – each backed by various well-armed factions and militias. The North African nation has writhed through violence and chaos amid a civil war since 2014, and that fragmentation could prove a major hurdle to getting vital international aid to the people who need it most in the wake of the natural disaster. Coordinating the distribution of aid between the separate administrations — and ensuring it can be done safely in a region full of heavily armed militias and in the absence of a central government — will be a massive challenge.” 

Obviously, the clashes over the control of Tripoli in 2014 were a direct result of the imperialist war some three years earlier. The balkanization of Libya is a clear by-product of the massive bombings by NATO and its allies along with the imposition of a neo-colonial regime which had no basis for the governance of the country. The so-called civil war in Libya is a manifestation of the failure of imperialist foreign policy in North Africa.

With the destruction of Libya, instability has spread throughout North and West Africa. This level of social disruptions has drained national resources and impeded any efforts to foster national and regional development. 

Derna, a city of approximately 100,000 people, has been left in complete ruins. The actual number of those killed cannot not be accurately calculated due to the massive amounts of flood waters and rubble from collapsed buildings. 

One scientist in the U.S. reflected on the causes of the current disaster in Libya, noting:

“’Although Storm Daniel caused the devastating flood, a combination of factors exacerbated the nation’s vulnerability to natural hazards, resulting in enormous casualties,’ says Virginia Tech geophysicist Manoochehr Shirzaei. He points to poor infrastructure, years of civil war, under-investment in flood protection, rising sea levels, and land subsidence. The worst damage is in Derna where neighborhoods have been washed away after two dams broke. ‘The heavy rain in Libya appears to have overwhelmed the dams, leading to catastrophic flooding and devastating loss in the city,’ says Jennifer Irish, professor of civil and environmental engineering in the College of Engineering at Virginia Tech. ‘This situation is similar to the catastrophic levee failure and flooding in New Orleans in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge overwhelmed the city’s levee system.’” 

This comparison between the Derna floods and the Katrina disaster of 2005 is quite appropriate since it is the capitalist and imperialist system emanating from the U.S. which has set the standard for privatization of state resources and deliberate disinvestment in infrastructure. The refusal to take serious action to halt the impact of climate change is only a continuation of this same program of profit maximization and the disempowerment of the majority of people within society.

Morocco Quake and the Incapacity of the Monarchy

A large earthquake struck the High Atlas Mountain range some 70 kilometers southwest of the historic city of Marrakesh has killed at least 2,800 people. As in Libya, the complete number of those killed and injured cannot be properly assessed until the rubble has been cleared away by relief workers.

Morocco is one of the three last remaining monarchies on the African continent. What makes Morocco unique is that the government—with the backing of the U.S. and former colonial power of Spain–has refused to allow the people of the Western Sahara to hold an election on the future of the territory. In essence, the Kingdom of Morocco is an occupying force stifling the independence of the self-declared Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) which is recognized by the African Union (AU). 

The failure of the Kingdom to modernize its governance structures leaves the state open to the worst outcomes from natural disasters. Its close alliance with imperialism reinforces its lack of democratic practice and the denial of the right to self-determination for the Western Sahara.

Nature Magazine wrote on the current situation south of Marrakesh pointing out that:

“However, the biggest contributor to the disaster has been lack of preparedness, says disaster researcher Ilan Kelman at University College London. ‘Earthquakes don’t kill people, collapsing infrastructure does,’ he says. ‘This was so devastating simply because people were not ready for it.’ Even moderate earthquakes can be lethal if societies are not prepared, says Kelman. He highlights the magnitude-5.9 quake that struck Agadir in Morocco on 29 February 1960. About one-third of the city’s population was killed and another third injured, mostly by collapsing buildings. Although this was not a huge tremor, the US Geological Survey calls it “the most destructive ‘moderate’ quake (magnitude less than 6) in the 20th Century. Kelman says it is also crucial to think about earthquake resilience as part of sustainable development. As a result, he says, building earthquake resilience means tackling broader societal problems such as poverty and lack of education. ‘All aspects of disasters are political,’ says Kelman. ‘All disaster risk reduction is about development.’” 

Consequently, the recently held Africa Climate Summit in Kenya must seriously consider embarking upon a new path in its relations with the western countries. It is not even debatable that the industrial capitalist states and their imperialist war drives are largely responsible for the environmental degradation in Africa and other geopolitical regions internationally. 

African unity around the question of “system change and not climate change” must become the rallying cry of the people. Until the capitalists are halted in their drive to maintain political and economic hegemony, the peoples of the world will be further endangered as extreme weather events and geological disasters increase in frequency and severity. 

*

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.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

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.

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.

***

We are in the middle of a world-changing war. This is no ordinary war, however. Most of the victims of this warfare aren’t even able to identify it as war, nor do they understand that they are combatants in it. It’s called fifth-generation warfare, and I’m here to tell you all about it.

Transcript

We are in the middle of a world-changing war right now.

Oh, I don’t mean the war in Ukraine, the one that all the media are asking you to focus your attention on. Yes, that conflict continues to escalate, and every day there are new stories about provocations and threats that could lead to a nuclear exchange . . . but that’s not the war I’m referring to.

No, the war I’m talking about is an even broader war. A war that is taking place everywhere on the globe, even as I speak, and that involves virtually everyone on the planet, young and old, male and female, military and civilian. It is the war of every government against its own population and every international institution against free humanity.

This is no ordinary war, however. Most of the victims of this warfare aren’t even able to identify it as war, nor do they understand that they are combatants in it.

It’s called fifth-generation warfare, and I’m here to tell you all about it.

I am James Corbett of The Corbett Report and this is Your Guide to Fifth-Generation Warfare

What Is Fifth-Generation Warfare?

What is fifth-generation warfare, anyway? And, come to think of it, what were the first four generations of warfare?

Good questions. For an in-depth answer to the latter question, you’ll want to read “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation“—a 1989 article from the Marine Corps Gazette co-authored by William S. Lind—and you’ll want to watch “William S. Lind & Philip Giraldi – Fourth Generation Warfare & The Deep State.”

WILLIAM S. LIND: This city and every capital in the world is completely oblivious to the fact that it is caught up in a change in warfare so great that it not only makes our current defense and foreign policies obsolete, it essentially makes obsolete the whole framework within which we think about defense and foreign policy.

[. . .]

The change is what I call the rise of fourth generation war and this is specifically the fourth generation of modern war. [. . .] We now think of foreign affairs and defense within the framework of the nation-state. Armed forces are designed to fight other state armed forces. But that reality is changing.

[. . .]

What’s happening around the world today in more and more places is that state armed forces find them find themselves fighting not other state armed forces, but fourth-generation forces. Non-state forces.

SOURCE: The State and Modern War

In a nutshell, Lind et al.’s thesis is that the “modern age” of warfare began with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which, Lind opines, “gave the state a monopoly on war.” From that point on, modern warfare went through three generations, namely:

• First-generation warfare: the tactics of line and column, developed in the era of the smoothbore musket;
• Second-generation warfare: the tactics of indirect fire and mass movement, developed in the era of the rifled musket, breechloaders, barbed wire and the machine gun; and
• Third-generation warfare: the tactics of nonlinear movement, including maneuver and infiltration, developed in response to the increase in battlefield firepower in WWI.

This, according to Lind and his co-authors, brought us to the late-20th century, when the nation-state began to lose its monopoly on war and military combat returned to a decentralized form. In this era—the era of fourth-generation warfare—the line between “civilian” and “military” become blurred, armies tend to engage in counter-insurgency operations rather than military battles, and enemies are often motivated by ideology and religion, making psychological operations more important than ever.

But, some argue, we have now entered a new era of warfare, namely fifth-generation warfare.

There is still much debate about what defines fifth-generation warfare, how we know we’re engaged in it, or even if it exists at all (Lind, for one, rejects the concept). Various scholars have made their own attempts at defining fifth-generation warfare (5GW), like Dr. Waseem Ahmad Qureshi, who identifies it as “the battle of perceptions and information,” or Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui of the People’s Liberation Army, who write of the era of “Unrestricted Warfare” in which “a relative reduction in military violence” has led to “an increase in political, economic, and technological violence.”

If academic debates about the changing nature of warfare are your thing, then there’s plenty of reading for you to do on the subject, from The Handbook of 5GW: A Fifth Generation of War? to a slew of academic articles.

But for the purposes of this editorial, I’m not interested in that debate. In fact, we’re going to use a decidedly non-academic definition of fifth-generation warfare from an Al Jazeera article as our starting point: “The basic idea behind this term [5GW] is that in the modern era, wars are not fought by armies or guerrillas, but in the minds of common citizens.”

There are two important things to note about this definition. The first is that fifth-generation warfare is not waged against either standing armies of nation-states or guerrilla insurgents but against everyday citizens. The second is that this war is not being fought in a battlefield somewhere, but in the mind.

I will expand the definition somewhat to include the fact that this war is being waged at all levels, not just the mental. The gist of it is this: Fifth-generation warfare is an all-out war that is being waged against all of us by our governments and the international organizations to which they belong. It is being waged against each and every one of us right now, and it is a battle for full-spectrum dominance over every single aspect of your life: your movements and interactions, your transactions, even your innermost thoughts and feelings and desires. Governments the world over are working with corporations to leverage technology to control you down to the genomic level, and they will not stop until each and every person who resists them is subdued or eliminated.

The most incredible part of all of this is that so few know that the war is even taking place, let alone that they are a combatant in it.

The best way to understand this war is to look at some of the ways that it is being waged against us.

Information Warfare

Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but this is an infowar and the powers-that-shouldn’t-be are engaged in “a war for your mind.”

Of course, you have heard of “Infowars” if you’ve been in the alternative media space for any length of time. And for good reason: information warfare is an absolutely essential part of the war on everyone that defines fifth-generation warfare.

The most obvious way to understand this is to look at the actual military forces that are engaging in psychological operations against their own citizens.

DAN DICKS: It says here:

“A letter from the Nova Scotia government sent out to residents to warn about a pack of wolves on the loose in the province was forged by Canadian military personnel as part of a propaganda training mission that went off the rails.

“The letter told residents to be wary of wolves that had been reintroduced into the area by the provincial and federal governments and warned the animals were now roaming the Annapolis Valley. The letter, which later became public, sparked concern and questions among residents but was later branded as ‘fake’ by the Nova Scotia government which didn’t know the military was behind the deception.

“The training also involved using a loudspeaker to generate wolf sounds, the Canadian Forces confirmed to this newspaper.”

Guys, let that sink in for a second. They created a fake letter from the government, put it out there saying that there’s dangerous wolves, and they set up loud speakers in the area projecting out wolf noises!

This isn’t just research, you know. This isn’t just a training exercise. They’re actively engaging in this psychological operation to scare people using loudspeakers.

This is unbelievable.

SOURCE: Canadian Military Fake Wolves Fear Campaign Exposed! but You Won’T Believe What They Are Doing Next!

But it’s not just out-and-out military operations by soldiers dressed up in camo fatigues that are part of this fifth-generation infowar. In the war on everyone, the establishment uses every means at its disposal to manipulate the public’s perception.

Thus, Richard Stengel—the former editor of Time who bestowed Time‘s person of the year (dis)honour on You! back in 2006—is happy to chair a Council on Foreign Relations conversation in which he defends the US government’s use of propaganda against its own citizens.

RICHARD STENGEL: Basically, every country creates their own narrative story. And, you know, my old job at the State Department was what people used to joke as the chief propagandist job.

We haven’t talked about propaganda. I’m not against propaganda. Every country does it and they have to do it to their own population and I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.

SOURCE: Political Disruptions: Combating Disinformation and Fake News

Or take Hill & Knowlton—the PR firm hired by the Kuwaiti government to create the Nayirah deception in the First Gulf War . . .

“NAYIRAH”: They took the babies out of incubators  . . . They took the incubators and left the children to die on the cold floor.

SOURCE: Human Rights Violations in Kuwait

. . . who were retained by the WHO in 2020 to identify celebrity “influencers” who could be used to amplify the scamdemic messaging.

ANNOUNCER: The One World Together At Home event showcased a Who’s Who of top music stars and celebrities, who came together over the weekend for a special broadcast of music, comedy and personal messages, all in gratitude to those around the world on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic.

MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY: So what can we do? We’ve got to take care of our health workers and we’ve got to buy them time by taking care of ourselves.

ANNOUNCER: The event was led by the World Health Organization and the non-profit group, Global Citizen.

SOURCE: Celebrities Perform Virtual ‘One World’ Concert: ‘A Love Letter to the World’

Or take the UK government’s Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours, which outright admits that they use psychological techniques to manipulate the public into fearing the scamdemic, a move that some of the panel members called “totalitarian” . . . and no one bats an eyelid.

Perhaps the most insidious part of the fifth-generation infowar is that it has become so normalized that everyone knows it is happening, but no one thinks of it as warfare. Of course everything is “advertising” and “propaganda.” And of course it’s being used to manipulate our behaviour. That’s just how the world works, isn’t it?

But we ignore the real nature of the infowar at our own peril. After all, I have often observed that this is a war for your mind and that the most contested battlespace in the world is the space between your ears. You might have thought I meant that metaphorically, but actually I mean it quite literally. Which brings us to . . .

Neurological Warfare

If you listen to Dr. James Giordano speak without listening to what he’s saying, you get the impression he is merely an articulate, well-informed scientist who is passionate about his research. When you do listen to what he’s saying, however—or even just look at his PowerPoint slides, like the “NeuroS/T for NSID” slide—you realize that he is Dr. Strangelove. Or, if not Dr. Strangelove himself, then at least Dr. Strangelove’s spokesman.

But it’s not nuclear Armageddon that motivates Giordano, it’s what he calls “weapons of mass disruption”—the various technologies for neurological intervention that the US military and militaries around the world are developing.

These include (in Giordano’s well-rehearsed patter) the “drugs, bugs, toxins and devices” that can either enhance or disrupt the cognitive functions of their target, like the “high CNS aggregation” nanoparticulates that, according to Giordano, “clump in the brain or in the vasculature” and “create essentially what looks like a hemorrhagic diathesis.” As sci-fi as this sounds, he insists these nanoparticulates (and many, many other horrific neurological weapons) are already being worked on:

JAMES GIORDANO: The idea here is that I can get with something called high CNS aggregation material that is essentially invisible to the naked eye and even to most scanners because it is so small that it selectively goes through most levels of filter porosity. These are then inhaled—either through the nasal mucosa or absorbed through the oral mucosa. They have high CNS affinity. They clump in the brain or in the vasculature and they create essentially what looks like a hemorrhagic diathesis; in other words, a hemorrhage predisposition or a clot predisposition in the brain. What I’ve done is I’ve created a stroking agent, and it’s very, very difficult to gain attribution to do that.

I can use that on a variety of levels, from the individual to the group. Highly disruptive. And, in fact, this is one of the things that has been entertained and examined to some extent by my colleagues in NATO and to those who are working on the worst use of neurobiological sciences to create populational disruption. Very, very worried about the potential for these nanoparticulate agents to be CNS aggregating agents to cause neural disruption.

SOURCE: Brain Science from Bench to Battlefield: The Realities – and Risks – of Neuroweapons | CGSR Seminar

And just in case you didn’t get the point, you’ll notice he illustrates his slide with an image of a human brain in the crosshairs of one of these neurological weapons. There’s nothing hard to understand about the picture that is being painted here: we are at war with an enemy who is literally targeting our brains.

But yet again, it isn’t just the literal use of neurological weapons by conventional militaries in conventional warfare settings that we—the largely unwitting combatants of the fifth-generation war on everyone—have to worry about. As my listeners already know, avowed technocrat Elon Musk is trying to sell his Neuralink brain chip technology to the hipster crowd as a cool and sexy way to upgrade your cognition . . . or so that the coming AI godhead will have mercy on us. Or something like that. Anyway, you should totally stick the Neuralink in your head at your earliest opportunity! And definitely don’t ask any questions about why so many of the macaque monkeys and other test animals that Neuralink was using as test animals in their “brain-machine interface” experiment have dropped dead.

To anyone not yet a victim of the information warfare operation designed to prepare humanity for the coming transhuman dystopia, all of this sounds insane. But for those who have fallen for the infowars psyop of the enemy, these types of mind-altering technologies are exactly as advertised: exciting opportunities to “upgrade” the feeble biological wetware we call our brain.

But if you think you can avoid the biological aspect of the fifth-generation war by simply avoiding the brain chip, you’re out of luck. You’re also going to have to deal with . . .

Biological Warfare

The biowarfare narrative is, understandably, back at the forefront of the public consciousness in recent years, not just because of the scamdemic but also because of the questions being raised about the US-backed Ukrainian biolabs and whatever work they may or may not be doing on Russia’s doorstep.

This picture, for example, comes straight from Army.mil, which was only too happy to brag as recently as last July [2021] that US soldiers were conducting “hands-on training and field training exercises with Ukrainian troops in laboratory and field environments” that included ensuring the readiness of “deployable mobile laboratories.” Nothing to see here, folks. (Perhaps the only surprising thing about the article is that they haven’t scrubbed it from their website . . . yet.)

Yet, once again, if we are only thinking of biowarfare in conventional military terms, we neglect the much, much wider operation to manipulate, control and weaponize all aspects of our environment, our food supply and even our genome itself for the purposes of the ruling oligarchs. This fifth-generation biological warfare being waged against us includes:

• The mRNA and DNA and genetically-modified adenovirus vector “vaccines” that have been “normalized” over the past two years and which, as the miraculously “lucky” companies that bet it all on this technology like to brag, is re-programming the “software of life.”
• The genetically-modified organisms—both gmo crops and gmo animals—that are now being unleashed upon the world in an uncontrolled experiment that puts our health and the very future of the biosphere in jeopardy.
• The push toward synthetic, lab-based “food” that is being funded by the usual eugenicist billionaires and which threatens to sever humanity from the natural abundance of the earth, make us dependent on an increasingly shrinking number of companies for our food supply, and, ultimately, to drive us toward a Soylent Green-style future.

I’m sure you can fill in the blanks with myriad other examples of the attacks upon the world’s air, water and biome that constitute this unconstrained fifth-generation biological war being waged against us.

When and if you do put the pieces of this puzzle together and seek to warn people en masse that they are under attack, your ability to resist this agenda will be predicated on your ability to use your accumulated resources (your wealth) to foster communities of resistance. Don’t worry, though; the enemy has that domain covered, too. . . .

Economic Warfare

Given the events of recent weeks, even the sleepiest of the sleepy now realize that we are in a period of economic warfare.

This war, too, has its conventional aspects. On the 2D board, we’ve seen the NATO empire launch its Weapons of Financial Destruction at Russia in recent weeks, and, exactly as predicted, it has resulted in the consolidation of a convenient geopolitical bogeyman bloc and a gigantic loss of faith in the international monetary system itself. And, also as predicted, it has supplied the “Problem” and “Reaction” needed for the technocrats to present their pre-determined “Solution” of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Just ask Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock:

The war will prompt countries to re-evaluate their currency dependencies. Even before the war, several governments were looking to play a more active role in digital currencies and define the regulatory frameworks under which they operate.

This is not merely a battle between nation-states or even competing power blocs. This is a battle being waged by every authoritarian power structure and every government (but I repeat myself) against their own citizens for control of the most important resource of all: their wallets.

Yes, we are seeing the beginning of a truly world-historic moment: the collapse of Pax Americana, the death of the dollar reserve system, and the beginning of an entirely new monetary paradigm, the “Central Bank Digital Currency” system of programmable money that will be able to algorithmically control when, how and if you are allowed to transact in the economy at all. We only have to look to recent events in Canada to understand what this will look like.

This perfect control of humanity down to the level of being able to witness and, ultimately, to allow or disallow any transaction between any individuals at any time, represents the apotheosis of technocracy and one of the key objectives of the fifth-generation war itself. As this nightmare comes closer and closer to reality, all seems hopeless.

But then again, that’s exactly the point. . . .

The Real War

I could go on. And on and on and on. But hopefully you get the point by now: There is a world war happening right now. It is a fifth-generation war (or whatever you want to call it). It is being waged across every domain simultaneously. It is a war for full-spectrum dominance of every battlefield and every terrain, from the farthest reaches of the globe (and beyond) to the inner spaces of your body and even to your innermost thoughts. And it is a war on you.

Recognizing this, the task we face seems nearly insurmountable. How are we to fight back in a war that the majority of people don’t even recognize is taking place? How do we fight back against an enemy that has spent decades refining its weapons of economic and military and technological and biological control? How do we fight back in a war that is not taking place on two fronts or even three fronts, but in every domain and battlespace simultaneously?

Framed like this, our prospects do indeed appear hopeless. But therein lies the key: our perception that it is our duty to “fight back” against the enemy in their war on their battlefield on their terms of engagement is itself a narrative frame. And that narrative itself is a weapon that is being wielded against us in the battle for our minds.

You’ll allow me space here to quote myself at length because this is a point I have made many times before, perhaps most notably in my conversation on “The Anatomy of the New World Order” that I had with Julian Charles on The Mind Renewed podcast ten years ago:

I’m intrigued by the idea that we’ve been given false templates to follow in terms of solving our problems—one being to “fight our enemies”—templates provided for us through so much social conditioning and the media. Here, the idea is that we must find the heart or the head of the organization and somehow kill that person or that group, or whatever it is; eliminate that, and everything will magically turn to the better!

Thinking in broad terms, that false template appears in virtually every science fiction dystopia you’ve ever seen: if it turns out well in the end, it’s only because they have managed to decapitate the Head of the Beast, whether it be The Lord of the Rings or Tron, or any such movie. I think that’s fundamentally and completely the wrong way to look at it, because at the end of the day the particular individuals who may or may not be holding the ‘Ring of Power’ are replaceable. Indeed, there are very many people who would be chomping at the bit to get into that position of power should that old guard be swept away for whatever reason.

I think what’s needed is a more fundamental revolution: not of overthrowing a specific instantiation of this idea, but of overthrowing the idea altogether. And that can only come, I think, from building up an alternative system to which people actually want to apply themselves. I think we have to detach ourselves from this system that we’ve been woven into. Unfortunately that’s probably as difficult to do as that analogy would make it sound, because we are so woven into the fabric of society that it’s difficult to imagine extricating ourselves from all these processes.

We rely for so many of our daily needs on this vast, unwieldy corporate system that ties into these very organizations that pull the strings of governmental institutions, that it can seem quite overwhelming. How can a single individual affect this? But I think we have to look for any and every possible point at which we can start to detach ourselves from those systems of control, and to start to reassert some kind of independence. That can be an extremely small thing like, just for example: instead of buying groceries at the grocery store, perhaps buy them at a farmers’ market, or at least some of your groceries. Or perhaps you could grow them yourself in a vegetable garden. Something of that sort is a tiny thing on the individual level, but I think it’s the only thing in the long run that can lead to the type of society we want to bring to fruition. Again, I think it’s small things like that, if we start to apply ourselves with diligence and perseverance, that will eventually be able to overthrow this. But, unfortunately, as I say, we are on the cusp of this scientific revolution which makes scientific dictatorship possible, so unfortunately we don’t necessarily have generations of time. That gives a time perspective to all this—I won’t say it’s a time bomb—but you get the idea. We don’t have a lot of time to waste.

We have a choice. Either we continue going into this technological, corporate matrix—which involves even things like buying the next generation of iPhone, which they’re already saying is going to have its own fingerprint scanning technology, and all of these corporate, military, Big Brother elements to it that we’re willingly signing up to every day of our lives, and actually paying money for—or we start to create alternative structures which don’t rely on that system. It’s a choice that we have to make in our lives, I would say more quickly than has been apparent at any other time in human history.

My regular viewers will understand what I am proposing here: the creation of a parallel society. We will not achieve this by asking for more scraps from the master’s table, or by gently complying as we are herded into ever more constrictive technological pens, or by thinking that we can win this war by engaging the enemy in their controlled domain. We can only achieve this by creating our own table, our own economy and our own communities of interest. This will require the long and difficult task of increasing our independence from the authoritarian systems in every domain: the information domain, the food domain, the health domain, the monetary domain, the mental domain and every other contested battlespace in this all-out, fifth-generation war.

Easier said than done, of course. But there is no alternative.

Some will say “But won’t they come after that parallel society?” as if that is a rebuttal to what I have laid out here. The point is that you are already the target of the enemy in a war that most people but dimly understand is happening. Yes, the enemy will come after you. But they are already dominating you in more ways than any one person can fully understand. That does not stop just because you comply with their demands or take part in their system.

We must stop playing their game. We must stop fighting their war. We must stop ceding our power, our authority, our time, our attention, our energy and our resources to engaging the enemy in their terms in their battlefield.

We must create our own parallel society on our own terms.

And so we rediscover an old piece of wisdom. To paraphrase: “Fifth-generation warfare is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

War is over . . . if we want it.

*

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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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.

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.

***

I am accustomed to opening the New York Times and The Washington Post to find laundry list articles relating to what the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has reportedly been up to. That many of the evidence free allegations are implausible or even quite contrary to known facts about international political developments does not seem to matter as using the initials CIA appears to be enough to make one’s case that there is something either unseemly or even evil going on. And it serves as a convenient scapegoat for the liberal media – “It wasn’t Joe Biden who dunnit, it was the CIA!”

Over the Labor Day weekend I attended an antiwar conference which included remarks by some speakers who proceeded to run through a whole litany of claimed CIA crimes against humanity. It struck me at the time that they did not always know what they were talking about and I began to think about my own 21 year-long involvement with the National Security Community and, more particularly, to what extent that CIA and to a lesser extent military intelligence were quite the out-of-control demons that they have been made out to be.

Indeed, among my generation’s Agency officers who are by now retired, most I know are antiwar, as am I, though those younger officers whom I encounter on occasion that are actively serving generally are more careful about expressing their views or are outspokenly anti-Russian, which is presumably what how current CIA leadership wants them to deport themselves in public.

I spent 18 years in CIA nearly all overseas where I worked almost exclusively on counter-terrorism against groups that were initially nearly all European, starting with the Italian Red Brigades in 1976 and ending up with the Basque and Catalan separatists in Spain in 1992.

I had also served 3 years in army intelligence during Vietnam and in both of those roles, contrary to what the media regularly suggests, I never killed anyone or coerced anyone and never carried a gun, not even in Afghanistan. Nor did I know of any Agency colleagues who had done so. To be sure there were CIA torture prisons in Thailand and Poland in the wake of 9/11, but they were in response to White House mandates and were small scale and moderate compared with what went on in military prisons like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

And when the US government decided to start assassinating US citizens and “profiled” foreigners overseas using drones in 2010 it was done on the authority of President Barack Obama, not as part of operations conducted by the CIA.

Image: Augusto Pinochet and Henry Kissinger  (Photo credit: Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile / Wikimedia (CC BY 2.0 CL))

I only knew one CIA officer who was behind overthrowing a government, in Chile in 1973, colluding with the Chilean military to remove elected President Salvador Allende and replace him with General Augusto Pinochet.

The Santiago Chief of Station’s famous cable to a reluctant Agency HQs to participate in the operation asked “Is headquarters under control of the enemy?” which became a part of CIA lore, repeated and laughed over by entering training classes. Nevertheless, if one revisits what happened with Allende the conclusion that the White House and State Department were equally engaged in the driving of the operation and certainly had given the green light to what followed.

Before that time, one might also recall John F Kennedy’s assessment of what was quite possibly the Agency’s most egregious blunder, the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961. Kennedy stated his intention to break the CIA into 1000 pieces after the intelligence disaster, which led to the firing of its first civilian director Allen Dulles. Kennedy never quite completed the demolition job but was assassinated two years later with some investigators inevitably suggesting that CIA was involved in his death.

The congressional commission of Frank Church in 1975-6 exposed Agency engagement in multiple illegal activities, including assassination plots and domestic surveillance of Americans opposed to the Vietnam War.

There was the Famous Fidel Castro poisoned cigar plot meant to kill him and the assassination of heads of state in Africa, Asia and Latin America. CIA had also tested large doses of LSD on unwitting subjects. It is hard to recall any other moment in American history when so much horrifying skulduggery was revealed.

A consensus on reforms and oversight after Church documented his findings led Congress to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, which for the first time imposed some limits on the government’s ability to spy on American citizens. It ended the wild days and restricted any operations inside the US. CIA is also regularly accused of leaking or controlling the message coming from the US media, but the reality is that leaks to influence the media and public generally come from the White House or State Department.

My college education was at the University of Chicago, majoring in ancient and medieval history – the university was at that time the intellectual breeding ground of the neocon movement headed by Professor Leo Strauss but students were antiwar and famously occupied the university admin building in 1968 as a protest against Vietnam. I became subject to the army draft immediately upon graduation but I signed up for an extra year for the military occupation specialty (MOS) in intelligence. I went to the training school at Ft Holabird Baltimore, now closed. I was sent to West Berlin due to my one year of Russian study in college, a rare example of the Army actually doing something in personnel assignments that made sense – my classmates mostly went to Vietnam where some were killed while serving in the 521st Military Intelligence Brigade. My army unit from Berlin continues to stay in touch and has held reunions.

I obtained a PhD in European history, was hired by a CIA recruiter at a historians’ conference in New York City in 1975 and served in Rome, Hamburg, as an instructor at the Agency training center in Virginia, Istanbul, Barcelona, and Afghanistan, with language courses in between tours.

But it was during my Army service that I first learned about corruption and lying in government. West Berlin’s detachment of the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade was a 75 officers and enlisted men unit, of which I was the operations sergeant. We were supposed to be able to provide warning of a Soviet attack and were tasked with being able to establish stay-behind reporting if such an attack were to take place, but we were, in fact, unable to do any of that. Instead, we routinely inflated monthly reports using misleading statistics to show how active and “ready” we were. I almost went to my congressman afterwards to tell him what a fraud it all was, but did not want to interfere with my impending grad school using the GI bill, so I kept silent.

After grad school my next stop was at CIA. The Agency was during my time 20,000 strong, divided into operations (spying), analysis, admin and various special staffs focused on issues like drugs, arms control, nuclear proliferation. There is also a paramilitary branch staffed mostly by former military special forces. 

In my experience, most mid-level employees were honest and hard working. Most lived in Washington, with 2,000 or so overseas. Those at the top became, however, increasingly political and were frequently not trained intelligence officers.

Only one director since Bill Casey, former OSS, under Ronald Reagan, has been a career intelligence officer, and that was Gina Haspel in 2018-2021. Instead, they have been selected for political reasons and drawn from the ranks of ex-military like Turner, Woolsey, Petraeus and Pompeo, from retired politicians, or even from a congressional staffer like George Tenet. Currently William Burns, is a former diplomat.

As a little background, CIA was founded in 1947 through the National Security Act to correct failure to connect all the intelligence dots that preceded Pearl Harbor even though the US had broken the Japanese naval communications codes and had all the information needed to anticipate what was about to occur.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that there was still failure to connect some of the dots preceding 9/11 – Coleen Rowley, an FBI agent in Minnesota, among others, was sounding the alarm about some specific Saudis who were learning to fly large commercial airliners and might be planning a hijacking. Richard Clarke, the controversial National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism working for the National Security Council and at the White House, was alarmed, running around with his “hair on fire” as he put it, but could not penetrate the layers of bureaucracy that surrounded George W. Bush to warn about the threat and initiate additional security measures.

The problem with US national security is that there are too many players in the game. My personal experience example of the multiple levels operating within the intelligence community comes from Iran-contra in 1986, secretly and illegally trading arms for money to go to contra-Sandinistas in Nicaragua and to free hostages in Lebanon.

Iran Contra was run by the White House’s National Security Council and it was organized by Ollie North.

Flights by private jets for Revolutionary Guard commanders were routed through Istanbul, where I was based, and I received a secret message to make the arrangements at the airport, which I did even though it was not a CIA operation. Planes carried cash to Washington, weapons were shipped, and the money generated was routed to the Sandinista rebels to fund the mining of Nicaraguan harbors by the Pentagon, which was also illegal.

In fact, it is often noted that what used to be done by the CIA is now done by other federal agencies, often right out in the open. Recent examples of regime change are the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and State Department in Ukraine, State Department in Iraq, Pentagon in Syria, not CIA, and the war-crime destruction of the Nordstream pipeline was done quite probably by the US Navy after warnings by the president and secretary of state while the [alleged] assassination of Prigozhin in Russia was probably accomplished by British MI-6.

The recent ousting of Pakistani President Imran Khan was clearly a project of the White House and Pentagon and the increasing pressure on Hungary’s Viktor Orban derives from the State Department and president. The fact is that traditional espionage related “covert action” is now implemented by many components of the United States government and its foreign allies, so bleating “CIA, CIA” no longer enlightening.

So where is it all going? Most former intelligence agency employees now believe that the national security system has become so politicized that it is nearly dysfunctional, telling policymakers what they want to hear instead of what they need to know. There have been reports that frustrated CIA and Defense Department analysts have been warning that Ukraine cannot win the war against Russia but the senior managers of those organizations as well as policymakers do not want to hear what hard working analysts have concluded.

The creation of the office of the Director of National Intelligence, currently held by Avril Haines, was intended to serve as a focal point for providing policy makers with the best information from all of the US government’s eighteen intelligence agencies, but it has not really worked well in practice.

The various agencies all have established constituencies and agendas that seldom fit snugly together, suggesting that the motive to create CIA in the first place, i.e. to make sure critical intelligence reaches those who “need to know” in a timely fashion, might be unattainable. To be sure, the multiple intelligence failures surrounding Afghanistan, Iraq and now Ukraine are hard to ignore.

*

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.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TRPIPP