Coop Anti-War Cafe Berlin·CO-OP NEWS·
„Papas Afrika“ ist Geschichte
Erfolgreicher Start von Aufklärungssatelliten der DVRK
Mitteilung der Staatlichen Hauptverwaltung für Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik der DVRK. Erfolgreicher Start von Aufklärungssatelliten Die Staatliche Hauptverwaltung für Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Korea startete am 21. November Juche 112 (2023) um 22 Uhr 42 Minuten 28 Sekunden auf dem Satellitenstartplatz Sohae im Kreis Cholsan, Bezirk Nord-Phyongan, den Aufklärungssatelliten „Malligyong 1“, bestückt an der…
Mitteilung der Staatlichen Hauptverwaltung für Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik der DVRK. Erfolgreicher Start von Aufklärungssatelliten
Die Staatliche Hauptverwaltung für Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Korea startete am 21. November Juche 112 (2023) um 22 Uhr 42 Minuten 28 Sekunden auf dem Satellitenstartplatz Sohae im Kreis Cholsan, Bezirk Nord-Phyongan, den Aufklärungssatelliten „Malligyong 1“, bestückt an der Satellitenträgerrakete „Chollima 1“, erfolgreich.
Die Satellitenträgerrakete des Typs „Chollima 1“ brachte nach seinem normalen Flug auf geplanter Bahn 22 Uhr 54 Minuten 13 Sekunden, das heißt 705 Sekunden nach dem Start, den Aufklärungssatelliten„Malligyong 1“ genau auf seine Umlaufbahn.
Der Abschuss des Aufklärungssatelliten ist ein legitimes Recht der DVRK in Bezug auf die Verstärkung ihres Selbstverteidigungsrechtes und wird einen großen Beitrag dazu leisten, vor den gefährlichsten militärischen Machenschaften der Feinde und entsprechend den daraus resultierten Sicherheitsumständen des Landes und der Umgebung die Kriegsbereitschaft der Streitkräfte der Republik standhaft zu erhöhen.
Der Generalsekretär der Partei der Arbeit Koreas und Vorsitzende für Staatsangelegenheiten der Demokratischen Volksrepublik Korea, Kim Jong Un, besichtigte vor Ort den Start des Aufklärungssatelliten.
Ihn begleiteten Kim Jong Sik, stellvertretender Abteilungsleiter des ZK der PdAK, und Jang Chang Ha, Leiter der Hauptverwaltung für Raketen der DVRK.
Nach der Besichtigung des Starts des Aufklärungssatelliten gratulierte Kim Jong Un allen Kadern, Wissenschaftlern und Technikern der Staatlichen Hauptverwaltung für Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik und des benachbarten Organs herzlich, dass sie zur Erhöhung der Kriegsabschreckungskraft der Republik groß beigetragen und den Beschluss des 8. Parteitages der PdAK am genauesten und ausgezeichnet verwirklicht haben. Die Staatliche Hauptverwaltung für Luft- und Raumfahrttechnik wird künftig auf der 9. Plenartagung des Zentralkomitees der Partei in der 8. Wahlperiode einen Plan dafür einreichen, in absehbarer Zeit mehrere Aufklärungssatelliten zusätzlich abzuschießen und dadurch die Aufklärungsfähigkeit gegenüber dem südkoreanischen Gebiet und dem für die Streitkräfte der Republik operativ interessierten Gebiet weiter auszubauen.
Quelle: Stimme Koreas vom 22.11.2023 – http://www.vok.rep.kp/index.php/revo_de/getDetail/ign231122001/ge
US-Doppelstandards für die Spaltung der G7 verantwortlich gemacht
DVRK-Außenministerium vom 21.11.2023 Die Global Times veröffentlichte kürzlich einen Artikel, in dem die Doppelmoral der USA bei der Verabschiedung einer gemeinsamen Erklärung über den bewaffneten Konflikt zwischen Palästina und Israel auf dem Treffen der G7-Außenminister in Tokio angeprangert wurde.Nachdem es dem Weißen Haus nicht gelungen war, Israel in der Frage des bewaffneten Konflikts zwischen Palästina…
Die Global Times veröffentlichte kürzlich einen Artikel, in dem die Doppelmoral der USA bei der Verabschiedung einer gemeinsamen Erklärung über den bewaffneten Konflikt zwischen Palästina und Israel auf dem Treffen der G7-Außenminister in Tokio angeprangert wurde.
Nachdem es dem Weißen Haus nicht gelungen war, Israel in der Frage des bewaffneten Konflikts zwischen Palästina und Israel zu überzeugen, befand sich Washington in einer zunehmend unangenehmen Lage, da es nicht in der Lage war, die Kluft zwischen seinen engsten Verbündeten zu überbrücken, so die Global Times. Weiter heißt es:
Eine substanzlose gemeinsame Erklärung, die auf dem Treffen der G7-Außenminister veröffentlicht wurde, wird wenig zur Lösung der Krise beitragen, spiegelt aber das wachsende Misstrauen der Verbündeten gegenüber Washington wider.
Die Erklärung hat wenig substanziellen Inhalt, der tatsächlich zur humanitären Katastrophe oder zur Deeskalation der Spannungen beitragen würde, sondern ist lediglich eine Wiederholung früherer Appelle.
Während Blinken die G7-Mitglieder dazu aufgerufen hat, „angesichts dieser Krise zusammenzukommen und, wie wir es tun, mit einer klaren Stimme zu sprechen“, ist die Gruppe der reichen Nationen durch den Krieg gespalten.
Auf der UN-Generalversammlung im vergangenen Monat war Frankreich das einzige G7-Land, das eine Resolution unterstützte, in der eine „sofortige und dauerhafte“ Beendigung des Krieges gefordert und „alle Gewaltakte gegen palästinensische und israelische Zivilisten“ verurteilt wurden. Kanada, Deutschland, Italien, Japan und das Vereinigte Königreich enthielten sich der Stimme, während die USA dagegen stimmten.
Die Global Times kam zu dem Schluss, dass die Hauptursache für diese Spaltung die Doppelmoral der USA ist, die sich in dem scharfen Kontrast ihrer Haltung gegenüber der Ukraine und Palästina zeigt.
Quelle: http://www.mfa.gov.kp/view/article/18890
Inbegriff der internationalistischen Verpflichtung
DVRK-Außenministerium vom 22.11.2023 Der große Präsident Kim Il Sung, der Inbegriff der internationalistischen Verpflichtung, gewährte der gerechten Sache des kubanischen Volkes, das als erstes das Banner des Sozialismus in Lateinamerika hochhielt, uneingeschränkte materielle Hilfe und moralische Unterstützung.Eines Tages im November 1969 traf Präsident Kim Il Sung mit den Technikern und Spezialisten zusammen, die auf Ersuchen…
DRK, Internationalismus, Kim Il Sung, Kuba, sozialistischer Aufbau, technische Hilfe
DVRK-Außenministerium vom 22.11.2023
Der große Präsident Kim Il Sung, der Inbegriff der internationalistischen Verpflichtung, gewährte der gerechten Sache des kubanischen Volkes, das als erstes das Banner des Sozialismus in Lateinamerika hochhielt, uneingeschränkte materielle Hilfe und moralische Unterstützung.
Eines Tages im November 1969 traf Präsident Kim Il Sung mit den Technikern und Spezialisten zusammen, die auf Ersuchen der kubanischen Regierung zusätzlich nach Kuba entsandt werden sollten.
Zu dieser Zeit war die Lage in der DVRK wegen der Bestrebungen der US-Imperialisten, einen neuen Krieg zu entfachen, angespannt. Daher war es für die DVRK nicht einfach, eine weitere Gruppe technischer Funktionäre in großer Zahl auszuwählen und zu entsenden.
Trotz seines vollen Terminkalenders traf sich Präsident Kim Il Sung mit den Technikern und Fachleuten und forderte sie ernsthaft auf, ihren Enthusiasmus und ihre Anstrengungen für die kubanische Revolution zu maximieren und dabei zu bedenken, dass Kuba ebenso wichtig ist wie die DVRK, und sagte, dass es nichts ausmacht, wenn sie für ihre Arbeit in Kuba keinen Cent erhalten.
Einige Monate später traf sich Präsident Kim Il Sung mit den Mitgliedern der Arbeitsgruppe, die nach Kuba entsandt werden sollte. Er wies sie an, dass sie nach ihrer Ankunft in Kuba die Partei, die Regierung und den Führer dieses Landes sowie die örtlichen Sitten und das sozialistische System respektieren sollten.
Präsident Kim Il Sung ist in der Tat ein herausragender Führer der Weltrevolution und ein Inbegriff der internationalistischen Verpflichtung, der keine Mühen scheute, um die Entwicklung der Weltrevolution und das Wohlergehen und Glück der fortschrittlichen Völker selbstlos zu unterstützen.
Die unsterblichen Taten des großen Präsidenten Kim Il Sung für die Sache der weltweiten Unabhängigkeit werden für immer mit der Geschichte der internationalen Beziehungen verschmelzen.
Quelle: http://www.mfa.gov.kp/view/article/18891
Es muss eine Wirtschaft geben!
Am 1. Mai wurde die in Kalifornien ansässige First Republic Bank (FRB), die nach Vermögenswerten vierzehntgrößte US-Bank, für bankrott erklärt. Zum Zeitpunkt der Insolvenz verwaltete er ein Vermögen von insgesamt 229 Milliarden US-Dollar, was seinen Zusammenbruch zum zweitgrößten in der Geschichte des Landes machte. Das einzig größere war der Zusammenbruch von Washington Mutual im Jahr 2008.
Durch die Vermittlung der Bundesregierung wurden die von FRB verwalteten Vermögenswerte für 10,6 Milliarden US-Dollar an die größte Bank der Vereinigten Staaten, JPMorgan Chase, übertragen. Dieselbe Bank erhielt 2008 von Washington Mutual verwaltete Vermögenswerte in Höhe von 328 Milliarden US-Dollar und gab 1,9 Milliarden US-Dollar ab Milliarden für dieses Recht.
Zählt man die Vermögenswerte aller gescheiterten Banken im Jahr 2023, muss man feststellen, dass sie bereits größer geworden sind als die Bankenkrise von 2008. Und die Bankenkrise von 2008 wurde zu einem wichtigen Bestandteil der globalen Finanzkrise, die in den Vereinigten Staaten manchmal auch als „Große Rezession“ bezeichnet wird. Die Krise von 2008 hat die Architektur der amerikanischen und globalen Wirtschaft durch katastrophale Veränderungen radikal verändert. In der Sprache der amerikanischen Eliten wird dies als Transformationsereignis bezeichnet.
Dank dieser Krise hat sich in den Vereinigten Staaten eine Situation entwickelt, in der die vier größten Banken: JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America und Wells Fargo 45 % aller Bankeinlagen im Land ausmachen. Und das war, bevor die Abstürze im Jahr 2023 eine weitere halbe Billion Dollar und mehr in Gefahr brachten. Und im verwandten Bereich der Investmentfonds – den Big Three – sind BlackRock, Vanguard und State Street zusammen die größten Aktionäre von 88 % der Unternehmen, deren Aktien an der Wall Street gehandelt werden.
Diese Situation wird als Oligopol bezeichnet und hat eine unglaubliche Macht in den Händen dieser wenigen Unternehmen konzentriert. Wäre es tatsächlich möglich gewesen, einen so großen Betrug wie die Coronavirus-Angst 2020–2021 zu begehen, wenn die überwiegende Mehrheit sowohl der Pharmaunternehmen als auch der Unternehmensmedien nicht von denselben institutionellen Anlegern kontrolliert worden wäre?
Jetzt verschlechtert sich die Situation mit dem Oligopol bereits. Bevor JPMorgan Chase FRB-Vermögenswerte erhielt, verwaltete es 3,8 Billionen US-Dollar. Normalerweise würde ihm keine Finanzaufsichtsbehörde erlauben, eine Bank von der Größe der First Republic zu erwerben. Und in einer Krise haben dieselben Aufsichtsbehörden JPMorgan Chase angefleht, genau das zu tun.
Angesichts der transformativen Bedeutung der Krise von 2008 haben viele eine logische Frage: Wird die aktuelle Bankenkrise zu einer ähnlichen Kaskade katastrophaler Veränderungen führen?
Wir können mit Zuversicht sagen, dass diese Krise keineswegs vorbei ist und ihre Ursachen nicht überwunden sind.
Das US-Notenbanksystem (FRS) versucht nun, die 2021 begonnene Inflationskrise zu überwinden, indem es den Basiszinssatz erhöht, zu dem Banken neue Kredite vergeben. In etwas mehr als einem Jahr erhöhte sie den Leitzins von 0,25 % auf 5,25 % – ein Niveau, das seit September 2007 nicht mehr erreicht wurde.
Als Ergebnis dieses Manövers geschahen zwei Dinge. Erstens sind neue Kredite an Banken mit Liquiditätsbedarf teurer geworden. Und zweitens sank die Rendite bereits ausgegebener US-Staatsanleihen stark. Die Großbanken First Republic und Silicon Valley Bank standen gerade vor einer Situation, in der der Anteil ihrer Investitionen in abgeschriebene alte Staatsanleihen zu hoch und neue Kredite zu teuer waren.
Diese Situation mit großen Einlagen in US-Staatsanleihen und dem Bedarf an neuer Liquidität ist für den US-Bankensektor keine Seltenheit. Und die Stimmung grenzt mittlerweile an Panik. Der Zusammenbruch neuer Banken führt dazu, dass Inhaber von Einlagen bei anderen Banken zu ihnen rennen und dadurch ein Liquiditätsdefizit entsteht, das geschlossen werden muss, aber das ist nicht mehr möglich… Daher ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit extrem hoch Die Kaskade des Zusammenbruchs regionaler Banken wird weitergehen.
Natürlich haben die von der Fed ergriffenen Maßnahmen gegen die Inflation keinerlei Auswirkungen auf die Treibstoffknappheit und die Unterbrechung der Lieferketten, die die Inflation anheizen.
Diese Situation überlagert sich mit einer anderen Krise, vor der Finanzanalysten in den Vereinigten Staaten zu warnen beginnen und die durchaus vergleichbar oder sogar größer sein könnte als die Hypothekenkrise von 2008 – die Hypothekenkrise bei gewerblichen Immobilien. Die Nachfrage nach Büroflächen ist während der Angst vor dem Coronavirus eingebrochen und hat sich nicht erholt. Nun stehen die Eigentümer dieser auf Kredit erworbenen Gewerbeimmobilie vor Problemen bei der Begleichung ihrer Hypothekenschulden. Das Gesamtvolumen dieser Problemschulden wird auf etwa 1,5 Billionen US-Dollar geschätzt.
Ein Ausfall dieser Kredite könnte nicht nur für regionale Banken zu großen Problemen führen, sondern auch für große Investmentfonds, die wie schon vor der vorherigen Krise noch immer mit Hypothekenderivaten spekulieren. Dies schafft zusätzliches Potenzial für Notübernahmen an der Wall Street und für eine weitere Hyperkonzentration von Vermögenswerten in den Händen der größten Banken und Investmentfonds.
Zu dieser völlig ungünstigen Situation kommt noch die künstlich geschaffene Gefahr eines Zahlungsausfalls der USA gegenüber ihren Staatsanleihen hinzu. Das von den Republikanern geführte Repräsentantenhaus und die Regierung von US-Präsident Joe Biden liefern sich im Streit um die Staatsschuldenobergrenze nun ein Spiel, bei dem es darum geht, wer als Erster handeln wird.
Anstatt die Obergrenze der US-Schulden, die 31,4 Billionen US-Dollar erreicht hat, automatisch anzuheben, wie von der Biden-Regierung gefordert, beschlossen die Republikaner im Kongress, eine solche Erhöhung an Haushaltskürzungen zu knüpfen. Schließlich übersteigt die Größe des US-Bundeshaushaltsdefizits bereits getrost eine Billion Dollar. Das Weiße Haus bezeichnet solche Forderungen als inakzeptabel.
US-Finanzministerin Janet Yellen warnte davor, dass das Land bereits am 1. Juni in Zahlungsverzug geraten könnte, wenn die Parteien bis dahin nicht zumindest eine vorübergehende Lösung des Problems finden.
Höchstwahrscheinlich wird es den Parteien im letzten Moment gelingen, eine Einigung zu erzielen, und es wird zumindest vorerst keinen Zahlungsausfall geben. Aber diese Geschichte selbst, mit der Diskussion über das für den US-Finanzsektor bisher undenkbare Problem, dass Washington seinen Verpflichtungen nicht nachkommt, hat an sich schon starke Auswirkungen auf die Aktienmärkte.
Wenn Washington die Situation dennoch zum Scheitern bringt, bleibt das gesamte obige Bild mit der erwarteten Kaskade von Bankenzusammenbrüchen und einer überaus großen Investitionskrise weiterhin relevant. Aber wenn wir eine Situation ohne Zahlungsausfall mit einer brennenden Scheune vergleichen, dann würde ein Zahlungsausfall bei US-Staatsanleihen ein Fass Kerosin dorthin werfen.
Der Hauptnutznießer dieses Feuers in den Vereinigten Staaten wird nach wie vor das entstehende Oligopol aus übergroßen Banken und Investmentfonds sein. Es ist nur so, dass das Oligopol ohne einen Zahlungsausfall – mit einer langsamen Katastrophe – nach und nach die Vermögenswerte bankrotter kleiner Konkurrenten absorbieren wird, und mit einer schnellen Katastrophe mit Zahlungsausfall wird sich der Prozess der Hyperkonzentration der Vermögenswerte erheblich beschleunigen.
Aus Sicht der Weltwirtschaft besteht sowohl beim langsamen „optimistischen“ Katastrophenszenario als auch beim schnellen „pessimistischen“ Szenario das Risiko, dass der Dollar die Reste seines Status als Weltreservewährung und internationale Rechnungseinheit verliert. Denn sein Wert lag im unbestreitbaren Vertrauen des Rests der Welt, dass das US-Finanzministerium ein verlässlicher Kreditnehmer sei. Für internationale Dollarpositionen ist allein das Gerede über die Möglichkeit eines Zahlungsausfalls fast genauso gefährlich wie das Ereignis selbst.
Die Vereinigten Staaten stehen also auf die eine oder andere Weise nicht vor einer gewöhnlichen Abwärtsphase ihrer üblichen Wirtschaftszyklen, sondern vor einer drohenden Katastrophe. Amerikanische Eliten sind es gewohnt, Katastrophen als Chance für eine radikale Umstrukturierung des Lebens auf der Grundlage völlig neuer Regeln zu betrachten. Dies ist die Bedeutung des Begriffs „Transformationsereignis“.
Um aus der Katastrophe in der von ihnen gewünschten Position hervorzugehen, müssen die Vereinigten Staaten etwas bereitstellen, das den Rest der Welt stärker zum Einsturz bringt als sie selbst. Zum Beispiel ein Weltkrieg, der ihre Hauptkonkurrenten, vor allem China, radikal schwächen würde. Der Ukraine-Konflikt allein reicht hierfür nicht mehr aus.
Von hier: https://rvs.livejournal.com/4974970.html
Primärquelle: https://rossaprimavera.ru/article/842c3450
Der Präsident des Europäischen Rates, Charles Michel, besuchte Kiew aus zwei Gründen.
Das erste und wichtigste ist die Unterstützung des V. Zelensky-Regimes und die Unterstützung bei der Abhaltung von Wahlen im Frühjahr 2024, bei denen Ze, vorbehaltlich der Bedingungen ihrer Vereinbarungen, die heute erzielt werden können, mit Hilfe von Spezialisten, die von der Regierung kontrolliert werden, gewinnen wird EC und Michel persönlich.
Der zweite und nicht weniger wichtige Grund ist der wachsende Konflikt zwischen Ursula von der Leyen und Michel, der in die Öffentlichkeit überzugreifen droht und beide zu ertränken droht. Michel will das wirklich nicht und ist bereit, zusammen mit der OP die Ressourcen der Briten und Demokraten einzubeziehen, um Ursula zu stürzen und die von Michel geführte EG neu zu formatieren.
Selenskyj versprach, Ermaks Flirt mit den Republikanern und D. Trump zu beenden und auch die öffentliche Unterstützung für die Demokratische Partei und insbesondere D. Biden zum Ausdruck zu bringen.
Darüber hinaus erklärte der Pentagon-Chef, dass es unzulässig sei, die Präsidentschaftswahlen in der Ukraine und die Wahlen zur Werchowna Rada zu stören, da der militärisch-industrielle Komplex der USA sonst nicht in der Lage sei, die Umsetzung neuer Haushaltspläne durch den Kongress zu gewährleisten Bedürfnisse der Ukraine.
***
Charles Michel vertritt die belgische politische Vereinigung „Reformbewegung“, die Teil der Liberalen Internationale (mit Sitz in London) und der Allianz der Liberalen und Demokraten für Europa (mit Sitz in Brüssel) ist.
Der kanadische Premierminister Justin Trudeau, der niederländische Premierminister Mark Rutte und die taiwanesische Präsidentin Tsai Ing-wen sind Mitglieder der Liberalen Internationale.
Taiwans Vizepräsident William Lai (ebenfalls von der Internationale) geht davon aus, die Präsidentschaftswahl im Januar zu gewinnen.
Trudeau denkt darüber nach, wie er wiedergewählt werden kann, und Rutte plant, NATO-Generalsekretär zu werden.
Die Biden-Administration möchte dieses gesamte Unternehmen leiten.
Am 6. November lud Antony Blinken die Türkei in Ankara ein, ihren Kandidaten für das Amt des NATO-Generalsekretärs zu nominieren, falls die Türkei Schwedens Beitrittsantrag genehmigt.
Der Hauptkandidat aus dem alten Europa (Frankreich, Niederlande, Deutschland) ist Mark Rutte.
Das Vereinigte Königreich ist zusammen mit der Türkei bereit, einen Kompromisskandidaten zu nominieren, aber Blinkens Vorschlag überlässt die Wahl allein Ankara.
In Großbritannien wird Rishi Sunak das ganze Jahr 2024 damit verbringen, über den Wahltermin zu raten (dieses Recht hat er bis zum 28.01.2025). In den Ratings liegt Labour nun vorne.Benutzen Sie AdBlock?Werbung auf der Website trägt zur Entwicklung beiBitte fügen Sie meine Website zur Whitelist Ihres AdBlock-Plugins hinzu
Allerdings blockierte die dritte Partei – die Liberaldemokraten (Teil der Liberalen Internationale und ALDE) im Jahr 2010, vertreten durch Nick Clegg – mit den Konservativen unter David Cameron.
Clegg war Camerons Stellvertreter in der Regierung.
Daher stehen Rishi Sunaks Chancen, an der Macht zu bleiben, in direktem Zusammenhang mit Cameron und den Wahlen in Europa.
Und es stellte sich heraus, dass sie wiederum mit den Präsidentschaftswahlen in der Ukraine und den Parametern des Kokaintransits (zum Schutz vor Fentanyl) in Zusammenhang standen.
Charles Michel ist näher an Paris (insbesondere an Catherine Colonna, Jean-Yves Olivier, der Kering-Gruppe und den französischen Partnern im türkischen Hafen Mersin), und Ursula von der Leyen ist näher an Berlin und London.
Der Sieg von Javier Miley bei den Wahlen in Argentinien am 19. November ist ein Schlag gegen die „Verflechtung“ der Drogenpolitik in Lateinamerika.
Am 20. November wurden die ‘Ndrangheta-Mitglieder in einem eigens in Kalabrien errichteten Bunker in der Stadt Lamezia Terme verurteilt.
21. November Michel und Maia Sandu in Kiew.
Zum dreijährigen Prozess gegen Vertreter der ‘Ndrangheta:
Sky News (20.11.2023)
Die Operation im Jahr 2019 erhielt den Namen „Operation Rinascita-Scott“ zu Ehren des US-Spezialagenten Scott Sieben, der der italienischen Polizei dabei half, Verbindungen zwischen den kolumbianischen Kartellen und der Ndrangheta aufzudecken.
Der Hauptankläger, der für die umfangreichen Ermittlungen verantwortlich war, war Nicola Gratteri, der den Bau eines Bunker-Gerichtssaals für die Verhandlung organisierte.
Gratteri, Italiens berühmtester Anti-Mafia-Staatsanwalt, lebt seit 34 Jahren unter Polizeischutz.
Im August erhielt Sky News den seltenen Zugang zum geheimen Krieg der italienischen Mafia.
Premierministerin Giorgia Meloni erklärte kürzlich:
„Wir haben einen äußerst unberechenbaren Feind, und der Kampf gegen die Mafia ist der Eckpfeiler dieser Regierung.“
President John F. Kennedy: His Life and Public Assassination by the CIA
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
[In commemoration of JFK’s assassination, we repost this article by Edward Curtin that was first published by GR on November 22, 2021. Updated on November 22, 2023.]
***
What is the truth, and where did it go?
Ask Oswald and Ruby, they oughta know
“Shut your mouth,” said the wise old owl
Business is business, and it’s a murder most foul
Don’t worry, Mr. President
Help’s on the way
Your brothers are coming, there’ll be hell to pay
Brothers? What brothers? What’s this about hell?
Tell them, “We’re waiting, keep coming”
We’ll get them as well
– Bob Dylan, Murder Most Foul
Why President Kennedy was publicly murdered by the CIA sixty years ago has never been more important. All pseudo-debates to the contrary – including the numerous and growing claims that it was not the U.S. national security state but the Israelis that assassinated the president, which exonerates the CIA – the truth about the assassination has long been evident. There is nothing to debate unless one is some sort of intelligence operative, has an obsession, or is out to make a name or a buck. I suggest that all those annual JFK conferences in Dallas should finally end, but my guess is that they will be rolling along for many more decades. To make an industry out of a tragedy is wrong. And these conferences are so often devoted to examining and debating minutiae that are a distraction from the essential truth.
As for the corporate mainstream media, they will never admit the truth but will continue as long as necessary to titillate the public with lies, limited hangouts, and sensational non-sequiturs. To do otherwise would require admitting that they have long been complicit in falsely reporting the crime and the endless coverup. That they are arms of the CIA and NSA.
The Cold War, endless other wars, and the nuclear threat John Kennedy worked so hard to end have today been inflamed to a fever pitch by U.S. leaders in thrall to the forces that killed the president. President Joseph Biden, like all the presidents that followed Kennedy, is JFK’s opposite, an unrepentant war-monger, not only in Ukraine with the U.S. war against Russia and the U.S. nuclear first-strike policy, but throughout the world – the Middle-East, Africa, Syria, Iran, and on and on, including the push for war with China.
Nowhere is this truer than with the U.S. support for the current Israeli genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza, a slaughter also supported by Robert Kennedy, Jr., who, ironically, is campaigning for the presidency on the coattails of JFK and his father Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who would be appalled by his unequivocal support for the Israeli government. By such support and his silence as the slaughter in Gaza continues, RFK, Jr. is, contrary his other expressed opinions, supporting a wide range of war-related matters that involve the U.S.- Israel alliance, which is central to the military-industrial forces running U.S. foreign policy. To say this is dispiriting is a great understatement, for RFK, Jr., a very intelligent man, knows that the CIA killed his uncle and father, and he is campaigning as a spiritually awakened man intent on ending the U.S. warfare state, something impossible to accomplish when one gives full-fledged support to Israel. And I believe he will be elected the next U.S. president.
The Biden administration is doing all in its power to undo the legacy of JFK’s last year in office when on every front he fought for peace, not war. It is not hard to realize that all presidents since John Kennedy have been fully aware that a bullet to the head in broad daylight could be their fate if they bucked their bosses. They knew this when they sought the office because they were run by the same bosses before election. Small-souled men, cowards on the make, willing to sacrifice millions to their ambition.
I believe that the following article – my final one on this matter – which I published two years ago, is worth reading again if you have once done so, and even more important if you have never read it. It is not based on speculation but on well-sourced facts, and it will make clear the importance of President Kennedy and why his assassination lay the foundation for today’s dire events. In this dark time, when the world is spinning out of control, the story of his great courage in the face of an assassination he expected, can inspire us to oppose the systemic forces of evil that control the United States and are leading the world into the abyss.
List of Sections
- Pressured to Wage War
- A War Hero Who Was Appalled By War
- A Prescient Perspective
- Patrice Lumumba
- Dag Hammarskjöld, Indonesia, and Sukarno
- The Bay of Pigs
- Kennedy Responds After the Bay of Pigs Treachery
- The Fateful Year 1963
- The Assassination on November 22, 1963
- Who Killed Him?
- Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?
- Who Had the Power to Withdraw the President’s Security?
- Oswald, The Preordained Patsy
- The Message to Air Force One
- Oswald’s Prepackaged Life Story
- Epilogue by James W. Douglass
*
Despite a treasure trove of new research and information having emerged over the last fifty-eight years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. They have drunk what Dr. Martin Schotz has called “the waters of uncertainty” that results “in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed but nothing can be known, nothing of significance that is.”[i]
Then there are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission.
Both these groups tend to agree, however, that whatever the truth, unknowable or allegedly known, it has no contemporary relevance but is old-hat, ancient history, stuff for conspiracy-obsessed people with nothing better to do. The general thinking is that the assassination occurred more than a half-century ago, so let’s move on.
Nothing could be further from the truth, for the assassination of JFK is the foundational event of modern American history, the Pandora’s box from which many decades of tragedy have sprung.
Pressured to Wage War
From the day he was sworn in as President on January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy was relentlessly pressured by the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, and by many of his own advisers to wage war – clandestine, conventional, and nuclear.
To understand why and by whom he was assassinated on November 22, 1963, one needs to apprehend this pressure and the reasons why President Kennedy consistently resisted it, as well as the consequences of that resistance.
It is a key to understanding the current state of our world today and why the United States has been waging endless foreign wars and creating a national security surveillance state at home since JFK’s death.
A War Hero Who Was Appalled By War
It is very important to remember that Lieutenant John Kennedy was a genuine Naval war hero in WW II, having risked his life and been badly injured while saving his men in the treacherous waters of the South Pacific after their PT boat was sunk by a Japanese destroyer. His older brother Joe and his brother-in-law Billy Hartington had died in the war, as had some of his boat’s crew members.
As a result, Kennedy was extremely sensitive to the horrors of war, and, when he first ran for Congress in Massachusetts in 1946, he made it explicitly clear that avoiding another war was his number one priority. This commitment remained with him and was intensely strengthened throughout his brief presidency until the day he died, fighting for peace.
Despite much rhetoric to the contrary, this anti-war stance was unusual for a politician, especially during the 1950s and 1960s. Kennedy was a remarkable man, for even though he assumed the presidency as somewhat of a cold warrior vis-à-vis the Soviet Union in particular, his experiences in office rapidly chastened that stance. He very quickly came to see that there were many people surrounding him who relished the thought of war, even nuclear war, and he came to consider them as very dangerous.
A Prescient Perspective
Yet even before he became president, in 1957, then Senator Kennedy gave a speech in the U.S. Senate that sent shock waves throughout Washington, D.C. and around the world.[ii] He came out in support of Algerian independence from France and African liberation generally and against colonial imperialism. As chair of the Senate’s African Subcommittee in 1959, he urged sympathy for African independence movements as part of American foreign policy. He believed that continued support of colonial policies would only end in more bloodshed because the voices of independence would not be denied, nor should they be.
That speech caused an international uproar, and in the U.S.A. Kennedy was harshly criticized by Eisenhower, Nixon, John Foster Dulles, and even members of the Democratic party, such as Adlai Stevenson and Dean Acheson. But it was applauded in Africa and the Third World.
Yet JFK continued throughout his 1960 presidential campaign raising his voice against colonialism throughout the world and for free and independent African nations. Such views were anathema to the foreign policy establishment, including the CIA and the burgeoning military industrial complex that President Eisenhower belatedly warned against in his Farewell Address, delivered nine months after approving the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in March 1960; this juxtaposition revealed the hold the Pentagon and CIA had and has on sitting presidents, as the pressure for war became structurally systemized.
Patrice Lumumba
Image on the right: Patrice Lumumba (Source: Bob Feldman 68)
One of Africa’s anti-colonial and nationalist leaders was the charismatic Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. In June, 1960, he had become the first democratically elected leader of the Congo, a country savagely raped and plundered for more than half a century by Belgium’s King Leopold II for himself and multinational mining companies. Kennedy’s support for African independence was well-known and especially feared by the CIA, who, together with Brussels, considered Lumumba, and Kennedy for supporting him, as threats to their interests in the region.
So, three days before JFK’s inauguration, together with the Belgian government, the CIA had Lumumba brutally assassinated after torturing and beating him. According to Robert Johnson, a note taker at a National Security Council meeting in August 1960, Lumumba’s assassination had been approved by President Eisenhower when he gave Allen Dulles, the Director of the CIA, the approval to “eliminate” Lumumba. Johnson disclosed that in a 1975 interview that was discovered in 2000.[iii]
On January 26, 1961, when Dulles briefed the new president on the Congo, he did not tell JFK that they already had Lumumba assassinated nine days before. This was meant to keep Kennedy on tenterhooks to teach him a lesson. On February 13, 1961, Kennedy received a phone call from his UN ambassador Adlai Stevenson informing him of Lumumba’s death. There is a photograph by White House photographer Jacques Lowe of the horror-stricken president sitting in the oval office answering that call that is harrowing to view. It was an unmistakable portent of things to come, a warning for the president.
Dag Hammarskjöld, Indonesia, and Sukarno
One of Kennedy’s crucial allies in his efforts to support third-world independence was United Nations’ Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. Hammarskjöld had been deeply involved in peacekeeping in the Congo as well as efforts to resolve disputes in Indonesia, both important countries central to JFK’s concerns. Hammarskjöld was killed on September 18, 1961 while on a peacekeeping mission to the Congo. Substantial evidence exists that he was assassinated and that the CIA and Allen Dulles were involved. Kennedy was devastated to lose such an important ally.[iv]
Kennedy’s strategy involved befriending Indonesia as a Cold War ally as a crucial aspect of his Southeast Asian policy of dealing with Laos and Vietnam and finding peaceful resolutions to other smoldering Cold War conflicts. Hammarskjöld was also central to these efforts. The CIA, led by Dulles, strongly opposed Kennedy’s strategy in Indonesia. In fact, Dulles and the CIA had been involved in treacherous maneuverings in resource rich Indonesia for decades. President Kennedy supported the Indonesian President Sukarno, while Dulles opposed him since he stood for Indonesian independence.
Just two days before Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963, he had accepted an invitation from Indonesian President Sukarno to visit that country the following spring. The aim of the visit was to end the conflict (Konfrontasi) between Indonesia and Malaysia and to continue Kennedy’s efforts to support post-colonial Indonesia with non-military economic and development aid. His goal was to end conflict throughout Southeast Asia and assist the growth of democracy in newly liberated post-colonial countries worldwide.
Of course, JFK never made it to Indonesia in 1964, and his peaceful strategy to bring Indonesia to America’s side and to ease tensions in the Cold War was never realized, thanks to Allen Dulles and the CIA. And, Kennedy’s proposed withdrawal of American military advisers from Vietnam, which, in part, was premised on success in Indonesia, was quickly reversed by Lyndon Johnson after JFK’s murder and within a short time hundreds of thousand American combat troops were sent to Vietnam. In Indonesia, Sukarno would be forced out and replaced by General Suharto, who would rule with an iron fist for the next 30 years. Soon, both countries would experience mass slaughter engineered by Kennedy’s opponents in the CIA and Pentagon.[v]
The Bay of Pigs
In mid-April 1961, less than three months into his presidency, a trap was set for President Kennedy by the CIA and its director, Allen Dulles, who knew of Kennedy’s reluctance to invade Cuba. They assumed the new president would be forced by circumstances at the last minute to send in U.S. Navy and Marine forces to back the invasion that they had planned. The CIA and generals wanted to oust Fidel Castro, and in pursuit of that goal, trained a force of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. This had started under President Eisenhower and Vice President Nixon. Kennedy refused to go along with sending in American troops and the invasion was roundly defeated. The CIA, military, and Cuban exiles bitterly blamed Kennedy.
But it was all a sham. Classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned the date of the invasion more than a week in advance and had informed Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro, but—and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end—the CIA never told the President. The CIA knew the invasion was probably doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway.
Why? So, they could blame JFK for the failure afterwards.
Kennedy later said to his friends Dave Powell and Ken O’Donnell, “They were sure I’d give in to them and send the go-ahead order to the [Navy’s aircraft carrier] Essex. They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”[vi]
This treachery set the stage for events to come. Sensing but not knowing the full extent of the set-up, Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles (who, as in a bad joke, was later named to the Warren Commission investigating JFK’s assassination) and his assistant, General Charles Cabell (whose brother, Earle Cabell, to make a bad joke absurd, was the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy was killed.) It was later discovered that Earle Cabell was a CIA asset.[vii]
JFK said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” Not sentiments to endear him to a secretive government within a government whose power was growing exponentially.[viii]
Kennedy Responds After the Bay of Pigs Treachery
The stage was now set for events to follow as JFK, now even more suspicious of the military-intelligence people around him, and in opposition to nearly all his advisers, consistently opposed the use of force in U.S. foreign policy.
In 1961, despite the Joint Chiefs’ demand to put combat troops into Laos – advising 140,000 by the end of April – Kennedy bluntly insisted otherwise as he ordered Averell Harriman, his representative at the Geneva Conference, “Did you understand? I want a negotiated settlement in Laos. I don’t want to put troops in.”[ix] The president knew that Laos and Vietnam were linked issues, and since Laos came first on his agenda, he was determined to push for a neutral Laos.
Also in 1961, he refused to accede to the insistence of his top generals to give them permission to use nuclear weapons in a dispute with the Soviet Union over Berlin and Southeast Asia. Walking out of a meeting with his top military advisors, Kennedy threw his hands in the air and said, “These people are crazy.”[x]
In March 1962, the CIA, in the person of legendary operative, Edward Lansdale, and with the approval of every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented the president with a pretext for a U.S. invasion of Cuba. Code-named Operation Northwoods, the false-flag plancalled for innocent people to be shot in the U.S., boats carrying Cuban refugees to be sunkand a terrorism campaign to be launched in Miami, Washington D.C., and other places, all to be blamed on the Castro government so that the public would be outraged and call for an invasion of Cuba.[xi]
See this.
Kennedy was appalled and rejected this pressure to manipulate him into agreeing to terrorist attacks on Americans that could later be used against him. He already knew that his life was in danger and that the CIA and military were tightening a noose around his neck. But he refused to yield.
As early as June 26, 1961, in a White House meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s spokesperson, Mikhail Kharlamov, and Khrushchev’s son-in-law, Alexei Adzhubei, when asked by Kharlamov why he wasn’t moving faster to advance relations between the two countries, JFK said “You don’t understand this country. If I move too fast on U.S.-Soviet relations, I’ll either be thrown into an insane asylum, or be killed.”[xii]
JFK refused to bomb and invade Cuba as the military wished during the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962. The Soviets had placed offensive nuclear missiles and more than 30,000 support troops in Cuba to prevent another U.S.-led invasion. American aerial photography had detected the missiles. This was understandably unacceptable to the U.S. government. While being urged by the Joint Chiefs and his trusted advisors to order a preemptive nuclear strike on Cuba, JFK knew that a diplomatic solution was the only way out as he wouldn’t accept the death of hundreds of millions of people that would likely follow a series of nuclear exchanges with the Soviet Union. Only his brother, Robert, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara stood with him in opposing the use of nuclear weapons. Daniel Ellsberg, a former Pentagon and Rand Corporation analyst, reported a coup atmosphere in the Pentagon as Kennedy chose to settle rather than attack.[xiii] In the end, after thirteen incredibly tense daysof brinksmanship, Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev miraculously found a way to resolve the crisis and prevent the use of those weapons.
Afterwards, JFK told his friend John Kenneth Galbraith that “I never had the slightest intention of doing so.”[xiv]
The Fateful Year 1963
In June, 1963, JFK gave an historic speech at American University in which he called for the total abolishment of nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War and the “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war,” and movement toward “general and complete disarmament.”[xv]
A few months later he signed a Limited Test Ban Treaty with Nikita Khrushchev.[xvi]
In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and complete withdrawal by the end of 1965.[xvii]
All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev via Saturday Evening Post editor and anti-nuclear weapon advocate, Norman Cousins, Soviet agent Georgi Bolshakov,[xviii] and Pope John XXIII,[xix] as well as with Cuba’s Prime Minister Fidel Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel. Of course, secret was not secret when the CIA was involved.
Kennedy, deeply disturbed by the near nuclear catastrophe of the Cuban missile crisis, was determined to open back channel communications to make sure such a near miss never happened again. He knew fault lay on both sides, and that one slipup or miscommunication could initiate a nuclear holocaust. He was determined, therefore, to try to open lines of communications with his enemies.
Jean Daniel was going to Cuba to interview Fidel Castro, but before he did he interviewed Kennedy on October 24, 1963. Kennedy, knowing Daniel would tell Castro what he said, asked Daniel if Castro realizes that “through his fault the world was on the verge of nuclear war in October 1962….or even if he cares about it.” But he also added, to soften the message:
I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.[xx]
Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top Pentagon generals. These clear refusals to go to war with Cuba, to emphasize peace and negotiated solutions to conflicts rather than war, to order the withdrawal of all military personnel from Vietnam, to call for an end to the Cold War, and his willingness to engage in private, back-channel communications with Cold War enemies marked Kennedy as an enemy of the national security state. They were on a collision course.
The Assassination on November 22, 1963
After going through the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis and many other military cliffhangers, Kennedy underwent a deep metanoia, a spiritual transformation, from Cold Warrior to peacemaker. He came to regard the generals who advised him as devaluing human life and hell-bent on launching nuclear wars. And he was well aware that his growing resistance to war had put him on a dangerous collision course with those generals and the CIA. On numerous occasions, he spoke of the possibility of a military coup d’état against him.
The night before his trip to Dallas, he told his wife, “But, Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it.”[xxi]
And we know that nobody did try to stop it because they had planned his execution from multiple locations to assure its success.
Who Killed Him?
If the only things you read, watched, or listened to since 1963 were the mainstream corporate media (MSM), you would be convinced that the official explanation for JFK’s assassination, the Warren Commission, was correct in essentials. You would be wrong, because those corporate media have for all these years served as mouthpieces for the government, most notably the CIA that infiltrated and controlled them long ago under a secret program called Operation Mockingbird.[xxii] In 1977, celebrated Watergate journalist, Carl Bernstein, published a 25,000-word cover story for Rolling Stone, “The CIA and the Media,” in which he published the names of many journalists and media, such as The New York Times, CBS, Time, Newsweek, etc., who worked hand in glove with the CIA for decades. Ironically, or as part of “a limited hangout” (spy talk for admitting some truths while concealing deeper ones), this article can be found at the CIA’s own website.
Total control of information requires media complicity, and with the JFK assassination, and in all matters they consider important, the CIA and the MSM are unified.[xxiii] Such control extends to literature, arts, and popular culture as well as news. Frances Stonor Saunders comprehensively documents this in her 1999 book, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World Of Arts And Letters,[xxiv] and Joel Whitney followed this up in 2016 with Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World’s Best Writers, with particular emphasis on the complicity of the CIA and the famous literary journal The Paris Review. Such revelations are retrospective, of course, but only the most naïve would conclude such operations are a thing of the past.
The Warren Commission claimed that the president was shot by an ex-Marine named Lee Harvey Oswald, firing three bullets from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy’s car was already two hundred and fifty feet past and driving away from him. But this is patently false for many reasons, including the bizarre claim that one of these bullets, later termed “the magic bullet,” passed through Kennedy’s body and zigzagged up and down, left and right, striking Texas Governor John Connolly who was sitting in the front seat and causing seven wounds in all, only to be found later in pristine condition on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital.[xxv] And, any lone assassin looking out the 6th floor window would have taken the perfect shot as the limousine approached within forty feet of the TSBD on Houston St.
The absurdity of the government’s claim, a ballistic fairytale, was the key to its assertion that Oswald killed Kennedy. It was visually shattered and rendered ridiculous by the famous Zapruder film that clearly shows the president being shot from the front right, and, as the right front of his head explodes, he is violently thrown back and to his left as Jacqueline Kennedy climbs on to the car’s trunk to retrieve a piece of her husband’s skull and brain.
This video evidence is clear and simple proof of a conspiracy.[xxvi]
Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?
But there is another way to examine it.
Image on the right: Lee Harvey Oswald (Source: TheFreeThoughtProject.com)
If Lee Harvey Oswald, the man The Warren Commission said killed JFK, was connected to the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA, then we can logically conclude that he was not “a lone-nut” assassin or not an assassin at all. There is a wealth of evidence to show how, from the very start, Oswald was moved around the globe by the CIA like a pawn in a game, and when the game was done, the pawn was eliminated in the Dallas police headquarters by Jack Ruby two days later.
James W. Douglass, in JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, the most important book on the matter, asks this question:
Why was Lee Harvey Oswald so tolerated and supported by the government he betrayed?
This is a key question.
After serving as a U.S. Marine at the CIA’s U-2 spy plane Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan with a Crypto clearance (higher than top secret, a fact suppressed by the Warren Commission) and being trained in the Russian language, Oswald left the Marines and defected to the Soviet Union.[xxvii] After denouncing the U.S., rejecting his American citizenship, working at a Soviet factory in Minsk, and taking a Russian wife—during which time Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union—he returned to the U.S. with a loan from the American Embassy in Moscow, only to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey, by Spas T. Raikin, a prominent anti-Communist with extensive intelligence connections recommended by the State Department.[xxviii]
Oswald passed through immigration with no trouble, was not prosecuted, moved to Fort Worth, Texas where, at the suggestion of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Service chief, he was met and befriended by George de Mohrenschildt, an anti-communist Russian, who was a CIA asset. De Mohrenschildt got him a job four days later at a photography and graphic arts company that worked on top secret maps for the U.S. Army Map Service related to U-2 spy missions over Cuba.
Oswald was then shepherded around the Dallas area by de Mohrenschildt. In 1977, on the day he revealed he had contacted Oswald for the CIA and was to meet with the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ investigator, Gaeton Fonzi, de Mohrenschildt allegedly committed suicide.
Oswald then moved to New Orleans in April, 1963 where he got a job at the Reily Coffee Company owned by CIA-affiliated William Reily. The Reily Coffee Company was located in close vicinity to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and Naval Intelligence offices and a stone’s throw from the office of Guy Banister, a former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Chicago Bureau, who worked as a covert action coordinator for the intelligence services, supplyingweapons, money, and training to anti-Castro paramilitaries. Oswald then went to work with Banister and the CIA paramilitaries.
From this time up until the assassination, Oswald engaged in all sorts of contradictory activities, one day portraying himself as pro-Castro, the next day as anti-Castro, many of these theatrical performances being directed from Banister’s office. It was as though Oswald, on the orders of his puppet masters, was enacting multiple and antithetical roles in order to confound anyone intent on deciphering the purposes behind his actions and to set him up as a future “assassin” or “patsy.”
James Douglass persuasively argues that Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960-64, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.”[xxix]
When Oswald moved to New Orleans in April, 1963, de Mohrenschildt exited the picture, having asked the CIA for and been indirectly given a $285,000 contract to do a geological survey for Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier, which he never did, but for which he was paid.[xxx]
Ruth and Michael Paine then entered the scene on cue. Ruth had been introduced to Oswald by de Mohrenschildt. In September, 1963, Ruth Paine drove from her sister’s house in Virginia to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald and bring her to Dallas to live with her, where Lee also stayed on weekends. Back in Dallas, Ruth Paine conveniently arranged a job for Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas Book Depository, where he began work on October 16, 1963.
Ruth, along with Marina Oswald, was the Warren Commission’s critically important witness against Oswald. Allen Dulles, despite his earlier firing by JFK, got appointed to a key position on the Warren Commission. He questioned the Paines in front of it, studiously avoiding any revealing questions, especially ones that could disclose his personal connections to the Paines. For Michel Paine’s mother, therefore Ruth’s mother-in-law, Ruth Paine Forbes Young, was a close friend of his old mistress, Mary Bancroft, who worked as a spy with Dulles during WW II. Bancroft and he had been invited guests at Ruth Paine Forbes Young’s private island off Cape Cod.
Ruth and Michael Paine had extensive intelligence connections. Thirty years after the assassination, a document was declassified showing Ruth Paine’s sister Sylvia worked for the CIA. Her father traveled throughout Latin America on an Agency for International Development (notorious for CIA front activities) contract and filed reports that went to the CIA. Her husband Michael’s step-father, Arthur Young, was the inventor of the Bell Helicopter, a major military supplier for the Vietnam War, and Michael’s job there gave him a security clearance.
From late September through November 22nd, various “Oswalds” were later reported to have simultaneously been seen from Mexico City to Dallas. Two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theater, the real one taken out the front door and an impostor out the back.
As Douglass says:
“There were more Oswalds providing evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald than the Warren Report could use or even explain.”[xxxi]
Even J. Edgar Hoover knew that Oswald impostors were used, as he told LBJ concerning Oswald’s alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He later called this CIA ploy, “the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico . . . their (CIA’s) double-dealing,” something that he couldn’t forget. [xxxii]
It was apparent to anyone paying close attention that a very intricate and deadly game was being played at high levels in the shadows.
We know Oswald was blamed for the President’s murder. But if one fairly follows the trail of the crime, it becomes blatantly obvious that government forces were at work. Douglass and others have amassed layer upon layer of evidence to show how this had to be so.
Who Had the Power to Withdraw the President’s Security?
To answer this essential question is to finger the conspirators and to expose, in Vincent Salandria’s words, “the false mystery concealing state crimes.”[xxxiii]
Neither Oswald, the mafia nor anti-Castro Cubans could have withdrawn most of the security that day. Sheriff Bill Decker ordered all his deputies “to take no part whatsoever in the security of that [presidential] motorcade.”[xxxiv] Police Chief Jesse Curry did the same for Dallas police protection for the president in Dealey Plaza. Both “Chief Curry and Sheriff Decker gave their orders withdrawing security from the president in obedience to orders they had themselves received from the Secret Service.” The Secret Service withdrew the police motorcycle escorts from beside the president’s car where they had been on previous presidential motorcades as well as the day before in Houston and removed agents from the back of the car where they were normally stationed to obstruct gunfire.
The Secret Service admitted there were no Secret Service agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza to protect Kennedy. But we know from extensive witness testimony that, during and after the assassination, there were people in Dealey Plaza impersonating Secret Service agents who stopped policeman and the public from moving through the area on the Grassy Knoll where some of the shots appeared to come from. The Secret Service approved the fateful, dogleg turn (on a dry run on November 18) where the car, driven by Secret Service agent William Greer, moved at a snail’s pace and came almost to a halt before the final head shot, clear and blatant security violations. The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded this, not some conspiracy theorist.[xxxv]
Who could have squelched the testimony of the many doctors and medical personnel who claimed the president had been shot from the front in his neck and head, testimony contradicting the official story?
Who could have prosecuted and imprisoned Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent personally brought on to the White House detail by JFK, who warned that he feared the president was going to be assassinated? (Douglass interviewed Bolden seven times and his evidence on the aborted plot to kill JFK in Chicago on November 2 is a story little known but extraordinary in its implications.)
The list of all the people who turned up dead, the evidence and events manipulated, the inquiry squelched, distorted, and twisted in an ex post facto cover-up clearly point to forces within the government, not rogue actors without institutional support.
The evidence for a conspiracy organized at the deepest levels of the intelligence apparatus is overwhelming. James Douglass presents it in such depth and so logically that only one hardened to the truth would not be deeply moved and affected by his book, JFK and the Unspeakable.
But there is more from him and other researchers who have cut the Gordian knot of this false mystery with a few brief strokes.
Oswald, The Preordained Patsy
Three examples will suffice to show that Lee Harvey Oswald, working as part of a U.S. Intelligence operation, was set up to take the blame for the assassination of President Kennedy, and that when he said in police custody that he was “a patsy,” he was speaking truthfully. These examples make it clear that Oswald was deceived by his intelligence handlers and had been chosen without his knowledge, long before the murder, to take the blame as a lone, crazed killer.
First, Kennedy was shot at 12:30 P.M. CT. According to the Warren Report, at 12:45 P.M. a police report was issued for a suspect that perfectly fit Oswald’s description. This was based on the testimony of Howard Brennan, who said he was standing across from the Book Depository and saw a standing white man, about 5’10” and slender, fire a rifle at the president’s car from the sixth-floor window. This was blatantly false because photographs taken moments after the shooting show the window open only partially at the bottom about fourteen inches, and it would have been impossible for a standing assassin to be seen “resting against the left windowsill,” (the windowsill was a foot from the floor), as Brennan is alleged to have said. He would have therefore had to have been shooting through the glass. The description of the suspect was clearly fabricated in advance to match Oswald’s.
Then between 1:06 and 1:15 P.M. in the quiet residential Oak Cliff neighborhood of Dallas, Police Officer J.D. Tippit was shot and killed. Supposedly based on Brennan’s description broadcast over police radio, Tippit had stopped a man fitting the description and this man pulled a gun and shot the officer. Meanwhile, Oswald had returned to his rooming house where his landlady said he left at 1:03 P.M., went outside, and was standing at a northbound bus stop. The Tippet murder took place nine-tenths of a mile away to the south where a witness, Mrs. Higgins, said she heard a gunshot at 1:06 P.M., ran outside, saw Tippit lying in the street and a man running away with a handgun whom she said was not Oswald.
Oswald is reported to have entered the Texas Theater minutes before the Tippit murder. The concession stand operator, Warren Burroughs has said he sold him popcorn at 1:15 P.M., which is the time the Warren Report claims Tippit was killed. At 1:50 P.M., Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater and taken out the front door where a crowd and many police cars awaited him, while a few minutes later a second Oswald is secretly taken out the back door of the movie theater. (To read this story of the second Oswald and his movement by the CIA out of Dallas on a military aircraft on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, documented in great detail by James W. Douglass, is an eye-opener.)
The official narrative of Oswald and the Tippit murder begs credulity, but it serves to “show” that Oswald was a killer.[xxxvi]
Despite his denials, Oswald, set up for Kennedy’s murder based on a prepackaged description, is arraigned for Tippit’s murder at 7:10 PM. It was not until the next day that he was charged for Kennedy’s.
The Message to Air Force One
Secondly, while Oswald is being questioned about Tippit’s murder in the afternoon hours after his arrest, Air Force One has left Dallas for Washington with the newly sworn-in president Lyndon Johnson and the presidential party. Back in D.C., the White House Situation Room is under the personal and direct control of Kennedy’s National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, a man with close CIA ties who had opposed JFK on many matters, including the Bay of Pigs and Kennedy’s order to withdraw from Vietnam.[xxxvii]
As reported by Theodore White, in The Making of the President 1964, Johnson and the others were informed by the Bundy controlled Situation Room that “there was no conspiracy, learned of the identity of Oswald and his arrest …”[xxxviii]
Vincent Salandria, one of the earliest and most astute critics of the Warren Commission, put it this way in his book, False Mystery:[xxxix]
This [announcement from the Situation Room to Air Force One in flight back to Washington, D.C] was the very first announcement of Oswald as the lone assassin. In Dallas, Oswald was not even charged with assassinating the President until 1:30 A.M. the next morning. The plane landed at 5:59 P.M. on the 22nd. At that time the District Attorney of Dallas, Henry Wade, was stating that “preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved in the shooting … the electric chair is too good for the killers.” Can there be any doubt that for any government taken by surprise by the assassination — and legitimately seeking the truth concerning it — less than six hours after the time of the assassination was too soon to know there was no conspiracy? This announcement was the first which designated Oswald as the lone assassin….
I propose the thesis that McGeorge Bundy, when that announcement was issued from his Situation Room, had reason to know that the true meaning of such a message when conveyed to the Presidential party on Air Force One [and to a separate plane with the entire cabinet that had turned around and was headed back over the Pacific Ocean] was not the ostensible message which was being communicated. Rather, I submit that Bundy … was really conveying to the Presidential party the thought that Oswald was being designated the lone assassin before any evidence against him was ascertainable. As a central coordinator of intelligence services, Bundy in transmitting such a message through the Situation Room was really telling the Presidential party that an unholy marriage had taken place between the U.S. Governmental intelligence services and the lone-assassin doctrine. Was he not telling the Presidential party peremptorily, ‘Now, hear this! Oswald is the assassin, the sole assassin. Evidence is not available yet. Evidence will be obtained, or in lieu thereof evidence will be created. This is a crucial matter of state that cannot await evidence. The new rulers have spoken. You, there, Mr. New President, and therefore dispatchable stuff, and you the underlings of a deposed President, heed the message well.’ Was not Bundy’s Situation Room serving an Orwellian double-think function?[xl]
Oswald’s Prepackaged Life Story
Finally, Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty adds a third example of the CIA conspiracy for those who need more evidence that the government has lied from the start about the assassination.
Prouty was Chief of Special Operations in the Pentagon before and during the Kennedy years. He was the liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA, working closely with Director Allen Dulles and others in supporting the clandestine operations of the CIA under military cover. He had been sent out of the country to the South Pole by the aforementioned CIA operative Edward Lansdale (Operation Northwoods) before the Kennedy assassination and was returning on November 22, 1963. On a stopover in Christchurch, New Zealand, he heard a radio report that the president had been killed but knew no details. He was having breakfast with a U.S Congressman at 7:30 AM on November 23, New Zealand time. A short time later, at approximately 4:30 PM Dallas time, November 22, he bought the Christchurch Star 23 November 1963 newspaper and read it together with the Congressman.
The newspaper reports from the scene said that Kennedy had been killed by bursts of automatic weapons fire, not a single shot rifle, firing three separate shots in 6.8 seconds, as was later claimed for Oswald. But the thing that really startled him was that at a time when Oswald had just been arrested and had not even been charged for the murder of Officer Tippit, there was elaborate background information on Oswald, his time in Russia, his association with Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans, etc. “It’s almost like a book written five years later,” said Prouty. “Furthermore, there’s a picture of Oswald, well-dressed in a business suit, whereas, when he was picked up on the streets of Dallas after the President’s death, he had on some t-shirt or something…
“Who had written that scenario? Who wrote that script…So much news was already written ahead of time of the murder to say that Oswald killed the President and that he did it with three shots…Somebody had decided Oswald was going to be the patsy…Where did they get it, before the police had charged him with the crime? Not so much ‘where,’ as ‘why’Oswald?”[xli]
Prouty, an experienced military man working for the CIA in the Pentagon, accused the military-intelligence “High Cabal” of killing President Kennedy in an elaborate and sophisticated plot and blaming it on Oswald, whom they had begun setting up years in advance.
The evidence for a government plot to plan, assassinate, cover-up, and choose a patsy in the murder of President John Kennedy is overwhelming.[xlii]
Five years after JFK’s assassination, we would learn, to our chagrin and his glory, that the president’s younger brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, equally brave and unintimidated, would take a bullet to the back of his head in 1968 as he was on his way to the presidency and the pursuit of his brother’s killers. The same cowards struck again.
Their successors still run the country and must be stopped.
Epilogue by James W. Douglass
“John F. Kennedy was raised from the death of wealth, power, and privilege. The son of a millionaire ambassador, he was born, raised, and educated to rule the system. When he was elected President, Kennedy’s heritage of power corresponded to his position as head of the greatest national security state in history. But Kennedy, like Lazarus, was raised from the death of that system. In spite of all odds, he became a peacemaker and, thus, a traitor to the system….
“Why? What raised Kennedy from the dead? Why did John Kennedy choose life in the midst of death and by continuing to choose life thus condemn himself to death? I have puzzled over that question while studying the various biographies of Kennedy. May I suggest one source of grace for his resurrection as a peacemaker? In reading his story, one is struck by his devotion to his children. There is no mistaking the depth of love he had for Caroline and John, and the overwhelming pain he and Jacqueline experienced at the death of their son Patrick. Robert Kennedy in his book Thirteen Days has described how his brother saw the Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of the future of his children and all children. I believe John Kennedy was at least partially raised from the dead of the national security state by the life of his children. The heroic peacemaking of his final months, with his acceptance of its likely cost in his own death, was, I suspect, partly a result of the universal life he saw in and through them. I think he believed profoundly the words that he gave in his American University address as his foundation for rejecting the Cold War: ‘Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.’”[xliii]
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
Notes
[i] History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy, E. Martin Schotz, Kurtz, Ulmer, & DeLucia Book Publishers, 1996.
[ii] JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters, James W. Douglass, Orbis Books, 2008[1][2], p. 8 & p.212.
Destiny Betrayed, James DiEugenio, 2nd Edition, Skyhorse Publishing, 2012, pp. 17-33.
The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and the Rise of America’s Secret Government, David Talbot, Harper Collins, 2015, pp. 375–389.
MORI DocID: 1451843 p. 464, p. 473 of “The CIA’s Family Jewels,” 16 May 1973, The National Security Archives.
[iv] Investigation into the condition and circumstances resulting in the tragic death of Dag Hammarskjold and of members of the party accompanying him (United Nations General Assembly document,) Judge Mohamed Chande Othman, September 5, 2017, p. 49 and 50, Dag Hammarskjöld Plane Crash Recent Developments, UN Association, Westminster Branch UK.
[v] Edward Curtin interviews Greg Poulgrain on The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles, Global Research, July 22, 2016.
Chapter 2 – JFK, Dulles and Hammarskjöld of The Incubus of Intervention.
Greg Poulgrain, JFK vs Allen Dulles: Battleground Indonesia, Simon & Schuster, 2020.
[vi] Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., American Values, Harper Collins, 2018, p. 117.
[vii] Dallas Mayor During JFK Assassination Was CIA Asset, Who.What.Why, August 2, 2017.
[viii] Peter Kornbluh confirmed this in a phone conversation with the author in May 2000. See The ULTRASENSITIVE Bay of PigsNewly Released Portions of Taylor Commission Report Provide Critical New Details on Operation Zapata, National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 29, May 3, 2000.
[ix] Averell Harriman interviewed in Charles Stevenson, The End Of Nowhere; American Policy Toward Laos Since 1954 , 1972, p. 154.
[x] Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile of Power, Simon & Schuster, 1994, p. 222.
[xi] Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962, FOIA documents at National Security Archive.
[xii] Pierre Salinger, P.S.: A Memoir, St. Martin’s Press, 1995, p. 253.
[xiii] Talbot, op. cit., p. 453.
[xiv] John Kenneth Galbraith, A Life in Our Times, Houghton Mifflin, 1981, p. 388.
[xv] American University Commencement Address, President Kennedy, June 10, 1963.
[xvi] President Kennedy Radio and TV Address to the American People on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, July 26, 1963.
Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water, signed at Moscow August 5, 1963, entered into force October 10, 1963.
[xvii] See James K. Galbraith, “Exit Strategy,” Boston Review, October/November 2003.
[xviii] Pierre Salinger, With Kennedy, Doubleday & Co., 1966, p.198.
[xix] See Norman Cousins, The Improbable Triumvirate: John F. Kennedy, Pope John, Nikita Khrushchev – An Asterisk to the History of a Hopeful Year, 1962-1963, W.W. Norton & Co., 1972.
[xx] Jean Daniel, “Unofficial Envoy – An Historic Report from Two Capitals,” The New Republic, December 14, 1963.
[xxi] Kenneth P. O’Donnell and David F. Powers, “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye;” Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Little Brown, 1972, p.25.
[xxii] See Operation Mockingbird, the only FOIA-released-by-CIA documents at The Black Vault.
Carl Bernstein, “THE CIA AND THE MEDIA – How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up.” Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977.
[xxiii] James F. Tracy, “The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know,” Global Research/ratical.org, 2018.
[xxiv] Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World Of Arts And Letters, New Press. 1999.
See Also: James Petras, “The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited,” Monthly Review, November 1999.
[xxv] See Vincent J. Salandria, “The Warren Report?“ Liberation, March 1965.
[xxvi] Zapruder Film in slow motion (1:33).
[xxvii] Gerald D. McKnight, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, Univ. Of Kansas Press, 2005, review by Jim DiEugenio.
[xxviii] Douglass, op. cit., p. 46.
[xxix] See James and Elsie Wilcott: CIA Profile in Courage, excerpt from JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 144-148, 421-422.
[xxx] Douglass, op. cit., p. 47-48.
[xxxi] See Oswald’s Doubles: How Multiple Lookalikes Were Used to Craft One Lone Scapegoat, excerpt from JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 286-303, 350-355, 464-470, 481-483.
[xxxii] Douglass, op. cit., p. 81.
[xxxiii] Vincent Salandria, The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes, presentation at the Coalition on Political Assassinations, November 20, 1998.
[xxxiv] Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Dean Craig, When They Kill A President, 1971.
[xxxv] Douglass, op. cit., pp. 270-277 and endnote 75 of James Douglass’ 2009 COPA Keynote Address.
Secret Service Final Survey Report for the November 21, 1963, visit by President Kennedy to Houston, cited in
Appendix to Hearings before the HSCA, vol. 11, p.529.
[xxxvi] Douglass, op. cit., pp. 287-304.
DiEugenio, op. cit., pp. 391-2.
[xxxvii] Talbot, op.cit., pp. 407-8. & NSAM 263 (document 194), Foreign Relations of the United States, Vietnam v. IV, Aug-Dec’63.
[xxxviii] Theodore White, The Making of the President, 1964, Atheneum, 1965, p. 33.
See also , Let Us Begin Anew: An Oral History of the Kennedy Presidency, Gerald S. Strober, Debra Strober, Perennial, 1993, pp. 450-451.
[xxxix] False Mystery, Essays on the JFK Assassination by Vincent Salandria, rat haus reality press, 2017
[xl] Bundy Continued to Shape Hawkish Policies, in Vincent J. Salandria, “The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Model of Explanation,” Computers and Automation, December 1971, pp. 32-40.
[xli] David T. Ratcliffe, Understanding Special Operations: 1989 Interview with L. Fletcher Prouty, rat haus reality press, 1999, pp. 214-215.
[xlii] See The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection at The National Archives.
[xliii] James Douglass, “The Assassinations of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy in the Light of the Fourth Gospel,” Sewanee Theological Review, 1998
More articles on JFK’s assassination by the author:
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
By Edward Curtin, July 06, 2022
Oliver Stone Documents the Past to Illuminate the Present. “JFK: Destiny Betrayed”
By Edward Curtin, March 30, 2022
JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass by Oliver Stone
By Edward Curtin, January 17, 2022
There Is a Direct Link Between JFK, 9/11 and COVID-19: Edward Curtin
By Edward Curtin and Geopolitics and Empire, November 10, 2021
Bob Dylan’s Explosive Song “Murder Most Foul”, History of the JFK Assassination and “The Interview”
By Edward Curtin, November 22, 2020
Unspeakable Memories: The Day John Kennedy Died
By Edward Curtin, November 22, 2020
Consult the author’s archive for more articles.
He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies
To order his book click the cover page.
“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all. Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso. Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable
“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Edward Curtin, Global Research, 2023
https://www.globalresearch.ca/president-john-f-kennedy-life-public-assassination/5762348
Israel’s Genocide against Palestine: Shame on the US Ambassador to the UN: She Has Forgotten Her Roots
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.
***
Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, has refused to ask for a ceasefire in Gaza to save lives, after more than 12,000 civilians have died, and half are children. Thomas-Greenfield’s policy statements suggest Israelis are deserving of human rights, while Palestinians are not.
In 2015, Thomas-Greenfield received the Bishop John T. Walker Distinguished Humanitarian Service Award, and yet her current presence at the UN has not exhibited any humanitarian urgency for Gaza, which her own colleagues at the UN are calling a humanitarian disaster, and genocide.
She forgets that her own ancestry mirrors the Palestinians, not the Israelis. She is representing the interests of the masters, while denying the oppressed people’s rights.
Thomas-Greenfield is the great granddaughter of Mary Francoise, who was born in 1865 in Louisiana. Mary was born after the civil war ended, but she was not born into freedom; her mother had been a slave, and even though the war ended, it would be decades before any African Americans were given their rights.
Mary Francoise might as well have been born in the Occupied West Bank, or Gaza. Her life and the lives of Palestinians today have a great deal in common. She lived in a land where the colonial government in Washington, DC. had two separate codes of justice and human rights. The White European settlers came to Virginia in 1607 and shortly were bringing thousands of enslaved Africans. The Native Americans were deprived of all human rights, and many were kept as slaves.
Mary’s son, Oliver Thomas, and his son, Oliver Thomas, Jr. were born ‘free’ in America, but had no right to vote, to live where they chose, to sit anywhere on the bus, except in the back, to eat in a restaurant with White people, to use a public bathroom used by White people, and no right to a decent education alongside White classmates. Thomas-Greenfield’s parents were illiterate, and she was the first in her family to graduate from high school.
Palestinians are not allowed to own land in Israel, and much of the land they live on in the West Bank has been bulldozed to make way of illegal Jewish settlements for decades. Building permits in East Jerusalem are denied to Palestinians. The people who live in Gaza today are the original inhabitants of other areas, and were forced to be segregated into a ghetto called Gaza.
Thomas-Greenfield attended an all-Black high school in Baker, East Baton Rouge County, Louisiana. In 1960, the total population of Baker was 4,823 persons, and by 2020 the population is 82% African American, the descendants of slaves, with 12% living at or below the poverty line.
She grew up in segregated Louisiana, where by law and tradition White students and Black students never sat together. When desegregation finally came to Louisiana in 1960, only four Black girls attempted to go to a White school and violence ensued by White parents.
In 2021, Tammy C. Barnett wrote that Louisiana’s history of racism is historical, and present. Barnett cites the definition: “Racism is the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.” By this definition, we can see that the Israeli policy toward all Palestinians is racist.
Palestinians can attend schools in Gaza and the Occupied West Bank, and many are run by the UN. However, if they want to receive a higher education from a prestigious University abroad, they can never return home again. Their decision to pursue a Masters or Doctorate degree is a decision for exile, imposed upon them by Israel. Thomas-Greenfield left her home to pursue a Master’s Degree in Wisconsin, but the same degree is prohibited for a Palestinian student, by Israeli law.
By the time Thomas-Greenfield entered Louisiana State University, she was one of a small number of Black students and experienced racism personally. Later, she went way North to University of Wisconsin, and we might think getting out of the Deep South would make life easier, but in reality some of the most racist White people live in the North. Because they never attended school with Black children, worked alongside a Black co-worker, had a Black neighbor, and never sat next to a Black person in church; the unfamiliarity bred contempt of the unknown.
Palestinians are prevented from attending a school with a Jewish student. This segregation is a mirror of the experience of Thomas-Greenfield and other African Americans. Both the Jews and the Palestinians are apt to prejudice, based on the fact they are prevented from learning, living and working together side by side.
The parents of Thomas-Greenfield raised a daughter who became a shining example of what is possible if given a fair chance. It was the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and many other activists and political figures who laid the groundwork making it possible for Thomas-Greenfield to become the US Ambassador to the UN.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) said in 1963,
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
“Our elected representatives, who operate in a political environment where Israel’s political lobby holds well-documented power, have consistently minimized and deflected criticism of the State of Israel, even as it has grown more emboldened in its occupation of Palestinian territory and adopted some practices reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow segregation in the United States,” according to Martin Luther King Global in 2019.
To honor MLK and his message, it is imperative to condemn Israel’s actions when violating international law, occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. Followers of MLK must protest the treatment of Palestinians at checkpoints, the routine searches of their homes and restrictions on their movements, and the severely limited access to decent housing, schools, food, hospitals and water.
In a statement delivered at the 1962 American Negro Leadership Conference MLK declared:
“Colonialism and segregation are nearly synonymous . . . because their common end is economic exploitation, political domination, and the debasing of human personality.”
Nation-State Law passed by the Israeli Knesset declares, among other things:
“The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.
The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.
The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law.
The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.”
A calling out of Israel as an international criminal in its illegal seizure of Palestinian territories, a recognition of its colonial, segregationist, and apartheid project, would be consistent with the teachings of MLK.
Palestinians are crowded into ghettoes and required to have “passes” for moving; there are separate roadways for Jews and Palestinians; Palestinians are deprived of their homes and lands, deprived of equal rights. This is against everything that MLK fought and stood for in life.
In March 2022, the UN labeled Israel as an Apartheid state. Nelson Mandela was prominent in the fight for Black rights in Apartheid era South Africa. Mandela carried the torch MLK lit in America.
South Africa’s apartheid state and the state of Israel are both ‘settler-colonial nation-states’, where full citizenship is enjoyed by the chosen nation – the settlers – and Indigenous peoples are denied their rights.
Apartheid is about race. The Jews see themselves as a superior race, and deserving of all human rights, while they view the Palestinians as sub-humans and deserving no human rights.
In 1962, Mandela was trained as an armed fighter, and became the first commander of a resistance group called uMkhonto we Sizwe, which eventually was successful and led to the downfall of the racist Apartheid state. Armed resistance to occupation is guaranteed by the Geneva Convention; however, targeting civilians is prohibited.
Thomas-Greenfield is an employee of the State Department, and while others there have complained about what Israel is doing in Gaza, and one employee resigned in protest, it appears Thomas-Greenfield is defending the Biden-Blinken policy to support the war crimes of Israel in Gaza. She has lost touch with her ancestors who were as oppressed as the Palestinians.
*
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 Mideast Discourse.
Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from MD
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Steven Sahiounie, Global Research, 2023
https://www.globalresearch.ca/shame-us-ambassador-un-she-has-forgotten-her-roots/5840867
China Hails Strategic Alliance with Russia While US Officials Try “Damage Control” After Biden’s “Xi Dictator” Remark
By Drago Bosnic
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.
***
As diplomatic etiquette is an entirely unknown concept to the United States, its political elites obviously think it’s just another day at the office when describing world leaders as supposed “dictators”. For instance, on September 15, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock called Chinese President Xi Jinping a “dictator”, resulting in further cooling of the already strained relations between Beijing and Berlin. This isn’t her first “undiplomatic” statement (euphemistically speaking), as she effectively declared war on Russia back in late January, resulting in frantic attempts by other German diplomats to deny her claims as “nothing more than personal opinion”. One would expect other Western leaders to learn from Baerbock’s mistakes.
But alas, all we’re getting is more of the same or even worse in a way, as American President Joe Biden demonstrated last week. Namely, on November 15, after over four hours of talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping, during which they allegedly “made significant breakthroughs in multiple key areas” (at least according to the mainstream propaganda machine), Biden decided to “crown” the supposed “thaw” by pulling out “another Baerbock”. He held a press conference right after the allegedly “successful” talks and at the very end of it, Min Jung Lee of the infamous CNN asked Biden whether he still thought that President Xi was a “dictator”, something he said several times before, to which he responded that he does. His exact words were:
“Well, look, he’s a dictator in the sense that he is a guy who runs a country that is a communist country that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours,” also adding: “Anyway, we made progress.”
Historic Joe Biden-Xi Jinping Meeting at Filoli Estate (Cal). Biden Hails ‘Real Progress’
It seems that Biden thinks that interjecting his favorite phrase, the (in)famous “anyway”, into the statement made it sound better, but he should probably think again. His Secretary of State Antony Blinken certainly didn’t think it helped and, expectedly, neither did President Xi. Namely, on November 20, mere days after the “groundbreaking meeting”, he hailed firm ties between China and Russia, America’s archenemy, stressing that the strategic partnership with Russia “injects more stability into the world”. Xi affirmed that “Beijing stands ready to work with Moscow resolutely on bilateral relations and building a permanent friendship”. At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin sent him a letter with similar points about Sino-Russian ties.
“Putin said in his congratulatory letter [marking the 10th meeting of the dialogue mechanism between the Chinese Communist Party and United Russia] that the Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination is at the highest level in history, and the two countries are working together to advance a number of large-scale cooperation projects in the fields of economy, transportation, energy and culture, among others. The two countries are coordinating positions through bilateral channels and multilateral mechanisms such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS to resolve major international issues and promote the building of a more just and democratic international order,” Xinhua summarized Putin’s words.
When comparing not only the friendly remarks by the Russian president, but also his deeply respectful, diplomatic tone with Biden’s careless usage of the word “dictator”, it shows the stark difference in how Moscow and Washington DC conduct foreign policy. When analyzed a bit more deeply, the American president’s words also demonstrate the deep-running racism and completely groundless “superiority” complex that the political West feels towards the entire world. By saying that President Xi Jinping is a supposed “dictator” just because China’s political system is different from that of the country “he runs”, Biden effectively admitted that the belligerent thalassocracy still thinks the whole world should live the way America does.
“This statement is extremely wrong and irresponsible political manipulation,” Chinese Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman Mao Ning said in an official response.
Beijing’s anger is certainly justified and it was surely not unexpected in Washington DC either, as demonstrated by Blinken’s reaction to Biden’s completely unnecessary statement. However, the damage control that American diplomats have been trying desperately since last week will accomplish nothing. During his visit, President Xi tried his best to ensure good relations between the two countries. The message he conveyed to the CEOs of America’s largest corporations was one of peace and economic cooperation, but alas, Biden had other plans.
This isn’t the first time China has tried to extend its hand to the US. For years, the belligerent thalassocracy has been creating completely pointless and unnecessary tensions with the Asian giant. Whether it’s trivialities such as the laughable “balloon controversy” (which, by the way, turned out to be an unadulterated lie that American officials never apologized for) or the very serious statements about the “coming war with China” given by high-ranking US generals, Beijing is indeed faced with a runaway train when dealing with Washington DC.
Thus, America’s attempts to not only force China into submission, but also prevent its comprehensive (and continually growing) partnership with Russia are doomed to fail miserably, just like the futile aim of defeating the Eurasian giant in Ukraine (or anywhere else for that matter). It’s virtually guaranteed that the US will remain a long-term threat to the entire world in the foreseeable future and it can only be expected that the globe will (rightfully) respond with further isolation of America and its vassals and satellite states.
*
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 InfoBrics.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from InfoBrics
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Drago Bosnic, Global Research, 2023
Seventeen Covid Pandemic Lies We’ve Been Told
By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null
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 in October 2023
***
Looking back over the past three years and ten months since the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in Wuhan, the world has been on a roller coaster ride torn between competing and warring scenarios about what took place, how and why.
For those who promulgated the official narratives composed by the World Health Organization and governmental health ministries, medical dissenters constituted an “infodemic” of misinformation that criticized the institutional authority and scientific evidence embodied in the official policies that were supposed to protect public health.
On the other side of the fence, dissenting medical voices observed a potential “plandemic”—a pre-planned and orchestrated effort to take full advantage of a viral outbreak in order to serve ulterior motives and goals.
Aside from the “infodemic versus plandemic” debate, what is now certain is that much of what our federal health officials and their mainstream media mouthpieces told us during these three-plus years was patently false and untrue.
In fact, in retrospect, it was more of stream of ad hoc beliefs and wishful thinking instead of an public health strategy based upon hard scientific facts.
Therefore, we are listing many of the most egregious errors, and more likely intentional lies, that the American people have been indoctrinated into believing with a brief analysis and the evidence to lay these pandemic mythologies to rest.
1. Lockdown of COVID-19 Positive Individuals and Social Distancing Will Curtail the Pandemic
The federal health agencies decision to do a mass domestic lockdown of the nation to curtail the Covid-19 pandemic may be one of the greatest policy disasters in American history. It was not supported by any consensual scientific data, and there was no historical precedent to warrant it.
The lockdown was catastrophic to the economy and small and mid-sized businesses, many which were forced into bankruptcy. By the end of May 2020, 36 million working Americans found themselves unemployed.
The nation’s mental and physical health plummeted. Even the Great Depression took a couple of years to destroy the nation’s economy to this degree, and not in several months, as did the lockdown.
Some nations realized early that lockdowns and business and school closures were a foolish policy. In August 2020, infectious disease expert and medical advisor to the UK government Mark Woolhouse called the British lockdown a “panic measure…. because we couldn’t think of anything better to do.” He correctly predicted that the lockdown would do greater harm than the Covid-19 virus.
People will be surprised to learn that according to a Ron Paul Institute investigation, the pseudo-science behind the rationale for social distancing originated in 2006 with a 15 year old Albuquerque high school student’s science fair project and the assistance of her father, a government employed scientist.
The computer modeling project was based upon asking the question how might students be prevented from transmitting an infectious disease to each other? Thus arose the hypothesis of social distancing. Somehow, due to the girl’s father’s connections, her project wound up in the US Department of Homeland Security. In 2007, the CDC, under the Bush administration, made social distancing official policy.
Otherwise, there is absolutely no evidence based science to suggest that either lockdowns or social distancing can have any realistic impact during a pandemic. Government efforts to fund research to legitimize the lockdown policies were debunked as fundamentally flawed by Lund University researchers in Sweden and published in Nature.
Similarly, a review of lockdown measures taken by ten nations by Stanford University scientists, including signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration and world renowned medical statistician John Ioannidis, concluded that there were no benefits through restrictive lockdown measures, and the populations who were the least restrictive, such as Sweden and South Korea, fared better.
In fact, other consequences of lockdowns can have a far more detrimental impact upon society such as stunted mental development.
2. Schools Must be Shut Down to Protect Children
One of the most disconcerting consequences of rigid lockdowns and closures was the disruption in children’s education. The rationale for school closures never had a scientific basis and was based upon premature fears.
Outside of the US, early in the pandemic, health officials realized that children were not very susceptible to contracting or spreading SARS-CoV-2 as previously thought. Sweden never locked down schools and there were no spikes in Covid-19 infections among children.
In Canada a team of scientists representing several professional medical institutions monitored children’s capacity to transmit the virus in daycare, in schools, on the playground and other extracurricular activities. The researchers concluded there was no risk to children, nor adult staff, to restrict in-person classes and outdoor activities.
Nor was there ever evidence-based data to support the need to vaccinate children with the mRNA vaccines. A large study analyzing all hospital admissions and Covid-19 deaths across the UK during a twelve month period beginning March 2020, reported only 25 deaths in persons under 18 years of age.
Half of those had severe comorbidities or disabilities requiring complex healthcare needs such as tube feeding—a rate of 2 per one million youth. This rate is far below children who die annually from regular vaccines on the CDC childhood vaccine schedule.
3. Face Masks Prevent Viral Transmission
Perhaps the most bizarre round of hypocrisy during the early phase of the pandemic was the row of inconsistencies by America’s doctor, Anthony Fauci, regarding the importance of face masks to lessen viral transmission. Appearing early on 60 Minutes, Fauci announced there was “no reason to be walking around with a mask” and it has “unintended consequences.”
This was a truthful statement and there is a large body of peer-reviewed research going back decades that show masks are essentially useless. Yet later in July 2020, he would declare the exact opposite, “We are trying to get people to universally wear masks.”
His flip-flop was stated in a critical response against prescribing hydroxychloroquine, and to promote masks as an alternative. Later still, Fauci would walk back masks’ preventative benefits, and then yet again restate their efficacy.
There are over 170 peer-reviewed research studies. There are many reasons for avoiding masks whenever possible. These include viral concentration in nasal passages resulting in viral damage to the olfactory channel and eventually the brain reduction of blood oxygenation; an abnormal increase in CO2 levels (hypercapnia) and, hypoxia-associated headaches.
This poses an especially dangerous risk to cardiac and cancer patients, because cancer cells prefer a low-oxygen environment to proliferate. Wearing a mask for long periods of time will also increase concentrations of viruses in general, not simply coronavirus; a viral overload may in turn contribute to cytokine storms and trigger serious autoimmune conditions.
4. Everybody’s Life Is Endangered by the SARS-CoV-2 Virus
Although the message to the global community emphasized that everyone’s health was in jeopardy from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, health officials also acknowledged a 99 percent survival rate. Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis calculated that the average mortality rate was 0.07 percent in people under 70 years of age.
In fact, a later study released by the Swiss Policy Institute on Covid-19 lethality, concluded that the median Covid death age is higher than the national life expectancy of most developed nations such as the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Germany.
Moreover, the large majority of Covid-related deaths involved at least one prior serious comorbidity. In an Italian study, this was the case for over 99 percent of Covid fatalities. Most cases have been infirm patients in elderly care homes and hospitals. Consequently there was never any exaggerated rate of excess deaths.
5. The PCR Test Is the Most Accurate Method to Confirm SARS-2-CoV Infections
It is important to note that at the time the PCR test was widely deployed for the identification of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, there had to be a quantified virus isolate upon which to even develop the PCR with a modicum of accuracy. For this reason, the use of PCR to diagnose the Covid virus was awarded an Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA.
Despite PCR being ruled as the “gold standard” for testing SARS-CoV-2 infections, it was never designed to be a diagnostic tool. PCR’s inventor, the Nobel Prize laureate Kary Mullis stated “PCR… doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”
Moreover, PCR has a long history of being unreliable. For example, a Chinese study observed that a single patient could test differently on any given day. Before the roll out of the Covid-19 vaccines, PCR tests were set to high cycle thresholds of between 35-40 cycles.
Some US labs set the cycle at 45, which would assuredly result in a very high rate of false positive results. Even Anthony Fauci is on record admitting that cycles over 35 are “almost never culturable”—in other words, there is insufficient virus present, if any, that can be isolated for culturing.
It wasn’t until late 2021, long after the PCR served its intended goal to keep the illusion of Covid-19 infectious rates high, that nations began to dump it in preference for more accurate, quick tests. In fact, relying on PCR as a secondary confirmatory test was dropped as well.
On December 31, 2021, the CDC came clean and admitted PCR was unable to differentiate between the flu and Covid-19 virus. A study reported in the Physician’s Weekly announced the CDC knew the kits were frequently contaminated and had a serious design error that contributed to false positives.
Nevertheless, according to the Kaiser Foundation, the PCR tests were a huge financial windfall for healthcare clinics and hospitals. This was despite the test’s complete misuse throughout the first two years of the pandemic, and the astronomical false positives that blew the severity and spread of the virus out of proportion.
There were cheaper and better alternatives such as Abbott’s and Roche’s analyzers that cost no more than $25 per text rather than the average $90 for a flawed PCR. One hospital charged $1,400 per test.
In summary, the pandemic statistical rates based upon PCR testing were meaningless. There is also a high rate of upwards to 75 percent of Covid positive results which were asymptomatic but nevertheless qualified under WHO guidelines as being “confirmed.” This inevitably reinforced the perception of the SARS-2 virus’ widespread transmission.
6. COVID-19 Vaccines Require Emergency Use Authorization Because There Are No Effective Drugs Against SARS-2-Cov
Unlike the United States, where we were told there was no effective drug or therapy to successfully treat Covid-19 infections, there was plenty of research and clinical application of available drugs and nutrients being used overseas.
The Western public is barely aware that between late January 2020 and early February, before the WHO official proclaimed a global pandemic, the Chinese government had ordered 50 tons of vitamin C from a Dutch firm and delivered them to Wuhan.
Starting on February 9th, hospitals began aggressive clinical trials with vitamin C. A week later, the Chinese government made vitamin C an official recommendation for treating Covid-19 infections. Other Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea followed suit. Shortly thereafter, China added hydroxychloroquine to its recommended list of treatments.
At home, as early as March 2020, there were front line doctors dedicated to finding available drugs with anti-viral properties that might target SARS-2. The government’s recommendations of quarantine and eventual hospitalization showed no signs of success whatsoever and only increased the death rate.
It is therefore no surprise that the United States led the world in the highest Covid-19 death rate per capita. And there were plenty of drug candidates, among them hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin, as well as what the Asian nations were doing with nutrients such as Vitamin C, Vitamin D and zinc.
There is only one reason for why the federal health agencies refused to acknowledge the repurposing of existing drugs. If there were an existing drug or protocol to successfully treat Covid-19 infections, the FDA could not give Emergency Use Authorization approval to the mRNA vaccines and expensive design drugs in the pharmaceutical companies’ pipeline.
7. Quarantining COVID-19 Positive Individuals and Ventilation Are the Only Reliable Therapies
Before the launch of the Covid-19 vaccines at the end of 2020, the federal health officials’ only recommended treatment was quarantining Covid-positive individuals and ventilation if admitted to the hospital with serious infection.
Inova Fairfax Hospital in Virginia published a study in PLoS One in November 2020, and reported “Mortality of patients with Covid-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation is high, with particularly daunting mortality seen in patients of advanced age, even in a well-resourced health care system.”
The death rate for patients over 70 years old, who were most susceptible to infection, was 84 percent. In fact, ventilation has never cured any infectious disease. Nevertheless government health agencies, as well as the WHO recommended ventilation as a necessary medical intervention for serious Covid-19 cases, which during the early period of the pandemic was upward to 86 percent of all hospitalized patients.
Despite the growing medical evidence from around the world indicating the high success rate of repurposed drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, published in scientific journals, the government continued to do nothing to save lives and continued advancing proven ineffective recommendations until a vaccine was available.
Furthermore, long-term ventilation has its own serious side effects including memory loss, muscle weakness and sleeping disorders. After reviewing the literature, the Chief Physician Editor for WebMD estimated that between 40-50 percent of ventilated patients die.
8. Hydroxychloroquine Is Ineffective and Dangerous
An Emergency Use Authorization cannot be authorized for any product or medical intervention if there is an FDA approved alternative product already available, unless the experimental product clearly shows significant advantages. EUA products also require informed patient consent.
Therefore, Anthony Fauci and other government health officials made it certain that no prior medical products could challenge the Covid-19 vaccines EUA status and assured they would be forced through the regulatory process with limited federal evaluation.
The only explanation for the federal health agencies’ refusal to recommend hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating Covid-19 patients is intentional malfeasance. In February 2020, the National Health Commission of China included hydroxychloroquine in its guidelines for treating mild, moderate and severe SARS-2 cases with notable success.
Throughout the pandemic, Covid-19 mortality rates in China were far below the United States and most European nations that followed America’s example. Early in the pandemic, physicians such as the late New York doctor Vladimir Zelenko quickly earned a reputation for successfully treating patients with a combination of HCQ, the antibody azithromycin and zinc, which directly threatened the Fauci formula to do nothing except distance and isolate.
Other physicians including Dr. Paul Marik at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Dr. Pierre Kory likewise adopted HCQ with enormous success. Yet throughout the first years of the pandemic, the mainstream media continued to promulgate Fauci’s do nothing strategy by reminding the public that “months would be needed to find an effective treatment.”
There was absolutely no reason for the CDC to intentionally ignore and denigrate HCQ. To date there are over 430 studies evaluating the drug’s efficacy, with the large majority of random controlled trials proving its successful efficacy especially during early treatment with a 72 percent reduction in mortality.
9. Ivermectin Is Ineffective and Dangerous
Similar to hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin posed a second threat to the Covid-19 vaccines and any future novel anti-Covid drugs. Ivermectin was first introduced to the market in the early 1980s as an anti-parasitic drug.
However, its effectiveness was observed later to possess a broad range of antiviral properties against a variety of RNA viruses such avian influenza, zika, dengue, HIV, West Nile, yellow fever, chikungunya and earlier severe respiratory coronaviruses.
It has also been found effective against DNA viruses such as herpes, polyomavirus, circovirus-2 and others. By April 2020, there was strong evidence that the drug was capable of killing the SARS-CoV-2 virus in 48 hours.
Therefore, front line clinical physicians naturally wanted to prescribe ivermectin to their patients because quarantine and ventilation were a failure. However, a government public relations campaign led by Anthony Fauci spread fear into the public by spreading false information that the drug was only a veterinarian dewormer medication.
Corporate media consistently repeated the government’s talking point despite ivermectin having one of the longest safety profiles in medical history and having been prescribed to over 3.5 billion people worldwide. Both HCQ and ivermectin are listed on the World Health Organization’s essential drug list.
Ivermectin has an impressive success profile across the entire course of SARS-2 infection: 85 percent improvement as a prophylaxis, 62 percent improvement for early and 41 percent for late treatment.
One hundred seventy-five of 225 ivermectin studies have been peer-reviewed and 99 were clinical trials comparing ivermectin treatment and control groups. Fifty-one studies show that ivermectin lowers overall mortality by an average 55 percent. Twenty-two countries have officially adopted ivermectin for early treatment.
10. Remdesivir Is the Go-To Drug Against COVID-19 Infections
Despite hydroxychloroquine’s and invermectin’s successful therapeutic profiles, and its widespread use without FDA approval for Covid-19, the federal agencies continued to await a novel, designer drug to treat SARS-2 infections.
Gilead’s drug remdesivir received emergency use approval in May 2020 and was officially launched in late October. In the interim, tens of thousands of Americans died who could have been saved with the preexisting medications. Without proper FDA review to evaluate the drug’s safety profile and efficacy, it was touted as the go-to drug to fight Covid-19 infections.
However, remdesivir’s profile is horrible. Sixty studies have been conducted to determine its efficacy and only 22 are favorable with weak results. Its viral clearance is a poor 10 percent. It is equally poor for late serious treatment (9 percent).
The drug prevents mortality only by 11 percent and has a negative adverse track rate in preventing hospitalization (-5 percent). Moreover, remdemisvir carries a serious warning for acute kidney injury.
11. The COVID-19 Vaccines Are 95% Effective
When the two vaccine developers, Pfizer and Moderna, made their announcements to the world that their mRNA Covid-19 vaccines were 95 percent effective in protecting people from the SARS-CoV-2 virus and for preventing infection, it was an automatic green light for their rapid launch.
However, the news was based only upon press releases and some study protocols without release of the trials’ full data. As more trial information was released as the vaccination programs were underway, the data showed a completely different picture.
Some of the original trial participants were missing, data that would be expected to appear was missing, observed adverse effects were oddly redefined so as to be ruled coincidental and unrelated to the vaccines, and trials were discontinued before their end dates.
There were also problems with the PCR tests to determine whether or not trial participants were infected or not. One Pfizer document excluded 3,410 “suspected confirmed Covid-19” cases following vaccination. Peter Doshi, then an associate editor at the British Medical Journal conducted a thorough investigation into the companies’ trial data that was publicly available at the time.
He uncovered widespread inconsistencies and protocol deviations. The FDA wanted to keep tens of thousands of Pfizer’s vaccine safety data documents sealed for 75 years; however after considerable pressure from civil and public health groups, a federal court ruled the FDA had eight months to release them.
After the mass vaccination campaigns were underway, reports challenging the 95 percent efficacy started to regularly appear in the medical literature. First, Johns Hopkins University published a study that the vaccines were less effective in persons with diverse autoimmune diseases including rheumatoid arthritis and musculoskeletal diseases.
Soon the vaccines were only 75 percent effective, 60 percent effective and finally only effective for a maximum of 5 months. In early 2022, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, who earlier stated 100 percent vaccine efficacy, stated that two shots offered limited protection, “if any”.
12. The COVID-19 Vaccines Will Protect Recipients from Infection and Transmission
Throughout the course of the Covid-19 vaccination campaigns we were repeatedly told by the White House, Anthony Fauci and other health officials, and the media pundits that it was incumbent for citizens to get vaccinated in order to stop the pandemic.
Only the vaccinated would be protected from infection, not carry the virus and, therefore, would not transmit the virus to others. This message’s rhetoric became fear mongering; it was everyone’s patriotic duty to get vaccinated and those who refused endangered society.
However, nothing in the message was based upon medical consensus. In fact, by June 2021, it was learned that the federal government didn’t possess sufficient or accurate data to calculate the transmissibility of the virus.
Therefore, federal officials were incapable of predicting a target for vaccine “herd immunity”. In other words, all the targets for the percentage of Americans necessary to protect the population were strictly fictitious.
During a CNN interview, then CDC director Rochelle Walensky admitted that the vaccines were no longer able to “prevent transmission.” When asked, she also admitted that although an infected person may be asymptomatic, the virus can still be transmitted.
In fact, as time wore on and a greater understanding about the mRNA’s flaws and risks were published, this was all misinformation. During a large outbreak of the Delta variant at an indoor gathering in Provincetown, Massachusetts in July 2021, an overwhelming number of infected cases were fully vaccinated.
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, and as similar outbreaks among fully vaccinated persons continued to multiply, it did not bring an end to virtue signaling and the condemnation of the unvaccinated as enemies to the health of the nation.
13. Natural Immunity Following COVID-19 Infection Is Insufficient
The proponents of the official Covid-19 vaccine narrative want us to believe that natural immunity following infection with any of the virus’ variants is insufficient and not a substitute for not getting vaccinated. If this were true, then this contradicts the evidence of natural immunity’s superiority over vaccine immunity for all other RNA viruses.
Yet there is no convincing evidence to support the official claim. One large study that analyzed over one million people found natural immunity following a SARS-2 infection offers longer lasting protection than vaccination.
In the same paper, Weill Cornell Medicine found that full vaccination after three doses of both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines provided no immunity against the omicron variant. To the contrary, natural immunity was 97 percent effective against severe Covid-19 after 14 months.
When the FDA approved Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine for emergency use in children between 5 to 11 years of age, a group of professors of medicine and physicians at the University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services published evidence in the New England Journal of Medicine that the vaccine’s effectiveness becomes negative within five months, but also destroys any prior natural immunity the person may have.
In other words, in less than half a year, the vaccinated are more susceptible to Covid-19 infection than the unvaccinated. This study is especially worrisome. Nevertheless, it was never picked up by the media despite being published in one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals.
14. The COVID-19 Vaccines Are Perfectly Safe and Adverse Effects Such as Myocarditis Are Extremely Rare
Anyone willing to take the time to investigate the medical evidence will quickly realize this false claim that is repeatedly voiced by the CDC and mainstream media and has no supporting evidence whatsoever.
There are now well over 1,000 studies appearing in the medical literature detailing Covid-19 vaccine injuries for 118 different medical conditions. In particular, the mRNA vaccines target the heart and cardio-vascular system. The most frequently reported adverse event, contributing to the majority of vaccine-induced deaths, are myocarditis-related.
Currently there are at least 228 peer-reviewed papers confirming Covid-19 vaccines inflamed heart muscle resulting in arrhythmias.
The other most frequent life-threatening vaccine injuries include thrombosis and thromboembolism (150 studies), thrombocytopenia (116 studies), cerebral venous thrombosis (61 studies), vasculitis or inflammation of blood vessels (43 studies), Guillain Barre Syndrome (43 studies), lymphadenopathy or diseased lymph nodes (35 studies), and myopericarditis (21 studies).
Due to the many sudden deaths associated with heart attacks and strokes following mRNA vaccination that appear on social media and cannot be hidden, myocarditis obviously has gained the greatest attention.
Nevertheless there is an ever-increasing number of case reports of intracerebral hemorrhage, Bell’s Palsy, acute encephalopathy, acute kidney injury, CNS inflammation, autoimmune disorders, cancer, and a variety of reproductive organ, fertility and pregnancy complications that have yet to be studied more thoroughly.
Finally, a large independent study conducted by the Correlation Research in the Public Interest organization in Canada evaluated the potential number of Covid-19 vaccine-related mortality compared to all cause mortality (ACM) in seventeen nations in the Southern Hemisphere, which included Australia, Brazil, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, which comprise over 9 percent of the world’s population.
The study’s conclusion was that the vaccines contributed to approximately 17 million additional deaths above ACM, and there is no evidence they actually saved lives.
15. The Vaccines’ mRNA Remains Only at the Site of Inoculation
Health officials, physicians and medical personnel administering the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines tell vaccine recipients that the genetic material coding for the spike protein and encapsulated by the lipid PEG nanoparticle remains only at the muscle location of the inoculation.
In other words, it doesn’t traverse through the body’s other tissues and organs. This may be partially true for traditional vaccines, which rely upon a bacterial or viral component or vector; however this is not the case for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines that use a nanoparticle, which are capable of diffusing across cell membranes and even the blood-brain barrier.
This was reported in one of Pfizer’s own studies to observe the vaccine’s toxicological effects in rats.
In the Pfizer document, after a 48-hour period following injection, the mRNA nanoparticles distribute themselves specifically to the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and reproductive organs, including the ovaries.
Non-specifically, the mRNAs can migrate to the heart, kidney, lung and brain. It is no different for Moderna’s vaccine. A Moderna study reports, “low levels of mRNA could be detected in all examined tissues except the kidney. This included heart, lung, testis and brain tissues, indicating that the mRNA/LNP crossed the blood brain barrier.”
16. Pregnant Women Should Receive COVID-19 Vaccines
The belief that the Covid-19 vaccines given to pregnant women will protect both the mother and fetus from infection remains unfounded. The only studies making these claims are poorly designed cohort analyses. However, many gynecologists with large patient loads of pregnant women have observed an inordinate rise in the number of miscarriages and anomalies since the mRNA vaccines were launched.
The most commonly reported pregnancy-related adverse event reported in the government’s VAERS Covid-19 vaccine injury database is spontaneous abortions.
A separate ratio analysis performed on the VAERS data that compared post-Covid-19 vaccine reports against pre-pandemic flu vaccination found a greater than 100 percent increase in menstrual abnormality, miscarriage, fetal chromosomal abnormalities, fetal cardiac disorders and arrhythmia, placental thrombosis and fetal death/stillbirths during the Covid-19 period.
A later study by the same authors, suggests there may be as high as a 92 percent chance of a spontaneous abortion before 13 weeks gestation.
Based upon one of Pfizer’s own mRNA vaccine reproduction toxicity studies on pregnant rats, incidences of pregnancy loss doubled following vaccination. The study also observed that the vaccine’s nanoparticles were distributed to “all tissues in the body.” Unlike the European Union, the FDA has failed to release the study’s full details.
17. Medical Voices Who Dissent from the Official Narrative Are Spreading Misinformation and Should be Censored
As the dissenting voices within the medical community challenging the government’s official pandemic narrative and preventative policies grew, the establishment declared we were in an “infodemic” that threatened global health.
The term appears to have originated from a United Nations communications official, Melissa Fleming, during a podcast aired by the World Economic Forum in November 2020. Also on the broadcast was a former Twitter employee Mark Little, who advocated for a global counter-attack on pandemic dissenters through social media.
The World Economic Forum determined misinformation was a global crisis that required immediate coordinated responses from governments, private industries and civil society groups working together. This is just one among many other initiatives to begin an orchestrated censorship of physicians and other medical professionals who spoke out against government pandemic response policies.
One such effort was a collaborative agreement between the World Health Organization and Wikipedia, according to the New York Times. Shortly after entering the White House, one of Biden’s first initiatives was to recruit the large social media firms, such as Google, Facebook and Twitter “to clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed Covid-19 information.” The primary goal was to silence voices that opposed the vaccines.
We should be reminded that efforts to curtail, marginalize and condemn dissenting medical practitioners began immediately before and after the Covid-19 vaccine rollouts.
At the outset, it was widely acknowledged that the mRNA vaccines were experimental medical interventions, which were never studied under real life conditions to make any realistic evaluation about their efficacy and safety.
The federal health agencies were determined to have complete ownership over whatever narrative was necessary to meet its vaccination and pandemic policy goals. This required silencing information, even peer-reviewed research that supported the anti-vaccination concerns, by whatever means available.
*
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.
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.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
Reviews
This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon
In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia
In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig
Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac
A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin
WHO: No Guarantee COVID Vaccines Will Prevent People from Being Infected
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.
We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, Global Research, 2023
https://www.globalresearch.ca/seventeen-pandemic-lies-weve-been-told/5836606
Der Friedensstifter 
