Aletho News


Spokesman: Taliban seeks political system approved by all Afghan people

Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid is interviewed by a Press TV correspondent in Kabul, Afghanistan, on August 30, 2021.
Press TV – August 30, 2021

The spokesman for the Taliban group, which is now in control of most parts of Afghanistan and is planning to establish the new government once the occupying foreign forces leave, has told Press TV that the group seeks to build a political system in the country that would be approved by its people and accountable to the people.

“The Islamic Emirate is determined to have a [political] system that is approved by our people and our people [would] feel comfortable under that system,” Zabihullah Mujahid told Press TV in an exclusive interview on Monday.

He added that such a political system will be accountable to the country’s people, saying, “[We want] a system that is accountable to the people; is accountable and meets the needs of the people.”

Asked about allegations that the group is focused on one ethnic group in Afghanistan at the cost of other ethnic groups, Mujahid said the Taliban has never acted on the basis of an ethnic mentality.

“The Taliban do not have an ethnic mentality. We have all gathered under one mentality or mindset. In Afghanistan, the people who are with us have fought, sacrificed and come together. We do not have tribes and we do not believe in it,” he said, adding that it would be enough for Afghans to come together and become a single mass and a single force.

The Taliban spokesman emphasized, “Ethnic issues were fueled here by the occupiers” because they wanted to divide the Afghan people and pursue their own goals.

“We, the people of Afghanistan, are brothers. All our people live here and they have the right to live, and that is enough… In Afghanistan, we do not give anyone the right to divide us on the basis of ethnicity. Here… we respect [all ethnic groups] and all the ethnic groups of our country will live together and we will live together as one.”

Mujahid: Americans prepared ground for Kabul attack

Asked whether the Kabul airport attack by the Daesh Takfiri terrorist group had dashed Afghan people’s hope in the ability of the Taliban to guarantee the security of the country, Mujahid responded negatively and said, “We assure you that the most recent explosion that took place is still being investigated to find out the main causes.”

The Taliban spokesman added, “The ground was prepared for this explosion. Unfortunately, the American forces deliberately wanted to gather the people in a place and cause disorder for this incident to happen. Several other incidents occurred and the American forces themselves fired and as a result, people were killed and trampled. Our investigation into the main cause of this incident has begun.”

Mujahid stressed that, “We can prevent the recurrence of such attacks. In 33 provinces of Afghanistan, people feel safe. People are safe and the property and dignity of the people are preserved. We will increase our monitoring to find out if there are other small problems in some other place.”

“No group can act independently once Islamic govt. established”

The Taliban spokesman also told Press TV correspondent that after the occupiers left Afghanistan and Afghanistan is liberated and an Islamic government is established, there would be no excuse for anyone or any group to operate under the name of Daesh and another group.

“We will ensure the security of the country and our message to those who act under the name of Daesh is to consider [the fact] that Afghanistan is no longer a war zone,” Mujahid said.

“What is true is that an Islamic system is being established here. Foreign forces are leaving Afghanistan and there is no excuse left for us not to bring an end to the war and we make sure that such a thing will not happen again and we can stop it,” he added.

“We want good relations with entire world”

Asked about the main concerns of Taliban regarding their position in and acceptance by the international community and whether the group will take over Afghanistan’s seat in the United Nations, Mujahid said, “We are currently in a situation where other countries must have trust and understanding with us. We, on our part, assure the whole world that we want to have good relations with everyone.”

“The worries and concerns that some countries have can be resolved through diplomacy, through the embassy and through legal channels. Putting pressure [on the new Afghan government] is not the solution [for their concerns],” he said.

Mujahid added, “We send our messages to all countries, especially Western states like the United States and Europe, not to stand in our way. If there are concerns, there are diplomatic ways for us to resolve our differences.”

“On Israel, Taliban follows same path of rest of Islamic world”

Commenting on the issue of Israel and the stance of Islamic countries on the acts of aggression by the occupying regime, Mujahid told Press TV that the group follows the same path on Israel as the rest of the Islamic world.

“Our opinion is the same as the rest of the Islamic world. Israel should be recognized as an aggressor and occupier entity, and … should be dealt with [as such]. This is an inter-Islamic issue and all nations and the Islamic world suffer from it. This is also our pain. This is our complaint and we are on the same path with the rest of the Islamic world,” Mujahid said.

“We have no problem for running Kabul airport once Americans leave”

Elsewhere in his remarks, the Taliban spokesman said the groups will have no problem taking charge of the international airport in the capital Kabul once the occupying forces leave.

“God willing, we do not have any problem in that field. Once the Americans are completely out and everything is handed over to us, we will have no problem. From the technical point of view, we won’t have any problem either because the previously-trained workforce in this field remains in place and continue their work.”

The Taliban are poised to run Afghanistan again 20 years after they were removed from power by American forces following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

The militants intensified their offensive and rapidly overran major Afghan cities in recent weeks, as the US-led foreign forces enforced what has been criticized as a hasty and ill-planned withdrawal. The Taliban laid siege to Kabul on August 15, forcing the then Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to flee the country on the same day.

Since then, Kabul’s airport has been the scene of chaos and sporadic violence, with panicked Afghan and foreign nationals desperately trying to catch evacuation flights out of the country, prompting officials there to enforce restrictions.

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 1 Comment

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part XXVIII

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | August 26, 2021

What I refer to as the “Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time” is the systematic alteration of historical world temperatures to make it appear, falsely, that the most recent months and years are the “warmest ever.” The basic technique of the fraud is the artificial lowering of previously-reported data as to world temperatures in earlier years, in order to erase earlier warmth and amplify the apparent warming trend. This is the 28th post in this series. The previous post in the series appeared on October 5, 2020. To view all 27 prior posts, you can go to this composite link.

The deliverable products of the temperature fraudsters are purported charts of world temperatures derived from a thermometer-based surface record (called GHCN, or Global Historical Climate Network), generally going back to about 1880. The charts are engineered to appear in an iconic “hockey stick” shape, with relatively flat earlier years followed by a sharply rising “blade” in the most recent years.

Every few years the government (this is a joint effort of NASA and NOAA) comes out with a new version of these data. The latest version is called GHCN version 4, which began in 2018. Here is a chart from the Columbia University website (the NASA branch involved in this project, known as the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, is located on the Columbia campus in uptown Manhattan) showing a side-by-side comparison of the version 3 and version 4 GHCN data. Both show the famous hockey stick shape, although version 4 increases the recent uptick somewhat.

GISS TEMP v 3 and 4.png

My October 5, 2020 post mainly summarized a piece by Tony Heller that had appeared on October 1 of that year. Heller’s piece focused specifically on alterations to the temperature record of the U.S., as opposed to the entire world. Heller provided links to earlier and later NASA/GISS data reports, clearly showing that temperatures originally reported for earlier years had subsequently been lowered to enhance the warming trend and to make the most recent years appear to be the “warmest” — in spite of the fact that if temperatures previously reported had been correct, then earlier years including 1953, 1934, and 1921 had actually been warmer than the most recent years.

Heller also noted, as I have many times, that NASA and NOAA make no secret of the fact that they are systematically altering and lowering earlier-year temperatures,

Reality is that the data alterations are no secret, and that NOAA and NASA acknowledge that they do it.

The problem is not that the alterations are a secret, but that they are opaque. You would think that it would be impossible for earlier-year temperatures to change at all, let alone that they would systematically change in a way that just happens to enhance the desired narrative of the promoters of the global warming scare. The justifications for the alterations appear to be just so much bafflegab, completely lacking in specific rationales for each change that you would think would be required — particularly given that these temperature charts are being used as a basis for a multi-trillion dollar fundamental transformation of the world energy economy.

Anyway, into this mix now comes a young Japanese woman named Kirye, who has taken up the Heller tradition of compiling and publishing instances of government alteration of the data that underlie the NASA/NOAA temperature charts. Kirye posts periodically on Heller’s website, known as RealClimateScience, and also at the NoTricksZone site. A couple of days ago (August 24) Kirye had a post at NoTricksZone titled “Adjusting To Warm, NASA Data Alterations Change Cooling To Warming In Ireland, Greece.” Adding to Heller’s work, this post goes outside the U.S. to look at two European countries that ought to have good and reliable temperature data. The post specifically focuses on the period 1988 to present, which is the period of the supposed sharp uptick in temperatures represented by the “blade” of the hockey stick in the NASA/NOAA charts above.

What Kirye finds is that in both Ireland and Greece, NASA and NOAA have altered the data to turn a cooling trend into a warming trend for the 1988-2020 period. Here is her comparison of the “unadjusted” data for Ireland compared to the “GHCN version 4” currently being reported:


Kirye gives a link for these graphs to the NASA/GISS website. That is where she got the information. The NASA/GISS site has a map of the world with a little dot for each station, and if you click on any station you can get a plot courtesy of NASA that shows both the “unadjusted” and “version 4” temperature series for that station. Kirye has taken both versions straight from NASA itself. It’s just that only when you combine and present the data the way Kirye does do you realize that the bureaucrats have systematically altered the temperature trend for an entire country from down to up. Suddenly you clearly see that the entire apparent upward trend consists of unspecified “adjustments.” The same applies for both Ireland and Greece.

Can they even attempt to justify what they have done? At the same NASA/GISS page linked by Kirye, I find a further link saying “For details see FAQ.” Maybe I can find the answer here? So I followed that link, and another, and come to the end of my road at this document titled “FAQs on the Update to Global Historical Climatology Network–Monthly Version 3.2.0.” This document specifically relates to the version of GHCN just preceding version 4, but I have no reason to think that the basic methodology has changed. Here is an extremely revealing “FAQ” with the relevant part of its answer:

Why is the century‐scale global land surface trend higher in version 3.2.0?

The PHA software is used to detect and account for historical changes in station records that are caused by station moves, new observation technologies and other changes in observation practice. These changes often cause a shift in temperature readings that do not reflect real climate changes. When a shift is detected, the PHA software adjusts temperatures in the historic record upwards or downwards to conform to newer measurement conditions. In this way, the algorithm seeks to adjust all earlier measurement eras in a station’s history to conform to the latest location and instrumentation. The correction of the coding errors greatly improved the ability of the PHA to find these kinds of historic changes. As a result, approximately twice as many change points (inhomogeneities) were detected in v3.2.0 than in v3.1.0. . . .

Study that a little bit and think about what they are saying. There can be “station moves” or “new observation technologies” that can cause a “shift in temperature readings.” Fair enough. So has anybody contacted any of the Irish stations to find out if they have had a “station move” or “new observation technology” or anything like that since 1988? Absolutely not! Instead, they have a computer algorithm detect these things — or maybe invent them. The algorithm supposedly looks for “shifts.” So suppose readings at a particular station have somehow shifted to lower temperatures. Could it be that temperatures are reading lower because it got cooler? Obviously that does not fit the narrative. Time to declare a “shift.” Now, instead of reporting the cooling trend that is coming from the thermometers, you can adjust the earlier temperatures downward to reflect “new observation technology” or some such never-specified thing.

Note on Kirye’s dynamic graph that every single one of the stations in Ireland has had its trend adjusted from down to up by these computer algorithms. Did they all have station moves and/or “new observation technologies”? NASA doesn’t even pretend to have checked.

Take a look also at the “unadjusted” Irish plots on Kirye’s graph. Can you spot the supposed “shifts” that support having some computer come in and re-write the earlier temperatures to make the overall trend change from down to up?

At the end of the linked NASA document is a further link where you can supposedly get the computer code used for making what they call the “homogeneity corrections.” However, when I try that I don’t get anything I can open.

Anyway, this is what passes for “science” in the field of climatology.

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Who would kill children to save the planet?

A new eco-movement would sacrifice millions of lives


Two things. First, economic growth saves children’s lives. That is one of the most basic, starkest facts about the modern world.

Second, there is a thing called the “degrowth movement”, which wants to stop economic growth. And, yes, this would lead almost inevitably to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of children a day.

Let’s deal with that first point first. For most of history, somewhere around a third of children died before their fifth birthday. That awful number has dropped enormously, but even now, it’s nearly one child in 25.

As child mortality has gone down, so has global poverty — while global economic output has increased. Correlation is not causation, of course – but this isn’t just true at a global level, but at a country-by-country level. Nowadays, if your country is rich, your children are more likely to live. That is amazingly obvious on this chart. If you live in the rich Iceland, for example, your child is 60 or 70 times less likely to die before its fifth birthday than if you live in the poor Central African Republic or Democratic Republic of Congo, where about one child in every 10 dies in its first five years.

And on that second point: some people really think that that economic growth should stop, right now. Jason Hickel is an anthropologist and one of the key voices in what is known as the “degrowth” movement. He argues that — in rich countries, at least1 — we ought to stop aiming for economic growth immediately. He thinks that “green” growth, the idea that we can grow our economies while reducing carbon emissions, is a chimera, or at least that it cannot happen fast enough to avoid disastrous outcomes from climate change.

Hickel, of course, denies that economic growth saves lives. In fact, he doubly denies it. First, he denies that global poverty has gone down as a result of economic growth. In 2019, he argued that all those famous charts showing a huge decline in global poverty are false, because they focus on very extreme poverty — people living on the equivalent of $1.90 a day or less. If you look at some more reasonable threshold of “poverty”, he says, such as $15 a day, the decline disappears.

This is straightforwardly untrue, for the record. Whatever threshold you use, people are getting richer. People have generally shifted from lower incomes to higher incomes, and as a result fewer children are dying.

And secondly, Hickel denies that economic growth does save children’s lives: or, rather, that it does beyond a certain, quite low level. “Past a certain point, the relationship between GDP and social outcomes breaks down or becomes irrelevant,” he says. “After that, what matters is distribution and access to public services.”

But this doesn’t seem to be true either. If it were, you’d see that very poor countries have consistently high child mortality, but that as you reach the middle-income and rich countries, it would be much more mixed. But in fact there’s still a strong relationship, and middle-income countries like China and Brazil have much higher infant mortality than rich countries like the UK and Japan. If you live in Brazil, there’s about a one in 60 chance that your child will die before its fifth birthday. In China, one in 100. In the UK, it’s way down at one in 250-ish.

You could look at the reduction in child mortality over time, as the world has become richer, as one of the great success stories of our time. In a way you’d be right to do so, but it is a hugely unfinished story. Children are still dying at an awful, unacceptable rate of about 14,000 a day — Max Roser of Our World In Data describes it as “equivalent to a crash of a jumbo jet with only children on board, every hour of every day of the year”.

Nonetheless, it is true that economic growth appears to have saved millions of children’s lives. That 14,000 a day would be something more like 100,000 a day, if children were dying at the rate they used to.

Also note that “economic growth” doesn’t necessarily mean “free-market capitalism”. As Noah Smith points out, a lot of the reduction in global poverty has been about smart government action (especially in Latin America), or China’s complicated industrial and economic reform, not simply free-market policies – although at the very least it’s fair to say that global capitalism hasn’t got in the way.

But this broadly positive story is a closed book to Hickel and the degrowth movement. It’s instinctively difficult to understand why anyone would want to deny it, but I have two theories.

One is that it’s very hard to acknowledge that things can get better without being good. It’s a common problem. It is, for instance, almost certainly true that the UK is much less racist and sexist than it used to be. But it’s also clearly true that there are real problems that continue to exist. It is extremely hard to say “the UK has become better with regards to racism and sexism” without people hearing “the UK is not racist or sexist”.

If you’re Jason Hickel, you might see people arguing that poverty has decreased, and assume that they mean “and therefore global poverty is no longer a problem”. That is, of course, absolutely not the case.

The second hypothesis is a more complicated one — and has to do with something called “prevalence-induced concept change”. Imagine that you have dedicated your life to some problem: say, reducing littering in a local park. You work really hard. You set up a charity and solicit donations; you put together a workforce. And, bit by bit, you successfully reduce the problem. The park becomes a bit less litter-filled. What do you do? Do you say to your charity’s staff, “The park is doing a bit better now, we probably don’t need so many of you. And we should probably reduce our demands for donations, as well”?

Human nature being what it is, probably not. More likely (and as happens in laboratory settings), you will simply start focusing on smaller and smaller things. Before, you had shopping trolleys in the pond and a dead sheep in the playground, and you focused on them. But now that they’ve gone, your attention will focus on the crisp packets and fag butts. Partly that’s because you now have the attention to spare, because the bigger problems have been solved; but it’s also partly because, if you start saying “actually the situation is a bit better now”, it will be harder to rally support for your cause.

I think this is a really important driver of human behaviour. It is very hard to ever admit things are getting better along any axis, because if you do, it feels like you’re saying: “So you can stop working hard to fix this problem.”

Similarly, if you’re Jason Hickel and you’ve dedicated your life to fighting global poverty (and to saying that global poverty is all because of capitalism and colonialism and that economic growth is bad), then it will be really inconvenient if someone says: “Actually, global poverty has decreased significantly, that reduction seems to be correlated with economic growth, and it has had amazing positive outcomes such as a huge reduction in child mortality.” It will be very tempting to find ways of ignoring that reality.

I worry, though, that it is counterproductive to tell people that all their hard work improving some situation has had no effect. If all those decades of buying low-energy lightbulbs and reducing flights and eating less meat have not improved the climate, then why shouldn’t I just stop bothering? If all those anti-racism campaigns and hate-speech laws and so on made no difference, what’s the point? And in the case of poverty, if economic growth doesn’t reduce global poverty, then it does indeed make sense to give up on growth altogether. But in reality, economic growth does reduce global poverty, and reduced poverty saves children’s lives.

But the degrowth movement is right, in one sense. Growth almost certainly can’t carry on forever. If the economy grows at 2% a year every year, which it roughly has for the last century or so, then it doubles in size every 35 years.

That’s not sustainable in the long term. In 8,250 years — as Holden Karnofsky of the Open Philanthropy Project points out — the economy would have grown to 3*1070 (that is, a 3 followed by 70 zeroes) times its current size. There are, for context, about one-third that many atoms in our galaxy. And 8,250 years isn’t very long: there are cities which have been around for longer.

Perhaps growth will continue into the far future. I could imagine some weird universe of simulated worlds and uploaded humans — and indeed others have. But probably, the more likely outcome is that growth slows or stops or reverses in the next few centuries.

The question, of course, is when it should stop. I, for one, would rather wait until the children stop dying so much. Hickel and the degrowth movement think it should be sooner. But if they want to make that case honestly, they should admit the reality of all the dead children.


  1. It’s worth noting that Hickel doesn’t think we should stop aiming for growth everywhere: just in rich countries. But rich countries that buy much of the goods produced in poor countries, driving their growth, so that would be a very difficult needle to thread.

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Timeless or most popular | 1 Comment

Amazon, “Economic Terrorism” and the Destruction of Competition and Livelihoods

By Colin Todhunter | OffGuardian | August 30, 2021

Global corporations are colonising India’s retail space through e-commerce and destroying small-scale physical retail and millions of livelihoods.

Walmart entered into India in 2016 with a US$3.3 billion take-over of the online retail start-up This was followed in 2018 with a US$16 billion take-over of India’s largest online retail platform, Flipkart. Today, Walmart and Amazon control almost two thirds of India’s digital retail sector.

Amazon and Walmart have a record of using predatory pricing, deep discounts and other unfair business practices to attract customers to their online platforms. A couple of years ago, those two companies generated sales of over US$3 billion in just six days during Diwali. India’s small retailers reacted by calling for a boycott of online shopping.

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


In the US, an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee concluded that Amazon exerts monopoly power over many small- and medium-size businesses. It called for breaking up the company and regulating its online marketplace to ensure that sellers are treated fairly.

Amazon has spied on sellers and appropriated data about their sales, costs and suppliers. It has then used this information to create its own competing versions of their products, often giving its versions superior placement in the search results on its platform.

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) published a revealing document on Amazon in June 2021 that discussed these issues. It also notes that Amazon has been caught using its venture capital fund to invest in start-ups only to steal their ideas and create rival products and services.

Moreover, Amazon’s dominance allows it to function as a gatekeeper: retailers and brands must sell on its site to reach much of the online market and changes to Amazon’s search algorithms or selling terms can cause their sales to evaporate overnight.

Amazon also makes it hard for sellers to reduce their dependence on its platform by making their brand identity almost invisible to shoppers and preventing them from building relationships with their customers. The company strictly limits contact between sellers and customers.

According to the ILSR, Amazon compels sellers to buy its warehousing and shipping services, even though many would get a better deal from other providers, and it blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices on other sites. The company also routinely suspends sellers’ accounts and seizes inventories and cash balances.

The Joint Action Committee against Foreign Retail and E-commerce (JACAFRE) was formed to resist the entry of foreign corporations like Walmart and Amazon into India’s e-commerce market. Its members represent more than 100 national groups, including major trade, workers’ and farmers’ organisations.

JACAFRE issued a statement in 2018 on Walmart’s acquisition of Flipkart, arguing that it undermines India’s economic and digital sovereignty and the livelihoods of millions in India. The committee said the deal would lead to Walmart and Amazon dominating India’s e-retail sector. It would also allow them to own India’s key consumer and other economic data, making them the country’s digital overlords, joining the ranks of Google and Facebook.

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

Although there was strong resistance to Walmart entering India with its physical stores, online and offline worlds are now merged: e-commerce companies not only control data about consumption but also control data on production and logistics. Through this control, e-commerce platforms can shape much of the physical economy.

What we are witnessing is the deliberate eradication of markets in favour of monopolistic platforms.


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

Thanks to the helping hand of various COVID-related lockdowns, which devastated small businesses, the wealth of the world’s billionaires increased by $3.9tn (trillion) between 18 March and 31 December 2020.

In September 2020, Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s executive chairman, could have paid all 876,000 Amazon employees a $105,000 bonus and still be as wealthy as he was before COVID. Jeff Bezos – his fortune constructed on unprincipled methods that have been well documented in recent years – increased his net wealth by $78.2bn during this period.

Bezos’s plan is clear: the plunder of India and the eradication of millions of small traders and retailers and neighbourhood mom and pop shops.

This is a man with few scruples. After returning from a brief flight to space in July, in a rocket built by his private space company, Bezos said during a news conference:

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

In response, US congresswoman Nydia Velazquez wrote on Twitter:

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

She added the hashtag #WealthTaxNow in reference to Amazon’s tax dodging, revealed in numerous reports, not least the May 2021 study ‘The Amazon Method: How to take advantage of the international state system to avoid paying tax’ by Richard Phillips, Senior Research Fellow, Jenaline Pyle, PhD Candidate, and Ronen Palan, Professor of International Political Economy, all based at the University of London.

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

Bezos praised India on Twitter by posting:

Dynamism. Energy. Democracy. #IndianCentury.”

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

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

A fitting response, albeit perplexing given the current administration’s proposed sanctioning of the foreign takeover of the economy, not least by the unscrupulous interests that will benefit from the recent farm legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, money talks and buys influence. In addition to tens of billions of US dollars invested in India by Walmart and Amazon, Facebook invested US$5.5 billion last year in Mukesh Ambani’s Jio Platforms (e-commerce retail). Google has also invested US$4.5 billion.

Since the early 1990s, when India opened up to neoliberal economics, the country has become increasingly dependent on inflows of foreign capital. Policies are being governed by the drive to attract and retain foreign investment and maintain ‘market confidence’ by ceding to the demands of international capital which ride roughshod over democratic principles and the needs of hundreds of millions of ordinary people. ‘Foreign direct investment’ has thus become the holy grail of the Modi-led administration and the NITI Aayog.

The CAIT has urged the Consumer Affairs Ministry to implement the draft consumer protection e-commerce rules at the earliest as they are in the best interest of the consumers as well as the traders of the country.

Meanwhile, the CCI probably will complete its investigation within two months.

Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture and is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization in Montreal.

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Corruption, Economics | , | 1 Comment

U.S. Government Stats on COVID Vaccines: 13,627 Deaths 2,826,646 Injuries 1,429 Fetal Deaths

By Brian Shilhavy | Health Impact News | August 30, 2021

According to the most recent stats released by the CDC this past Friday, August 27, 2021, their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) now has recorded more than twice as many deaths following COVID-19 shots during the past 8 and a half months, than deaths recorded following ALL vaccines for the past 30 years.

This has to be the most censored information in the U.S. right now, even though these statistics come directly from official government statistics.

They have now recorded 13,627 deaths2,826,646 injuries, and 1,429 fetal deaths from pregnant women who took a COVID shot.

They also report 17,794 permanent disabilities, 74,369 emergency room visits, 55,821 hospitalizations, and 14,104 life threatening events. (Source.)

And all of this has happened in just over 8 months.

From January 1, 1991 to November 30, 2020, the last month before the COVID shots were given emergency use authorization, there were only a total of 6,068 deaths recorded (mostly infant babies) following ALL vaccines. (Source.)

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Aletho News | , | 1 Comment

BOMBSHELL UK data destroys entire premise for vaccine push

By Chris Waldburger | August 21, 2021

This is an absolute game-changer.

The UK government just reported the following data, tucked away in their report on variants of concern:

Less than a third of delta variant deaths are in the unvaccinated.

Let me say that another way – two-thirds of Delta deaths in the UK are in the jabbed.

To be specific:

From the 1st of February to the 2nd of August, the UK recorded 742 Delta deaths (yes, the dreaded Delta has not taken that much life).

Out of the 742 deaths, 402 were fully vaccinated. 79 had received one shot. Only 253 were unvaccinated.

The report is here.

But this is the crucial page. Look at the bottom line.

Again, 402 deaths out of 47 008 cases in vaccinated; 253 deaths out of 151 054 cases in unvaccinated. If you get covid having been vaccinated, according to this data, you are much more likely to die than if you were not vaccinated!

Obviously some allowance must be made for more elderly people being vaccinated, but not enough to change the bottom line: this vaccine is not nearly as effective as advertised.

And with all its unknowns, and a much higher adverse reporting number than all other vaccines combined, a complete recalibration of global policy is the only moral option.

Countries around the world, as months pass since vaccinations, are experiencing a surge in vaccinated deaths and hospitalizations. 60% of hospitalizations in Israel are fully vaccinated patients. (Hence the mad rush for untested boosters.)

The powers that be will not admit there is something terribly wrong. They will not acknowledge the clear science that people with natural immunity, and the young and healthy, do not need to take the risks of these injections. Read this very important piece on natural immunity. Reliable studies showing the superiority of natural immunity are just ignored by our overlords.

Instead they will jab and jab and jab again. The vaccine passports will be renewable every six months. Countries are ordering up to 8 shots per citizen. The masks will not go away. Israel, the pre-eminent vaxxed nation, is in lockdown.

The report also made one other important admission:

In other words, getting vaccinated to protect others is not true!

This is NOT a sterilising vaccine that stops diseases like polio or hepatitis using live virus. This is for you alone. Which means, as experts like Martin Kulldorff, biostatistician, epidemiologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, have long said, it makes zero sense to vaccinate the young and healthy.

We are dealing with a world-historical error, and in fact a global assault on young bodies.

To be clear, I make no advice to anybody about taking the vaccine or not. I may well have decided to take it if I were in a risk category, or if I knew I did not have to wear a mask or get tested after taking a single shot. Your decision should be guided by consulting with a doctor, informed consent, and your own conscience.

And you should ask yourself why there is no explanation for the hundreds of thousands of women experiencing menstrual changes after the shot, or the way vaccines are being mandated at the same time they are under investigation for unknown risks.

What I will say categorically is that you will have to answer one day, in this life or the next, for where you stood on the issue of mandating medicine for the healthy without informed consent, on giving cover for governments to shove things down kids’ noses, and locking down all that makes life worthwhile. Where were you when kids’ freedoms were stolen from them? I doubt there will be much forgiveness from that generation.

Every time somebody posts a meme mocking vaccine hesitance, not only do they alienate the hesitant, and radicalize them, they implicitly endorse a new police state in which a liberal government like Australia feels empowered to pepper spray kids in the face for not wearing a mask that has not been conclusively shown to prevent viral transmission.

For crying out loud, this what even the World Health Organization admits about masks:


The vaccines will not end these measures, especially in countries with low vaccination rates. They cannot, unless these governments admit their massive errors. Their booster shot push makes this unlikely.

Finally, why does the media not even report on governmental data? Why am I reporting this stuff?

I have no idea, but it is truly sinister.

Ask yourself why the media will not even mention the fact that this 23-year-old Irish footballer below, in perfect health, received a vaccine three days before dropping dead:

Untimely indeed.

God have mercy.

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

A Letter to the Vaccinated

Ontario Civil Liberties Association | August 29, 2021

Following their “Open Letter to the Unvaccinated”, an expanding group of Canadian scholars has now written a letter addressing “the vaccinated”. The writers expose the divisiveness of vaccination status and denounce the resulting rift in society.

Giving up civil liberties in exchange for a false sense of safety is futile. We must not accept a descent into medical apartheid in Canada and around the world.

The letter appeals both to those who chose to take the vaccine and those who were coerced. It reflects on the broader implications of our actions in an effort to collaborate on a constructive path forward.

Open Letter to the Vaccinated

Prime Minister Trudeau recently warned that “there will be consequences” if federal employees do not comply with vaccine mandates. This is a voice of tyranny that has reverberated fear and heightened agitation across our country. It has launched our nation into deep division around mass vaccination and brought our collective recovery from this pandemic to a critical head. In fact, it forces us, as a country, to finally ask: indeed, what are those consequences?

What are the societal consequences of being divided along the lines of vaccination status? What are the consequences of mandating such an insufficiently tested medical intervention? How is this all supposed to end well?

The consequences will be dire, to be certain. And the consequences will affect all of us, the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike.

Over the last six months, many of us made our decision to accept the vaccine in good faith – doing the right thing in order to work, travel and visit the people we love. Sadly, some of us have been pressured or coerced. And now, mounting evidence worldwide shows that these vaccines cannot stop the transmission of the virus and variants, yet vaccination mandates continue.

Meanwhile, the pharma corporations are earning billions of dollars of public money, and pushing to fast-track the vaccines towards full approval, without due process or public discussion. It is abundantly clear that when money and politics intertwine, science and ethics take a back seat.

Maybe you once resented those who hesitated to get the vaccine, as people who were not doing their part; but maybe it is time to consider that we have all become passengers on the same runaway train. The meaning of “fully vaccinated” is rapidly changing as leaders demand the next booster upgrade and threaten ousting us from public spaces if we don’t comply. So, if you are among the “fully vaccinated” today, by tomorrow you may become one of the “insufficiently vaccinated” and be coerced into taking another shot.

If history is any indication, this will not stop with barring admission to concerts or bars. When you can no longer buy food, access banking, vote in person or cross a provincial border, it will be crystal clear that the same discriminatory practices that you hope to abolish will be ever more firmly established. The real consequences await all of us.

Perhaps you’ve had your full round of doses and are now having doubts about whether to continue based on the alarming number of infections among the vaccinated. Or maybe you know someone who has been vaccine-injured or are concerned about the mounting death reports in conjunction with vaccinations.

We keep asking ourselves, “Why is the data not allowed to be scrutinized and why are independent experts being censored if they attempt to do just that?” It is incomprehensible, and decidedly un-Canadian, to see the silencing of highly regarded doctors and health scientists in our country and around the globe.

History has taught us that one-sided arguments and outlawed dissent are signs of totalitarianism lurking at the doorstep. Soon, asking questions will make you an enemy of the State. Mandating vaccines is a breaking point. “My body, my choice” has been one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society, but this is changing. Canadians are being robbed of personal decision making.

With lockdowns already scheduled for the fall, and boosters at the ready, we are entering a watershed moment. Are we all willing to continue being injected indefinitely? In Canadian provinces and around the world vaccine passports are demonstrating our new, long-term relationship with medical coercion in exchange for basic freedoms. Thus far, each treatment has been promised to be the last, but it couldn’t be clearer that there is no end in sight.

And now they’re coming for our children.

With extremely low risk of becoming ill and practically no risk of dying from COVID-19, the mass vaccination of children and adolescents remains unwarranted. Lining up our healthy children for medical treatment was never part of the deal. Most disturbingly of all, we are being primed for mass vaccination campaigns in our schools that do not require parental consent. Does the government decide what is best for our children? Without question, the family ties that bind us are being undone. Justifiably, parents are appalled by this unprecedented overreach and are debating pulling their children out of schools.

Despite our best intentions, families are scarred, friends are divided, and partners are at odds with each other. We have been weakened by our division and manipulated through fear.

Just how far will we allow this to go? “All the way!” some of us declare. But “all the way” is a place we will never reach. We need to stop this medical catastrophe and face the truth: this isn’t about our health; it is about politics and it is about control.

The consequences of following Prime Minister Trudeau’s current orders are greater than his threatened consequences. We entered into this for one another, not for our politicians. We have done what we felt we had to do, and now we must say, ‘This is far enough, no more!’

Angela Durante, PhD
Denis Rancourt, PhD
Jan Vrbik, PhD
Laurent Leduc, PhD
Valentina Capurri, PhD
Amanda Euringer, Journalist
Claus Rinner, PhD
Maximilian C. Forte, PhD
Julie Ponesse, PhD
Michael Owen, PhD
Donald G. Welsh, PhD

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | 1 Comment

The Science of “Hope” – Biden Regime Promotes New Plan For Multiple Booster Shots Every Six Months in Perpetuity

THE LAST REFUGE | August 25, 2021

The Biden administration is on the precipice of announcing mandatory six month booster shots for people who have already had the vaccine. The reason? Data from Israel is showing that vaccinated populations are, for yet unknown reasons, more susceptible to even worse infections from the Delta variant.

It appears, from the early data, that once you take the vaccine you put your immune system into a state of perpetual dependency requiring booster shots to chase the variants every six months. Without the boosters, the hospitalization rates amid the vaccinated population appear worse than non-vaccinated. Delta hits the vaccinated population harder than Alpha, and Lambda will likely hit the vaccinated population harder than Delta…. and so it goes, and so it appears it will continue.

The Daily Beast outlined a foreboding article yesterday with the overarching message that America had better prepare for this quickly based on the Israeli data. The Israeli scientists call the population who have taken the vaccine+booster the “ultra-vaccinated”, and unfortunately it appears those ultra-vaccinated patients are now on course to require frequent booster updates as their immune system is now mRNA dependent to battle the evolving COVID variants.

FTA – […] Asked what has brought Israel to peak transmission even as the country has already provided third doses of vaccines to 1.5 million citizens, Rahav, who has become one of the best known faces of Israel’s public health messaging, sighed, saying, “I think we’re dealing with a very nasty virus. This is the main problem—and we’re learning it the hard way.” (read more)

Metaphorically, a drug user chasing a “high” trains his/her brain to become dependent or addicted in order to retain that altered mental state, so too does the COVID vaccination regime appear to place the patient into an dependent state for their immune system.

However, on the positive side (for those vaccinated) the Biden administration appears to be gearing up to deliver this booster process on a long-term basis.

The Biden administration is planning to announce updated guidance recommending a third dose of Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccine be given to Americans very six months after their second dose (instead of eight months), according to The Wall Street Journal. Right now, the final plan is still being worked out, and  will need to be approved by the CDC’s vaccine advisory team, essentially controlled by vaccine makers, along with the FDA (also controlled by vaccine makers).

As soon as the pharmaceutical industry tells the Biden administration what to do, the CDC will begin pushing the booster shots onto the vaccinated population.

There is no actual science behind this process, but then again, there hasn’t really been any science behind any of it; so don’t worry, just take the next shot and await further instructions. However, if this process is put into place, it would appear that the vaccination passports will have an expiration date.

WASHINGTON DC – […] The Biden administration and vaccine companies have said that there should be enough supply for boosters that they plan to begin distributing more widely on Sept. 20. The U.S. has purchased a combined 1 billion doses from Pfizer and Moderna.

A White House spokesman declined to comment. An FDA spokeswoman declined to comment on interactions with vaccine manufacturers. (read more)

You will notice the institutions of Healthcare have now stopped using the term “follow the science.” One of the reasons they have dropped that terminology is apparently because they change the ‘science‘ on a week to week basis.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky was recently asked if her agency was giving current guidance to the public based on “the data” or based on arbitrary “hope” that they will be correct and their guidance will help people.

Director Walensky was honest in her reply:  “… So there’s actually hope, [because] we don’t have data yet…”

It is very comforting to know that “hope” is guiding the decision-making of those who are injecting substances into the global population without any idea what the long-term ramifications might be….

… Then again, if you really believed that human existence was the cause of harm to this planet; and saving the planet was the #1 priority of your community; then removing the harm would be for the greater good. Personally, while I hate to be argumentative, I would respectfully disagree with people who prefer my death in order to save the world. But, to be fair, that’s just me being selfish.

I am reminded of the words from a carnival operator I heard as a child as we approached the turnstiles of the roller coaster. Apparently the young lady at the front of the line had said something to him as we all waited for the next car to arrive.  I did not hear the question, but his reply was:

“… Well Miss, once you get on the ride – you ain’t getting off ’til the ride’s over.“

Those words stuck in my mind as I pulled down the retaining bar. And as my life has rattled, wobbled and squeeked toward unknown destinations, I have often found a reason to reference them.

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 3 Comments

Now they tell us … repeat Covid shots for the forseeable future

By Meryl Nass, MD | August 29, 2021

Extraordinary admissions. Extraordinary facial expressions. I typed exactly what she said:

“Booster doses, repeat doses will be part of it… I can assure you that the Commonwealth government has purchased large quantities of vaccine into 2022 and this will be a regular cycle of vaccination and revaccination as we learn more aabout when immunity wanes”

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Deception | | 3 Comments


August 26, 2021

AWESOME interview conducted by Vaccine Choice Canada, August 21. Dr. David Martin reveals shocking news everyone, especially Canadians must demand authorities investigate – potentially treasonous acts and crimes against humanity.

To keep current with Dr. Martin’s work visit -Activate Humanity: Butterfly of the Week Sources:

Dr. David E. Martin:

The Fauci COVID-19 Dossier:

Reiner Fuelmich interview: of Interview:

Stew Peters interviews with Dr. David Martin:

Join the FIGHT for our FREEDOM. Become a member of Vaccine Choice Canada and stay informed!

August 30, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | 3 Comments