Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

FDA admits it has no records indicating covid-19 vaccine safety protocols were followed

By Aaron Siri | ICAN | June 9, 2023

From early in the pandemic, the government has been promising the public that it was taking COVID-19 vaccine safety “very seriously,” and that the vaccines had been subject to “the most intense safety monitoring program in U.S. history.” ICAN likes to confirm these claims for itself but when it tried to do just that, it uncovered that the FDA actually deviated from long-standing protocols concerning vaccine safety.

Since May 9, 2008, the FDA has had vaccine safety procedures in place detailed in a Standard Operating Procedures and Policies (SOPP) document. This document “describes the procedures that the [FDA] staff should routinely follow to coordinate rapid responses to complex vaccine safety issues,” and discusses a Vaccine Safety Team whose “key purpose”  is to “coordinate [FDA] rapid responses to vaccine safety issues … and to serve as a resource [] to identify data and policy needs pertaining to vaccine safety.”

One office in the FDA is crucial to this goal and acts as the “official contact for VAERS and is responsible for processing and review of the reports,” as well as “for forwarding those reports to the appropriate contacts within CBER for further action and follow-up.” For example, its staff members identify VAERS adverse event reports that “need a rapid response and complex coordination,” after which they are supposed to “immediately” inform certain FDA management who then alert other sub-agencies.

Given the lofty talk by federal health agencies claiming that COVID vaccines were subject to “the most rigorous – and accurate – review processes globally,” one would think that the FDA, at a minimum, subjected them to at least these already ridiculously weak pre-existing standards for vaccine safety monitoring.

But, after ICAN’s attorneys submitted records requests to the FDA seeking documents on the FDA’s policies concerning the identification of VAERS reports requiring a “rapid response,” as well as documents showing that the FDA had actually followed up on the individual VAERS reports that required a “rapid response,” the FDA replied more than year later with an incredible response: “A search of our records did not locate any documents responsive to your request.”

In a nutshell, the FDA has essentially admitted that it is not following even its own set of already watered-down procedures for vaccine safety monitoring that were in place prior to COVID.

When the curtain is pulled back on the purported “thorough” and “intense” safety monitoring, there is yet again nothing to see. So much for the FDA’s promise to look out for the American people. ICAN will continue to monitor the FDA and share any important updates.

See below for more instances where ICAN uncovered instances where “health” agencies made unsupported claims to the public:

June 10, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Ukrainian Counteroffensive Runs Into Defensive Wall

By Scott Ritter – Sputnik – 10.06.2023

Over the course of the past few days, Ukraine has thrown two of its best-trained, best-equipped mechanized brigades into offensive operations against entrenched Russian defenders in the Zaporozhye sector of the front lines.

These two brigades had been hand-picked for this job, having been equipped with modern Western tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, supported by Western-supplied artillery, and using NATO-specific tactics shaped by NATO-provided intelligence and NATO operational planning. In short, these two brigades represented a top-level NATO-level capability, the epitome of the nexus between Ukraine and the Collective West in their ongoing war to destroy Russia.

They failed.

As the world comes to grips with the imagery of destroyed US-manufactured M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and German-made Leopard 2A6 tanks abandoned and burning on the Ukrainian steppe, the harsh truth regarding the futility of its larger designs—the strategic defeat of Russia—is starting to sink in.

The reality, however, is that Ukraine was never going to achieve its stated objective of punching through the Russian defenses to sever the land bridge connecting Crimea with Russia proper. This was pie-in-the-sky thinking promulgated by Ukraine’s Western supporters to motivate the Ukrainians into committing the equivalent of mass suicide to inflict similarly prohibitive casualties among the Russian defenders.

The Western hope was that Russia would become demoralized by these casualties and accept a negotiated end to the conflict on terms acceptable to both Ukraine and its Western allies.

So far, Ukraine and its Western allies have failed.

The genesis of this failure can be traced to two things. First, the low-opinion Ukraine and their NATO allies had regarding the combat capabilities of the Russian army, and in particular those forces deployed in the Zaporozhye region, and second, the unrealistic expectations assigned to NATO training and equipment that had been provided to the Ukrainian forces assigned the task of breaking through the Russian defenses.

The area selected by Ukraine and its NATO partners as the focus of effort for the counteroffensive was held by the 42nd Guards Motorized Rifle Division, part of the 58th Combined Arms Army. The Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think tank with close ties to US and NATO, claimed that the troops of the 42nd Guards Motorized Rifle Division “are predominantly comprised of mobilized recruits and volunteers and are therefore likely to face some problems with poor training and discipline.”

Moreover, it accused at least one of the subordinate regiments—the 70th motorized rifle regiment—of performing poorly during the initial phases of the Special Military Operation in 2022.

It is therefore reasonable to believe that NATO and Ukrainian military planners, using intelligence assessments that highlighted perceived command and control weaknesses and poor morale among the Russian forces which, when combined with poor past performance, believed that the Russian defenses in the Zaporozhye sector manned by the 42nd Guards Motorized Rifle Division would collapse under the weight of a NATO-style assault, allowing Ukrainian forces to penetrate deep into the Russian defenses.

While the fighting in Zaporozhye is not yet finished, the initial results on the battlefield show that, contrary to the expectations of Ukraine and its NATO partners, the men of the 42ndGuards Rifle Division performed their tasks in a professional manner, decisively defeating the Ukrainian assault forces. The 70th Motorized Rifle Regiment has been singled out as performing very well under difficult circumstances. The same can be said of the 291st Motorized Rifle Regiment and the 71st Motorized Rifles Regiment, along with special forces soldiers from the 22nd Spetsnaz Brigade. Analysts from ISW, in assessing the initial successes of the Russian defenders, noted that “Russian forces appear to have executed their formal tactical defensive doctrine in response to the Ukrainian attacks.”

This, of course, should have taken no one by surprise, since the individual in command of Russian forces in the Zaporozhye area is Colonel General Alexander Romanchuk, the man who is responsible for conceiving modern Russian defensive doctrine. In April 2023 Romanchuk, who at that time was serving as the Rector of the Combined Arms Academy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (the equivalent of the United States Army’s Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth), co-authored an article titled “Prospects for Improving the Efficiency of Army Defensive Operations.”

In the article, Romanchuk noted that the main mission of a defending force “is to neutralize the initiative of the advancing enemy, i.e., to bring him to the state of impossibility to continue advancing with deployed forces. Ultimately, this allows you to reduce his activity and seize the initiative by going over to a decisive counter-offensive to defeat the enemy with shock groups.”

This represents a restatement of Soviet-era doctrine. Indeed, Romanchuk draws upon the defeat of German offensive operations in the vicinity of Lake Balaton in March 1945 as representing an ideal implementation of this doctrine, underscoring “a bold maneuver of the reserves… especially artillery, the skillful use of anti-tank reserves, vigilant detachments of obstacles and the arrangement of fire ambushes” by the Russian forces in defeating the German attack.

Romanchuk, however, did not simply reiterate old doctrine in his paper. Instead, he emphasizes the concept of “dispersed forces” in building a defensive scheme capable of prevailing on the modern battlefield. “A dispersed defensive operation should become a logical response to a superior enemy,” Romanchuk writes.

Such an operation “is based on the retention of important areas, objects and transport hubs in separate most important directions,” and is “characterized by an even distribution of forces and resources in areas, and decentralized use of formations and military units of the armed forces and special forces.”

Romanchuk then went on to describe the ideal deployment scheme for these “dispersed forces” — one which focuses on three separate “zones of defense responsibility” separated by distances of between 8 and 12 kilometers. These gaps are covered by Russian artillery. The first “zone” is the “cover” zone, whose task is to define the main axes of the enemy’s advance. The next “zone” is the “main line of defense”, which is designed to halt enemy attacks using obstacle belts and fire power (artillery and air strikes). The last “zone” is the “reserve”, which is responsible for mounting counterattacks designed to push the attacking forces back to their original positions.

Romanchuk’s doctrine was the blueprint for the Russian defensive scheme employed in Zaporozhye. Indeed, Romanchuk was pulled from his teaching position at the Combined Arms Academy and put in command of the Zaporozhye sector. In other words, the place chosen by NATO and Ukrainian intelligence as the “weak spot” in the Russian defensive scheme was designed by Russia’s top specialist in defensive combat and placed under his direct command.

NATO and Ukraine gambled that Russia lacked the military capacity to successfully implement its own military doctrine, believing that Russian command staffs lacked the communications necessary to coordinate the complex operations necessary to implement this doctrine, and that the Russian forces—especially those who were recently mobilized—lacked both the training and morale needed to perform well under stressful combat conditions.

They were wrong on both counts.

NATO and Ukraine’s poor assessment of Russian military capability mirrored their own exaggerated assessments of Ukrainian units tasked with attacking the Russian defenses in Zaporozhye, namely the 33rd and 47th Mechanized Brigades. Both units were the recipients of modern NATO equipment, including Leopard tanks (the 33rd) and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles (the 47th). The officers and men of both units had been provided with the best training NATO could provide regarding modern combined-arms operations, including weeks of specialized training in Germany which focused on platoon, company, and battalion tactics and operations integrating firepower and maneuver while undertaking offensive operations.

The Ukrainian troops, working side by side with their NATO instructors, started by using computer simulations to introduce them to the complexities of the modern battlefield, before moving to the field for realistic hands-on training using the very NATO-provided equipment they would use against the Russians.

US “experts” like Mark Hertling, a retired US Army general believed that the combination of advanced western military equipment and superior NATO-style tactics “will allow Ukraine’s emerging combined-arms teams to conduct high-tempo maneuver” capable of overwhelming the Russian defenders in Ukraine.

He was wrong.

Hertling and his active-duty NATO brethren would have done well to listen to the words of General Christopher Cavoli, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, when speaking before a Swedish defense conference this past January.

“The scale of this war [i.e., the Russian-Ukraine conflict] is out of proportion with all of our recent thinking,” Cavoli noted.

The takeaway from this revelation is that NATO is neither trained nor equipped to fight the kind of fight they are demanding Ukraine execute against Russia.

The sad truth of the matter is that there are no NATO forces capable of successfully executing the offensive tasks that have been assigned to Ukraine. No one doubts the courage and commitment of the Ukrainian forces which have been thrown against Colonel General Romanchuk’s defensive barrier. But courage and commitment cannot overcome the reality that NATO lacks the ability, both in terms of equipment and doctrine, to successfully defeat Russia in a force-on-force confrontation, especially one which has Russia playing to its doctrinal strength (defensive operations) while NATO seeks to do something (an assault against prepared defenses) that it has no experience in doing.

Moreover, NATO and the Ukrainian high command threw the Ukrainian brigades into the teeth of the Russian defensive buzzsaw without adequate fire support, meaning that the Russians were free to maximize their superiority in artillery and air power to neutralize and destroy the Ukrainian attacking forces before they could generate the momentum expected from “high-tempo maneuver.”

The end result: Russian reality trumped NATO theory on the battlefield, and it is Ukraine’s military that once again paid the heaviest price. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that this situation will change anytime soon, if ever, a fact that bodes poorly for the future of Ukraine and NATO going forward.

June 10, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Russia’s Release Of Captured Ukrainian Fighters To Hungary Sent Three Messages

BY ANDREW KORYBKO | JUNE 10, 2023

The Russian Orthodox Church’s press service revealed late last week that Patriarch Kirill mediated an unusual prisoner transfer. According to their statement, “at the request of the Hungarian side, a group of Ukrainian war prisoners of Transcarpathian background, who participated in active service, was transferred to Hungary.” The Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister later said that Kiev wasn’t informed of this ahead of time, which prompted all sorts of speculation about this event.

Some background context is in order before going any further. Most Westerners might not be aware of it, but Hungary is very worried about the human rights of its co-ethnics in Ukraine, who found themselves in that former Soviet Republic as a result of post-World War II border changes. What’s now known as “Zakarpattia Oblast” had been part of Hungarian Civilization for over a millennium up until the interwar period when it was first part of Czechoslovakia before being given to Ukraine by the Allies.

Kiev began to crack down on all its minorities after the Western-backed spree of urban terrorism popularly known as “EuroMaidan” overthrew that country’s government in 2014. Ethnic Hungarians’ linguistic rights were rescinded, including the freedom for members of this community to study in their native language. They were then conscripted by Kiev to fight in the NATO-Russian proxy war that broke out 15 months ago despite the majority of them wanting to be left alone to live in peace with everyone.

Having brought the reader up to speed about this group’s background, they can now better understand why they were transferred to Hungary instead of Ukraine. The Hungarian news portal Telex published a detailed analysis here about their speculative legal status at the time that they entered that country. It suggests that Russia released them from their formal status as prisoners of war so they could travel to Hungary as civilians, where they might have been given citizenship to prevent their return to Ukraine.

That’s a sensible enough interpretation, but whatever their legal status may or may not have been at the time of transfer, this very event itself sent three very strong messages. Recalling the Russian Orthodox Church’s statement, this was done at the behest of the Hungarian side, though it’s unclear how Budapest became aware that its co-ethnics were captured by Russia. More than likely, Moscow informed it of this upon learning their identities, after which Budapest requested the transfer.

Hungary thus sent the first message by showing that it sincerely believes that its co-ethnics in Ukraine are exploited as cannon fodder. The second one was sent by Russia and concerns its tacit agreement with this assessment, which explains why it presumably contacted Hungary after learning that it had captured some of its co-ethnics. Both countries then sent the final message to Ukraine by carrying out this transfer and showing the world that they don’t trust Kiev to protect minorities within its borders.

Those captured Hungarian minority fighters never wanted to participate in this conflict but were forced against their will to do so since Kiev refused to give them exemptions from conscription, which is why they fear for their lives if they’re sent back since they know they’ll be thrown back to the frontlines. Their personal experiences attest to the fact that it isn’t so-called “Russian propaganda” to claim that Kiev violates its minorities’ human rights.

Extrapolating from this, the only reason why Ukraine won’t exempt minorities from conscription and consequently counteract Russia’s aforementioned accusation in part is that it desperately needs as many fighters as possible. This insight implies that there’s a very high casualty rate, which in turn corroborates Wagner chief Prigozhin’s infamous claim that his forces turned the Battle of Artyomovsk into a meat grinder for Kiev.

This unusual transfer therefore exposes the dark truth that the Mainstream Media has hidden from the world since the start of this conflict if those who hear about this event actually take the time to dwell on all its dimensions. Russia and Hungary sent three very clear messages regarding the true state of affairs for Ukraine’s minorities, who are exploited as cannon fodder in a conflict that they never wanted to participate in but are forced against their will to fight on pain of imprisonment or worse.

June 10, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

US & NATO’s Ultimate Goal is to ‘Take Over Ukrainian Land, People and Resources’

By Andrei Dergalin – Sputnik – 10.06.2023

Shortly after the fabled Ukrainian counteroffensive finally started, it became increasingly apparent that NATO military equipment and training won’t be enough for the Kiev regime forces to penetrate Russian defensive lines.

With the Ukrainian offensive now underway, Kiev so far has virtually nothing to show in the way of gains, whereas images of wrecked Leopard tanks and Bradley infantry fighting vehicles used by Ukrainian troops have already started circulating on social media.

Even though the United States and its allies have been generously supplying Ukraine with armaments and military vehicles during the ongoing conflict, it appears that Ukrainian forces are “institutionally and operationally unable to successfully absorb the wide and inconsistent variety of equipment and weaponry” while “under fire and duress,” said US Ret.Lt.Col Karen Kwiatkowski.

“This is the fault of the US and NATO which seeks to ride the back of Ukrainian patriotism in order to both confront and harass Russia, with an aim to take over Ukraine’s land, people and resources once there is little Ukraine left – in a kind of mini-Marshall Plan, this time completely and wholly managed and conducted by US and international crony capitalists, like Black Rock,” Kwiatkowsky, a former US Department of Defense analyst, told Sputnik.

She suggested that the United States and Britain were likely the ones who actually needed Kiev to launch this counteroffensive and that it would seem “as if Western governments see Ukraine little more than a snuff film, for their entertainment and profit.”

“Clearly, what Ukraine needs is to find a way to get out from under the US political cycle and NATO’s organizational expansion obsession, and make peace,” Kwiatkowsky mused, postulating that such a deal would likely entail the separation of the “Russian side of the former Ukraine” from the “Ukrainian side.”

She did point out, however, that so far the US and the UK politicians have been quick to suppress any attempts by the Ukrainian side to “make peaceful signs or noises.”

Meanwhile, Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest and former CIA station chief Phillip Giraldi has observed that some Western media outlets have been trying to make it look like the Ukrainian counteroffensive is succeeding and that Kiev regime forces are “overrunning the Russian positions.”

Commenting on this development, Giraldi suggested that politicians in the US, the UK and Germany “need to be able to speak positively about what is occurring” in Ukraine, since the public in their respective countries is starting to turn against the conflict “as it grinds on and on consuming hundreds of billions dollars worth of equipment.”

He further suggested that people in the United States, Britain and Germany are none too thrilled about their governments directly backing the regime in Kiev, which he described as “a regime that nearly everyone concedes is hopelessly corrupt.”

“There is talk here in Washington that the Ukrainian generals might depose Zelensky and enter into negotiations with Moscow,” Giraldi added.

June 10, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Germany squandering billions on Israel’s Arrow-3 missile defence system

MEMO | June 10, 2023

Germany squandering almost 4 billion euros ($4.30 billion) on Israel’s Arrow-3 missile defense system is a prime example of financial mismanagement. Astonishingly, the government plans to request advance payments of up to 560 million euros from lawmakers, revealing a complete disregard for responsible spending. The Arrow-3 system, supposedly designed to intercept ballistic missiles outside the earth’s atmosphere, is nothing more than an overpriced addition to Israel’s already extensive missile defense arsenal.

Despite its lofty claims, the Arrow-3 merely serves as the extravagant crown jewel of Israel’s defense array, spanning from the unnecessary short-range rocket interception capabilities of Iron Dome to the extravagant long-range missile destruction capabilities of Arrow-3. Germany’s acquisition of this system showcases a distorted sense of priorities and a blatant waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

The government aims to finalize a government-to-government deal with Israel by the end of the year, leaving little room for rational decision-making or exploring alternative, more sensible options. Astonishingly, the procurement documents prepared for parliament reveal that Germany will forfeit part or all of its advance payments if the deal falls through, essentially guaranteeing compensation to Israel for costs they may incur. This reckless arrangement further burdens German taxpayers and highlights the government’s lack of fiscal prudence.

Even more concerning is the fact that Germany’s air force is expected to take delivery of the Arrow-3 system, now costing a staggering one billion euros more than initially planned, by the fourth quarter of 2025. Such an inflated expenditure raises serious questions about the government’s judgment and its ability to allocate funds responsibly.

It is worth noting that Germany’s justification for this extravagant purchase, using Russia’s conflict in Ukraine to argue for a shortage of ground-based air defense systems, is nothing more than a flimsy pretext. While medium-layer defense systems like Raytheon’s Patriot units or the more recent IRIS-T system provide sufficient coverage, Germany’s decision to acquire the Arrow-3 demonstrates a foolish preoccupation with unnecessary high-layer defense.

By indulging in such a costly acquisition, Germany jeopardizes the allocation of funds for crucial areas such as infrastructure, social programs, and economic development. The government’s skewed priorities raise serious concerns about its commitment to the well-being of its citizens and the prudent management of public resources.

June 10, 2023 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

Fact check: Blinken’s claim that US strived to revive JCPOA holds no water

By Syed Zafar Mehdi | Press TV | June 10, 2023

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a low-key visit to Saudi Arabia earlier this week, which coincided with the reopening of Iranian diplomatic missions in the Arab kingdom after seven years.

The whirlwind visit primarily focused on rebuilding ties between Washington and Riyadh but also involved other issues including the Joe Biden administration’s aggressive but unsuccessful push to mediate Riyadh-Tel Aviv normalization.

During the visit, the top American diplomat sat down for an interview with Arabic-language Asharq News, fielding questions on a range of subjects from Iran’s nuclear program to the Ukraine war.

Blinken’s responses were riddled with glaring inconsistencies and false assertions, in particular regarding efforts to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal.

On being asked whether the US was “trying to revive the negotiations” over the 2015 nuclear accord, the US Secretary of State said “from day one” the US “made a significant effort in that direction”.

“So we, from day one, sought to determine whether a return to mutual compliance with the JCPOA was possible, and we made a significant effort in that direction, as did the European partners, and, for that matter, Russia and China,” Blinken said in the interview.

“But Iran either couldn’t or wouldn’t do what was necessary to get back into compliance with the JCPOA. So the JCPOA is not our focus,” he hastened to add.

A simple fact-check is in order to set the record straight.

It was the US government, under the megalomaniac former President Donald Trump, which unilaterally abandoned the landmark nuclear agreement in May 2018, and reinstated an array of sanctions on Iran.

The move was in complete breach of the agreement and Washington’s legal obligations under Resolution 2231, the United Nations Charter and international law.

Iran adopted strategic patience for one year, waiting for European signatories to salvage the deal, and only then announced retaliatory measures, which included gradually scaling up uranium enrichment in line with a law passed by the Iranian parliament.

Trump’s successor, Joe Biden, pledged to reverse the so-called “maximum pressure campaign” against Iran that violated the multilateral deal and laid bare the infamous American hypocrisy.

However, more than two years into office, Biden has not only failed to reverse his predecessor’s hard-nosed measures but has doubled down and escalated the situation.

Since April 2021, Iran and the remaining parties to the 2015 nuclear deal have been engaged in marathon negotiations in Vienna to revive the accord and lift sanctions, facilitated by the European Union.

Despite a degree of progress, the consensus has been eluding mainly due to the policy of procrastination adopted by the Biden administration, with Blinken and his Iran pointsman Rob Malley playing a key role in letting the process drag on.

Blinken’s remarks about the US mulling “a return to mutual compliance” with the deal and making “a significant effort in that direction” hold no water when we examine the ground realities and actions taken by the US over the past two years.

Iran continues to be a key party to the deal, unlike the US which unilaterally and irresponsibly walked out of it. Iran has maintained that measures it has taken since May 2019 to scale up its uranium enrichment are reversible if the US returns to the deal in good faith and lifts all illegal sanctions.

Blinken’s statement that Iran “either couldn’t or wouldn’t do what was necessary to get back into compliance with the JCPOA” also fails the fact-check test.

United States left the deal. United States reneged on its commitments under the deal. United States stopped compliance with the deal. United States imposed and reimposed sanctions on Iran. United States launched the so-called “maximum pressure campaign” against the Islamic Republic.

In the last two years, it is the United States that has failed to provide guarantees to Iran that it won’t violate the terms of the agreement again. It is the United States that has weaponized sanctions against the people of Iran while harping about human rights.

The United States has also refused to compensate Iran for the losses caused by sanctions while exerting pressure on the UN nuclear agency to politicize its purely technical work.

The culprit here is the United States. Iran is well within its rights as the signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to pursue its nuclear energy program for peaceful, scientific purposes.

The peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program has been attested by the International Atomic Energy Agency which regularly conducts inspections at various nuclear facilities in the country and has to date failed to notice or report any activity that points to divergence or deviation in the program.

The ball is in the Biden administration’s court. It has to save the deal through action, not rhetoric.

June 10, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

Where Do 2024 US Presidential Candidates Stand on Ukraine?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 09.06.2023

Over a dozen US presidential candidates have tossed their hats into the 2024 ring. Sputnik has analyzed what the contenders’ attitude to Washington’s ongoing proxy war in Ukraine is.

The Russo-Ukraine conflict remains one of the focal points of the 2024 election campaign. Republican and Democratic hopefuls are striving to rally support from the American public which appears to have grown impatient with the overseas standoff.

Despite roughly a half of Americans still backing the provision of military aid to Ukraine, a marked drop in the public’s willingness to pay a cost in terms of higher energy price, inflation, and plummetting living standards has been registered by pollsters over the last several months. Per Brookings, the realization that there is no end in sight for the conflict has seemingly become sobering to US voters.

Do US presidential candidates – who are polling at 1% or above in recent Ipsos polls and thus having a chance of coming out on top – meet the American people’s expectations when it comes to the Ukraine conflict?

Democratic Party

Joe Biden

Incumbent US President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that he would support the Kiev regime for the long haul. The Biden administration is the most vocal advocate of fuelling the unfolding standoff and imposing a “strategic defeat” on Russia. To that end, Joe Biden has announced over $100 billion worth of Ukraine aid packages since the onset of the conflict.

“Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. Never,” Biden told a crowd in Warsaw, Poland, on February 21, 2023.

During his June 8 meeting with UK Prime Minister Sunak, the US president signaled his readiness to continue providing the Kiev regime with weapons together with London. Simultaneously, Team Biden is stirring up the waters of the Pacific by beefing up US military presence in close proximity to China. Biden is continuing to go all in on the dual standoff with Moscow and Beijing, even though this policy is backfiring both on the US and its European allies.

Marianne Williamson

Marianne Williamson, the author of “A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of a Course in Miracles” (1992), former “Spiritual Leader” for the Church of Today and political candidate, has called for closing over 800 US military installations in over 80 countries in her May 27 Substack op-ed denouncing them as “nothing more than a continuation of the excessive militarization of American foreign policy.” She also condemned Washington’s “imperialistic ventures”, “actions regarding NATO, and putting Aegis missiles in Poland”, as exacerbating the situation vis-à-vis Russia.

Still, that does not mean that the US is “responsible” for the Russo-Ukraine conflict, “nor does it mean that our larger interests, the interests of the people of Ukraine or the interests of the rest of the world, are best served by our withholding support from Ukraine now,” insists Williamson. In short, the author is advocating further arming the Kiev regime.

Robert Kennedy Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the son of the late US attorney general and senator Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of the 35th President of the United States John F. Kennedy, formally launched his presidential campaign on April 19, 2023. In contrast to his Democratic rivals, Kennedy does not support the US proxy war in Ukraine.

In his lengthy May 3 tweet, RFK pointed out that it was US neocons, who crossed all “red lines” and dragged Russia and Ukraine into the conflict:

“[Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky almost certainly could have avoided the 2022 war with Russia simply by uttering five words — ‘I will not join NATO’; But pressured by neocons in the Biden White House, and by violent fascist elements within the Ukrainian government, Zelensky integrated his army with NATO’s and allowed the US to place nuclear-capable Aegis missile launchers along Ukraine’s 1,200-mile border with Russia.”

“[US neocons] wanted war as part of their strategic grand plan to destroy any country such as Russia that resists American imperial expansion,” RFK Jr. reiterated on May 25 on Twitter.

Republican Party

Donald Trump

Former US President Donald Trump has made it clear that as president he would stop the Russo-Ukraine conflict in 24 hours after meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky.

“When I’m president, I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours,” Trump said in a CNN town hall on May 11, adding that both Moscow and Kiev have their “weaknesses” and “strengths.”

Trump avoided answering the question, which country he would prefer to win: “I don’t think in terms of winning and losing. I think in terms of getting it settled so we stop killing all these people. I want everybody to stop dying,” the former president told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

Ron DeSantis

In March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis wrote: “While the US has many vital national interests, becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them.”

In April, DeSantis reiterated his stance: “It’s in everybody’s interest to try to get to a place where we can have a ceasefire,” told Nikkei Asia. “You don’t want to end up in a [Battle of] Verdun situation, where you just have mass casualties, mass expense and end up with a stalemate.”

The Ukraine issue was not even mentioned in DeSantis’ campaign launched on Twitter in May.

Vivek Ramaswamy

Vivek Ramaswamy, an American entrepreneur and politician, also stands for ending the Ukraine conflict. On June 6, Ramaswamy outlined his foreign policy vision in a Twitter post, condemning President Joe Biden’s Ukraine support for “pushing Russia into a closer military alliance with China.”

The politician proposes “a Korean war style armistice agreement” between Russia and Ukraine, “which would cede most of the Donbass region to Russia”; suspend any US military assistance to the Kiev regime; establish “a permanent moratorium on Ukraine joining NATO”; lift sanctions against Russia; withdraw NATO troops from Ukraine and close all their bases in Eastern Europe; and accept Russia into the security infrastructure of Europe.

In return, per Ramaswamy, Russia should cease all sorts of technical military cooperation and security partnerships with China; withdraw its nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities from Kaliningrad and Belarus; pull out Russian security specialists from Latin America; and re-enter into the New START Treaty.

“I’ve offered a clear & specific path to end the war in Ukraine now while dismantling the Russia-China alliance. No other GOP candidate has touched this with a 10-foot pole,” Ramaswamy summed up.

Nikki Haley

Nikki Haley, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, has taken a stance which is the polar opposite: “This is bigger than Ukraine,” she stated during the CNN town hall on June 4. “This is a war about freedom and it’s one we have to win.”

Haley said if Russia is allowed to achieve its stated goals of demilitarization and de-Nazifying of Ukraine, a world war would be round the corner:

“China says Taiwan’s next, we better believe them. Russia said Poland and the Baltics are next, if that happens, we are looking at a world war. This is about preventing war.”

The former UN ambassador fell short of specifying the sources behind her claims of Moscow and Beijing’s plans of “invading” Poland, the three Baltic nations and the island which the People’s Republic of China has always considered its inalienable part.

Mike Pence

Former US Vice President Mike Pence’s stance on Ukraine aligns him with his fellow party member, Nikki Haley. Still, instead of predicting a world war in case Russia wins, Pence has suggested that Washington is fighting for “freedom” in Ukraine. The ex-veep has also subjected Trump and DeSantis to criticism over their attitude to the Ukraine conflict.

Having filed the paperwork to run on June 5, he expressed willingness to support the Kiev regime during Wednesday’s CNN town hall in Iowa:

“I know the difference between a genius and a war criminal, and I know who needs to win the war in Ukraine,” Pence said. “And it’s the people fighting for their freedom and fighting to restore their national sovereignty in Ukraine. And America – it’s not our war, but freedom is our fight. And we need to give the people of Ukraine the ability to fight and defend their freedom.”

Tim Scott

US Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has signaled strong support for arming Kiev since the beginning of the Russo-Ukraine conflict. According to Scott, Biden has done “a terrible job” articulating to the Americans “what is America’s vital, national interest in Ukraine”, which, according to the presidential candidate, is “degrading the Russian military.” Judging from Scott’s words, he expects Russia to attack the US one day.

“The more we degrade the Russian military, the less likely there is to be an attack on our sovereign territory,” Scott told NBC News on May 22. “And it protects our NATO partners. I think that we should be in Ukraine. I believe that the truth is simple, that degrading the Russian military is in America’s best interest. And the more we do that, the faster we get it done, the better off the entire world is.”

Chris Christie

Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie launched his presidential nomination campaign with a June 6 town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire. Prior to that, Christie called Trump a “coward” and “a puppet of Putin,” over the former president’s stance on the Ukraine conflict.

Speaking to GZERO World with Ian Bremmer on May 11, Christie claimed that Washington should have done more to support the Kiev regime from day one of the conflict and insisted that the US should remain a global leader in providing weapons to Ukraine.

“In the end, we are in a proxy war right now with China, whether we like it or not, and their support of Russia in Ukraine is proof of that,” claimed the former New Jersey governor. “We have to make sure we send a very clear message, not only to the Chinese, but to our own allies that America’s not going to be a cut and run country.”

Doug Burgum

North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum is another Republican presidential contender advocating support for Kiev. When the Russo-Ukrainian conflict erupted, he expressed solidarity with the Kiev regime, stating that “the United States and its allies must stand together in support of Ukraine and hold Russia accountable for its unprovoked attacks.”

Still, Burgum views the conflict as a chance for the US to step up energy production in the first place (which is quite understandable given that North Dakota is one of the top oil-producing states in the US):

“This international crisis underscores the importance of US energy security and increasing American production so we can sell energy to our friends and allies versus buying it from our enemies,” he stated on February 24, 2022.

He reiterated his stance on Wednesday while announcing his 2024 bid: “[Russian President Vladimir] Putin only dared to invade Ukraine because our allies in Western Europe are all dependent on Russian energy,” Burgum claimed.

Who’s Commanding Most Support?

Biden has gotten the most backing among Democratic and Democratic leaning voters with a staggering 60%; while 20% support Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and 8% would vote for author Marianne Williamson, according to SSRS Political and Election Polling, released on May 25. However, pollsters warn about a decline in Biden’s nationwide approval over the past six months from 42% in December 2022 to 35% on May 25, 2023.

To date, former President Donald Trump has commanded the largest support in the Republican 2024 primary polls, as per Project FiveThiryEight survey aggregator. The national average support as of June 8 indicates that Trump got 53.8%; DeSantis (21.3%); Mike Pence (5.4%); Nikki Haley (4.5%); Ramaswamy (3.5%); Сhris Christie (less than 3%); Tim Scott (2.2%); and Doug Burgum (1%).

June 10, 2023 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Ukraine hits flood shelter with UK-supplied missiles – Kherson official

RT | June 10, 2023

Ukrainian forces have attacked several temporary shelters for people evacuated in the wake of the breach of the Kakhovka dam, the acting governor of the Kherson region, Vladimir Saldo, said on Saturday morning, sharing pictures of the devastated facility.

The strike on the shelter on the left bank of the Dnieper River was carried out around 5am local time, allegedly using British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles, Saldo said in a statement. There was at least one casualty, a woman, according to preliminary information.

The Black Sea village of Zhelezny Port also came under “fierce shelling” overnight, with a local hotel hosting the evacuees “destroyed,” according to the official.

The acting governor shared several pictures of the heavily damaged facility, as well as a video of a villa engulfed in flames.

“The targeted strikes are being carried out with British missiles, delivered to the Kiev regime to unleash ‘peace’ on civilian infrastructure,” Saldo wrote.

Earlier on Friday, one person was killed and another injured after several rockets hit a children’s summer camp in the same area. According to Saldo, first responders discovered the debris of Storm Shadows at the scene.

The Russian-held Kakhovka dam in Kherson Region was destroyed early on Tuesday morning. Several people were killed, while thousands more were exposed to flooding.

Kherson authorities declared a state of emergency across the entire territory controlled by Russia. Saldo said that a total of between 22,000 and 40,000 people were located in the disaster area.

Moscow and Kiev have traded accusations over who is to blame for the incident, which triggered mass evacuation efforts on both sides of the Dnieper River. Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov accused Ukraine of “deliberate sabotage” in a bid to deprive Crimea of drinking water and deflect attention away from Kiev’s botched counteroffensive in Donbass.

June 10, 2023 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

‘Medical Gaslighting’: Physicians Speak Out Against COVID Policies, Call for Reform

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 5, 2023

The Global Health Project last week released a video titled “The Oath,” in which physicians describe the effect on doctors, patients and the healthcare system of silencing dissent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The filmmakers also called on doctors to commit to making foundational changes so that what happened during the pandemic never happens again.

The film features six doctors — Elizabeth Lafay, D.O., Steven Klayman, D.C., Timothy Stonesifer, D.O., Molly Rutherford, M.D., MPH, Michael Turner, M.D., and Amy Offutt, M.D. — who said they are “saying what tens of thousands of silenced medical professionals from all over the world have not been able to say.”

Throughout the video, they respond to a series of questions.

Responding to the first question, “When did you begin to have doubts?” they described how they lost faith in institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Lancet and the pharmaceutical companies as they saw well-respected doctors silenced, articles retracted and corrupted clinical trials exposed.

It became clear the agencies were not acting in the public interest, Turner said, because “they’re captured, they’re paid off, they’re corrupt.“

In response to the second question, “How have people been harmed?” they discussed spiking levels of anxiety and depression that began with the fearmongering at the start of the pandemic.

Lafay described working in the ER during the early days of the pandemic when the hospitals emptied out and there were few COVID-19 patients — but many people arriving with “horrible, debilitating anxiety and depression.”

People stuck at home in front of the television absorbed the message “Stay home, don’t be with your family, don’t be with your friends. Isolate, hibernate,” Offutt said. “It’s really taken its toll.”

“People are fearful and I think that was the goal, to make people fearful and be forced into taking this vaccine,” Klayman added.

They said many people no longer trust the medical profession because doctors have been silent on what happened and that many doctors felt they could not speak out.

As the names of pharmaceutical giants such as Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, GSK (formerly GlaxoSmithKline), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and others flashed across the screen, Lafay said:

“It’s really tough because we’re all owned at this point. It’s easier for me to come on camera maybe and say some things like this because I am an independent practitioner now. If you don’t have your [own] practice, then you really can’t help people.

“And I think that is where a lot of [practitioners’] fear comes from, the fear of not being employed.”

But there are larger moral issues at stake, too, Klayman said, adding: “Are you going to give in to what is wrong? Or are you going to fight for what is right?”

Offutt said she thought “fixing the broken system” begins with rebuilding the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors used to spend more time with patients, she said, but then, “It became a business, and I was just one of the employees.”

“There is uniformity and conformity that’s encouraged, and the decision-makers at the top usually are not physicians, and this is a big problem, right?” Turner asked. Instead, they are lawyers looking to minimize risk and accountants looking to maximize profits.

When doctors work for these corporations, Lafay said, insurance and pharmaceutical companies are calling the shots:

“We don’t really have a voice anymore. We’re not really making choices that are best for our patients. We’re checking boxes.

“Unless we fight for the doctor-patient relationship and work to maintain privacy and decision-making that is based on an individual patient scenario, then that will be lost. The art of medicine will be gone, and we may as well be replaced by artificial intelligence.”

The doctors said in order to heal, you should “own your health” — eat well, get sunshine, move around, connect in person and to other people.

“I think doctors who maybe did some things that they regret should come out and acknowledge what they did and assure patients that they’re going to learn from it and change,” Rutherford said. “And then I think we need the truth. We need to investigate, why did all of this happen and how can we keep this from ever happening again?”

Turner said people from across the political spectrum and all walks of life are starting to come together around principles such as “accountability, honesty, respect, self-determination, bodily autonomy, freedom.”

“There’s an awakening going on, so it’s exciting and we’re gonna come out the other side,” he said.

The video closes with the oath:

“I solemnly swear to listen to my patients, respect their wishes, and together make the best choices for that individual and to do no harm.”

Video marks launch of Global Health Project

The video release marked the launch of the Global Health Project, an organization hoping to raise awareness of the coercive power exerted on society by global health agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic and to build a movement to create a better system.

The group began as a conversation among physicians and health researchers about what happened during the pandemic and how to make sure it doesn’t happen again, Andrea Nazarenko, Ph.D., a spokesperson for the organization, told The Defender.

The group hopes the video will open the door for conversation, Katarina Lindley, D.O., family physician and another group spokesperson, said.

A doctor might hear the physicians’ stories and say, “That’s exactly how it happened to me,” she said. Or, patients can go to their doctors and raise these issues with them.

Lindley also said that statements by global leaders, the World Health Organization’s proposed pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations, and other evidence point to the fact something like the COVID-19 pandemic can happen again, and if it does, the Global Health Project wants to build an informed and connected public. She continued:

“So our hope is that by sharing these stories, by empowering the public as well, we want them to question things … when new things come along. And if they feel in their gut something is wrong, they need to trust their gut, then they really become advocates for themselves, for their family, for their friends.

“And I’m hoping that physicians will remember why they took the Hippocratic oath … And there’s lots of things that we need to start questioning that maybe we didn’t question before.”

While the changes they are talking about are systemic, Lindley said it starts in the doctor-patient relationship.

When someone’s car breaks down, she said, they usually try to find a good mechanic by asking friends and shopping around.

“I think when it comes to medicine and healthcare, we kind of almost need to do the same thing. Shop around … interview your doctor. Even if you have insurance and you’re assigned to a doctor, you don’t have to accept the doctor.”

People can find doctors who are independent, who have “stepped away from the matrix, as I call it,” Lindley said, so they can build great relationships with patients.

Nazarenko added:

“Ultimately, what we experienced during the pandemic was traumatic. We are suffering from collective trauma at a societal level. Just like any other trauma, this trauma will not disappear by ‘moving on’ and ‘forgetting about it.’ Trauma must be processed.

“Unfortunately, what we are facing right now is the mainstream narrative telling us to ‘forget about it,’ to ‘just move on,’ and to ignore our feelings (‘just let it go’). This is medical gaslighting at a population level. In any other relationship, we would identify this as the behavior of an abuser.

“If we want to move on and create a world of togetherness, we need to talk about it. We don’t all need to agree on everything — but we need to have the conversation.

“Silence leaves us vulnerable to this happening again. They separated us for a reason. This video is about bringing people together again and engaging in authentic conversations.”

Watch here:

Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

PHYSICIANS TRY TO HEAL THE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

Interview begins at 11 minutes:

June 9, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | , | Leave a comment

Deaths from the flu – do not seek and ye shall not find

By Professor Martin Neil | TCW Defending Freedom | June 7, 2023

The flu vanished from the UK in the winter of 2020/21 and did not return for another year, as I wrote in TCW here. The official reason is that the novel and deadly SARS-CoV-2 virus ‘outcompeted’ flu and replaced it as a primary cause of death during that time. However there appears to have been a collective and systemic failure in flu surveillance and flu death reporting systems in the UK during 2020 and into 2021. Thus, it is possible that the failure to detect and report flu (and deaths recorded as due to it) may better explain the mystery of vanishing flu rather than viral interference from SARS-Cov-2.

A mix of surveillance systems consistently reported on flu before 2020 and continued to have some role to play post-spring 2020 until flu returned at the end of 2021. In the UK, flu surveillance is performed via clinical surveillance by primary care (based on networks of GPs), the FluDetector and the FluSurvey systems.

Credence has been given to the idea of tracking pandemics using machine learning via Google Trends data, the UK’s FluDetector system being one such system. FluDetector reported that flu disappeared in 2020/21, yet this is totally at odds with Google’s own data and UKHSA reports, both of which report a clear signal for flu in the UK in 2020/21. What the Google data does show is that people were concerned enough about flu that they searched for flu on the internet in significant numbers, even when apparently in the middle of a deadly pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, a virus they were told was more novel and more deadly than the flu. It is also notable that the number of searches for flu in 2020 were not significantly different from those conducted in previous years in the UK.

The UK FluSurvey system was originally conceived to survey a panel of self-selecting participants for signs and symptoms of influenza-like illnesses (ILIs). In March 2020 it was repurposed to cover both Covid-19 and flu symptoms, and the routine questionnaire was adapted to capture Covid-19 specific information. The FluSurvey system tracked ILI incidence only until week 20 of 2020, and never updated this data. It was decided no longer to track both flu and Covid from November 2020 but report this change in policy only in January 2021. The FluSurvey then stated it (presciently) knew in January 2021 that the flu season had now begun and did so after (supposedly) witnessing the near eradication of flu from March 2020 to May 2020. Fever and cough symptoms were still tracked and peaked in the same way as in previous years and this continued, but tracking ILI incidence was abandoned, thus reducing the strength of the flu signal.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) have a legal duty to report mortality statistics for each year. The 2020 statistics for England and Wales exclude any report on influenza and pneumonia deaths, and instead are wholly focused on deaths ‘involving’ Covid-19. In contrast, their 2021 statistics report on influenza and pneumonia deaths, starting on January 8. So, for 2020 any reporting of flu deaths was completely abandoned in favour of Covid-19 reports, and flu is included only in surveillance reports from 2021, thus giving the impression flu had disappeared in the intervening period.

In response to a freedom of information request about flu in 2020 the ONS obfuscated its answer by using a different death code, ‘respiratory disease’ rather than flu, for the period up to May 2020, and may have done so to hide the deaths that should have been attributed to flu. This FoI request shows that there were 2,287 flu deaths in March 2020, which is not greatly different from the 3,324 Covid-19 deaths that same month; yet SARS-CoV-2 was considered to be a significantly greater threat to public health. Furthermore, in January 2021 the ONS reported that there were almost as many deaths involving flu (5,719) as there were involving Ccovid-19 (7,610), yet for only 5.2 per cent of these flu deaths was flu recorded as the underlying cause of death.

Evidence for the presence of flu is available from other data sources. Data for pneumonia and flu deaths can be extracted from the UK NOMIS (official census and labour market statistics) system. When we queried this system, we were quite shocked to find that it returns 20,130 influenza and pneumonia deaths for 2020, at a rate consistent with previous years (eg 26,342 in 2019). The presence of flu deaths in 2020 in the UK is repeated elsewhere. In the US, influenza and pneumonia numbers are similar in 2020 to previous years, as reported by the CDC, with 53,544 deaths in 2020 compared with between approximately 50-60k deaths in each year from 2015 to 2019.

Despite these facts, the WHO’s international flu surveillance system, FluNet, shows no significant flu for 2020/21 in either the UK or US.

The fact that these failures cut across all parts which comprise the UK flu surveillance and reporting system suggests that this failure is not coincidental, as do the observed inconsistencies in changing patterns of flu surveillance and reporting across different branches of UK public health.

In a previous article we pointed out the dearth of virological evidence for viral interference causing SARS-CoV-2 to ‘outcompete’ flu. These new findings relating to reporting systems also strongly suggest that viral interference between SARS-CoV-2 and the flu is a myth. Flu was present in 2020 and some of the respiratory deaths attributed solely to SAR-CoV-2 may have also involved flu in some significant way.

This is based on an original article co-authored with Professor Norman Fenton, Nick Hudson and Jonathan Engler. The extended version is available from the substack Where are the Numbers?

June 9, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Mayo Clinic Suspended Professor Over Comments On Covid And Transgenderism

By Ben Squires | Reclaim The Net | June 8, 2023

The Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science suspended a professor for deviating from “prescribed messaging” and placed a gag order on him, Foundation For Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) says.  The college handed down the punishment despite its free speech promise to faculty and students.

On March 5, professor Michael Joyner was suspended without pay for speaking to the press, which is common for him as he is a prominent academic.

After he commented about plasma treatment for Covid and transgender sports performance on The New York Times, CNN, and other outlets, Mayo Clinic said he “failed to communicate in accordance with prescribed messaging.”

Administrators said that “reflect[ed] poorly on Mayo Clinic’s brand and reputation” and led them to “question whether … [he is] able to appropriately represent Mayo Clinic in media interactions.”

However, Joyner did not speak on behalf of the college, he spoke for himself. In letters to the college, FIRE explained that faculty members have the right to speak as private citizens.

After suspending him without pay, Joyner was told he must vet “each individual media request through Public Affairs … [to] determine what topics are appropriate and are responsible for protecting Mayo Clinic’s brand and reputation” and cease “engagement in offline conversations with reporters.”

In simpler terms, he was told to shut up. When he does speak, he must discuss “approved topics only and stick to prescribed messaging.”

Mayo Clinic is in violation of the institution’s Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy, which promises “academic freedom and freedom of expression for all learners and faculty … which includes the right to discuss and present scholarly opinions and conclusions without fear of retribution or retaliation” even “if those opinions and conclusions conflict with those of the faculty or institution.”

In response to a letter from FIRE about upholding free speech and academic freedom, Mayo Clinic said disciplinary “action taken against Dr. Joyner did not involve a gag order and did not violate our academic freedom policy.”

June 9, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

Austrian Censorship of Peace Conference Is An Outrage

By David Swanson, Executive Director of World BEYOND War; Kathy Kelly, President of World BEYOND War; John Reuwer, Board Member of World BEYOND War; Brad Wolf, Director of Peace Action, Lancaster, PA | June 8, 2023

Forty-eight hours before a global peace conference in Vienna, Austria, was to begin, the venue host abruptly cancelled. Peace, it seems, cannot be discussed, especially peace in Ukraine.

This news is a disturbing step in a growing trend.

Owners of the venue which was to host the Summit for Peace in Ukraine, announced on Wednesday, 7 June, 2023, their decision to cancel the agreement holding the summit on their premises. Fortunately, a new location was secured in Vienna (and anyone on Earth can sign up to take part online), but not before a smear campaign against the summit had been launched.

The venue owners reportedly explained: “We have decided to comply with the wishes of Ukraine and its embassy operating in Austria and have cancelled the rental of all rooms in the ÖGB catamaran for the event ‘International Summit for Peace in Ukraine’ next weekend.”

This was not just one venue taking this position. “On Wednesday, the Press Club Concordia also refused to make its premises in a central location in downtown Vienna available for a press conference of the ‘summit’.”

Supporters of the summit note the chilling innuendo caused by the abrupt cancellation of the summit. Speakers widely regarded for their moral and intellectual guidance have been undermined in statements intended to justify objections to the summit.

This is not an isolated incident. Western liberal ideals have long asserted that the best answer to mistaken speech was wiser speech and more of it. We now have a rapidly growing liberal consensus in favor, instead, of censoring media outlets, canceling speaking events, and forbidding people with unwanted points of view from even gathering together. Powers are being granted to governments, social media platforms, and other tech corporations that believers in democratic self-governance spent centuries claiming nobody should have.

Those who turn against free speech are often groups afraid they cannot win an honest debate. And so, they take up censorship. The movement for peace in Ukraine can take this as a compliment. Governments fear such a discussion of peace and instead smear this peace summit and the speakers.

An Austrian press report announced on Thursday that the venue (ÖGB Catamaran) had been withdrawn because the event was “under suspicion of propaganda.” What sort of propaganda? Well: “According to its own statements, the ‘International Summit for Peace in Ukraine’ wanted to show ways out of the war.” Under international law, propaganda for war is illegal and must be banned. Not a single nation on Earth complies with that requirement, raising up the value of free speech as trumping the rule of law. But speaking in favor of bringing a war to an end has now acquired the status of forbidden propaganda.

Moreover, the report explains, “some announced participants have no current fear of contact with the media of the aggressor.” In other words, if talk of negotiating peace is shut out of the media controlled by only one side of a war, speaking to media controlled by the other side — even to say exactly what one would have said to any other media outlet — is grounds for not only censorship but a ban on meeting and strategizing.

The report gives some specifics: “The internationally prominent U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs, for example, as well as Anuradha Chenoy, ex-dean of India’s Jawarharlal Nehru University and an important representative of global civil society networking, have given interviews to the TV station Russia Today (RT). The channel has been blocked across the Union for Russian war propaganda in the wake of EU sanctions. Sachs also answered questions from Russian TV host and war advocate Vladimir Solovyov in December 2022. Solovyov has often called for attacking Germany and Great Britain as well.”

The “Press Club Concordia” also explained that the problem was that Jeffrey Sachs might do an interview on Russian media.

Not only is diplomacy shunned, but speaking to members of the media with whom one disagrees is equated with advocating whatever those journalists have advocated. This can only contribute to distrust, enmity, and war without end.

Not only did the venue say it was doing the wishes of the Ukrainian embassy, but the Ukrainian ambassador to Austria tweeted that peace activists were the fifth column and henchmen of the Russian government.

And who created the idea that the whole world must obey the wishes of the government of Ukraine? The government of the United States — a country where little time passes these days without news of some event cancelled to fulfill the wishes of the government of Israel.

Further, “Noam Chomsky, who will speak at the summit via video, for example, believes that NATO has ‘marginalized’ Russia for too long.” Whether that fact is in dispute, or merely the acceptability of stating it out loud, was not explained.

“Also physically present in Vienna, according to the program, should be Clare Daly, an Irishwoman and member of the EU Parliament and the parliamentary group Die Linke. Daly also spoke repeatedly to RT about the West’s ‘complicity’ in the war in Ukraine. She believes the sanctions are wrong: they would not harm Russia and would not help Ukraine. In the EU Parliament in early 2023 Daly voted against a resolution holding Russia legally responsible for the war. Daly said she does support those parts of the text that condemn Russia for the invasion and call on the government in Moscow to immediately cease all military action and withdraw from Ukraine. However, she said she opposes providing weapons to Ukraine and expanding NATO’s presence in the region.”

So, opposing both sides of a war is just as unacceptable as opposing one side, in the view of these censors.

This is where we have arrived. Proposing to negotiate peace — without even suggesting what those negotiations should arrive at — is so unacceptable to proponents of war, that it cannot be discussed — not in any large gathering. And yet, despite the wars being waged in the name of “democracy” it is not clear how such censorship is driven by democracy or in alignment with democratic values. Nor is it clear how many steps, if any, remain between the varieties of censorship we have now and hardcopy book burnings of the past.

June 9, 2023 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Militarism | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »