Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Droning Russia’s nuke radars is the dumbest thing Ukraine can do

Attacks on the early warning system actually highlights the fragility of peace between the world’s nuclear powers

BY THEODORE POSTOL | RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT | JUNE 5, 2024

For a fleeting moment on May 22 the world may have come closer to a catastrophic nuclear accident due to a reckless Ukrainian drone attack on two Russian strategic nuclear early warning radars at Armavir.

Fortunately, a subsequent Ukranian drone attack on a third radar station at Orsk in Russia on May 26 failed.

The incidents underscore a few important things. First, the Ukrainians could have needlessly sparked a crisis in which the Russians, feeling like one of their defenses against a U.S. nuclear attack, were down, struck back hard in retaliation. And second, it highlights the need for Russians to acquire comprehensive space-based nuclear radar of their own.

What happened and what it means

The Ukrainian attack at Armavir was a big deal. It shut down both Russian radars immediately. And it’s likely that within minutes of the attack, an emergency meeting took place with the commander of the Russian strategic rocket forces along with his highest-level officers.

The attacks should not be taken lightly, and President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken should be giving this special attention.

Even after decades of expensive Russian attempts to build a space-based early warning system that could provide global surveillance of U.S. submarine missile launches, Russia has been unable to marshal the extremely specialized high-technologies needed to build such a system.

To in part deal with this serious shortfall in Russia’s nuclear early warning capabilities, Vladimir Putin himself initiated and publicly supported a highly visible national effort to build a dense and capable nuclear strategic early warning radar system that utilizes numerous giant radars (typically about 30 to 35 meters high).

Since these radars basically form the singular foundation of Russia’s strategic nuclear early warning capabilities, any tampering with their functions in any unpredictable global situation is accompanied by very grave risks of misinterpretations of intentions that could lead to a massive launch of Russian nuclear forces.

Figure 1 below shows a satellite photograph of the two radars at Armavir. The radar beam from what is labeled “Radar Fan 1” is pointing in a counterclockwise direction from North of roughly 125°. Radar Fan 2 is pointing in a clockwise direction from North of roughly 125°.

Figure 2 shows the coverage of the two radar fans at Armavir, and the radar at Orsk drawn on a spherical earth. A side view of a radar fan is shown in the upper right corner. The side-on view shows an extremely important consequence of the fact that Earth is curved and the radar beam propagates basically in a straight line. Because of that, the radar cannot actually see objects near the surface.

For example, it is not possible for the radar to observe aircraft flying over Ukraine. Even ATACM missiles launched from the Ukrainian Black Sea coasts, which rise to altitudes of no more than 40km before they start gliding to their targets, cannot be reliably detected by these radars.

Thus, the radars at Armavir pose no surveillance threat to Ukrainian aircraft, cruise missiles, drones or ATACM missiles. The real threat to Ukrainian aircraft and missiles is from Russian airborne radar systems that are tightly queued into Russian ground-based surface-to-air missile systems.

Why these radars are so important
The importance of having a space-based satellite early warning system can be readily understood by re-examining figure 2.

For purposes of illustration, imagine that a Trident ballistic missile is launched at Moscow from the Indian Ocean at about the same latitude as Bombay on the West Coast of India (20° North latitude). The range to Moscow would be roughly 4,500 to 4,600 km.

If the ballistic missile were launched on a “minimum energy trajectory” (at a loft angle of roughly 34°) it would require the smallest missile burnout speed needed to reach Moscow. In this case the time between “breakwater” missile ignition and impact would be roughly 21 to 22 minutes.

However, the Trident missile is designed to launch its warheads to much higher burnout speeds. For example, it could launch its nuclear payload toward Moscow at a slightly higher speed and lower loft angle of 25° (this is often called a slightly “depressed” trajectory) and still easily reach Moscow in 18 to 19 minutes.

If a launch towards Moscow is on a slightly depressed trajectory, the Russians would not know they were under attack for at least six minutes, until the warheads and the rocket upper stages passed into the Armavir radar search fan. If the Armavir radar was not operating it would take eight to nine minutes from breakwater before the Russian radars in Moscow would indicate they were under attack.

The radar in Moscow would have to observe the incoming missile payloads for one or two minutes before it would have enough data to issue an alert — which means maximum decision-making time that might be available to Russian leaders would be about six or seven minutes!

So you can see why the Russians would be incensed over the Ukraine attacks, which would literally cut their already limited time in which to respond to a nuclear attack.

If the Russians had an early warning space-based system, they would know that they were under attack roughly 19 minutes before the attacking warheads would arrive and destroyMoscow. They would also immediately know whether or not ballistic missiles were being launched from other parts of the world.

Although all of these warning times are shockingly short, it is clear that a warning time of 19 minutes versus one of eight to nine minutes could make the difference between forcing Russia to rely on an automated decision that could lead to the accidental destruction of the United States and Western Europe, or instead on a more reasoned assessment by political leaders and highly professional military commanders.

Any appropriately knowledgeable expert who has listened carefully to Putin’s numerous statements about nuclear weapons would know that he has a detailed knowledge of this warning system and its limitations. He has regularly shown up at the inaugurations of early warning radar sites, overtly indicating his concerns about the need for adequate and reliable early warning systems.

The Russians do currently have an extremely limited space-based early warning system. The system only observes the U.S. ICBM fields near its northern borders and cannot be proliferated to provide global coverage against U.S. submarine missiles. It does not even have 24-hour coverage of the U.S. ICBM fields, since nine satellites are needed to provide that coverage and only four are active at this time.

I have sought to warn the U.S. government leadership of this serious problem, which could have been solved 30 years ago by the U.S. “lending” certain technologies to the Russians. My proposals involved providing the Russians with specialized space-qualified infrared arrays and electronics that would allow them to build their own systems.

This technology would not give the Russians any sensitive military secrets. There would be no way for the Russians to “reverse engineer” these implementing components. Just like the most advanced computer chips, only a vast technical enterprise could achieve such an end.

Instead of recognizing that it is in the interest of the entire world for both Russia and the United States to have reliable and capable early warning systems, at that time, the Clinton administration largely ignored this serious problem, which I believe threatens the survival of civilization even today. Other administrations that followed did no better.

The bottom line is that this grave danger to human civilization, and possibly human survival, could have been solved by competent political leadership almost 30 years ago, to the benefit of the entire world. But it wasn’t, which makes the attack on the radars now a potential crisis.

Theodore A. Postol is Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT. He also taught at Princeton and Stanford, and was an advisor to the Chief of Naval Operations, where he evaluated U.S. tactical and strategic nuclear war plans, U.S. strategic anti-submarine warfare plans, Russian and U.S. missile defenses, and the Trident I and Trident II Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile Systems.

June 20, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , | 2 Comments

Canada Gets a Pass From the West for Foreign Agents Law While Georgia Is Punished

Sputnik – 20.06.2024

Georgia’s efforts to insulate itself from possible foreign meddling through NGOs funded from abroad were not met with understanding from the United States and its European allies. But when Canada does the same, that is a different story.

The United States and the European Union refraining from criticizing the foreign agents registry law recently adopted in Canada, while simultaneously blasting similar legislation adopted by Georgia, is essentially a “problem of double standards,” said Dr. Marco Marsili who holds research positions in major civil and military institutions in Portugal, the UK and Italy.

“It depends on the point of view of the proponents, the lawmakers, and of those who are their allies and assess the bill as just and fair, according to their geopolitical perspective,” Dr. Marsili explained. “Basically, it is a Manichaeans approach, according to which the world is divided into the good ones and the bad ones – figure out which are which according to a Western vision.”

Georgia merely seeks to protect itself from foreign influence exerted through funding from abroad of local NGOs and “any other public outreach activity like media outlets,” basically following the example of the Western powers, he noted.

Western powers, however, insist that “Georgian politics must be influenced through Western financial support to local agents” but at the same time “reject any Russian funding.”

“That is really bizarre – it’s not just double-standard, but also non-sensical,” Dr. Marsili remarked.

Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, also suggested that both Russia and Georgia are “entitled to have their own equivalents to the US Foreign Agents Registration Act,” considering that many of the foreign NGOs operating in these countries are “designed to destabilize the host governments and produce color revolutions.”

“All of these Western NGOs operate under the basic principle: he who pays the piper calls the tune!” he added. “Many of these foreign NGOs are shot through with Western intelligence agents and assets. So of course these foreign NGOs have to be regulated in order to preserve the sovereign independence of the host states under international law.”

June 20, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Feminist Accuses UK Police of “Harassment” Over Tweet Investigation

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 20, 2024

Maya Forstater, a feminist activist and head of the charity Sex Matters, has been targeted following a tweet she posted about Dr. Kamilla Kamaruddin, a transgender doctor. Forstater is currently under police investigation for what the Metropolitan Police has termed “malicious communication.” The tweet in question, posted on the social media platform X in June last year, criticized Dr. Kamaruddin for the manner of conducting intimate examinations, which Forstater claimed the doctor enjoyed doing without patients’ consent.

This investigation stems from Forstater’s response to a blog post by Dr. Kamaruddin, a former GP who became a transgender woman. Dr. Kamaruddin noted that patients allowed more latitude for intimate examinations compared to before Kamaruddin transitioned. Forstater’s tweet linked back to an earlier blog post where she had questioned the legitimacy of consent given by Dr. Kamaruddin’s patients.

The legal ramifications for the alleged offense could be severe, with potential imprisonment of up to two years. Forstater, who had previously won an employment tribunal case affirming her right to express gender-critical views without facing job discrimination, expressed her distress over the ongoing investigation.

In an interview with The Times, she disclosed receiving an email from the police in August, notifying her of the investigation but omitting the reasons. She was later interviewed under caution at Charing Cross police station.

During the interview, Forstater was questioned about the potentially “transphobic” nature of her tweet.

She defended her position, asserting, “My tweet isn’t even something that would get deleted by Twitter.” She described the experience as a form of “bullying and harassment” due to her beliefs and mentioned the possibility of legal action against the police for their handling of the case.

As of ten months after the initial contact from the police, Forstater’s situation remains unresolved despite her lawyer’s efforts to challenge the grounds of the investigation.

She lamented, “Despite my solicitor following up with written representations giving chapter and verse on the law, arguing that the investigation is unjustified and pressing for resolution, I remain under investigation.”

June 20, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

Kansas Sues Pfizer Over Misleading COVID Vaccine Safety and Efficacy Claims

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 20, 2024

The State of Kansas on Monday sued Pfizer, alleging the pharmaceutical giant misled the public by marketing its COVID-19 vaccine as “safe and effective” while concealing known risks and critical data on limited effectiveness.

The lawsuit, filed by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in the District Court of Thomas County alleges that beginning in 2021, shortly after the vaccine rollout, Pfizer covered up the fact that the vaccine was connected to serious adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths.

The complaint also alleges the company falsely claimed that its original vaccine retained high efficacy while knowing that efficacy waned over time and didn’t protect against new variants.

Pfizer also misled the public by claiming the COVID-19 vaccine would prevent transmission, even though the company never studied the vaccine’s capability to prevent transmission.

By marketing the vaccine as safe and effective despite its known risks, Pfizer violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act because millions of Kansans heard those misrepresentations, the complaint alleges.

More than 3.3 million Kansans received the Pfizer shot, accounting for more than 60% of all vaccine doses given in the state.

Pfizer denied the allegations, telling The Hill, that the case has “no merit” and that the company plans to respond to the suit in “due course.”

“We are proud to have developed the COVID-19 vaccine in record time in the midst of a global pandemic and saved countless lives. The representations made by Pfizer about its COVID-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based,” the company said.

Covering up data on vaccine’s safety for pregnant women

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) monitor adverse events in several ways, including through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a passive reporting system that healthcare providers and patients can use to report vaccine injuries.

A total of 1,898,829 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines have been submitted to VAERS between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 31, 2024. Of those, 983,178 are associated with the Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccines.

The complaint said that in addition to VAERS, Pfizer maintained its own database that “contained more adverse event data than VAERS.” The data were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit after Pfizer refused to release it publicly.

That database, the case alleged, contained 1,223 reported fatalities as early as Feb. 28, 2021.

Pfizer concealed or omitted data related to the vaccine’s safety for pregnant women, its association with heart conditions, its effectiveness against variants and its ability to stop transmission, the lawsuit alleges.

“Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women,” Kobach said in a press statement posted on X. “However, in February of 2021 Pfizer possessed reports for 458 pregnant women who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy. More than half of the pregnant women reported an adverse event, and more than 10% reported a miscarriage.”

Early reporting in 2021 by the CDC’s Dr. Tom Shimabukuro in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming the shots were safe for pregnant women based on the CDC’s own VAERS and vaccine safety monitoring system (V-safe) data has been shown to be statistically flawed.

Kobach also referred to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla’s comment in January 2023 about myocarditis. Bourla said, “We have not seen a single signal, although we have distributed billions of doses.”

That was after internal documents showed the company had detected a safety signal and the FDA in June 2021 added a warning regarding myocarditis and pericarditis, both rare heart inflammation conditions, to Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines.

The CDC has acknowledged that those conditions have most frequently been seen in adolescent and young adult males.

Kobach said that while Pfizer was claiming the vaccine was effective against variants, the company had data showing that effectiveness was less than 50%.

“Pfizer urged Americans to get vaccinated in order to protect their loved ones, clearly indicating a claim that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccination stopped transmission,” Kobach said. “Pfizer later admitted that it never even studied transmission after the recipients received the vaccine.”

Pfizer engaged in ‘civil conspiracy’ with government agencies

The lawsuit also alleges Pfizer engaged in censorship attempts with social media companies to silence people criticizing its safety and efficacy claims.

The lawsuit charges “civil conspiracy” between Pfizer, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Virality Project and others “to willfully conceal, suppress, or omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.”

During a press conference, Kobach pointed to comments Bourla made on “Face the Nation,” explaining why Pfizer declined to accept government funding for developing the vaccines under Operation Warp Speed.

Bourla said he didn’t want to have to submit to the government oversight that would be required.

“When you get money from someone that always comes with strings,” Bourla said. “They want to see how we are going to progress, what type of moves you are going to do. They want reports. I didn’t want to have any of that.”

Similar case filed in Texas last year, more coming

Kansas isn’t the first state to sue Pfizer over alleged false marketing claims. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in 2023 sued the drugmaker alleging it made “false, misleading and deceptive claims” about its COVID-19 vaccine and tried to intimidate and censor critics who questioned those claims or cited facts that countered them.

According to that lawsuit, Pfizer’s marketing claims about the efficacy, duration of protection and ability of its COVID-19 vaccine to prevent transmission violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Pfizer moved to dismiss the case, claiming it is protected under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which grants protections to drugmakers who make “medical countermeasures” authorized for emergency use.

However, in his opposition to Pfizer’s motion, Paxton said the immunity protection provided under PREP and invoked by Pfizer in this case extends only to possible personal injury claims, not to deceptive marketing claims brought by a state.

Ray Flores, senior outside counsel to Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender the major difference in the Kansas case is that Kansas alleges a conspiracy with officials at the HHS and others to conceal or suppress information about the shot.

He also said the monetary damages Kansas seeks could be hundreds of times more than what is sought in the Texas suit.

Flores said Kansas has a strong case, based on the evidence of previous payments the company was ordered to make to multiple states for marketing violations related to other drugs.

He said:

“The exhibits alone should give pause to us all: the chronology of Pfizer’s false statements, a payout $137.9M to resolve previous violations, three separate stipulations that Pfizer not engage in deceptive promotions of its products, censorship and Pfizer’s denial of any wrongdoing.

“It is astonishing that the U.S. Government does business with Pfizer and grants special protections when Pfizer has a proclivity to flout the law.

“The allegations in the complaint are referenced-citation gems that every lawyer around the country should incorporate in this war for our health freedoms.”

Kobach told the press that five other states will be filing similar lawsuits, the Kansas Reflector reported.

“More suits may follow, depending on Pfizer’s reaction,” Kobach said.

As of April of last year, over 400,000,000 Pfizer COVID-19 shots had been administered in the U.S. according to Statista.

Watch John Campbell, Ph.D., discuss the latest lawsuit against Pfizer:

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.

June 20, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | , | Leave a comment

Can the WHO and the United Nations impose sanctions on your sovereign country for non-compliance?

The UN is a far bigger threat than the WHO, which, although deserving of attention, cannot consume our entire focus.

BY SHABNAM PALESA MOHAMED | JUNE 18, 2024

This updated analysis was written in 2023 (read in full here at CHD Africa)

Sanctions are a powerful instrument of political control and economic profit. One of the rare but critical topics relevant to the international campaign to #ExitTheWHO is whether the World Health Organisation and the United Nations can impose, influence or recommend specific sanctions. The sanctions could be implemented against countries that choose to not comply or cannot comply with International Health Regulations, the proposed new pandemic treaty, or other legislative attempts that curtail rights, freedom and sovereignty.

The accelerating and profitable globalist march towards unprecedented levels of ‘1984’ style totalitarianism – using censorship, vaccine passports, 15 minute cities, and CBDC’s continues. It is plausible that the WHO and the UN will move to impose, influence or recommend sanctions against countries that do not want to or cannot comply with its centralised health agenda and undemocratic legislative attempts.

What is the basis for me raising the red flag on sanctions in 2023?

Health is no longer just health, as it is defined in the WHO’s constitution. Through Covid-19, and other controversially declared pandemics, health is now a multi-billion dollar health security industry. With it, creeps in the tyranny of secrecy, surveillance, vaccine certificates, forced quarantines, and the undemocratic censorship of free speech. Given the absence of public participation, the WHO is a strategic spear for oligarchs and corporations, and given international resistance to its power grab, it becomes desperate and argues or pushes for sanctions.

Reported in 2021: “In 2021, German Health Minister Jens Spahn called for sanctions against countries that hide information about future outbreaks. Citing the World Trade Organization’s power to sanction countries for non-compliance, Spahn said “there must be something that follows” if countries fail to live up to commitments under a new pandemic treaty that the World Health Assembly will take up in November.”

Further, it is entirely under reported that controversial “World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus also urged countries to consider the idea as they take up the treaty, a legally binding tool. The treaty should “have all the incentives, or the carrots” to encourage transparency, Tedros said, appearing at a press conference with Spahn in Berlin. “But maybe exploring the sanctions may be important,” he added.”

Also reported in 2021: “Speaking at the WHA in June, Mike Ryan, WHO Health Emergencies Programme Executive Director, also spoke out in favour of the treaty, despite the fact that WHO technical staff have historically avoided taking positions on controversial policy choices before member states. “My personal view is that we need a political treaty that makes the highest-level commitment to the principles of global health security — and then we can get on with building the blocks on this foundation.”

I engaged renowned international law expert Professor Francis Boyle about the possibility of sanctions via the WHO. He had no doubt “They will pursue sanctions against countries that do not comply with their orders, coming from Geneva. Both economic and political sanctions. However, they will only have the power to pursue sanctions if we accept their authority. We cannot. We must exit the WHO.”

UN Power Grab. Disaster Capitalism 101.

With far less public scrutiny currently than the controversial WHO, the United Nations is simultaneously seeking exponential new powers and stronger global governance mechanisms, including multilateralism, to deal with what they define as international emergencies.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ Common Agenda report arises from a UN declaration on the commemoration of its seventy-fifth anniversary. This report states “All proposed actions are designed to accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Our Common Agenda is intended to advance the 12 themes of the declaration.”

In March 2023, UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres released a related policy brief: To Think and  Act for Future Generations – OUR COMMON AGENDA – Policy Brief 2 – Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform. 

One of this policy brief’s 12 key themes is ‘Being Prepared’, which includes:

1. Emergency Platform to be convened in response to complex global crises

2. Strategic Foresight and Global Risk Report by the United Nations every five years

3. On global public health:

a) Global vaccination plan
b) Empowered WHO
c) Stronger global health security and preparedness
d) Accelerate product development and access to health technologies in low- and middle-income countries
e) Universal health coverage and addressing determinants of health

Under the topic of addressing major risks, Guterres states:

98. An effort is warranted to better define and identify the extreme, catastrophic and existential risks that we face. We cannot, however, wait for an agreement on definitions before we act.

99. Learning lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, we can seize this opportunity to better anticipate and prepare to respond to large-scale global crises. This requires stronger legal frameworks, better tools for managing risks, better data, the identification and anticipation of future risks, and proper financing of prevention and preparedness. Importantly, however, any new preparedness and response measures should be agnostic as to the type of crisis for which they may be needed. We do not know which extreme risk event will come next. It might be another pandemic, a new war, a high-consequence biological attack, a cyberattack on critical infrastructure, a nuclear event, a rapidly moving environmental disaster, or something completely different such as technological or scientific developments gone awry and unconstrained by effective ethical and regulatory frameworks.

101. Secondly, I propose to work with Member States to establish an Emergency Platform to respond to complex global crises. The platform would not be a new permanent or standing body or institution. It would be triggered automatically in crises of sufficient scale and magnitude, regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved. Once activated, it would bring together leaders from Member States, the United Nations system, key country groupings, international financial institutions, regional bodies, civil society, the private sector, subject-specific industries or research bodies and other experts. The terms of reference would set out the modalities and criteria for the activation of the platform, including the scale and scope of the crisis; funding and financing; the identification of relevant actors who would form part of it; the support that it would be expected to provide; and the criteria for its deactivation. The platform would allow the convening role of the Secretary-General to be maximized in the face of crises with global reach.

DIAGRAM: Policy Brief 2 – Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform

UN’s Emergency Platform = One World Government backdoor

The emergency platform would be activated during any event that is deemed to have a global impact, and would provide the UN the authority to actively promote and drive an international response. Antonio Guterres, UN secretary-general, declared: “I propose that the General Assembly provide the Secretary-General and the United Nations system with a standing authority to convene and operationalize automatically an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach.”

The policy further argues that such authority would “Ensure that all participating actors make commitments that can contribute meaningfully to the response, and that they are held to account for delivery on those commitments.” While the policy states that the emergency authority would have limited duration, it also states that the UN would be able to extend its own powers if it decides to do so. These powers would effectively render public consensus unnecessary, democracies obsolete, and the role of politicians largely irrelevant.

These all encompassing areas of expanded emergency powers relate to:

  1. pandemics
  2. wars and nuclear events
  3. climate or environmental events, degradation or disaster;
  4. accidental or deliberate release of biological agents;
  5. disruptions in the flow of goods, people, or finance;
  6. disruptions in cyberspace or “global digital connectivity;”
  7. a cyberattack on critical infrastructure
  8. a major event in “outer space;”
  9. “unforeseen risks (‘black swan’ events)
  10. technological or scientific developments gone awry – and unconstrained by effective ethical and regulatory frameworks.

At least 7 out of 10 of the above areas have already happened or are happening.

What does the UN have planned?

On September 20th 2023, the UN intends to adopt a high level political declaration on pandemics. In my analysis, the UN pathway to the one health and one world government agenda is a back up plan to the WHO’s trajectory which is increasingly exposed and resisted.

The UN is planning to host its related ‘Summit of the Future’ in September 2024. Guterres stated “The Summit of the Future is an opportunity to agree on multilateral solutions for a better tomorrow, strengthening global governance for both present and future generations.” The UN website states “The General Assembly welcomed the submission of Our Common Agenda and passed a resolution to hold the Summit on 22-23 September 2024, preceded by a ministerial meeting in 2023. An action-oriented Pact for the Future is expected to be agreed by Member States through intergovernmental negotiations on issues they decide to take forward.”

Understanding Sanctions or Unilateral Coercive Measures

Sanctions are action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws. There are several types of sanctions imposed through the United Nations:

It is plausible that the UN’s controllers realise that the world is pushing back against the WHO’s overreach, or find it irrelevant to real health. Given that sovereign nations will choose to exit the WHO, the UN decided to launch plan B and ascribe to itself even greater powers. Technically, there is no legislation to exit the United Nations within the UN Charter. Again, this is a critical issue of national sovereignty.

Can the WHO and the UN collaborate on sanctions?

The WHO is an agency of the United Nations.

  • In 2015, on punishing member states who violate the International Health Regulations (IHR), as reported: “United Nations health officials said  they want to impose sanctions on countries that do not comply with public health regulations meant to avoid the spread of dangerous epidemics, such as the Ebola outbreak that killed more than 9,000 people and ravaged domestic health care systems in West Africa last year.
  • World Health Organization Director Margaret Chan said she is investigating ways to reprimand countries that disobey the IHR — a set of rules adopted in 2005 and mandate that countries set up epidemiological surveillance systems, fund local health care infrastructure and restrict international trade and travel to affected regions deemed unsafe to the public, among other provisions. Chan is on a panel set up by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who instructed the group to think of ways to hold countries accountable for how they manage public health crises and punish those who violate the IHR.”
  • In 2022, according to commentators in a policy article: “In order to enforce compliance, some commentators have recommended concluding the treaty at the United Nations level. However, we fear that it has been already decided with the INB (mandated by WHASS) that a treaty will be developed under the roof of WHO. They added: “To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically. If international pandemic response is enhanced, compliance is enhanced. In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support.
  • These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak. High-income settings may not be motivated by financial resources in the same way as their low-income counterparts. An adaptable incentive regime is therefore needed, with sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.”

Conclusion

Given the rapidly growing distrust in the WHO, its historical failures and harms, Covid-19 failures and harms, and the fact that it cannot maintain independence because it is a largely privately funded entity; it is plausible that the WHO and/or the UN will move to impose or influence sanctions via the World Trade Organisation, ahead of Agenda 2030. This act of aggression weaponises the WHO and/or the UN against countries that influential funders and unethical stakeholders have an interest in destabilising for power and resource control.

This sinister strategy has disturbing implications for democracy, peace, and prosperity around the world. Freedom faces an existential risk through unelected bureaucratic entities. Nations can and must protect their sovereignty by defunding and exiting WHO, and, by critically assessing the true history, nature, value, and risks of continued membership in the 78 year old United Nations. Not to do so, means to ignore the risks of UN peacekeepers, known to commit crimes with impunity, being deployed in your country to enforce UN and WHO governance.

June 20, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

Humanitarian aid and Israel’s ‘voluntary migration’ scheme

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | June 20, 2024

Greek Foreign Minister George Gerapetritis said earlier this week that, “We have offered ourselves to host injured people from Palestine but also children from Palestine to come to Europe and stay here until the war is over.” Israel would be thrilled at such an idea, for sure. “Voluntary migration” in the guise of humanitarian aid could not get any better for Israel’s colonial expansion plans.

In October last year, Gerapetritis declared his government’s pro-Israel stance: “Greece, from the very first moment, supported the right of Israel to defend itself in line with international law.” No such right exists for an occupation state against the people living under its brutal military occupation.

In the same month, Greece also abstained from the UN General Assembly vote calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. A month earlier, the Greek government purchased 300 precision-guided munitions from Israel, known as spice bombs, for $130 million. And in a move aimed at curbing activism on university campuses, nine EU and UK individuals are facing deportation for participating in protests against the Gaza genocide, with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis stating that the authorities would forbid “universities from becoming sites for protest”.

As the genocide continues, the ways that politicians and diplomats try to make amends are becoming even weaker. The suggestion by Gerapetritis plays directly into the humanitarian paradigm which the EU hides behind, even as it continues to invest in Israel’s military and surveillance systems, all field tested on Palestinians in Gaza, of course.

There is not a single European country that can speak with honesty about Gaza and Israel, because investment in the latter has generated high stakes in terms of profit and complicity.

Humanitarian gestures, meanwhile, are becoming meaningless for Palestinians and strategically valuable for Israel, because there is no deterrent, no measure that forces Israel to stop the genocide.

Keeping in mind that Israel wants Gaza empty of Palestinians, why would the EU, which is complicit in arming the apartheid state, offer a humanitarian gesture that would help the settler-colonial entity in its ethnic cleansing? This begs a bigger question: why do diplomats insist on depoliticising humanitarian aid for the recipients, when the donors are involved in human rights abuses, war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Offering temporary safe haven for Palestinian children maimed by the war might be an acceptable humanitarian gesture if European countries weren’t complicit in the genocide conducted by the settler-colonial state which maimed them in the first place. “We have to remind ourselves of one thing: It is not enough to build only settlements,” said far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir recently, in the context of emphasising the “voluntary migration” of Palestinians, otherwise known as normalised ethnic cleansing.

A look at the recent statement by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shows how the Gaza genocide is not called to attention, but rather focuses on specific Israel violations while still recognising “Israel’s right to defend itself”. Josep Borrell also called for “the unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas,” which essentially tells Palestinians that, as the colonised population, they should remain voiceless and not articulate any demands. Palestinians are facing genocide, and the EU’s statement is careful to protect Israel’s ability to act with impunity.

Any plan for EU states to host Palestinian children from Gaza cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. Such a safe haven in Europe is part of the colonial framework that aids Israel, as does Europe’s complicity in Israel’s bombing and destruction of hospitals in Gaza, and murder of medical personnel. Apart from the fact that the number of Palestinian children taken in by Greece would be symbolic more than anything else, politicising medical treatment to aid Israel’s “voluntary migration” scheme is depraved and self-serving. Gerapetritis should have been more honest and said that his country will not stop the genocide, but will host and treat an insignificant percentage of its victims that will not jeopardise its relationship with Israel.

No political gesture will disguise the fact that Europe has much bigger obligations than playing humanitarian saviour to a relatively few wounded and severely traumatised Palestinian children.

June 20, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Nearly 50,000 Palestinians reported dead, missing in Gaza

The Cradle | June 20, 2024

The Ministry of Health in Gaza reported on 20 June that Israel’s assault on the strip has left over 47,000 Palestinians killed or missing, with at least 3,000 massacres to date.

“There are more than 47,000 martyrs and missing persons in Gaza due to the occupation committing more than 3,000 massacres,” the government ministry said.

Gaza’s health ministry emphasized that they are working with the “bare minimum” equipment in the northern Gaza Strip as Israel continues to deny medicines, medical supplies, and fuel to the besieged enclave.

“We are trying to restart vital departments in the Al-Shifa Medical Complex and the Indonesian Hospital,” the health ministry added.

Both hospitals have come under direct attacks by the Israeli army in the 258 days of war in the Gaza Strip.

The government body registered 37,431 Palestinian deaths and estimates at least 10,000 bodies trapped under rubble that health workers are unable to reach, with around 5,000 of them children.

Three-quarters of the registered deaths are children (about 15,747), women (10,406), and elderly people.

Over 85,653 have been injured due to Israel’s bombing of the strip, most of whom are children and women.

Gaza’s health ministry also noted that 98 percent of children in Gaza “do not have access to safe drinking water.”

At least “33 children across the Gaza Strip, especially in the northern areas, died as a result of malnutrition and dehydration amid growing famine,” the ministry wrote.

Israel continues its onslaught on the Gaza Strip as it seeks to push further into the southernmost city of Rafah despite international condemnation.

Rafa’s mayor, Ahmed al-Soufi, told Anadolu Agency that “over 70 percent of public facilities and infrastructure have been destroyed in the Israeli onslaught.”

Soufi noted that Israel, earlier this week, destroyed dozens of homes in western Rafah’s Saudi neighborhood.

“Israel seeks to turn Gaza into an uninhabitable area by destroying the Rafah Crossing and preventing the entry of humanitarian and relief aid,” the mayor said.

June 20, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK Labour Party ditches candidate for sharing RT content in 2018

RT | June 20, 2024

The UK Labour Party has suspended one of its parliamentary candidates just two weeks before the general election, after senior members were made aware of his apparent sharing of RT content, six years ago, on his social media.

Andy Brown is campaigning to represent the Aberdeenshire North and Moray East constituency in northeast Scotland. The party’s decision to remove him was reported on Tuesday by The Press and Journal, a local newspaper, and has since become a national news story.

The posts that got Brown in trouble relate to the 2018 Salisbury poisoning case, which the British government claimed to be a Russian assassination attempt on Sergey Skripal, a defector spy. The politician reportedly shared a link to an RT article, which questioned London’s narrative, as well as a social media post suggesting that then-prime minister Theresa May was hiding vital information about the incident.

Brown has claimed in an interview with the BBC that he did not share the posts, and that his account “may have been corrupted at some point.” He rejected the suggestion that he may have forgotten sharing them.

Labour Party bosses were also “spooked” by another post apparently shared by Brown, which questioned claims that anti-Semitism was widespread in the Labour Party, the Scottish newspaper said. The allegation was instrumental in the ouster of Jeremy Corbyn, a vocal pro-Palestinian figure, as Labour party leader. His whip in parliament was later removed by his successor, Keir Starmer, meaning effective expulsion from the party.

Commenting on the Andy Brown case, Labour’s shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves told Sky News on Wednesday: “I hadn’t heard of this guy until this morning, and I’m very, very pleased that I will hopefully not have to hear of him again because he’s been suspended as a Labour candidate.” She added that unlike Corbyn, Starmer takes “swift action when people misbehave”.

“People who do not share our values in the changed Labour Party get kicked out,” Reeves stressed.

Although he has been deselected, Brown can still stand as a candidate for the election on July 4. Paper ballots will still carry his original description and a Labour logo, according to the British press. If elected, he will be an independent MP – not unlike Corbyn, who is running to represent the constituency of Islington North.

The UK banned RT from broadcasting in March 2022, after the Ukraine conflict escalated into open hostilities.

June 20, 2024 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

Winning the Fluoride Fight – #SolutionsWatch

Corbett | June 19, 2024

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Joining us today is Michael Connett, lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ in the #FluorideLawsuit. We discuss the history of the lawsuit, what’s at stake, and how people who are concerned about the fluoridation of the water supply can get involved in the fight against this uncontrolled medical intervention.

Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!

WATCH ON: ARCHIVE / BITCHUTE / ODYSEE / RUMBLE / RUMBLE / SUBSTACK or DOWNLOAD THE MP4

SHOW NOTES:

“Fluoride” on The Corbett Report

Interview 1352 – Dr. Paul Connett on the Case Against Fluoride

TSCA Fluoride Lawsuit (Fluoride Action Network explainer page)

Food and Water Watch et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al. – Court page

Michael Connett – profile at Siri & Glimstad

Dr. Phillipe Grandjean Exposes The History Of Fluoride’s Harms (Derrick Broze interview)

Fluoride Trial Interview – Dr. Bruce Lanphear (Derrick Broze interview)

Fluoride Trial Interview – Dr. Howard Hu (Derrick Broze interview)

In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2741)

Fluoride on Trial documentary / conversation with Michael Connett in Dallas

June 20, 2024 Posted by | Environmentalism, Science and Pseudo-Science, Solidarity and Activism | , | Leave a comment