A genetically engineered, self-spreading vaccine may be poised to alter humanity’s biological make-up forever, and you won’t be able to opt out. Could we be facing a mass extinction event?
I have been impressed with the broad array of cardiovascular syndromes arising after COVID-19 vaccination including acute cardiogenic shock, myopericarditis, dilated cardiomyopathy, heart block, atrial fibrillation, primary ventricular arrhythmias, acute hypertension, vascular dissection, aneurysmal rupture, dysautonomia, and nonspecific chest pain.
Kanuri and Sirrkay raise the possibility of many mechanisms explaining the broad array of cardiac complications and the varying times from injection to presentation. They consider genetic (mRNA adenoviral DNA), antigen, and killed virus vaccines. These are in addition to proven cardiotoxicity and myocarditis demonstrated with mRNA and Spike protein. While exhaustive ingredient lists have not been disclosed by the vaccine manufacturers, the authors speculate that adjuvants and their known mechanisms of cardiotoxicity may be at work:
“Types of vaccine adjuvants [possibly] used in COVID-19 vaccines. The adjuvants used in COVID-19 vaccines can be categorized into five classes namely Aluminum salt-based, Emulsion-based, TLR agonists, Metabolic, Cell death, and Epigenetic. 15,22 Each of these adjuvants instigate different mechanisms that are ultimately responsible for onset of spectrum of cardiovascular diseases seen in COVID-19 patients and those receiving vaccination (Figure 1). This review provides a brief overview of different mechanisms that can be arising out of these adjuvants, and each might be contributing at least partially to instigate cardiomyocyte damage.”
Kanuri SH, Sirrkay PJ. Adjuvants in COVID-19 vaccines: innocent bystanders or culpable abettors for stirring up COVID-heart syndrome. Therapeutic Advances in Vaccines and Immunotherapy. 2024;12. doi:10.1177/25151355241228439
Thus the authors give us additional mechanisms to ponder as more patients come into clinics and hospitals with “COVID-19 vaccine heart syndrome” and the medical community comes to the unfortunate recognition that mass vaccination has created a whole new large population of cardiology patients.
GAZA – Israel possesses the world’s largest skin bank, a medical facility that stores human skin for later use in treating burns and skin cancers. This bank was established in 1986 under the supervision of the military medical sector of the occupying army, which provides its services internationally, especially to requests from Western countries.
Israeli occupation authorities been stealing organs from the bodies of dead Palestinian, a heinous criminal practice that has been revealed in several reports and through testimonies of Israeli doctors who participated in this gruesome practice, violating professional ethics and constituting a crime against humanity, Al-Ghad reported.
In contrast, this Israeli bank differs from other banks worldwide in that its supply of these vital organs does not come solely from voluntary donors. Instead, documented cases of stealing skin from the bodies of Palestinians have been recorded, individuals whose organs are also stolen.
There is compelling evidence of Israelis engaging in trafficking these stolen organs, making the entity the largest market for organs in the Middle East.
Where did Israel get this inventory from?
Expert in Israeli affairs Anas Abu Arqoub says, “The Israeli skin bank is the largest in the world, surpassing the American skin bank that was established 40 years before it, noting that Israel’s population is much smaller than the United States.”
Arqoub emphasizes that the theft of organs from Palestinian bodies is not just suspicions, stating, “Even the Israeli media acknowledges that it is an extraction process without the knowledge of the dead’s families.”
The reserve of human skin held by the Israeli occupation state, equivalent to 170 square meters, stored within the Israeli skin bank, confirms Arqoub’s account. The number is considered unreasonable since Israel ranks third in its population’s refusal to donate organs, attributed to Jewish religious beliefs.
Handing over Palestinian bodies to their families without organs!
The details of the story date back to 2001 when Swedish investigative journalist Donald Boström published an investigation exposing the theft of organs from the bodies of Palestinian martyrs and their trafficking by Israeli entities. This was the first time this crime was revealed to the international public.
Boström did not stop at this point but published another investigation on the same subject in 2009 in the pages of the Swedish magazine Aftonbladet. The investigation mentions that the Israeli Ministry of Health launched a national campaign to encourage organ donation in 1992. However, despite that, a significant gap persisted between the demand and the supply of donations.
Coinciding with that campaign, cases of the disappearance of several Palestinian youth began, only to return afterward in closed coffins. The Israeli authorities imposed on their families to bury them at night without funerals.
Boström says, “I was in the region at that time, and on several occasions, UN employees contacted me concerned about the developments. The individuals who contacted me said that organ theft certainly happened, but they were prevented from doing anything about it.”
These contacts prompted the journalist to delve further into the issue, so he went to interview the families of the dead who confirmed the theft of their sons’ organs before their killing. Among them was the son of the martyr Bilal Ahmed Ghannan, who was 19 years old when the Israeli army arrested him in the village of Um al-Tut in the West Bank in 1992. He returned with a body without internal organs, from the neck to below the abdomen.
The Israeli medical authorities did not deny the torture and theft of Bilal’s organs. At that time, the director of the Israeli Institute of Forensic Medicine, Chen Kugel, said that Bilal’s family could be right because they “took everything that could be taken from all the bodies that came to the Institute of Forensic Medicine,” without the family’s consent. His family did not receive any explanation, apology, or compensation for what happened.
Israeli confessions of organ theft from Palestinians
In a 2009 documentary on the issue, there are admissions from the former director of the Israeli Institute of Forensic Medicine, Yehuda Hiss, confirming the theft of organs from the bodies of Palestinian in the institute. Hiss stated, “We took corneas, skin, heart valves, and bones … Almost everything was done unofficially to a large extent… and permission was not sought from the families.”
In her study on dealing with the bodies of Palestinians at the Abu Kabir Forensic Medicine Center in Tel Aviv, published in a book titled “On Their Bodies,” anthropologist Meirav Feis stated that she witnessed “how they take organs from the bodies of Palestinians. In return, they leave the bodies of soldiers intact.”
The researcher added, “They take corneas, skin, and heart valves in a way that makes the absence of those organs unnoticed by non-specialists. They replace corneas with plastic bodies and remove the skin from the back so that the family does not see it. In addition, the bodies of the dead are used in medical schools in Israeli universities for research purposes.”
Feis said, “In the first intifada, the army effectively allowed the institute to extract organs from Palestinians under a military procedure that required dissecting the bodies of Palestinian prisoners. The autopsy procedure was accompanied by the removal of organs used by the Israeli skin bank, established in 1985 to treat burns suffered by Israeli soldiers.”
Trafficking in the organs of Palestinian casualties
Israel is one of the largest markets for trafficking in human organs in the world, and the largest in the Middle East. Media reports revealed that the Israeli entity is involved in killing Palestinians to steal their internal organs illegally and trade them within an illegal international network.
In 2009, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested an Israeli settler named Levy Izhak Rosenbaum. After investigating him, it was revealed that he played the role of a broker in organ-selling operations in the United States for the benefit of a criminal cell led by rabbis, politicians, and government officials in Israel.
Journalist Donald Boström, in his mentioned investigation, suggests a connection between this network and the theft of organs from Palestinian martyrs taking place in “Israel.” Boström said, “Half of the kidneys transplanted to Israelis since the beginning of the first decade of the 21st century were illegally purchased. The Israeli health authorities have full knowledge of this activity but do nothing to stop it.”
In a report published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in 2016, Israel admitted to losing dozens of bodies of Palestinians. The newspaper quoted statements from sources in the Israeli judicial and security apparatuses about the loss of 121 bodies of Palestinians held by the occupation authorities since the 1990s.
Continued organ theft
Following the explosion of the organ theft scandal in 2009, the Israeli government tried to evade the proven charges against it. The spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Health at that time, Einav Shimron Greenboim, issued a statement saying, “The practice mentioned in the investigation is an old story that ended years ago.”
Doubts persist about the continuation of these unethical practices that violate human rights, as indicated by the Israeli authorities’ continued detention of dozens of bodies of Palestinian dead, justifying it as a punitive measure.
According to Abdel Nasser Farwana, the head of the Studies and Documentation Unit at the Palestinian Prisoners and Ex-Prisoners Affairs Commission, Israel still holds more than 370 bodies of Palestinian and Arab bodies who died in different circumstances and years apart. He added, “The list of these detained martyrs includes individuals who died from the 1970s until around 2023.”
There have been several interesting developments relating to Israel’s ongoing destruction of Gaza and its people, but one might well question the motives of at least one of the principal players in the drama, namely Joe Biden’s United States government. Last Tuesday the United States, acting to protect Israel, vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution, arguing that it would “jeopardize” the ongoing negotiations between the two parties to release the Israeli hostages and it wouldn’t be “conducive to a sustainable peace and would instead empower Hamas.” Thirteen of the fifteen members of the Security Council supported the resolution, Britain abstained, and US alone voted against it. It was the third humanitarian resolution incorporating a ceasefire vetoed by Washington over Gaza, each of which was intended by the White House to give Israel a completely free hand to deal with the Palestinians.
The resolution had been proposed by Algeria and it called for an immediate ceasefire and the expediting of emergency humanitarian assistance to the in-peril Gazan population. The UN has been warning that a humanitarian catastrophe that could kill hundreds of thousands is about to take place if nothing is done to reverse what is being called a genocide due to the deliberate employing of famine and disease, not to mention the killing of more than 30,000 Palestinians by the Israeli military aided and abetted by the US. After the UN vote, the Algerian ambassador to the UN said Washington’s lone opposing vote should be understood as “approval of starvation as a means of war against hundreds of thousands of Palestinians” and “ it “implies an endorsement of the brutal violence and collective punishment inflicted upon” those Palestinians in Gaza.” The Algerian resolution also came at a time when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague is beginning its separate review of whether Israel has used the past month to mitigate or cancel its genocidal acts in Gaza
Opinion polls suggest that most Americans oppose what Israel and Washington are doing, but they have little ability to influence choices made by Congress and the White House, which are overwhelming inclined to defer to Israeli points of view due to the fact that they have been bought by the powerful Zionist Lobby in the US. Nota bene one of the biggest sellouts to Israel of all time, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who, with impeccable timing given both the Algerian proposal and the ICJ review, stated last week that Israel has not used any weapons provided by the United States in its military action against Gaza. She said “There’s nothing that we have sent since Oct. 7 that has contributed to this brutality. In the longer run, they are in a dangerous neighborhood.” That is, of course a complete lie, as the Biden Administration has carried out hundreds of airlifts of “emergency” weapons to the Jewish state, to include the 2,000 pound bunker buster bombs whose use against hospitals and other large buildings has been well-attested to by some of the eyewitness journalists, medical doctors and UN officials who have managed to avoid being targeted and assassinated by Israel.
What followed on the Monday announcement by US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield about the impending Algerian veto surprised many who were watching developments. The media were informed that Washington would be presenting its own rival Security Council draft resolution that would call for a temporary ceasefire and which also would advise Israel against launching a ground invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza over Ramadan, which starts on March 10th, due to the fact that more than a million Gazans are trapped in the region with, quite probably, nowhere to go. The resolution calls for a “viable plan” for protecting civilians in Rafah, whatever that is supposed to mean, which Israel will presumably ignore, and it includes no sanctions if Israel refuses to comply. The US indicated that its draft document would be discussed in the UN over the next several weeks or more and might be subject to considerable editing, but it set no time table for initiating the temporary ceasefire apart from “as soon as practicable,” which is where a warning flag went up for me and others.
The resolution gives Israel considerable freedom of action without any bothersome timetable to worry about and “temporary” means it can resume military action when it wishes to do so and there is no threat of possible punishment if Israel does decide to invade Rafah and kills another 30,000 Palestinians while doing so. It is well known in Washington circles that follow foreign policy and Biden’s wars that the US doesn’t make any moves on the Middle East without complete prior consultation with the Israelis. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has even participated in Israeli War Cabinet meetings. Against those weak but positive moves spelled out in the resolution, there is the fact that Netanyahu and his political allies, long opposed to a two-state solution, have recently repeatedly rejected proposals for any Palestinian sovereign entity which means that the intention is to destroy and/or annex Gaza. Israel is in fact using its formidable lobby and international press/narrative control to work assiduously to isolate the Palestinians by blocking any recognition by individual countries or as a full member at the UN. The greatest effort is inevitably being directed at working to keep the United States under control. Both Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan carefully coordinate every step the administration takes with the Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs and former ambassador to Washington Ron Dermer who reports directly to Netanyahu.
Nor is there any hint in what is included in the upcoming US resolution regarding what Biden and Netanyahu might seek to do afterwards to end the conflict. In fact, Netanyahu has indicated that he is quite willing to expand the fighting as his government has moved to restrict access to Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan on “security grounds,” hardly a conciliatory move, while also widening the conflict with Hezbollah by an airstrike deep into Lebanon. Nevertheless, nearly everyone, except Israel and its US lobby, agrees that both justice and political realities demand that some kind of genuine Palestinian state should be allowed to develop if the ancient land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is ever to find peace. Predictably, the problem is in the details, not to mention that Israel’s current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly insisted that no such an entity will ever be allowed to exist to challenge Israeli political and military supremacy in the region. And, for the moment, Netanyahu has the force majeure and both the active and passive support from the United States that he needs to enforce his writ over nearly all the occupied and under siege territory that he clearly sees as Eretz or Greater Israel.
Given the reality of who is capable of doing what to whom, the United States is perhaps hesitantly taking the lead on proposing something like a revived two-state solution to the problem, as originally envisioned in the UN partition that created Israel in 1948 as well as in the Oslo Accords of 1993, even though most Middle East experts have long asserted that such a formula can no longer succeed or even be attempted. Given the horrors taking place in Gaza, there is inevitably some interest in resuscitating a political formula that has already failed, largely because the existing Palestinian Authority (PA) has long since lost its legitimacy in the eyes of its most important audience, the Palestinian people. Any suggestion that a unity government for Palestinians combining the PA and Hamas is somehow viable is therefore delusional. Both Washington and Jerusalem know that, so one might consider that talk of some kind of empowered and enabled government for Palestinians is at best notional.
To be sure, the proposals that have been leaked in one form or another appear to be a way for the United States to save face and give some Palestinians a token voice while also funding and supplying weapons to Israel to enable and even advance the crushing of the Gazans and increasingly also of the West Bank Palestinians by the Netanyahu regime. Leading extremists like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich in the Israeli government have made no attempt to conceal their desire to expel the Palestinians from the historic Palestine, killing them as necessary if they resist or attempt any “intifada” type uprising such as occurred in Gaza in October.
The United States and some Europeans are recognizing that a Palestinian state with what amounts to full sovereignty will not be allowed due to Israeli resistance and willingness to militarily destroy any such entity, but some leaders are nevertheless hoping to create some sort of “semi-sovereign” disarmed Palestinian government that will be entirely subservient to Israel in every way that matters. As a model, it would function similarly to how Israel currently retains and sometimes holds back the excise and other taxes due to the rump Palestinian Authority governing entity in Ramallah, making it a “subcontractor of the Israeli occupation,” that is completely surrounded and dominated by Israel.
Biden’s impending Gaza proposal also has a domestic political aspect. With Israel’s slaughter of Gazans still continuing, a situation that is enabled by Washington’s unflinching support of Israeli behavior, serious problems as the US is an active participant in a genocide are beginning to surface as the war spreads throughout the Middle East. One presumes that Blinken has finally decided that something must be done to salvage the international reputation of the United States while also undoing damage to Joe Biden’s electoral prospects as American voters increasingly are disgusted by the images of dead and tortured Palestinians that flash on national television screens nightly.
Aware that Netanyahu wants the war to continue until total victory to include opposition to the development of any Palestinian government entity, Blinken has reportedly asked the State Department to conduct a review and “present policy options on possible US and international recognition of a Palestinian state after the war in Gaza” if presumably it does end and is not completely annexed by the Jewish state. Netanyahu, for his part is also reading the political tea leaves that show his popularity is sharply declining. He counters that by repeating claims that Israel is winning what will be a long war completely destroying Hamas and, to show that he is serious, he has recently rejected a serious Hamas proposal for a ceasefire followed by prisoner and hostage exchanges and talks to resolve the conflict.
So the United States’ UN security Council resolution to advance some kind of peace process between Israel and the Palestinians might be much ado about nothing, just a way to buy time and to help Biden transform himself and his administration to make it look like they are interested in peace and reconciliation when they are really acting on behalf of Israel. As usual, the reality is in the details and we will soon enough know what the US president and his advisers have been up to and what they expect to achieve beyond the dissemination of the characteristic bipartisan lies and evasions that have constituted US foreign policy since 9/11.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.
The problem in Palestine-Israel is not the absence of a Palestinian state, but Zionism. What is the use of a Palestinian state, if the racist, exclusivist ideology of Zionism continues to define Israel, and impose that definition on the Palestinians?
This ideology calls for the racial purity and dominance of Jews in Palestine, at the expense of the native inhabitants of the land, of course. To achieve this, millions of Palestinians have had to be forced into exile, and hundreds of thousands needed to be killed, wounded or incarcerated. Neither two states nor even one state is possible if Zionism is not entirely defeated: not revamped, not “fixed”, but eradicated.
As Palestinians are being killed in unprecedentedly large numbers in Gaza, western politicians are waking up to the necessity of a viable, independent Palestinian state. But why now? After all, it was these very politicians and their governments that either defended the Zionist state or remained silent as Israel thwarted every possibility of peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians. Theirs is not a moral awakening, but a distraction, to appear — at least before their own people — to be proactive, while Israel is systematically destroying the Palestinian people.
The Israeli war against the Palestinians in Gaza is “the first genocide in the history of humanity that is [being] livestreamed on television,” said former UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness. The genocide is worsening now that Palestinians are starting to die from starvation, while an even larger number are dying from disease and polluted water, aside, of course, from those being blown up or shot and killed by Israel.
For the likes of Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Cameron to talk about the British government’s recognition of a Palestinian state as “absolutely vital” for “long-term peace” is bewildering, to say the least. Those struggling to survive daily are hardly concerned about yet more empty western promises and “recognition”.
The genocide underway in Gaza tells us that the issue is not merely political, but also ideological.
And, while western leaders speak of “long-term peace”, Israel entrenches its system of violence and apartheid. “There cannot be a situation in which children and women approach us from the wall,” said Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on 12 February. “Anyone… must receive a bullet.”
In Gaza, the violence is far more sickening. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor reported on the same day that “groups of ten to twenty Israeli civilians at a time were permitted to watch and laugh while filming Palestinian prisoners and detainees in their underwear” as they were tortured and abused by Israeli soldiers.
There can be no rational political justification for any of this. All of it — the language of genocide, the genocide itself and the threats of committing a greater genocide — is rooted, not in a rational political theory, but in Zionism.
The problem keeps getting worse because we refuse to address it head-on. In fact, many are doing the exact opposite. For example, western governments have passed — or are passing — laws equating criticism of Zionism with anti-Semitism. Even Facebook wants to ban the use of the term “Zionist” if it is used in a context that is critical of Israel.
When Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu threatened, on 5 November, to drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza, he was condemned by many merely for his inappropriate language, not the act itself. Yes, some Israeli officials also criticised Eliyahu, but only for damaging Israel’s international reputation.
The Israeli minister, however, was not simply talking out of anger. He meant it, because Israel’s behaviour in Gaza since then has demonstrated that such willingness to kill Palestinians en masse actually exists. Zionists are ready to do anything for their ideology to survive, and that survival is wholly dependent on the erasure of the perceived enemy; not “erasure” in an intellectual, political or even cultural sense, but the actual physical destruction of the Palestinians.
The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, known as the 1948 Nakba, was a serious attempt at achieving that goal. But since the “enemy”, the Palestinian nation, survived and continues to resist and demand its collective rights, the ethnic cleansing of them is today back on the mainstream Israeli political agenda.
This ongoing Gaza war is, to date, the most serious attempt to destroy the Palestinian people. This is why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right government want to carry on with the killing and destruction. They want to continue the slaughter, and thus the extermination of the Palestinians, because they are fully aware that this is an historic opportunity to finish the job that previous Zionist leaders did not complete 75 years ago.
Indeed, Israel perceives the ongoing offensive as going beyond the geographic confines of the tiny Gaza Strip. It is a war on Palestinians everywhere. If Israel succeeds in subduing Gaza, it will turn immediately to the West Bank, then to the 2.1 million Palestinians who are Israeli citizens.
It is important to recall that, before the current war, the Israeli incitement against Palestinians was focused mostly on the West Bank, with the declared aim of annexing over a third of that occupied region, at least. There was also a major official Israeli campaign to curtail the rights of Palestinian Arabs inside Israel and incite hatred against them. This campaign is rooted in history but has become far more apparent following the Unity Intifada (uprising) of May 2021.
It was then that Israel realized that the “division” of the Palestinians was largely political, and that, as a nation, they remain strongly connected. That is why Ben-Gvir lobbied, even before he was given a ministerial position in December 2022, to have a National Guard tasked with “restoring governance where needed”. If Gaza falls, all Palestinians in the rest of Palestine will become the new target for Israeli violence, ethnic cleansing and, if necessary, genocide.
Reducing all of these issues to that of finding creative political solutions that would merely sell false hopes to the Palestinian people is not only ignorant, or devious, but also a diversion from the real problem: Israel’s ideology of Zionism.
This, like all racist colonial ideologies, operates with a zero-tolerance approach to its relationship with the natives of colonised land: Zionism and Zionists must dominate through ethnic cleansing and genocide. For “long-term peace” to take place, this pernicious ideology must be consigned to the history books.
The latest news about Brazil with international repercussions deals with a new outbreak of dengue fever, which has already affected more than 360,000 people and caused the death of at least 40. The case is notorious enough to have warranted a visit from Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of the WHO, who said that the outbreak in Brazil was part of a global phenomenon.
Without claiming a connection, but honesty requires us to remember that this visit comes just a few days after Mr Adhanom declared in Davos, at the World Economic Forum, the imminence of “Disease X”, which would require restrictive measures at a global level, as well as an upsurge in the fight against “disinformation”.
In the light of the investigations and findings of Russian Ministry of Defence experts regarding the Ukrainian and international activities of Western biolaboratories, however, it may be relevant to take a closer look at some facts that unfolded a few years ago in Brazil.
According to the British company Oxitec’s own official sources (oxitec.com), billions of genetically modified mosquitoes have been released since 2011 with the aim of combating the spread of diseases such as dengue, zika and chikungunya, which periodically re-emerge and affect hundreds of thousands of Brazilians.
The operation is based on manipulating the genes of male Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes (the carrier and transmitter of these diseases) so that the offspring of their crossbreeding with normal female mosquitoes have stunted or defective development, which would eventually lead to the eradication of the mosquitoes and, consequently, dengue fever.
The first tests, such as those carried out in the city of Jacobina in Bahia, pointed to an 85 per cent rate of genetically modified eggs among the entire mosquito population in the city, which was read as a demonstration of the experiment’s success.
However, we saw the result of this optimism in 2019, when the journal Scientific Reports pointed out that experimentation with the Aedes Aegypti mosquito may have created a “supermosquito”. According to the publication, 18 months after the end of the aforementioned experiment, the genetic alterations of the transgenic mosquitoes were already present in the native insect population. Even in neighbouring districts and regions where no genetically modified mosquitoes were released, the mosquitoes had mixed genes.
It was conjectured at the time that these mosquitoes might be more resistant to insecticides and poisons. Doctor Lia Giraldo da Silva Augusto, an environmental health researcher and former member of CTNBio, said she believed there had been lobbying to favour the British company – which was facilitated by the fact that the company dealt directly with town halls in extremely poor cities.
She also denounces the fact that there was no long-term monitoring and that only short-term results were used to press for the commercial release of the transgenic mosquito.
This is not the first controversy involving Oxitec.
The citizens of Florida, more specifically the Florida Keys, have been fighting a battle for more than 10 years against the release of billions of genetically modified mosquitoes. According to various social organisations, such as the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition, there is no evidence that GM mosquitoes limit the spread of diseases such as dengue, not least because there has been no independent study. Oxitec also claims that the results of its studies into the environmental and human impact of its transgenic mosquitoes is “confidential information”.
In 2018, for its part, the Cayman Islands government cancelled Oxitec’s project to spread transgenic mosquitoes after widespread popular pressure, supported by questions about the plan’s effectiveness and safety. The NGO GeneWatch UK released a report at the time, based on documents released by Oxitec itself, which indicated the ineffectiveness of the method used to suppress the mosquito population and prevent the spread of diseases such as dengue, Zika and chikungunya.
Despite these controversies and criticism from citizens’ groups concerned about the risks of Big Pharma manipulating nature for profit, Oxitec is still pushing ahead with projects in Panama, Djibouti, Uganda and the Marshall Islands, at least.
But who is really behind Oxitec? The British company was acquired in 2015 by the U.S. corporation Intrexon (which in 2020 changed its name to Precigen), which in 2020 sold Oxitec to the venture capital company Third Security LLC, which specialises in biotechnology.
Intrexon/Precigen has Third Security itself as its largest shareholder (38.87 per cent), with the other main investors being Germany’s Merck KGaA and the U.S. companies Patient Capital and BlackRock.
The transgenic mosquito project, however, has the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as its main backer, and Bill Gates himself has been one of the main spokespeople for this idea of fighting mosquito-borne diseases through transgenic mosquitoes.
And this is where the “rabbit hole” gets deep. Bill Gates’ interest in controversial biological research programmes, including in Ukraine, is already well known.
In May 2022, for example, RT published a report by Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the Radiological, Chemical and Biological Protection Force of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, in which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was implicated in a scheme to finance military biolaboratories in Ukraine – a scheme that also involves the participation of large pharmaceutical corporations, including the aforementioned Merck KGaA. In this scheme, medicines and vaccines would be tested on the Ukrainian population without meeting international safety standards, in order to reduce costs.
Igor Kirillov released another report in July 2023 that may be of interest to us. In this report, which is already the result of Russian investigations into Western biolaboratories in Ukraine, Kirillov emphasises the U.S. Department of Defense’s interest in studying mosquitoes that transmit infections such as dengue fever. He reiterates that Russia has evidence of dangerous experimentation with mosquitoes in special facilities, both in the U.S. and abroad, highlighting precisely Oxitec as a company with ties to the U.S. Department of Defence and capable of mass-producing infection vectors for dengue and other diseases.
Kirillov finally points to a correlation between the spread of the operations of these Western-linked biolaboratories and a growing incidence of unusual diseases in the territories in question.
With this, it is not our intention to launch empty speculations about Oxitec’s activities, but to emphasise the need for a strict Brazilian and Ibero-American biosafety policy that takes into account the Russian findings about the suspicious activities of biolaboratories linked to the U.S. government, the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation and Big Pharma.
Tucker Carlson just interviewed former State Department official, Mike Benz, about how the National Security State—originally conceived to protect the American homeland from foreign adversaries—has increasingly directed its attention to controlling the American people. Its primary instrument is censorship.
This is the exact opposite of what our Founding Fathers conceived for the USA. As James Madison wrote in an August 4, 1822 letter:
A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
Mike Benz has apparently spent years carefully studying the National Security State. His presentation of what is going on in the United States is extraordinarily erudite and organized, and it is corroborated by multiple reliable sources. As I have endeavored to point out on this Substack, the COVID-19 pandemic response is just one of many public policy programs that are being directed by the same unelected Deep State actors.
Benz highlights the relationship between the pandemic response and the key role of mail ballots in the 2020 presidential election. He also points out that the same censorship apparatus that controlled information about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines also preemptively suppressed critics of how the 2020 election was handled.
His conclusion is that our National Security State does not acknowledge the validity of the will of the people. The unelected officials running our country do NOT respect popular government and the popular information that is the lifeblood of popular government.
I strongly recommend watching the entire interview.
Ep. 75 The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. "What I’m describing is military rule," says Mike Benz. "It’s the inversion of democracy." pic.twitter.com/hDTEjAf89T
Since the launch of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in early October, the United Kingdom has dramatically increased its military and intelligence support for the Israeli regime.
It has done so either by recruiting spies in the occupied Palestinian territories, engaging private military companies, deploying surveillance aircraft and vessels, or conducting spy missions over Gaza.
Notable components of the British deployment include Royal Air Force P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, unspecified surveillance assets, two Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ships, three Merlin helicopters, and a contingent of Royal Marines, which were meant to aid the Israeli aggression against Palestinians.
According to the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), a UK-based civil society organization, the United Kingdom and Germany are among the biggest arms suppliers to Tel Aviv.
The CAAT report said British companies supplied approximately 15 percent of components used in F-35s that were employed in the Israeli bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip.
Some companies, such as Elbit, the Israeli regime’s international military contractor, hold licenses for trading military equipment in Britain, the report stated.
MI5 recruits spies in Gaza
Beyond military assistance, the UK has consistently sought to provide intelligence support to the Israeli regime by utilizing existing intelligence operatives and recruiting new agents within occupied territories.
In a recently revealed case, the British spy agency MI5 tried to recruit a British man in Gaza by offering to help his family escape the city, which is currently under heavy bombardment by the Israeli regime.
The man, who reportedly declined the offer, revealed that his family had registered with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) for evacuation but experienced prolonged delays, enduring dire conditions in a tent among other displaced individuals in Gaza.
“I have been waiting for more than two months for them to get me and my family out of this crazy, dangerous war,” he was quoted as saying, expressing frustration.
The MI5 contact with the man in Gaza indicated that the agency’s ability to facilitate the family’s evacuation through FCDO was contingent upon the man agreeing to work for the intelligence agency.
Despite the urgency of their situation, the man said he did not agree to this condition.
MI5, the contact said, had influence over the FCDO but only if he could show “there is willingness from your side about working together”.
“After I received their offer, I said to myself: the UK is a country of institutions and law, and they will not obstruct the evacuation of me and my family because I did not respond to MI5’s proposal. But unfortunately, I was wrong,” the unidentified man stated.
Moazzam Begg, a senior director at advocacy organization Cage International, and a former Guantanamo Bay detainee assisting the family, noted that the recruitment methods employed by MI5 seem consistent with the agency’s tactics to exploit individuals facing desperate circumstances.
Begg emphasized the coercive nature of such recruitment, sharing his own experience.
“I know from personal experience from MI5 agents telling me directly that the only way you can get out of a place where you are being tortured or abused or detained without trial is by cooperating.”
UK spy mission over Gaza
The British intelligence support for the Israeli regime and its spy missions in the occupied territories is not limited to the recruitment of potential spies.
A recent investigation revealed that the British military conducted approximately 50 spy missions over the Gaza Strip for the Israeli regime since December.
In its latest report, Declassified UK, a news website focused on British foreign policy, said the flights have taken off from the UK’s Akrotiri air base on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. Flights originating from the controversial air base utilized Shadow R1 surveillance aircraft to gather intelligence.
The UK Ministry of Defense initially claimed these flights aimed to collect information on British captives held by the Hamas resistance movement, but the frequency and timing raised suspicions of broader intelligence gathering.
“The extraordinary number of flights, and the fact that they started nearly two months after the hostages were taken, raises suspicions that the UK is not collecting intelligence solely for this purpose,” Declassified UK said.
Head of the Cyprus Peace Council Charis Pashias said last week that locals have seen a “daily” increase in the number of flights from Akrotiri since Israel launched its bombardment of Gaza on Oct 7, 2023.
He said people have also “become aware of the illegal presence of thousands of American soldiers now stationed in Akrotiri.”
UK’s plan for surveillance flights
In another noteworthy development, the UK government openly announced its plan for surveillance flights over Israel and Gaza, citing it as part of hostage rescue efforts.
Hamas condemned this decision, labeling it as military involvement in the “genocidal” war on Gaza. The group urged the UK to reconsider, citing historical grievances such as the 1917 Balfour Declaration, describing it as “the sin of the century” and condemning the UK for perpetuating a shameful colonial past.
The UK’s “intention to carry out intelligence flights over the Gaza Strip makes it an accomplice to the Zionist occupation in its crimes, and responsible for the massacres to which our Palestinian people are subjected,” the Palestinian resistance group said in a statement.
The UK should have “corrected its historical position that was offensive to the Palestinian people,” and “atone for” the 1917 Balfour Declaration, a letter from then-British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lionel Walter Rothschild, a leading figure of the British Jewish community, pledging support for “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.
British Cyprus intelligence base
The recent surge in UK surveillance activities is closely tied to its significant presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, specifically the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) on Cyprus.
These bases, constituting 3 percent of the island’s landmass, house the largest Royal Air Force base outside the UK and contain substantial signals- and intelligence-gathering assets. Most UK surveillance flights are launched from these bases, strategically located just 200 miles from Gaza.
Although officially unacknowledged, leaked top-secret documents from GCHQ, the UK’s largest spy agency, confirm that Cyprus “hosts a wide range of UK and US intelligence facilities.”
The main US spy agency of National Security Agency (NSA) particularly operates on British territory, maintaining a “far-reaching technical and analytic relationship” with the Israeli SIGINT National Unit (ISNU), sharing information on access, intercept, targeting, language, analysis, and reporting, according to Declassified.
A top-secret document from GCHQ adds that “Cyprus collection facilities are acknowledged by NSA as important assets”.
These revelations, leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, gained significance in light of the US-UK activities on Cyprus, suggesting that intelligence obtained from Gaza by American spy agencies operating on British Cyprus might be shared with the Israeli regime.
The US and British militaries are key partners of Israel and have supported its bombing of Gaza. The documents show intelligence gathered on Cyprus is likely to be part of this support.
The leaked GCHQ document acknowledges that intelligence gathered from Cyprus is integrated “with military planning and operations,” emphasizing the close interaction between GCHQ and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on Cyprus.
Moreover, RAF Troodos, a British “retained site” near the northern Cyprus border, operates as a listening post for the US, providing unique access to critical points in the Middle East. The intelligence collected from Troodos supports technical analysts in both the US and the UK and is used for weapons-related collection, according to a GCHQ document.
The Troodos site, GCHQ noted, “has long been regarded as a ‘Jewel in the Crown’ by NSA as it offers unique access to the Levant, North Africa, and Turkey”.
Furthermore, it is believed that the CIA is operating from Britain’s bases on Cyprus. A leaked US cable, reported by Declassified, mentioned a UK official stating that American aircraft flying from RAF Akrotiri are operated by the State Department and US military, with the “possibility of other agencies”, presumably the CIA, conducting operations from the base.
British soldiers take part in Israeli war
In a recent revelation, the death of Nathanel Young, a 20-year-old British man serving as a corporal in the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF), shed light on the fact that hundreds of Britons are serving in the IOF, which is illegally occupying Palestinian land and has killed thousands of children in Gaza.
In an interview with the Times, Sam Sank, a British paratrooper in the Israeli army, who has been participating in the Israeli war against Palestinians since early October, revealed that hundreds of fellow Brits are currently serving in the IOF.
Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, whose husband has lived in the Israeli-occupied territories, previously told the Jewish Chronicle that they have “close family members who serve in the IDF”.
It is unclear if those relatives are British citizens.
This prompted the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians to seek urgent clarification from the UK Foreign Office on the legality of British nationals enlisting in the Israeli army.
They made the request “In light of the catastrophic situation currently unfolding in Gaza, with clear evidence that war crimes and crimes against humanity may already have been committed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and the real risk that further mass atrocity crimes may be imminent”.
People who fight for a foreign army are often viewed as mercenaries and would meet the dictionary definition. However, the UK lacks effective anti-mercenary laws and tends to prosecute foreign fighters on an ad hoc basis, depending on whatever geo-political interests are being pursued by the government of the day.
The UK even tried to thwart attempts by the United Nations to craft a ban on mercenaries. The only international law concerning mercenaries that Britain has signed is Article 47 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention.
It was adopted in 1977 as “countries attempted to create a fine distinction between those classified as mercenaries and other actors, essentially to retain the right to recruit, train, finance, and use mercenaries with impunity,” according to a report presented last month to the UN General Assembly by its working group on mercenaries.
Britons joining the IOF may only meet certain aspects of the Geneva Convention’s criteria for mercenaries, especially concerning material compensation exceeding that of their Israeli counterparts.
The country’s historical resistance to international efforts to ban mercenaries complicates the legal landscape around this issue.
UK arms exports to Israel
According to research by the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT), the UK has licensed approximately £472 million in arms exports to Israel since 2015. These exports include various components, equipment, and technology for fighter aircraft and drones.
It’s worth noting that, as James Butler observes, “the headline figure is taken from the value of standard licenses, but the UK also operates a system of open licenses that permit transfers of unlimited – and unspecified – quantities of particular military goods.”
Scrutiny of the Israeli regime’s genocide in Gaza has increased in the UK due to concerns that weapons supplied by the UK might be used in violation of international humanitarian law (IHL).
Despite these concerns and calls from human rights campaigners to suspend arms sales to Israel, the UK government has shown no intention of halting such exports. The UK government’s rhetorical emphasis on IHL compliance contrasts with its uninterrupted supply of arms to the apartheid regime.
In the first weeks of the war, a report by openDemocracy said “The UK government has no plans to suspend arms sales to Israel, despite human rights campaigners warning its exports have been used to kill civilians.”
In late November, when pressed in the House of Commons, the incumbent Defence Secretary Grant Shapps rebuffed the idea of the UK suspending its arms sales to the regime in Tel Aviv.
This stance persisted even after the regime’s attacks on October 7, with London and other Western nations expressing “unequivocal support” for Israel, which made them directly complicit.
There is a concerted effort to drive a growing number of individuals, particularly the younger demographic, toward mental health screenings and interventions.
Schools across the United States are implementing mental health programs to tackle the ongoing mental health crisis. The underlying concept is well-intentioned, drawing parallels between mental health prevention and physical health education. This entails raising awareness of behaviors promoting mental well-being and encouraging active engagement in such behaviors.
However, what if the notion of “prioritizing mental health” is inadvertently causing harm? In a New York Times opinion essay titled “This is Not the Way to Help Depressed Teenagers,” Darby Saxbe, a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Southern California, argued that certain programs aimed at addressing mental health issues in young people not only fell short in providing help but actually exacerbated their problems.
Enter WISE Teens, a school program focused on “social-emotional skills training,” spearheaded by clinical psychologists in training. This innovative initiative comprises eight weekly hour-long classroom sessions designed to equip students with tools and principles derived from both cognitive behavior therapy and Zen Buddhism. The goal? To empower students in managing their emotions effectively.
In a recent study published in the journal Behavior Research and Therapy (read here), researchers examined the experiences of 1,071 Australian teenagers over the span of 2017 to 2018. The participants were divided into two groups: one engaged in the WISE Teens program, while the other followed a standard health-class curriculum. Surprisingly, the findings revealed that compared to those receiving standard education, students in WISE Teens reported higher levels of depression, increased anxiety, greater difficulty managing their emotions, and strained relationships with their parents. Astonishingly, one out of every eight participants in WISE Teens showed signs of clinical depression post-program, as opposed to one out of every 13 participants in the regular health classes.
This was an educational program and NOT Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), despite some academic enthusiasts wrongly claiming that DBT for Adolescents is ineffective. DBT for Adolescents is a comprehensive psychotherapy involving specialized individual therapy, skills coaching for both parents and children, and coaching consultations. It’s specifically designed to help teenagers facing severe emotion dysregulation, including issues like suicidality and self-injury. What we’re discussing here, however, is not that. It’s an attempt to build skills in a non-clinical population.
The question arises: should our school personnel be getting involved in mental health matters? How about pediatricians and primary care doctors? Could this be contributing to the problem rather than solving it?
The irony is hard to ignore: school decisions made during the pandemic played a direct role in the rise of mental health issues among children. It’s widely known that kids flourish through social interaction, in-person learning, and engaging activities that aid their development. Yet, what actually unfolded was the opposite – they were pulled out of schools, exposed to prolonged screen time, and had their extracurriculars taken away. Not surprisingly, the increase in screen time and social media usage went hand in hand with a decline in mental health. Indeed, there’s a paradox in expecting the same authorities to screen, oversee, and intervene in mental health problems. So what happens when these concepts are taught to impressionable kids?
Psychiatric Ideology is Harmful
When kids are doing well, they’re focused outward – active, engaged, and fully living life. But turning that focus inward and exposing them to psychiatric labels and ideas? That’s just plain foolish. Kids are at a stage where they’re figuring out who they are, and throwing around these labels is confusing. It’s risky business, especially when these labels start defining their inner world and capabilities.
When introducing concepts around mental health problems kids are prone to speaking about normal life struggles in terms of symptoms and diagnoses. This approach instills a sense of pathology or abnormality in children’s everyday struggles, potentially leading to heightened anxiety or self-stigmatization.
The psychiatric industry suggests that DSM diagnoses are legitimate disease constructs, akin to physical illnesses. However, they’re merely crude labels slapped onto a spectrum of emotional and behavioral manifestations. Major Depressive Disorder isn’t a tangible ailment like strep throat or a tumor. ADHD isn’t an innate disease. These labels lack explanatory value.
One’s struggle with depression may stem from valid reasons such as life setbacks, loss, loneliness, financial woes, or other health issues – not because you have Major Depressive Disorder. Kids often miss this nuance, making them susceptible to labeling themselves: “I can’t do this due to my anxiety,” or “My ADHD is hindering my homework.” Such labels, instead of clarifying, can breed a sense of hopelessness about the future.
Chemical Imbalance Lies have Harmed Generations
During the 1990s and 2000s, the pharmaceutical industry teamed up with academic psychiatry to brand mental health conditions as brain disorders. The government poured billions into hunting for some biological or genetic root, presenting psychiatry with the chance to solidify its standing as legitimate doctors. By attributing depression, anxiety, ADHD, and other “mood disorders” to a biological origin, they could conveniently fit them into the allopathic model—essentially, the solution became prescribing a drug. This alliance shaped not just the narrative around mental health but also the lucrative industry that emerged from it.
“I spent 13 years at NIMH really pushing on the neuroscience and genetics of mental disorders, and when I look back on that I realize that while I think I succeeded at getting lots of really cool papers published by cool scientists at fairly large costs—I think $20 billion—I don’t think we moved the needle in reducing suicide, reducing hospitalizations, improving recovery for the tens of millions of people who have mental illness.” – Thomas Insel, MD
Despite the lack of an identified biological basis for these conditions, the pharmaceutical industry and academic psychiatry propagated the myth of chemical imbalances, resulting in the emergence of a multi-billion dollar psychiatric drug industry. During this period, psychiatric diagnoses skyrocketed, with near 25% adults relying on at least one psychiatric drug. Astonishingly, all available statistics point to a deterioration in mental health. This should come as no surprise. When individuals are taught that their emotions are beyond their control and framed as symptoms of a physical illness, they are effectively conditioned to seek relief through medication rather than understanding their emotions in context and leveraging them to confront challenges and solve problems.
It’s important to notice that many teachers and school staff are exposed to the same ideologies that contribute to the issues affecting our culture. Schools can become breeding grounds for the perpetuation of concepts like chemical imbalances, victimization culture, and other fringe ideologies. The cycle continues as those who have been influenced by these ideas become the educators, passing on harmful ideas.
Public Schools are a Breeding Ground for Indoctrination
Teachers, school counselors, administrators, and school psychologists often lack the comprehensive knowledge, training, and expertise required to navigate the complexities of emotional and behavioral issues. Their roles were not originally designed to involve the identification or intervention of emotional problems, nor should they be.
Regrettably, public schools have become battlegrounds for fringe ideologies and cultural Marxism, transforming the educational system into an extension of an expanding nanny state that encroaches on the individual rights of families.
Initiatives such as social and emotional learning, gender ideology, and mental health screening have positioned school personnel as gatekeepers for broader societal movements. Non-experts in the field may incorrectly inform parents that their children have conditions like “ADHD” and discuss fringe ideas without scientific legitimacy, significantly influencing how parents perceive their children’s development.
In this climate, normal developmental challenges are pathologized within a culture fueled by fear. Teachers, conditioned to identify early signs of potential academic or emotional issues, become hyper-vigilant to any cues that might suggest a child is at risk of becoming a school shooter, facing suicide, or dropping out of high school.
Tragically, educators have been misled into thinking they can pinpoint these so-called “disorders,” often oversimplifying complex issues and resorting to problematic “early interventions”, at times pushing drugs. This unintended consequence creates a system where educators feel compelled to categorize and refer for medication. Paradoxically, assigning labels to children and administering mind & mood-altering drugs significantly heighten the risk of the very feared consequences they sought to prevent.
Don’t Accept “Depression Screening” Measures
Mental Health Screening* is based on the subjective and unscientific diagnostic system developed by mental health professionals, many with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has brazenly recommended an audacious strategy: subjecting adolescents aged 12 years and older to annual screenings for depression, using formal self-report tools on paper or electronically. These guidelines, undoubtedly, serve one sinister purpose: to inflate the number of children diagnosed with depression. It is a well-known fact that screening measures are notorious for producing false positives. This means that a substantial percentage of individuals identified through these screenings do not actually suffer from the supposed problem being screened.
According to psychologist Chuck Ruby, as stated in his book “Smoke and Mirrors,” with approximately 74 million children under the age of 18 residing in the United States, subjecting them all to an 80% accurate screening tool would result in millions being falsely labeled. These guidelines not only perpetuate a dangerous cycle of overdiagnosis but also push countless innocent young individuals into unnecessary treatment-psychiatric drugs.
Dr. David Shaffer of Columbia University, the psychiatrist who invented one screening program, “TeenScreen,” admits it has a potential 84 percent chance of wrongly identifying teens to be at risk of suicide. He has long-term ties to drug companies and is a consultant for Hoffman La Roche, Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline.
The ease with which normal developmental behaviors can be misdiagnosed as symptoms of clinical depression is a concerning issue. The primary screening measure utilized for assessing adolescent depression is the PHQ-9 for Adolescents, a self-report questionnaire comprising of nine questions that focus on supposed “depressive symptoms”. What is particularly noteworthy is the origin of this questionnaire—it was developed by none other than… Pfizer!
This phenomenon isn’t exclusive to a particular psychiatric disorder; it’s a pervasive issue across various mental health conditions. A widely recognized pharmaceutical marketing strategy involves expanding the diagnostic criteria for a disorder, essentially broadening the definition to encompass aspects within the spectrum of normal human experiences. By doing so, the pharmaceutical industry can effectively create a market for their products, as more individuals are diagnosed and deemed potential consumers.
Reclaiming our Communities
The key to effective mental health prevention lies in common sense. It begins with cultivating a nurturing and loving home environment that prioritizes the well-being of children. Provide structure and a sense of predictability. Reduce screen time, provide nutrient-dense meals, avoid processed and chemically laden junk, ensure adequate sleep, and embrace community and faith-based traditions. Throw in some exercise, extra-curricular activities, and social gatherings for good measure. While emphasizing the importance of academic achievement, fostering a love for learning, discipline, and resilience, it may be opportune to empower our school teachers to thrive in their specialties—math, science, English, and history—leaving the framework for mental well-being in the capable hands of families and those they trust.
*In a previous post I wrote about the dangers of screening measures in pediatrics and primary care (Read here)
It is tempting to frame global geopolitics as a binary struggle between China and the US, as a competition between two economic giants, each of which has grown to see the other as the fundamental obstacle to its own security and success.
Yet the world is more complicated than that. International affairs are not moving towards a bipolar world in which two superpowers create rival systems and force all other countries to take sides, but is rather moving to a multipolar world, where there are many great powers all competing against each other.
Multipolarity is preceded by the disintegration of unipolarity, whereby one hegemonic power finds itself increasingly declining amid a rise of others. Thus, China is not the only rising power to reshape the global environment, even if it is at this time the largest, and because of this it is unlikely that Beijing will ever be a hegemon in the same sense as America was, for we must take other rising powers into account such as India and Russia, among others.
However, one often-overlooked country is emerging as geopolitically consequential, and that is Indonesia. This massive, diverse, multiethnic archipelago state is home to 273 million people and is the fourth-most-populated country in the world. It is also one of the fastest-growing economies in Southeast Asia whose Gross Domestic Product surpassed $1 trillion in recent years, having increased at a steady pace over time. This makes it one of the world’s most important emerging economies and markets.
The increasing prominence of Indonesia has led the island nation to become subject to a geopolitical tug of war, that is the question of who will win its “allegiance” as part of the macro struggle between the US and China. Stretched out across thousands of islands, the geostrategic location of the country is critical, because it occupies the fundamental passage between the Pacific and Indian oceans known as the Malacca Strait, forming an effective bridge between Asia and Oceania, as well as the South China Sea. The West consequently sees the country as essential in attempting to contain China within its own neighbourhood, while Beijing, on the other hand, sees partnership with Indonesia as equally important for the opposite reason.
But when it comes to geopolitics, Indonesia is the archetype of a non-aligned nation, as well as an important voice of the Global South, hence the famous Bandung Conference of African and Asian states was held on its territory in 1955. Because of this neutrality and because it is a Muslim nation, Indonesia is not pro-West, but neither is it pro-China. Instead, it pursues a “best of both worlds” foreign policy which seeks to simultaneously court both sides to derive benefits. As the largest market and economic benefactor on its doorstep, Jakarta cannot ignore Beijing, thus it makes conscious choices in terms of trade, technology (such as Huawei) as well as other things, to align with Beijing.
On the other hand, Indonesia naturally does not want to be militarily subjugated by the rise of China and therefore seeks other partners to bolster its own autonomy to ensure it does not become a “subordinate” party, and is thus also a strategic partner of the US. However, this is the hallmark of a multipolar world, whereby nations sense that they do not have to be subject to the “hegemony” of a third party and are able to seek multiple options rather than having to follow the orders and preferences of a superior power. Indonesia is thus neither pro-China nor pro-American, it is pro-Indonesia and will use this to become a pivotal power in the future.
Yet, this also inevitably signals the end of Western domination in on a global scale. With the rise of new economies such as Indonesia with its huge population, “older powers” like Britain and France increasingly become smaller and less relevant. It is one thing to look at the rise of China’s economy, but what happens when other economies such as India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, et al become larger in scope than Western ones thanks to their large populations and markets? There is an undeniable shift in the balance of power going on here, and this of course also means American dominance cannot last forever. The US, and thus China too, must ultimately win the allegiance and court these new tier economies, thus ending the Euro-Atlantic dominance of global affairs which has lasted for four hundred years. This is precisely why America is now so-focused on what it describes as “The Indo-Pacific” and countries like Indonesia will ultimately serve as kingmakers as they establish their global influence.
The first two segments of this series provide evidence that the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor was no surprise. They are found in the playlist linked below that includes other videos about President Franklin Roosevelt’s plot. Here is other interesting information about the Pearl Harbor attack that is rarely mentioned.
“The Forgotten Casualties of Pearl Harbor – Inside the Accidental Bombardment of Honolulu on Dec. 7, 1941”; Simon Webb; Military History Now; April 26, 2020; https://militaryhistorynow.com/2020/0…
10) Though it originally meant “racism against (Jewish) Semites,” the term anti-Semitism has evolved over time. Today it refers to critics of certain Jewish ideologies and behaviors, many of which richly deserve criticism.
9) Anyone who deplores the genocidal massacre of more than 30,000 Gaza civilians, most of them women and children, will be called an anti-Semite. Ergo, the term anti-Semite refers to people who don’t like genocidal massacres of women and children.
8) Anyone who discusses Israel’s power in the United States, as Walt and Mearsheimer and James Petras and Alison Weir have, will be called an anti-Semite. Ergo, the term anti-Semite refers to people with the courage to discuss important but taboo issues.
7) People who investigate the ADL’s power in American society will be called anti-Semites. Ergo, the term anti-Semite refers to people curious about the history of America’s most powerful pro-censorship organization.
5) People who figure out that elite Jews have rigged Ivy League admissions to make themselves a permanent hereditary ruling caste in America will definitely be called anti-Semites. Ergo, the term anti-Semite refers to “competent sociologists interested in American power structures.” There seems to be only one such competent sociologist in America, Ron Unz.
Living through five or six major wars has hardened me to what I thought were the extremes of inhuman cruelty and brutality.
Two things made those extremes almost bearable: the brutality always revealed – at least according to the media coverage – the viciousness of the enemy. It was therefore quite understandable when our “brave men and women” pulverized the enemy.
Films of Japanese torturing captive Americans somehow justified holding Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II; and only a small percentage of Americans found the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unreasonably vengeful at best, at worst, depraved.
The media giants in America portrayed the North Koreans as barbaric beasts with their captives, quite unlike their southern counterpoints – our allies during the Korean War. No one ever felt the need to explain how the South Koreans were a civilized breed while the North Koreans were absolute savages, at least according to the official line.
In Vietnam, our warriors justifiably (or so the media made us believe) dropped napalm on the North Vietnamese who had the gall to hide in villages and tunnels to ravage our invaders. At least it was accepted practice until some rogue photojournalist filmed a young girl screaming down a Vietnamese road in flames. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 