15 Nov 2021

Survey reveals one in three Texas children have had COVID-19

Chase Lawrence & Andy Hartman


In October, the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and the Texas Department of State Health Services published a report, titled Texas Coronavirus Antibody Response Survey (Texas CARES), which found that over one-third (36.5 percent) of children in the state have been infected with COVID-19. Additionally, the results indicate that roughly one-quarter of educational professionals have been infected with the virus.

The report measured infections within the 275-500 days preceding October 3, the maximum range within which infection-generated antibodies remain detectable via test. Since its publication, the percentage among children has increased somewhat to 36.96, indicating further infections.

Arihana Macias, 7, gets a compress after reviving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for children five to 12 years at a Dallas County Health and Human vaccination site in Mesquite, Texas, Thursday, Nov. 4, 2021. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

The results expose the massive fraud of the state’s portrayal of the pandemic, as well as the lie propagated by governments around the world that COVID-19 rarely affects children. The Texas government, in line with the entire political establishment and corporate media, has covered up the scope of child infections and deaths.

Texas’ COVID-19 dashboard only reports the age distribution for 3 percent of infections, which the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) report on November 4 noted, “resulted in an undercount of child cases” in the state. The current dashboard makes it appear that ages 0-19 years account for only 7.7 percent of infections as of November 5.

Researchers who produced the Texas CARES report measured the levels of COVID-19 antibodies among Texas residents. Participants were given two tests, an “N-test,” which does not detect antibodies developed from vaccinations, and an “S-test,” which detects antibodies developed both from previous infections and from vaccinations. The survey did not measure active COVID-19 infections. Participants were given three antibody tests over a period of six to eight months.

The tests were used to estimate the percentage of people in Texas who have antibodies to COVID-19, known as seroprevalence. The survey suggests that as of October 2021, about 75 percent of people in Texas had antibodies from either an infection or vaccination. Those with vaccine derived antibodies had higher antibody counts than infection-derived antibodies, exposing once again the myth that “herd immunity” can be achieved through infection. The report also found that of the children who had antibodies from an infection, 50.8 percent reported never having any symptoms.

The project is ongoing, with a dashboard that is updated weekly. Children have the highest seroprevalence levels among any group. As of this writing, the dashboard shows an infection-derived seropositivity (using only the “N-test”) of nearly 36 percent in children under 10 years old and nearly 38 percent in those between 10 and 19 years old, meaning those respective percentages of children had a previous COVID-19 infection.

After children, young adults age 20-29 had the next highest seroprevalence at 30 percent. This is compared to the average infection-derived seropositivity among all participants, which stood at 24 percent, itself a damning figure.

The implications of the study are astounding. In Russia, 13.5percent of all children who were infected with COVID have suffered Long COVID symptoms, which can include severe neurological difficulties and a cognitive impact comparabletostrokeorleadpoisoning .

The Texas CARES study also looked at several specific groups, including school-aged children (ages 5-19), educational professionals, university members, business employees, unemployed people and participants at community health clinics. Again, school-aged children had the highest seropositivity as a group at 36.5 percent positive using the N-test.

Educational professionals, consisting of all school staff, had a 26.7 percent seroprevalence, exposing the vast spread of the virus in schools that have reopened with few to no protective measures in place.

Underscoring the pandemic’s impact on primarily low-income and working class populations, the second highest seroprevalence by group was among community health clinic patients and staff. These are clinics which receive federal funding to provide health care to underserved populations, including Medicaid recipients and uninsured patients.

In regard to the ongoing impact of the pandemic on children, the AAP report also listed eight child deaths in Texas between October 28 and November 4, nearly half of the 17 pediatric COVID-19 deaths nationwide in that period. In total, 109 child deaths from COVID-19 have been recorded in Texas since the start of the pandemic, 17 percent of all recorded child deaths in the US, currently at 614.

The media is equally involved in a concerted campaign to cover up childhood infections and deaths. No news reports have been published by the corporate or local media on any of the child deaths recorded in the latest AAP report. This is true not just of the children in Texas, but also those in California, Colorado, Maryland, South Carolina, Guam, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.

A culture of secrecy now pervades at schools, with educators and parents reporting to the WSWS and on social media that they are not informed when their children are exposed to infected students.

If the study’s findings are representative of the state’s population, it would indicate that millions more Texans have been infected than officially reported. If the seroprevalence among child participants in the study (ages 5-19), at 36.5 percent, is indicative of the entire population of the same age in Texas, then 2,000,280 children older than 5 have potentially been infected.

This figure is over five times the cumulative student case count reported in Texas schools by the Texas Department of State Health Services (TXDSHS) for all of the pandemic, which stands at 363,996 as of this writing. The seroprevalence averaged for all participants, at 24 percent, would indicate that 7 million people have been infected in Texas, over 2 million more than the official count.

The survey itself hints at some of the causes of the undercount of infections. Only 18.97 percent of participants had previously self-reported a positive COVID-19 diagnosis, versus the 24.1 percent who tested positive for infection-derived antibodies using the N-test. That is, a significant number of participants were unaware that they had been previously infected. The abysmal state of testing in the US accounts for many millions of infections going undetected.

There are some limitations to the survey as well. Participation was voluntary and was focused in heavily urban areas, with the highest participation in the Austin area, followed by a slightly lower participation in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio. There was significantly lower participation elsewhere in the state, meaning that many rural areas may be underrepresented. Although two-thirds of the participants were female, seroprevalence was nearly identical for males and females, making this largely irrelevant.

Overall, the report is a damning indictment of the social crime being perpetrated by both the Republican state government and the Democratic Party, which controls many of the highly populated urban counties in Texas. The crime includes not only the entirely preventable spread of COVID-19, but also the extensive cover-up of it. It also exposes the rotten nature of the trade unions, particularly the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA), which have forced their members to accept the full reopening of schools, despite millions of children being infected and thousands of educators dying as a result.

These policies serve the interests of the ruling elites, who sit on an increasingly unstable stock market and an astronomical amount of debt. They insist that the economy must be fully reopened, seeking to stave off the collapse of their moribund system, while continuing to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth. The full reopening of schools is an essential part of this scheme. The ruling elites and the capitalist politicians, who tell the population to learn to live with the virus, cannot be pressured to change their course.

13 Nov 2021

Social Science Research Council Just Tech Fellowship 2022

Application Deadline:

2nd January 2022

Tell Me About Social Science Research Council Just Tech Fellowship:

The Just Tech Fellowship supports and mobilizes diverse and cross-sector cohorts of researchers and practitioners to imagine and create more just, equitable, and representative technological futures. Fellows will identify and challenge injustices emerging from new technologies, and identify solutions that advance social, political, and economic rights.

The Just Tech program will administer two-year awards of $100,000 per year, augmented by robust supplementary funding packages to subsidize expenses related to dependent care, health care, workspace, technical equipment, project materials, communications, or other needs. These innovative awards are designed not only to support a researcher’s work but to invest in their entire person and to build a supportive and collaborative community. Fellows may apply for additional funding to seed collaborative projects within or across Just Tech cohorts.

What Type of Scholarship is this?

Fellowship

Who can apply?

The Just Tech Fellowship selection process has been designed with fairness and accountability as primary objectives. With this fellowship, the Just Tech program is working to bring new voices and perspectives into conversation, maximizing impact and avenues of collaboration across fields and practices.

Only people who submitted an expression of interest by January 2, 2022, will be eligible to submit a full application. Proposal consideration will not be based on the candidate’s response to this expression of interest.

Applications are reviewed only after the online application deadline has passed. Incomplete applications, and those that have not been submitted by the deadline, will not be accepted.

In February, Just Tech staff will screen applications for completeness and eligibility. Review and selection of complete applications will be led by the Just Tech Advisory Board and its Selection Committee, a cross-sector panel of experts. From mid-March through mid-April, top applicants may be contacted by Just Tech staff for a video/telephone interview, additional information, and/or clarification of information relevant to the application. All final selections will be made by mid-May. Those applicants chosen will be immediately notified by phone and email. All other applicants will be notified by email. 

How are Applicants Selected?

Fellows will be selected on the basis of a rigorous review process. We will be looking for the following criteria in reviewing all applications:

  • Critical Research Question: Applicants must state clearly what question(s) they seek to answer with a Just Tech Fellowship.
  • Clarity of Purpose: Applicants should communicate how they would use their time as a fellow to systematically uncover evidence, build understanding, and shape public interest solutions to advance the goals of Just Tech. 
  • Commitment to Program Themes: Applicants should demonstrate a commitment to research that engages purposefully with questions of technology, inequity, and social justice, especially as they relate to the cohort theme of “Crisis and Reparation.”
  • Public Impact: Applicants should communicate how their proposed work will contribute to equity and social justice. Applicants should also demonstrate a track record of successful, public-facing work that engages broad audiences through different forms of media.
  • Collaboration: Applicants should demonstrate a track record of successful collaboration, as well as a willingness to share, learn, and create with others.

How Many Scholarships will be Given?

Not specified

What is the Benefit of Social Science Research Council Just Tech Fellowship?

Fellows receive two-year awards of $100,000 per year, robust supplementary funding packages to subsidize additional expenses, and seed funding to work on collaborative projects with other Just Tech Fellows. The fellowship will provide the space and time necessary for deep reflection, as well as an engaged community and opportunities to facilitate ambitious co-creation.

How Long will the Program Last?

A two-year, full-time, remote fellowship supporting a diverse community of researchers and practitioners investigating the intersection of technology and social justice

How to Apply for Social Science Research Council Just Tech Fellowship:

To complete the online application, you will need to provide the following information and documentation:

Expression of Interest (due January 2, 2022, at 11:59 p.m. EST)

Sign up for a public information session on December 1, 3:00 p.m. ET or December 9, 10:00 a.m. ET to learn more.

  • Contact Information: Full name and email address
  • Critical Question: What is the central question you would want to pursue with a Just Tech Fellowship? (300 characters max)
  • Work Statement: In two to three sentences, please describe your work. How does your work focus on the intersection of technology and social justice? (450 characters max)

You must submit an expression of interest to apply for the Just Tech Fellowship.

Submit your expression of interest

Full Application Materials (due January 30, 2022, at 11:59 p.m. EST)

  • Resume/CV: Up to three pages (saved as a PDF file). The application portal will also allow applicants to submit a link to personal web pages.
  • Personal Statement: Applicants should submit a written or recorded (video) personal statement of up to 500 words (written) OR four (4) minutes (video).
  • Work Proposal: Applicants should submit a short proposal for a project focused on the intersection of technology and social justice. 
  • Samples of Work: Applicants are encouraged (but not required) to share up to two (2) samples of relevant work. Visual and audio samples may be linked or uploaded via the application portal.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Commonwealth Shared Scholarships 2022/2023

Application Deadline: 20th December 2021 16.00 (GMT)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Eswatini, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, , Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, The Gambia, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

To be taken at (country): Various UK Universities. Download CSS prospectus 2022 in Program Webpage Link below for full list of participating universities and respective deadlines.

Accepted Subject Areas: Commonwealth Shared Scholarship scheme is for taught Master’s courses only. All courses undertaken must be demonstrably relevant to the economic, social or technological development of the candidate’s home country.

Commonwealth Shared Scholarship Scheme

About Scholarship: The Commonwealth Shared Scholarships, set up by the Department for International Development (DFID) in 1986, represent a unique partnership between the United Kingdom government and UK universities. To date, more than 3,500 students from developing Commonwealth countries have been awarded Shared Scholarships.

UK universities have offered to support the scholarships by contributing the stipend for the students from their own resources, or those which the university has been able to generate from elsewhere.

Offered Since: 1986

Eligibility: To apply for Commonwealth Shared Scholarships, candidates must:

  • Be a citizen of or have been granted refugee status by an eligible Commonwealth country, or be a British Protected Person
  • Be permanently resident in an eligible Commonwealth country
  • Be available to start your academic studies in the UK by the start of the UK academic year in September/October 2022
  • By September 2022, hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) standard, or a second class degree and a relevant postgraduate qualification (usually a Master’s degree). The CSC typically does not fund a second UK Master’s degree. If you are applying for a second UK Master’s degree, you will need to provide justification as to why you wish to undertake this study.
  • Not have studied or worked for one (academic) year or more in a high income country
  • Be unable to afford to study in the UK without this scholarship

The CSC aims to identify talented individuals who have the potential to make change. We are committed to a policy of equal opportunity and non-discrimination, and encourage applications from a diverse range of candidates.

Selection: Each participating UK university will conduct its own recruitment process to select a specified number of candidates to be awarded Commonwealth Shared Scholarships. Universities must put forward their selected candidates to the CSC by March 2022. The CSC will then confirm that these candidates meet the eligibility criteria for this scheme. Universities will inform candidates of their results by July 2022.

Selection criteria include:

  • Academic merit of the candidate
  • Potential impact of the work on the development of the candidate’s home country

Number of Scholarships: More than 200 scholarships

Commonwealth Shared Scholarships value:

Each scholarship provides:

  • Approved airfare from your home country to the UK and return at the end of your award (the CSC will not reimburse the cost of fares for dependants, nor the cost of journeys made before your award is confirmed) – arranged by the university; funded by the CSC
  • Approved tuition fees – funded by the CSC
  • Stipend (living allowance) at the rate of £1,133 per month, or £1,390 per month for those at universities in the London metropolitan area (rates quoted at 2021-2022 levels) – paid and funded by the university
  • Warm clothing allowance, where applicable – paid and funded by the university
  • Thesis grant towards the cost of preparing a thesis or dissertation, where applicable – claimed from and paid by the university; funded by the CSC
  • Study travel grant towards the cost of study-related travel within the UK or overseas – claimed from and paid by the university; funded by the CSC
  • Reimbursement of the cost of a mandatory tuberculosis (TB) test, where required for a visa application (receipts must be supplied) – claimed from and paid by the university; funded by the CSC
  • If you are widowed, divorced, or a single parent, child allowance of £485 per month for the first child, and £120 per month for the second and third child under the age of 16, if you are accompanied by your children and they are living with you at the same address in the UK (rates quoted at 2021-2022 levels)
  • If you declare a disability, a full assessment of your needs and eligibility for additional financial support will be offered by the CSC.

Duration of Commonwealth Shared Scholarships: Awards are normally tenable for one-year taught postgraduate courses only.

How to Apply: Applications for Commonwealth Shared Scholarships for the academic year 2022/2023 are now open.

Click here to apply

  1. You can apply to study one of the taught Master’s courses offered in the Commonwealth Shared Scholarship scheme. These scholarships do not cover undergraduate courses, PhD study, or any pre-sessional English language teaching, and are usually tenable for one year only. View a full list of eligible courses.
  2. You must also secure admission to your course in addition to applying for a Shared Scholarship. You must check with your chosen university for their specific advice on when to apply, admission requirements, and rules for applying. View a full list of university contact details.
  3. You must make your application using the CSC’s online application system, in addition to any other application that you are required to complete by your chosen university. The CSC will not accept any applications that are not submitted via the online application system.
  4. You can apply for more than one course and/or to more than one university, but you may only accept one offer of a Shared Scholarship.
  5. To apply, access the CSC’s online application system.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details

UK “second jobs” scandal reveals class gulf discrediting Parliament

Robert Stevens


A media barrage in Britain has erupted over just how many Members of Parliament (MPs) have second jobs and the amount they earn. A backbench MP earns £82,000-a-year plus expenses. MPs are allowed to work as consultants for private businesses and no limit is placed on the number of hours MPs are allowed to work in jobs outside of parliament.

Owen Paterson, a grandee of the ruling Conservatives, who more than two years ago was exposed for his highly renumerated (£500,000) lobbying on behalf of two companies, has been at the centre of the second jobs scandal.

Last month, Paterson faced a 30-day suspension from the House of Commons after the parliamentary standards watchdog found he had breached lobbying rules in an “egregious case of paid advocacy”. Parliamentary standards commissioner Kathryn Stone found that Paterson used his parliamentary office to hold meetings with medical diagnostics company Randox and meat processor Lynn’s Country Foods on 25 occasions between October 2016 and February 2020. Patterson was a paid consultancy fees for both companies totaling £100,000 a year.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer speaking in Parliament (credit: UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor)

Despite attempts by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to block the suspension of prominent Brexiteer Paterson, by whipping MPs to vote for a plan to create a Tory-led committee to rewrite parliamentary standards rule, Paterson quit parliament, 24 hours later, on November 4.

The crisis worsened as the scandal enveloped former attorney general Sir Geoffrey Cox.

Cox earned almost £6 million from work on top of being an MP, including a salary with law firm Withers from which he rakes in £400,000 a year (£813 an hour). The Independent reported, “On top of his annual retainer, Sir Geoffrey was paid £156,916.08 for 140 hours of work by the same firm between April and May 31, 2021—roughly the same as the prime minister earns in a year.”

So brazen was Cox that he spent up to a month in the British Virgin Islands during lockdown working for Withers on a lucrative contract while voting by proxy in Parliament.

By the end of this week, by which time it had been established that more than a quarter of Tory MPs have second jobs (90 out of 360), from which they earn a collective £4 million a year, the prime minister was named as one of the worst offenders. The Financial Times estimated that Johnson had helped himself to more than £4 million in second job income over the last 14 years. This includes the £1.6 million made since re-entering parliament in 2016, after his eight year spell as London Mayor, from speeches, newspaper columns, book advances and royalties. It included the £250,000 a year he received for his Daily Telegraph column, a sum Johnson once described as “chicken feed”.

The adage that money talks applies in spades when it comes to the “Mother of Parliaments”. Last week the Sunday Times Insight team revealed that the Tory Party was “systematically offering seats in the House of Lords to a select group of multimillionaire donors who pay more than £3 million to the party.” It added, “In the past two decades, all 16 of the party’s main treasurers—apart from the most recent, who stood down two months ago having donated £3.8 million—have been offered a seat in the Lords.”

The investigation revealed that “Many other Conservative donors have also been ennobled alongside the party’s treasurers: 22 of the party’s main financial backers have been given peerages since 2010. This includes nine donor treasurers. Together they have given £54 million to the party.”

The scandal is only the latest iteration revealing how deeply MPs get their snouts in the trough. In 1994, John Major’s Tory government was staggered by the cash-for-questions scandal.

In 2009, under Gordon Brown’s Labour government, parliament was hit by a scandal over the abuse of expenses—with MPs spending millions in tax payers money on everything from a £1,654 “floating duck island” for his pond (a Tory MP) to a £20,700 for roof repairs, including some to the bell tower of his stately home (a Labour MP).

Earlier this year, former Prime Minister David Cameron, in office from 2010-15, was exposed for his lobbying efforts on behalf of the financier Lex Greensill. After leaving office, Cameron took a job with Greensill Capital, the now collapsed supply chain finance company, and on its behalf lobbied ministers, including Chancellor Rishi Sunak.

The pandemic revealed that many of the contracts given to the private sector were the product of cronyism and corruption. A Transparency International UK (TI-UK) report into the awarding of contracts, published in April, examined £18 billion worth of contracts awarded between February and November 2020. It concluded that one in five—worth £3.7 billion—raised “red flags” for possible corruption.

Among TI-UK’s findings were that £1.6 billion worth of personal protective equipment (PPE) contracts (comprising 14 tenders) were awarded to entities with known connections to the Conservative Party. Three contracts worth £536 million went to politically connected companies for testing-related services. Health Secretary Matt Hancock awarded £30 million worth of contracts for vials and plastic funnels to his former local pub landlord.

As most of the MPs with second jobs are on the government’s benches, Labour attempted a point scoring operation. But this soon came unstuck as Labour MPs, including shadow cabinet ministers, have also made a killing from the private sector.

The pro-government Daily Mail reported that David Lammy, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice/Shadow Lord Chancellor, pulled in £141,000 in three years for speeches at Google, Facebook, City corporations and media appearances.

Labour MP Chris Bryant, chair of the Parliament’s Committee on Standards and Privileges which found Paterson guilty of 'egregious' breaches of lobbying rules, received £2,000 from investment banker Goldman Sachs for speaking at an event.

Another Labourite who has railed against Tory sleaze is right-winger Jess Phillips. But Phillips, an MP only since 2015, has pulled in tens of thousands of pounds working for the private sector. Among the firms paying Phillips collectively over £30,000 are right-wing newspapers, including from the Murdoch press and Daily Telegraph, and a property developer, Anthony McCourt.

Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, hence the Labour supporting LabourList website warning, “The second jobs row is an opportunity for Labour, but not a clear open goal.”

The second jobs scandal was as toxic for Labour as the Tories, it cautioned, noting, “Keir Starmer has this week been asked about ‘discussions’ he had over taking employment with Mishcon de Reya in 2017, and he was paid while an MP (before becoming Labour leader) by the law firm.”

Before becoming an MP in 2015, Starmer, a Queens Counsel and former Director of Public Prosecutions and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service (2008-2013), earned thousands from Mishcon de Reya. From June 1 until September 30, 2016, he received £4,500 a month excluding VAT for legal advice provided to the Mishcon de Reya Academy. Starmer worked approximately six hours per month. He only stopped receiving payment on becoming Shadow Brexit Secretary in October 2016. However, as the Times reported, he “received £3,200 for legal advice to a separate firm, Simons Muirhead and Burton, the following month.”

In the June 2016 Brexit referendum, Starmer advocated Britain remaining in the European Union. After the referendum result to leave, he advocated a second referendum aimed at reversing the plebiscite. Labour campaigned for this policy, under his insistence, in the 2019 general election.

In July 2016, Mishcon de Reya’s services were employed on behalf of a group of businesses in legal action to prevent the government from triggering the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union without an Act of Parliament. In January 2017, it won the case with the Supreme Court upholding a November 2016 decision of the High Court that the Secretary of State did not have the power under the prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

It has long been understood in ruling circles that serving as an MP penalises the very social layers who enter parliament. Including the substantial expenses allotted, MPs earn far more than an average worker, but for many among this grasping, avaricious layer it feels like penury.

However, this is a sacrifice they are prepared to tolerate knowing that once they retire, they will reap the financial benefits with positions on boards as advisers and consultants. This is the endgame not just for the Tories. The archetypal example for them all is former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair who has raked in tens of millions of pounds since leaving office. Should Starmer lose the next general election, it is likely he will soon be back to earning far more in a month than he presently can in a year.

However, the money grubbing of MPs is a pale reflection of the looting of society by the major corporations and oligarchs whose wealth means they view the likes of Johnson and Starmer as lackeys whose loyalties can be secured for chump change.

Despite the wall-to-wall coverage in the media over the second jobs scandal, it likely will soon be dropped. For months Labour has focused on no end of pathetic campaigns against Johnson, covering everything from the choice of curtains at his Downing Street flat to the cost of the refurbishment of his apartment, supposedly to show how “out of touch” he is. But this only reveals that on the main issues, the Tories and Labour are aligned and operate as a de facto coalition.

Johnson real crime, for which he will never be held to account by Labour, is his committing mass murder during the pandemic, overseeing the preventable deaths of over 165,000 people. However, what is certain is that in the long-term, the degraded spectacle now playing out will hasten the inevitable breaking from the ossified parliamentary setup by the working class.

Chilean state spreads terror in indigenous communities

Mauricio Saavedra


State-orchestrated terror reached another level in southern Chile last week when the armed forces opened fire on unarmed civilians. The unprovoked aggression, which left one dead and several seriously wounded unfolded in the context of the militarization of indigenous communities, escalated in October when deeply unpopular right-wing President Sebastian Piñera decreed a State of Constitutional Exception in four provinces.

Piñera, who faces a Constitutional Accusation that may lead to his impeachment, decreed the first 15-day State of Exception in the provinces of Biobío and Arauco in the Biobío region and the Malleco and Cautín provinces in the Araucanía region on October 12. He extended it for another 15 days on October 26. Congress approved its extension last Tuesday.

Funeral of Yordan Llempi Machacan, murdered by Marines Nov 3 (Credit: Facebook)

On November 3, the day of the incident, Piñera boasted that the deployment of “more than 2,000 troops of the Armed Forces including armored vehicles, helicopters, airplanes, maritime patrols which, together with the work carried out by the Carabineros and the Investigative Police, have allowed the development of more than 20,000 controls, the arrest of 59 people who had arrest warrants.”

Before the dust had even settled, Minister of the Interior Rodrigo Delgado publicly supported claims by the head of national defense in the Biobío region, Rear Admiral Jorge Parga, that Mapuche insurgents “ambushed” and “attacked” military personnel.

According Parga, hooded individuals “attacked” Carabineros with large caliber weapons and then “retreated into a wooded area and, hidden in the forest foliage, attacked and ambushed the personnel.” When the Marines arrived, they began “to repel in the first instance with non-lethal ammunition and shotgun shots,” but in the face of “the constant fire from the hooded men, the personnel had to use their service weapons.”

Commander in Chief of the Navy Juan de la Maza in an interview with El Mercurio praised “the reaction demonstrated by the Marine patrol” and the “fulfillment of duty of the Navy personnel, in accordance with the attributions and duties assigned in this state of constitutional emergency…”

Piñera went on further claiming that “firearms, a rifle and munitions of war and a vehicle with a warrant for robbery” had been intercepted from the “terrorists” in the confrontation.

Witnesses have since come forward debunking the official version as a story cut out of whole cloth.

What has so far come to light about the state murder of Yordan Llempi Machacan, a 23-year-old member of the Mapuche indigenous community, is that Marines were responsible for the indiscriminate firing of live rounds at two roadblocks on the Cañete-Tirúa route. The military, with Carabinero enforcements, established checkpoints on the main thoroughfare in the Biobío region, 650 km south of Santiago. Dozens of cars were backed up due to armored vehicles blocking the road.

At approximately 4:00 p.m., the military signaled for the civilians to begin moving when, without rhyme or reason, they sprayed the area with live ammunition. At one checkpoint, Yordan Llempi was shot while sitting in his courtyard. Other houses were shot at.

March calling for end to Militarization (credit: Facebook)

Danitza Herrera told Resumen that Yordan, her partner, “was in the courtyard of his house when the militia began to shoot like crazy. They started shooting; they had the road cut off. It was not an ambush by the Mapuche community members; that was a lie.”

Precious minutes were then lost because the Marines first barred the exit to Yordan’s home and then prevented the family from taking the critically injured man to the nearest hospital, a well-trodden military tactic denounced by human rights groups. The Marines “blocked the road and did not let us take him to Cañete hospital,” 20 km away. Instead they were forced to take Yordan 50 km to a community health center in Tirúa, where he died on the way due to loss of blood.

At another checkpoint Marines shot at vehicles. Iván Porma Leviqueo received several shots at point-blank range when he went to help the wounded. A bullet that went through José Huenchuleo’s arm while in his Ute (utility vehicle) hit 15-year-old Joaquín Polman’s knee. A nine-year-old girl was also injured by live fire. Another was shot in the face. These are the known casualties of events that are still being pieced together. According to El Ciudadano, there were still other Mapuche people with gunshot wounds who had not received medical care several days after the incidents.

It can be categorically stated that this bloody exercise was used by the government to stampede sections of the middle class into clamoring for a strong hand and to justify an extension of the State of Emergency in the Mapuche territories to the point of normalization. This has been Piñera’s favored course throughout his three years in office.

Piñera transformed the southern region into a war zone, only to replicate the war-zone atmosphere in Santiago during the pandemic. More and more draconian laws were passed that beefed up state powers and further criminalized first the Mapuche population, then refugees and migrants, and later all forms of social protest.

Militarization of the Araucanía

He equipped the Carabinero and PDI police with military vehicles and military grade materiel, surveillance and intelligence equipment and unleashed the Carabinero Special Forces and the Special Operations Group (trained in Colombia and the US to combat terrorist groups), responsible for human rights atrocities in Mapuche territories and later in Santiago when millions took to the streets at the end of 2019. Amid the largest anti-capitalist demonstrations in Chilean history, the police, special forces, black berets and the military committed rape, torture and murder.

Carabineros have been used as a private police force for large landowners and the forestry conglomerates. Interferencia revealed that CMPC subsidiary Forestal Mininco provided the vehicle which the police officers used when they killed Camilo Catrillanca, a militant of the Mapuche, Arauco-Malleco Coordinating Committee. This was further extended to the point where now the military can be deployed to protect “critical” privately-owned infrastructure throughout the country.

Today’s use of the Navy, notorious for coordinating repressive operations including torture and murder during the fascist military dictatorship, is in line with the policies advanced by the fascist Republican Party candidate Jose Antonio Kast who has surpassed the official right-wing candidate, Sebastian Sichel, in the presidential election polls.

In a sense he is trying to recreate at a higher level the atmosphere during 2017 elections, which saw appeals to backward sentiments of law and order to combat so-called “rising delinquency,” being tough on “illegal immigration” and dealing with “terrorism” in the south.

There is no doubt that Piñera is playing the xenophobic and law-and-order card to unite the right and the extreme right of his coalition Chile Vamos with an out-and-out fascist.

Piñera, assisted by the compliant conglomerate media, has recently begun polluting the airwaves with talk about the danger of insurgency and narco-terrorism, accusing Mapuche guerrillaist organizations of terrorism and drug trafficking.

What these groups have conducted are legitimate land seizures and raids of private property combined with bankrupt peasant-based actions consisting of arson attacks on machinery, vehicles, timber and property.

The WSWS has a principled opposition to the middle-class nationalist politics associated with guerrillaism, which have been brought into the Mapuche communities by the Frente Patriotica Manuel Rodriguez (FPMR), the Movimiento Izquierda Revolucionario (MIR), MAPU-Lautaro and other pseudo-left and anarchist groups.

These anti-Marxist organizations in no way further the fight for the conquest of power by the working class but on the contrary drive a wedge between workers and the extremely impoverished peasant Mapuche communities. While making up 10 percent of the national population, the percentage of Mapuches living in poverty is up to four times the national average, and in some communes, such as Cholcol, multidimensional poverty—lack of access to proper housing, potable water, electricity, health care, educational facilities, etc.—affects 65 percent of the people.

The claims of insurgency, terrorism and drug-trafficking is aimed at further criminalizing the Mapuches.

To what end? Former Navy Director of Intelligence Oscar Aranda provides an insight in an article for Revista Marina , an organ of the military institution, where he calls for a counterinsurgency strategy against the Mapuche population. In spite of the intelligence jargon, the experiences in Algeria, Vietnam, Central America and more recently Afghanistan provide us with enough evidence to know what is in store.

“Insurgency, both rural and urban, is the abandonment of political dialogue as the engine of democratic progress and its replacement by violence,” writes Aranda, turning reality on its head. It is the state that has by force historically denied the Mapuche peasant communities the right to land for more than a century when the defeated tribes were placed on reservations. More recently, the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet rescinded the land seizures of the 1960s and 1970s and repressed peasant organizations. Thanks to his 1974 701 decree, subsidizing 75 percent of the costs of forestry plantations, the Matte and Angelini conglomerates have amassed 2 million hectares, while the entire Mapuche population lives on less than 500,000 hectares.

The deeply anti-democratic “anti-terrorist law,” promulgated in 1984 under the auspices of Pinochet’s National Security Doctrine, has been applied under both military and civilian rule against indigenous communities with bloody results.

The call for counterinsurgency measures takes this punitive approach to a whole new level. Aranda continues, “[i]t is legitimate for the State to respond to the insurgency with a multisectoral effort to modify the social, economic and cultural problems that serve as its substratum, while simultaneously neutralizing, acting in accordance with the law, those insurgent elements that develop irregular actions (added emphasis).

“Within the latter is Counterinsurgency (COIN), which is a military activity of neutralization of irregular actions when police means are overwhelmed by the escalation of violence in terms of intensity or geographical scope.” In other words, the methods employed by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be brought to southern Chile.

NATO ratchets up anti-Russian offensive in Poland and Ukraine

Thomas Scripps


The UK announced yesterday that it has dispatched a detachment of ten troops from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers to Poland is the first deployment of boots on the ground by an allied NATO power to assist with the country’s border confrontation with Belarus. Although small, the involvement of forces from Britain signals an escalation of the ongoing provocation being staged by the Polish government, ultimately targeting Russia.

Several thousand refugees are seeking entry from Belarus to the European Union (EU) via Poland and have been met with a massive deployment of military force and violence. A reported 20,000 Polish soldiers are currently stationed on the Belarussian border, overseeing illegal, brutal, pushbacks of asylum seekers.

Poland has accused Belarus of “hybrid warfare” and “state terrorism,” claiming government forces are ferrying people thousands of miles and helping them across the border. They have pointed the finger at Russian President Vladimir Putin as the architect of this policy.

Soldiers of the Ukrainian State Border Guard Service line up at the border with Belarus in the Volyn region, Ukraine, on Thursday, Nov. 11, 2021. Ukraine has sent 8.5 thousand servicemen amid the migrant crisis as thousands of migrants who came to Belarus from the Middle East and Africa are trying to enter the European Union through Poland. (Ukrainian Police Press Office via AP)

That Poland’s sabre rattling is part of a broader offensive was confirmed by statements issued this week by members of the United Nations Security Council and NATO.

On Thursday, during a meeting of the UNSC, Estonia, France, Ireland, Norway, the United States and Britain issued a statement, rejected by permanent UN member Russia. The statement read, 'We condemn the orchestrated instrumentalisation of human beings whose lives and wellbeing have been put in danger for political purposes by Belarus, with the objective of destabilizing neighboring countries and the European Union's external border and diverting attention away from its own increasing human rights violations.”

They called for a “strong international reaction” and pledged 'to discuss further measures that we can take.'

NATO’s statement made clear the scope of the anti-Russia offensive being mounted:

“The North Atlantic Council strongly condemns the continued instrumentalisation of irregular migration artificially created by Belarus as part of hybrid actions targeted against Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia for political purposes… We will remain vigilant against the risk of further escalation and provocation by Belarus at its borders with Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, and will continue to monitor the implications for the security of the Alliance.”

While NATO mounts a propaganda campaign over the alleged “weaponization” of migrants in Belarus, it continues to carry out reckless military provocations in the Black Sea, on Russia’s border.

Russia reported Thursday that it had scrambled a fighter jet to intercept a British Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint spy plane, which it claimed was trying to get close to Crimea. The Russian military said four spy planes and two US warships were observed operating in the region in the same 24-hour period.

Russia’s military spokesperson Major General Igor Konashenkov commented, “The Russian defence ministry treats the military activity of the US and its allies in the Black Sea region as scouting out a potential theatre of war in case Ukraine prepares a military operation to solve the crisis in eastern Ukraine.”

Tensions have been mounting for the last month, following an escalation of the conflict in the east of Ukraine and renewed talk of admitting the ferociously anti-Russian Ukrainian state to NATO.

On October 26, Ukrainian forces carried out their first drone strike on pro-Russian forces in the Donbass region, using a Turkish Bayraktar TB2k—technology Foreign Policy described as a “game changer” in the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh and Libya.

The possibility of Ukraine being granted NATO membership was underscored by US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s trip to Ukraine, as well as Georgia and Romania, a few days earlier. Asked during his visit about Russia’s objections to Ukraine’s NATO ambitions, Austin replied, “Ukraine… has a right to decide its own future foreign policy, and we expect that they will be able to do that without any outside interference.”

He called on Russia to “end its occupation of Crimea” and warned, “We will continue to do everything we can to support Ukraine's efforts to develop the capability to defend itself.”

Putin responded, “Formal membership [of Ukraine] in NATO may not take place, but military development of the territory is already under way… This creates a threat to the Russian Federation.”

On October 30, the Washington Post reported a significant build-up of Russian forces near the country’s Ukrainian border. Politico took up the story two days later, reporting that satellite images from Maxar Technologies showed “a buildup of armored units, tanks and self-propelled artillery along with ground troops massing near the Russian town of Yelnya.” These included the elite 1st Guards Tank Army.

The website continued, “a new analysis by Jane’s [a military intelligence company] on Monday reveals that equipment from Russia’s 4th Tank Division has been moved to areas around Bryansk and Kursk close to Ukraine's northern border.”

Ukraine’s defence ministry claims there are some 90,000 Russian troops involved in total.

Russian spokesperson Dmitry Peskov dismissed Politico’s article as “low quality.” At the same time, he insisted, “The movement of our military equipment and army units… is exclusively our business.”

He said yesterday, “We take measures to ensure our security when our opponents take defiant action near our borders. We can’t stay indifferent to that.”

Ukraine has so far deployed 8,500 troops to its side of the border with Russia.

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken held a joint press conference in Washington with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba. Blinken claimed, “Our concern is that Russia may make a serious mistake of attempting to rehash what it undertook back in 2014,” referring to the annexation of Crimea following the NATO-backed coup in Ukraine.

Warning, “We’re looking at this very, very closely. We’re also consulting very closely with allies and partners,” he concluded, “The message we’re sending today that I repeated to Dmytro is that our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, to its independence, to its territorial integrity is ironclad.”

The secretary of state added yesterday that the US was “looking at the various tools that we have.”

His threats were echoed by the French foreign and defence ministers after a meeting with their Russian counterparts. The French ministers, “warned of serious consequences related to any new harm to Ukraine’s territorial integrity” and “condemned the irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour of Belarusian authorities concerning the instrumentalization of migration flows targeting several countries of the European Union,” according to a joint press release.

On Friday morning, the UK’s Daily Telegraph ran the front-page headline, “Russia may invade Ukraine, warns US.” The story claimed that “senior Whitehall sources” had told the paper the UK government was “concerned” about reports of Russian troop movements near the Ukrainian border and that “there was ‘twitchiness’ and ‘anxiety’ among officials.”

It continued, “They [US officials] have shared intelligence on the Russian movements with allies and briefed them on the possibility of a military operation.”

These events highlight the serious danger of war breaking out in Europe.

In Poland and Ukraine, the European and NATO powers are relying on far-right proxies with major fascist constituencies to push an aggressive anti-Russian campaign involving the deployment of thousands of troops. They have their own forces positioned within striking distance of Russian territory.

The situation they have created threatens to trigger an armed confrontation. In addition to its deployment of soldiers to the border with Ukraine, Russia carried out snap paratrooper drills with Belarus on Friday, just 20 miles from the flashpoint on the Polish border. Britain claims the Royal Air Force escorted two Russian nuclear-capable bombers flying over the North Sea towards the English Channel the same day.

Seeking to deflect enormous social tensions outward and to pursue their long-held strategic goal of a dominated, subservient Russia, the imperialist powers are preparing a catastrophe.