Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

UN ‘Pact for the Future’: Digital IDs, Vaccine Passports, Massive Censorship

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | September 12, 2024

World leaders will convene later this month in New York to discuss proposals that critics believe will enshrine global digital ID and online censorship and give the United Nations (U.N.) secretary-general unprecedented emergency powers.

Proposals to be discussed at the 79th U.N. General Assembly include the Pact for the Future, described by the U.N. as an “opportunity to create international mechanisms that better reflect the realities of the 21st century and can respond to today’s and tomorrow’s challenges and opportunities.”

The proposed Pact for the Future encompasses 11 policy proposals. These include proposals for the establishment of a U.N. “Emergency Platform” and a “Global Digital Compact,” and policy proposals on “Information Integrity” and “Transforming Education.”

Also among the U.N.’s proposals is the “Declaration on Future Generations.”

Under these proposals, the secretary-general would have “standing authority” to declare “an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach.”

Discussions for the Pact for the Future will take place under the auspices of the Summit of the Future, described as “a high-level event, bringing world leaders together to forge a new international consensus on how we deliver a better present and safeguard the future.”

The proposals are part of “Our Common Agenda,” an initiative described as “the Secretary-General’s vision for the future of global cooperation.”

‘Lack of checks and balances is very worrying’

Critics of the proposals warned The Defender that they threaten personal and health freedom, will grant the U.N. unprecedented powers and may lead to an internationally binding treaty.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst said the U.N. is attempting to attain “more executive power.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told The Defender, “What the secretary-general is trying to do is an end run around the United Nations charter and delegate to himself all the powers he can possibly assume.”

“The lack of checks and balances is very worrying. The member states will have very little or no power,” Terhorst said, noting that these proposals are drawing increasing opposition as they threaten national sovereignty.

The emergency powers and other proposals contained in the pact may have ominous consequences for humanity, Boyle warned.

“The most pernicious [outcomes] would certainly be extremely dangerous vaccines that probably would violate the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation, such as these mRNA vaccines, and then also censorship, outright censorship for anyone who dissents,” Boyle said.

Other experts warned the U.N. is not being fully transparent.

According to independent journalist James Roguski, “The U.N. is not being fully transparent about the process leading up to the Summit of the Future. At this time, a consensus agreement has not been reached and the status of the three documents has not been honestly presented to the general public.”

Roguski noted that a fourth revision of the Global Digital Compact was drafted Aug. 27 but “has not been made publicly available on the U.N. website.”

And according to Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, the pact “puts the U.N. ‘at the center’ of international affairs, giving the U.N. unspecified powers.” It contains no definitions for the terms used, “allowing it to be interpreted later in ways citizens may not like.”

A means of ‘turbocharging’ the ‘Great Reset’?

Critics also connected the U.N.’s proposals to the agendas of other international organizations, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), which promoted the “Great Reset” and “Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

“In spirit, the Summit and Pact for the Future is a relaunch of the Great Reset,” said Tim Hinchliffe, publisher of The Sociable. “Both talk about reshaping our world, which includes a desire to transform the financial system and to implement global governance surrounding issues such as climate change, healthcare and all things related to the SDGs” (Sustainable Development Goals).

“While the WEF has no direct, authoritative or legislative power to carry out its agendas, the Pact for the Future would be signed by member states whose governments wield actual executive and legislative powers,” Hinchliffe said.

“What they are trying to do is to take the WEF agenda … and turn it into solid international law and from there into solid domestic law,” Boyle said.

According to Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., author of “The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty: Unraveling the Global Agenda,” the U.N.’s proposals “have been written in support of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the ‘global governance’ regime that it aims to establish.”

Rectenwald said the proposals involve “accelerating the achievement of the SDGs” and represent the U.N.’s continued “attempt to establish a global socialist world system that is ‘inclusive’ and ‘equitable.’”

“‘Inclusion’ is achieved through such technological means as closing the ‘digital divide,’ which depends on the universal adoption of a digital identity system. Digital identity is the means by which one is ‘included’ and without which one essentially does not exist. Thus, there is to be nothing outside the system — i.e., totalitarian governance,” Rectenwald said.

Global Digital Compact calls for digital IDs, vaccine passports

Accompanying the Pact for the Future is a proposal for “A Global Digital Compact — an Open, Free and Secure Digital Future for All.”

Published May 2023, the proposed compact sets out “principles, objectives and actions for advancing an open, free, secure and human-centred digital future, one that is anchored in universal human rights and that enables the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals.”

However, the compact contains proposals for the introduction of digital ID, “digital public goods” and “digital product passports,” and calls for “addressing disinformation” and preventing the “misuse” of online tools.

“With digital ID, it is easier for governments to censor and threaten voices with a different opinion,” Terhorst said. “In the U.N. proposals, suppressing ‘disinformation’ or ‘hateful speech’ is mentioned. Who is to decide what information is right and what is wrong?”

“Information Integrity on Digital Platforms” policy brief goes further, specifically addressing “threats to information integrity,” such as so-called “misinformation” and “disinformation.” It also calls for “empirically-backed consensus around facts, science and knowledge,” but does not clarify how this “consensus” would be determined.

Similarly, a policy brief on “Transforming Education,” proposes “incorporating practices that strengthen the ability of learners and teachers to navigate the increasing flow of false and fake information.”

The compact also proposes “Novel platform-based vaccine technologies and smart vaccine manufacturing techniques … to produce greater numbers of higher-quality vaccines.”

Terhorst said the goal of digital ID is to introduce global vaccine passports that would “overrule the right of everyone to say no to a vaccination.”

Hinchliffe noted that the U.N. has “established principles for a ‘Code of Conduct‘ that calls on not just member states, but private groups such as stakeholders, digital platforms, advertisers, and news media to crush narratives that go against the U.N. and the SDGs.”

Secretary-general ‘trying to set himself up as the UN dictator’

According to Boyle, the U.N. secretary-general is “supposed to function as a secretary in charge of the secretariat,” but these proposals are trying to “set himself up as the U.N. dictator.” He noted that the U.N. is composed of six independent organs, but said these proposals may usurp their independence.

“He would have authority over them and arguably could exert authority over U.N. specialized agencies like the World Health Organization. That ties in with the International Health Regulations and the Pandemic Treaty,” Boyle said.

Boyle argued that by specifically referring to the Pact for the Future as a “pact,” the U.N. is intentionally “trying to turn this into an international treaty that is binding” under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

“If you call it a pact … that would clearly fall within the terms of the Vienna Convention,” Boyle said.

“We’re in the fight of our lives here. The world has to be alerted to the dangers of this pact.”

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

September 14, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

The Witch Hunt continues

Another Questioning Voice is removed from the Medical Register

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | September 13, 2024

A chill wind passed through the dissident medical profession this week when Dr Sam White was permanently erased from the medical register. But it will not cause us to stop speaking truth to power or more importantly being open and honest with our patients about the potential harms of mRNA vaccines.

For those who don’t know of Dr White, he was an experienced General Practitioner who, like many others, found himself conflicted between his NHS practice expecting him to promote Covid-19 vaccines to his patients, while in his clinical practice seeing increasing numbers of people with vaccine injuries. After much soul-searching he resigned from his post in February 2021. A few months later, in June 2021, he recorded a short face to camera video explaining why he had decided to quit, which he then posted on a social media site. Perhaps to his surprise, it was viewed by millions and within a few days had come to the attention of his employer, namely NHS England, who blocked him from any NHS work, which he legally challenged. A GMC investigation then followed and his NHS suspension was reversed, but an Interim Orders Tribunal put conditions on his registration, namely that he must not use social media to express any medical opinion about the pandemic. Dr White challenged this in the High Court on the grounds that it breached his right to freedom of speech. The court upheld his challenge, as described in the BMJ here, though oddly enough the link to the actual judgement is no longer available, except via Wayback machine. Mr Justice Dove ruled that there had been “an error of law and a clear misdirection in the interim orders tribunal’s decision making process.” Its decision was “clearly wrong and cannot stand,” he added. He stressed that he was expressing no views on the merits of Dr White’s claims on social media. But he said the tribunal had failed to consider a provision in the Human Rights Act 1998. This states that a court or tribunal should not restrain somebody’s freedom of expression before a full hearing unless it was satisfied that after a full hearing the application to restrict publication was more likely than not to succeed.

At the time, the GMC clearly didn’t think that Dr White was a danger to his patients (there had been no clinical complaints against him) nor even sufficient danger to public health for them to suspend him and for the next 3 years he was entitled to work and to speak freely, and many of his supporters had thought this was the end of it. But the wheels of ‘justice’ (ironically in this case more like the wheels of ‘injustice’) grind slowly and in August 2024, the GMC set up a full hearing by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS). By this stage, Dr White had moved entirely to a practice of naturopathic medicine and decided that he would not engage with the process – he neither attended nor was he legally represented. No-one who has experienced a GMC investigation will blame him at all for this decision – it is time-consuming, emotionally draining and very costly. But his absence may have enabled a serious miscarriage of justice.

The charge against Dr White concerned 5 video interviews about the pandemic which he had recorded between June 2021 and July 2022, and the hearing hinged around details of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Article 10, paragraph 1 states:

 “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”

However in certain circumstances, the law allows for these rights to be restricted, as in Article 10, paragraph 2:

“The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

The Tribunal chairman quoted from the case of Adil v GMC [2023] EWCA Civ 126. Mohammad Adil is a surgeon who was suspended by the GMC in 2020, again for a face to camera video which went viral. He also took the GMC to court but in his case he lost. In that case, “the Court held that the fact that a doctor expresses a minority view, even a view shared by a small minority is not sufficient of itself to render his conduct improper. Medical progress depends upon such debate and is littered with examples of what were thought to be heretical views becoming accepted wisdom, and vice-versa. Article 10 and the common law protect the right to express views with which most people disagree. Views contrary to widely accepted medical opinion are not sufficient to establish misconduct.” However, the judgement went on to say that this does not apply to views so far removed from any concept of legitimate medical debate and must be considered on the facts of each individual case. “There is an important qualitative difference between a doctor’s views which have some supporting scientific basis, even if not widely accepted, and views whose validity or accuracy is unconnected to any supporting evidential basis, in other words baseless.” 

With Dr White absent from the proceedings, the Tribunal seem to have assumed that his views on the safety of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines were ‘baseless’, whereas of course they are shared by a significant minority of doctors who have assembled a huge amount of scientific literature on vaccine harms. However, the judgement in quoting from his interviews has barely mentioned Dr White’s criticisms of the vaccine, for all of which he had provided many references to the GMC in 2021. It has instead focussed almost entirely on discussions about the ‘why’ of the vaccine rollout and the censorship, quoting Dr White speaking of: ‘evil’, ‘planned’, ‘globalists’, ‘tyranny’, ‘totalitarianism’, et cetera. These, of course, are all issues which are widely discussed but  are not subject to testing and writing up in peer-reviewed journals. They are a matter of opinion. The question of whether Dr White’s opinions in any way harmed public health has not been demonstrated by the GMC, yet the Tribunal “determined that, it was more likely than not, such comments undermined public confidence in the medical profession.”

Another aspect of Dr White’s absence was that, whereas the GMC were actually asking for a suspension rather than for his name to be permanently erased from the register, the Tribunal interpreted his absence as showing a lack of insight into the seriousness of his actions and a lack of any effort at mitigation or remediation. For a surgeon who has cut off the wrong limb or a physician who has missed a potentially treatable fatal condition, remorse and a desperate wish to ensure you never make the same mistake again, would be the universal reaction, even without censure from the GMC. But for a doctor who is in effect a whistleblower, it is hard to show remorse, whilst still hoping that your actions have indeed saved lives.

The irony is that if the GMC really believed that Dr White was a danger to public health, they would have suspended him in 2021, at a time when the vaccine rollout was in full swing and we were heading towards a second winter of masks and lockdowns. Yet they appear to have made no effort to bring forward a full hearing, and have instead waited a full 3 years after his initial video before bringing this case. The rules for deciding on a penalty are that the Tribunal must consider whether the doctor poses a risk to future patients rather than only past. Given the government messaging with which Dr White disagreed all came to an end during 2022, it is hard to see what harm he is thought to be causing in 2024.

It was, however, made very clear that the penalty was not only intended for Dr White but also to send a clear message to other doctors considering speaking out. “Sanctioning doctors for comments likely to undermine public health and confidence in the medical profession so as to deter such behaviour engages the aim of the protection of public health and safety.” Indeed, coming close in the heels of Dr White, is a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Daniel Armstrong, also facing the possibility of being struck off for a single online video, “Navigating the Truth-deception duality”. And there are others with hearings in the near future. This is not about clinical complaints of patient safety. This is about doctors questioning the government about the management of the pandemic, especially the poor safety record of the vaccines.

In May of this year, Professor Dame Carrie McEwen, chair of the GMC, published a statement in response  to  the contaminated blood scandal.  She commented robustly on the importance of protecting whistleblowers. “There is extensive commentary within the report about the importance of speaking up about both mistakes and near misses and a cautionary note about the need to protect those who do so from detriment to their career.” She said, “We are of course aware that referrals to us are sometimes used to intimidate. This is completely unacceptable, has significant consequences for doctors’ wellbeing and puts the safety of patients at risk….We’ve put a number of safeguards in place” and she committed to  assessing “whether further interventions are needed to prevent retaliatory or weaponised referrals.”  “also seen investigative media reports alleging that a number of NHS managers have taken actions to silence whistleblowers, including threatening referral to the GMC.”  The Telegraph (15th May 2024), published one such report under the title “The four-step ‘playbook’ the NHS uses to break whistleblowers”.

A large group of doctors and other health professionals wrote to the GMC in June, highlighting their concerns over what appeared to be a witch hunt of doctors speaking out about covid-vaccine harms. The ongoing correspondence is published here. Several of the signatories to that letter had previously signed a fully referenced scientific letter to the Chief Medical Officer in June 2021 calling on him not to recommend covid vaccines for children, and found themselves referred by the DoHSC to the Counter Disinformation Unit.

A recent BMA survey showed that the proportion of doctors being discouraged from or even afraid of speaking out has risen significantly between 2018 and 2024, to the point where 61% of those polled in 2024 said they may not raise concerns because they were “afraid” they or colleagues could be “unfairly blamed or suffer adverse consequences”.

The UK is not alone in its efforts to stifle free speech with eminent doctors being similarly sanctioned in Canada, Australia, and most recently the USA. Whistleblowing in academia is no easier.

If public confidence in the medical profession has fallen, rather than blaming dissenters for speaking out against the prevailing message, perhaps doctors need to take a hard look at their unquestioning acceptance of the ‘Safe and Effective’ message and ask themselves why is covid continuing, why are their vulnerable patients being recommended for another booster every 6 months, and yet why are they apparently busier than ever?

Many of the doctors currently being hounded for speaking out on social media, are the same doctors who are repeatedly thanked by members of the public for their honesty and integrity and especially for their efforts to support the vaccine injured, often ignored and disbelieved by others. Comments beneath an article in the Mail about Dr White’s erasure, suggest that many members of the public have rather more faith in Dr White than they have in the GMC.

The current situation of self-censorship amongst doctors combined with GMC overreach, risks serious ongoing harms to patients and must not continue.

September 14, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

To stifle truth, Israelis threaten to decapitate Lebanese journalist

Al Mayadeen | September 14, 2024

Israeli attempts to silence the truth are relentless, with one method focusing on deliberately targeting journalists who cover the massacres committed by Israeli occupation forces against the Palestinian and Lebanese people, which are crimes against humanity, to say the least.

The latest of such attempts was aimed at Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil, of Al-Akhbar newspaper, who is tasked with covering the Israeli aggression on South Lebanon. Khalil came under a direct threat via WhatsApp, in which a number contacted her and said that “they will decapitate her if she does not leave Lebanon.”

Journalist Amal Khalil revealed that she received a message from the Israeli enemy threatening to kill her and demolish her home and calling on her to leave Lebanon. This prompted Khalil to inform the relevant authorities of this matter, “as the enemy has recently resorted to this method against a lot of people.”

Speaking to Al Mayadeen, journalist Khalil said that the threat she was subjected to is against every journalist who continues to stand strong in the South, documenting Israeli crimes in video and audio.

“I received a message from an Israeli number on my personal phone on August 25,” she recounted in the interview, noting that she contacted the relevant security services, which, in turn, confirmed that this threat was serious and that the number was from inside occupied Palestine.

Khalil recalled the Israeli attacks on journalists in southern Lebanon, which resulted in the martyrdom of Al Mayadeen’s correspondent Farah Omar and cameraman Rabie Me’mari, as well as Reuters photojournalist Issam Abdallah, stressing that all Israeli attempts were to intimidate the press crews and force them to leave.

“After nearly a year of the Israeli aggression, many journalists in Palestine and South Lebanon continue to stand strong and remain steadfast,” stressing that “all credit for exposing the truth of the Israeli killing machine to the public opinion goes to these steadfast journalists.”

“All the bombing and raids will never frighten us,” she asserted.

Due process to take place

Commenting on the incident, the head of the Syndicate of Lebanese Press Editors, Joseph al-Qusaifi, denounced the Israeli threat against “our colleague Amal Khalil” and reported informing the Union of Arab Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, and the relevant UN bodies of the matter to apply due process.

Al-Qusaifi, who was informed of the incident against Khalil, said she was threatened with being killed and her house demolished via social media under an Israeli number.

The Israeli message calls on Khalil to leave not only South Lebanon, where she is stationed, but Lebanon entirely to Qatar “if you want your head to remain attached to your body.”

The message added, “We know where you are, and we will get to you when the time comes.”

Expressing solidarity with Khalil, Al-Qusaifi condemned “the insolent threat that violates all international charters, covenants, and laws of protecting journalists in times of war.” He warned the relevant journalist and UN bodies “to be aware of the Zionist scheme against every journalist and media professional doing their professional duty and exposing the deliberate crimes committed by the Israeli war machine against civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, and South Lebanon,” vowing to follow up on the matter.

An enemy terrorized by the truth

Blue helmets and protective shields clearly marked with the word “Press” never protected journalists from Israeli attacks. Rather, the Israeli military deliberately attacks journalists to obscure the facts, through deliberate killing in cold blood, terrorizing and making arrests, and targeting family members, homes, and properties. According to the latest tally by the Government Media Office in Gaza, the number of journalists martyred since the beginning of the aggression and the genocidal war on the Gaza Strip has risen to 172, while hundreds remain detained in Israeli occupation prisons and detention centers, under the most heinous forms of abuse and torture.

In addition to targeting individual journalists and their families, Israeli occupation forces have bombed many foreign and local media HQs inside the Gaza Strip during the past period.

In Lebanon, the Israeli attacks targeted many journalists, including Al Mayadeen’s team, which led to the martyrdom of correspondent Farah Omar, cameraman Rabih Me’mari, and their colleague Hussein Aqil by a drone attack. Prior to this incident, Reuters photojournalist Issam Abdallah was martyred and several other journalists were injured, some in serious condition, by a shell from an Israeli tank while they were covering the situation on the border between Lebanon and occupied Palestine.

As a matter of fact, Israeli incitement against journalists and media outlets has extended to the West Bank, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated his call in a government session to shut down the Al Mayadeen Media Network in the region.

“Why are orders against Al Mayadeen in the West Bank not being enforced?” Netanyahu questioned. In response, Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi said that this falls under the authority of Security Minister Yoav Gallant.

Even Israeli Channel 14 made a report on Al Mayadeen, in which it expressed its fear of the channel’s media activity in the West Bank, inciting the renewal of its ban, and expressing its particular displeasure with the meeting with the commander of the Tulkarm Battalion in the al-Quds Brigades, Abu Shujaa.

The far-right channel didn’t stop at mere incitement; it went further by demanding that Israeli Minister of Security Yoav Gallant issue the ban. Gallant, however, is already grappling with numerous complications and challenges, primarily the ongoing resistance his “army” faces in the Gaza Strip, the continued military operations on various fronts—especially in the north—and the mounting problems plaguing his exhausted forces after nearly 11 months of war.

September 14, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

#BlockTheBoat: Global mobilization to stop cargo vessel carrying explosives to Tel Aviv

By Maryam Qarehgozlou | Press TV | September 14, 2024

In a display of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza, activists around the world have joined forces to block the MV Kathrin, a cargo vessel carrying explosives for the Israeli regime.

While the vessel has been traversing the seas for over a month, a campaign dubbed “#BlockTheBoat” aims to expose the Zionist regime’s violations of the Genocide Convention and the UN Human Rights Declaration amid the genocidal war on Gaza that has already claimed over 41,000 lives.

The campaign has been trending globally on social media platforms with supporters expressing anger and outrage over the continued military aid to an apartheid regime in Tel Aviv.

Spearheading this fight is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which has been advocating for an end to Israeli occupation and apartheid through boycotts and sanctions.

The movement has called on countries with stakes in the MV Kathrin to end their complicity in the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza while urging people to pressure their governments to comply with international law and rulings of the top UN court.

Key facts about MV Kathrin

The MV Kathrin (IMO 9570620) is owned by Lubeca Marine Germany GMBH and operated by Ocean 7 Project through AGL (Africa Global Logistics).

The vessel is reportedly carrying eight containers of Hexogen/RDX explosives destined for the Israeli-occupied territories, in addition to 60 containers of TNT with unknown destinations.

The explosive cargo was loaded in Hai Phong, Vietnam, on July 21. It is scheduled to be unloaded at the port of Koper, Slovenia, before reaching its final destination in the occupied territories.

This information was provided to the media by the Namibian National Police and Namport authorities.

What is RDX?

RDX, a vital component in Israel’s aircraft bombs and missiles, has been widely used in the ongoing genocidal war on the Gaza Strip and the relentless bombings of the besieged territory and killing and maiming of nearly 136,000 Palestinians, more than 70 percent of them women and children.

Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer, ranks among the top global consumers of the explosive material RDX.

This highlights the significant role RDX plays in the manufacturing of Israel’s military equipment, according to military experts.

Industry insiders noted in March that Israel’s mass production of ammunition would be hindered by the limited availability of RDX on the global market.

Countries providing Israel’s RDX supply

MV Kathrin is a German-owned cargo ship and Germany has been a major supplier of weapons to Israel during its genocidal war against the 2.3 million civilian population of Gaza.

Germany is already facing charges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza in a case brought by South Africa to the top UN court late last year.

The vessel was loaded in Vietnam. The Israeli regime resumed its military cooperation with Vietnam a decade ago, despite its popular support for Palestinian rights.

Vietnam is now facilitating the export of the same explosives that the US used to exterminate and maim millions of Vietnamese in the Vietnam War (1954–75).

Kathrin is scheduled to unload its cargo in Koper, Slovenia. This marks the second instance in recent months that the Slovenian port has been implicated in illegal weapons transfers to Israel.

It also raises concerns about Slovenia’s lack of compliance with international law and the ICJ’s ruling on the ongoing genocide in Palestine.

Kathrin and Portuguese complicity in genocide

The MV Kathrin is registered under the Portuguese flag through the International Shipping Register of Madeira (MAR), which is one of the leading ship and yacht registers in the European Union.

Despite calls from Portuguese Palestine solidarity organizations and political parties like Bloco de Esquerda, Portuguese Foreign Minister Paulo Rangel in late August evaded responsibility, claiming that the Kathrin is not transporting ready-made weapons, is not headed to the Israeli-occupied territories, and that this arms trade has “commercial purpose.”

On Friday, the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) sent a legal notice to the Portuguese government demanding the removal of its flag from the MV Kathrin “in compliance with the erga omnes obligations to prevent the crime of Genocide.”

Despite mounting pressure from civil society and political stakeholders, Portugal has yet to take any concrete action in response to the controversial situation.

France, Italy, and Switzerland are other countries that are complicit in the Israeli genocide. Africa Global Logistics (AGL) is a French logistics operator with headquarters in Puteaux.

Although AGL functions independently, it is an integral part of the Cargo Division of the Italo-Swiss MSC group.

Which countries refused to be complicit in the genocide?

On August 20, almost a month after MV Kathrin left the port of Hai Phong, the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) warned activists and decision-makers in Namibia regarding the MV Kathrin which was set to arrive at the port of Walvis Bay.

The committee has raised concerns over credible intelligence suggesting that the ship was transporting military supplies destined for Israel.

On August 22, the Economic and Social Justice Trust (ESJT), a Namibian human rights organization, also called on Walvis Bay port to deny the MV Kathrin entry.

The Namibian government on August 24 canceled the docking permit for the Kathrin, after having received written confirmation from the vessel that 8 containers of RDX/Hexogen explosives were destined for Israel.

Namibian Justice Minister Yvonne Dausab said that this decision “complies with our obligation not to support or be complicit in Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, as well as its unlawful occupation of Palestine.”

Following a nearly week-long period of remaining stationary off the Namibian coast, the MV Kathrin had to change course and headed toward Angolan waters on August 31.

At about the same time, BNC sent an appeal to Angola to follow Namibia’s example, not to let the Kathrin dock or confiscate the military supplies destined for Israel.

Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, also urged Angola not to let the Kathrin dock.

“This may be a breach of the Genocide Convention. Critical reminder: Any military transfer to Israel, which the ICJ determined may be plausibly committing genocide, amounts to a breach of the Genocide Convention and of the HRC resolution 55/L.30 mandating an arms embargo on Israel,” she said.

MV Kathrin also waited over a week off the coast of Angola, however, on September 5 it was confirmed that Kathrin had to reroute and schedule Bar (Montenegro) as the next port of destination.

The BDS in its calls for blocking Kathrin warned concerned governments that Participation in arms transfer to Israel amounts to “complicity in genocide, crimes of humanity and war crimes.”

It highlighted since ICJ decided in January that Israel is “plausibly” perpetrating genocide, refraining from playing any direct or indirect role in arming Israel during its genocidal carnage in Gaza is a “legal duty for all states.”

“Together, we can block the boat and stop the deadly cargo from feeding Israel’s unspeakable massacres,” says BDS.

On Friday, Malaysia also joined global efforts to stop the MV Kathrin’s cargo.

BDS Malaysia activists lodged a police report at the Sentul Police Station concerning the involvement of United O7 Asia Sdn Bhd with a vessel, according to a statement issued by BDS Malaysia.

September 14, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

An Act of War! Putin’s Final Warning as NATO Prepares to Attack Russia

By Glenn Diesen | September 14, 2024

President Putin has warned that the long-range precision missiles considered to be used against Russian territory will make NATO directly involved in the war. These missiles supplied by the US and UK can only be operated with the involvement of American and British soldiers, and the missiles will be guided by the satellites of NATO countries. The dishonest discussion in the West about NATO’s decision to escalate in such a reckless manner is deeply troubling given that nuclear war is at stake.

Incrementalism: From Proxy War to Direct War

These long-range missiles represent the end of the proxy war and the beginning of a direct NATO-Russia war. Since the Western-backed coup in 2014, NATO and Russia have been fighting a proxy war in Ukraine. On the first day after the coup, the new government in Kiev installed by Washington created a partnership with the CIA and MI6 for covert war against Russia.[1] By definition, a proxy war is when two or more powers do not fight directly in battle but fight through a third-party country. From 2014, the proxy war was defined as NATO supporting Kiev and Russia supporting the Donbas rebels who opposed the legitimacy of the post-coup government installed by Washington.[2] In the words of Ukraine’s General Prosecutor, who was eventually fired by Joe Biden, Washington was treating Ukraine as a colony and demanding the right to approve all new government appointments.[3]

When Russia became a direct participant in the conflict by invading Ukraine in February 2022, the proxy war became even more dangerous as NATO involved itself in the war planning and supplying the weapons, ammunition, training, mercenaries, intelligence and target selection for Ukraine to fight Russia. Yet, NATO was fighting Russia indirectly through a proxy. Over the next 2,5 years, the lines between proxy war and direct war became increasing blurred. This line will now be eliminated as NATO’s war against Russia becomes a direct war as the long-range missiles supplied by the US and UK are also operated by the US and UK.

How did we end up with the US and UK attacking Russian territory without any serious debate in the West? Incrementalism or salami tactics involve cutting off thin slices gradually. With small incremental steps, no one action appears to be so outrageous that it justifies a major response, yet over time the aggressor has pushed through all red lines with minimal opposition. The US used such tactics to mitigate Russian opposition and to alleviate concerns among European allies for NATO expansion, the missile defence system, and the proxy war in Ukraine. NATO incrementally sends more powerful weapons and become increasingly involved in the war. Any negative reactions from their own public or Russia are sought to be mitigated by imposing restrictions on the use of these weapons, but these restrictions are then incrementally removed.

In the beginning of the war, the US was apprehensive about sending tanks and Biden warned that sending F16s could trigger World War 3.[4] Where has the incrementalism taken us today? American illegal cluster ammunition is used to bomb civilian targets in the Russian city of Belgorod, and NATO has provided the intelligence and weapons for the invasion of the Russian region of Kursk where civilians are kidnapped and executed. German tanks manned by soldiers with fascist insignia on their uniforms are yet again fighting in Kursk, and the main objective was most likely to seize the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant. NATO does not criticize Ukraine when it attacks Russia’s early nuclear warning system or nuclear power plants, and instead praises the invasion of Kursk for having humiliated Putin.

NATO’s self-delusion: Ukraine’s “right to defend itself”

The argument that Ukraine has the right to defend itself is a very deceptive counterargument as nobody has disputed that Ukraine has this right. The question is how deeply NATO can be involved before the thin line between proxy war and direct war is crossed. The US is illegally occupying Syria, and nobody would disagree that Syria has the right to defend itself. But does Russia have the right to bomb American and British cities under the guise of helping Syria defend itself? What would the US have done if the situation was reversed, and Russia was attacking American cities through Mexico as a proxy?

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer argued: “We don’t seek any conflict with Russia. That’s not our intention in the slightest”.[5] This is probably true, Britain merely wants the right to strike Russia with missiles without Russia responding. When the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in 2022, the Israeli and Turkish mediators explained that the Americans and British saw an opportunity to fight and bleed Russia as a strategic rival by fighting with Ukrainians. As American political and military leaders keep reminding us, this is a great war as NATO can weaken Russia without using its own troops. The question is how deeply involved NATO can become before we ask the very uncomfortable question: does Russia also has a right to defend itself?

Putin’s argument is reasonable and deserves to be discussed seriously, yet we no longer have reasonable discussions in the West as any empathy or understanding for the Russian position is castigated as treason. Every discussion is simplified and dumbed-down to either supporting “us” or “them”, and support for “us” entails repeating a ridiculous script that ignores reality and ends up with self-harm. If we want to avoid nuclear war, we should begin to take the security concerns of our adversary more seriously instead of shaming any effort to do so.

How will Russia Retaliate Against a NATO Attack?

Russia can pursue either horizontal or vertical escalation. Horizontal escalation is more restrained by retaliating in other areas by for example supplying air defences to Iran, making arms deals with North Korea, sending Russian warships to the Caribbean, sending advanced weaponry to NATO adversaries, or even providing intelligence for strikes on for example US occupation troops in Syria and Iraq.

However, a direct attack by NATO on Russia will likely pressure the Russians to respond directly with vertical escalation irrespective of the risk of a nuclear exchange. F16s and other weaponry that will be used against Russia have been placed in Poland and Romania as these are considered “safe spaces” as long as NATO is not directly involved in the war. NATO drones operating over the Black Sea and providing targeting data to Ukraine seem like an obvious target. NATO satellites that are used to guide missile attacks on Russia can also be destroyed. Attacks with tactical nuclear weapons in Western Ukraine would also be a powerful retaliation that send a strong message without attacking NATO directly.

It appears that NATO has deluded itself with incrementalism as it now plans to attack Russia without expecting any significant retaliation. Whenever Russia responds it is portrayed as occuring in a vacuum, thus Russia is presented as both weak for not responding to red lines and aggressive for acting unprovoked. Russia responded to the coup and covert war in 2014 by taking back Crimea; Russia responded to NATO’s sabotage of the Minsk peace agreement and the refusal to give security guarantees by invading in 2022; and Russia responded to the sabotage of the Istanbul agreement in favour of sending weapons by annexing Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhya and Kherson.

What was previously recognised as possibly triggering World War 3 is now dismissed as Russian propaganda as NATO is merely helping Ukraine defend itself. The Western political-media elites continue to argue that Russia has threatened retaliations in the past that did not materialise. Russia’s restraint is thus interpreted as weakness, and NATO continues to escalate until Russia responds sufficiently.

The problem is that Russia has been restrained because any response could result in a rapid and uncontrolled race up the escalation ladder that results in a nuclear exchange. As NATO takes the world to the brink of world war, should we not at least have a sensible discussion about what is being done instead of hiding behind meaningless slogans such as “Ukraine has the right to defend itself”?

September 14, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , | 1 Comment

Banks Urged to Stop Financing Livestock Production

By Jesse Allen | American AG Network | September 13, 2024

Over 100 climate groups are pressuring JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and other private banks to stop financing global meat and dairy companies.

Agriculture Dive Dot Com says the institutions’ lending activities undermine their environmental commitments. An open letter from groups led by Friends of the Earth to some of the world’s biggest banks calls for a halt on any new financing that expands industrial livestock production and to add requirements that meat, dairy, and feed clients disclose their climate action plans. The letter calls out the banks by name for supporting the world’s biggest meat, dairy, and animal feed producers like JBS, Tyson Foods, and others.

While food companies are a small part of the banks’ overall lending portfolios, the groups say they have a much bigger impact on the institutions’ environmental footprints. The letter says increased lending has let the world’s biggest emitters grow their operations and emissions.

September 14, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | 1 Comment

British Labour’s raw deal for working people

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 12, 2024

Keir Starmer’s Labour Party won a landslide election in July with the slogan “a new deal for working people”.

Already the electioneering can be seen as a sham. This week, the Labour government won a majority vote in the House of Commons to cut winter fuel payments for pensioners. Around 10 million senior citizens will no longer receive a financial grant to help them pay soaring energy bills and keep their houses warm this winter.

The energy crisis for households in Britain and across Europe is a result of the NATO proxy war in Ukraine and the cutting off of Russia’s abundant gas and oil supplies to the continent. The Biden administration ordered the blowing up of the Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. That was in September 2022. The best way to end the energy crisis for European households would be to stop the war, make peace, and return to normal relations. But the new Labour government is having none of that common sense. It is eagerly fueling the proxy war as much as the Conservatives before it, and what’s more now making the poor of Britain pay for the warmongering.

Prime Minister Starmer told angry unions and workers that he would make no apology for the winter fuel payment cut. His ministers are claiming they have “no choice” but to repair a “£22 billion blackhole” in public finances gutted by the predecessor Conservatives.

Starmer’s Labour is warning that more “tough choices” are coming in the coming weeks, meaning that working people and low-income families are going to face more economic austerity. So much for a democratic change from the hated Tories and the supposed “new deal for workers”.

The warped priorities of this government (as with the previous one) can be seen from the promises to boost spending on Britain’s military. Starmer has vowed to uphold a commitment to increase Britain’s “defense” budget from £54.2 bn (€64 bn, $74.7 bn) a year to £57.1 bn. That represents a 4.5 percent increase.

Under Starmer, Britain will continue to donate billions of public money to the Kiev regime.

This week, while the Labour government was voting to cut winter welfare for pensioners, the British foreign minister David Lammy traveled to Kiev alongside the U.S. secretary of state Antony Blinken, where they assured the Ukrainian regime that they would deliver more weapons, hinting at ending restrictions on long-range missiles to hit deep inside Russia.

Meanwhile, Britain’s defense minister John Healey will be in Ramstein, Germany, this week to meet with other military chiefs of the so-called Ukraine Contact Group. Healey, who calls himself “Mr Ukraine”, is to unveil another British military aid package of multi-role missiles worth £162 million. Healey is very much a deep-state figure inside the Labour government. This means a continuity in foreign policy despite the name change in Downing Street.

To date, since the eruption of the conflict in Ukraine in February 2022, Britain has doled out £12.5 bn (€14.7 bn) in military aid to the Kiev regime, including the training of up to 45,000 Ukrainian soldiers.

Britain is the third-biggest military aid donor to Ukraine after the United States and Germany.

Starmer’s new Labour government is showing itself every bit as committed to funding the proxy war against Russia as its Conservative predecessor was.

Just three days after the general election on July 4, the new defense minister, John Healey, made his first overseas visit to Ukraine on July 7. Healey vowed to continue Britain’s support.

So while the Labour government claims that it has “no choice” but to slash public spending at home, it unquestioningly keeps spending on militarism at home and abroad.

This is a matter of political choice. If a Labour government were to genuinely prioritize the needs of working people, it could find the finances easily by cutting Britain’s excessive military budget and the largesse it bestows on a NeoNazi regime and the reckless proxy war against Russia that could escalate into a nuclear conflagration.

The insulting deception of Labour’s “new deal” means that Starmer’s government will require close shepherding, just in case it wobbles from the inevitable public backlash.

The vote this week to axe winter fuel payments to elderly citizens has sparked fury among the wider population. The anger will grow as more austerity measures against citizens kick in and while the proxy war in Ukraine continues to receive endless support with British public money.

It seems no coincidence that this week Britain’s Starmer is to visit the White House. The visit by Blinken to London and thence to Kiev alongside his British counterpart, as well as the Ramstein meeting for UK defense chief Healey, all suggest that a close eye is being kept on Downing Street to ensure that it does not get any notions about “serving the people”.

To that end too, it seems significant that the former Conservative defense minister Ben Wallace has taken to whipping up public fears of Russia.

Wallace wrote a recent oped in the Daily Telegraph in which he claimed that Russian leader Vladimir Putin “will soon turn his war machine on Britain”.

The article was reported in several other British media outlets. The same fear-mongering has been echoed by the new head of Britain’s armed forces, General Sir Roly Walker, who warned that the United Kingdom could be in an all-out war with Russia in the next three years.

Wallace, who is a cipher for Britain’s deep state, claimed that “Britain is in Putin’s cross-hairs”. He added: “Make no mistake, Putin is coming for us… we must be prepared for the inevitable.”

The hysteria from Britain’s ruling class is of course cringe-making. These claims about Russia’s malign intent and comparing Putin with Hitler are completely bereft of any historical facts, such as NATO expansionism and the weaponizing of a Nazi-adulating regime in Ukraine to provoke Russia.

Russian leaders have repeatedly said they have no intention of attacking any NATO nations. They say their involvement in Ukraine is a special operation to neutralize NATO threats to Russia’s national security.

Sooner or later, the British and Western public are going to demand accountability from their governments on why such huge finances are being ladled into promoting a highly dangerous conflict with Russia.

Britain’s Labour government is vulnerable to a public backlash because of its blatant duplicity.

That would explain the close attention from Washington to London’s policy, ensuring Starmer keeps toeing the line of NATO’s hostility to Moscow. British deep state assets like Ben Wallace also need to keep writing scare stories to frighten the public away from common sense criticism of London’s deranged warmongering and betrayal of working people.

September 14, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Militarism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Greed, New Form of Religion, or Compliance Test: Why Are Britons Forced to Eat Bugs?

By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 13.09.2024

The UK’s National Alternative Protein Innovation Center (NAPIC) has received £15 million ($19.5 million) in British taxpayer money to bolster the alternative proteins sector in the country.

According to the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) website, cultured meat and insect-based proteins could soon be “a sustainable and nutritious part” of Britons’ diets.

Over the past few years, the British press has peddled the idea of embracing edible insects as an alternative to meat. They are rich in protein, healthy fats, vitamins, and minerals, and have a lower environmental footprint, the media asserts to Britons.

“British firms strive to create a buzz around insect farming,” “Edible insects and lab-grown meat are on the menu,” “Would you eat insects if they were tastier?” and “Why it’s time to embrace edible insects?” UK headlines read, stressing that the global insect protein market is projected to reach $8 billion by 2030.

Where Did the Idea of Eating Insects Originate?

Entomophagy, or eating insects, has been actively promoted at the World Economic Forum (WEF), which insists that the consumption of insects “can offset climate change in many ways” and prevent the “impending food crisis,” as the world’s population is set to reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, with just 4% of arable land remaining available.

In 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) issued a report stating that around two billion people worldwide eat insects as part of their traditional diets.

In 2014, the Belgian food safety agency AFSCA approved 10 worm and cricket species for sale on the Belgian market, exploiting a loose interpretation of a 1997 EU law on “novel food.” The Netherlands, UK, Denmark, and Finland also authorized insects for consumption.

In 2017, the EU and UK permitted seven species of insect to be used as feeds in fish farms.

In January 2018, a European Parliament regulation concerning “novel foods,” including insects, came into force.

In May 2021, the EU officially approved the first insect, the yellow mealworm, as food for humans.

By 2023, four insects had been approved by the EU Commission: the yellow mealworm; the migratory locust); the house cricket; and the lesser mealworm. The EU food safety agency signaled at the time that another eight insects could be authorized soon.

The EC claims that “the environmental benefits of rearing insects for food are founded on the high feed conversion efficiency of insects, less greenhouse gas emissions, less use of water and arable lands, and the use of insect-based bioconversion as a marketable solution for reducing food waste.”

Who’s Driving the Bug Business?

EnviroFlight (US), Innovafeed (France), HEXAFLY (Ireland), Protix (Netherlands), Global Bugs (Thailand), Entomo Farms (Canada), and Ynsect (France) are named as key players in the market.

Europeans are believed to be the first who delved in the insect protein business, with French firm Ynsect, founded in 2011, and the Dutch producer of insect ingredients Protix, established in 2009.

Insect protein firms are attracting hefty investments from global foundations and food giants.

In 2017, Protix raised $50.5 million in equity and debt funding, marking the largest investment in the industry at the time.

The US rushed to catch on, with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation granting $100,000 to All Things Bugs in 2012 to explore insect food production.

Two American food corporations, ADM and Cargill, invested a whopping $250 million in the French insect protein firm Innovafeed in September 2022. In 2023, the US food giant Tyson poured around $58 million into Protix.

According to some estimates, the edible insect market reached $3.8 billion in 2024, and is projected to amount to $9.04 billion by 2029.

The European market is seen as the largest, while South Asia is the fastest growing. Still, it pales in comparison with the fresh meat market, which amounted to $1.11 trillion as of 2024 and is set to expand further.

Insects Can Be Toxic, But Entomophagy Proponents Don’t Care

Scientists warn that the consumption of edible insects may result in allergic reactions, particularly in people with asthma, hay fever, or allergic skin rashes. Individuals with shellfish allergies – 2% of the worldwide population – are likely to suffer allergic reactions after consuming insects due to their chitin exoskeleton.

Edible insects, including those approved by the EU, are often infected with pathogens and parasites that pose a threat for humans and livestock, a 2019 study by researchers from the University of Warmia and Mazury, Poland, concluded.

What Does the Western Public Say?

Insects have never been part of Western societies’ diet. A 2023 YouGov survey showed that 18% of Americans would be willing to eat whole bugs, while 25% would agree to eat food made with insects.

High living standards still allow Westerners to consume animal protein. The edible insect protein business doesn’t offer high margins amid low consumer acceptance. Consumption of insects is fraught with risks of allergic reactions and parasitic infections.

Nonetheless, entomophagy is being rammed down their throats by the WEF, media, and Hollywood stars eating bugs on camera.

Then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson in 2023 investigated the environmentalist push to eat “creepy crawlers” and suggested that it’s a “compliance test” similar to excessive COVID restrictions.

“Our politicians know that when they control the food, they control the people,” Dutch political activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek told the journalist, referring to EU environmental regulations which make traditional farming in the bloc unprofitable.

“It’s all a new religion… We have to be fearful and scared for COVID, for nitrogen, for carbon dioxide, for [Vladimir] Putin… and meanwhile these people who are in power, now they do whatever they want,” Dutch politician Wybren van Haga said.

Meanwhile, the research and propaganda relating to insect eating has already become a source of wealth for researchers, media companies, speakers, and international forums.

September 14, 2024 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , , | Leave a comment

The Truth: About COVID-19 Shots

Millions were exposed without informed consent — this fight is for accountability & justice

Gaz’s – A Defender’s Voice – September 7, 2024

This video delves into the alleged concealment of critical information regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA injections, focusing on how regulatory bodies and authorities misled the Australian public. It claims that significant contamination of genetic material was found in Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, far exceeding safety thresholds, with potential links to severe health risks like cancer and autoimmune diseases. Despite independent verification from multiple labs, global regulators, including Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), dismissed concerns, claiming there was no safety risk without conducting proper tests.

The video argues that the mRNA injections are in fact gene therapies rather than traditional vaccines, citing how these injections modify genetic material within cells to stimulate an immune response. It criticizes the lack of rigorous testing on the long-term effects of this genetic modification, accusing manufacturers and health authorities of withholding important information about the risks, such as the bio-distribution of modified RNA throughout the body and its potential to disrupt cellular functions.

Legal challenges against Pfizer and Moderna are outlined, notably the case of Dr. Julian Fidge, who accused the companies of bypassing Australia’s regulatory requirements for gene therapies. The lawsuit was dismissed due to a lack of legal standing, but the video highlights potential conflicts of interest, including Judge Helen Rofe’s undisclosed connections to Pfizer. This raises questions about the integrity of the judicial process, especially regarding the dismissal of critical evidence related to genetic contamination.

The video also condemns the narrative pushed by health authorities that the vaccines were “safe and effective,” arguing that data showed minimal absolute risk reduction and high infection rates among vaccinated individuals. It accuses authorities of fearmongering, particularly regarding children, and asserts that pregnant and breastfeeding women were given false assurances about the safety of the vaccines, despite being excluded from clinical trials.

Ultimately, the video calls for accountability and justice, emphasizing that millions of Australians were subjected to experimental gene-based treatments without adequate informed consent. It demands transparency, thorough investigations into regulatory failures, and reparations for those harmed. The script ends with a strong appeal to hold responsible parties accountable and to ensure that such breaches of public trust are never repeated.

September 14, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Video, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment