Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israeli Minister Calls For Arrest of Journalists and Citizens That Share Information That Harms “National Morale”

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | October 17, 2023

In a moment where the essence of free speech is under scrutiny worldwide, a controversial move by Israel’s Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi has sparked profound concern among proponents of free expression and the principles of a democratic society. Karhi is in the process of advancing regulations, authorizing the arrest of individuals and seizure of property based on the subjective judgment that their communication undermines “national morale” or aids enemy propaganda.

These proposed rules, known as “Limiting Aid to the Enemy through Communication,” were crafted in coordination with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Broad in their scope, these regulations aren’t confined to potential misinformation or enemy rhetoric but extend to factually accurate statements and mainstream media coverage, both domestic and international. It would allow Israeli police to arrest Israeli citizens, including journalists, for sharing information that is critical of Israel.

This move stands in stark contrast to its initially declared goal – curbing the influence of Al Jazeera in Israel.

Derived under the aegis of Section 39 of the Basic Law: The Government, these draft regulations explicitly characterize “aiding the enemy through communication” as not just direct assistance to adversaries, but any information dissemination that the authorities perceive as weakening Israel’s societal or military morale or that echoes enemy propaganda.

The reach of these regulations is comprehensive, encompassing all forms of audio and visual communication. The power vested in the communications minister is extensive; it allows for the cessation of broadcasts, confiscation of broadcasting equipment, and even the physical removal of individuals from certain locales, all under the subjective banner of national security.

In totality, these developments represent a troubling trend towards the erosion of journalistic freedom and the sanctity of free speech, pivotal pillars of any democratic establishment and some that often get undermined in times of war.

October 17, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

The Great Travel Reset

Corbett • 10/17/2023

Are you aware of the Great Travel Reset that is already underway? You should be! Are you outraged about the fact that one of your most basic human rights is being stolen from under your very nose? You ought to be! Are you willing to spend more than a few minutes a week informing yourself about this issue? You’d better be! If you want a two-minute explainer on this topic, go to TikTok. For everyone else, this is The Corbett Report.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Download the mp4

DOCUMENTATION

Own Nothing, Be Happy
Time Reference: 00:00

 

Schwab on “automatically guided cars”: The New Global Context and Its Impact on the Role of Government
Time Reference: 02:26

 

Accenture World Economic Forum Known Traveller
Time Reference: 03:18

Airport of the Future
Time Reference: 03:45

France bans short domestic flights to cut carbon emissions
Time Reference: 04:18

 

Virtual Reality: The Future of Travel?
Time Reference: 04:35

 

Flight-Shaming Is Now A Thing – Will It Keep You From Traveling?
Time Reference: 09:24

 

Why ‘flight shame’ is making people swap planes for trains
Time Reference: 09:29

 

41% of French population favors restricting EVERYONE to ONLY 4 airplane flights in their ENTIRE LIFE to ‘fight against global warming’
Time Reference: 09:58

 

Carbon Passports Are The Next Dystopian Surveillance Threat
Time Reference: 13:05

 

A Sustainable Future for Travel: From Crisis to Transformation
Time Reference: 14:17

 

CLEAR’s new Health Pass service to help screen for coronavirus: CEO
Time Reference: 16:51

 

Finland tests world’s first digital passport | Tech it Out
Time Reference: 17:40

 

“Get to Know the Known Traveller Digital Identity” In Partnership With Accenture
Time Reference: 18:20

 

No gas cars by 2035?
Time Reference: 19:32

 

‘These deeply illiberal, unBritish 15-minute cities are beyond the pale’ | Mark Dolan
Time Reference: 20:12

 

London mayor’s climate crackdowns are about ‘controlling our lives,’ says Nigel Farage
Time Reference: 21:12

 

The B20 calls on the G20 to adopt vaccine passports using WHO standards #bali
Time Reference: 26:23

 

WHO global digital health certificate (REJECT DIGITAL ENSLAVEMENT)
Time Reference: 28:44

 

UPDATE: WHO Approves Extension of Amendment Working Group Deadline
Time Reference: 33:59

 

Interview 1839 – A Million People Need to Share This Video on CHD TV
Time Reference: 35:07

 

October 17, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Dozens And Dozens Of Doctors Team Up To Fight “Chilling Attack” On The Freedom Of Speech Of Senior Doctor

Dr Aseem Malhotra with his father Prof Kailash Chand OBE, who he believes died from a sudden cardiac arrest due to the Pfizer vaccine.
By JJ Starky | The Stark Naked Brief | October 16, 2023

In June, a group of doctors, some of whom are general practitioners (GPs), initiated legal action against the General Medical Council (GMC). The basis of their claim was the GMC’s alleged failure to address misinformation about the Covid vaccines.

The doctors, who prefer anonymity – cowards – delivered a pre-action protocol letter to the GMC, signalling their intent to pursue legal action. Earlier in January, this group had urged the regulator to assess Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s suitability to practice medicine, citing his alleged “prominent dissemination of misinformation regarding Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.”

Dr. Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist, activist, and author, boasts over half a million Twitter followers, with his latest content primarily centering around the safety, or the lack there of, of the Covid vaccines.

Prior to receiving an official denial from the GMC, the doctors contended in an April letter that the regulator should determine if Dr. Malhotra’s professional conduct had been compromised by his alleged “anti-Covid-19 vaccine stance”. They stressed that inaction could jeopardise patient safety and public trust in both the medical field and the GMC.

Professor Trish Greenhalgh, an Oxford University GP, highlighted the GMC’s reluctance to tie perceived “anti-vaccine statements” to direct harm inflicted upon a patient. She emphasised the expansive reach of “misleading statements” in the era of social media, necessitating a reevaluation of the definition of “harm” in this context.

To defray the legal expenses for challenging the GMC, the group embarked on a fundraising campaign, collecting a reported £5,000.

Dr. Malhotra defended his stance, citing a commitment to evolve his position in line with new evidence. He mentioned his own early vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine and efforts to combat vaccine hesitancy, but stressed his belief that the mRNA vaccines present serious risks while noting their approval despite the absence of long-term safety data.

Earlier today, Doctors For Patients UK, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, and Health Advisory & Recovery Team, issued a press release in response to the Good Law Project.

(It constitutes a bit of an ass-whopping in my opinion so I dare not summarise it. Here it is in its entirety):

Dear Editor

We, the undersigned doctors, and the campaign groups Doctors for Patients UK, UK Medical Freedom Alliance and HART, wish to publicly state our support for Dr Aseem Malhotra, a well-published academic and cardiologist who has been a popular commentator on medical and public health matters in the UK media for many years. We condemn the actions of a group of (mostly anonymous) doctors, supported by the Good Law Project (GLP), in seeking to silence and punish Dr Malhotra for speaking out about his concerns about the safety of Covid-19 vaccines. This is a serious and chilling attack on the freedom of speech of a senior doctor.

Dr Malhotra is the son of the late BMA stalwart and NHS campaigner, Dr Kailash Chand. Following the unexpected death of his father from previously undetectable heart disease, Dr Malhotra made public statements highlighting his concerns that his father’s Covid-19 vaccinations were a causal factor in his death.

Despite initially endorsing and promoting the Covid-19 vaccines on ITV’s Good Morning Britain on 5th February 20212 he is now calling for an immediate suspension of the novel mRNA Covid-19 vaccines and a full investigation into their adverse effects, for reasons detailed in the 2-part, peer-reviewed paper he wrote, published in September 2022 in the Journal of Insulin Resistance. This is entirely in line with his duty as a responsible doctor, to protect the British public from the harm which he believes his family have suffered and to uphold the fundamental principle of medical ethics to “First do no harm”.

Dr Malhotra presented his concerns to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Vaccine Damage, on 20th October 2022 at Portcullis House, Westminster. His impassioned call to prioritise patient safety resulted in a group of anonymous doctors reporting him to the General Medical Council (GMC) for ‘high-profile promotion of misinformation about Covid-19 mRNA vaccines’, demanding they investigate his fitness to practice. When the GMC refused to carry out a Fitness to Practice (FtP) investigation, Dr Matt Kneale, a junior doctor in the group, instructed The Good Law Project (GLP) to begin crowdfunding for a legal action against the GMC’s decision, and launched a judicial review against the GMC in the High Court.

Dr Malhotra is a senior cardiologist, a well-established commentator and campaigner on public health issues, and a long-standing advocate for patient safety. His previous campaigns have raised awareness about heart disease, obesity, the harms of sugar, and corruption within the pharmaceutical industry. As an ambassador for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, he was the lead author in this joint initiative with the BMJ to tackle the harms of overprescribing and unnecessary medical interventions. It is a mark of Dr Malhotra’s high regard for medical ethics that he felt compelled to speak publicly about his new and growing concerns of a link between Covid-19 vaccines and heart damage, despite initially endorsing the mRNA jabs.

It is deeply unsettling that the GLP, an entity funded primarily by the public, would turn its legal machinery toward silencing an ethical doctor. This is especially troubling given the organisation’s stated commitment to transparency and a better world. Rather than exerting legal force to silence professionals, should they not focus instead on compelling the full release of the Covid-19 vaccine trial data? The absence of such vital information from public and medical scrutiny is not just a lapse; it’s a serious breach of trust and a blow to patient safety.

By contesting the GMC’s decision to support Dr Malhotra’s right to free speech and not to carry out a formal FtP investigation (on the grounds that his statements were not sufficiently egregious to merit action), the legal action supported by the GLP risks undermining the resolve of medical professionals to speak candidly on serious health issues, a move that would have profound consequences for patient safety and the ethical practice of medicine.

The GLP challenge against the GMC decision is misconceived, misguided, and threatens doctors’ individual right to free speech and proper scientific debate on matters relating to protecting the public from dangerous products. It is deeply regrettable in a democratic society that instead of being applauded for his courage in raising the alarm, Dr Malhotra is being persecuted in this way.

Thousands of doctors worldwide and in the United Kingdom11 share Dr Malhotra’s reasonable concerns regarding Covid-19 vaccine safety. Many have spoken out on this issue, including the eminent US cardiologist, Dr Peter McCullough, who called for an immediate withdrawal of these products in a speech made in the EU Parliament on 13 September 2023. The undersigned doctors and organisations are aware of multiple harms associated with the Covid-19 vaccines; among them frontline doctors who have reported vaccine-associated injuries and deaths in their own patients.

The list of signatories and co-signatories is something to behold:

  • Dr Ayiesha Malik, MBChB, MRCGP (2014)
  • Dr Clare Craig BM BCh, FRCPath
  • Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA, MBBS, DRCOG
  • Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 2001-2003, former Consultant in Public Health Medicine
  • Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMedSci, Professor of Oncology, University of London; Principal, Institute for Cancer Vaccines & Immunotherapy
  • Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS, BMed Sci, FRCS, FFSEM(UK), Professor Emeritus, Honorary Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
  • Dr Ali Ajaz, MBBS, BSc, MRCPsych, PGCert, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist
  • Dr Victoria Anderson, MBChB, MRCGP (2016), MRCPCH (2013), DRCOG, General Practitioner
  • Dr Lucy Apps, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Michael Bazlinton, MBChB, MRCGP, DCH, General Practitioner
  • Dr Mark A Bell, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, Consultant in Emergency Medicine
  • Dr Gill Breese, BSc, MBChB, DTM&H, DFFP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Rachel Brown, MBChB, LLM, CFMP, MRCPsych
  • Mr John Bunni, MBChB (Hons), Dip Lap Surg, FRCS [ASGBI Medal], Consultant Colorectal and General Surgeon
  • Dr Selena Chester, MBBS, Medical Practitioner
  • Dr David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General Practitioner
  • Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant Ophthalmologist
  • Dr Phuoc-Tan Diep, MBChB FRCPath. Consultant Histopathologist
  • Dr Jonathan Eastwood, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LLB
  • Dr Bob Gill, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Catherine Hatton, MBChB, General Practitioner
  • Dr Tony Hinton, MBChB, FRCS, Consultant Surgeon
  • Dr Rosamond Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired Consultant Paediatrician
  • Dr Tim Kelly, MBBCh, BSc, Hospital Doctor
  • Dr Caroline Lapworth, MBChB, General Practitioner
  • Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath
  • Dr Andrew Lees, MB BS, MRCGP, DCH, retired General Practitioner
  • Mr Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB, MD, FRCSEd, FRCS (Gen Surg). MIHM, VR, Consultant Surgeon
  • Dr Imran Malik, MBBS, MRCP (2006), MRCGP (2007), General Practitioner
  • Dr Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Janet Menage, MA, MBChB, retired General Practitioner
  • Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH, retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology
  • Dr Campbell Murdoch, MBChb, General Practitioner and PCN Clinical Director, Somerset
  • Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy
  • Dr Angela Musso, MD, MRCGP, DRCOG, FRACGP, MFPC, General Practitioner
  • Dr Sam McBride, BSc (Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP(Edinburgh), NHS Emergency Medicine & geriatrics
  • Mr Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon
  • Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, FRCP, retired Consultant Physician
  • Dr Fairoz Miller, BSc, MBBCh, MRCP (1999), MRCGP (2016), General Practitioner
  • Dr Alistair J Montgomery, MBChB, MRCGP, DRCOG, retired General Practitioner
  • Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Dip NM, retired GP, Independent Naturopathic Physician, UKMFA Director of Medical Ethics
  • Dr Dean Patterson, Consultant Cardiologist and General Physician, MBChB, FRCP
  • Dr Jessica Robinson, Bsc (Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom
  • Dr Susannah Robinson, MBBS BSc MRCP MRCGP General Practitioner
  • Dr Jon Rogers, MB ChB (Bristol), MRCGP (1981), DRCOG (1980), retired General Practitioner
  • Mr T. James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal and General Surgeon
  • Dr Magdalena Stasiak-Horkan, MBBS, DCH, MRCGP (2003-2017), General Practitioner
  • Dr Rohaan Seth, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP (2012), retired General Practitioner
  • Dr Jannah van der Pol, iBSc, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  • Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner
  • Dr Lucie Wilk, BSc, MD, FRCPC (2013), Consultant Rheumatologist

You can find a full copy of the press release here.

Currently working on a new exposè concerning the coordinated attempt to tarnish “conspiracist” celebrities. It is, however, proving to be more time-consuming than I originally expected. I should have it up in the next few days.

October 16, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

The hounding of an inspirational headmaster who spoke out on Covid

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | October 12, 2023

Headmaster Mike Fairclough was the darling of primary school education after creating an unorthodox forest school in a council estate in Eastbourne, East Sussex. Alongside the usual lessons, from 2004 Mr Fairclough provided an extraordinarily rich rural curriculum that you would never expect in a state school. He leased 120 acres of marshland opposite West Rise school, the site of a former Bronze Age settlement. The children learned how to build fires and how to whittle wood with knives to make arrows. They learned fly fishing, how to skin rabbits and pluck pigeons. They tended beehives, sheep and even water buffalo.

Mr Fairclough won the admiration of his peers, and in 2015, the Times Educational Supplement ‘Primary School of the Year’ award. Dame Judith Hackitt, chairman of the Health & Safety Executive, said more school head teachers should be following Fairclough’s example. The underperforming school’s Ofsted rose from ‘Satisfactory’ to ‘Good’ and for 19 years, West Rise thrived. The number of pupils doubled from 179 to 360, as did the number of staff from 30 to 60.

Mr Fairclough enjoyed a good relationship with his staff and his local authority East Sussex County Council but resigned last month after a witch hunt using anti-terrorism legislation left him feeling a broken man. In his resignation letter he said: ‘I feel that I have been discriminated against, harassed, and bullied for exercising my right to lawful free speech and for expressing my philosophical belief in the importance of critical thinking, free speech, and safeguarding children.

‘As a headteacher, I have had a legal duty to safeguard children against harm. My professional field of expertise is child development and education. I have publicly shared my opinion that lockdowns harm children, that I disagree with masking children, and that I feel that the risks from the Covid vaccines for children outweigh any possible benefits. It has therefore been entirely reasonable and relevant for me to express my lawful opinions on these matters in the interest of safeguarding children against harm.’ Other heads agreed privately but 50-year-old Mr Fairclough, a father of four, was the only headteacher of 20,000 in the UK to say so publicly.

‘I first started to lose heart during the pandemic,’ he said. ‘The fear of Covid trumped learning, so children weren’t sitting next to each other and couldn’t share resources. Some schools were having children learning outside in the cold, so they weren’t able to concentrate, and it felt like adults’ fear of dying, which was irrational because we were told early that we were at minimal risk of dying of Covid, meant they were using children in their care as human shields. That made me think that the Department for Education weren’t really bothered about kids at all.’

His lawful response put him under scrutiny at the highest levels. Mr Fairclough found out through freedom of information (FOI) that he had been monitored by the government’s Counter-Disinformation Unit (CDU) and their Department for Counter Extremism, although he was cleared of any wrongdoing by East Sussex County Council.

Some people objected to his negative views on vaccinating children against Covid, opinions expressed outside the school setting, on social media and in podcasts. They fell into four main points, all of which are hard to challenge:

·       Healthy children were at low risk of serious illness from Covid. (Office of National Statistics figures show that just six under-tens died between January 2020 and May 2021. They do not say whether the children had underlying health problems. For context, around 1,000 children die on the roads each year.)

·       Covid vaccines posed known and very serious risks. (Potentially fatal myocarditis, and pericarditis, inflammation of the heart, are known risks.)

·       A child can still catch Covid and spread Covid when vaccinated. (Covid vaccinations were not recommended by the Joint Committee on Vaccination (JCVI) for under-16s, a decision overridden by the chief medical officers in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.)

·       There was no long-term safety data, trials do not finish until this year, and the potential risks outweighed any benefit.

Mr Fairclough said: ‘I tried to communicate with parents who were undecided in a way that didn’t make me sound like I’m mad. I do think there are some in the freedom movement who say things in a way that doesn’t endear themselves to people with a different view.’

In the end 89.4 per cent of five to 11-year-olds remained unvaccinated although the numbers are hard to find and are not reported by the BBC.

So, who complained about this popular and effective headmaster? The first investigation was launched in June 2021. It was made by a group of retired NHS workers on Twitter (now X) whose mission it was to find anyone in education who appeared to be antivax and anti-lockdown. Mr Fairclough does not know who made the second complaint but the third was made by a concerned group of parents and teachers. ‘No parent came to me,’ Mr Fairclough said. ‘I have an open-door policy and they know they can talk to me at any time. I don’t know exactly which staff complained, but I have my suspicions. There was a small group within the school who did not agree with me although most were aligned with my thinking.’

It was December 1 2022 when the third complaint arrived, reported under the Prevent duty, the government initiative that requires all education providers to safeguard learners from extremist ideologies. Mr Fairclough was also reported to the DfE’s Counter-Extremism Division and was being framed as an extremist and potential terrorist, an intimidating move by the local council that left Mr Fairclough traumatised. He was signed off suffering with stress. He said: ‘I found sleeping difficult. I kept dreaming about what was happening and woke up thinking about it. I’m not a terrorist, all I was doing was discussing the alterative narrative.’

We know utopia does not exist and Mr Fairclough had his run-ins. ‘It wasn’t that I never fell out with parents. Say for example they felt like a teacher hadn’t dealt with a bullying issue, then of course they would come in and kick off and I’d have to look into the matter. But what surprised me with the resignation is that even parents that I’d had that kind of fractious relationship with have actually contacted me personally to say, “we’re really gutted that you’re not here any more”. That surprised me. I thought at least one would say good riddance.’

His absence has sent the school into freefall. An Ofsted report carried out in July, seven months after he was signed off, saw West Rise downgraded from ‘Good’ to ‘Requires Improvement’.

Our education system is increasingly focused on learning by rote rather than teaching critical thinking, a skill Mr Fairclough thinks is essential. He said: ‘Education is highly political under the Conservative government, it’s all about acquisition of knowledge to be retained and regurgitated for a memory test on the other side.’

His unusual approach had the full support of parents, the Health and Safety Executive, Ofsted and the media. Some of his pupils gained places at the local agricultural college and now run their own herds in the Sussex South Downs. A number entered media in film, art, and drama, mainly thanks to his ‘Room 13’, where children could go and have complete creative autonomy.

He is not sure what comes next, but he is sure of one thing: advocating for children cost him his much-loved career in our inverted world. He said: ‘Critical thinking and lawful free speech are not dangerous; they go hand in hand in safeguarding children. Open debate on important matters is the bedrock of any democratic society and no one should be pursued for speaking out.’

Mr Fairclough is not giving up on free speech and is crowdfunding to take his former employer to court. You can donate here.

He hopes his future will include writing more books like Wild Thing, which is about how embracing childhood traits into adulthood can lead to happiness. He recently started a Substack which you can see here.

October 16, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

My trial lawyer buddies won’t like this essay

They are not the fearless, justice-seeking advocates they want us to think they are.

BY BILL RICE, JR. | OCTOBER 14, 2023

I’ve now written several articles pointing out the obvious. Namely, that all important organizations that are supposed to discover the truth are completely captured.

One of the most-important of these professions is Plaintiffs’ Trial Lawyer firms. These are attorneys and law firms that are supposed to exist to represent people who suffered grave harms from malfeasance or nefarious (and illegal) acts.

First questions: Where are these fearless, justice-seeking lawyers today? What are they doing with their lives and careers?

We know what they are NOT doing: They are not suing any person or company whose activities directly or indirectly injured or killed hundreds of millions of possible plaintiffs who are pleading for justice.

Potential lawsuits might expose (and give some compensation or “justice”) to tens of millions of people who suffered harm from lockdowns, iatrogenic deaths and injuries, vaccine deaths and injuries and/or vaccine mandates that resulted in people losing their jobs and incomes.

FWIW, such lawsuits might also stop these horrific practices, saving countless people from pain, suffering and even death.

So why aren’t these lawsuits being filed? Why won’t 99 percent of these firms even consider representing a potential plaintiff class that’s so massive in size?

Nobody wants to leave the safety of the herd 

Or: club membership bestows benefits

My answer is that plaintiff trial lawyers are part of a “club” that’s now completely captured. It’s more important to these attorneys to remain in this privileged and protected club than it is to do the job lawyers were created to do.

Basically, to remain a member in good standing of this club, these attorneys know what lawsuits they can file … and, more importantly, what lawsuits they cannot file.

I also note that the members of the Plaintiff’s trial bar are among the wealthiest people in the world. If they file a case and win, they pocket at least 40 percent of the financial judgement.

I also understand most of these lawsuits never even go before a jury. They are settled long before that point – so plaintiff lawyers don’t even have to fully try a case, which, with appeals, could take years to adjudicate.

In short, if you become part of the group that can file authorized lawsuits … and identify enough winnable cases, this is a lucrative gig.

You are going to be a member of the best country club in town and your family is going to be able to take vacations to the south of France.

Why jeopardize your inclusion in a profitable profession?

A key point is that this group never runs out of “winnable cases.”

Every day, an 18-wheeler (owned by a trucking company with deep pockets or good liability insurance) is going to be involved in a fatal traffic accident. Asbestos lawsuits are still making lawyers millionaires decades after asbestos was identified as a potential killer.

If “contaminated water” at a military base might, decades later, have made some people sick that’s a potential windfall for lawyers who recruited enough possible victims.

If you were perhaps discriminated against because of your LGBT status or maybe because of your race, this could produce enough money for a lawyer to live like a king for a couple of years.

Even hospitals or surgeons can be sued for malpractice … if they commit malpractice that is on the authorized “sue list.”

In short, no plaintiff trial attorney needs to file Covid-related lawsuits to continue to make a great living. There’s enough easy judgments out there to keep suing lawyers happy and content.

A thought experiment …

However, what would happen to these lawyers and their law firms if they suddenly started filing lawsuits against Pfizer, or Moderna or their local hospitals and doctors, people who are the most respected people in their towns?

What if they sued a random scientific expert, and their employers at the local university, who evidence showed were intentionally producing harmful and bogus science and who were retaliating against individuals who were trying to tell the truth?

What if they sued a big local employer, led by “civic-minded” and well-respected CEOs, who nonetheless helped enforce all the harmful and discriminatory Covid mandates?

If any of these things actually happened – if some serious lawsuits were filed – I don’t think the attorneys or law firms that brought these cases would remain in this exalted club for long.

Lawyers are smart. My guess is they understand all of this.

They know how cancel culture works. They saw that even Tucker Carlson, who had the No. 1 rated TV news show in the world, could be fired in retaliation for trying to expose club members.

Attorneys, more than most citizens, can probably tell which way the wind is blowing and who really possesses the most power in society. (The same dynamic applies to mainstream media “journalists,” who know what stories they can write … and which ones they can never write).

In a way, it makes sense that attorneys wouldn’t want to get sideways with certain people and organizations.  It’s now been confirmed repeatedly that sociopaths, or those who covet status, are not amused when someone breaks ranks and challenges their status and control.

Here’s the lawyers’ go-to defense …

It would be interesting if some real journalist surveyed some of the most prominent plaintiff trial firms and asked their managing partners why they are not representing millions of gravely injured citizens.

I can guess what their answers would be.

The common answer would be that potential defendants in lawsuits are immune from liability.

This is no doubt true in some cases, but definitely not all possible cases, involving all victims.

As noted, lawyers are smart. If they wanted to file a case, they could find myriad legal grounds to bring said cases.

But, IMO, the real reason would be unspoken.

“Are you crazy? We’re not going to agitate the most powerful and politically-connected organizations in the world. They’d retaliate and put us out of the lawsuit-filing business.”

This is no doubt true, so the world’s elite lawyers are not suffering from paranoia.

Which brings me to my main point …

But what these attorneys would really be admitting is they are not the “fearless,” justice-seeking lawyers they depict in their TV commercials.

If you were injured in an accident involving a big-rig truck, they’ll talk to you. But if your case would involve debunking the claims of Anthony Fauci or any of the non-pharmaceutical interventions endorsed by every important organization in the world … go talk to Robert Kennedy Jr’s law firm.

What these lawyers in their $5,000 suits are really admitting is that they do fear repercussions from the most powerful entities in the world.

They are either scared as hell of getting on the wrong side of the “Powers that Be”  … or they are admitting they’d prefer to remain a member in good standing of the club that rules the world.

The Operative Quid Pro Quo

For the third time in this essay, I’ll note that lawyers are smart.

Lawyers, hypothetically, can represent any plaintiffs who’ve suffered unnecessary or avoidable injuries. Many key attorneys also represent big companies that want to eliminate or minimize the possibility they’ll have to pay vast legal settlements for corporate malfeasance.

When I think about the machinations of “club” members, it occurs to me that many of the best and brightest lawyers in the world have spent decades re-writing laws and regulations that will protect certain companies from lawsuits brought by millions of possible victims.

I’ve come to believe there was a quid pro quo with plaintiff trial lawyers: If you guys don’t sue the wrong defendants, we’ll make sure there’s enough people left in the world that you can sue and still make a great living.

Remaining a member of “The Club” is far more important to 99 percent of attorneys than representing victims … if said victims happened to be harmed by the policies embraced by the Club.

Why this matters …

None of this would matter if lawyers and successful lawsuits didn’t or couldn’t make a difference. But they can and could … if we had many more attorneys who were genuinely fearless justice seekers.

In fact, society probably wouldn’t need a large number of attorneys who were brave enough to bring these cases. Once one jury returned for the plaintiffs, armies of lawyers would probably want to get their piece of this justice pie.

It’s possible legions of members of Plaintiffs Trial Bar are waiting for one brave lawyer in their group who does say, “Damn the torpedoes” and starts suing away.

Of course, this scenario would entail a handful of judges who would allow good cases to go to trial … and this possibility is being blocked as well.

It turns out that the judges are lawyers too. This makes one think everyone who could make a difference …. won’t … because they’re all members of the same captured club.

October 16, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

French satellite operator Eutelsat takes Hamas-affiliated channel al-Aqsa TV off air

Press TV – October 15, 2023

France’s broadcasting watchdog has ordered the satellite provider Eutelsat to pull the plug on the Palestinian Arabic-language Al-Aqsa television channel and take the station, which is affiliated with the Palestinian Hamas resistance movement, off the air over allegations that it violated rules on incitement.

Eutelsat, Europe’s leading satellite operator, said the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA) had asked the firm to stop broadcasting al-Aqsa TV.

The Hamas-run channel denounced the French move on its Telegram channel on Saturday, stating that it had to stop broadcasting from Eutelsat 8 West B satellite due to French pressure.

“In light of the massacres being committed against our people in the Gaza Strip as they are unwearyingly and steadfastly fighting the Operation al-Aqsa Storm, and in line with continued targeting and killing of journalists in Gaza, the French company responsible for Eutelsat satellite made the decision to block the channel’s broadcast,” the television station wrote in its statement.

“The channel was taken off the air in response to pressure from the French government and submission to the occupying Zionist regime,” the statement added.

The channel also condemned its suspension as “a blatant and shocking violation of all standards of freedom,” stating that the move “contradicts the international laws that guarantee freedom of expression and the right to communicate the voice of oppressed people to the whole world.”

Hezbollah: Eutelsat complicit with Israeli enemy in brutal Gaza war

The Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement censured the decision by satellite provider Eutelsat to take the Hamas-run al-Aqsa TV off the air, stating that the measure dealt a hard blow to Palestinian media.

“In the midst of a ruthless campaign by the Zionist enemy against Palestinian people, the European satellite operator, Eutelsat, opted to cease the broadcast of al-Aqsa television channel. The move was meant to prevent the world public opinion from observing the oppression that Palestinians are exposed to, and ultimately challenging the West’s so-called commitment to media neutrality and freedom of expression,” it said in a statement.

Hezbollah lambasted Eutelsat for “shamelessly collaborating with the Israeli enemy in its ongoing brutal onslaught against defenseless Palestinian civilians.”

The movement views this decision as a “deliberate attempt to conceal the atrocities of Zionist forces, which are increasingly coming to light on the global stage. They also draw a connection to the tragic killing of journalists in Gaza and Lebanon.”

Hezbollah underscored its “unwavering support for al-Aqsa TV as well as all independent media outlets dedicated to exposing the Israeli regime’s crimes and uncovering the truth behind them.”

October 16, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

The WHO ignores its own rules, will refuse to make public the finalized IHR Amendments before the vote

By Meryl Nass | October 10, 2023

The WHO’s press release states what happened in very general terms, so only the already-initiated will understand it. Article 55 of the WHO Constitution requires that amendments to WHO documents be offered to the member states and public 4 months in advance of a vote. The Saudi co-chair said to the public that his Working Group on the IHR amendments may not complete their work by January needed to meet the timeline to be voted on in May 2024. In a choreographed move, he asked Principal Legal Officer Steven Solomon what to do about this. Solomon had already crafted a plan. His plan was to create a specious excuse to ignore the existing rules.

Nobody voted on ignoring them. Nobody said this was okay. It just became a done deal. And here is the WHO press release, saying very little, explaining nothing, just issuing a vague statement that the rules will be ignored and no amendments will be available till (probably) after the vote or consensus process takes place in May:

“We will continue work on a range of issues in the intersessional period before WGIHR6, as well as in early 2024. We are confident that we will be able to deliver on our mandate by the 77th World Health Assembly. The will is there,” said WGIHR Co-Chair Dr Abdullah Assiri of Saudi Arabia.

“We have a very strong shared focus on our mandate to deliver a package of targeted amendments to the IHR and ensure that equity is reflected in the IHR. It would be easy to make the IHR worse. It will be hard to make them better. We will focus on the hard task, making them better,” said WGIHR Co-Chair Dr Ashley Bloomfield of New Zealand.

The Co-Chairs noted that, in reference to Decision WHA75(9), it appeared unlikely that the package of amendments would be ready by January 2024. In this regard, the Working Group agreed to continue its work between January and May 2024. The Director-General will submit to the 77th Health Assembly the package of amendments agreed by the Working Group.

Below is the WHO lawyer (previously from US State Dept) who thought up the scheme to hide the amendments from the public instead of issuing the packet in January 2024 as required:

And here is the show where James Corbett, James Roguski and I discuss what is happening before our eyes, and tell you who really runs the WHO—its private donors. https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/whos-principal-legal-officer-tries-to-reinterpret-rules-pass-ihr-amendments-without-the-public-knowing-what-is-in-them/

October 15, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | | Leave a comment

FBI director warns of Hamas copycat threat

RT | October 15, 2023

Americans face a heightened threat from “lone wolf” terrorists inspired to replicate aspects of Hamas’ recent assault on Israel on US soil, FBI Director Christopher Wray told an audience of law enforcement officers at the International Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Conference in San Diego on Saturday.

Claiming there was “no question we’re seeing an increase in reported threats,” Wray warned his law enforcement colleagues, “We’ve got to be on the lookout, especially for lone actors who may take inspiration from recent events to commit violence of their own” – a reference to Hamas’ attack on Israel last Saturday.

“History has been witness to antisemitic and other forms of violent extremism for too long,” the FBI director continued, vowing to “continue confronting those threats.”

The responsibility for that confrontation was also on conference attendees, Wray added, urging them to “stay vigilant” and notify the FBI and other authorities if they saw any “signs that someone may be mobilizing towards violence.”

The FBI chief did not give any specific examples of domestic threats, copycat or otherwise, that had emerged since Hamas’ surprise attack on Israel. Instead, he made a generalized reference to “foreign terrorist organizations, or those inspired by them, or domestic violent extremists motivated by their own racial animus” as a vaguely equivalent menace likely to target individuals because of their (presumably Jewish) faith.

Wray’s FBI was caught earlier this year targeting Christian groups in a sprawling probe that presented traditionalist Catholics as potential domestic terrorists with “antisemitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology.”

Saturday’s speech was one of the few public references Wray had made since the Capitol riot of January 6, 2021, to an extremist threat with possible origins outside the US. The FBI director has insisted for years that the primary menace imperiling Americans is “white supremacy.” The concept has become increasingly nebulous under the presidential administration of Joe Biden, expanding to include not only the so-called “radical Catholics” but also parents who speak out at school board meetings, many of whom were investigated by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division for speaking out against Covid-19 policies, LGBTQ material inserted into their children’s curricula, and other controversial issues following a directive from the Department of Justice deeming them a threat to school officials.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have highlighted “claims of government overreach” as a motivating factor for these “domestic violent extremists.”

October 15, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

LAWLESS IN GAZA: WHY BRITAIN AND THE WEST BACK ISRAEL’S CRIMES

As Western politicians line up to cheer on Israel as it starves Gaza’s civilians and plunges them into darkness to soften them up before the coming Israeli ground invasion, it is important to understand how we reached this point – and what it portends for the future.

BY JONATHAN COOK | DECLASSIFIED UK | OCTOBER 13, 2023

More than a decade ago, Israel started to understand that its occupation of Gaza through siege could be to its advantage. It began transforming the tiny coastal enclave from an albatross around its neck into a valuable portfolio in the trading game of international power politics.

The first benefit for Israel, and its Western allies, is more discussed than the second.

The tiny strip of land hugging the eastern Mediterranean coast was turned into a mix of testing ground and shop window.

Israel could use Gaza to develop all sorts of new technologies and strategies associated with the homeland security industries burgeoning across the West, as officials there grew increasingly worried about domestic unrest, sometimes referred to as populism.

The siege of Gaza’s 2.3 million Palestinians, imposed by Israel in 2007 following the election of Hamas to rule the enclave, allowed for all sorts of experiments.

How could the population best be contained? What restrictions could be placed on their diet and lifestyle? How were networks of informers and collaborators to be recruited from afar? What effect did the population’s entrapment and repeated bombardment have on social and political relations?

And ultimately how were Gaza’s inhabitants to be kept subjugated and an uprising prevented?

The answers to those questions were made available to Western allies through Israel’s shopping portal. Items available included interception rocket systems, electronic sensors, surveillance systems, drones, facial recognition, automated gun towers, and much more. All tested in real-life situations in Gaza.

Israel’s standing took a severe dent from the fact that Palestinians managed to bypass this infrastructure of confinement last weekend – at least for a few days – with a rusty bulldozer, some hang-gliders and a sense of nothing-to-lose.

Which is part of the reason why Israel now needs to go back into Gaza with ground troops to show it still has the means to keep the Palestinians crushed.

Collective punishment

Which brings us to the second purpose served by Gaza.

As Western states have grown increasingly unnerved by signs of popular unrest at home, they have started to think more carefully about how to sidestep the restrictions placed on them by international law.

The term refers to a body of laws that were formalised in the aftermath of the second world war, when both sides treated civilians on the other side of the battle lines as little more than pawns on a chessboard.

The aim of those drafting international law was to make it unconscionable for there to be a repeat of Nazi atrocities in Europe, as well as other crimes such as Britain’s fire bombing of German cities like Dresden or the United States’ dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

One of the fundamentals of international law – at the heart of the Geneva Conventions – is a prohibition on collective punishment: that is, retaliating against the enemy’s civilian population, making them pay the price for the acts of their leaders and armies.

Very obviously, Gaza is about as flagrant a violation of this prohibition as can be found. Even in “quiet” times, its inhabitants – one million of them children – are denied the most basic freedoms, such as the right to movement; access to proper health care because medicines and equipment cannot be brought in; access to drinkable water; and the use of electricity for much of the day because Israel keeps bombing Gaza’s power station.

Israel has never made any bones of the fact that it is punishing the people of Gaza for being ruled by Hamas, which rejects Israel’s right to have dispossessed the Palestinians of their homeland in 1948 and imprisoned them in overcrowded ghettos like Gaza.

What Israel is doing to Gaza is the very definition of collective punishment. It is a war crime: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of every year, for 16 years.

And yet no one in the so-called international community seems to have noticed.

Rules of war rewritten

But the trickiest legal situation – for Israel and the West – is when Israel bombs Gaza, as it is doing now, or sends in soldiers, as it soon will do.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu highlighted the problem when he told the people of Gaza: “Leave now”. But, as he and Western leaders know, Gaza’s inhabitants have nowhere to go, nowhere to escape the bombs. So any Israeli attack is, by definition, on the civilian population too. It is the modern equivalent of the Dresden fire bombings.

Israel has been working on strategies to overcome this difficulty since its first major bombardment of Gaza in late 2008, after the siege was introduced.

A unit in its attorney general’s office was charged with finding ways to rewrite the rules of war in Israel’s favour.

At the time, the unit was concerned that Israel would be criticised for blowing up a police graduation ceremony in Gaza, killing many young cadets. Police are civilians in international law, not soldiers, and therefore not a legitimate target. Israeli lawyers were also worried that Israel had destroyed government offices, the infrastructure of Gaza’s civilian administration.

Israel’s concerns seem quaint now – a sign of how far it has already shifted the dial on international law. For some time, anyone connected with Hamas, however tangentially, is considered a legitimate target, not just by Israel but by every Western government.

Western officials have joined Israel in treating Hamas as simply a terrorist organisation, ignoring that it is also a government with people doing humdrum tasks like making sure bins are collected and schools kept open.

Or as Orna Ben-Naftali, a law faculty dean, told the Haaretz newspaper back in 2009: “A situation is created in which the majority of the adult men in Gaza and the majority of the buildings can be treated as legitimate targets. The law has actually been stood on its head.”

Back at that time, David Reisner, who had previously headed the unit, explained Israel’s philosophy to Haaretz: “What we are seeing now is a revision of international law. If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it.

“The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries.”

Israel’s meddling to change international law goes back many decades.

Referring to Israel’s attack on Iraq’s fledgling nuclear reactor in 1981, an act of war condemned by the UN Security Council, Reisner said: “The atmosphere was that Israel had committed a crime. Today everyone says it was preventive self-defence. International law progresses through violations.”

He added that his team had travelled to the US four times in 2001 to persuade US officials of Israel’s ever-more flexible interpretation of international law towards subjugating Palestinians.

“Had it not been for those four planes, I am not sure we would have been able to develop the thesis of the war against terrorism on the present scale,” he said.

Those redefinitions of the rules of war proved invaluable when the US chose to invade and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq.

‘Human animals’

In recent years, Israel has continued to “evolve” international law. It has introduced the concept of “prior warning” – sometimes giving a few minutes’ notice of a building or neighbourhood’s destruction. Vulnerable civilians still in the area, like the elderly, children and the disabled, are then recast as legitimate targets for failing to leave in time.

And it is using the current assault on Gaza to change the rules still further.

The 2009 Haaretz article includes references by law officials to Yoav Gallant, who was then the military commander in charge of Gaza. He was described as a “wild man”, a “cowboy” with no time for legal niceties.

Gallant is now defence minister and the man responsible for instituting this week a “complete siege” of Gaza: “No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel – everything is closed.” In language that blurred any distinction between Hamas and Gaza’s civilians, he described Palestinians as “human animals”.

That takes collective punishment into a whole different realm. In terms of international law, it skirts into the territory of genocide, both rhetorically and substantively.

But the dial has shifted so completely that even centrist Western politicians are cheering Israel on – often not even calling for “restraint” or “proportionality”, the weasel terms they usually use to obscure their support for law breaking.

Britain has been leading the way in helping Israel to rewrite the rulebook on international law.

Listen to Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour opposition and the man almost certain to be Britain’s next prime minister. This week he supported the “complete siege” of Gaza, a crime against humanity, refashioning it as Israel’s “right to defend itself”.

Starmer has not failed to grasp the legal implications of Israel’s actions, even if he seems personally immune to the moral implications. He is trained as a human rights lawyer.

His approach even appears to be taking aback journalists not known for being sympathetic to the Palestinian case. When asked by Kay Burley of Sky News if he had any sympathy for the civilians in Gaza being treated like “human animals”, Starmer could not find a single thing to say in support.

Instead, he deflected to an outright deception: blaming Hamas for sabotaging a “peace process” that Israel both practically and declaratively buried years ago.

Confirming that the Labour party now condones war crimes by Israel, his shadow attorney general, Emily Thornberry, has been sticking to the same script. On BBC’s Newsnight, she evaded questions about whether cutting off power and supplies to Gaza is in line with international law.

It is no coincidence that Starmer’s position contrasts so dramatically with that of his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. The latter was driven out of office by a sustained campaign of antisemitism smears fomented by Israel’s most fervent supporters in the UK.

Starmer does not dare to be seen on the wrong side of this issue. And that is exactly the outcome Israeli officials wanted and expected.

Israeli flag on No 10

Starmer is, of course, far from alone. Grant Shapps, Britain’s defence secretary, has also expressed trenchant support for Israel’s policy of starving two million Palestinians in Gaza.

Rishi Sunak, the UK prime minister, has emblazoned the Israeli flag on the front of his official residence, 10 Downing Street, apparently unconcerned at how he is giving visual form to what would normally be considered an antisemitic trope: that Israel controls the UK’s foreign policy.

Starmer, not wishing to be outdone, has called for Wembley stadium’s arch to be adorned with the colours of the Israeli flag.

The media is playing its part, dependably as ever

However much this schoolboy cheerleading of Israel is sold as an act of solidarity following Hamas’ slaughter of Israeli civilians at the weekend, the subtext is unmistakeable: Britain has Israel’s back as it starts its retributive campaign of war crimes in Gaza.

That is also the purpose of home secretary Suella Braverman’s advice to the police to treat the waving of Palestinian flags and chants for Palestine’s liberation at protests in support of Gaza as criminal acts.

The media is playing its part, dependably as ever. A Channel 4 TV crew pursued Corbyn through London’s streets this week, demanding he “condemn” Hamas. They insinuated through the framing of those demands that anything less fulsome – such as Corbyn’s additional concerns for the welfare of Gaza’s civilians – was confirmation of the former Labour leader’s antisemitism.

The clear implication from politicians and the establishment media is that any support for Palestinian rights, any demurral from Israel’s “unquestionable right” to commit war crimes, equates to antisemitism.

Europe’s hypocrisy

This double approach, of cheering on genocidal Israeli policies towards Gaza while stifling any dissent, or characterising it as antisemitism, is not confined to the UK.

Across Europe, from the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, to the Eiffel Tower in Paris and the Bulgarian parliament, official buildings have been lit up with the Israeli flag.

Europe’s top official, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, celebrated the Israeli flag smothering the EU parliament this week.

She has repeatedly stated that “Europe stands with Israel”, even as Israeli war crimes start to mount.

The Israeli air force boasted on Thursday it had dropped some 6,000 bombs on Gaza. At the same time, human rights groups reported Israel was firing the incendiary chemical weapon white phosphorus into Gaza, a war crime when used in urban areas. And Defence for Children International noted that more than 500 Palestinian children had been killed so far by Israeli bombs.

It was left to Francesca Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur on the occupied territories, to point out that Von Der Leyen was applying the principles of international law entirely inconsistently.

Almost exactly a year ago, the European Commission president denounced Russia’s strikes on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine as war crimes. “Cutting off men, women, children of water, electricity and heating with winter coming – these are acts of pure terror,” she wrote. “And we have to call it as such.”

Albanese noted Von der Leyen had said nothing equivalent about Israel’s even worse attacks on Palestinian infrastructure.

Sending in the heavies

Meanwhile, France has already started breaking up and banning demonstrations against the bombing of Gaza. Its justice minister has echoed Braverman in suggesting solidarity with Palestinians risks offending Jewish communities and should be treated as “hate speech”.

Naturally, Washington is unwavering in its support for whatever Israel decides to do to Gaza, as secretary of state Anthony Blinken made clear during his visit this week.

President Joe Biden has promised weapons and funding, and sent in the military equivalent of “the heavies” to make sure no one disturbs Israel as it carries out those war crimes. An aircraft carrier has been dispatched to the region to ensure quiet from Israel’s neighbours as the ground invasion is launched.

Even those officials whose chief role is to promote international law, such as Antonio Gutteres, secretary general of the UN, have started to move with the shifting ground.

Like most Western officials, he has emphasised Gaza’s “humanitarian needs” above the rules of war Israel is obliged to honour.

This is Israel’s success. The language of international law that should apply to Gaza – of rules and norms Israel must obey – has given way to, at best, the principles of humanitarianism: acts of international charity to patch up the suffering of those whose rights are being systematically trampled on, and those whose lives are being obliterated.

Western officials are more than happy with the direction of travel. Not just for Israel’s sake but for their own too. Because one day in the future, their own populations may be as much trouble to them as Palestinians in Gaza are to Israel right now.

Supporting Israel’s right to defend itself is their downpayment.

October 15, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The big picture on Wales’s 20 mph speed limit

Well well well

AWKWARD GIT | SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

Suddenly out of nowhere the population and politicians of Wales are shocked that a 20mph speed limit has been imposed across much of the country.

In fact it has been in the making for many years, since at least 2010, when the UN’s little-known Economic Commission in Europe (UNECE) held a workshop to ‘raise awareness about the important challenges that climate change impacts and adaptation requirements present for international transport networks . . . The workshop highlighted that while transport is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions it is, at the same time, heavily affected by the impacts of climate change. This workshop demonstrated the urgent need to prepare appropriate policy actions.’

In Wales it has been discussed since at least 2020 with a survey of 1,002 people which has been used to justify the policy.

The report begins: ‘The Welsh Government plans to introduce legislation in 2023 which will reduce the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph in residential communities across Wales.’

In July 2021 a public consultation was launched. Just over 6,000 responses were received, with 47 per cent in favour of reducing the speed limit and 53 per cent against it. Feedback from a number of organisations in Wales was submitted, with 22 out of the 25 supporting the proposed reduction in speed limit. Notice the big difference in attitude between the response from individuals and the organisations? What were these organisations? What were the responses for and against given by individuals? We don’t know.

The legislation was voted through in the Welsh Assembly/Senedd in July 2022. A Welsh Government press release trumpeted: ‘Wales becomes the first UK nation to make the move – helping to save lives, develop safer communities, improve the quality of life and encourage more people to make more sustainable and active travel choices.’  https://www.gov.wales/uk-first-welsh-senedd-gives-green-light-20mph-legislation

So were the politicians who now oppose the legislation asleep? Absent? Not paying attention? Not interested? Happy with it until the recent furore and uproar kicked off? My guess is the latter.

But there is more to it than simply the Welsh Assembly/Senedd introducing the policy. The question to ask is ‘Why are Wales and many other countries introducing a policy being pushed by the UN’s World Health Organization backed by various NGOs?’

Yes, the very same WHO trying to push through the pandemic treaties and the very same NGOs behind a lot of the turmoil in recent years. Here is the WHO’s low speed campaign launch. 

To be able to see the bigger picture and not the Wales-centric small picture here is a link that show the web between the UNECE (United Nations Economic Council in Europe), the EU and the UK.

There are many, many more documents on the same lines. They explain HS2, SMART motorways, ANPR cameras everywhere, 20 mph speed limits and road pricing, which is mentioned frequently. Like many other policies – 15-minute cities, low traffic neighbourhoods, low emission zones, electric vehicles, renewable energy, man-made global climate change, Covid, to name a few – it’s all one big circle of politicians, civil servants, activists and the media all quoting each other.

Everything seems to be an integral part of the sustainable development and Great Reset agendas.

Surprised?

I’m not any more now I can see the Big Picture and where it leads.

It’s like one big Gordian Knot of intertwined policies that are designed to ensnare and enslave us while proclaiming it will enhance our physical and mental wellbeing, make us safer, happier, healthier and so on and on and on.

Alexander the Great solved his Gordian Knot dilemma – he chopped it in half with a sword. Time for us to do something similar to all these intertwined polices getting closer.

My substack posts on the subjects are herehere and here.

October 14, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

AfD NEEDLE ATTACK UPDATE

The Banana Republic of Germany has become a very absurd and extreme place

eugyppius: a plague chronicle | October 13, 2023

Last week, I posted about allegations of a needle attack on Alternative für Deutschland co-chair Tino Chrupalla. On 4 October, at a rally in Ingolstadt ahead of the Bavarian state elections this past Sunday, Chrupalla was posing for selfies with supporters when two fans hugged him. His right arm suddenly felt heavy and within minutes he was near collapse. An ambulance rushed him to hospital and he spent several days under medical observation in intensive care.

There have now been important developments in this case.

In the days after the attack, Ingolstadt prosecutors acknowledged that police were investigating, but insisted they had “no evidence … that Mr. Chrupalla was approached or attacked.” As intended, this gave the right-thinking press space to jeer that the AfD were “exaggerating shamelessly” for political gain ahead of the elections, and for the Bavarian interior minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) to deplore “how perfidiously and deceitfully the AfD is trying to capitalise on these incidents … in the state elections.”

Amid Herrmann’s bizarre fulminations, AfD-adjacent newsweekly Junge Freiheit (JF) reported that Chrupalla’s own doctor had diagnosed an “intramuscular injection” with an unknown substance in Chrupalla’s deltoid. Police immediately summoned the doctor for interrogation, after which he mysteriously distanced himself from the diagnosis, pleading that in his assessment he had merely provided “a description of the injury based on Chrupalla’s statements and not an actual determination of an injection.” Public prosecutors again said that allegations of an attack had “no basis in witnesses statements … including the testimony of Mr. Chrupalla and his bodyguards.”

Only this Wednesday did Chrupalla feel well enough to give his first public statements on the attack. Because the police would do nothing, he said he was forced to enlist a Dresden pathologist to investigate his needle injury. The doctor took a skin sample from the injection site on his arm, confirming that an injection had occurred. Chrupalla also said that he still felt unwell and that he’d lost 3.5 kg in the days since the Ingolstadt rally, and he added an additional detail that the press had not yet reported: Immediately after the attack, federal police had noticed a blood-stain on his right shirt sleeve, corresponding to the injection site. All those official claims that police had no evidence of a needle attack were lies, in other words; they had clear indications from the first moment.

Hours after Chrupalla’s statements, Ingolstadt prosecutors suddenly reversed themselves, finally acknowledging the obvious:

… Expert opinion has confirmed that the blood stain on MdB Chrupall’s clothes is his own blood. According to our current assessments, this blood stain probably corresponds to the diagnosed puncture wound. The investigations of the Ingolstadt public prosecutor’s office continue to focus on the open question of when and how Chrupalla’s diagnosed puncture wound … occurred during the campaign rally … in Ingolstadt, and who caused it. In order to clarify these matters, we are identifying and questioning further witnesses, evaluating video recordings and seeking out expert assessments.

What happened here could not be clearer:

Chrupalla suffered a needle attack less than two weeks after a serious “security incident” against his co-chair Alice Weidel on 23 September. Worried that these possibly coordinated efforts against AfD leadership might have consequences for the elections in Hesse and Bavaria, the German press played down the Weidel incident, suggesting that she was just seeking any excuse for a holiday on Mallorca. In the case of Chrupalla, police and prosecutors collaborated towards the same ends, denying the attack until the elections were over and mounting evidence, procured by Chrupalla himself, stripped their stupid efforts of all credibility.

Aside from the Federal Republic of Germany, is there any other developed Western nation where the police, the press and the political establishment react with such obviously calculated indifference to serious assaults on leading opposition party officials? [Yes, USA for example.]

October 13, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Subjugation - Torture | , | Leave a comment

EU Opens Investigation Into X After Making Censorship Demands

By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | October 13, 2023

Sparking serious concerns over severe censorship and free speech restrictions, the European Union has initiated a formal investigation into X, due to perceived misinformation related to the recent Hamas attack on Israel.

The potential risk of such probes is that they could lead to a world where a centralized authority determines the validity of opinions and controls information flow.

From the perspective of anti-censorship advocates, this move by the EU is a slippery slope.

The imperative question that arises is who gets to define “misinformation,” and how can it be ensured that bias or interests of the few do not influence these definitions?

This investigation marks the inaugural application of the Digital Services Act (DSA) – a controversial legislative effort purportedly aimed at policing Big Tech.

However, free speech advocates argue that this aggressive stance strays dangerously close to infringing on foundational rights to free expression.

In the wake of recent hostilities between Israel and Hamas, there’s been a substantial uptick in digital content related to the conflict, some containing graphic imagery. While the EU’s initiative is purportedly to quell misinformation, it raises the age-old question: where does one draw the line between censoring misinformation and infringing upon free speech?

Elon Musk, now at the helm of X, received a letter from EU commissioner Thierry Breton, signaling unease that the platform could be a conduit for what the EU deems “illegal content and disinformation.” In response, Musk advocated for transparency, inviting the EU to make public the alleged violations, thereby allowing the public to form their opinions. “Our policy is that everything is open source and transparent, an approach that I know the EU supports. Please list the violations you allude to on X, so that that [sic] the public can see them. Merci beaucoup,” Musk wrote.

Yet, Breton’s rejoinder was less than satisfactory for proponents of free discourse. He retorted, “You are well aware of your users’ — and authorities’— reports on fake content and glorification of violence. Up to you to demonstrate that you walk the talk.” This statement underscores a problematic vagueness and subjectivity in determining what constitutes a gray area that poses a potential threat to free speech.

October 13, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , , | Leave a comment