ULEZ – Another Imperial Con
Ulez Expansion Predicted to Cut Air Pollution by Just 1.5%
By Alex Kriel | Thinking Coalition | August 9, 2023
Listening to the discussion over Ulez expansion feels like an action replay of the way in which many were convinced to overreact to Covid, leading to policy responses which caused significantly more harm than good. The Ulez ‘discussion’ has all of the same elements, with modelled health benefits calculated by Imperial College and Mayor Khan’s justification that he is “saving lives”, implying that opponents are wannabe murderers. Of course, this time around, the public is thankfully much more sceptical.
In this short note, we wanted to set out how those ‘lives saved’ numbers are derived and to demonstrate that at best the numbers are seriously misrepresented and at worst completely wrong. In fact, applying the Government and Imperial’s own logic, there is a very strong case to say that the expansion of Ulez will, on balance, harm Londoner’s health when considering the downstream economic consequences of this policy.
The major flaw in Imperial’s model is the one-dimensional nature of its assumption that air pollution drives health and life expectancy. In the real world health is driven by a number of interacting factors with income being the primary driver. There are many assumptions one could dispute that (perhaps unsurprisingly) work towards inflating the claimed health benefits of reducing air pollution, but we focus only on the flaw of largely ignoring policy consequences.
The Imperial team presents several numbers, including: attributable deaths (3,600 to 4,100), improved life expectancy (five to six months) and life-years saved (6.1 million). We wanted to focus on the claimed benefits of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in terms of life expectancy and life-years saved.
Before leaving attributable deaths, it is important to note that these are not in any sense deaths that can be avoided, nor are they deaths that are subject to reduction by the Transport Strategy. The figure appears to compare current death rates with death rates if all human emissions had been removed for all prior periods. It is a theoretical construct (similar to an unmitigated pandemic) and only a small fraction of this number would be theoretically impacted by road transport (around 15%). Only the going-forward numbers (life-years saved) relate to the Transport Strategy and there the benefits are relatively low at 0.4%. It is important to note that there has only ever been one death, of a young and chronically unwell girl ever recorded in England (56 million population) where the death certificate mentions air pollution. Tragic as this death clearly is, it again highlights the disconnect between the theoretical attribution number and actual deaths recorded; we suggest ignoring the attributable deaths figure.
Looking at the claimed benefits of implementing the Transport Strategy, it is possible for a layman to understand the main assumptions on which these health benefits are based. In summary, it is assumed that reducing 10 µg m-3 achieves roughly a 6% reduction in all cause mortality. Note however 10 µg m-3 is more than all anthropogenic PM 2.5 emissions as estimated for England as a whole, so any benefits are scaled down from 6%. So a 1 µg m-3 reduction generates roughly a 0.6% improvement in life expectancy (i.e., ten times less).
Looking at life-years saved and extended life expectancy, the key assumptions are poorly explained. For those in a hurry, the detail shows that all of the Transport Strategy initiatives to 2050 combined will deliver a projected 0.4% reduction in life-years lost to air pollution using projections to 2154. There is a claimed five to six month extension in life expectancy, so the life expectancy of a London male of around 80 years would be extended to around 80.4 years.
These gains are stated relative to a baseline and for some inexplicable reason the Imperial team has decided to use 2013 pollution levels to establish the baseline and in the process to ignore the available data for 2019. This serves to inflate the baseline.
The acid test is: are the results of modelling compatible with observed reality? And on that basis the Imperial Ulez modelling falls flat. The model covers the impact of the entire Transport Strategy to 2050 which covers many more steps than Ulez. The Imperial document is somewhat vague about what those steps are – they are cryptically referred to as 2025 LES, 2030 LES and 2050 LES. It is enough to note that the goal of Mayor Khan’s 2018 Transport Strategy is to “aim for 80% of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041”. So the first thing to clarify is that the claimed 6.1 million saving of life years relates to a significant number of measures, well beyond Ulez expansion. In effect these combined steps will largely eliminate private car traffic.
The chart below is constructed from the Imperial material and shows that PM 2.5 µg m-3 population weighted (PWAC) pollution falls over a number of steps and Ulez on a standalone basis has a near zero impact. Also, you can also see that a fair chunk of gains have already been banked between 2013 and 2019.
The failure of Ulez to achieve any meaningful reduction in pollution is very clearly shown in a separate document prepared by Jacobs which looks at the impacts of Ulez only. The table below shows the impact of Ulez expansion on PM 2.5 µg m-3 concentration, with an estimated improvement of less than 2%.
There is a slightly better outcome for NOx pollutants which are reduced by 5.4% across Greater London. This feeds in to the health impact assessment which unsurprisingly shows near zero benefit from Ulez for PM 2.5 reductions, for most health-related metrics.
Looking at life expectancy, the report does acknowledge that due to the large population (around 8.9 million) and the extraordinary long time period over which these benefits are expected to crystalise (up to 2154) then there are around 1.5 billion life-years involved (years × population). For any stated benefit to be meaningful, it needs to referenced to the base case value. The 6.1 million life-years saved is then within the context of a total of around 1.5 billion life-years; this saving is around 0.4%. Correspondingly, the impact on life expectancy from all of the pollution schemes (not just Ulez) adds up to around 22 to 27 weeks additional life expectancy. In the context of male life expectancy of 80 years (roughly) this would improve to 80.4 years as a consequence of 30 years’ worth of restrictive climate policies (ignoring any economic consequences).
The core flaw in the calculation is the one-dimensional thinking that underpins this (and all similar calculations) in that all reductions in PM 2.5 concentrations lead to a reduction in the mortality rate. This thinking ignores any link between people’s incomes and health outcomes, which is the primary driver of health. This is the same dishonest cop out that Professor Ferguson made in his infamous Covid paper. This facilitates a myopic focus on ‘safety’ and generates solutions that do far more harm than good.
In setting out the methodology that states that health outcomes will improve with a reduction in air pollution on a more or less linear basis, the Government’s own figures show that real world data prove that this assumption is not correct (or at least over-simplified). Its own data for the regions of the U.K. show that (if anything) this relationship is reversed.
Life expectancy in Scotland is much lower despite having far and away the lowest concentration of anthropogenic PM 2.5 pollutants. Many studies with and between countries show this clearly (e.g. life expectancies by national deprivation deciles, England: 2018 to 2020).
In order to get a handle on how much more significant factors other than PM 2.5 can be, we looked at a recent paper that considers the impact of changes in different factors on life expectancy across 29 European countries (the paper also looks at each factor in isolation using multivariate analysis). The chart below shows the life expectancy impact of a 1% change in the listed factors. There are of course some caveats, but you can immediately see that economic activity dominates the outcomes with a 13-month gain in life expectancy for a 1% gain in GDP versus say a 2.7 month gain for a 1% change in PM 10-2.5. Also note there is no statistically significant relationship between CO2 and life expectancy.
In another section of the same paper the author states: “France and Sweden, some of the countries closest to their potential LE (life expectancies), are also amongst those with the highest NOx level.” The real message, though, is that if you dent people’s income by narrowly pursuing PM 2.5 reduction, you will, on balance, shorten life expectancy and not increase it. The Jacobs’ report confirms that there will be multiple negative impacts on business and economic activity. We guess that on balance Ulez will lower life expectancy when factoring in the impacts on business and family incomes, as well as quality of life considerations.
In the post Covid world, we have understood that politicians of all stripes will shamelessly use emotional manipulation in order to get reasonable people to comply with their unreasonable edicts. That is why understanding how reliable, or otherwise, attributable deaths, life-years saved and life expectancy figures are is so important. You can almost guarantee that these estimates will be manipulated and potentially used to rationalise illogical and damaging policies.With opaque models it is relatively easy to produce results to order.
The political process assumes that the individuals involved are able to understand competing objectives and arrive at a sensible compromise. However, we saw in the case of Covid that many politicians have limited scientific understanding and will tend to pursue unachievable safety, at any cost.
The State seems to be redefining its role with a narrow group of ideologically-driven technocrats setting somewhat arbitrary targets. Achieving those targets requires wholesale changes to people’s lives. Very often economic, mental health and other impacts are barely considered and historically established constitutional boundaries between the State and the citizen are often ignored.
In the case of Ulez expansion, the 59% of respondents to the public consultation who clearly opposed the expansion were simply ignored.
Various sops will no doubt be offered to voters, but is it important that readers realise that there is a direction of travel to these various steps. Finally, remember Albert Camus’s wise warning that, “The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.”
Alex Kriel is by training a physicist and was an early critic of the Imperial Covid model. He is a founder of the Thinking Coalition, which comprises a group of citizens who are concerned about Government overreach.
BBC Admits to Smearing Anti-Ulez Protesters as ‘Far Right’
BY IAN PRICE | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | AUGUST 4, 2023
The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) has responded to complaints about its news coverage of an anti-Ulez protest in London’s Trafalgar Square on Saturday, April 15th, 2023. BBC London News broadcast at the time that:
Local protestors and mainstream politicians were joined by conspiracy theorists and Far Right groups.
I was among many people to complain at the time, disgusted at the BBC’s smear. I was at the protest myself, the first of any kind that I had attended. Since my previous exposure to similar protests – such as those against the lockdowns over the course of the pandemic – was limited to watching clips on Twitter, I was slightly anxious. Were things likely to kick off? Were the police going to ‘kettle’ us all in a side street off the Strand?
I could not have been more wrong. I was overwhelmed by how many families were there, abundant small children clambering up the bases of Landseer’s lions. There were a handful of Tory politicians some of whom spoke from the platform, but there was no other political presence whatsoever.
When I saw the BBC London news coverage, I was therefore appalled. I wasn’t too concerned about the claim that there were a few conspiracy theorists there – quite a few placard-holders were plainly ‘Team James’ – but “Far Right groups” seemed to me something for which there was no evidence at all. This appeared to be an attempt on the BBC’s part to suppress dissent towards the Ulez expansion by smearing opponents. This struck me as a sinister turn from the national broadcaster and so I complained.
On April 21st, the BBC responded to my complaint as follows:
BBC London had deployed a reporter to the protest and she witnessed, and documented, first hand, motifs on tabards and placards with explicit Nazi references, along with other epithets about world order and democracy.
I walked around the protest for about three hours on April 15th and I must have missed the explicit Nazi references, presumably displayed by the “Far Right groups”. I complained again, asking for evidence.
On May 12th the BBC rejected my additional complaint as follows:
We remain satisfied our BBC London reporter gave an honest account of what she witnessed that day.
At this point, I escalated the complaint to the ECU, one of 44 people to do so on the grounds of both accuracy and impartiality. Today the BBC acknowledged the following:
In relation to “Far Right groups”, we recognised that the [conspiracy theory] groups named above might have Far Right (or indeed Far Left) adherents, but did not consider this to be evidence of the presence of “Far Right groups”. The programme-makers directed our attention to the deployment by some demonstrators of Nazi imagery, symbolism and slogans directed against the Mayor of London which we accepted was consistent with tactics used predominantly by certain Far Right groups, but we saw no grounds for concluding that they were used exclusively by such groups. We also noted the presence of an individual who seemed, from social media postings, very likely to have been associated with the presence of a Far Right group at a previous demonstration, but the evidence fell short of establishing that he was an adherent of that group, and we saw no evidence that other representatives of the group were present. While it was clear from our dealings with the programme-makers that the statement about the presence of Far Right groups was made in good faith, we assessed the evidence differently. In our judgement it was suggestive of the presence of Far Right groups but fell short of establishing that such groups had in fact been represented among the demonstrators. This aspect of the complaint has been upheld.
This shows pretty clearly that the idea of “Far Right groups” being present at the protest was a complete fiction. Feelings are running high about Khan and some placards quite possibly likened his administrative style to infamous dictators of the past but for anyone to have spun this as evidence of “Far Right groups” is a stretch to say the least. As for the “individual who seemed, from social media postings, very likely to have been associated with the presence of a Far Right group at a previous demonstration”, the words ‘straws’ and ‘clutching’ spring to mind.
In addition to upholding the complaint about accuracy, the BBC has also partially upheld the complaint on impartiality which derives from the close resemblance of the BBC’s language in its news report to that of Khan himself at a People’s Town Hall in Ealing in March. When asked about people’s misgivings about the Ulez expansion, he said that its opponents were “in coalition with the Far Right” and “joining hands with some of those outside who are part of a Far Right group”.
The BBC has now acknowledged the “impression of bias” and upheld this part of the complaint, while spinning it as something of an accident, something that “might well have been perceived as lending a degree of corroboration to the Mayor’s comments”.
While it is a step in the right direction for the BBC to uphold two aspect of the complaints, there remain unanswered questions about its broader coverage of Ulez and to what extent its coverage is being unduly influenced by Sadiq Khan.
Consider the article in the Daily Express published on 24th June about a senior producer at the BBC that made contact with Reform U.K. London Mayoral candidate Howard Cox to blow the whistle on the BBC’s suppression of coverage critical of the Ulez expansion. (Cox, by the way, was also in attendance at the April demo but had not at that point declared as a Mayoral candidate):
The leak to Reform U.K. Mayoral candidate Howard Cox… reveals that Mr. Khan had applied pressure on the BBC over reporting the issue. It said that journalists wanting to run stories now needed top level clearance over something that is set to be a major electoral issue in the London Mayor election and general election both next year.
The Express article went on to explain email exchanges that the senior BBC producer had received:
The BBC producer was told in an email to news staff from Dan Fineman, Senior News Editor BBC South East: “If any platforms are doing a story on Ulez charges in the South and Southeast we now need to do a mandatory referral to Jason Horton or Robert Thomson (re) outstanding complaint with the Mayor of London which is very live at the moment.”
Jason Horton is the BBC’s Director of Production for BBC Local Services and Robert Thomson is Head of the BBC in London and the East. This suggests a level of collusion between very senior staff at the BBC and Sadiq Khan with a direct influence over editorial approaches to news coverage of anti-Ulez protests.
It was also reported by the whistleblower that a BBC London investigation into Ulez was now been paused because of the Mayor of London’s pressure on the BBC.
In short, Khan appears to be exercising at the very least some form of influence over the BBC’s coverage of anti-Ulez protests. This is not an “impression of bias” – this more closely resembles a real, undiluted bias against anti-Ulez campaigners on the part of the nation’s publicly-funded broadcaster at the behest of the Labour Mayor of London. The BBC has come up with a partial and grudging apology but I suspect that the truth about its willingness to suppress dissent with “Far Right” smears is more extensive than it’s prepared to admit. I hope that doesn’t make me a “conspiracy theorist”.
Gates Commits $400 Million to Test New TB Vaccine on 26,000 People in Africa and Southeast Asia
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | June 30, 2023
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust on Wednesday announced plans to fund a phase 3 clinical trial for a tuberculosis (TB) vaccine that will be tested on 26,000 people at 50 sites in Africa and Southeast Asia over the next four to six years.
Gates committed $400 million to the trial and Wellcome — the largest funder of medical research in the U.K. and one of the largest in the world — committed an additional $150 million.
The trials will test the M72/AS01 vaccine, developed by pharmaceutical giant GSK (formerly GlaxoSmithKline) with partial funding from the Gates Foundation.
Experts told The Washington Post the news was “huge.” The Guardian heralded the announcement as “gamechanging,” while STAT called it “promising.”
But Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., senior director of science and research for Children’s Health Defense told The Defender that the planned trials for the TB vaccine raised red flags.
“I’m concerned that they’re planning on conducting the trial in underdeveloped nations,” Hooker said. “It seems almost prototypical that the underserved have to be guinea pigs for the rest of the world.”
He added, “Fifty percent is incredibly low efficacy for such an ‘important’ intervention to go to essentially everyone in the developing world.”
TB more common among poor
GSK developed the vaccine and ran smaller, “proof-of-concept” phase 2b trials on it in 2018, reporting a 54% efficacy rate. But the vaccine maker didn’t move forward with the large-scale trials needed for a license.
Instead, it passed the license to the Gates Medical Research Institute, a nonprofit biotech spinoff of the Gates Foundation dedicated to developing “novel biomedical interventions” to treat global health problems.
The existing vaccine for TB, the BCG (bacille Calmette-Guérin) vaccine, was developed in 1921 and is effective at stopping TB infection among children but has limited efficacy in adults.
Recent estimates suggest up to 25% of the global population carries a latent (asymptomatic) TB infection, which may later become active among 5-15% of latent carriers. People with latent infection cannot spread the disease.
TB kills 1.6 million people per year, primarily in low and middle-income countries. It is treatable and curable with antibiotics. Drug-resistant strains have emerged, but those also are treatable and curable using second-line drugs.
TB is more common among poor people, who are more likely to work in poorly ventilated and overcrowded conditions, suffer from malnutrition and have more limited access to healthcare.
The funded trial will test whether the experimental vaccine can prevent adolescents and adults with latent tuberculosis from developing symptoms.
Maziar Divangahi, Ph.D., associate director of the McGill International TB Centre — a WHO collaborating research center and recipient of large-scale Gates Foundation grants — told STAT the vaccine was “really a big deal.”
But he also cautioned against putting too much faith in the earlier GSK trial. In that trial, 39 people — 26 in the placebo group and 13 in the vaccine group — became sick, so the sample size was “extremely low,” he said. And no one knows how long protection might last, he said.
In the earlier trial, 67% of people in the group that received the drug made unsolicited reports of adverse events within 30 days after injection, compared with 45% in the placebo group.
Gates Foundation funding like working in a ‘cartel’
The Gates Foundation is one of the largest funders of global health initiatives and “its influence on international health policy and the design of global health programmes and initiatives is profound,” The Lancet reported in 2009.
Since then its influence has grown substantially.
According to Anne-Emanuelle Birn, Sc.D., professor and chair of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto, this is a problem:
“The BMGF [Gates Foundation], emblematic of elite interests in contemporary society, disregards the underlying causes of ill health in the first place, overlooks what role the unprecedented accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few has played therein, and remains fiercely proud (staking a moral high ground) of its generosity and technical savoir-faire, all the while remaining underscrutinized by scientists and the wider public alike.”
Her research outlined how the Gates Foundation’s “profit-making principles as drivers of policy” have given business interests “an enormous and unprecedented role” in driving international policy-making.
“Despite the manifold shortcomings of a technology-focused, disease-by-disease approach to global health, this model prevails at present, abetted by the BMGF’s prime sway at formal global health decision-making bodies,” she wrote.
In a recent article examining the role of the Gates Foundation in global health, University of London professor Gwilym David Blunt, Ph.D., wrote that the foundation has been widely criticized for not following data-driven policies. “Its preference for technology and new vaccines” fails to acknowledge that mortality is often driven by “lack of basic resources such as sanitation, housing and nutrition,” Blunt wrote.
While people may benefit from clinical solutions, he wrote “a public health intervention such as ensuring access to clean water and sanitation may reduce deaths more quickly and with less expense.”
Instead, he wrote, the Gates Foundation’s influence “has helped move global health towards high-tech, vaccine-focused initiatives.”
In debates over how to approach global health at GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, he reported Bill Gates was “vehemently insisting that not ‘one cent’ of his money should go into public systems.”
Arata Kochi, Ph.D., former head of the WHO’s malaria program, compared the Gates Foundation’s funding to working in a “cartel,” with researchers locked into the agenda of a foundation with “a closed internal process, and as far as can be seen accountable to none other than itself.”
Even The Lancet published a similar critique of Gates back in 2009.
“Important health programmes are being distorted by large grants from the Gates Foundation,” Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief wrote in an editorial.
Linsey McGoey, Ph.D., professor of sociology at the University of Essex and author of a book examining Gates’ philanthropy has written that diseases like HIV, tuberculosis and malaria — key focuses for the Gates Foundation — clearly need urgent attention.
But, she said in an interview with Current Affairs, “In reality, you need to build up the public health capacity and the universal healthcare capacity of developing regions, not introduce more market actors who have incentives to drive up the costs of different medicines and interventions.”
Proponents of the TB vaccine concede that the global roll-out will “require a lot of resources” and are encouraging governments “to substantially increase investments in the TB vaccine pipeline.”
Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation hope to secure a commercial partner for their new vaccine within 12 months, The Economist reported.
Brenda Baletti Ph.D. is a reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master’s from the University of Texas at Austin.
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.
Another Climate-Savior Alarmist Jetsets To South America – For Two Months Of Vacation!
Climate activist hypocrite of the month
By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | June 30, 2023
Skipping classes, getting up at 11 a.m., gluing oneself to the asphalt and blocking streets with your mates all day to save the planet is a really tough and important job, climate activists believe. And so exempting themselves from the rules they want imposed on the rest of society is understandable. After all, they are more important than the rest.
So important, in fact, that activists like Max Voegtli of Renovate Switzerland believes flying to Central America by jet plane for a couple of months of R & R is totally okay. The working class, however, should not fly at all and freeze in the wintertime.
Dealing with the climate crisis is urgent, insists Swiss radical climate activist just before hopping on a jet plane to fly to Central America for 2 months of vacation. Image cropped here.
Last Tuesday, Swiss climate activist Voegtli appeared on TalkTäglich at TeleZüri, and passionately explained how urgent it is to deal with the “climate crisis” and demanded that the planet be saved.
Off to Mexico and Central America
Then, already on Thursday, he was photographed at Zurich airport, preparing to board a plane bound for Paris. But climate rescuer Voegtli’s flying would not end in Paris, reports AUF 1 : “Paris was not the activist’s destination, but there he only took the connecting flight to Mexico and Central America, where he wants to travel around for two months.”
A two-month vacation is a total fantasy for the rest of the working world, who struggle to make ends meet each month. And this traffic blocker goes unhindered for 2 months?
Climate Emergency Fund
So where does an unemployed activist like Voegtli get the money for such a holiday extravaganza? AUF 1 writes: “It is well known that some of the asphalt gluers receive a regular salary. Organization Renovate Switzerland is no stranger to lavish money: “The organization itself admits that it is financed by the Climate Emergency Fund of oil magnate heiress Aileen Getty.”
Activists cry they are being harassed!
Now that Voegtli’s hypocrisy has been exposed, the embarrassed activists justify all their globe-trotting by claiming they travel as “private persons” and so no one should be photographing them.
AUF 1 : “Spokesperson Cécile Bessire castigated the ‘media hounding against the climate movement and the people who campaign for it. I find it incomprehensible that citizens are following our activists and taking photos. These are private individuals.’”
At Twitter, the thin-skinned Voegtli defended himself: “Shows again how the @CH_Media cares more about feeding the hate media cycle further instead of talking about the crisis.”
Voegtli’s Renovate Switzerland group added: “Getting politically involved against the climate crisis often goes hand in hand with changing one’s own life. However, it is not a prerequisite to do so. […] No matter if you separate your rubbish, if your house is renovated, if you work for a bank, if you eat meat or if you fly. All you should do is wish for a livable future and get involved in the climate movement.”
AUF 1 summarizes the infantile behavior of the activists such as Voegtli: “It means the climate activists can demand anything from citizens without having to do it themselves.”
In a nutshell, according to the climate activists: it’s “incomprehensible” that citizens would take photos of activists at airports, yet it’s perfectly fine for activists to block major roadways and to harass people who are trying to make a living. That’s how they want it.
A line in the sand for euthanasia
Health Advisory & Recovery Team | June 6, 2023
It is easy to make an argument for euthanasia. Heart wrenching stories can be told about people who are suffering terribly and genuinely want to see their already imminent death hastened. The argument for not crossing this line is because as soon as it is crossed there is a very slippery slope on the other side. Canada has demonstrated this in a most tragic way.
Canada legalised euthanasia six years ago through the Medical Assistance in Dying bill (MAiD). Since its inception, over thirty thousand Canadians have been euthanized. The number has increased by about a third each year. By 2021 states sponsored homicide accounted for over 3% of all deaths. For comparison diabetes accounts for 2.5% and influenza and pneumonia together accounted for less than 2% in 2020.
Figure 1: Number of state sponsored deaths per year
Figure 2: Reasons given for undergoing euthanasia in Canada.
The line in the sand that you do not kill has been utterly trampled over in Canada. Even the religious have lost their moral compass over this. One woman was killed by doctors in her church while religious leaders prayed over her. The church leaders claimed no-one expressed concern about this happening in a church.
Having crossed the line of “do not kill” there seems to have been little thought about drawing a new line in the sand that must not be crossed. There seems to have been little consideration of who and how many should be involved in the decision making. Note that more than a third of those killed felt they were a burden and one in six felt isolated or lonely (figure 2).
One of the most alarming developments from the implementation of MAiD is the case of a Canadian man who was approved for euthanasia due to his dire financial condition. This case underlines a chilling progression from euthanasia as an option for those in unbearable physical pain to a choice for individuals facing socioeconomic challenges. A survey showed that 28% of Canadians support euthanasia for homelessness and 27% for poverty. One family reported to the authorities the death of their depressed loved one in a hospital, where he was killed despite concerns being raised by the family and by nursing staff that he lacked capacity.
The notion of the ‘slippery slope’ is rooted in psychological research, particularly in relation to moral decision-making. An example is an experiment published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. It was found that participants were more likely to cheat when the reward started at a small amount and gradually increased. This gradual acceptance of unethical behaviour over time underscores the crux of the slippery slope effect.
By allowing euthanasia for individuals suffering physical pain, Canada may have unknowingly trampled on the path of ethical ambiguity, leading to euthanasia being used as a solution for conditions like poverty. This parallels the gradual acceptance of laws, cultural trends, and political misconduct that were initially unthinkable.
Drawing parallels with the regulation of public health, a similar ‘slippery slope’ scenario can be observed. While the intention behind banning smoking in public spaces was laudable, this move empowered public health bodies to impose further restrictions, gradually leading to what some critics label a ‘public health totalitarian state.’
To counter the ‘slippery slope’, researchers recommend a ‘prevention focus’, a psychological strategy emphasising vigilance and security. This approach involves considering the potential losses and negative outcomes of decisions before implementing them. Had this approach been more central to the discussion around MAiD, Canada might have avoided some of the ethically contentious situations it now faces.
Euthanasia is now legal in Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain and parts of Australia. It is important that we start a public debate now. It is all the more important given that over the last few years it has become clear that we are living in a society with no respect for bodily autonomy. How long before it is accepted that “being a burden” is a just reason for killing. How much longer before people without capacity are considered to be too much of a burden?
The Canadian example underlines the dangers of the slippery slope in legalising euthanasia. The country’s experience shows that while euthanasia may be intended for individuals in unbearable physical pain, its application can gradually expand to cover other conditions, blurring ethical boundaries. It serves as a cautionary tale for other countries debating euthanasia legislation, urging them to consider potential ‘slippery slope’ implications before taking a decision.
Biden Regime Unveils Historic Plan to Crush Criticism of Influential Jews
By Eric Striker | National Justice Party | May 25, 2023
Yesterday, President Joe Biden announced a plan to use virtually every branch of the federal government, big business and civil society to ruthlessly suppress First Amendment protected criticism of Jewish political power and Zionism in the homeland.
The 60-page document, titled the “US National Strategy To Combat Anti-Semitism,” was created in part by Doug Emhoff, the Jewish husband of Vice President Kamala Harris. The goal of the project is to consolidate every power at Washington’s fingertips to engage in a political campaign to quell the American people’s rising awareness of the radically disproportionate influence Jewish people wield over the country.
On the law enforcement front, Washington appears to be de-emphasizing the FBI, which has suffered several reputational blows that have discredited its campaign against “white supremacy,” while continuing to expand the power of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — originally founded after 9/11 to combat Al Qaeda — in its place.
The DHS is being directed to to produce research equating concern with how Jews use political and financial power with acts of violence, host more regular workshops for all branches of law enforcement on using the law to persecute those engaging in “anti-Semitism,” increase security resources earmarked for Jewish institutions, give Jewish organizations more say over how intelligence and police resources are directed, and instruct private social media and internet companies to find and eliminate “anti-Semitic” content from their platforms.
The document, without qualification, is marbled with an egregious lack of respect for fundamental civil liberties. In one instance, there is an executive command to the Department of Treasury to convene a forum of Money Services Businesses (MSB) institutions, along with those outside of the network, to prevent online crowdfunding for what it labels “hate groups.” What constitutes a hate group — a term that is alien under traditional American jurisprudence — is not specifically defined. The project promises to reach all nations in the trans-national American sphere of influence.
The White House is also ushering in a myriad of new programs seeking to indoctrinate students on the Holocaust story and the numerous ways one could be practicing “anti-Semitism,” largely but not exclusively through the Department of Education. The Biden administration plan also expands the footprint of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM).
No agency will be immune to this politicization. The Department of Labor (DOL) will be pressuring labor unions to identify “anti-Semites” in their midst, while the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) will be expanding access to Jews engaging in the controversial practice of Kosher slaughter. USDA will also be approaching rural religious leaders and universities to impose Washington’s strategy in even the most remote small towns.
Under this plan, the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) is given the deadline of September 2023 to create political propaganda projects that “incorporate themes of countering antisemitism and other forms of hate in their artistic practice.”
The Department of the Interior (DOI), The Small Business Administration (SBA), and even the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) will all be given special tasks to train small business owners, park rangers, and guides in identifying and fighting “anti-Semitism.” Special attention is being given to rural libraries, which Washington will be transforming into outlets for promoting pro-Jewish narratives.
So far, only Representative Lauren Boebert has publicly come out against this runaway weaponization of the federal government. Jewish groups backing Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump have also criticized the move, but their concern is that it does not go far enough in targeting critics of the state of Israel.
The implementation of this plan coincides with the beginning of Biden’s 2024 re-election campaign. A massively lopsided percentage of the president’s major donors are Jewish, and his administration is one of the most heavily Jewish in US history.
5 Things I Truly Don’t Understand About the ‘Inevitable Energy Transition’
RealClear Wire | May 29, 2023
Please note: this article was pulled down offline from Forbes. I will let you draw your own conclusions as to why. Factually, there was no justification for it.
This list could be closer to 50 but let’s just stick to a handful of them. I literally live in this business every day, and I’m just so confused.
1. In a world that is apparently getting both warmer and colder because of global warming, how is it that we can increasingly rely on non-dispatchable (i.e., intermittent, usually unavailable), weather-dependent electricity from wind and solar plants to displace, not just supplement, dispatchable (i.e., baseload, almost always available) coal, gas, and nuclear power? In other words, if our weather is becoming less predictable, how is it that a consuming economy like ours can, or should even try, predictably rely on weather-dependent resources? ERCOT exemplifies this: the Texas grid operator has around 31,000 MW of wind capacity but goes into winter expecting only 6,000 MW (just 20%) of wind farms to be available to generate electricity. Again, in the marketplace, the “alternatives” you keep hearing about are proving to be far more supplemental than alternative.
Further, good wind and solar spots are finite, based on geography, so new builds, naturally, will be forced into areas that are less windy and less sunny, lowering their already very low 35% capacity factors. And because they devour immense swaths of land, interrupting a whole host of things, that Renewable Rejection Database is mounting very quickly. If wind, solar, and electric cars too are as effective and low-cost as so many keep promising us, there would obviously be no need for government subsidies for broad adoption. Yet, there is, gigantically so. Huge amounts of taxpayer money going into this, what I call “the holy climate panacea triad,” are vulnerable to changing politics and bound to become politically untenable at some point: “Ford Is Losing $66,446 On Every EV It Sells.” Our limited financial resources are obviously very precious, so these NEVER CONSIDERED and wasted opportunity costs forcing wind, solar, and electric cars into the energy complex are truly catastrophic. Schools investing in electric buses over STEM? The $200 Billion Electric School Bus Bust. How can any of this be justified? I’m so utterly confused.
2. Climate change is a global issue, so how is it that we can claim climate benefits for unilateral climate policy. For example, U.S. gasoline cars constitute just 3% of global CO2 emissions, so how will getting rid of them impact climate change? But this dose of real science doesn’t stop California leaders, a state responsible for just 1% of global CO2 emissions, from telling us that energy policy in the nine-county region of Northern California alone is “responsible for protecting air quality and the global climate in the nine-county Bay Area.” No wonder then that a Biden administration official was incoherent when asked how $50 trillion in climate spending in the U.S. will lower any global temperature rise. Indeed, despite the Sierra Club in 2014 promising us that “China’s Thirst for Coal Is Drying Up,” the Chinese Communist Party approved two coal plants a week in 2022. But, don’t worry guys, China promises to be net-zero by 2060. On climate, you don’t matter nearly as much as some want you to think.
So, it becomes very obvious very quickly that no energy policy in northern California has any relevance in terms of changing the climate. The region could literally disappear and there would be no discernable impact on climate change. Even our climate czar John Kerry, loving the CO2-devouring life in a private jet and $250 million, has been forced to admit that the U.S. could even go to zero emissions and it would make no material impact on climate change. Talk about all pain, no gain. The real science is that incremental global emissions are “not here but over there” U.S. CO2 emissions are in structural decline regardless of what policies we pass (save 2021 and the rebound from Covid-19’s devastation in 2020). So, where is the climate benefit for Americans when it comes to U.S. climate policy? Because we’re continuously told to “believe science,” any positive answer to that question can only be deemed as anti-science. In fact, common sense and science itself tell us that unilateral climate policy can actually be really bad for climate change because it encourages carbon leakage (e.g., climate policy in the U.S. increases costs and just pushes a manufacturing firm to re-locate to coal-devouring China).
3. Back to electric vehicles. Even green-tinted but surely practical Bloomberg admits that more than 85% of Americans can’t afford an electric car, since they are well more than double the price of oil-based cars. How can a product bring racial justice for Black Americans when the vast majority of them can’t afford it? Worse then, huge and growing subsidies for electric cars are a “reverse Robin Hood,” taking money from poor taxpayers to give to the rich ones that are, actually, in the market to buy an electric car. Forcing electric equipment over natural gas? Sorry but “gas is four to six times cheaper than electricity.” Battery costs might be much higher than expected: 1) rising global demand, 2) rising costs and unavailability of their raw materials, 3) mining complications and environmental damage, and 4) China flexing its muscles since it controls the supply chains and uses hoarding as political leverage (see Covid-19 and medical supplies). Reality check, unlike what we keep hearing about “green energy,” no technology continues to decline in cost in perpetuity: “EV battery costs could spike 22% by 2026 as raw material shortages drag on.”
And this one I’m really confused on. President Biden promotes his climate agenda as a way to create jobs. Besides lacking in economic literacy (i.e., jobs are costs not benefits), the truth is that electric cars, for instance, entail far less jobs because they, for one thing, have far less moving parts. And there’s all kinds of evidence that electric car life-cycle emissions could be way worse than advertised, mostly because of the massive amounts of mining required to make them. We all know about child labor and your electric car, but even pro-EV outlets are being forced to report on the mounting problems from mining, the latest on how bauxite for the aluminum needed is destroying the Amazon. And about our President’s we’ll need oil for “another decade” claim? The U.S. Department of Energy just modeled that our oil demand will actually slightly INCREASE, not decline, to over 21.1 million b/d by 2050. Reality check: planes, industry (petrochemicals), heavy trucking, and sheer Energy Inertia will have oil dominating way longer than you’re being told.
4. How on Earth could anybody expect those in Africa and the other horrifically poor nations to “get off fossil fuels” when the rich countries haven’t come close to doing it. Germany and California, the world’s two greenest governments, are still overwhelming fossil fuel-based and overwhelmingly dependent on imports (dangerously so in Germany’s case). This comes despite decades of huge subsidies, scores of mandates, deploying the best engineering expertise, and having low population growth and thus low incremental energy needs, all giving them a huge advantage in “going green.” The energy stat to remember most? No U.S. state will ever “try to go green” like California has over the past 20 years, yet oil and gas still supply 70% of the state’s energy, even above the national average of 65%.
Germany and California have shown us what these climate policies bring: Germany has the highest electricity prices in the world; and California’s are the highest in the continental U.S. and soaring out of control (Figure). How the heck can we push for “deep electrification” to fight climate change if we are going to follow policies that surge the price of electricity, while also lowering grid reliability? And rich Westerners, spare us the judgments, demands, and hypocrisy on climate change: Germany thrives on a GDP per capita per year of $51,200, compared to a horrifically sad $2,260 for India.
5. But, perhaps I’m most confused about the whole air quality thing. The obsession over it gets attached to all energy policies. But there’s clearly a strawman to the “we need cleaner air now” demand. First, the air quality conversation in the U.S. reminds me of Voltaire’s “the perfect is the enemy of good.” Americans seem completely unaware how drastically our air quality has improved. Check data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), our criteria pollutants have been plummeting over the past many decades. The risks seem exaggerated. Let’s just take Los Angeles, which for a big city notoriously has the worst air quality in the country. Tell me, please, if air quality is such a problem and such a health concern for Americans, why is it that Angelinos have a life expectancy of 82 years, a hearty three years above the national average. Just think of all the coal that China has devoured since 2000 (I figure around 70 billion tonnes), yet the country’s life expectancy, apparently shockingly to so many, is up a very impressive six years to nearly 78 since then. Maybe it’s because Chinese GDP per capita per year has skyrocketed nearly 9-fold to over $18,500. Even for rising asthma rates in the U.S., smoking is way down, coal usage is way down, and criteria pollutants are way down. So what gives?
“Better air quality and environment” are not free, as attaining government standards cost businesses hundreds of billions of dollars per year. These costs are ultimately paid by Americans in the form of higher prices, lower wages, and less choices. And at some point, the cost of the regulation to achieve better air outweighs its benefit. We’ve won on water too: the water in your toilet is cleaner than what the vast majority of humans on Earth drink. For every time that we hear “environmental justice” we need to say “economic justice” 100 times. In this country for all Americans, Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos make 30% less money than Whites and Asians. Too many politicians focus on the endless pursuit of “better air quality” and other abstract, seemingly impossible to measure benefits because they have no clue on the real ways to help communities of color and other low-income Americans: help them get a better education, help them get a better job, and help them make more money. Career politicians love bottomless, money-devouring pits the most: “America’s $100 billion climate change flop.” And although its entire existence is based on never being able to declare victory (imagine a football game with no time and no keeping score), EPA should consider that it’s wealth that matters most for health equity.
But, that’s not its business, is it?
Meet King Charles, The Great Resetter
Corbett • 05/05/2023
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
While most of the the public’s attention is falling on the obvious issues—the monarchy’s increasing irrelevance to the 21st century, the colossal waste of taxpayer resources that go towards the upkeep of the world’s richest family and their multiple palaces, the dark history of slavery and other colonial abuses for which royals of the far-distant past are responsible—few are aware of just how dark the history of the royal family is, or just how twisted Charles’ vision for the future of the United Kingdom—and, indeed the world—really is.
Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
TRANSCRIPT
[Royal fanfare.]
GARTER KING OF ARMS DAVID VINES WHITE: Whereas it has pleased almighty God to call to his mercy our late Sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth II of blessed and glorious memory, by whose decease the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is solely and rightfully come to the Prince Charles Philip Arthur George.
We, therefore, the lords spiritual and temporal of this realm, and members of the House of Commons, together with other members of Her late Majesty’s Privy Council, and representatives of the realms and territories, aldermen, and citizens of London and others, do now hereby, with one voice and consent of tongue and heart, publish and proclaim that the Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become our only lawful and rightful liege lord, Charles III.
SOURCE: Charles III proclaimed king in historic ceremony @BBCNews – BBC
It’s hard to be a human being living on planet Earth in May of 2023 and not be hearing about, reading about or listening to discussions about the pending coronation of King Charles.
Yes, Charles’ big day is dominating news headlines at the moment, and it seems that the glitz and glamour of the upcoming coronation are infecting people around the globe with a case of royal fever.
. . . Well, maybe not everyone.
TC NEWMAN: Republic states on their website: “As we approach Charles’ coronation the country needs an honest, grown-up debate about the monarchy. We need to stop and ask ourselves: Can’t we just choose our next head of state?”
PROTESTER: Charles, while we struggle to heat our homes we have to pay for your parade.
CHARLES: Oh.
PROTESTER: The taxpayer pays £100 million for you, and what for? Nid fy brenin! Not my King!
SOURCE: Taxpayers ‘pay for your parade’: Charles heckled in Wales on cost of monarchy
[Protester throws eggs at Charles, gets arrested.]
No, not everyone is happy about King Charles stepping into his mother’s shoes . . . or diamond-encrusted loafers, or gold-plated clodhoppers, or whatever it is that monarchs wear to prevent their poor, delicate royal feet from touching the earth.
But while most of the public’s attention is falling on the obvious issues—the monarchy’s increasing irrelevance to the 21st century, the colossal waste of taxpayer resources that go towards the upkeep of the world’s richest family and their multiple palaces, the dark history of slavery and other colonial abuses for which royals of the far-distant past are responsible—few are aware of just how dark the history of the royal family is, or just how twisted Charles’ vision for the future of the United Kingdom—and, indeed the world—really is.
I’m James Corbett of The Corbett Report, and today we’re going to look beyond the headlines and talking points so that we can Meet King Charles, The Great Resetter.
Chapter 1 — King Charles
For those who do not consider themselves “royal watchers” and only know the new King of England as that buffoon who spent his entire life waiting for his mother to die, the first sign of what Charles is really like came in a viral video moment captured during the typically pompous ceremony in which he was proclaimed king.
There, in the manic, sausage-fingered, tooth-gritted flailing of the new king, is the perfect encapsulation of Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor, aka “Charles III.”
His life has been an endless series of carefully arranged photo opportunities and ribbon-cutting ceremonies that serve no actual function other than to punctuate the dreary luxury of his royal existence. But it is in moments such as these where we see through the veil of PR and propaganda to the real Charles: a man who treats his retinue of servants like mere objects, only good for slaking his royal desires and fulfilling his regal demands.
And demands there are.
His royal highness’s daily demands begin with the pressing of his royal shoelaces and the requirement that his royal bath plug be placed in precisely the right position and the royal bathtub be exactly half full of precisely tepid water. Charles’ valet must then squeeze precisely one inch of toothpaste onto his royal toothbrush while the royal chefs prepare a series of boiled eggs, which are numbered according to how long they were boiled so that: “If the prince felt that number five was too runny, he could knock the top off number six or seven.”
In fact, wherever Charles travels, he not only takes along a large contingent of his 124 member staff—including his butler, two valets, a private secretary, a typist, a chef, and a handful of bodyguards—he also makes sure to take his own personal food supply, consisting solely of fresh, organic ingredients grown on his own organic farm.
Yes, King Charles is more than happy to put his John Hancock on The Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Act 2023, which (as its supporters will be happy to explain) “remov[es] barriers to research into new gene editing technology” by (as its supporters will never explain) “remov[ing] regulatory safeguards from whole subclasses of genetically modified organisms” at the behest of (surprise, surprise!) the GMO industry.
But don’t expect him to put those gene-edited frankenfoods anywhere near his lips! They are not fit for the royal gullet, don’t you know!
Chapter 2 — The Royal Sickness
In a sense, the royals aren’t wrong when they assert that the blood that flows through their veins is different from the blood that flows through us commoners’ veins. As many know, the royal families of Europe do indeed suffer from a genetic blood disorder, hemophilia, one of the many defects that has resulted from centuries of inbreeding.
But, strangely, they do not see their so-called “blue blood” as a problem. Instead, they hue to a twisted belief system; one that holds that as a result of their special blood, the royals actually deserve to rule over their subjects.
In order to understand this royal worldview, we have to go back to the beginning. No, not the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign in 1952. Not to the beginning of the English branch of the House of “Windsor” to which she belonged. Not even to the beginning of the monarchical system in England.
No, we have to go back to the beginning of monarchy itself.
You see, the ancient Egyptians worshipped the Pharaohs as progeny of the sun god, Ra. The Japanese were told that their Imperial family descended from the sun goddess, Amaterasu, and the sea god, Ryuujin. In Europe, monarchs claimed that God Himself had directly granted them a “Divine Right” to rule over their subjects. In China, they called it the “Mandate of Heaven.”
Yes, the ancients were taught to believe that their emperors were literal gods. The European dynasties, meanwhile, flourished for centuries under the mass delusion that these families were specifically selected by God to rule over their people. Should it come as any surprise that at some point the royals started to believe their own propaganda?
But, as these proto-eugenicists soon figured out, if their blood was too precious to mingle with the commoners’, then that blood must be kept in the family. And so began centuries of royal inbreeding that resulted in the deformities, abnormalities and genetic weirdness that today pervade the royal bloodlines (congenital haemophilia being just one of the most well-known examples). Perhaps the most notable example of intra-family marriage leading to genetic ruin is that of the Spanish Hapsburgs, who, after 500 years of ruling over vast swaths of Europe, managed to inbreed themselves out of existence.
With this understanding of the proto-eugenical philosophy as our background, we can begin to make sense of the millennium-long story of the British monarchy. Alfred the Great yadda yadda yadda Henry beheading wives and starting a church blah blah blah the madness of King George etc. etc. etc. Mrs. John Brown and so on and so forth all the way up to Eddie (VII, for those keeping track at home) and the intrigues that kicked off WWI and birthed the modern world. You know, that story.
To finish making sense of that history, we just need to add one other element to the story: as it turns out, the “British” royal family isn’t very British at all. The House of “Windsor” only became the House of “Windsor” in 1917, after all. Before that, it was Saxe Coburg-Gotha. But the British public were a bit fired up about the Huns because of that whole, you know, WWI thing, so “Windsor” it became.
Noting the true origins of the House of “Windsor” is not just some cheap anti-Germanic slur, of course. It points to something even more fundamental. These royals—connected, as we remember, through inbreeding—had much more in common with their European brothers and sisters, cousins and uncles (but I repeat myself), than they did with the populations they were supposedly ruling over.
With that historical background in place, we can understand, for example, the Windsors’ well-documented fondness for the eugenics-promoting Nazis. Where do you think the Nazis got their eugenical beliefs from, after all? Given the royal pedigree of the eugenic worldview, it is perhaps unsurprising to learn that the pseudoscience of eugenics was pioneered by Royal Medal recipient Francis Galton, himself hailing from the celebrated (and thoroughly inbred) Darwin-Galton line, which boasted many esteemed Fellows of the Royal Society.
The overt ties between the Edwardian (VIII, for those keeping track at home) court and Hitler’s eugenics-obsessed regime are well-documented. The covert ties are even more intriguing. (Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a documentary . . . .) But it isn’t just the home movies showing the future queen giving the Nazi salute or Edward VIII’s hobnobbing with Hitler or King Charles’ lifelong friendship with unreformed SS officer (and Bilderberg co-founder) Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands or Prince Harry’s predilection for Nazi cosplaying. More to the heart of the matter is Prince Philip’s infamous desire to be reincarnated as “a particularly deadly virus” in order to contribute to the depopulation of the planet (a remark that has been fact-checked by Snopes, so you know it’s true!).
FIONA BRUCE: What do you see as the biggest challenges in conservation?
PRINCE PHILIP: The growing human population. From where we are there’s nothing else.
SOURCE: Prince Philip on what should be done about “overpopulation”
You see, the royals’ blue blood pomposity wouldn’t be so bad if they simply felt themselves superior to the commoners in a “What, you groom your own stool?!” kind of way. Sadly, it is not mere snobbery that motivates them, and their great desire is not simply to be kept apart from the commoners. As it turns out, the royal family doesn’t just feel superior to their subjects, they actively dislike them and constantly scheme to subjugate them, rob them, impoverish them and mislead them.
Chapter 3 — Royal False Flags
There’s something quaint about Redditors seemingly discovering for the first time that, far from some nice old man who waves to the crowds and enjoys tea and crumpets in pretty English gardens, King Charles is actually the heir to a fortune amassed via the violent subjugation of much of the world’s populace and the plundering of their wealth and resources. The fact that anyone could be shocked by this historical reality speaks to the naïveté of the masses, who cannot imagine that ruthless psychopaths conspire to amass more wealth by inflicting suffering on the world.
(Just wait until these dear, trusting masses learn about the British East India Company and the opium wars and the Bengal genocide and the Boer concentration camps and the Amritsar Massacre, etc., etc., etc. . . .)
But for a prime example of the perfidy with which the British monarchy has ruled for centuries (and which gave rise to the “Perfidious Albion” moniker), one need only look at the history of their speciality: false flag operations.
Befitting the governing monarchy of a nation that has been known for its treachery for centuries, the British royals’ use of false flag events to gin up public support for the persecution of their enemies likewise goes back centuries. For one prime example of that, we will have to “Remember, remember the fifth of November.”
Outside of Britain, the “gunpowder plot” is known only tangentially through cultural artifacts, like the references to the plot contained in V for Vendetta and the subsequent adoption of the Guy Fawkes mask as the symbol of Anonymous. Even in England, most will only know the official version of the story—the one compiled in the so-called “King’s Book” written by King James I himself.
According to that official account: on the evening of November 4, 1605, Guy Fawkes was discovered with 36 barrels of gunpowder and a pile of wood and coal in the undercroft beneath the House of Lords in Parliament, presumably preparing to blow up the building. After his apprehension, Fawkes was brought before the king and, cracking under the interrogation, eventually led the king’s agents to the other conspirators in the plot.
As it turned out, the whole harebrained scheme to blow up Parliament as it convened on the 5th of November had been hatched by the Jesuits and carried out by a ragtag group of crazed provincial English Catholics! King James then took the sensible precaution of cracking down on Catholics in England, thus ensuring that Catholic treachery would never again threaten the kingdom.
Of course, this story—like so much of the history written by the winners—is total hogwash. Entire books could be written about the plot, what we really know about it, and how the official version was conjured into existence . . . and at least one book has! It’s called The Gunpowder Plot and it was written by Hugh Ross Williamson and published in 1952.
Those who are interested in the full story are highly encouraged to read Williamson’s account. Although the full truth of the plot will likely never be known—buried as it is in a sea of forged documents, tampered evidence and official secrecy—we can say with certainty that the official story was constructed from torture testimony and forged confessions, that the king’s spies were likely involved at every level of the plot, that the band of patsies who were ultimately blamed for the whole affair could not possibly have perpetrated it by themselves and, most importantly, that it provided King James with the perfect excuse to crack down on Catholics in the exact manner he had desired.
In other words, Guy Fawkes was likely neither the radical Catholic terrorist mastermind that the court of King James made him out to be nor the crusading anti-authoritarian hero that V for Vendetta and Anonymous pretend him to be, but, rather, a patsy, a dupe or a mole who was used by the monarchy as a convenient excuse to enact draconian new laws clamping down on the king’s opponents.
Go figure.
But the British monarchy’s false flag hits don’t stop there!
Viewers of my WWI Conspiracy documentary will already know the central role played by King Edward VII and his German-hating wife in forging the so-called “Triple Entente” between Britain, France and Russia that paved the way for the “Great” War against the Huns. You will likely also remember WWI conspirator Edward Mandell House’s own account of his rather remarkable conversation with Edward VII’s successor, King George V, on the morning of May 7, 1915. As House recounts in his Intimate Papers, the two “fell to talking, strangely enough, of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner.” Even more “coincidentally,” House relates that George specifically inquired what would happen if the Huns “should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board.” Later that very day, the Lusitania was sunk, and public opinion in America turned decidedly against Germany, preparing the way for US entry into the war on Britain’s side.
Coincidence, surely.
“But that’s ancient history!” some would argue. “I mean, yes, the British were responsible for backing, supporting and enabling the Saudi royal family to begin their brutal rule of the Arabian peninsula and” (as I documented in False Flags: The Secret History of Al Qaeda), “British support and collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood and with Wahabbi radicals gave birth to the modern era of false flag terrorism . . . but what does that have to do with King Charles?”
Good question. Maybe some intrepid reporter will put the question of the million-pound donation he received from the bin Laden family to the new king?
Or maybe they could ask about Princess Diana’s remarkable clairvoyance in warning of her own death at the hands of . . . [name redacted]
NARRATOR: In October 1996, in a letter to her butler, Princess Diana expressed the fear that she would die in a car crash and it wouldn’t be an accident.
ACTOR (AS PRINCESS DIANA): I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head up high. This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. X is planning an accident in my car. Brake failure and serious head injury [. . .].
SOURCE: What Really Happened On The Night Of Diana & Dodi’s Crash? | Diana: The Inquest | Real Royalty
Given the royal family’s participation in false flag events in the past, perhaps it is no surprise that World Economic Forum chairman Klaus Schwab invited His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to inaugurate The Great Reset, the grand global attempt to use the generated crisis of the scamdemic to completely transform the world and institute new paradigms of governance and social control.
CHARLES: We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis. Its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change. Our global crises like pandemics and climate change know no borders and highlight just how interdependent we are as one people sharing one planet.
[. . .]
And as we move from rescue to recovery, therefore we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again, so we must use all the levers we have at our disposal, knowing that each and every one of us has a vital role to play.”
SOURCE: Prince Charles Says Pandemic a Chance to ‘Think Big and Act Now’
Yes, it is no surprise to find this royal mouthpiece popping up in the defining false flag event of our times, advocating a complete re-envisioning of our economy, our way of life and even the social contract between people and their government on the back of a synthetic and constructed “crisis.”
But if only his involvement in false flag events were the greatest of King Charles’ worries. . .
Chapter 4 — The Windsors’ Pedophile Problem
Oh, if only the new king’s greatest fault were to have been born into a eugenics-obsessed family.
If only he were the guiltless benefactor of the cheating, swindling, extortion, theft and plunder of his forebears.
If only his worst sin were his ridiculous climate hypocrisy or his campaigning for Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset or his attempt to mask cows.
If only he were a regular, run-of-the-mill tyrant, a psychopath who got off on torturing and killing others.
Unfortunately for all of us, it’s much worse than that.
ANCHOR: Reports of Savile’s unusual behavior in royal circles came about as details emerged of a surprise role for him as a counselor for Prince Charles and Princess Diana during their marital difficulties and a request from Prince Charles to help with the image of Sarah Ferguson.
SOURCE: Jimmy Savile: ‘licked young women’s arms’ on Palace visits
The public got a hint of what really goes on behind the royal family’s closed castle gates when the Jimmy Savile scandal first came to light a decade ago. If you are able to cast your mind back to the innocent days of 2012, you might recall that, at the time, the existence of high-level pedophile rings (let alone high-level necrophilic pedophile rings) was considered the stuff of total conspiracy lunacy.
You might also recall that the royal family’s relationship to Savile was certainly “problematic” (to use the kids’ lingo). But, given what the public then knew, not necessarily more problematic than the involvement of any of the other people who had cozied up to the monstrous pedophile during the course of his career.
Sure, the Queen had knighted Savile back in 1990, and any number of photographs could tell you that he was awfully chummy with Charles. Yet perhaps knighthood was to be expected, considering that he had seemingly dedicated much of his life to charity and had made many high-profile friends along the way.
In fact, the first hard questions about who knew what when about Savile were asked of the BBC, which certainly did know about the allegations many decades before the disgusting abuser finally died.
JON SNOW: One of the things that’s really interested me there was your view about Jimmy Savile and your knowledge at the time that it was going on.
JOHN LYDON: Yeah. Unfortunately, I think all of us—what we call “the peoples”—knew what was going on with the BBC.
SNOW: As bad as we now know it was?
LYDON: Yeah, we knew. We all knew.
But over the years the “who could have known?” routine used by the Windsors’ defenders has become increasingly insupportable. First, there was the revelation that Savile was so close to the royal family that he was almost made Prince Harry’s godfather. Then came the increasingly damning reports on Savile’s close personal friendship with Charles, culminating in the release earlier this year of letters proving that the now-King of England regularly sought Savile’s advice on sensitive political matters
ALISON BELLAMY: It’s not just a couple—you know it’s not just three or four. There’s absolutely loads—there’s files of it!
ALISON BELLAMY [READING LETTER FROM PRINCE CHARLES TO JIMMY SAVILE]: December 22, 1989. I wonder if you would ever be prepared to meet my sister-in-law, the Duchess of York? I can’t help feeling that it would be extremely helpful to her if you could. I feel she could do with some of your straightforward common sense.
NEWS ANCHOR: 54 minutes after they’d taken off without warning or distress signal, the airliner started to disintegrate over Lockerbie.
ALISON BELLAMY: January 27, 1989. A month after the Lockerbie disaster. This is Jimmy giving PR advice to the royal family about how to react publicly when there’s a major incident in Britain.
PRINCE ANDREW: I suppose that, statistically, something like this has got to happen at some stage on a time. But of course, it only affects the community in a very small way.
ALISON BELLAMY [READING LETTER]: Jimmy advises the queen should be informed in advance of any proposed action by family members. Jimmy suggests they should have a coordinator who’s a special person with considerable experience in such matters. There must be an incident room with several independent phone lines, Teletex, etc.
ALISON BELLAMY: I mean, Jimmy is advising them how to do it. What they should do. How they should act. What they should say. Should they say anything.
So Charles says to Jimmy: “I attach a copy of my memo on disasters, which incorporates your points, and I showed it to my father and he showed it to her majesty.”
Jimmy had sent back to Charles a five-part manual titled “Guidelines for members of the Royal Family and their staffs.” Jimmy seems to be a kind of unofficial chief advisor to the Prince of Wales.
And on top of all that, there was Savile’s own uncomfortable admission that the knighthood had “let him off the hook” for his past sins.
Unsurprisingly, the royal family has never had to respond in any way to public outrage about these reports. No presstitute who wants to keep his job is ever going to dare press Charles on the issue and, since Savile’s crimes were only brought to light after his death, the royals could always hide behind the “plausible deniability” that they didn’t know what Sir Jimmy was up to. They didn’t even need to launch a formal process to strip Savile of his knighthood because, as it turns out, the honour “automatically expire[s] when a person dies.”
But, as I say, the Savile scandal blew up back in the bygone era of a decade ago, when the concept of political pedophile rings was still in the realm of crazed conspiracy podcasts. That all changed, of course, when the Epstein story finally broke into the public consciousness in 2019.
And who just happened to be in the middle of that scandal?
That’s right, Prince Andrew. The brother of the current king and the eighth in line to the British throne. A man so transparently lecherous that for decades the UK tabloids have mockingly referred to him as “Randy Andy.” A man who literally had to invent a scientifically unknown condition of being “unable to sweat” to try to “prove” that the allegations made against him by Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre were false.
I mean, yes, there’s the photo of him with his arm around an underage Giuffre (with intelligence handler and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell hovering in the background), but he doesn’t sweat so . . . it’s all a lie?
No one buys anything that comes out of the mouth of His Royal Lowness, Prince Andrew, Duke of Dork. After all, you know someone must be a public relations mess when even the royal family is compelled to revoke his titles and royal patronages to keep him out of the spotlight of public scrutiny. As we’ve seen, the royals didn’t even dole out that form of retroactive punishment to Sir Jimmy.
As we all know, the public is no longer as naïve as they were in 2012, and, sadly, the nightmarish reality of protected political pedophile rings is so accepted as documented fact that it is no longer mocked as conspiracy yarn. And, to the surprise of no one who is familiar with the ignoble history of the royal family, the House of Windsor has been implicated in two of the highest profile pedophile scandals in recent memory. . . . Oh wait, make that three.
So here’s a rhetorical question for you: who in the controlled mainstream media do you think will ever dare bring up this topic up again now that Prince Charles is officially King Charles?
Conclusion
Making this video feels like I’m telling a child, all in one sitting, that Santa Claus isn’t real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just your mom.
But, in reality, it’s worse than that. It’s telling fully grown adults that Santa Claus isn’t real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just their mom and being ridiculed as a fringe loony for doing so.
This isn’t my first attempt at opening eyes on this subject, either. Back in 2015, I made note of the absolute madness that took hold of the global media surrounding the announcement of the birth of Princess Charlotte, writing:
So who is going so crazy for this royal baby? Surely no one who is familiar with the real history of the reign of the “Windsors,” a reign marked by the tens of millions of lives lost in the First and Second World Wars (in which the royal family had a great degree of culpability), close collaboration with the banksters that have brought us to the edge of the next great depression, the formation of the Anglo-American “special relationship” in common cause with like-minded eugenicists in America like Teddy Roosevelt, the cultivation and protection of pedophiles (of whom Jimmy Savile was just the most noticeable tip of a very large iceberg), the slaying of Diana, and any number of other atrocities that should make this family one of the most reviled in the “commonwealth” they claim to rule over. And yet the media still lauds their every action, sings their praises as a venerable institution at the core of British society, dutifully acts as the royal PR mouthpiece in reporting on their charity work, and marginalizes any talk of doing away with the royal family altogether as “republican rabble-rousing.”
Plus ça change . . .
And now once again we have one of these royal events come along to remind us just how many people are still firmly ensconced in normieland. After all the royals have put us through, it’s flabbergasting that they’re still held in such high regard.
It’s incomprehensible that this royal eugenicist is trotted out to be the face of The Great Reset and to lecture the peasants about how they’ll have to become serfs on the neofeudal plantation for the sake of Mother Earth, but even more disheartening is the fact that there are still vast swaths of people who believe that this family has been chosen by God Himself to rule over an entire nation (or even a “commonwealth”).
Here’s to the day when this type of video is completely unnecessary and the placing of a fancy hat on some pompous British octogenarian’s head was of no significance to anyone whatsoever. One can always dream. . . .
This piece first appeared in The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter in September 2022.
Unraveling the Epstein-Chomsky Relationship
By Whitney Webb |
Unlimited Hangout| May 3, 2023
Recent revelations that the renowned linguist and political activist met with Jeffrey Epstein several times have surprised and confused many. Why was Epstein interested in meeting with Noam Chomsky? And why did Chomsky agree to meet him despite his past? The answer may surprise you.
On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal published a report detailing information contained within a “trove” of previously unreported documents of the deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Those documents, which have not been publicly released and appear to have been passed solely to the Journal, included Epstein’s private calendar and meeting schedules. The documents, per the Journal, contain “thousands of pages of emails and schedules from 2013 to 2017” and – as the report notes – detail Epstein’s dealings with several prominent individuals whose names were not on his flight logs or his infamous “little black book” of contacts. One of these individuals is the renowned linguist, political commentator and critic of capitalism and empire, Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky, who has previously discussed the Epstein case in interviews and who has maintained that Epstein’s ties to intelligence agencies should be considered a “conspiracy theory,” had not previously disclosed these meetings. Chomsky, when confronted by Journal reporters, was evasive, but ultimately admitted to meeting and knowing Jeffrey Epstein.
Many, largely on the left, have expressed dismay and confusion as to why someone with the political views of Chomsky would willingly meet, not once but several times, with someone like Jeffrey Epstein, particularly well after Epstein’s notoriety as a sex trafficker and pedophile. As this report will show, Epstein appeared to view Chomsky as another intellectual who could help guide his decisions when it came to his scientific obsessions – namely, transhumanism and eugenics. What Chomsky gained in return from meeting with Epstein isn’t as clear.
Why Did Chomsky Meet with Epstein?
According to the Journal, Chomsky’s meetings with Epstein took place during the years 2015 and 2016, while Chomsky taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT. Chomsky told the Journal that he met with Epstein to discuss topics like neuroscience with other academics, like Harvard’s Martin Nowak (who was heavily funded by Epstein). On a separate occasion, Chomsky again met with Epstein alongside former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, allegedly to discuss “Israel’s policies with regard to Palestinian issues and the international arena.” A separate date saw Chomsky and his wife invited by Epstein to have dinner with him, Woody Allen and Allen’s wife Soon-Yi Previn. When asked about the dinner date with Woody Allen and Epstein, Chomsky referred to the occasion as “an evening spent with a great artist.”
When confronted with this evidence, Chomsky initially told the Journal that his meetings and relationship with Epstein were “none of your business. Or anyone’s.” He then added that “I knew him [Epstein] and we met occasionally.”
Before continuing further, it is important to note that aside from Epstein, both Ehud Barak and Woody Allen have been accused of having inappropriate sexual relationships with minors. For instance, Barak was a frequent visitor to Epstein’s residences in New York, so often that The Daily Beast reported that numerous residents of an apartment building linked to Epstein “had seen Barak in the building multiple times over the last few years, and nearly half a dozen more described running into his security detail,” adding that “the building is majority-owned by Epstein’s younger brother, Mark, and has been tied to the financier’s alleged New York trafficking ring.”
Ehud Barak attempting to hide his face during a 2016 visit to Jeffrey Epstein’s New York Residence. Source: Daily Mail
Specifically, several apartments in the building were “being used to house underage girls from South America, Europe and the former Soviet Union,” according to a former bookkeeper employed by one of Epstein’s main procurers of underage girls, Jean Luc Brunel. Barak is also known to have spent the night at one of Epstein’s residences at least once, was photographed leaving Epstein’s residence as recently as 2016, and has admitted to visiting Epstein’s island, which has sported nicknames including “Pedo Island,” “Lolita Island” and “Orgy Island.” In 2004, Barak received $2.5 million from Leslie Wexner’s Wexner Foundation, where Epstein was a trustee as well as one of the foundation’s top donors, officially for unspecified “consulting services” and “research” on the foundation’s behalf. Several years later, Barak put Harvey Weinstein in contact with the Israeli private intelligence outfit Black Cube, which employs former Mossad agents and Israeli military intelligence operatives, as Weinstein sought to intimidate the women who had accused him of sexual assault and sexual harassment.
In addition, Barak previously chaired and invested in Carbyne911, a controversial Israeli emergency services start-up that has expanded around the world and has become particularly entrenched in the United States. Barak had directed Epstein to invest $1 million into that company, which has been criticized as a potential tool for warrantless mass surveillance. Leslie Wexner also invested millions in the company.
Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn, 1990 (Allvip)
In Woody Allen’s case, he has been accused of sexually assaulting his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow when she was 7 years old. That abuse claim has been corroborated by witnesses and other evidence. Furthermore, Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by state police in connection with the investigation and lost four exhaustive court battles related to child custody and his abuse of Dylan Farrow. One of the judge’s in the case described Allen’s behavior towards Dylan as “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” Actress Mia Farrow, Dylan’s mother, alleged in court that Allen took a sexual interest in her adopted daughter when she was between the ages of two and three years old.
Allen subsequently “seduced” and later married another adopted daughter of Farrow’s, Soon-Yi Previn, whom Allen first met when Previn was a child. However, Previn has stated that her first “friendly” interaction with Allen took place when she was a teenager. In 1992, Mia Farrow found nude photos of Previn in Allen’s home and has stated that this was her motive for ending her relationship with Allen.
In the case of Allen and Epstein, and potentially Barak as well, their sexual proclivities and scandals were well known by the time Chomsky met with these men, making a strong suggestion that this type of behavior was not seen by Chomsky as taboo or as a barrier to socialization. It is more likely than not that there was some other major draw that led Chomsky to overlook this type of horrendous behavior toward vulnerable minors.
In terms of reaching a deeper understanding about why Epstein would have been interested in Chomsky – and vice versa, it is important to review – not just the information recently reported by the Wall Street Journal, but also what Epstein himself said of Chomsky before his 2019 death. According to an interview conducted in 2017, but later published in 2019 when Epstein was a major news topic, Epstein openly stated that he had invited Chomsky to his townhouse and he also explicitly stated why he had done so. Oddly, this early acknowledgement of Epstein’s regarding his relationship with Chomsky was left out of the Journal’s recent report.
In that interview, which was conducted by Jeffrey Mervis and later published in Science, Epstein stated that following about Chomsky:
[…] Epstein readily admitted to asking prominent members of the scientific establishment to assess the potential contribution of these so-called outcasts [i.e. MIT students Epstein described as being “on the spectrum”].
“So, I had Jim Watson to the house, and I asked Watson, what does he think about this idea,” a proposal to study how the cellular mechanisms of plants might be relevant to human cancer. Watson is a Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. “Likewise with [Noam] Chomsky on artificial intelligence,” he said, referring to one of the pioneers in the field.
In fact, Epstein expressed great respect for the opinions of these elder statesmen. “It’s funny to watch Noam Chomsky rip apart these young boys who talk about having a thinking machine,” Epstein noted. “He takes out a dagger and slices them, very kindly, into little shreds.”
Thus, per Epstein, his interest in inviting Chomsky to his house was explicitly related to the “artificial intelligence,” which was a major scientific interest of Epstein’s. This also provides a major clue as to how Chomsky and Epstein might have first been introduced.
Chomsky, Epstein and MIT
Chomsky is most widely viewed as a famous linguist, political commentator and critic of modern capitalism and imperialism. So, why did Epstein seek to meet with him instead on Artificial Intelligence matters?
Well, an admitted “friend” of both Chomsky’s and Epstein’s was the AI pioneer Marvin Minsky. Like Chomsky, Minsky was a long-time professor and academic at MIT. It is very possible that Minsky connected the two men, especially considering the fact that Epstein was a major donor to MIT. Epstein described himself as being “very close” to Minsky, who died in 2016, roughly a year after Epstein began meeting with Chomsky. Epstein also financed some of Minsky’s projects and Minsky, like Ehud Barak, was accused of sexually abusing the minors Epstein trafficked.
Marvin Minsky and Noam Chomsky converse bprior to a panel that was part of MIT’s “Brains, Minds and Machines” symposium in 2011. Source: MIT
Chomsky’s views on linguistics and cognition, for those who don’t know, is based very much on evolutionary biology. Chomsky was also a pioneer in cognitive science, described as “a field aimed at uncovering the mental representations and rules that underlie our perceptual and cognitive abilities.” Some have described Chomsky’s concept of language as based on “the complexity of internal representation, encoded in the genome, and their maturation in light of the right data into a sophisticated computational system, one that cannot be usefully broken down into a set of associations.” A person’s “language faculty”, per Chomsky, should be seen as “part of the organism’s genetic endowment, much like the visual system, the immune system and the circulatory system, and we ought to approach it just as we approach these other more down-to-earth biological systems.”
Despite their friendship, Minsky greatly diverged with Chomsky in this view, with Minsky describing Chomsky’s views on linguistics and cognition as largely superficial and irrelevant. Chomsky later criticized the widely used approach with AI that focuses on statistical learning techniques to mine and predict data, which Chomsky argued was “unlikely to yield general principles about the nature of intelligent beings or about cognition.”
However, Chomsky’s views linking evolutionary biology/genetics with linguistics/cognition were notably praised by the aforementioned Martin Nowak, who had attended one of the meetings Epstein had with Chomsky. Nowak, a professor of biology and mathematics and head of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, later stated that he had “once broke out a blackboard during dinner with Epstein and, for two hours, gave a mathematical description of how language works,” further revealing that Epstein was interested in aspects of linguistics. It is unclear if this particular meeting was the same that Chomsky had attended alongside Nowak to discuss “neuroscience” and other topics.
However, given the importance of evolutionary biology and genetics to Chomsky’s theories, it is hardly surprising that Jeffrey Epstein would have gravitated more towards his views on AI than those of Minsky. Epstein was fascinated by genetics and, even per mainstream sources, was also deeply interested eugenics. Take for example the following from an article published in The Guardian in 2019:
Epstein was apparently fixated on “transhumanism”, the belief that the human species can be deliberately advanced through technological breakthroughs, such as genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.
At its most benign, transhumanism is a belief that humanity’s problems can be improved, upgraded even, through such technology as cybernetics and artificial intelligence – at its most malignant though, transhumanism lines up uncomfortably well with eugenics.
Thus, Epstein’s interest in AI, genetics, and more was tied into his documented obsession with “transhumanism,” which – as several Unlimited Hangout reports have noted – is essentially a rebranding of eugenics. Indeed, the term transhumanism itself was first coined by Julian Huxley, the former president of the British Eugenics Society and the first head of UNESCO who called to make “the unthinkable thinkable again” with regards to eugenics.
Aside from transhumanism, Epstein also had an avowed interest in “strengthening” the human gene pool, in part by impregnating as many women as possible with his “seed” in order to widely disperse his genes. These views may also explain Epstein’s interest in associating himself with people like James (Jim) Watson. As noted earlier in this article, Epstein stated in 2017 that he had invited both Watson and Chomsky to his home on separate occasions.
Watson has been a controversial figures for years, particularly after he openly stated that people of African descent are genetically inferior and less intelligent than their European counterparts. He also previously promoted the idea that women should abort babies that carried a “gay gene,” were such a gene ever discovered. He also felt that gene editing should be used to make all women “prettier” and to eradicate “stupidity”. Notably, Watson made all of these comments well before Epstein invited him to his home.
James Watson in an undated photo. Source: Insider
Watson was also praised, controversially, after these same comments by another Epstein-funded scientist, Eric Lander. Lander, who was recently Biden’s top science advisor, was forced to resign from that post last year after being accused of harassing those who worked under him in the Biden administration’s Office of Science and Technology. Prior to joining the Biden administration, Lander had collaborated with Watson on the Human Genome Project and later ran the Broad Institute, a non-profit born out of collaboration between MIT and Harvard.
Returning to Chomsky, though he may not have been aware of Epstein’s interests in eugenics and transhumanism, it has since become clear that Epstein’s main interest in Artificial Intelligence – his stated purpose for courting Chomsky – was intimately tied to these controversial disciplines. However, Chomsky did know of Epstein’s past, and likely also knew of Woody Allen’s similar past before meeting him as well. He turned a blind eye on those matters, telling the Journal that Epstein had “served his sentence” and, as a result, had been granted a “clean slate”. In saying this, Chomsky is apparently unaware of Epstein’s controversial “sweetheart deal” that resulted in an extremely lenient sentence and non-prosecution agreement. That “deal” was signed off on by then-US Attorney Alex Acosta because Acosta was told to “back off” Epstein because Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Chomsky had previously told several people, including an Unlimited Hangout reader, that an Epstein-intelligence agency connection is a “conspiracy theory.”
Given Chomsky’s odd views on Epstein’s past and the fact that Epstein frequently discussed transhumanism and eugenics around other prominent scientists, it is possible, though unproven, that Chomsky may have known more about Epstein’s true interests in AI and genetics.
Would Chomsky have been willing to overlook these ethical conundrums? Given his political views on capitalism and foreign policy, many would likely say that he would not. However, finding ways to circumvent these ethical conundrums with respect to AI may have been one of Epstein’s main reasons for heavily funding MIT, particularly its Media Lab. Epstein, in addition to his own donations, also funneled millions of dollars from Bill Gates and Leon Black to the Media Lab.
According to former Media Lab employee Rodrigo Ochigame, writing in The Intercept, Joi Ito of MIT’s Media Lab – who took lots of donations from Epstein and attempted to hide Epstein’s name on official records – was focused on developing “ethics” for AI that were “aligned strategically with a Silicon Valley effort seeking to avoid legally enforceable restrictions of controversial technologies.” Ito later resigned his post at the Media Lab due to fallout from the Epstein scandal.
Ochigame writes:
A key group behind this effort, with the lab as a member, made policy recommendations in California that contradicted the conclusions of research I conducted with several lab colleagues, research that led us to oppose the use of computer algorithms in deciding whether to jail people pending trial. Ito himself would eventually complain, in private meetings with financial and tech executives, that the group’s recommendations amounted to “whitewashing” a thorny ethical issue. “They water down stuff we try to say to prevent the use of algorithms that don’t seem to work well” in detention decisions, he confided to one billionaire.
I also watched MIT help the U.S. military brush aside the moral complexities of drone warfare, hosting a superficial talk on AI and ethics by Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state and notorious war criminal, and giving input on the U.S. Department of Defense’s “AI Ethics Principles” for warfare, which embraced “permissibly biased” algorithms and which avoided using the word “fairness” because the Pentagon believes “that fights should not be fair.”
Ochigame also cites Media Lab colleagues who say that Marvin Minsky, who worked with the Lab before his death, was known to say that “an ethicist is someone who has a problem with whatever you have in your mind.” Also troubling is the fact that Ito, and by extension the Media Lab, played a role in shaping White House policy with respect to AI. For instance, Obama called Ito an “expert” on AI and ethics during an interview with him in 2016. Ito, on his conversation with Obama, said the following: “[…] the role of the Media Lab is to be a connective tissue between computer science, and the social sciences, and the lawyers, and the philosophers […] What’s cool is that President Obama gets that.”
If you are Jeffrey Epstein, with a history of illegal and criminal activity, and interested in avoiding the regulation of controversial technologies you feel are necessary to advance your vision of transhumanism/eugenics, financing groups that greatly influence “ethics” policies that helps limit the regulation of those technologies would obviously benefit you.
Ochigame goes on to write:
Thus, Silicon Valley’s vigorous promotion of “ethical AI” has constituted a strategic lobbying effort, one that has enrolled academia to legitimize itself. Ito played a key role in this corporate-academic fraternizing, meeting regularly with tech executives. The MIT-Harvard fund’s initial director was the former “global public policy lead” for AI at Google. Through the fund, Ito and his associates sponsored many projects, including the creation of a prominent conference on “Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency” in computer science; other sponsors of the conference included Google, Facebook, and Microsoft.
Notably, Epstein was tied into these same circles. He was very, very close, not just with Bill Gates, but with several other top Microsoft executives and was also known to have a close relationship with Google’s Sergey Brin, who has recently been subpoenaed in the Epstein-JPMorgan case, as well as Facebook/Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. Notably, many of these same companies are currently pioneering transhumanist technologies, particularly in healthcare, and are deeply tied to either the military or intelligence, if not both.
The MIT-AI-Military Connection
Chomsky is just one of several prominent academics and intellectuals who were courted by Epstein in an attempt to supercharge the development of technologies that could help bring his controversial obsessions to fruition. Notably, many of these characters, including Chomsky, have had their work – at one point or another – funded by the U.S. military, which has itself long been a major driver of AI research.
For example, Minsky and Danny Hillis, a close associate of Epstein’s in his own right, co-created a DARPA contractor and supercomputer firm called Thinking Machines, which was aimed at creating a “truly intelligent machine. One that can see and hear and speak. A machine that will be proud of us,” according to one company brochure. Minsky was Hillis’ mentor at MIT and the pair sought out Sheryl Handler, who worked for a genetic-engineering start-up at Harvard called the Genetics Institute, to help them create their supercomputer firm.
Danny Hillis speaks at the 2013 TED Conference in Long Beach, California. Source: Flickr
Thinking Machines, which made poor business decisions routinely from the beginning, was only able to function for as long as it did due to multi-million dollar contracts it had secured from the Pentagon’s DARPA. With the close of Cold War, DARPA sought to use its clout with Thinking Machines to push the company to develop a product that could deal with things like modeling the global climate, mapping the human genome and predicting earthquakes. Subsequent reporting from the Wall Street Journal showed that the agency had been “playing favorites” and Thinking Machine’s “gravy train” abruptly ended due to the bad publicity, subsequently leading to the collapse of the company.
Hillis, around this time, met Jeffrey Epstein. The introduction may have been brokered by former Microsoft’s Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold, a friend of Hillis’ who grew close to Epstein in the 1990s and even took Epstein on an official Microsoft trip to Russia. Myhrvold, who was also named as an abuser of the minors Epstein trafficked, was one of the other top Microsoft officials who was close to Epstein beginning in the 1990s. Another was Linda Stone, who later connected Jeffrey Epstein to Joi Ito of MIT’s Media Lab. As previously mentioned, Epstein would later direct the long-time head of Microsoft, Bill Gates, to donate millions to the Media Lab.
Linda Stone at the 2016 SciFoo Conference. Source: JonesBlog
Chomsky’s own history at MIT brought him into contact with the military. For instance, during the early 1960s, Chomsky received funding from the Air Force, which aimed to program a computer with Chomsky’s insights about grammar in an attempt to endow it “with the ability to recognize instructions imparted to it in perfectly ordinary English, thereby eliminating a necessity for highly specialized languages that intervene between a man and a computer.” Chomsky later stated of the military funding of his early career that “I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications, they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics.”
Chomsky has since denied that military funding shaped his linguistics work in any significant way and has claimed that the military is used by the government “as a kind of a funnel by which taxpayer money was being used to create the hi-tech economy of the future.” However, reports have noted that this particular project was very much tied to military applications. In addition, the man who first recruited Chomsky to MIT in the mid-1950s, Jerome Wiesner, went on to be Chomsky’s boss at MIT for over 20 years as well as “America’s most powerful military scientist.”
Jerome Wiesner (second from left) at a White House cabinet meeting during the Kennedy administration. Source: The Conversation
To Chomsky’s credit, after this program ended, he became fully, and publicly, committed to anti-war activism. This activism led him, at one point, to consider resigning from MIT, which he declined to do – likely because he was rather quickly granted professorship. As Chris Knight writes, “this meant that instead of resigning, Chomsky’s choice was to launch himself as an outspoken anti-militarist activist even while remaining in one of the US’s most prestigious military labs.”
By staying at MIT, Chomsky chose to maintain his career, in relative proximity to the centers of power he would later become an icon for denouncing. However, it shows that Chomsky, from this time onward, began to make some choices that undermined his radicalism to an extent. Chomsky may have rationalized his decision to stay at MIT in the 1960s because it gave him a better platform from which to espouse his political and anti-war views. It is not unheard of for prominent public figures to make such compromises. However, in light of the recent Epstein revelations and what they appear to signal, it seems that Chomsky, particularly in his later years, may have become too comfortable and too willing to make these types of compromises – ones that a much younger Chomsky would have surely rejected.
Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond and Unlimited Hangout.
Featured Video
Pax Judaica Explained | Prof. David Miller
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
History and Biblical Scholarship: Al-Quds Is Not Jerusalem
By Dr. Elias Akleh | Global Research | July 3, 2018
The Zionist Israeli state calls on the Old Testament/Torah as a historical document to prove its legality to “re-claim” Palestine; their god’s promised land. To assert this legality and the myth of the promised land Zionist Organization, since its establishment, had recruited the science of archaeology, employing western Christian biblical archaeologists, to provide the required “historic” proof of the right of the Jews; alleged modern Israelites, to Palestine. This became very critical after Julius Wellhausen; the biblical scholar and Professor Ordinarius of Theology and head of the German School of Biblical Criticism, published his 1883 book “Geschichte Israels”, later titled as “Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels” claiming that the Old Testament/Torah stories were invented during the Babylonian exile to serve certain theological and political purposes.
American biblical scholars and archaeologists, such as William Fox Albright, were recruited to refute Wellhausen’s claims. Albright was endorsed by covertly Zionist financed Biblical Colloquium; a scholarly society devoted to the analysis and discussions of biblical matters, and the preparations, publication, and distribution of biblical literature to brainwash readers and students with a specific theological ideology. Albright, as well as other biblical archaeologists like him, was also honored (bribed) by the American Friends of the Israel Exploration Society. His writings; such as “Why the Near East Needs the Jews”, are flagrant racist Zionist propaganda ignoring the vast archaeological history of the indigenous Palestinians while emphasizing the fake unproven Israelites’ narrative in Palestine. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Israeli FOIA Data Reveals Massive Heart Injury Spike in Children Immediately After mRNA Shot Rollout
- What is Zionism? And what is anti-Zionism?
- Hungary’s Blocking of EU Loan to Ukraine May Jeopardize IMF Funding – Reports
- Pax Judaica Explained | Prof. David Miller
- Was MAHA Too Good to Last in the Trump Administration?
- Vermont advances bill letting unelected Health Commissioner decide which vaccines ctizens should receive
- Why the US-Israeli alliance will lose against Iran
- US envoy Huckabee claims Israel has ‘biblical right’ to conquer all West Asia
- Testing the Alliance: Netanyahu’s Washington Visit
- Britain is once again poisoning peace diplomacy with Russia and fueling war in Europe
- If Americans Knew
- Palestinian church leaders admonish Christian Zionist Mike Huckabee – Not a ceasefire Day 135
- Ominous messaging from Trump’s “Board of Peace” – Not a ceasefire Day 134
- ‘Christians Out’: Jerusalem Church Tagged With Hate Graffiti, Police Investigating
- Israeli Settlers Kill American Teen
- ‘We returned from hell’: Palestinian journalists recount torture in Israeli prisons
- No mercy for Gaza in Ramadan – Not a ceasefire Day 133
- The Israeli Government Installed and Maintained Security System at Epstein Apartment
- Tucker Carlson interrogated in Israel, has passport seized after interviewing US ambassador
- 6,000 Amputees in Gaza Face Impossible Recovery amid Israeli War Ultimatum
- The Lancet: Gaza death toll far higher than reported – Not a ceasefire Day 132
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany: Electric Car Catches Fire At Charging Station, Sets Off Local “Inferno”, Widespread Damage
- New Study: Canada’s New Brunswick Was 1°C Warmer Than Today During The Medieval Warm Period
- Coal Power Back In Trend As Globe Tries To Keep Pace With Growing Demand For Power
- New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
Aletho News 