One goal of this channel is to teach people that much of what they learned in school and from news media is false. A good example is propaganda that Italian leader Benito Mussolini was a dictator. This is false, Italy’s dictator during World War II was Victor Emmanuel III who appointed Mussolini as prime minister in 1922 then dismissed and arrested him in 1943. He was king of Italy and part of European royalty so was excused from blame for bloody events. His commoner henchman Benito Mussolini was deemed responsible and characterized as an evil dictator. Victor Emmanuel was never charged with war crimes and this axis dictator remained king of Italy until 1946 when he retired to live in luxury in British held Alexandria.
The biggest scientific con of the century is finally being exposed. But will any politicians or government officials ever be held responsible for the carnage they unleashed on Americans?
In early 2020, when the Covid pandemic was starting to ravage America, federal bureaucrats and politicians rushed to suppress any suggestion that the pandemic originated from a Chinese government lab bankrolled by US government agencies. Key Biden administration officials effectively exonerated the Chinese government even though the Chinese completely stonewalled any outside investigation into the origin of the Covid virus, as the Wall Street Journal recently revealed in a front-page scoop.
The FBI’s top expert concluded that the virus leaked from the lab but he was derailed by the Biden administration, blocked from presenting his evidence at a key White House meeting in August 2021. Three scientists at the National Center for Medical Intelligence, part of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, concluded that Covid leaked from a lab but they were muzzled. The Inspector General is conducting an investigation to determine why those experts were silenced. The Department of Energy also concluded that Covid originated in a lab. In September 2023, a senior CIA analyst told a Congressional committee that six key CIA analysts had been bribed by the agency to abandon their conclusion that Covid originated in a lab leak.
The Chinese government first admitted that a pandemic had broken out in the city of Wuhan in early 2020. Though the Chinese military-affiliated Wuhan Institute of Virology had been experimenting with bats for years, the Chinese government insisted the new virus came from a nearby marketplace. But the lead scientists involved with bat research had all been struck down by Covid-19 symptoms shortly before the Chinese government denied any responsibility. There was a deluge of circumstantial evidence quickly linking the new virus to the lab.
The outbreak of Covid-19 spurred one of the most brazen cover-ups in modern US history. The National Institute for Health had been financing gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That type of research seeks to genetically alter organisms to enable the spread of viruses into new species. Such research is extremely dangerous; as MIT professor Kevin Esvelt asked in 2021, “Why is anyone trying to teach the world how to make viruses that could kill millions of people?” The risks were compounded because the Wuhan Institute had a very poor safety rating. Two years earlier, the State Department confidentially “warned other federal agencies about safety issues at Wuhan labs studying bat Covid,” but the public disclosure of that alert was delayed until 2022.
In January 2020, top federal scientists recognized that the pandemic could obliterate their reputations. Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes for Health, wrote in an email that “a swift convening of experts in a confidence-inspiring framework is needed or the voices of conspiracy will quickly dominate, doing great potential harm to science and international harmony.” The “conspiracy” was the facts of the matter.
Anthony Fauci, the chief of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), speedily enlisted a handful of trusted scientists to gin up a paper supposedly “proving” that the virus could not have originated in the lab. A top NIAID scientist accepted the task of debunking the lab-leak story because, as he emailed a colleague, “Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on origin stories.” The Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, enlisted in the cover-up with an op-ed by 27 scientists who proclaimed: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.” Maybe the same scientists also sent an addendum to NIH: Keep giving us grant money or your reputation will “swim with the fishes.”
Further “proof” was provided by a torrent of accusations of racism against anyone who publicly suggested that the virus originated in a Chinese lab. The State Department’s Global Engagement Center added a federal fist to the debate, pressuring Twitter to suppress hundreds of thousands of accounts (including thousands of average Americans) in early 2020 for the crime of suggesting that Covid originated in a lab. Bureaucrats secretly decided that wildly exaggerated forecasts of pandemic mortality made the First Amendment null and void.
If Covid-19 had been initially recognized as the result of one of the biggest government boondoggles in history, it would have been far more difficult for American politicians and government scientists to pirouette as saviors as they seized sway over daily life.
The virus that the NIH financed provided push-button dictatorial power to politicians at every level of government. In the name of saving lives, politicians entitled themselves to destroy an unlimited number of livelihoods. Most governors responded to Covid-19 by dropping the equivalent of a Reverse Neutron Bomb — something that destroys the economy while leaving human beings unharmed. But the only way to assume people were uninjured was to presume that their lives were totally detached from their jobs, bank accounts, mortgage and rent payments, and friends and family.
A virus with a 99+% survival rate spawned a 100% presumption in favor of despotism. From the start of the pandemic, many people who swore allegiance to “science and data” also believed that absolute power would keep them safe. Doubters became dissidents who deserved to be covertly silenced.
Shutdown advocates appealed to science like righteous priests invoking God and the Bible to sanctify scourging enemies. But the “science” was often farcically unreliable. Mandatory mask mandates became the new version of the Emancipation Proclamation. Fauci and other top officials deceived Americans into believing that cloth masks offered far more protection than they delivered. Do Americans finally recognize that the federal government was the biggest source of disinformation during the pandemic?
A century ago, historian Henry Adams declared that politics has “always been the systematic organization of hatreds.” Covid-19 policies were so disruptive in part because politicians intentionally sought to maximize fear and rage against anyone who refused to submit to any dictate. After the efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines collapsed, Biden responded by dictating that a hundred million American adults must get injected based on his personal decree.
A few weeks later at a CNN town hall, Biden derided vaccine skeptics as murderers who only wanted “the freedom to kill you” with Covid. A few months later, a Rasmussen poll found that 59% of Democratic voters favored house arrest for the unvaccinated, and 45% favored locking the unvaxxed into government detention facilities. Almost half of Democrats favored empowering the government to “fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing Covid-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.” But hatred proved to be as ineffective as the Pfizer vaccine when it came to fighting Covid-19.
Fauci, who was also Biden’s chief medical advisor, justified Covid mandates because average citizens “don’t have the ability” to determine what is best for them. But Congressional investigations revealed that Fauci was at the center of string-pulling to shirk responsibility for the Wuhan debacle.After Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested prosecuting Fauci for false testimony on bankrolling “gain-of-function” research, Fauci howled that his critics are “really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous.” But not nearly as dangerous as vesting vast power in secretive federal agencies.
On September 20, 2023, the Biden administration belatedly banned the Wuhan Institute of Virology from receiving any US government research funding for 10 years as punishment for its unauthorized gain-of-function experiments on bat coronaviruses. But why did the Biden administration omit the same condemnation and similar prohibitions from any American scientist, institute, or government officials that had any role in this debacle?
Instead of Tony Fauci bobbleheads, the slogan “Your Government at Work” superimposed atop a million American caskets captured the reality of Covid-19.
President Trump claimed that Russia stole the design for hypersonic missiles during the Obama administration, stating in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity that “some bad person gave them the design,” while also boasting that the US would have even better super hypersonic missiles.
Yury Knutov, military expert and historian of the Air Defense Forces, refuted Trump’s claim, explaining to Sputnik that:
First, there’s no need for Russia to steal US technology since it showcased the first hypersonic device back in 1991.
“The Soviet Union always outpaced the US in terms of resistance of materials-related work [vital for hypersonic missiles]. While the US focused on electronics and microchips,” Knutov told Sputnik.
This led to the creation of the first-ever hypersonic laboratory, Kholod (lit. Frost).
A model of the S-200 missile fitted with a Kholod was bought by the Americans in the 1990s, who thoroughly studied the relevant documentation.
Russia now has hypersonic missiles in three domains: air-based Kinzhal, sea-based Zircon, and land-based Oreshnik missiles. “Something no other country in the world has. This is why we outstrip the US in this regard.”
“The country that was the first to launch a hypersonic vehicle cannot steal anything from the US, which only last year successfully tested a hypersonic missile.”
“As for Trump’s claims, he was either misled or made up a story to compensate for the failures of the US military-industrial complex. On the other hand, Trump apparently needs an argument in Congress to increase funding for the US hypersonic weapons program,” Knutov concluded.
Ukrainian accession to NATO would make achieving peace and establishing any kind of security architecture virtually impossible, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Grushko has said in an interview published on Friday.
Speaking to the Russia 24 news channel, Grushko pointed out that the issue of Ukraine’s neutrality is one of the root causes of the ongoing conflict and is a key element of any potential deal with Kiev.
The diplomat emphasized that NATO membership for Kiev “precludes achieving peace in Ukraine and, in a broader sense, the creation of any kind of security architecture.”
He stressed that Moscow will not only seek “ironclad legal guarantees that would exclude Ukraine’s membership in NATO in any form,” but will also demand that this becomes an actual policy of the US-led military bloc.
NATO’s efforts to spread itself all over the world are increasing the possibility of a global military conflict, the diplomat said, specifically pointing to bloc chief Mark Rutte’s call to raise defense spending to 3% of members’ GDP.
“In fact, this has nothing to do with the real security situation,” Grushko explained. “This is over-armament, this is an attempt to achieve those geopolitical and military goals that they have recorded in their strategic documents, primarily American ones, to achieve military superiority in all operational environments, as they say, meaning land, air, space, cyberspace, and in all possible theaters of military operations, which now includes Asia.”
The diplomat accused NATO of pursuing a “very dangerous course that brings the threat of a global military clash closer,” while serving only to maintain the West’s hegemony that is “slipping out of their hands” amid the formation of a new multipolar world.
However, Grushko pointed out that Russia has “sufficient technical and other means to ensure” its security “in any scenario,” which includes the Oreshnik hypersonic missile system, as well as its nuclear forces and new technologies that continue to be added to the arsenal of Russia’s armed forces.
Halford Mackinder developed the theoretical framework for the divide-and-rule strategy of maritime hegemons, which was adopted by the British and thereafter the Americans. Mackinder argued that the world was divided into two opposing forces – sea powers versus land powers. The last land-power to connect and dominate the vast Eurasia continent was the nomadic Mongols, and their collapse was followed by the rise of European maritime powers in the early 16th century linking the world by sea.
The UK and US both pursue hegemonic strategies aimed at controlling the Eurasian landmass from the maritime periphery. Island states (the US being a virtual island) do not need large standing armies due to the lack of powerful neighbours, and they can instead invest in a powerful navy for security. Island states enhance their security by dividing Eurasia’s land powers so a hegemon or an alliance of hostile states do not emerge on the Eurasian continent. The pragmatic balance of power approach was articulated by Harry Truman in 1941: “If we see that Germany is winning the war we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany and in that way let them kill as many as possible”.[1] A maritime power is also more likely to emerge as a hegemon as there are few possibilities of diversifying away from key maritime corridors and choke points under the control of the hegemon.
Railroads Revived the Rivalry Between Sea-Powers and Land-Powers
Russia, as a predominantly landpower, has historically been contained and kept weak by limiting its access to reliable maritime corridors. However, Russia’s weakness as a large landpower could become its strength if Russia connects the Eurasian continent by land to undermine the strategic advantage of the maritime hegemony.
The invention of intercontinental railways permitted Russia to emulate the nomadic character of the Mongols and end the strategic advantage of maritime powers. Russia’s development of railroads through Central Asia from the mid-19th century resulted in the Great Game as Russia could reach British India. In the final decade of the 19th century, Russia developed the trans-Siberian railroad that challenged British imperial interests in East Asia. In 1904, Mackinder warned:
“A generation ago steam and the Suez canal appeared to have increased the mobility of sea-power relatively to land-power. Railways acted chiefly as feeders to ocean-going commerce. But trans-continental railways are now transmuting the conditions of land-power, and nowhere can they have such effect as in the closed heart-land of EuroAsia, in vast areas of which neither timber nor accessible stone was available for road-making”.[2]
Mackinder warned about the possibility of a German-Russian alliance as it could establish a powerful centre of power capable of controlling Eurasia. Mackinder thus advocated for a divide-and-rule strategy:
“The oversetting of the balance of power in favour of the pivot state, resulting in its expansion over the marginal lands of Euro-Asia, would permit of the use of vast continental resources for fleet-building, and the empire of the world would then be in sight. This might happen if Germany were to ally herself with Russia”.[3]
US Hegemony from the Periphery of Eurasia
Mackinder’s ideas were developed further with Nicolas Spykman’s Rimland Theory in 1942, which stipulated that the US had to control the maritime periphery of the Eurasian continent. The US required a partnership with Britain to control the western periphery of Eurasia, and the US should “adopt a similar protective policy toward Japan” on the eastern periphery of Eurasia.[4] The US thus had to adopt the British strategy of limiting Russia’s access to maritime corridors:
“For two hundred years, since the time of Peter the Great, Russia has attempted to break through the encircling ring of border states and the reach the ocean. Geography and sea power have persistently thwarted her”.[5]
The influence of Spykman resulted in it commonly being referred to as the “Spykman-Kennan thesis of containment”. The architect of the containment policies against the Soviet Union, George Kennan, pushed for a “Eurasian balance of power” by ensuring the vacuum left by Germany and Japan would not be filled by a power that could “threaten the interests of the maritime world of the West”.[6]
The US National Security Council reports from 1948 and onwards referred to the Eurasian containment policies in the language of Mackinder’s heartland theory. As outlined in the US National Security Strategy of 1988:
“The United States’ most basic national security interests would be endangered if a hostile state or group of states were to dominate the Eurasian landmass- that area of the globe often referred to as the world’s heartland. We fought two world wars to prevent this from occurring”.[7]
Kissinger also outlined how the US should keep the British strategy of divide and rule from the maritime periphery of Eurasia:
“For three centuries, British leaders had operated from the assumption that, if Europe’s resources were marshaled by a single dominant power, that country would then resources to challenge Great Britain’s command of the seas, and thus threaten its independence. Geopolitically, the United States, also an island off the shores of Eurasia, should, by the same reasoning, have felt obliged to resist the domination of Europe or Asia by any one power and, even more, the control of both continents by the same power”.[8]
Henry Kissinger followed the Eurasian ideas of Mackinder, as he pushed for decoupling China from the Soviet Union to replicate the efforts to divide Russia and Germany.
Post-Cold War: America’s Empire of Chaos
Less than two months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US developed the Wolfowitz doctrine for global dominance. The leaked draft of the US Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) of February 1992 argued that the endurance of US global primacy depends on preventing the emergence of future rivals in Eurasia. Using the language of Mackinder, the DPG document recognised that “It is improbable that a global conventional challenge to US and Western security will re-emerge from the Eurasian heartland for many years to come”.
To sustain global primacy, the “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival”, which included preventing allies and frontline states such as Germany and Japan from rearming. The DPG also argued for preserving economic dominance as “we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order”.[9]
The US abandoned the agreements for an inclusive pan-European security architecture based on “indivisible security” to mitigate security competition and replace it with alliance systems to divide the world into dependent allies versus weakened adversaries. Zbigniew Brzezinski authored the Mackinderian post-Cold War policies of the US to sustain global hegemony: “America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained”. The strategy of preserving US dominance was defined as: “prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together”.[10]
If Russia would resist American efforts, the US could use its maritime dominance to strangle the Russian economy: “Russia must know that there would be a massive blockade of Russia’s maritime access to the West”.[11] To permanently weaken Russia and prevent it from connecting Eurasia by land, Brzezinski argued that the collapse of the Soviet Union should ideally be followed by the disintegration of Russia into a “loosely confederated Russia – composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic”.[12]
The Rise of Greater Eurasia
The US has become reliant on perpetual conflicts to divide the Eurasian continent and to preserve its alliance systems. US efforts to sever Russia and Germany with NATO expansionism and the destruction of Nord Stream have pushed Russia to the East, most importantly toward China as the main rival of the US. The cheap Russian gas that previously fuelled the industries of America’s allies in Europe is now being sent to fuel the industries of China, India, Iran and other Eurasian powers and rivals of the US. The efforts by China, Russia and other Eurasian giants to connect with physical transportation corridors, technologies, industries, and financial instruments are anti-hegemonic initiatives to balance the US. The age of Mackinder’s maritime hegemons may be coming to an end.
[1] Gaddis, J.L., 2005. Strategies of containment: a critical appraisal of American national security policy during the Cold War. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p.4.
[2] Mackinder, H.J., 1904, The Geographical Pivot of History, The Geographical Journal, 170(4): 421-444, p.434.
[4] Spykman, N.J., 1942. America’s strategy in world politics: the United States and the balance of power. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, p.470.
[6] Gaddis, J.L., 1982. Strategies of containment: A critical appraisal of postwar American national security policy. Oxford University Press, New York.
[7] White House 1988. National Security Strategy of the United States, White House, April 1988, p.1.
[8] Kissinger, H., 2011. Diplomacy. Simon and Schuster, New York, pp.50-51.
[9] DPG 1992. Defense Planning Guidance. Washington, 18 February 1992.
[10] Brzezinski, Z., 1997. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperatives. Basic Books, New York, p,40.
[11] Brzezinski, Z., 2017. How to Address Strategic Insecurity In A Turbulent Age, The Huffington Post, 3 January 2017.
The recent decision of the United States government to announce an intended withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) marks a significant shift in international relations and health policy. This move comes amid ongoing debates about the WHO’s role in managing global health crises, financial transparency, and influence on national sovereignty.
Introduction to World Council for Health
In 2021,the World Council for Health (WCH) emerged as a prominent organization that challenges the WHO’s pervasive and damaging influence. The WCH is a coalition of independent health organizations, medical professionals, and advocacy groups that emphasizes a more decentralized, holistic, and patient-centered approach to health care. It advocates for local health sovereignty, individual choice, and the decentralization of power away from large international organizations like the WHO. The WCH has been particularly vocal about opposing what it sees as the WHO’s overreach, particularly in terms of its management of public health policies during crises like the COVID-19 chapter, while ignoring real health issues like heart health, cancer, diabetes, and mental health.
A better way forward for health, rooted in our Better Way Principles, would focus on strengthening local and national health systems, ensuring that decision-making is transparent, accountable, and driven by scientific evidence rather than political or financial interests. This approach would involve greater collaboration between governments, health professionals, and communities, rather than relying on a centralized body like the WHO to dictate policy internationally. By prioritizing national sovereignty, autonomy, and local expertise, a more resilient and responsive international health framework can be developed, one that respects individual freedoms and prioritizes people over institutional power.
A. Concerns about WHO’s monopoly through Collaborating Centres
Our extensive research has revealed WHO collaborating centres in the US, including the CDC and the NIH. As a matter of urgency and priority, to effectively exit the World Health Organization, it is essential to have both critical awareness and transparent knowledge of the arguably binding agreements made between the secretive USA WHO Collaborating Centres and USA GOARN Partner Institutions, with the World Health Organization.
To truly exit the WHO, we must acknowledge the vast network and reach of the designated WHO Collaborating Centres and GOARN Partner Institutions. We must investigate the potential conflicts of interest in public – private collaborations / collaborations that may exist, which affect the delivery of the ultimate healthcare available for the people and the planet.
World Council for Health calls for an Urgent Independent International Review / Investigation of the World Health Organization and its established collaborations and ‘binding’ agreements with WHO Collaborating Centres. This is an essential requirement to assess an honest and transparent benefit and risk of WHO policies being utilised in and against sovereign nations through these established WHO networks. WCH is ready to advise.
B. WCH Country Councils leading the way for health freedom
WCH has established over 30 and growing independent Country Councils around the world.
These Country Councils are linked to over 200 local advocacy organisations in the fields pertinent to health, including medical choice and rights, 5G, sexual engineering, food supplies, agribusiness and climate ‘change’, all of which are tools being used by shadowy globalist corporations to usurp rights and freedoms of people around the world.
These Country Councils and allied grass-roots organisations are a critical counterbalance to the WHO and its puppeteers, advocating for a new, human and planetary wellbeing-focused vision for health care, prioritising the well-being and human rights of men, women and children. Country Councils are driven by ethical individuals, standing together to create the new healthcare paradigm, rooted in transparency and autonomy. This by definition includes freedom and sovereignty. Our country councils recognise that peace is central to health.
C. Our Legal Briefs and Policy Briefs
The WCH published a groundbreaking Legal Brief on Preventing the Abuse of Public Health Emergencies. It explains how governments used the declaration of an unjustifiable state of emergency as a legal instrument to deny people their basic human rights and freedoms and grant themselves extraordinary powers. WCH also published comprehensive policy briefs on Rejecting Monopoly Power Over Global Public Health, as well as Effects of Unregulated Digitalization on Health and Democracy, and Human Trafficking: A Call for Action
The WCH recognises the intention of the US government to withdraw from the WHO, urges investigation into the WHO’s collaborating centres, and is open to engage around the work of our country councils, our legal and policy briefs, and our pioneering detox study and guide.
The UK knew about Israel’s brutal torture of Palestinian and Arab detainees nearly 50 years ago but refused to act, British documents reveal. The papers, unearthed by MEMO in the British National Archives, also reveal that the US opted to address the issue solely through non-governmental organisations.
Israeli soldiers lead blindfolded Palestinian detainees across the Israel-Gaza border after they were detained by Israeli forces operating inside Gaza, 1 August 2007. [DAVID FURST / AFP/ Getty Images]
Documents from the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office show that Britain was aware that Israeli authorities were systematically torturing Palestinian and Arab detainees in mid-1977 but declined to pressure Israel to halt these practices.
In June 1977, the Sunday Times published a shocking dossier exposing the brutal torture of Palestinian and Arab detainees in Israeli prisons and detention centres. The report described the torture as “systematic” and “organised so methodically that it cannot be dismissed as a handful of ‘rogue cops’ exceeding orders”. It found that torture “appears to be sanctioned at some level as deliberate policy” and detailed 17 different methods of abuse, including beatings, genitalia squeezing, insertion of foreign objects into body orifices, hanging upside down, cigarette burns, and torture of family members in front of prisoners.”
The Sunday Times’ dossier was based on interviews with former detainees who described other physical abuse and psychological pressure during their detention.
At the time, the FCO reports indicated there were 3,200 Palestinian and Arab detainees from the occupied territories, Egypt, Syria and Jordan held in Israeli prisons or detention centres in Israel and the territories occupied by the Israeli military in the 1967 war.
The documents show that before the report’s publication, the Sunday Times shared its findings with then-UK FOreign Secretary David Owen. British diplomats in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem conducted confidential interviews with officials from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Quaker Service (QS), a Northern Ireland charity, to explore their views on the torture allegations.
James Fine of QS confirmed to Mike Jenner, the British consul-general in East Jerusalem, that “all forms of torture used in Northern Ireland had been used [against the Palestinians] here [by Israel].” He gave examples such as “hooding, sleep deprivation, and bread-and-water diets.” Fine added that “in all interrogations, some beating up was used,” and in a minority of cases, “serious” beatings occurred. He further noted that more sophisticated torture such as “electric shocks, bottles up the anus and objects inserted into the penis” were used in “a few cases”. While Fine acknowledged the evidence came from Palestinian and Arab detainees and prisoners, he emphasised that “exaggeration must be discounted”.
Jenner informed his bosses in the FCO that Fine believed that the body of evidence was “so consistent that, at the very least, there was a prima facie case for a full enquiry into allegation of torture.”
The ICRC representative in Jerusalem, Alfredo Witschi, supported the Sunday Times findings, calling the report “a very fair presentation of the available evidence,” despite it containing “some mistakes”. Witschi stated that the ICRC possessed “similar evidence though in much greater quantity”, alerting the British diplomat that the weight of the ICRC’s evidence of beating, which he said was very severe in some cases, was such that he “considered it amounted to proof” of torture.
He suggested that Israeli interrogators “were unlikely to be acting without instructions” and these instructions “were possibly to give them a free hand provided that they didn’t go too far”. Witschi also highlighted that the Sunday Times report “paid too little attention” to psychological techniques of torture used by the Israelis such as “threat of torture after exhausting the suspect by sleep deprivation and rigorous exercises.” The ICRC official was keen to alert Jenner that their conversation should be confidential.
The FCO Research Department reviewed the Sunday Times report and concluded that the allegations were “consistent with the available evidence from other sources, including the ICRC.” It acknowledged that psychological pressure was “probably condoned by higher authorities in Israel,” and more serious cases of maltreatment were probably isolated but did occur. The department drew the attention of FCO officials that the more serious allegations are “against Shin Bait [Israeli Internal Security Service] personnel in Moscobia, Hebron and Sarafand prisons.”
The Near East and North Africa Department (NENA) within the FCO noted that the sources for the allegations were primarily Arab prisoners and their legal representatives, making the accounts potentially one-sided. However it admitted the allegations of torture in the Israeli prisons “is not entirely inconsistent with that which emerges from the other material available to us and in particular with what the ICRC representative in Jerusalem told the Consulate-General there in confidence.”
William R. Tomkys, head of NENA, recommended raising the issue discreetly with Avraham Kidron, the Israeli ambassador to London, rather than involving the UK ambassador in Tel Aviv, to avoid straining relations with the Israeli government. “We may get off on the wrong foot with Mr Kidron as a result but this is less damaging than the risk that HM ambassador at Tel Aviv might lose the confidence of Mr Begin’s government,” Tomkys wrote.
He suggested advising Israel to conduct “a public inquiry”, arguing it would be “consistent with Israel’s close concern for human rights” and address widespread public concern in the UK about the allegations about the Israeli treatment of prisoners.
However, Foreign Secretary Owen instructed the FCO to wait till he addressed the issue with US Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance.
Commenting on Tomkys’ report and recommendation, Owen ordered “No action to be taken” instructing the issue “should be raised at a political level not Ambassadorial.” But he stressed that raising the issue should be “certainly not immediately”. Owen stressed to his staff that “we will also need to discuss with the Americans whom I know need time to consider” the issue.
He also disclosed that he had spoken to Sunday Times Editor Harry Evans about the report but the documents did not show whether he had shared the details of their conversation with his staff.
When the British ambassador raised the issue with the US State Department, officials confirmed they “had taken the report of the Sunday Times seriously.” However, Walter Smith, head of Israeli and Arab-Israeli Affairs, told the ambassador he was preparing a paper for Vance and the Americans “would encourage one or two members of the American Bar Association to get in touch with their Israeli opposite numbers to see whether further investigation leading to remedial action would be possible.”
The Sunday Times report sparked significant public and political concern in the UK. Thirty-three Members of Parliament signed a motion to discuss the issue in July 1977, while others wrote letters to Owen and his ministers. David Watkins, an MP and member of the Labour Middle East Council, strongly criticised the government’s “failure” to address the violations of Palestinians’ rights and to raise the issue “more vigorously and more openly” with the Israeli government given the available evidence. He warned that the UK risked being accused of “applying double standards” if it did not act as it had in the case of South Africa.
The MP pressed the ministers to inform him whether the UK has done all it should to find out the truth about “the persistent of allegations of torture” in Israeli prisons. He slammed what he described as “covering up” the Israeli ill-treatment of the Arab prisoners and detainees “both officially and on the news media”, giving an example of a US State Department document, which he confirmed he has seen, reporting on Israel observance of human rights in both Israel and the occupied territories. The MP described the document, prepared for Jimmy Carter, the then-US president, as “remarkably dishonest”. Watkins believed that the paper “was designed to assure the President that in difficult circumstance, Israel is making commendable, even if not wholly successful, effort to provide for and observe the Palestinian human rights both in Israel and in the occupied territories.”
In his response to Watkins, Frank Judd, minister of state for the Middle East, acknowledged that the allegations published by the Sunday Times were “disturbing” and stressed the need for Israel to address them.
Judd stressed that if true, these stories “would also reflect a situation which we, as a government committed to the promotion of human rights worldwide, would view most seriously.”
He suggested an “independent inquiry”, but he noted that its success would require Israel’s full cooperation. He rejected any idea to press Israel, expressing fears that if the UK raised the individual cases of human rights violation with the Israelis, such a move “would almost certainly be misinterpreted as an attempt to put political pressure on Israel over the wider issues of a Middle East settlement.”
Watkins, however, insisted that pressure on Israel was necessary, arguing that Israel would never withdraw from occupied territories or recognise Palestinian rights “except under pressure”.
Over the last few years, I’ve had the privilege and honor of speaking in some of the most important global health forums. The topics discussed in these forums are information of the highest level. This information provides a broad epidemiological outlook on global health, but what about the feeling on the ground? I believe treating patients is vital to my understanding of the current state of health.
What I’ve seen in consults recently is alarming—immunosuppression like never before. The rate of infectious diseases, particularly upper respiratory infections, is through the roof this season. The long duration of symptoms is what has caught my attention the most.
I attribute this to widespread immunosuppression, stemming from the toxic injectable materials so-called “COVID vaccines”, and the rest of the pandemic-era “public health” policies. Beginning with the insane restrictive measures that were implemented worldwide and continuing with the rollout of the jab. The result has been an unprecedented immunocascade. It is estimated that approximately 5.5 billion people around the globe took at least one dose of the COVID Vaccine. Imagine the level of widespread harm.
The immune system is composed of a complex and unique set of molecules. It can be described as the summation of all those physiological processes that endow the host with the capacity to recognize “materials” as foreign and neutralize, eliminate, or metabolize them with or without injury to its tissue. This ability to differentiate “self” from “nonself” constitutes the basic hallmark of the immune response. Recently there has been a lot of talk about “new” viruses like avian influenza (H5N1) which has been around since the 1960s. There is also mention of RSV and Human metapneumovirus (HMPV) known since the early 2000s with recent outbreaks in China. All these “outbreaks” are different versions of the same agenda of fear and critical mass formation psychosis.
After the COVID op, everything is sold out as an outbreak. However, few people have realized that all these infections have existed for many years. Due to the different measures taken during the COVID operation, including and especially the jabs, weakened immune systems aren’t able to respond accordingly. This is why we are seeing a rise in respiratory illnesses, and other health problems like turbo cancer.
At scale, people have not yet begun to understand the true consequences of these COVID-era policies. Policies that “experts” implemented to supposedly mitigate the spread of an infectious disease (COVID), forced the entire globe to isolate for nearly an entire year. What resulted has been an entire generation of immunosuppressed individuals, particularly children who were in their age of prime immune system development. The consequences are just barely being shown. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
It’s not as though new pathogens are springing up out of nowhere. Instead, people now have suppressed immune systems incapable of fighting off simple infectious diseases that have been around forever.
Isn’t it interesting that during the COVID Op, all respiratory infections were labeled as COVID until proven otherwise? In the same time period, the flu seemed to disappear. Interestingly, after a 3-year hiatus, the flu is back. Doesn’t that seem suspicious?
Obviously, this is being used as an excuse to promote further vaccination.
The so-called “novel” viruses, while they may have been around for some time, are being artificially pushed onto the public.
The McCullough Foundation recently published a research paper in the Poultry Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences Journal. This study looks into two laboratories that have been conducting gain-of-function research on H5N1, leading to the possible conclusion that these recent outbreaks may be the result of laboratory leaks.
A “manmade problem”, as Dr. Peter McCullough describes it, just as the COVID Operation was. There seems to be coordination here. They are purposefully pushing these diseases to spread fear and incite information warfare, taking advantage of the fact that there are now more immunocompromised people.
They’re pulling out the same playbook as they did for the COVID Op. They are trying to create a perfect storm in a renewed effort to exert further control of people.
Fortunately, the collective consciousness is elevated, and I’m certain that people won’t fall for it the same way that they did before.
Compromised immune systems are at the heart of the problem here. Strengthening them will be key to fighting off these coordinated bioattacks by utilizing early treatments such as nasal sprays, nutraceuticals, and natural remedies to prevent and treat these diseases effectively.
Trust has been greatly eroded in conventional medicine, as I have mentioned repeatedly in my articles. In the middle of all the chaos that surrounds the constant barrage of fear and health crises, patients must have options. Trusted messengers that they can look to and trust when it comes to their well-being. There is an increased awareness worldwide. People are starting to look for better health options.
There is no doubt that a new shift in attitude is required. An alternative/parallel healthcare system must be built. It should revolve around specialists who understand these basic principles of care, not those who have been captured by rhetoric and indoctrination of the medical religion.
Dr. Alejandro Diaz is a Pediatric Allergist / Immunologist and Global Health Expert with extensive international experience. He has delivered conferences in over 27 countries around the globe on topics of medicine, migration, biosecurity, and related topics. This includes prestigious venues such as the White House, the US Capitol, the Romanian Parliament, the European Parliament in Brussels, the Mexican Senate of the Republic, the United Nations in Geneva, Japanese Parliament, among others.
His career encompasses diverse roles in healthcare including private practice, health systems, and advisory positions for medical service companies, governments, and government entities worldwide.
Steve Sweeney, a British journalist who reported on the recent Israeli war on Lebanon, says he saw shredded and charred bodies, including those of children, scattered on the streets and hanging from trees as the Israeli regime bombed the country.
In a conversation with the Press TV website, Sweeney recounted the harrowing scenes he observed during nearly 70 days of relentless Israeli aggression against the Arab country, which resulted in massive death and destruction of civilians.
“Israel killed women and children in Lebanon. How do I know this? I know this because I saw the bodies. I saw people hanging from trees. I saw the remains of children who had been incinerated in these Israeli strikes,” he stated, presenting graphic details of the Zionist atrocities.
Sweeney, who exposed Israeli Hasbara after reporting how regime forces had stacked dollars and weapons in the basements of Sahel General Hospital in the Lebanese capital, called out the blatant lies propagated by the regime to justify preemptive strikes against displaced civilians and residential areas.
“We saw several massacres. It is difficult to put into words exactly what we witnessed. These were precision strikes, these were deliberate attacks. The goal was to kill the Shia community and instill fear, not just among the Shia, but also among the other communities that were sheltering them,” he noted.
“These people thought they were in safety, they were far away from the frontline of the fighting and they posed no threat to Israel whatsoever. This is a war crime. We saw the Shia community hunted down by Israel across Lebanon.”
According to the principle of proportionality in international law, as outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, even if there is a legitimate military target, attacking it is prohibited if the expected harm to civilians or civilian property is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
The rubble of buildings detsroyed in Israeli bombings in Beirut, Lebanon. (Steeve Sweeney/Press TV website)
Witness of the horror
The British journalist, who covered the war in the South, Baalbek, and the North, recalled the horrors he witnessed firsthand.
“There was a period when Israel was striking civilian buildings in civilian areas that were housing those who had already fled from the Israeli aggression in the South. Those who were killed were not Hezbollah fighters or military commanders. They were mainly women and children,” he told the Press TV website.
On December 4, Lebanese Health Minister Firass Abiad told reporters that a total of 316 children and 790 women had been killed in the Israeli assault on Lebanon.
A week after a truce was declared, Abiad reported that the death toll had reached 4,047, with 16,638 others wounded.
“What we saw was horrific, the massacres… We were at sights in Batroun and in Tripoli near the North and we saw scores of people killed, 23 people here, another 27 people there. In Saida we saw the same residential buildings targeted,” Sweeney told the Press TV website.
“I saw photos of a married couple, photos of children, toys and clothes of children among the rubble. It was something like a horror movie. There was massacre after massacre and war crime after war crime, mainly targeting displaced women and children.”
Reflecting on Israeli claims that these attacks were not deliberate, Sweeney dismissed them as blatant falsehoods. He asserted that Israel was losing on the battlefield and failing to achieve any of its military objectives. In response, its strategy shifted toward provoking civil strife and undermining support for the resistance—sending a clear warning to the Lebanese people that those who shelter the displaced would also be targeted.
“Israel wanted to sow discord among the Lebanese but it rather created a united Lebanon, a united people, who were not prepared to allow a component of the Lebanese people to be singled out. This was a war on all Lebanon, targeting the social fabric of the country,” the journalist said.
Lebanese women hold pictures of Hezbollah martyrs. (Steve Sweeney/Press TV website)
South Lebanon experience
Sweeney was among the first journalists to enter southern Lebanese border areas after the ceasefire.
“What we saw in the South was an apocalyptic scene. Village after village, town after town reduced to rubble. As we drove through we saw houses, apartment blocks destroyed, hospitals, schools, churches, mosques, civil defense centers,” he told the Press TV website.
He dismissed the narrative that Israeli forces were targeting only resistance fighters.
“A lie goes halfway around the world before the truth puts its shoes on, this is certainly a lie. Israel has told lie after lie. They say they had targeted a Hezbollah commander for example, yet they hit an entire building that is full of civilians,” he noted.
He hastened to add that the people of Lebanon are unshakeable and uncompromising, having made immense sacrifices yet refusing to submit or surrender.
“I was there at the very moment the people were returning to their homes or what was left of their homes for the very first time since the ceasefire. One woman, in particular, struck me when she was standing in front of her apartment block reduced into rubble, she had lost everything. Yet she said to me that she would give everything to Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and that she would give everything over and over again for the resistance. Then she said: we have two choices, either surrender or resistance.”
The journalist also pointed out that Israel was deliberately targeting infrastructure, as well as touristic and religious sites.
“We saw again in Tyr, the historic seafront which was bombed by Israel in the aggression. It is the destruction of a city that is crucial to Lebanon in terms of tourism, industry, and the economy. Israel destroyed everything in the South to make it uninhabited,” he remarked.
“I attended the funerals of 11 martyrs from Hezbollah who died fighting to defend their land and territory from Israeli invaders, and again this was a quite moving experience for me. The entire village came out in support of the martyrs and I spoke to one of the women whose son was killed. Of course, she was very sad, but she said I have two other sons, and I would be happy to give them as well.”
Sweeney reflected on how, as a Westerner, he had come to understand the concept of martyrdom better.
“I spoke to a Sheikh (cleric) who explained the concept of martyrdom. He said martyrdom is a new life; a concept that is difficult for a Westerner like me to understand, but I kind of understand it more now after my experience in the last three months of the Israeli aggression,” he stated.
“Israel will never be able to destroy Hezbollah. What they do not understand is that they can decapitate leaders, but those will be replaced. The commanders in Hezbollah are replaced and its structure remains intact. But the most important point is that Hezbollah is the people, and it cannot be defeated.”
Describing the people of southern Lebanon, with whom he spent considerable time, Sweeney remarked that they come from a unique path, calling them “a very special, beautiful, and resilient people.”
Threats for revealing truth
Sweeney said he faced abuse, a smear campaign, and death threats for his reportage on the war and for exposing uncomfortable truths about the Zionist aggression on Lebanon.
“I was abused and received some threats from Israelis when I did an investigative report from inside al-Sahel hospital, which Israel claimed Hezbollah hid dollars in the basement; an outlandish claim they also used in Gaza to justify pre-emptive strikes on hospitals like al-Shifa hospital. I was not targeted but they put me on their radar,” Sweeney told the Press TV website.
“I searched every corner, every room including the basement. And all I found was what you find in any hospital anywhere across the world. I had nobody following me around, there was nothing that I was denied access to and I could open any door I wanted and go anywhere I wanted. I opened boxes, tapped the walls to see if there is anything behind them, I checked every inch. This is Israeli Hasbara.”
In one incident, as Sweeney and his colleagues entered Maroun al-Ras, Israel opened fire on them.
“I am not entirely sure if they were firing at us or it was a warning shot, but this is what they are doing to the people of the South, the people who are trying to return to their homes and villages, it is preventing them from doing so and booby-trapping houses and bulldozing buildings.”
On the killing of three of his colleagues in Lebanon, the British journalist said he previously had been in that area and participating in their funerals affected him deeply as a fellow journalist.
“The landscape of journalism particularly in southern Lebanon is one of oppression, and the Press jacket becomes a target. Journalists in Lebanon hold their weapon which is their pen and camera and Israel is afraid of them because there is no escaping from the exposure of what they are doing.”
On the killing of three of his colleagues in Lebanon, the British journalist said he previously had been in that area and participating in their funerals affected him deeply as a fellow journalist.
“The landscape of journalism particularly in southern Lebanon is one of oppression, and the Press jacket becomes a target. Journalists in Lebanon hold their weapon which is their pen and camera and Israel is afraid of them because there is no escaping from the exposure of what they are doing.”
A forever legacy
The journalist said he also visited the site where Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was assassinated on September 27 in the suburbs of Beirut.
“It was a moving experience to stand where this great man was killed. His legacy will never die. What struck me the most was that Hassan Nasrallah died among his people, in a residential area—he was among the people,” he told the Press TV website.
“I think that says everything, about who he was, who he is, and his deep connection with the people. He was such an incredible figure. When he spoke to the nation, the whole of Lebanon would stand still and listen, and that was because what he said mattered to everybody. It mattered to the mechanic, the doctor, the student, the worker, it mattered to the United States, and to Israel.”
On September 27, amid indiscriminate aerial bombardments, the Israeli occupation forces dropped over 80 tons of US-made bunker-buster bombs on the southern suburb of Dahiyeh in Beirut, resulting in the assassination of Sayyed Nasrallah and his associates.
The attack followed the assassinations of top-ranking Hezbollah commanders such as Fuad Shukr and Ibrahim Aqil in separate strikes and preceded the killing of Sayyed Hashem Safiuddin, the head of Hezbollah’s Executive Council.
“He was an intelligent and thoughtful leader. If you listen to his speeches, to the power of his words, you understand that he will never truly die — he lives on in the people and in the resistance. His martyrdom is a huge loss, but it is not the end of Nasrallah. His legacy will endure forever,” Sweeney said.
He added that he has spoken to Lebanese people from all communities across the country, and all of them, “without question,” support the resistance against the Zionist enemy.
“They have made it clear: We either surrender or resist. Despite the horrors inflicted by Israel on the people of Lebanon — despite the destruction and the immense damage Israel has caused, not just physical but also psychological and economic, which should not be underestimated — the people of Lebanon remain unbreakable,” he asserted.
“I have heard this from so many people who have lost their homes, lost everything — they will continue to support the resistance. And should Israel attempt to encroach again on Lebanese sovereign territory, it will be met with fierce resistance.”
Sweeney concluded that, based on what he witnessed and experienced, this is not merely an Israeli war on Hezbollah but an Israeli war on all of Lebanon. And Lebanon has chosen resistance. He added.
By Jonas E. Alexis | Veterans Today | July 23, 2017
Israeli Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu seems to have picked up where the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef left off. The Israeli army, Eliyahu said, must slaughter the Palestinians “and leave no one alive.” The Palestinians, the good rabbi continued, must be “destroyed and crushed in order to end violence.” Here is Eliyahu’s algorithm:
“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000. And if they do not stop after 1,000, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million.”
There is more to this “logic” than meets the eye and ear. Eliyahu even postulated that the Israeli army ought not to get involved in arresting Palestinians because “If you leave him alive, there is a fear that he will be released and kill other people. We must eradicate this evil from within our midst.”
You may say that this is just an isolated case. No Israeli official believes that, right? … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
• The Anglo-American War on France 
Aletho News
Aletho News 