Undermining the EU’s self-described commitment to privacy
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | May 10, 2023
There are few things the EU Commission (the EU’s executive arm) would like to present more than the bloc and its institutions speaking with one voice, particularly on controversial topics, such as attempts to destroy encryption.
However, documents leaked from the EU Council Legal Service regarding the legality of a proposal known as “chat control” (formally, Child Sexual Abuse Regulation, CSAR), show that there may be “trouble in paradise.”
As digital rights advocate and European Parliament member (MEP) Patrick Breyer of Germany reports, the Service has warned the Commission that its idea probably runs contrary to the fundamental right to respect for private life – meaning that the European Court of Justice would likely annul it.
Summed up, the “chat control” scheme proposes forcing providers of chat, messaging, phone, and email services to screen all private messages in search for illegal content and then inform the police.
But the problem with this, as the Service has noticed, is that it very easily could be interpreted as general and indiscriminate, as well as permanent surveillance, given that the plan gives “generalized” access to every citizen, including those the analysis says are “not even remotely connected with child sexual exploitation.”
And with the high likelihood that CSAR’s “detection orders” would be considered a violation of the fundamental right to privacy and confidentiality of correspondence, the EU court is also highly likely to squash “chat control” as indiscriminate surveillance, the Service warns.
The analysis also notes that while if the justification for “communications metadata screening” is national security, the court allows it – the drastic measures proposed in the CSAR would probably not be considered proportional to their stated purpose.
There’s also the issue of the EU Commission making the dubious claim that the process, rather than generalized, is somehow “targeted” (it does target everyone – so perhaps that’s the sophistry those behind the CSAR chose to go with.)
But the Legal Service’s analysis fears this is actually a “contradiction” between what the Commission is saying, and what the proposal actually spells out.
The Service’s logical suggestion then is to actually target detection orders so that they apply to people “in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are in some way involved in, committing or have committed a child sexual abuse offense.”
Observers have noted that the analysis of the CSAR – whose UK counterpart is the Online Safety Bill, represents serious criticism of similar, encryption-undermining proposals on both sides of the Atlantic.
RT | May 10, 2023
Washington has developed an artificial intelligence-based system to detect and gather ‘Russian’ disinformation online, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed on Tuesday at the Freedom House 2023 Annual Awards Ceremony.
The State Department has created “an AI-enabled online Ukraine Content Aggregator to collect verifiable Russian disinformation and then to share that with partners around the world,” the US top diplomat said.
The government is cooperating with scholars to be able to “reliably detect fake text generated by Russian chatbots,” he added.
Last year, social media analytics company Graphika and the Stanford Internet Observatory said hundreds of accounts disseminating pro-Western narratives over the past five were likely being run by the Pentagon’s Centcom unit. In March, news website The Intercept reported on federal contract documents, which suggest that the US Special Operations Command is planning to conduct propaganda and deception campaigns online using deepfake technology.
Last month, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused the US of waging “an unprecedented information campaign” against Russia since the start of the conflict in Ukraine. Washington and its allies “need war at any cost, and their favorite method of solving their own problems is provocations, disinformation and threats,” Zakharova argued.
Speaking about artificial intelligence in general, Blinken warned that the technology can backfire and “amplify discrimination and enable abuses.”
“It also runs the risk of strengthening autocratic governments, including by enabling them to exploit social media even more effectively to manipulate their people and sow division among and within their adversaries,” he said.
Since the release of the artificial intelligence bot ChatGPT last November, the debate over the dangers posed by AI has intensified in the industry and in academic circles. Geoffrey Hinton, who is known as one of the ‘godfathers’ of AI, warned last week that the technology could present a “more urgent” threat than climate change.
In March, several tech industry leaders, including Elon Musk, co-signed an open letter, urging a six-month pause in the development of AI technology more powerful than ChatGPT, and the appointment of an independent regulator to provide oversight in the field.
Sputnik – 10.05.2023
PARIS – France will block websites that share information of sanctioned media, including RT France and Sputnik, under a new law on security of digital space, French Minister for Digital Transition and Telecommunications Jean-Noel Barrot said on Wednesday.
“As part of measures to protect democracy we will also begin blocking websites that share content of media under international sanctions like the ones the EU imposed against RT France and Sputnik. This measure will complement our existing tools to fight the propaganda of the enemies of democracy,” Barrot told a briefing after a cabinet meeting.
The French ministry has claimed the measure will allow the authorities to protect people from disinformation by expanding the powers of Arcom, the country’s media regulator, which will be authorized to impose restrictive measures against media.
The draft law will be submitted to the Senate in early July, Barrot stated.
Since the start of Russia’s special military operation, a number of jurisdictions, including the European Commission, have decided to censor Russian media and affiliated journalists. In early March 2022, the EU banned the broadcasting and distribution of content by RT and Sputnik as part of the sanctions against Russia, applying the restrictions to all means of content transmission and distribution, such as cable, satellite, IPTV, platforms, websites and apps. All relevant RT, Sputnik licenses and agreements are suspended.
The Cradle | May 10, 2023
Pakistani police have detained at least 945 supporters of ousted prime minister Imran Khan in Punjab, the country’s most populous province, since protests erupted on 9 May following Khan’s arrest.
At least one protester was shot dead by security forces in the southwestern city of Quetta on Tuesday, according to a CNN reporter present at the scene.
“Police teams arrested 945 lawbreakers and miscreants from across the province,” officials said in a statement to the media, adding that 130 security officers were injured, 25 police and government vehicles were burnt, and 14 government buildings were attacked during the protests.
In the face of popular discontent, the interior ministry on 10 May requisitioned the help of the army to “maintain law and order” in Punjab.
On Tuesday, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) deployed dozens of paramilitary troops to dramatically detain Khan under alleged charges of “corruption and corrupt practices.”
The former premier was presented in an Islamabad court on Wednesday morning to face the charges. During the hearing, the NAB requested the court approve Khan be kept under police custody for 14 days, a move his lawyers opposed.
Khan’s lawyers also insisted that the court investigate the irregular manner in which the 70-year old politician was arrested from the premises of the Islamabad High Court.
In a pre-recorded statement released on YouTube by Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party after his arrest, the former premier said he was “detained on incorrect charges” and told his supporters, “the time has come for all of you to come and struggle for your rights.”
“I have always followed the law. I am being apprehended so that I can’t follow my political path for this country’s fundamental rights and for me to obey this corrupt government of crooks which has been hoisted on us,” Khan added.
Following his arrest, his supporters broke into the military’s headquarters in the city of Rawalpindi, just outside the capital.
Protesters also blocked one of the main thoroughfares into Islamabad, throwing stones and pulling down street signs.
Authorities responded by deploying internet jammers and disrupting access to Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube in the nation of 270 million.
Khan’s arrest came just a few months before crucial elections in October, where many expect the ousted premier to win the largest democratic mandate ever secured by any politician in the 75-year history of Pakistan.
The former cricket star was ousted from government last year in a US-backed parliamentary coup that saw Shehbaz Sharif – a protégé of the Sharif business dynasty that has governed Pakistan for much of the last three decades – come to power.
Khan previously saw his relationship with the US sour after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. They were also at odds over Afghan state assets frozen by Washington and about US flights over Pakistan.
More pressure started to build against Khan after he criticized western powers for pressuring Islamabad into condemning Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine.
“What do you think of us? Are we your slaves … that whatever you say, we will do?” Khan said at a political rally early last year.
Since his ousting, he has been arrested, charged with “terrorism,” banned from running for office, and even survived an assassination attempt.
By Michael Lesher | Brownstone Institute | May 9, 2023
Suppose I tell you in advance that the essay you are reading is meant to startle you. And suppose I suggest, by way of demonstration, that two people as loosely connected as the leader of the “COVID Crisis Group” and Joe Biden’s “Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Antisemitism” – both of whom have recently offered recommendations for improving political life in the United States – are in fact determined to unravel American freedoms.
Would you be surprised?
Well, if so, that is exactly the startling fact I am trying to bring to your attention. True, you may not have heard that the 34 COVID-19 “experts” headed by one Philip Zelikow (last seen justifying the concealment of information about the 9/11 attacks) and anti-Semitism “ambassador” Deborah Lipstadt – perhaps best known for slandering scads of Jewish survivors of the Nazis as “soft-core” Holocaust deniers because they objected to the massacre of 1,462 of Gaza’s civilians nine years ago – are both out to dismantle the Bill of Rights. But if you haven’t, it isn’t because they’ve been coy about their objectives.
Take the Zelikow panel. Its new book on “the lessons learned from COVID-19” openly conflates the federal government’s management of a respiratory virus with “wartime” – thus rationalizing the executive branch’s preemption of democratic government. Not only that, Zelikow and his band of “experts” explicitly call for the consolidation of power in the hands of an unelected “health security enterprise” that would control, among other things, a “systematic biomedical surveillance network.” And in case you can’t guess who is likely to benefit from the snooping, the panel goes on to praise the coercive experimental drug program that gave us the COVID-19 “vaccines” – “a bargain at $30 billion,” according to the editors of the Washington Post – signaling at one stroke the experts’ contempt for the Nuremberg Code and their subservience to Big Pharma.
As for Lipstadt, she has launched her attack on the First Amendment by redefining “anti-Semitism” so as to include an extraordinary range of political speech. Her first step in that transformation is the familiar trick of confusing criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Jewish bigotry. But her second step is newer and, arguably, even more disturbing: she tars all denigration of Jews with the hot-button label “conspiracy theory.”
Let’s be clear: however noble the pretext of opposing Jew-hatred, it should be obvious that once you characterize anti-Semitism as a “conspiracy theory” you have made a case for censorship. As Lipstadt herself explained to Jane Eisner of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism (in an interview printed in the latest AARP Magazine but not available online): “[I]t’s a conspiracy theory that Jews control the media, the banks, the election process, etc. If you believe that there is a group controlling these things, then essentially you’re saying that you don’t believe in democracy.”
And there’s the trouble. After all, an overt attack on democracy isn’t a viewpoint; it isn’t even an expression of run-of-the-mill bigotry. It’s a threat to the state. And it follows, if you accept Lipstadt’s formulation, that anyone the government can label an “anti-Semite” may now be punished in the same way the Biden administration is already punishing people who protested the presidential election results of November 2020. Note, too, the selective parameters of the offense: blaming Donald Trump’s election on the Russians is presumably “legitimate” speech; but accusing a “group” of controlling “the election process” can land you in jail – that is, when the “group” is not an official enemy but a favored minority, and when that “process” has reached results endorsed by those in power.
So the Zelikow panel and Ambassador Lipstadt can’t be accused of hiding their illiberal goals. Like the Democratic lynch mob that denounced Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger on the floor of Congress last March for revealing the extent of government censorship of Twitter, these propagandists quite openly assert that surveillance is good for us, while free speech is entirely too dangerous to be entrusted to mere citizens.
“Ordinary folks and national security agencies responsible for our security,” Congressman Colin Allred lectured Taibbi, “are trying their best to find a way to make sure that our online discourse doesn’t get people hurt, or see our democracy undermined.” It’s pretty breathtaking to watch an African-American liberal solemnly declare that the CIA and the FBI are the true guardians of democracy – not to mention his defense of the security state’s behind-the-scenes censorship of political speech. But what’s even more ominous is that not a single prominent Democratic politician nor a single pundit in mainstream liberal media has repudiated anything the congressman said.
Is it any wonder, then, that no one in mainstream media has mentioned the totalitarian tendencies implicit in the COVID Crisis Group’s recommendations for “pandemic” regulation via dismantling democracy, or in Ambassador Lipstadt’s appeals to the public to “discredit” anti-Semitism by recasting it as a criminal conspiracy?
Of course it isn’t. And that is my point. That is my motive in writing in tandem about these two apparently disparate subjects, connected only by the facts that both of them involve recent public declarations and that both of them represent attacks on fundamental liberties.
Because the truth is that condemning freedom is now so entirely respectable that it’s happening practically everywhere – under every possible pretext, almost any day, from just about any left-liberal institution that claims to care about the public good. Close your eyes, and you can hardly tell whether what you’re hearing is coming from a Democratic Party stalwart or from an old-line Soviet apologist explaining why Andrei Sakharov or Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Yuri Orlov is really, notwithstanding the accuracy of what he’s been saying, a threat to the state who deserves to be muzzled or jailed.
And the media’s silence about it all is as ominous as the Orwellian nattering of the freedom-haters themselves.
Take another look at the Zelikow panel’s assessment of the US government’s performance during the “COVID crisis.” Writing about what the “experts” praise or blame in their report, the Washington Post never once mentions the crippling of the US working-class economy due to arbitrary confinements and business shutdowns, the educational damage done to a whole generation of children through needless school closures, the reckless suspension of representative democracy in four-fifths of our states, the medically unjustifiable trauma caused by “mask mandates,” or the undermining of the national healthcare system through an obsessive focus on one respiratory virus while more serious issues were sidelined for over a year. As far as the Post is concerned, the real outrages of the COVID coup never happened at all.
Even when the experts and the editors do manage to notice something sinister, they go out of their way to miss the point. The Zelikow panel specifically notes the “four pandemic planning exercises” staged by the US government barely a year before the announcement of the COVID-19 outbreak. And it offers a few technical criticisms of the proceedings.
But neither the panel nor the Post editors’ congratulatory summary of its conclusions addresses the fact that the exercises – which omitted any suggestion for using repurposed drugs as early treatment for a novel virus, as in all previous influenza-like outbreaks – made a point of discussing the importance of thought-policing social media. That prescription for censorship became a grim reality after March 2020. But you’d never know it from reading the Zelikow panel’s assessment of the government’s mistakes in addressing the “pandemic.”
And Lipstadt? She claims to be a passionate defender of free speech. But that didn’t stop her from smearing Senator Ron Johnson as a “white nationalist sympathizer” because of his politically incorrect comments about Black Lives Matter. And when that issue made it to the op-ed page of the New York Times, it was only to further demonize Johnson; Lipstadt’s slander got a pass.
Why do I worry so much about this? Well, first of all because an attack on freedom is an attack on all of us.
But I think there is a special reason for alarm. It’s not just that our ruling elites believe that we, the people, need to be stripped of our right to free expression. I’m afraid that the freedom-haters clustered around our figurehead President are not even aware just how thin the ice is onto which they’re propelling us. Their position (taking the most charitable possible view of it) runs something like this: if the public isn’t exposed to views of which the censors disapprove, hoi polloi will meekly accept whatever policies are imposed on them (for their own good, of course).
But the censors are wrong. The fabric of American political life has been strained to such tautness that a single acute crisis might rupture it altogether. And if that happens, people who have been deprived of reasonable dissent will not shrink from violent opposition; on the contrary, they will embrace it. When the monolithic narrative that is all they have been taught lies in ruins, they will replace it not with a rational, informed alternative – for they will know of none – but with whatever satisfies the rage of a population that realizes, too late, that it has been hoodwinked.
Woe to the freedom-haters when the lion they think they have tamed turns its fury on the liberal society that soothsayers like Zelikow and Lipstadt still imagine they are defending!
MEMO | May 9, 2023
The Israeli occupation authorities jailed former Jerusalem Minister Khaled Abu Arafa for four months on Monday under an administrative detention order. The order was imposed a week after he was kidnapped by Israeli occupation forces from his temporary residence in the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah.
Abu Arafa and three other Jerusalemites were stripped of their Israeli identity documents when they won seats in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary election. They were all jailed under administration detention orders which were renewed regularly with neither charge nor trial until they were released in May 2010. They were then expelled from Jerusalem after staging a protest in the office of the International Red Cross in the city that lasted until September 2011, and were forbidden from returning to the occupied city.
Since then, they have been living in temporary homes in the occupied West Bank. This has not stopped the occupation authorities from harassing and now detaining them under new administrative detention orders.
This is part two of a two-part series on the One Health initiative. Read part one here.
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 8, 2023
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines “One Health,” as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems,” as they are “closely linked and interdependent” — a concept that on the surface appears to promote noble goals interlinking human and environmental health.
However, some scientists and medical experts are concerned about One Health’s vague goals. Arguing that the concept has been “hijacked,” they question the intent of those involved with the development and global rollout of the concept — including the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Bank.
Experts who spoke with The Defender also raised questions about other aspects of the One Health concept, including a biosecurity agenda, a global surveillance system, vaccine passports and restrictions on human behavior.
While these goals are underpinned by a vaguely defined “Theory of Change,” experts told The Defender that major financial interests are at the heart of the One Health agenda, which appears to be closely linked to climate change and sustainable development initiatives promoted by the same global organizations.
One Health objectives include a ‘global takeover of everything’
In a May 1 article, Dr. Joseph Mercola connected the One Health concept, as promoted by global organizations, to the policies and restrictions pursued in response to COVID-19, describing it as an attempted “global takeover of everything.”
Mercola tied the One Health concept to key entities that have supported gain-of-function research. According to Mercola:
“Interestingly, the term ‘One Health,’ which was formally adopted by the WHO and the G20 health ministers in 2017, was first coined by the executive vice president of the EcoHealth Alliance, the same firm that appears to have had a hand in the creation of SARS-CoV-2.”
During the 2019 lecture “Can One Health Help Prevent the Next Pandemic?” EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, Ph.D., commissioner in The Lancet’s One Health Commission, said “emerging infectious diseases” are “a growing global threat.”
He also argued that many of these emerging diseases are “zoonotic — spread from animals to humans.”
Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, questioned this narrative, telling The Defender :
“All these ‘emerging infectious diseases’ are emerging out of their offensive biological warfare weapons programs conducted in their BSL4 [biosecurity level 4] and BSL3 laboratories.
“If you look at the people on the WHO advisory committee dealing with ‘emerging infectious diseases,’ that’s exactly what they are doing — ‘emerging’ them from their labs.”
One example is that of Marion Koopmans, DVM, Ph.D., director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for emerging infectious diseases at Erasmus Medical Centre in the Netherlands and member of the WHO’s One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP).
According to Boyle, “Erasmus is where this offensive Nazi biowarfare gain-of-function death science dirty work first became notorious under Fouchier, [who] started the entire controversy over his gain-of-function work there.”
Boyle was referring to Ron Fouchier, Ph.D., who also is deputy head of Erasmus’ Viroscience Department and who, according to Science, “alarmed the world” in 2011, after he and other researchers “separately modified the deadly avian H5N1 influenza virus so that it spread between ferrets” — an early example of gain-of-function research.
Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist who is a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, said such objectives are kept deliberately vague. She referred to a CDC document that stated:
“Successful public health interventions require the cooperation of human, animal, and environmental health partners … Other relevant players in a One Health approach could include law enforcement, policymakers, agriculture, communities, and even pet owners.
“By promoting collaboration across all sectors, a One Health approach can achieve the best health outcomes for people, animals, and plants in a shared environment.”
Nass wrote on her blog, “I anticipate that One Health will be used to impose changes in the way humans and animals interact … most likely based on the needs of the WEF [World Economic Forum]/elites and not the needs of the people or the animals that will be affected.”
Reggie Littlejohn, founder and president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers and co-chair of the Stop Vaccine Passports Task Force, told The Defender, “It’s not clear that One Health is prioritizing human health.”
Highlighting the “vague” language employed by the global organizations promoting One Health, Littlejohn said that one goal may be to “govern farm animal health in addition to human health,” through which “they could do things like forcing vaccines on livestock.”
One Health means ‘surveilling everything’
The experts who spoke with The Defender expressed concerns over the biosecurity agenda that is associated with the stated objectives of One Health.
According to Nass, this reflects how the WHO “has been changing into a biosecurity agency,” adding that “the justification, apparently, for the WHO’s director-general to take over jurisdiction of healthcare during pandemics, but also potentially ecosystems, animals and plants, is through One Health.”
Nass noted that One Health “is mentioned several times in the National Defense [Authorization] Act for Fiscal Year 2023” (NDAA), which includes 18 pages on “pandemic preparedness” and a formal definition of the “One Health approach” on page 952 of the act.
Independent journalist and researcher James Roguski also highlighted the prominent placement of One Health in the NDAA and noted that, by formally defining the concept within the act, it is now part of the Code of Federal Regulations.
However, Roguski said the NDAA goes even further:
“The U.S. has pledged a billion dollars a year to the World Bank Pandemic Fund in support of the global health security agenda. The WHO is one of 14 intermediaries who will receive and redistribute some of that billion dollars.
“Basically, it’s capitalism, it’s corruption, it’s an abomination from a health perspective. Let’s just throw money at pharmaceutical companies, build out the infrastructure in these nations and, if you’re making tons of products locally, you’re going to be able to convince the local government to stick them in people’s arms or shove it down their throat.
“And none of it really has shown to be of any health benefit. It’s damage to people’s health.”
Associated with the promotion of a global biosecurity agenda is the development of a global surveillance infrastructure that would purportedly protect human and animal health and the environment. An Oct. 3, 2022, WHO document states:
“The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused COVID-19 has underlined the need to strengthen the One Health approach, with a greater emphasis on connections to animal health and the environment …
“… It uses the close, interdependent links among these fields to create new surveillance and disease control methods. …
“We now have an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen collaboration and policies across these many areas and reduce the risk of future pandemics and epidemics while also addressing the ongoing burden of endemic and non-communicable diseases
“Surveillance that monitors risks and helps identify patterns across these many areas is needed.”
Remarking on this, Littlejohn said One Health’s proponents talk about “interoperable, integrated surveillance systems.” She told The Defender :
“I believe … these surveillance systems of people, animals, plants, and the environment are going to be coordinated by some kind of a global surveillance system that is interoperable globally and integrated.
“Whoever’s running this show, the WHO, the Chinese Communist Party … the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who are the people who really appear to be running the show at the WHO, are going to be able to tap into and see all of our private information. Not just us, but animals and plants.”
Dr. David Bell, a public health physician and biotech consultant and former director of global health technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, told The Defender that what global organizations intend is “surveilling everything.” He said:
“It means surveilling everything, surveilling the climate for possible threats, surveilling animal population, surveilling wildlife, surveilling the soil to see if there’s new traces of virus or bacteria in river systems, et cetera.
“This allows you to ‘discover’ what we already know is nature, and then turn nature into a potential threat or into a threat. The more surveillance you have and the wider it is, the more inevitable ‘threats’ you’ll find … because you can make an argument that almost any new variant virus is a ‘threat.’
“It will allow them to keep a constant kind of fear which then allows you to introduce authoritarian controls such as central bank digital currencies and digital passports … that allow them to monetize the human population more effectively.”
Nass noted that global actors such as the WHO “talk about sharing of specimens during a pandemic … so they can try to make vaccines too. However, they don’t talk about performing surveillance on human beings. But what they did say, which let the cat out of the bag, is that they would want to get informed consent from countries for sharing of genomic data, rather than from individuals.”
Part of this surveillance infrastructure also would include vaccine passports, which figure prominently in the pandemic treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) currently under negotiation at the WHO.
According to Littlejohn:
“I believe that they laid the infrastructure during the COVID-19 crisis, and we’re having a little bit of a ‘break’ here between pandemics, but that structure, that infrastructure is going to snap shut with the next pandemic if we don’t stop it. That structure has to do with vaccine passports.
“It could be called a ‘smart health card’ or ‘digital health ID,’ or even a mandatory digital driver’s license can serve as the platform for a China-style social credit system. And there’s a new bill in front of the Senate right now … the Improving Digital Identity Act of 2023 … It’s a mandatory national ID that’s going to be interoperable, coordinated, integrated and can serve as the same platform as China’s social credit system … to surveil us.”
Restrictions on human behavior could lower humans to the level of animals
The WHO’s Oct. 3, 2022, document also claimed that “Some 60% of emerging infectious diseases that are reported globally come from animals, both wild and domestic,” adding that “human activities and stressed ecosystems have created new opportunities for diseases to emerge and spread.”
Such stressors “include animal trade, agriculture, livestock farming, urbanization, extractive industries, climate change, habitat fragmentation and encroachment into wild areas,” according to the WHO.
“To the extent that carbon emissions due to transportation within cities would contribute to climate change, then the ‘15-minute city’ would be a way of addressing that,” Littlejohn said. “The danger is that they will enforce it by having surveillance cameras everywhere to make sure you don’t go outside of your district without permission.”
In a March 30 article, “Your Daughter for a Rat,” Bell cited a One Health editorial published in The Lancet stating that “all life is equal, and of equal concern.” In response, Bell suggested that One Health aims to lower humans to the level of animals.
The same Lancet article described One Health as “a call for ecological, not merely health, equity” and called for a “subtle but quite revolutionary shift of perspective” away from “anthropocentrism”: “All life is equal, and of equal concern.”
“It looks like this is going to be the justification for moving people down to the value of animals,” Nass said in response; a sentiment shared by Boyle, who said, “One Health relates the healthcare of human beings to the healthcare of animals and thus reduces healthcare for human beings to the level of healthcare for animals.”
According to Bell, “suggesting that we have a duty as a species on this planet to look after every species equally and treat them more equally [is] becoming sort of a religion or dogma. It defies what any rational society in the history of humanity” has practiced and is “a very unusual approach and potentially very scary.”
One Health: Follow the money
The WHO has attempted to give theoretical credence to the One Health concept by developing a so-called “Theory of Change” (ToC).
Although the WHO says the ToC is designed to provide “a conceptual framework” for “organisations, agencies and initiatives working towards similar One Health goals” and a “common narrative of coherence,” the theory itself does not appear to have a clear definition.
“They want to be able to do whatever they want,” Littlejohn said. “If you define it, then you can hold them to the definition … one of the tactics is just to be really obscure and incomprehensible.”
“This is a term that is used in these circles,” Bell added. “It’s stating the obvious, that if you do a certain act, you’ll have a certain outcome. It’s a fancy way of saying that.”
Bell also referred to the “fallacy that is being pushed that humans are having increasing contact with wildlife,” supposedly leading to “this threat of viruses jumping from wildlife to humans.”
Calling it a “ludicrous claim,” Bell said that “when humans move into wildlife habitats, the wildlife don’t start living with humans. They die out.”
Noting that “it used to be very common” for people to live with farm animals, Bell added that the claim that pandemics are becoming more common due to increased contact with animals is itself “not true,” but is “used to instill fear and to try to get people to buy into this One Health, constant health emergency agenda.”
Nass said One Health proponents “don’t actually have any evidence” to support their claims, offering the example of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria found in meat consumed by humans, as a result of antibiotics administered to livestock. “That’s been the hook that One Health has been hung on,” Nass said.
However, Nass said this problem “could be solved in a heartbeat if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. Department of Agriculture just told farmers they can’t put antibiotics into animal feed anymore, they can only use them when an animal gets sick.”
In his recent article, Mercola suggested following the money. “Private interests wield immense power over the WHO, and a majority of the funding is ‘specified,’ meaning it’s earmarked for particular programs. The WHO cannot allocate those funds wherever they’re needed most.”
As a result, this “massively influences what the WHO does and how it does it. So, the WHO is an organization that does whatever its funders tell it to do,” naming organizations such as the Gates Foundation as prime funders of the WHO.
Bell said that supporters of One Health include “those who have been pushing the COVID agenda … and enriching themselves from it,” including “private foundations who are on the bandwagon” and “corporations who stand to gain from controlling the food chain and controlling agriculture and pharmaceuticals, et cetera.”
“It’s corporate authoritarians that have benefited themselves from public health through COVID and the certainly inappropriate COVID response,” Bell added. “And it’s the same and it’s not disconnected with the climate emergency agenda.”
One prominent financial actor closely involved with the development of the One Health agenda is the World Bank, as WHO documents indicate.
At a November 2022 OHHLEP meeting, Franck Berthe, the World Bank’s senior livestock specialist, introduced the World Bank’s Financial Intermediary Fund, which would “allow countries to borrow funds to strengthen their health system and promote the OH [One Health] approach.”
According to Nass, “the WHO and the World Bank have helped form this financing operation for the biosecurity agenda,” while Boyle told The Defender, “There is nothing humanitarian about these backers and the WHO promoting the One Health agenda.”
Both Nass and Bell said the One Health agenda is closely tied to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030. Bell said that the One Health agenda attempts to deal with a supposed “existential threat to human health” that “must be dealt with in a centralized way, rather than giving people a choice.”
One Health closely tied to WHO pandemic treaty, IHR amendments
Experts who spoke with The Defender also emphasized the connections between the One Health concept and the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments under negotiation.
Mercola wrote that through the One Health agenda, which recognizes “a very broad range of aspects of life and the environment [that] can impact health and therefore fall under the ‘potential’ to cause harm,” the WHO “will be able to declare climate change as a health emergency and subsequently require climate lockdowns.”
Roguski, who has extensively researched the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments, said that in amendments the EU recently proposed for the pandemic treaty, the term “One Health” appears 29 times, including calling upon countries to develop and regularly update pandemic prevention plans via the One Health approach.
Referring to the need to prevent potential “pandemic situations,” the proposals also call for strengthening global public health surveillance “using a One Health approach,” which will also “address the drivers of the emergence and re-emergence of disease at the human-animal-environment interface, including but not limited to climate change, land use change, wildlife trade, desertification and antimicrobial resistance.”
The proposals also suggest the One Health approach could be used “to produce science-based evidence, and support, facilitate and/or oversee the correct, evidence-based and risk-informed implementation of infection prevention and control,” and go as far as to suggest targets on “antimicrobial consumption/use.”
Roguski told The Defender that the latest draft of the pandemic treaty refers to One Health 13 times. Such language would “be used to take over complete control of our lives,” Roguski added.
For example, one proposal states, “Each Party shall, in accordance with national law, adopt policies and strategies, supported by implementation plans, across the public and private sectors and relevant agencies, consistent with relevant tools, including, but not limited to, the International Health Regulations, and strengthen and reinforce public health functions for: (c) surveillance (including using a One Health approach).”
Other proposals include:
“The Parties commit to strengthen multi-sectoral, coordinated, interoperable and integrated One Health surveillance systems … to identify and assess the risks and emergence of pathogens and variants with pandemic potential, in order to minimize spill-over events, mutations and the risks associated with zoonotic neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases, with a view to preventing small-scale outbreaks in wildlife or domesticated animals from becoming a pandemic.
“Each Party shall … develop and implement a national One Health action plan on antimicrobial resistance that strengthens antimicrobial stewardship in the human and animal sectors, optimizes antimicrobial consumption, increases investment in, and promotes equitable and affordable access to, new medicines, diagnostic tools, vaccines and other interventions, strengthens infection prevention and control in health care settings and sanitation and biosecurity in livestock farms, and provides technical support to developing countries.”
Roguski said the phrase “One Health” doesn’t directly appear in documents related to the proposed IHR amendments, but he added the WHO “is going to try to get them both to prevail,” referring to both the treaty and IHR amendments.
Littlejohn said, the One Health approach and the proposed language in the treaty “gives them the right to surveil and potentially control every aspect of life on earth.”
Noting that the proposed treaty also calls for a “commitment to counteract ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘false news,’” Littlejohn added, “they’re going to surveil our social media … and if any of us steps out of line by contradicting what the WHO says, then we could be censored.”
“That’s what I think is in mind with this commitment to ‘coordinated, interoperable and integrated’ One Health surveillance systems,” Littlejohn added. “I think that’s how it could end up being deployed. Ultimately, globalist entities, such as the World Economic Forum and the UN are using the WHO as their way of establishing global control.”
“The reason that health is such a good pretext is that people can become terrified,” Littlejohn added. “To the extent that their minds are paralyzed if they think they could die or get really sick, they’re willing to give up freedoms that they would not be willing to give up in other contexts.”
Roguski told The Defender :
“They made a lot of bad decisions. They gave a lot of bad advice [and] they caused a lot of harm to a lot of people. You can’t just give those people more power, authority and control without looking at what they did and going, ‘no, you should not be in charge of any of this.’”
In turn, Mercola wrote that “The globalist takeover hinges on the successful creation of a feedback loop of surveillance for virus variants, declaration of potential risk followed by lockdowns and restrictions, followed by mass vaccinating populations to ‘end’ the pandemic restrictions, followed by more surveillance and so on.”
And according to Bell, One Health “is part of a much bigger picture of finding ways to pull apart the intrinsic ideas that most societies have been built on.”
“I think that this is part of a move to undo these sorts of ideas and to replace them with a sort of religion of fear of our surroundings and denigration of other humans that can then be used by very greedy people to increase their wealth and power,” Bell said. “It’s taken over public health to a large extent.”
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
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.
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | May 7, 2023
The House Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas to executives at a group often affiliated with the World Economic Forum (WEF).
Chair of the committee, Rep. Jim Jordan said the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and the organization that created it, the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), might be allowing the violation of US antitrust law.
“To advance our oversight and inform potential legislation related to these collusive practices, the Committee must understand whether, how, and to what extent GARM and WFA facilitate collusion to prevent certain content from benefiting from advertising dollars and to reduce that content’s presence online,” Jordan wrote.
According to the letters, the House Judiciary Committee has attempted to get communications and documents “related to how GARM and WFA act to demonetize and eliminate disfavored content online, in addition to other information” since March.
However, both the WFA and GARM did not provide the documents requested.
The subpoenas addressed to GARM’s co-founder Robert Rakowitz and WFA president Raja Rajamannar, demand communications and documents from January 2019 to date. The organizations have until May 26 to respond.
Read the letter here.
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | May 7, 2023
During the Party National Convention, the Canadian Liberals discussed a proposal for online news publications whose sources cannot be verified to be censored. The proposal was titled “Combatting Disinformation in Canada.”
A section of the proposal read, “BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Liberal Party of Canada: Request the Government explore options to hold on-line information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.”
We obtained a copy of the proposals for you here.
The relevant section is here:
It also suggested that the government “provide additional public funds to support advertisement-free news and information reporting by Canadian media through an arm’s-length non-partisan mechanism.”
The chair of the internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, Michael Geist, warned that the proposal is an attempt by the government to restrict “freedom of expression.”
“Liberal Party policy proposal calls for online information services ‘to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.’ An obvious violation of freedom of expression was voted as one of the top 20 policy resolutions for party discussion,” Geist wrote in a tweet.
In a blog post, he explained that while it is unclear what the Liberal Party means by “online information services,” the resulting “outcome is dangerous no matter the scope.”
“Is this all news outlets with a focus on their online presence? Is it online-only news sources? Is this far broader and designed to encompass Internet platforms such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok (note the reference to “platforms”) with requirements that they be held accountable for posts without traceable sources,” Geist said.
“The implications of the government engaging in this form of heavy-handed speech regulation are dangerous in all of these circumstances. Sourcing is an important issue in the media and the government cannot claim to support press freedom and simultaneously back policies that intervene in sourcing.”
More:
By CJ Hopkins | Consent Factory, Inc. | May 7, 2023
The following is an open letter to Ella G. Irwin, Head of Twitter Trust and Safety, and Elon Musk, CEO of Twitter, and anyone else at Twitter, Inc. who is responsible for censoring political speech and defaming people with fake “advisory” labels, among other such “visibility-filtering” tactics.
I am publishing it as an open letter, not to bore everyone to death with my personal problems, but because the censorship and defamation I have suffered at the hands of Twitter for at least two years is an example of how the decentralized network of global corporations, Intelligence agencies, governments, non-governmental governing entities, “anti-disinformation” outfits, and other parties that together comprise what Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi have dubbed the “Censorship Industrial Complex” are evolving into an Orwellian Ministry-of-Truth-type apparatus “with the power to control the information environment in ways that determine what people believe to be true and what is false.”
Twitter, Inc. has been censoring my political commentary and maliciously defaming me (i.e., damaging my reputation and income as an author) for approximately two years. Twitter has been doing this by concealing the Tweets of my “Consent Factory” account with fake “age-restricted adult content” labels, deceiving Twitter users into believing I have been tweeting content depicting “adult nudity and sexual behavior,” or “excessively gory content, sexual violence and/or assault, bestiality or necrophilia.” Twitter’s actions have damaged both my book sales and my reputation, globally. Defamation is a tort. I could sue the corporation for damages in several jurisdictions.
I have no interest in doing that, currently. What I do want, however, is a real explanation of why and exactly how Twitter, Inc. censored and defamed me for approximately two years. I want this explanation — a real explanation with documentation, not self-serving corporate-speak — not for personal reasons, primarily, but because I believe people need to be able to understand how powerful corporations like Twitter (and Facebook, and Google, and all the other entities and parties I mentioned above) are “visibility filtering” our collective reality.
The fact that these powerful corporations (and other entities) are doing this, not just on the macro level, but also on the micro level, to writers like me, who, let’s face it, are not exactly world-famous “influencers,” and to “non-public persons” who are basically just using social media to talk to their friends, does not bode well for the future of our societies. This kind of micro-perception-manipulation, this “visibility filtering” of our collective reality, goes way beyond traditional censorship. It is a hallmark of all totalitarian systems, which attempt to control, not only what people say, but what they think, how they think, how they perceive events, and facts, and each other.
Totalitarian systems do not spring into being fully formed. They develop slowly, gradually, unrecognized at first, and then ignored, usually until it is too late. We do not recognize the formation of new totalitarian systems because we are forever looking backwards instead of forwards, preparing for the storm that has passed, expecting history to repeat, rather than rhyme. Blinded by hindsight, we do not recognize the monster that is taking shape right in front of us. We glimpse a claw here, a tooth there, the flash of a pitiless blue eye, but fail to assemble the bits into an image of the beast entire, until it is inexorably upon us.
Anyway, here’s my open letter … one more bit, for the record.
To: Ella G. Irwin, Head of Trust and Safety, Twitter, Inc.
cc: Elon Musk
Dear Ms. Irwin,
This open letter is further to our brief correspondence on May 3, 2023 (on Twitter) regarding Twitter’s censorship and defamation of my @consent_factory Twitter account with fake “age-restricted adult content” labels for approximately two years.
First, thank you for taking action to cease and desist from further censorship and defamation. From what I can tell, it appears that Twitter is removing or has removed the fake, defamatory “adult content” labels from the @consent_factory Twitter account’s Tweets (or at least going back to late 2021). I trust that these fake “age-restricted adult content” labels will be removed from all of the account’s Tweets in due course, and I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. Please accept my apology for claiming that you had lied about taking action on this. I admit, after two years of being censored and defamed, and having my complaints ignored by Twitter, I have become rather skeptical regarding your company’s behavior and statements. That said, it is clear now that you were not lying, and that you have taken action to have the fake, defamatory labels in question removed, and I apologize for publicly claiming otherwise.
Assuming the process is eventually completed and all of the fake, defamatory “adult content” labels that Twitter has been censoring the @consent_factory Twitter account with are in fact removed, I would appreciate substantive answers to the following questions:
(1) Why and exactly how did Twitter start censoring and defaming my Consent Factory account with these fake, defamatory “adult content” labels? When I asked you to explain that in our correspondence, you replied:
Clearly, the account did not “post multiple tweets containing sensitive content (nazi imagery) that resulted in the sensitive content label being applied,” because Twitter has now removed the fake, defamatory “adult content” labels from those Tweets, which contain the same “Nazi imagery” they originally contained. As I am sure you have noted, the so-called “Nazi imagery” contained in those Tweets was simply historical photos of the Nazi Germany era, which were used to illustrate critical points I was making in opposition to totalitarianism, and not at all any type of celebration or approval of totalitarianism or fascism. Any rational adult, seeing those Tweets, could not possibly mistake the anti-fascist/totalitarian intent behind them. Also, the fact that the fake, defamatory “adult content” labels are being removed gradually, in stages, rather than all at once, suggests that the application of the fake labels (or “interstitials”) in question was not the result of a blanket algorithm applied to the account. Additionally, not every Tweet (or every Tweet containing an image) by this account was censored with a fake “interstitial,” which suggests that something other than a blanket algorithm was at work.
In any event, having been censored and defamed for two years by Twitter, Inc., I think I am entitled to an actual explanation of how this started, including documentation of any intra-company discussions or “log” notes in connection with the decision to begin censoring and defaming the account. Your substantive response to this request will demonstrate that the “new” Twitter is, in fact, committed to transparency, and free speech, and not just another element of the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” as Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi dubbed it, before Mr. Musk cut off access to the “Twitter Files.”
(2) What, if any, other restrictions/visibility filtering tactics have been applied to my @consent_factory Twitter account from 2020 to the present? Again, I would appreciate documentation of any such “visibility filtering” or other “restrictions” and/or the removal thereof. Having been censored and maliciously defamed by Twitter for years, I believe I am entitled to know how my “visibility” is being and/or has been “filtered.”
(3) What steps is Twitter, Inc. now taking to cease and desist from the type of malicious defamation the company has been engaging in to suppress political speech and damage the reputation and income of writers, like me, and independent media outlets, like, for example, OffGuardian? Twitter blocks links to all OffGuardian articles with a different fake, defamatory “interstitial” warning.
There is nothing “unsafe” about OffGuardian, or any content published on the website that could possibly “lead to real-world harm.” It is a small, independent news and commentary outlet. Twitter, Inc. is using the fake “interstitial” warning above to discourage users from visiting the site, and thus damaging OffGuardian’s reputation and income. This is just one further example (i.e., in addition to my case). Twitter’s continued use of fake, defamatory, “interstitial” labels to suppress political views is relatively widespread, as far as I can tell. Moreover, recent updates to Twitter’s Platform Use Guidelines make it clear that Twitter intends to continue using these “interstitials,” which is worrying, given the fact that the company has been using them to deceive people, and to suppress political speech, and to damage the reputations and incomes of small businesses and sole proprietors.
That’s it for my questions, for now.
Again, thank you for finally putting an end to the defamation that Twitter, Inc. has been subjecting me to, for the last two years. I must say, it is a bit disappointing that it took a happenstance encounter on Twitter to connect with someone with the power to do that. Frankly, given Mr. Musk’s initial and ongoing publicity campaign to portray himself as a champion of free speech, and a stalwart opponent of censorship, and Twitter under his leadership as the antipode of “old, bad, censorship-happy Twitter,” I had expected that immediate steps would be taken to … you know, stop deceiving people, and maliciously defaming people, and manipulating the “visibility” of political views according to some unarticulated ideological schema, but I guess these things take time.
I look forward to your substantive response to the above questions.
Very truly yours,
C. J. Hopkins
P.S. Should you happen to run into Mr. Musk there at Twitter HQ, you might also want to suggest that he resume providing access to the “Twitter Files” to reporters like Matt and Michael Shellenberger, and Alex Gutentag (if I can put a word in for her). Doing so would demonstrate that the “Twitter Files” thing was not just a limited hangout, and a PR stunt designed to whitewash the company and kill public interest in the nefarious activities of Twitter, Inc., and other powerful global corporations, and their partners at the FBI, DHS, whatever that CIS or CISA acronym stands for, and … well, you know, “other agencies.”
BY DR DAVID BELL | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | MAY 6, 2023
The Director General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) reassures us that the WHO’s ‘pandemic accord’ (or ‘treaty’) won’t reduce the sovereignty of Member States. The WHO trusts that these words will serve as a distraction from reality. Those driving the perpetual health emergency agenda are planning to give WHO more power, and states less. This will happen whenever WHO designates a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ (PHEIC), or considers we may be at risk of one.
The WHO’s proposed treaty, taken together with its ‘synergistic’ amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), aim to undo centuries of democratic reform that based sovereignty with individuals, and by extension their state. The discomfort of facing this truth and the complexities it raises is providing the cover needed to push these changes through. This is how democracy, and freedom, wither and die.
Why it’s hard to acknowledge reality
Our society in the West is built on trust and a feeling of superiority – we built the institutions that run the world and they, and we, are good. We consider ourselves humanitarians, the public health advocates, the unifiers, and anti-fascist freedom-lovers. We consider our system is better than the alternatives – we are ‘progressive’.
It takes quite a step for comfortable, middle-income, Left-leaning professionals to believe that the institutions and philanthropic organisations we have admired all our lives might now be pillaging us. Our society relies on having ‘trusted sources’, the WHO being one of them. Among others are our major media organisations. If our trusted sources told us we were being misled and pillaged, we would accept this. But they are telling us these claims are false, and that all is well. The WHO’s Director General himself assures us of this. Anyone who thinks rich corporate and private sponsors of WHO and other health institutions are self-interested, that they might mislead and exploit others for their own benefit, is a conspiracy theorist.
We are all capable of believing the rich and powerful of past ages would exploit the masses, but somehow this is hard to believe in the present. For proof of their benevolence, we rely on the word of their own publicity departments and the media they support. Somehow, malfeasance on a grand scale is always a figment of history, and now we are smarter and enlightened.
Over recent decades we have watched individuals accumulate wealth equivalent to medium-sized countries. They meet our elected leaders behind closed doors at Davos. We then applaud the largesse they bestow on the less fortunate, and pretend all this is fine. We watch as corporations expand across national borders, seemingly above the laws that apply to ordinary citizens. We allowed their ‘public-private partnerships’ to turn international institutions into purveyors of their commodities. We ignored this descent because their publicity departments told us to, becoming apologists for obvious authoritarians because we want to believe they are somehow doing a ‘greater good’.
Whilst a schoolchild might see through this facade to the conflicted greed beyond, it is much harder for those with years of political baggage, a peer network, reputation and career to admit they have been duped. The behavioural psychologists that our governments and institutions now employ understand this. Their job is to keep us believing the trusted sources they sponsor. Our challenge is to put reality above right-think.
The remaking of WHO
When the WHO was set up in 1946 to help coordinate responses to major health issues, the world was emerging from the last great bout of fascism and colonialism. Both these societal models were sold on the basis of centralising power for a greater good. Those who considered themselves superior would run the world for those less worthy. The WHO once claimed to follow a different line.
Since the early 2000s WHO’s activities have been increasingly dictated by ‘specified funding’. Its funders, increasingly including private and corporate interest, tell it how to use the money they give. Private direction is fine for private organisations promoting their investors’ wares, but it is obviously a non-starter for an organisation seeking to mandate medicines, close borders and confine people. Anyone with a basic understanding of history and human nature will recognise this. But these powers are exactly what the amendments to the International Health Regulations and the new treaty intend.
Rather than consider alternate approaches, WHO is seeking censorship of opinions not fitting its narrative, publicly denigrating and demeaning those who question its policies. These are not the actions of an organisation representing ‘we the people’, or confident in its ability to justify its actions. They are the trappings we have always associated with intellectual weakness and fascism.
WHO’s impact on population health
In its 2019 pandemic influenza recommendations, WHO stated that “not in any circumstances” should contact tracing, border closures, entry or exit screening or quarantine of exposed individuals be undertaken in an established pandemic. It wrote this because such measures would cause more harm than good, and disproportionately harm poorer people. In 2020, in conjunction with private and national sponsors, it supported the largest wealth shift in history from low to high income by promoting these same measures.
In abandoning its principles, WHO abandoned millions of girls to nightly rape through child marriage, increased teenage pregnancies and child mortality, reduced childhood education, and grew poverty and malnutrition. Despite most of these people being too young to be troubled by Covid and already having immunity, they promoted billions of dollars of mass vaccination whilst traditional priorities such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS deteriorate. Western media have met this with silence or empty rhetoric. Saving lives does not turn a profit, but selling commodities does. The WHO’s sponsors are doing what they need for their investors, whilst WHO is doing what it needs to keep their money flowing.
The new powers of WHO
The IHR amendments will reduce the sovereignty of any WHO Member State that fails to actively reject them, giving a single person (the Director General) direct influence over health policy and the freedom of its citizens is indisputable. It is what the document says. Countries are required to “undertake” to follow the WHO’s “recommendations”, which are no longer simply suggestions or advice. Whilst the WHO does not have a police force, the World Bank and IMF are on board, and control much of your money supply. The U.S. Congress passed a bill last year recognising that the U.S. Government should address countries that do not comply with the IHR. We are not witnessing toothless threats; most countries, and their people, will have little choice.
The real power of the WHO’s proposals is in their application for any health-related matter they proclaim to be a threat. The proposed amendments state this explicitly, whilst the ‘Treaty’ expands the scope to ‘One-Health‘, a hijacked public health concept that can mean anything perceived to be affecting human physical, mental or social well-being. Inclement weather, crop failures or the promulgation of ideas that cause people stress – everyday things that humans have always coped with, now become reasons to confine people and impose solutions dictated by others.
In essence, those sponsoring WHO are manufacturing crises of their own desiring, and are set to get wealthier from other’s misery, as they did during Covid. This under the guise of ‘keeping us safe’. As WHO implausibly insists, “no one is safe until all are safe”, so removal of human rights must be broad and prolonged. Behavioural psychology is there to ensure that we comply.
Facing the future
We are building a future in which compliance with authoritarian dictates will win the return of stolen freedoms, whilst censorship will suppress dissent. People who wish to see evidence, who remember history or insist on informed consent will be designated, in WHO parlance, far-Right mass killers. We have already entered this world. Public figures who claim otherwise are presumably not paying attention, or have other motivations.
We can meekly accept this new disease-obsessed world, some may even embrace the salaries and careers it bestows. Or we can join those fighting for the simple right of individuals to determine their own future. At the very least, we can acknowledge the reality around us.
Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of PANDA.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Paul MacRae | May 1, 2012
… Groupthink was extensively studied by Yale psychologist Irving L. Janis and described in his 1982 book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes.
Janis was curious about how teams of highly intelligent and motivated people—the “best and the brightest” as David Halberstam called them in his 1972 book of the same name—could have come up with political policy disasters like the Vietnam War, Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Bay of Pigs. Similarly, in 2008 and 2009, we saw the best and brightest in the world’s financial sphere crash thanks to some incredibly stupid decisions, such as allowing sub-prime mortgages to people on the verge of bankruptcy.
In other words, Janis studied why and how groups of highly intelligent professional bureaucrats and, yes, even scientists, screw up, sometimes disastrously and almost always unnecessarily. The reason, Janis believed, was “groupthink.” He quotes Nietzsche’s observation that “madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups,” and notes that groupthink occurs when “subtle constraints … prevent a [group] member from fully exercising his critical powers and from openly expressing doubts when most others in the group appear to have reached a consensus.”[2]
Janis found that even if the group leader expresses an openness to new ideas, group members value consensus more than critical thinking; groups are thus led astray by excessive “concurrence-seeking behavior.”[3] Therefore, Janis wrote, groupthink is “a model of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.”[4]
The groupthink syndrome
The result is what Janis calls “the groupthink syndrome.” This consists of three main categories of symptoms:
1. Overestimate of the group’s power and morality, including “an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their actions.” [emphasis added]
2. Closed-mindedness, including a refusal to consider alternative explanations and stereotyped negative views of those who aren’t part of the group’s consensus. The group takes on a “win-lose fighting stance” toward alternative views.[5]
3. Pressure toward uniformity, including “a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view”; “direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes”; and “the emergence of self-appointed mind-guards … who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.”[6]
It’s obvious that alarmist climate science—as explicitly and extensively revealed in the Climatic Research Unit’s “Climategate” emails—shares all of these defects of groupthink, including a huge emphasis on maintaining consensus, a sense that because they are saving the world, alarmist climate scientists are beyond the normal moral constraints of scientific honesty (“overestimation of the group’s power and morality”), and vilification of those (“deniers”) who don’t share the consensus. … Read full article
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 