This year marks the 75th anniversary of a little known but influential arm of Canada’s foreign policy apparatus. An entity called the Communications Security Establishment was established to spy internationally in 1946, operating secretly during its first four decades.
With an annual budget of $780 million and 3000 employees, the CSE has a variety of high-tech gadgets, including surveillance planes. In 2011 CSE moved into a new $1.2 billion home. The seven-building, 110,000 square metre complex is connected to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s (CSIS) headquarters in Ottawa.
Unlike CSIS, CSE is largely foreign focused. It seeks to “protect the computer networks and information of greatest importance to Canada” from international attack. CSE also gathers international signals intelligence (SIGINT), which it defines as “intelligence acquired through the collection of electromagnetic signals.” Historically, CSE largely intercepted electronic communications between embassies in Ottawa and other nations’ capitals. Today, CSE monitors phone calls, radio, microwave and satellite, as well as emails, chat rooms and other Internet exchanges. It engages in various forms of data hacking, sifting through millions of videos and online documents daily. Or, as Vice reporter Patrick McGuire put it, CSE “listens in on phone calls and emails to secretly learn about things the Canadian government wants to secretly learn about.”
After WWII the government established the Communications Branch of the National Research Council, which was renamed Communications Security Establishment three decades later. In Cautious Beginnings: Canadian Foreign Intelligence, 1939-51 Kurt Jensen explains: “the Gouzenko story [a Soviet diplomat who defected in September 1945, alleging widespread Russian spying in Canada] is almost entirely absent from the debate on Canadian postwar foreign intelligence. While the Soviet Union figured prominently in Canadian foreign intelligence interests, it was not an exclusive focus. The available evidence suggests that Canada had broad foreign intelligence interests that reflected current Canadian foreign policy interests.”
Since its creation CSE has been part of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing framework though Ottawa didn’t admit its Five Eyes relationship until 1995. The main contributors to the Washington-led Five Eyes are the US’s NSA, Australian Signals Directorate, New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau, British Government Communications Headquarters and CSE. A series of post-WWII accords, beginning with the 1946 UKUSA intelligence agreement, created the “AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US EYES ONLY” arrangement.
CSE established SIGINT posts on the east and west coasts as well as in the north. According to a table produced by blogger Jerry Proc, there have been more than 50 Canadian SIGINT stations opened during the past century.
Canadian diplomatic posts have long housed SIGINT equipment. According to a NSA document released by whistleblower Edward Snowden, CSE operated clandestine surveillance activities in “approximately 20 high-priority countries.” In his 1994 book former CSE agent Mike Frost describes CSE listening posts at a number of embassies or consular posts while two papers in the early 2000s cite Beijing, Abidjan, New Delhi, Bucharest, Rabat, Kingston (Jamaica), Mexico City, Rome, San Jose (Costa Rica), Warsaw and Tokyo as diplomatic posts where CSE (probably) collected information.
Since the start of the 1960s CSE has listened to Cuban leaders’ conversations from an interception post inside the embassy in Havana. (Ottawa maintained diplomatic and economic relations with Cuba after its 1959 revolution, reports Three Nights in Havana, partly because “the United States secretly urged [Prime Minister] Diefenbaker to maintain normal relations because it was thought that Canada would be well positioned to gather intelligence on the island.”) Canada also spied on Cuba from a diplomatic post outside that country. In the early 1980s CSE wanted to establish a communications post in Jamaica, notes Frost, to intercept “communications from Fidel Castro’s Cuba, which would please NSA to no end.”
CSE also gathered intelligence on Palestinians for Israel. Frost notes, “[former Palestinian Liberation Organization chairman] Yasser Arafat’s name, for instance, was on every [CSE] key word list. NSA was happy about that.” According to files released by Snowden, CSE spied on Israel’s enemies and shared the intelligence with that country’s SIGINT National Unit. “Palestinians” was a “specific intelligence topic” of an NSA-GCHQ-CSE project shared with their Israeli counterpart.
In the late 1980s the Soviets jammed US and British listening operations in Moscow. In response, they asked CSE to take up the slack. “From summer 1987 to summer 1989”, notes Frost, “it was Canada that was providing the most powerful Western nations with the intelligence that had been so crucial to them and, in fact, to the whole Western Alliance.”
Economic espionage is a significant and growing component of CSE’s focus. In 1995 the agency began hiring more individuals with economics, commerce and international business qualifications “to build up its own analytical capacity in economic intelligence.” As part of the Snowden revelations, it came to light that CSE spied on Brazil’s Department of Mines and Energy.
In 1985 the government asked CSE to gather intelligence that could help a Canadian firm bidding for a major pipeline contract in India. A few years earlier the CSE overheard the US ambassador in Ottawa detailing his country’s negotiating position on a US$5 billion wheat sale to China, which helped Canada win the contract. CSE is also thought to have secured information useful to negotiating the mid-1990s North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization.
CSE has contributed intelligence to Canada and its allies’ wars. The agency’s sophisticated equipment and analytical and linguistic resources contributed significantly to the 2001-14 occupation of Afghanistan. The agency’s website says it played a “vital role” in the central Asian country and CSE head John Adams boasted that they were responsible for more than half the “actionable intelligence” Canadian soldiers used in Afghanistan. That included monitoring Taliban forces and leaders as well as allied Afghan government officials. Information CSE provided protected Canadian troops from attack and helped special forces assassinate Afghans.
As the Internet came onto the scene CSE was instructed to conduct Computer Network Exploitation. It went from intercepting communications (“data in motion”) to seeking information on foreign computer systems (“data at rest”). According to CSE expert Bill Robinson, “it became a hunter as well as a gatherer.” CSE could hack into computer systems, implant malware and copy information.
In 2017 CSE was further empowered to carry out offensive operations against foreign actors. The Communications Security Establishment Act authorized CSE “to degrade, disrupt, influence, respond to or interfere with the capabilities, intentions or activities” of international targets. In effect the intelligence agency could seek to take a government offline, shutter a power plant, knock a drone out of the sky or interfere in court proceedings and elections in countries Ottawa doesn’t deem “democratic”. There is no requirement that the target threaten Canadian security.
The legislation forbids offensive cyber activities that could cause injury or death or “obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice or democracy.” But, these limitations don’t apply if CSE conducts cyber-attacks on behalf of a Canadian military operation or receives approval of the foreign minister. Additionally, there is no independent oversight of CSE’s new offensive capabilities and CSE is allowed to do “anything that is reasonably necessary to maintain the covert nature of the activity.”
To mark the 75th anniversary of the Communications Security Establishment, it’s time to place this clandestine organization under far greater scrutiny.
On December 15 the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute will be hosting a webinar on “Canada and the Five Eyes”.
RAMALLAH – Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh and the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates today condemned the Israeli killing late last night of Jamil Kayyal, 31, in the northern West Bank city of Nablus.
“The crime of executing the young man, Kayyal, in Nablus is appalling and reflects the doctrine of murder that articulates the ideology and behavior of the leaders of the military establishment of the (Israeli) occupying state,” said Shtayyeh in a statement, calling on international human rights organizations to condemn the killing, “which is one more of many crimes of the occupation against our people.”
The Foreign Ministry said “this crime is one episode in the series of field executions carried out by the occupying forces in accordance with the instructions and directives of the political and military levels in the occupation state, which allow and facilitate the shooting by soldiers and others members of the occupation of the Palestinian and treat him as a practice target that can allow killing him without conscience, morals or law.”
It added, “These crimes also reflect the racist culture of the occupation that dominates the decision-making centers of the occupying state.”
While holding Israel fully responsible for this crime, the Foreign Ministry called on the International Criminal Court to speed up its war crime investigation of Israel to force it to immediately stop its crimes and start investigating the violation of its forces and colonial settlers.
Kayyal was killed late last night during an Israeli army incursion into Nablus to arrest a local activist. Two others were injured when run over by an army vehicle.
The city of Nablus today observed a general strike against the killing of Kayyal, who was later buried in a mass funeral in his hometown.
At the 4th Intergroup Press Conference this week, I met again with my colleagues and we made it clear once more:
– No to compulsory vaccination
– No to social division
– No to political/medial scaremongering
– No to the state-fueled dismantling of freedom and democracy.
See in my speech why I will defend the freedom of our children with claws and teeth and call on the administration:
“Come on, government! Let’s see what you’ve got. I’m not afraid of you!”
On Thursday, 9 December, Israeli occupation forces seized eight Palestinian students at An-Najah National University after raiding their homes in pre-dawn invasions. Following the arrests, occupation forces then sent threatening text messages to fellow students at the university, warning them that they too would be arrested if they participated in the activities of the Islamic Bloc or other student blocs at the university.
The students seized by the Israeli occupation forces were: Hamza Tabanja, Hassan Tuffaha, Omar Shaksheer, Ayoub Dwaikat, Ibrahim Dwaikat, Ibrahim Abed, Anas Shtayyeh and Ibrahim Shalhoub. Several of the detained students had previously been jailed by the Israeli occupation and accused of participating in the activities of the Islamic Bloc.
Hundreds of Palestinian students are routinely detained by the Israeli occupation, especially those who are part of student organizations involved with campus political life. At Bir Zeit University alone, approximately 74 students were detained by occupation soldiers during the 2019-2020 academic year. They are among nearly 5,000 Palestinian political prisoners jailed by Israel. The work of student organizing, from holding book fairs to organizing events and participating in student elections, is criminalized by the Israeli occupation. Still more students are detained for joining demonstrations or posting on their social media profiles.
Palestinian students have been seized by Israeli occupation forces and abducted for their participation in the student movement in their homes, at their workplaces and on their campuses.
Once arrested, Palestinian students are routinely subjected to torture under interrogation — subjected to stress positions and stretched out over chairs, suspended from walls and forced to stand on tiptoe, deprived of sleep, cuffed and pressured on injured limbs, and beaten.
One of the most common charges is “membership in a prohibited organization,” typically referring to the student blocs. These represent the full spectrum of Palestinian politics. They organize lectures, book fairs, rallies and other campus events and participate in student elections. The charge sheets often refer to these standard activities of campus life, which are widely interpreted as a barometer for broader Palestinian political opinion.
These are not isolated cases, but a direct and collective violation of Palestinian students’ right to education, as affirmed in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The targeted repression of students is just one facet of Israel’s crime of apartheid against the Palestinian people. … Full article
On August 25th Biden ordered that every member of the US military (active, reserve and national guard) must perform a fundamental sacrament of the mind virus cult known as “vaccination”.
A week before the order US military Covid deaths stood at 34.
In other words, in the 4 months since the injection order as many US servicemen were deemed to have died with/from Covid as in the entire 17 months before the order was given.
In the entire vaccine-free 2020 fewer than 20 US servicemen died with/from Covid. (24 by March.)
The unvaccinated military of 2020 experienced three times fewer Covid deaths than the heavily injected military of 2021.
Even so at 2 million strong and 79 deaths, a Covid death is still rarer than a lottery win.
The Pentagon says the dead were overwhelmingly “not fully vaccinated,” but the Pentagon also doesn’t consider troops “fully vaccinated” until 14 days after the 2nd dose — that is to say until the initial period of negative vaccine efficiency has ended.
When the state-wide lockdown is lifted, Queensland will allow supermarkets and other businesses providing essential services to implement vaccine passports. The provision could deny those without a vaccine passport easy access to food and other basics.
Queensland will reopen its borders this week. The Health Minister Yvette D’Ath said that once the borders reopen, new health directives will be released, which could be less strict on businesses that have implemented health mandates.
“In the coming days, the Government will issue the guidelines required for business and industry as our border reopens,” she said in a statement.
“This will include information on managing close contacts in the workplace.
“Our objective is to provide an environment where business, particularly essential business, remains open.”
Starting December 17, Queenslanders will be required to show a vaccine passport to enter restaurants, cafes, pubs, bars, clubs, cinemas, theaters, museums, libraries, and stadiums.
The vaccine passport mandate does not apply to businesses providing essential services, like supermarkets, grocery stores, pharmacies, and post offices. However, the Small Business Minister Di Farmer said that essential services can implement vaccine passports if they choose to, especially if they want to continue operations without restrictions.
“The essential services are the things that really remained open during lockdown,” Farmer told 4BC Radio on Wednesday.
“There will also be a range of other businesses who may make the choice just to only have their vaccinated staff and patrons using their business.”
In a press conference on December 9, Farmer explained that every business would be allowed to enforce vaccine passports.
“Any business is able to make that decision, and a lot of them are actually thinking about that very seriously,” she said.
“[When Queensland opens up] you will need to be protected and businesses all over Queensland will be making that decision.
“If a person decides not to be vaccinated, then those are the things that they will take into consideration.”
ONCE again Boris Johnson and his administration are embroiled in a row about breaking rules. There is, of course, a public perception that politicians work on the principle of ‘Do as I say, not as I do’, but the rules which are being broken at the moment are claimed to be so important that we are forced to wonder whether they believe in the reasons behind the rules themselves.
To take a fairly recent example, COP26. The planet is heading for a fiery, carbon dioxide-induced death, we’re told, but 25,000 politicians, officials and campaigners converged, many by air, on Glasgow to tell the rest of us that we have to give up our cars and our central heating. Surely those campaigners, if they really believed in it, would have had their conference on Zoom? Their carbon dioxide must be as lethal to the planet as mine, but still they came. Conclusion? They don’t really believe in it.
The other big issue, of course, is Covid. Throughout the hysteria we’ve been exhorted to lock down, mask up, socially distance. Covid, we were told, posed an existential threat not just to individuals but to the nation and even the human race itself. We weren’t allowed to go to work, to get married, to attend funerals, even to be at the bedside of the dying. Unless you were in the government or one of its advisers, of course, in which case you could drive 250 miles to a tourist attraction to test your eyesight, or have your mistress travel across London to meet you, or kiss your secretary in your office.
I taught my children to look properly before they cross the road. It wasn’t just a rule which I made for them, it’s a rule I obey myself because I know that it protects me from danger. Despite being a former lorry driver with more than a million miles in artics behind me, a former policeman who has controlled the traffic and a former recovery driver who has walked about in live lanes on the M6, I still obey the rules for crossing the road which I taught my kids. So believing that there was A Horrible Virus on the loose, which unlike an approaching car you can’t even see, why would you meet your mistress when by doing so you could pass on the evil virus and possibly kill her? Why kiss your secretary? Why drive the length of the country? These were rules, so we were told, to protect us and others, but they broke them. Conclusion? They don’t really believe in it.
Tying the two issues together, at COP26 we saw the delegates standing together, smiling for the cameras, unmasked, undistanced, shaking hands, embracing each other, while the minions serving them with drinks and canapes moved around muzzled. The leaders of the free world, Biden, Johnson, and the rest were all there (the leaders of China and Russia, of course, had decided not to waste their time), so Covid could have ripped through them leaving the free world leaderless. Conclusion? They didn’t really believe in it.
Now we come to our Great and Glorious Leader. Having shown his lack of belief in CO2-created climate change by taking a private plane from COP26 to a dinner in London (at which he loaded his gun with the Paterson rounds which he later fired into his own foot), the latest in Boris Johnson’s cavalcade of woes relates to a party held at Number 10 at Christmas 2020 – when, it must be remembered, the prevalent version of Covid was supposedly much more dangerous than the Omicron variant on offer at the moment. If those attending the party believed in the dangers of the virus they wouldn’t have held it, or someone else would have brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister, who would have appeared amongst the party-goers like the Avenging Angel and thrown them out with instructions to appear in his office the following day (one at a time, of course) to be sacked. But they held their party, with its attendant risk of death, no one minded, and no one brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister, or if they did, he wasn’t bothered. Conclusion? None of them, including Johnson, believed in it.
The Dear Leader, of course, has been photographed many times throughout the Covid debacle not wearing his mask. If he truly believed that there was a nasty disease going round and that a mask would protect him from it, no power on Earth would make him take it off. But despite having supposedly contracted the disease himself early on, and presumably being in no great hurry to contract it again or give it to anybody else, he keeps not wearing his mask. It’s no more than a prop, a costume like the ill-fitting police uniform he wore on a raid a few days ago. Conclusion? He doesn’t really believe in it.
As I mentioned at the start, there’s a long tradition that politicians believe in ‘Do as I say, not as I do’. John Major’s ‘Back to Basics’ campaign failed when it was revealed that various prominent Tories had been committing indiscretions. We can look on these events almost with benign amusement, however, because the ‘Back to Basics’ campaign didn’t really affect us. It didn’t ruin lives, careers, businesses, even the whole economy and way of life of the country. No one threatened to make us have injections to stop us having affairs, or to carry a passport which would allow us into places where we might meet someone to have an affair with. Those who said we should get ‘Back to Basics’ and were subsequently found not to believe in it themselves were no more than objects of derision, and damaged nothing apart from their own careers and marriages.
Covid and NetZero, however, are different. They threaten to, indeed the Covid regulations already do, cause massive damage, in terms of health, wellbeing, prosperity, and way of life, to everyone in the country, including those as yet unborn. Why are we allowing them to happen when those pushing them clearly don’t even believe in them themselves?
We’re teaching our children that when adults are afraid the Constitution is null and void.
That most adults fear nature more than they love freedom.
That bullying is bad except when it’s government sponsored and culturally sanctioned.
That hate speech is bad except when targeting the people the government trains us to hate.
That free speech is outdated and dangerous.
That censorship is bad except when people expose liars and their lies.
That news anchors are B-grade actors in C-grade propaganda productions.
That objective journalism is outdated and dangerous.
That many of the people who once protested segregation, discrimination and tyranny are now petty tyrants who celebrate segregation and discrimination.
That liquor stores are more important than churches.
That the Predator class has replaced religion with a filthy mix of corruption, politics, ideology and idolatry which they market as Science.
That Public Health is the State mandated religion and that non-vaccine vaccines are the compulsory sacrament.
That the global vaccination drive is the largest religious crusade in the history of the world.
That those who don’t bow before the prophets of Public Health or sacrifice their children upon Pharma’s altar should be ostracized, fired, locked down, hated and/or lined up and shot.
That exercising God-given inalienable rights is selfish.
That scared people have an almost infinite capacity to believe lies and reverence sociopaths.
That our immune systems stopped working in 2020.
That health is sickness and sickness is shame.
That we need fraudulent and profit-generating tests to tell us when we’re sick.
That people who get sick are either committing a crime or are victims of a crime.
That of all life on Earth, humans are the only creatures born vaccine deficient.
That the art of individualized medicine does not apply to Public Health because neither informed consent nor individuals matter.
That Covid deaths matter and Covid non-vaccine vaccine deaths don’t matter.
That I.Q. does not necessarily correlate with critical thinking skills.
That fear turns otherwise intelligent adults into needy children.
That we can’t survive without Papa government and Mama Pharma.
That the government owns our bodies.
That regulatory agencies regulate humanity, not industry.
That most doctors care more about profit than patients.
That the Dark Ages is more than a time in history, it’s a state of mind.
That mass psychosis is the intentional result of sustained fear mongering.
That psychotic people pass and enforce psychotic policies.
That right-minded people must act afraid to accommodate germaphobes.
That the Predator class practice “Rules for thee and not for me.”
That losers get rich while winners get fired.
That human touch is dirty and shameful.
That human association is dangerous.
That titles trump facts, logic and reason.
That when faced with a choice, nearly all adults will serve their self-interests over the interests of children.
That the role of public schools is to indoctrinate, divide, and to instill fear and hatred.
That child abuse is bad at home and policy at school.
That while informed doctors are sanctioned for sharing informed medical opinions, uninformed schoolteachers freely give medical advice to school children.
That policy makers can see an invisible virus but can’t see the visible harm their policies inflict upon children.
That school administrators will sell students’ freedom and rights in exchange for government handouts and in the process flush child development, social skills, mental health, and learning potential down the toilet.
That parents who defend, among other things, their children’s right to breathe are domestic terrorists.
That children are responsible for their grandparents’ mortality.
That children should risk lifelong injury and death allegedly to protect those who have already largely lived their lives.
That children should feel guilty for breathing, especially guilty Monday through Friday from 8 am to 3 pm.
That children should shut up, shut down, and submit to nonsense.
That children’s wants, needs, thoughts, feelings, futures and even their lives just don’t matter.
Is this really what we want to teach our children?
This stops when we join together and stop it.
Brett Wilcox is a husband, parent, grandparent, and author of three books:
People in Austria who remain unvaccinated could find themselves imprisoned for a year, according to critics of an amendment to an administrative law.
Susanne Fürst of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), which voted against the amendment, warned that it could be used to punish the unjabbed with much harsher sentences.
The amendment raises fines from €726 (£617/$818) to €2,000 (£1,701/$2,255) and increases prison time for those who refuse to pay from four weeks to up to a year.
Given that Austrians who don’t get vaccinated by February face fines of up to €7,200 ($8,000) for non-compliance, those who refuse to pay would also face a 12 month jail sentence.
The amendment also orders people who are jailed to pay for their own imprisonment.
“If detention is carried out by the courts, the associated costs shall be recovered by the courts from the obligated party in accordance with the provisions existing for the recovery of the costs of enforcing judicial penalties,” it states.
Despite Fürst protesting that the amendment could be used to further punish the unvaccinated, the measure was approved anyway.
At the time it was announced, then Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg vowed to hit the unvaccinated with “penalties” if they still refused to get the jab, while asserting that they should “suffer.”
Given that some technocrats are asserting that the vaccination program will never end, the initial one year prison sentence for vaccine refusniks could be just the beginning.
Israeli government discussions on the massacres perpetrated by Israeli soldiers in 1948 were declassified for the first time this week in an investigative report published by Haaretz and the Akevot Institute for Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Research.
Entitled, Classified Docs Reveal Massacres of Palestinians in ’48 – and What Israeli Leaders Knew, the report exposes two large-scale operations launched by the army in October 1948, one based in the south, known as Operation Yoav, which opened a road to the Negev; and another in the north, Operation Hiram.
As part of the latter, within 30 hours Israeli soldiers attacked dozens of Palestinian villages, forcefully expelling tens of thousands of Palestinian residents, while thousands of others fled.
Nearly 120,000 Palestinians, including the elderly, women and children resided in the area, however, following Israel’s massacre only 30,000 Palestinians were left.
“Within less than three days, the IDF [army] had conquered the Galilee and also extended its reach into villages in southern Lebanon. The overwhelming majority of them took no part in the fighting,” reported Haaretz.
The investigation also revealed accounts regarding previously unknown massacres that took place in the villages of Al-Reineh, just north of Nazareth, Meron and in Al-Burj.
Before the brutal attacks against Palestinians during Operation Hiram, the village of Al-Burj, presently known as Modi’in Illit, a large ultra-Orthodox settlement in the occupied West Bank, was raided in July 1948.
According to a document found in the Yad Yaari Archive, four elderly men remained in the village after its capture. “Hajj Ibrahim, who helped out in the military kitchen, a sick elderly woman and another elderly man and elderly woman.”
Eight days after the village was raided by Israeli occupation forces, Ibrahim was sent on an errand to pick vegetables by an Israeli soldier, in order to keep him away from the atrocity the soldiers were ready to commit.
“The three others were taken to an isolated house. Afterward an anti-tank shell was fired. When the shell missed the target, six hand grenades were thrown into the house. They killed an elderly man and woman, and the elderly woman was put to death with a firearm,” according to the document.
“Afterward they torched the house and burned the three bodies. When Hajj Ibrahim returned with his guard, he was told that the three others had been sent to the hospital in Ramallah. Apparently he didn’t believe the story, and a few hours later he too was put to death, with four bullets,” added the document.
The declassified State Archives also consist of several pages of minutes from those years, including the testimony of Shmuel Mikunis, a member of the Provisional State Council (predecessor to the Knesset) from the Communist Party, who reported on the atrocities perpetrated in the Meron region.
Mikunis requested clarification from former Prime Minister of Israel David Ben-Gurion about acts that had been carried out by members of the Jewish terrorist group, Irgun.
According to the declassified documents, “A. They annihilated with a machine gun 35 Arabs who had surrendered to that company with a white flag in their hands. B. They took as captives peaceful residents, among them women and children, ordered them to dig a pit, pushed them into it with long French bayonets and shot the unfortunates until they were all murdered. There was even a woman with an infant in her arms. C. Arab children of about 13-14 who were playing with grenades were all shot. D. A girl of about 19-20 was raped by men from Altalena [an Irgun unit]; afterward she was stabbed with a bayonet and a wooden stick was thrust into her body.”
The declassified documents, investigated in Haartez’s report also includes details on the Hula massacre in Lebanon and the depopulated Palestinian village of Deir Yassin. Though the report is lengthy, the paper highlights that many more details remain unknown; “This is not surprising, considering how much material remains locked away in the archives,” it explained.
It’s high school all over again. Remember those people who just had to be in the in crowd, no matter what?
They would act and dress and speak however they needed to in order to be in that crowd.
Well, that’s apparently how society itself is run.
The elites push ideas that increase their power. And the huge number of people desperate for acceptance and respectability and social status simply accept them. No evidence or reason necessary.
They will believe whatever they need to believe, whenever they need to believe it.
And if you dissent? Then just the way they socially punished the unpopular kids, they’ll jump on the bandwagon to destroy a heretic like you.
Ask one of these people: do you hold a single opinion that would surprise me? Is there any important question on which you disagree with Whoopi Goldberg?
I would love to ask students applying to Ivy League universities: name one opinion you hold that could make you unpopular.
I doubt they could name even one.
I mention this because of the enormous number of people, famous and obscure alike, one can find on social media who a year ago were denouncing the “Trump vaccine,” and who now want to exclude from society anyone who declines it.
Now you may say, “Well, they’ve since heard medical authorities approving the vaccines, so that’s the difference.” If that were indeed the difference, then I guess by their own logic they owe Trump an apology. I haven’t seen any.
There’s a Twitter account that follows people like this and shows how readily they abandon one view for the opposite one, depending on what happens to be socially acceptable. A sample:
Siskind is a real treat. Even though the account that compiles items like the above does nothing but publish screenshots, she called on people to report it as a hub of “disinformation.”
How screenshots could be disinformation, I can’t imagine. I guess ol’ Amy was embarrassed being singled out as a hypocrite.
Here she is calling on people to report the account that noted her weird shift on vaccines:
Same goes for the travel bans under Trump and Biden. (The other day, Fauci could not explain why this travel ban had been implemented, given that there were zero Omicron cases in most of the African countries targeted.) I could reproduce hundreds of these, but here’s a sample:
The past week has seen a deliberate stirring up of hatred towards the ‘unvaccinated’ across mainstream media outlets. The mission to divide society and to shame and coerce those who have chosen not to take these experimental injections, is reaching horrifying new lows.
The Sunday Times decided to go with the headline: ‘Doctors and nurses vent anger as unvaccinated Covid cases delay vital operations.’ These doctors and nurses always appear to be nameless, unable to personally stand by their words.
Meanwhile in the Guardian we have the cheerful headline : ‘I dread Christmas. My husband won’t get jabbed’: The families split over Covid vaccines as they plan holiday gatherings.’ It seems the divide and conquer directive is alive and well in the Guardian editorial office.
Then on Monday, TV ‘celebrity’ doctor Hillary Jones announced on Lorraine Kelly’s ITV show that “90 per cent of the people that are in hospital are unvaccinated”. This was quite simply untrue, yet the damage is instantly done and cannot be corrected easily in the minds of millions of anxious viewers, even if an admission of wrongdoing is eventually made. Hearteningly, ITV was inundated with thousands of complaints, backed up by government data.
More chilling still was the Prime Minister himself during yesterday’s press conference saying:
‘I want to be absolutely clear here, I don’t believe we can keep going indefinitely with non-pharmaceutical interventions – I mean restrictions on people’s way of life – just because a substantial proportion of the population sadly has not got vaccinated. I think we’re going to have a national conversation about the way forward.’
Qualified as we all are now in the government’s favoured psychological ‘nudge’ techniques, it seems fairly obvious what he is alluding to here: the vaccinated won’t get their freedoms back unless we ‘encourage’ (blackmail?) the unvaccinated to jump on board the injection train. A merry-go-round would perhaps be a more fitting descriptive, considering the frequency of re-uptake required. Even though Johnson himself has stated that the vaccines don’t stop you getting or passing on the disease – a position backed up by real-world data – we live in such a post-truth world that we are now in danger of losing any semblance of rationality altogether.
These lockstep campaigns across the mainstream news to malign the ‘unvaccinated’ (whatever that might mean now) are trying to create a division that most of the public don’t support. GMB ran a poll on Twitter asking the provocative question ‘with omicron cases doubling every two days, is it time to make vaccines mandatory?‘ They swiftly deleted the poll when the result, with over 40,000 votes, was not the one they presumably had hoped for (89% ‘no’ versus 11% ‘yes’).
It would seem they are desperate to blame the unvaccinated in order to hide the fact that it is the vaccinated who make up the overwhelming majority of hospitalised patients. For some unfathomable reason, people have shown that they trust the media. Quite where this trust comes from is difficult to understand, as most people would probably say they do not believe everything they hear on TV. When it comes to covid however, there seems to be the mythical belief that there is a factory of ‘truth guardians’ making sure everything that is aired or printed is 100% factually accurate, when with increasing regularity, nothing could be further from the truth. The financial interests who own the media, also own the prevailing narrative. This video is one of the most striking visual representations of this phenomenon.
We could argue all day long about the scientific inconsistencies in this bizarre desire to demonise the unvaccinated, but we do not need to even venture down that path. The ‘othering’ of a minority group of people who, for whatever reason, do not wish to take these experimental vaccines, is discriminatory and it is very simply morally wrong. In 2019 almost everyone would have agreed with this. Now, it seems that this idea needs to be debated, which of course, it does not. We must all start to undo the spell of a cult-like allegiance to a vaccine ideology, that has been created almost entirely by a bought media over the past 20 months. Its nothing but brain-washing and must stop before our society ends up in very murky waters. History repeatedly tells us that segregating minority groups is never justifiable and should be stopped now before it is normalised. A simple cure might be for everyone in the UK to unplug the television for a few weeks and read a few books instead – preferably ones written before 2020.
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.
![An elderly Palestinian and a child during the Nakba [Hanini/Wikipedia]](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-10-6_nakbaOldman_girl_nakba.jpg?resize=1200%2C800&quality=85&strip=all&zoom=1&ssl=1)
Aletho News
Aletho News 