Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Turning of the tide? No, just a lull in the storm

By Tom Penn | TCW Defending Freedom | January 14, 2022

MAINSTREAM media would have us believe that Britain is on the brink of ‘emerging’ from the pandemic, and that living with Covid-19, as we do with colds and flu, is an imminent reality.

What the State tannoy system is actually saying is that the public are now in a period of adjustment during which they are being encouraged not to live with Covid, but with the more authoritarian rule-base of the post-Covid era, hidden all along within the Trojan horse virus itself. The narrative is not crumbling, simply taking a break for tea and scones.

After all, masks are still ubiquitous – within classrooms their most dehumanising of applications. The NHS vaccine mandate is very much in situ, and the NHS itself – reinvented as an exclusive Covid-only members’ club staffed by people seemingly terrified of runny noses – paradoxically now presents more of a threat to many than the virus itself.

A hypochondriacal public still display an insatiable hunger for needless testing, and Grant Shapps appears resolute that foreign travel will remain forever contingent upon one’s digitally-certified vaccination status.

Double-jabbed no longer means ‘vaccinated’, with fourth shots an inevitability, and the lab leak ‘theory’ is apparently still not open for debate as it could detract from ‘international harmony’. 

The forgotten vulnerable elderly, around whom the entire hoodwink once revolved, are still living in the prison of Lockdown One-esque care home protocols, and despite the still experimental nature of mRNA vaccines, the total lack of adequate safety data, the trail of unaddressed human devastation in their wake, and even the Twitter suspension of the technology’s inventor for strongly advising against their universal usage, a new coercive mainstream media campaign has kicked-off to cajole all pregnant women to go and get either their first jab or booster: unborn children officially incorporated now into what has become a sort of global, human-Russian-doll type medical experiment.

How can anyone believe that any aspects of Government’s Covid response will be reversed, discarded or even addressed in the coming weeks or months?

We haven’t even started the five-to-11-year-olds rollout, and we are likewise yet to have Johnson’s ‘national conversation’ on punitive measures for the unvaccinated.

The narrative is therefore parked, not crumbling, and is merely undergoing modification to suit the emerging scientific data that refutes it. Secretaries of State and officials are taking a well-earned breather after almost two years of flat-out tyranny and murder, with some even knighted for their gruesome services to Empire.

So when people speak to me of the turning of the tide, or that Great Britain, and England in particular, is somewhat of a benign international outlier compared with its more brazenly cruel allies, I haven’t the faintest idea what they are talking about.

Many fail to grasp that the world’s most powerful governments tend to work to long-term visions – they don’t just stumble from one crisis to the next, as the MSM would have us believe. Her Majesty’s Government in particular, don’t just have one eye on the global future: they are actively designing it, and this is how their most deceitful and cruel narratives – typically distasteful to a public not yet groomed to accommodate the bastardisation of morals necessary to accomplish them – are born.

‘We will move from defending the status quo within the post-Cold War international system to dynamically shaping the post-Covid order’, states emphatically the Integrated Review of March 16, 2021. A week later, and in accordance with the review’s long-term vision for Britain, Johnson opaquely informed the public during a coronavirus press conference that the pivot to a more interventionist approach to public health was a stratagem set to endure: ‘Exactly a year ago it seemed incredible that in the 21st century [lockdown] was the only way to fight a new respiratory disease, but we did it together to save lives.’

I don’t see a turning of the tide or a crumbling of the narrative, I see a strategic lull in the storm to allow a little of the dust of the last two years of psychophysical abuse to settle, and even if during this perceived period of ‘calm’ the thus-far-hesitant should decide they’ve finally had enough of the State’s interfering in the minutiae of their lives, they’ll have already adjusted to multiple aspects of the grubby new normal regardless, by which time the State – forever designing the future – will have covertly half-prepped their psyches for the next filthy gale of domestic crimes of aggression.

While we hear about Pan B and Plan C, Government are doubtless already on Plan W. Their corrupt narratives bleed one into the other, with most designed never to end.

They are never going to say ‘Sorry, we got the science wrong’, and Johnson, like Blair, will never be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. Both men’s souls are stained by the deaths of innocent people; Johnson’s hands drenched in the blood of the tens of thousands denied known-effective and safe, penny-a-pop, early preventive treatment for Covid-19.

Yet with grating and insulting insistence he and his unhinged Cabinet drone on about national resilience and the great fortitude of the British people who will soon emerge from this crisis as if reborn.

In reality, when the State proselytises about ‘national resilience’ – particularly as we have come to understand it in its new public health guise – they mean not our fortitude as a nation in the face of external threats, but the stamina of the citizenry to endure the crippling duplicity of the most deadly of all threats – the State itself.

The UK isn’t closer to the end of the pandemic than most, as the MSM would have us believe: the engine of the narrative has simply gone in for a long overdue service. I mean, if Sir Tony Blair KG’s Iraq terror campaign warranted six years-plus of tuning at a cost of £9billion and 179 British casualties, then surely the maintenance of Johnson’s 22-month-and-counting, £400billion, 147,472 citizen-deaths pandemic equivalent, has only just begun, right?

January 14, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski speaks out against Canada’s “concerning” internet censorship bill

By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | January 13, 2022

Chris Pavlovski, the CEO of free speech video sharing platform Rumble, has warned that Canada’s controversial internet regulation proposal, Bill C-10, will give the government the power to “control what you see” and noted that this bill and other internet regulation proposals are making it tough for companies like Rumble to compete with the tech giants.

“The legislation that is gonna come that…I think is even more concerning is Bill C-10 in Canada where they wanna have the government actually regulate what kind of content you are displaying… through the CRTC [Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission] and think about that, they’re gonna control what you see now,” Pavlovski said during an appearance on the Timcast IRL podcast.

Bill C-10 failed to pass the Senate before the summer break last year and is currently awaiting Senate approval. Then-Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, who promoted the bill, said its purpose is to “regulate the internet and social media in the same way that it regulates national broadcasting.” Free speech advocates have warned that it’s a “censorship bill that would allow governments to control what you see and say online.”

While it’s unclear if Bill C-10 will pass, Pavlovski noted that Canada has proposed other internet regulations that could be introduced in the next year and that Rumble is preparing for potential new laws in the country by moving its headquarters to Florida this year.

Pavlovski also discussed how these types of regulations add complexity and create barriers to entry for smaller companies like Rumble who are attempting to compete with tech giants such as YouTube.

“We have to find a way to meet the laws of every country,” Pavlovski said. “This gets so complicated.”

Pavlovski said Rumble has to have lawyers help it in every jurisdiction and that this makes operating in multiple countries difficult.

“The barrier of entry just to enter this market is, is so difficult,” Pavlovski said. “To be like YouTube and to compete against YouTube, you need, like, significant financing, significant legal help… it is a lot to navigate, it’s so complicated.”

Although Bill C-10 is currently in limbo, Trudeau’s government is pushing another internet censorship law – Bill C-36.

“People think that C-10 was controversial,” Guilbeault said when promoting Bill C-36. “Wait until we table this legislation.”

Bill C-36 proposes holding social media companies liable for “hurtful content” and will allow Canadians to anonymously flag hurtful content to have it taken down. It also suggests fines of up to $50,000 for online “hate speech.”

Canada is one of many jurisdictions pushing national online speech laws that create the barriers to entry for smaller Big Tech competitors that Pavlovski described. The UK is pushing an “Online Safety Bill” that would block social media platforms that fail to remove “legal but harmful content,” Australia recently passed an “Online Safety Act” that fines platforms that fail to remove content when ordered, and Greece recently passed a law that criminalizes “fake news.”

January 13, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

FT Says “Anti-Vax Sentiment” in the West Being Fueled by Russia & China

Advocates governments using “psychological operations” against their own people

By Paul Joseph Watson | Summit News | January 13, 2022

In a report that advocates governments using “psychological operations” against their own population, the Financial Times asserts, with no proof, that Russia and China are responsible for pushing “anti-vax sentiment” and criticism of lockdown measures in the west.

The article quotes Mikael Tofvesson, head of the Swedish Navy’s new Psyops division, who says “foreign aggressors” are trying to “sow division by targeting areas of public concern such as crime, Covid vaccinations, the government’s response to the pandemic, and immigration.”

“The most important task in psychological defence is to inoculate the population against believing false information,” states the article, which is written by Elisabeth Braw of the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-con think tank.

Such measures were deployed in the United Kingdom during the first lockdown, when scientists in the UK working as advisors for the government admitted using what they now admit to be “unethical” and “totalitarian” methods of instilling fear in the population in order to control behavior during the pandemic.

One scientist with the SPI-B admitted that, “In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear.”

Of course, contrary to the claims in the article, the primary goal of psychological operations, whether directed against an enemy or a domestic population, is to instill fear and change behavior – telling the truth is hardly a priority.

Far from dispelling “false information,” psychological operations routinely rely on using false information to influence and manipulate “the enemy.”

“Psychological operations have long been a part of military operations, and are typically defined as the use of propaganda and other methods to influence the attitudes and behavior of foreign adversaries,” writes Allum Bokhari.

“What the FT is advocating — and what many have long suspected — is the use of these techniques by western military, security, and intelligence forces against their own citizens.”

“Hostile states including Russia, China and Iran have increased their use of disinformation and online propaganda to amplify anti-vax sentiment and foment political tensions in Europe and the US,” Braw claims.

However, the report contains no evidence whatsoever that Russia and China are responsible for any coordinated attempt to sow doubts about COVID-19 vaccines or lockdown measures.

Indeed, the mere fact that the newspaper complains about “disinformation” in the context of COVID-19 conspiracy theories is pretty rich given that the constantly invoked ‘Russian collusion’ charge is itself a baseless conspiracy theory.

In reality, concerns about vaccine side-effects, giving vaccines to children and mandating vaccines and COVID passports as part of the growing bio-security police state are perfectly valid concerns shared by millions of people across the west.

The FT is a staunchly globalist newspaper of record for the international elite and is routinely represented at the annual Bilderberg conference.

It can hardly be trusted to represent the interests of the common man.

January 13, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

The media’s Covid mouthpieces don’t know their SARS from their elbow

By Suzie Halewood | TCW Defending Freedom | January 13, 2022

LAST week Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff (A Hard Lesson For Djokovic: Patience with vaccine sceptics is wearing thin) took a gleeful swipe at tennis star Novak Djokovic, who was initially denied the right to remain in Australia to defend his Australian Open title.

This was despite the world number one receiving an exemption from a review panel appointed by the state of Victoria’s Department of Health, which took into consideration Novak having previously been tested positive for asymptomatic Covid.

‘Few tears will be shed for the man now inevitably known as “Novaxx” Djokovic,’ opined Gaby, who has clearly never organised a tennis tournament.

She attacks the Serbian star for his ‘wacky beliefs’ such as ‘natural’ healing, as though natural immunity is a conspiracy theory, before equating him with the one rule for them, one rule for us elites of Downing Street, merely because he’s earned millions from being focused and talented. (A parallel piece in The Telegraph suggests they’re all still singing from the same hymn sheet).

But Djokovic isn’t trying to slip under the radar because he’s a millionaire. He isn’t trying to slip under the radar at all. Prior to the 2021 Australian Open, he quarantined as per the requirements of the Australian department of health. This year, having had Covid and therefore natural immunity, he applied for an exemption, which was granted. Djokovic’s only mistake was to travel to Australia during election year.

However, Gaby’s attack isn’t really on Djokovic, it’s on the unvaccinated in general: ‘Just over a month ago, I wrote about how the mood might harden as intensive care beds filled with patients realising too late that they should have got the jab, while restrictions once again loomed over people who had done what was asked of them.’

Sorry Gaby, but intensive care beds aren’t filling up with the unvaccinated. According to the latest technical briefing from UKHSA, Britain’s health security agency, emergency admissions up to December 29 consisted of 206 unvaccinated, 591 vaccinated and 18 unlinked.

As for restrictions once again looming over people who had done what was asked of them, more fool you for believing the Government. Three weeks to flatten the curve, a firm pledge to loosen restrictions once the vulnerable were jabbed, double-jabbed means fully jabbed – until you need a booster. When exactly are you going to catch on?

Like every other sloppy columnist with a ‘vaccine refusenik’ in their sights, Gaby clearly feels that as she unquestioningly followed the rules, so should everybody else, never stopping to ask who made the rules, why and to what end? History should have taught us that blindly following rules does not end well.

Vince Cable is another one who believes the unvaccinated are responsible for restrictions affecting everyone, sidestepping the latest UKHSA technical briefing to declare that the Covid circus is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. ‘The harm caused to society by the unvaccinated is partly that there is increased transmissibility,’ says Vince.

The UKHSA says otherwise, showing vaccine effectiveness against contracting the disease in all 18+ cohorts as a negative (the most extreme figure being minus 151.2 per cent in the 40-49 year-old cohort) which means you are more likely to catch the disease if vaccinated. If more catch it, more can spread it.

And let’s not forget the overburdened NHS, struggling to cope with a reduction in perfectly healthy staff who were sent home after testing positive using a lateral flow test that can find Covid in an orange.

The UKHSA, usually so reliable with a positive (if favourably skewed) spin on its own data, could manage only a crestfallen ‘among those who had received two doses of AstraZeneca, there was no effect against Omicron from 20 weeks after the second dose’. Oh dear.

Having dug himself into one hole, Vince – who is about as adept at statistics as he is at dancing – decides to dig himself an even bigger one, saying: ‘The most difficult objection is that there are distinct groups who have refused injection not as a result of laziness or bloody-mindedness, but because of widespread suspicion, based on experience, that the authorities are not to be trusted.’

Ignoring that something learned from experience is more than a suspicion, Vince goes on digging. ‘In the US, some black Americans cite the history of being used for scientific experiments (as to why they won’t get vaccinated) … but these arguments are wearing a little thin.’

Or to look at it another way Vince, perhaps being viewed as little more than a Petri dish by pharmaceutical companies and US governments alike for the best part of the 20th century is wearing a little thin for African Americans, or Guatemalans, or Africans.

Vince’s three options to deal with the unvaccinated in the UK (thankfully he had zero policy influence even when in office) are ‘compulsion through employment conditions; changes to rights of treatment under the NHS and a more comprehensive vaccine passport system’.

He does stop short of ‘refuseniks dragged away, held down and forcefully injected’, primarily because it’s impractical. A true Liberal.

Another Liberal (whilst at Cambridge at least) happy to inhabit the scientific wasteland of journalism is Matthew ‘How to wrongfoot an anti-vaxxer’ Parris, who trips over himself trying to prove in his Spectator article that those who choose not to be vaccinated against a disease with a survival rate of 99.98 per cent must be paranoid.

‘Mass paranoia is plainly a strand in the anti-vax movement,’ proclaims Matthew, whose Imperial College-worthy research includes a tale about a ‘lonely Arab boy’ who mistook a porch light for a death ray and one about a woman in Glasgow he has never met, whose neighbour believed someone was trying to poison the residents.

I wonder how he’d label those getting boosted against an Omicrom variant a third of the strength of the Delta strain, which is itself a twentieth of the strength of Alpha?

The Parris article is one of pure projection. He ‘cannot condone frightening people with stories that are not true’. Really? Then how about an article on wealthy Marxist pandemic adviser Susan Michie, or one on the government’s Nudge Unit, or the taxpayer millions thrown at PR companies such as 23red and MullenLowe, who are paid to frighten people into believing Covid is the new plague?

Parris’s claims that ‘viral ideas and beliefs’ fuel the ‘anti-vax rumour machine’ remain unsubstantiated, as he offers zero proof. Conversely, the unvaccinated have a plethora of government data from around the world to study.

Early data from Italy for example showed the average age of death from Covid was 84.1. In the UK, ‘deaths for any reason within 28 days of a Covid positive test’ in the healthy under-65 cohort – for the whole of 2020 – were 1,549. And on March 19 2020, both the Four Nations Public Health Group and The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) were in agreement that Covid-19 need no longer be classified as an HCID – high consequence infectious disease.

But it isn’t just Cambridge graduates attacking the pro-choicers. Michael Deacon, in a particularly mean spirited piece in the Telegraph, singles out John O’Looney. He is he funeral director brave enough to speak out about the vaccine injuries he’s witnessed and the families who have opened up to him not only in regard to family members who died following the Covid jab, but also families of those who died with a Covid mention on the death certificate when their loved one clearly died of something else, like Alzheimer’s, cancer or a car crash.

Unlike O’Looney, Deacon does not attend autopsies of those who died with a suspected vaccine injury. Neither does Andrew Neil, who also claims those who choose not to get vaccinated do so through ‘fear, ignorance, irresponsibility or sheer stupidity’.

Or maybe they just studied government data or read autopsy report summaries of what the vaccines can do to the heart, lungs, liver and thyroid gland. ‘You can’t shout “fire!” in a crowded cinema if there is no fire,’ says Neil. But that is exactly what the Government did. And journalists either fell for it, or got paid to look the other way.

At least the ‘What Are We Going To Do With the Antivaxxers?’ pudding in Forbes magazine gets one thing right. ‘It is unacceptable,’ declares Enrique Dans ‘that millions of people, seemingly influenced by a small group of irresponsible idiots, have decided to endanger not only their own lives, but also the possibility of eradicating the pandemic’. Absolutely,  Enrique. Here in the UK we refer to those idiots as the Government.

Thankfully, such rhetoric is already beginning to feel outdated. There is light at the end of the tunnel.  ‘Mass population-based vaccination in the UK should now end,’ says Dr Clive Dix, former chairman of the UK’s vaccine task force.

Meanwwhile, Professor Angus Dalgleish, writing in the Mail points out that ‘the policy of obsessive Covid screening of the population using lateral flow tests has lurched into mass hysteria. Worse, it is tantamount to national self-harm’.

As Dr Steve James, the hospital anaesthetist who took on Sajid Javid over forced vaccination pointed out, there is no sense in a sustained boosting campaign when efficacy wanes after eight weeks and most will have been exposed to Covid by now.

But hold the front page. Researchers at Imperial College have now discovered the ‘Holy Grail’ of Covid resistance. News from the  Telegraph heralds a ground-breaking study which found that – and I hope you’re sitting down – large numbers of Britons were already protected from coronavirus before the pandemic began because of previous exposure to common colds. Which is exactly what Mike Yeadon and every other sane scientist flagged up prior to the vaccine rollout, before being laughed out of town.

The net is tightening around the Johnson government. If Boris  chooses to push forward with his NHS mandatory vaccination drive, come April 1, he could end up with 100,000 agitated NHS whistleblowers on his hands who now have a lot less to lose.

If he pulls back from mandatory vaccination for all NHS staff, he risks facing the wrath of both the sacked non-vaccinated care workers and those care workers forced to take the jab in order to keep their jobs.

And he will still have to answer to the millions (estimated prior immunity 30-50 per cent) of vaccinated who will surely want to know why they were hoodwinked into taking an experimental treatment when all along they could have been offered a T-cell test option which would have told them if they were even likely to develop Covid. Especially in light of the fact that the Johnson government invested taxpayer money in the very T-cell research that could have prevented any need for a jab – long before the vaccine rollout.

Whether or not Djokovic gets to defend his title, his greatest service yet may be worldwide publicity for basic common sense.

For here is a healthy, fit, intelligent 34-year-old sportsman with prior immunity who, having weighed up the odds of vaccine risk versus Covid risk, has maybe decided that taking an experimental treatment with zero long-term safety data and extremely concerning short-term safety data (especially amongst young, fit sportsmen) to ward off a much-weakened Omicron variant, defies logic.

Hinsliff, Cable, Parris and Neil meanwhile will no doubt continue to be guided by the voices coming out of the telly.

January 13, 2022 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Irish Government To Publish Online Harms Bill

By Richie Allen | January 12, 2022

The Irish government is set to follow its British counterpart and publish an online harms bill. The legislation will allow for the appointment of an online safety commissioner to head up a new Media Commission.

According to state broadcaster RTÉ:

The commissioner will draw up rules around how social media services should deal with harmful online content.

Harmful online content includes criminal material, serious cyber-bullying material and material promoting self-harm, suicide and eating disorders.

The commissioner will have the power to appoint authorised officers to conduct investigations.

In the event of a failure to comply with an online safety code, and subject to court approval, the Media Commission will have the power to impose financial sanctions of up to €20m or 10% of turnover.

The Cabinet is expected to agree to beginning the process to recruit the Online Safety Commissioner.

Under the legislation before Government this morning, the Media Commission would take on the current functions of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and regulate both television and radio broadcasters.

The Irish bill has nothing to do with cyber-bullying or eating disorders. This is state sanctioned censorship. The legacy media (TV, radio, newspapers) is off-limits to the scientists, doctors, academics and researchers who appear on shows like The Richie Allen Show.

Governments and their media lackeys are nothing more than gatekeepers for the architects of Orwellian globalist agendas. They work round the clock to banish whistleblowing scientists and doctors from the mainstream media.

Up until now however, they’ve failed to prevent them from sharing information online. This is where online harms bills come in. Here in the UK, the online harms bill proposes a two year jail sentence for someone who knowingly spreads medical misinformation on the internet.

That’s right. You could be arrested and charged for discussing the dangers of taking unnecessary vaccines or other medicines, because someone might read your blog or listen to your podcast and decline the medicine. Being right won’t be a defence.

When online harms bills get through national parliaments, freedom of expression is dead. That’s what this is really all about.

January 12, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | Leave a comment

Victory in Oldham: Elbit forced to sell Ferranti after sustained direct action campaign

Palestine Action | January 10, 2022

After 18 months of sustained direct action taken at the Elbit Ferranti site in Oldham, Greater Manchester, with 36 people arrested, Elbit have now sold Ferranti technologies, with its continued operation in Oldham appearing unfeasible. Activists have occupied, blockaded, smashed, disrupted, and protested regularly at the site, ultimately succeeding in ending the factory’s production of specialist military technologies for Israel’s fleet of combat drones.

In November 2021, anonymous sources revealed to Palestine Action that mass redundancy notices had been issued to staff working at the factory, and that premises were being cleared in preparation for Elbit leaving the site. Today, it was publicised that Ferranti has indeed been sold to TT Electronics, a British electronics firm. This major restructuring – selling a subsidiary which Elbit has consistently promoted as a success and which has helped Elbit to land multi-million pound contracts with the British government – suggests that Elbit is under significant pressure to tighten its UK operations. This is most likely due to the impossibility of continuing at the often-occupied site, the massive financial impact of occupations, and an attempt to avoid more bad publicity.

Early in 2021, Elbit attempted to make the Oldham factory a viable production site by improving security. Elbit increased spending massively for round-the-clock security, and also benefitted from a rapid police response for protestor removal. Neither of these measures succeeded in keeping out activists, with the site continuing to be targetted regularly.

The first action taken in Oldham by Palestine Action, in late August 2020, involved spraying premises in blood-red paint, symbolising the Palestinian bloodshed made possible with Elbit Ferranti technologies. Following this, actions accelerated. Windows were smashed in an occupation in November 2020, while an action taken in collaboration with XR North in February 2021 caused over £20,000 in damages. In April 2021, activists not only occupied the site but gained entry to the factoy, smashing the roof, windows, air vents, and undermining future operations by covering equipment and computers in red paint – over £100,000 of damages were caused, and the site remained shut for well over a week. On July 5th, three activists gained entry to the site, allegedly causing £500,000 of damage and closing the factory for a number of weeks. More recently, in August of this year, activists blockaded the factory – blocking roads with vehicles and locking onto gates – and occupied the factory itself again. There have been a number of other actions taken at the Oldham site, with the factory forced to close for a significant number of weeks in total due to damage caused.

The site has also been subject to regular protests called by Oldham Peace and Justice and Manchester Palestine Action, with large crowds gathering outside the factory on a weekly basis since the massive and brutal bombardments of Gaza by Israel in May. Sustained pressure, through both protests and an extended campaign of effective direct action, has generated immense challenges for Elbit, who have now sold the subsidiary and left the site.

A Palestine Action spokesperson has stated:

“The sale of Ferranti and the closure of the Oldham factory is a huge victory for the movement. So far, our actions have undermined and disrupted operations – but this news vindicates our long-term strategy. Direct action works – the brave individuals who occupied the factory over the past year can proudly say that drone technologies are no longer in production in Oldham. But its not enough that just one of these death-factories shuts down. We want to see Elbit itself shut down for good, and all of their businesses forced out of Britain – we will keep escalating our actions until that happens.”

This site had been targetted due to the crimes committed against Palestinian civilians using Elbit Ferranti products. The Oldham factory was used for the manufacture of specialist military products and technology, including the SkEye persistent surveillance system aboard Elbit’s Hermes 450 and 900 drones. Ferranti also manufacture the SpectroXR ultra long-range imaging system for Hermes drones. Hermes drones have been used extensively by Israel in bombardments of Gaza, notably during Operation Protective Edge in 2014 in which over 2,200 Palestinians were killed, including 526 children. The site was also used for the production of IronVision helmets for use in battle tanks such as the Carmel – specficially designed for operations in densely built urban areas, such as Gaza.

January 11, 2022 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Ex-ITV boss: Are the vaccine mob getting worried?

By Mark Sharman | TCW Defending Freedom | January 11, 2022

THE headline, in lofty bold type across two full pages, screams: ‘6million follow anti-vaxxer lies’. The Mail on Sunday is firing a full salvo from the good ship Booster. On the same pages it ‘exposes’ some anti-vaxx military-style group ‘planning mayhem’ and hands the Health Secretary Sajid Javid a column to call out ‘dangerous nonsense’ from extreme anti-vaxxers.

It is a telling postscript to a week in which Boris Johnson seemed to have the needle stuck (no pun intended) on the word ‘booster’ and the newly-knighted Chris Whitty again over-stepped the mark from unelected adviser to public influencer.

The vaccine voices are getting louder and more strident: ‘misinformation’ has become ‘lies’ and persuasion is morphing dangerously close to intimidation. They’re turning up the heat on those who exercise their legal, moral and medical right not to be jabbed.

Why so vigorous an offensive? Could it be that the cracks are showing, that the queues for a third jab are dwindling, that millions are wondering why they are ill despite being vaccinated or that Covid numbers in intensive care are significantly lower than last year? Or is it that Omicron is turning out, for most people, to be not much worse than a cold, the virus behaving just as virologists said it would? Are we approaching the herd immunity Professor Whitty craved when Covid arrived, i.e. no more expensive jabs required?

In this same week GB News granted airtime to sceptical, knowledgeable experts who have been cancelled by Twitter and labelled ‘conspiracy theorists’ and ‘spreaders of false information’ on their Wikipedia pages, while an unvaccinated doctor challenged the science with Sajid Javid on Sky News. The consultant, Steve James, has of course been called ‘deluded’ in a Twitter barrage and put down by Javid in his Mail on Sunday column, but he’s a hero to the estimated 120,000 other NHS professionals who face dismissal for remaining vaccine-free.

And these anti-vaxx lies? It’s in desperation that such world-renowned scientists as Dr Robert Malone, the father of mRNA research; Dr Peter McCullough, a cardiologist who has 1,000 publications and 600 citations in the US National Library of Medicine, and Dr Mike Yeadon, a former top scientist at Pfizer, are smeared and cancelled. Whether they are right or wrong, such experience and expertise demands a hearing. These people – and many others like them – have serious misgivings based on their specific knowledge. And opinions don’t become lies just because they question the narrative. The Mail on Sunday’s quoted six million probably follow names such as these to get a balanced view because, in general, they are not getting it from mainstream media.

Which brings us to Sir Chris Whitty. Studious, strait-laced and straight-faced, he’s been the super-spreader of gloom with his charts and graphs. Now he’s adding judgment.

First came his December message, urging people to ‘prioritise social interactions that really matter to them’. Millions took his advice, devastating thousands of businesses and ruining many a family Christmas. And his words were counter to Boris Johnson’s, however they tried smoothing it over.

But if that was a toe in the political water, he dived right in at the latest Westminster briefing, pronouncing that ‘misinformation’ on the internet, ‘a lot of it deliberately placed’, about potential side-effects from jabs was fuelling fears about vaccine safety.

Fuelling fears? That’s rich, because that’s precisely what the Government has done from day one, with its behaviour specialists frightening and intimidating the population, ‘nudging’ us to comply over Covid, and the media acting as cheerleaders in spreading that fear. Messages have been ‘deliberately placed’ ad infinitum by the Government across TV, radio, newspapers and online, scaring us, cajoling us, appealing to community spirit and playing to guilt . . . ‘Don’t miss out’ or worse, ‘Don’t let your child miss out’. And all with taxpayers’ money.

It is astonishing that Professor Whitty, as a man of science, dismisses internet intelligence as ‘misinformation’. Does he include the aforementioned experts? How about the bona fide scientific investigations under way around the globe about Covid itself, the benefits or otherwise of restrictive measures including lockdowns and mask-wearing, the vaccine’s efficacy and, crucially, its side-effects (note: Pfizer’s clinical trials will not end until 2023, and for children 2025). Pfizer’s own early results are disturbing, as Professor Whitty and his Sage colleagues must know. Will all of this really be labelled misinformation?

Sorry, Professor, science is about questioning, reviewing, reworking, rethinking. It is not about silencing those who challenge, otherwise we would still believe the world is flat. We deserve to hear all sides of the story, particularly when our health and our children’s health is at stake. And particularly if there is even the tiniest shred of doubt about vaccine safety.

But then, maybe you have been ‘nudged’ yourself. It was disturbing to hear the Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Nadine Dorries telling the Commons that the Government has a Disinformation and Misinformation Unit, working daily with online providers to remove ‘harmful’ misinformation, particularly on Covid. Very Orwellian.

The BBC and Sky News have similar units, but their output so far points to a supposed debunking of anything that challenges the official line.

Make no mistake, freedom of speech and open debate are under serious attack, a pincer movement with arbitrary censorship by Big Tech platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter on one flank and, I’m ashamed to say, most mainstream media outlets on the other.

We accept that in times of crisis government powers necessarily increase and frequently remain long after that crisis is over, but we are on a dangerous path of authoritarianism, of overt State intervention in too many aspects of everyday lives at a time when there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel. Is it any wonder that theories beyond public health are gaining ground?

If Britain was the cradle of democracy, we are now on the road to its grave. And headlines like the Mail on Sunday’s ‘lies’ are signposts along the way.

January 11, 2022 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

What they REALLY mean by “living with Covid”

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | January 10, 2022

Why are media dialling back on the Covid hysteria? Is it because the “pandemic” is really over? Or is it an important part of the gaslighting process?

The past few days, even weeks, have seen a definite alteration in the media’s attitude to the Covid “pandemic”.

There have been numerous examples of what, if the media were not so tightly controlled, might be referred to as “dissent”. But, since the media is tightly controlled, we must call it an apparent change in the message.

Famously, Dr Steve James, a consultant anaesthetist, confronted UK Health Secretary Sajid Javid over the weakness of the science supporting vaccine mandates. Note this was actually aired on Sky News.

A few days ago Dr Rochelle Walensky, the director of the CDC, went on Good Morning America to discuss the “Omicron” wave, and ended up pointing out that most “omicron deaths” have multiple co-morbidities.

In another interview, with Fox News, Dr Walenksy said the CDC was going to publish data on how many people had died of Covid, and how many died with it.

This begs a series of important questions.

  1. Why is the director of the CDC (seemingly) engaging with these Covid skeptic arguments after two years of pretending they don’t exist?
  2. Why would Sky News air, and then tweet out, the video clip of a doctor challenging the health secretary?
  3. Why is the Guardian running headlines like “End mass jabs and live with Covid, says ex-head of vaccine taskforce”and quoting medical personnel who say we need to “treat Covid like the flu”?
  4. Why are new studies being promoted that claim T cells from ordinary colds can “protect you from Covid”?

There’s no denying the messaging, the deceleration of the narrative. There’s a new thread being woven into the story: “living with Covid”.

For over a month that has been a popular buzz phrase all over the Western press.

On December 1st, Forbes headlined:

Why Endemic Covid-19 Will Be Cause For Celebration

An article which argued, among other things, that “Endemic Covid-19 will be no worse than seasonal flu”. This sentiment has been repeated ad nauseum across multiple outlets.

We already mentioned the Guardian article from January 8th, there’s also an earlier one from Dec 5th titled “From pandemic to endemic: this is how we might get back to normal”.

CNBC ran three almost identical stories on this topic in the space of two weeks:

On New Year’s Day, Vox had a piece titled:

Despite omicron, Covid-19 will become endemic. Here’s how.

Bloomberg is reporting that Omicron signals the end “of the acute phase of the pandemic”.

Just yesterday the New York Post headlined: “COVID will become endemic by later this year, ex-Biden task-force head predicts”, and USA Today asked “The pandemic is changing. Will omicron bring a ‘new normal’ for COVID-19?“

And earlier today Channel 4 opined that “Covid in 2022” means “learning to live with the virus”.

The messaging isn’t just media-based, either. Reports are coming out that “living with Covid” is going to be the UK government’s strategy moving into 2022, with an official publication on this topic expected “within weeks”.

So, “living with the virus” is going to be added to the Covid phrasebook alongside “flatten the curve” and “the new normal”. But what does it actually entail?

When they say “living with Covid”, what do they really mean?

Well, firstly, let’s not make the mistake of trusting any government, media, or “expert”, just because they start telling 20% of the truth.

They are liars, they have an agenda, this is always true, you should always be aware of it, even when – or especially when – they are suddenly telling you what you want to hear.

They have not seen the light, they are not correcting their mistakes, they not finally seeing sense, and they are not switching sides.

There have been no Damascene conversions. There is no wave of guilty consciences sweeping through the elite.

They have an agenda. They always have an agenda.

You should also dispel all notions of “getting back to normal” from your mind. That isn’t happening.

How do we know? Because they said so.

Half the articles talking about “living with Covid” go into detail about how things won’t really change. Take this one, from the Guardian yesterday:

‘Living with Covid’ does not have to mean ditching all protective measures

It outlines that Covid could become endemic soon, that the mass testing of asymptomatic people may be counter-productive and possibly should stop, but it doesn’t reverse course on masks or vaccines and leaves the door wide open for a new “variant” to jump-start more lockdowns in the future:

“Living with Covid” does not have to mean reversing every protective measure. If better ventilation and face masks reduce the impact of winter respiratory illnesses, that is a positive, even if the NHS is no longer under imminent threat of being overwhelmed. We will also need to remain vigilant about the threat from new variants, which could still cause big setbacks. There is no guarantee that another variant, more infectious and more virulent than Omicron, could emerge in the future. Scientists say that supporting global vaccination efforts will be crucial to securing the path to normality.

Masks, working from home, and social distancing in crowded settings could all be “sticking around”, according to one of the above CNBC articles. And “Covid Boosters could become like annual flu shots”.

Meanwhile, “experts” are warning that even once Covid is endemic we should prepare for “surges” every three or four months.

It seems “living with the virus” means maintaining the status quo, loosening a few restrictions, but leaving the path clear for new waves of fear porn should the need arise.

But why? Why are they doing this now?

It could be that there are splits and factions, fractures along the floors of the corridors of power. Perhaps some members of the great big club want to halt the Pandemic where it is, afraid that any more progress along the “Great Reset” path may imperil their own position or their own wealth.

Maybe.

What I see as more likely is that they sense they have over-extended themselves already, and that stretching further could break their entire story to pieces.

To use an apt metaphor, imagine the “Great Reset” agenda as an invading army, marching through town after town, winning battle after battle and burning as they go.

There comes a point where you have to stop. Your supply lines are pulled taut, your men are tired and numbers dwindling, and the occupied citizens are putting up more and more resistance. Push on now, and your entire campaign could crumble.

What you do in that situation is withdraw to a defensible position and fortify it. You don’t give back the land you’ve taken, or not much of it at least, but you stop pushing forward.

The people whose land you have invaded will be so glad the war is over, so tired of fighting, they’ll be so relieved by the respite before realising how much of their land you’ve taken away. They may even say “let them keep it, as long as they stop attacking us”.

That’s how conquest works, from the days of ancient Rome and beyond. A cycle of aggression followed by fortification.

When we switch from “pandemic” to “endemic”, we won’t be getting our rights back, the vaccine passes and surveillance and the culture of paranoia and fear will remain, but people will be so relieved at the pause in the campaign of fear and propaganda they will stop resisting.

They won’t push back, and the “New Normal” will literally become just that, normal.

Hell, they’ll probably greenlight funding for anything Bill Gates wants to do to make sure “Covid is the last pandemic”.

And then, one day when people are nice and docile again, a new variant will come back, or we’ll need a “climate lockdown”, and the push for control of every aspect of our lives will start up again in earnest.

The best thing we can do is not fall into the trap.

The press politicians and Big Pharma didn’t all just realise the truth, they’re just using some small parts of truth they’ve been ignoring for two years to fortify their position.

But that doesn’t make it a bad thing.

The very fact they feel the need to do so shows that the resistance is building, and that they’re are trying to lull us into relaxing.

Now would be the worst time to stop fighting.

January 10, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | Leave a comment

UK Deployed 31 Nuclear Weapons During Malvinas War

By Richard Norton-Taylor | Declassified UK | January 3, 2022

British warships deployed to the South Atlantic after Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands [Islas Malvinas] in 1982 were armed with dozens of nuclear depth charges. Prince Andrew served on HMS Invincible, which carried 12 nuclear weapons.

The revelation is contained in a new file released to the National Archives. Marked “Top Secret Atomic,” it shows that the presence of the nuclear weapons caused panic among officials in London when they realized the damage, both physical and political, they could have caused.

The military regime in Argentina claimed the Falkland islands and invaded on April 2, 1982. The U.K. government under Margaret Thatcher dispatched a naval task force to the South Atlantic to retake the islands.

A Ministry of Defence (MoD) minute, dated April 6, 1982, referred to “huge concern” that some of the “nuclear depth bombs” could be “lost or damaged and the fact become public.” The minute added: “The international repercussions of such an incident could be very damaging.”

Nuclear depth bombs are deployed from navy ships to attack submerged submarines.

The unidentified official who wrote the minute continued:

“The secretary of state [John Nott] will wish to continue the long-established practice of refusing to comment on the presence or absence of UK nuclear weapons at any given location at any particular time.”

Heated Row

The existence of the weapons provoked a heated row between the MoD and the Foreign Office. The latter asked the MoD to “unship” the weapons. The Navy refused to do so.

The MoD noted the principal arguments in favour of keeping the weapons on board. It stated:

“In the event of tension or hostilities between ourselves and the Soviet Union concurrent with Operation Corporate [the codename given to liberating the Falklands] the military capability of our warships would otherwise be severely reduced.”

One document in the file says there was no risk of an “atomic bomb type explosion.” But there was a threat of the “disposal of fissile material” if any of the weapons was damaged which could lead to up to 50 “additional deaths” from cancer.

Even if there was no pollution in the event of a damaged or sunk nuclear weapon the Argentinians might get hold of nuclear technology and “we might have had to face acute embarrassment in the non-proliferation field,” recorded a MoD official.

Keeping Secret

A plan to offload the weapons at the British base on Ascension Island in the South Atlantic Ocean was rejected by the Navy. It said this would delay the passage of the task force to the Falklands and that the operation would not be kept secret.

Instead, the weapons were transferred from the frigates and destroyers to the larger aircraft carriers, HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible, where the weapons could be better protected. Prince Andrew served as a helicopter pilot on Invincible during the war.

By the middle of May 1982, the Hermes had 18 nuclear weapons on board and Invincible 12, while the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, Regent, had one, according to the file. The ships were within the “total exclusion zone” imposed by Britain around the Falkland Islands, the documents say.

The file does not say whether any of these were “inert” surveillance rounds used to monitor the “wear and tear on the weapons”, as academic Lawrence Freedman put it in his Official History of the Falklands Campaign, published in 2005.

Surveillance and training rounds were used to test the depth charges to see how they would perform. They were identical to live weapons except the fissile material was replaced by depleted uranium and inert substances.

But even the presence of inert rounds caused alarm in the Foreign Office. Its top official, Sir Antony Ackland, wrote to Sir Frank Cooper, his opposite number in the MoD: “I was very glad to have your confirmation that HMS Sheffield was not carrying an inert round when she was hit.”

The destroyer sank on May 10, 1982 after being attacked by an Argentinian Exocet missile six days earlier.

Nuclear Free Zone

The Foreign Office was also anxious about the presence of the nuclear weapons because of the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco. This established a nuclear free zone in Latin America and surrounding waters, including the Falklands.

Although Britain had signed and ratified the treaty’s protocols other countries, including Argentina, had not done so. According to Freedman, Margaret Thatcher insisted that no ship carrying nuclear weapons would enter the three-mile territorial waters around the Falklands which would be a “potential breach” of the Tlatelolco treaty.

The MoD admitted in 2003 that British ships in the task force carried nuclear weapons and that a weapon container had been damaged. But the number of weapons had not been revealed before this document was transferred to the National Archives in Kew, south west London.

But a number of documents from the file have been weeded by the MoD or the Cabinet Office. They include an intriguing note, dated April 11, 1982, beginning “The Chiefs of Staff believe…” What they believed we are not allowed to know.

What About Gibraltar?

Many more documents are missing from a separate file, now declassified, entitled “Gibraltar: Impact of the Falklands Crisis”.

Gibraltarians, like the Falkland Islanders, inhabited a British “Overseas Territory” and were concerned because Spain supported Argentine claims of sovereignty over the islands just as it claimed Gibraltar, the large rock and British base on the southern tip of the Iberian peninsula.

Whitehall weeders have withheld no fewer than 73 documents from the Gibraltar file. They have done so under exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, and, specifically, sections 27(i), 40 (2), and 41.

These cover information whose disclosure might “prejudice” the interest of the U.K. abroad, “personal data” and “information provided in confidence.” Passages in other documents in the file have also been excised.

What has the British government to hide? Documents declassified previously may offer some clues. Thatcher repeatedly expressed concern about the implications of the Falklands crisis for Gibraltar.

Despite the public rhetoric, successive U.K. governments have been prepared to negotiate about sovereignty of the Falklands and sought a joint sovereignty agreement with Spain over Gibraltar in 2000 and again in 2002.

Thatcher’s government secretly offered to hand over sovereignty of the Falklands islands two years before the invasion by Argentine forces in 1982. The cabinet’s defence committee approved a plan whereby Britain would hand Argentina titular sovereignty over the islands, which would then be leased back by Britain for 99 years.

Lord Carrington resigned as foreign secretary over the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. He told the subsequent Franks Committee, which inquired into the run-up to the invasion, that British policy had been one of neglect and hoping for the best. “We did not have any cards in our hands”, he said.

Richard is a British editor, journalist and playwright, and the doyen of British national security reporting.

January 10, 2022 Posted by | Environmentalism, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Is ensuring people’s compliance with future diktats the key reason for the re-imposition of masks in the classroom?

Masking is not normal and should not be normalised

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | January 8, 2022

In the week when the requirement (or is it only a ‘recommendation’?) to mask children in the classroom was reinstated, it is worthwhile to consider the likely reasons underpinning the decision to return to a restriction that is both ineffective and harmful. Undoubtedly, there has again been pressure from the education unions for pupils to cover their faces, motivated either by a baseless belief that such a measure will reduce the risk of teachers contracting the virus, or perhaps a desire to further damage Government credibility by causing more disruption in our schools. Whatever their reason, at this juncture it is timely to revisit the range of circumstantial evidence that supports what HART believes to be the most plausible reason for compelling the healthy to wear face coverings: to increase compliance with future COVID-19 restrictions and the vaccination rollout.

Prior to June 2020, public health experts did not endorse masking healthy people in the community as a means of reducing viral transmission. In March 2020, Dr Jenny Harris (England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer) was unequivocal when she stated, ‘For the average member of the public, masks are really not a good idea’ and that ‘People can put themselves at more risk than less’. North of the border, Professor Jason Leitch (Scotland’s Clinical Director) was equally emphatic when – in April 2020 – he said, ‘The global evidence is masks in the general population don’t work’. Strikingly, in December 2020 – several months after mask mandates had been imposed in the UK – the World Health Organisation (WHO) published a document titled, Mask use in the context of COVID-19 that formed the conclusion that, ‘There is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking healthy people in the community’. Many contemporary public figures spread a similar message.

So what changed in 2020 that flipped the public health experts into a pro-mask narrative?

One thing is clear: it was not in response to the advent of robust scientific evidence showing that face coverings significantly reduce viral transmission. On the contrary, a review of 14 controlled studies, published in May 2020, concluded that masks did not significantly lessen the spread of influenza in the community, protecting neither the wearer nor others. Although it is not possible to draw an unequivocal conclusion about the reason for the volte-face, several factors are consistent with masks being deployed primarily to enhance compliance with the Government’s COVID-19 interventions.

Deborah Cohen, a medically-qualified correspondent working for the BBC Newsnight programme, stated (in July 2020) that various sources had informed her that the WHO had recommended masks in response to political lobbying, and when she put this possibility directly to the WHO they did not deny it. Also, in her book, A State of Fear, Laura Dodsworth interviewed Gavin Morgan – an educational psychologist and member of the SPI-B (the behavioural science subgroup of SAGE) – who told her that his antipathy to masks had been nullified by some colleagues in the group who believed they were useful in promoting a sense of ‘solidarity’, strengthening people’s feelings of cohesion in the collective fight against the virus.

Further support for the compliance explanation derives from an examination of the activities of the Government’s behavioural scientists who, throughout the pandemic, have recommended the use of covert psychological ‘nudges’ as a means of promoting people’s acceptance of COVID-19 restrictions and the subsequent vaccine rollout. Masking healthy people (adults and children) significantly enhances two fundamental ‘nudges’ used within this campaign. First, the exploitation of fear to promote compliance with Government diktats has been well documented. Masking people in community settings, as well as being one of the restrictions fuelled by fear, is also a powerful way of perpetuating fear. Acting as a crude reminder that danger is – purportedly – all around, face coverings will also prevent disconfirmation of anxious beliefs, preventing the wearer from concluding that our communities are now safe enough to re-engage with in a normal way. A self-reinforcing restriction; something that would strongly appeal to our ethically-compromised behavioural scientists.

Second, the awareness of ‘norms’ – the prevalent views and behaviour of our fellow citizens – can exert pressure on us all to conform, and this widely-deployed ‘nudge’ is also greatly strengthened by mask wearing. Normative pressure (otherwise known as peer pressure or scapegoating) is less effective in changing the behaviour of the deviant minority if there is no visible indicator of pro-social compliance rooted in communities. A face covering, or lack of one, enables instant recognition of the rule followers and rule breakers, thereby escalating the pressure to comply.

These observations as a whole are consistent with the premise that masking healthy people is primarily a compliance device. Clearly, widespread wearing of face coverings in community settings is an effective way of keeping the British public on board with any future restrictions the state decides to impose in pursuit of its agenda. Would the Government have so easily capitulated to union pressure to re-mask children in the classroom if this was not so?

January 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

UK Culture Secretary boasts about shadowy “anti-disinformation” unit; “daily we have contact with the online providers”

The unit provides no transparency

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | January 8, 2022

The UK Government’s “disinformation” unit is “working,” the Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said, after she was challenged by the Labour party who said the shadowy unit shut down last year.

In the UK, both the Conservative and Labour governments support more online censorship.

“It’s not the case, it’s not true; it is there, it is working,” Nadine Dorries said in response to a question this week.

“That work takes place daily, and daily we work to remove content online that is harmful and particularly when it comes to Covid-19, daily we have contact with the online providers.”

Ministers in the UK government created a “disinformation unit” to fight the spread of “false” information about COVID-19. The government felt that people were getting misleading information about the virus on social media.

The disinformation unit included civil servants in Whitehall. They were to work with communication experts and collaborate with social media companies.

At the time, then-Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said: “Defending the country from misinformation and digital interference is a top priority. As part of our ongoing work to tackle these threats we have brought together expert teams to make sure we can respond effectively should these threats be identified in relation to the spread of Covid-19.

“This work includes regular engagement with the social media companies, which are well placed to monitor interference and limit the spread of disinformation, and will make sure we are on the front foot to act if required.”

The team was supposed to focus on disinformation, which refers to the deliberate spreading of false information for personal gain or “trolling.”

The misleading information the government was concerned about included recommendations of cures that are ineffective or potentially “dangerous” and “false claims” about the origin of the coronavirus.

Social media companies had already begun flagging Covid-related misinformation and directing users to what they deemed reliable sources.

January 8, 2022 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

Ex-defence minister told to ‘burn’ secret Iraq war memo – reports

RT | January 6, 2022

During Tony Blair’s time in office, Downing Street allegedly ordered former defence secretary Geoff Hoon to burn a secret memo that questioned the legality of the 2003 Iraq invasion. Hoon makes the bombshell claim in a new memoir.

In disclosures that have boosted ongoing attempts to strip the former prime minister of his recently conferred knighthood, Hoon reportedly revealed that Blair’s chief of staff Jonathan Powell had instructed him “in no uncertain terms” to destroy the legal document.

When reports of the allegation first surfaced in 2015, they were dismissed by Blair as “nonsense.” But Hoon has resurrected the claim in a tell-all book, titled ‘See How They Run’, according to the Daily Mail. The paper said Hoon has provided details of a “cover-up” at Downing Street.

The former Labour minister said he was sent a copy of the “very long and very detailed legal opinion,” written by then-Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, “under conditions of considerable secrecy” and told he should “not discuss its contents with anyone else.”

Describing it as “not an easy read,” Hoon said he “came to the view” after several readings that the memo was “not exactly the ringing endorsement” of the war effort that the British government and military chiefs had hoped for. Goldsmith had apparently written that the invasion would be lawful only if Blair believed it was in the UK’s national interest.

“When my Principal Private Secretary, Peter Watkins, called Jonathan Powell in Downing St and asked what he should now do with the document, he was told in no uncertain terms that he should ‘burn it.’”

However, Hoon said he and Watkins defied the order and decided to lock the memo in a safe at the Ministry of Defence instead. He noted that the document is “probably still there.”

While Blair has yet to comment, Powell has denied ordering Hoon to burn the memo, telling the Daily Mail that, at Goldsmith’s request, he had asked the former defence secretary to “destroy” a separate “minute” on the legality of the invasion that had been sent months earlier.

The explosive claims come as over 750,000 people have signed an online petition to strip Blair of his knighthood. Anti-war activists have long accused Blair of war crimes for sending British troops into Iraq and Afghanistan.

January 6, 2022 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »