Ex-MP Williamson slams University of Bristol for failure to defend anti-Zionist professor
RT | February 19, 2021
Former Derby North MP Chris Williamson has called out the University of Bristol for its “outrageous lack of solidarity” with sociology Professor David Miller, currently under attack by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has been targeting Miller, a professor in the University of Bristol’s sociology department, with a series of accusations, most recently blaming the academic on Friday for putting Jewish students at risk of “real physical harm” by sharing his view that the “Zionist movement” is the “enemy of world peace.” The group’s latest letter was addressed to Hugh Brady, the university’s vice chancellor.
Specifically, Miller had stated that Jewish students on UK university campuses were “being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime engaged in ethnic cleansing” – that is, the Israeli government. The Board of Deputies framed the statement as targeting the students themselves, even though “being used as political pawns” suggests that they are being led by the nose.
Williamson, a former Labour MP, tore into Brady for his university’s failure to muster more than a “mealy-mouthed response” to attacks by a “politically motivated lynch mob,” a lack of action that had encouraged “bad faith actors to continue pursuing this censorship drive.”
Williamson should know. He is no stranger to spurious allegations of anti-Semitism himself, and was suspended from the Labour Party for arguing that it had apologized unnecessarily for something of which it was not guilty – namely, the ‘chronic anti-Semitism’ the party was accused of by its own Blairite faction and media collaborators. Williamson witnessed the danger of excessive apologies secondhand, having watched his colleague Jeremy Corbyn get slowly buried under a pile of unnecessary apologies as the party’s phantom anti-Semitism plague invited further attacks upon him.
Declaring the rhetorical assault on Miller to be part and parcel of “a pernicious campaign of censorship that is currently being waged against British universities by apologists for the state of Israel,” Williamson urged Brady to come forward with “an unambiguous statement in support of Professor Miller,” to whom – as his employer – he owed it to protect him from “malicious complaints.”
Miller himself refused to be silenced, issuing a statement on Friday morning that affirmed his belief that “Zionism is and always has been a racist, violent, imperialist ideology premised on ethnic cleansing.” Hitting back at the Union of Jewish Students, who he accused of targeting him with “a campaign of manufactured hysteria for two years” in an effort to have him fired, he claimed the group even planted a fake student in one of his classes, who was not registered for the class at all, but was merely there “for the purpose of political surveillance.”
Miller concluded that the war on academics critical of Zionism was “an age-old Israel lobby tactic imported from the US, where academics are routinely harassed for teaching about Zionism and its effects.” Should any other foreign lobby try such an approach, they would be “laughed out of the room,” Miller pointed out, insisting “Israel and its advocates deserve the same treatment.”
Far from rendering Jewish students unsafe, Miller declared, the campaign of censorship against critics of the Zionist regime put Arab and Muslim students in danger – as well as anti-Zionist Jewish students.
While the comments about Zionism seem to have topped the list of the Board of Deputies’ grievances, the professor was also denounced as a conspiracy theorist for directing the Organization for Propaganda Studies (which, among other wrongthink views, takes issue with the squeaky-clean image of Syria’s White Helmets favored in the UK and US). Additionally, his concerns over the meddling of pro-Israel organizations in the previous two UK elections were pooh-poohed as mere fantasy, even though in one case an Israeli foreign agent was actually discovered working undercover in Labour Friends of Israel, caught on film plotting the downfall of Corbyn and his allies.
Assigning Blame for the Blackouts in Texas
By Planning Engineer | Climate Etc. | February 18, 2021
The story from some media sources is that frozen wind turbines are responsible for the power shortfalls in Texas. Other media sources emphasize that fossil fuel resources should shoulder the blame because they have large cold induced outages as well and also some natural gas plants could not obtain fuel.
Extreme cold should be expected to cause significant outages of both renewable and fossil fuel based resources. Why would anyone expect that sufficient amounts of natural gas would be available and deliverable to supply much needed generation? Considering the extreme cold, nothing particularly surprising is happening within any resource class in Texas. The technologies and their performance were well within the expected bounds of what could have been foreseen for such weather conditions. While some degradation should be expected, what is happening in Texas is a departure from what they should be experiencing. Who or what then is responsible for the shocking consequences produced by Texas’s run in with this recent bout of extreme cold?
TRADITIONAL PLANNING
Traditionally, responsibility for ensuring adequate capacity during extreme conditions has fallen upon individual utility providers. A couple decades ago I was responsible for the load forecasting, transmission planning and generation planning efforts of an electric cooperative in the southeastern US. My group’s projections, studies and analysis supported our plans to meet customer demand under forecasted peak load conditions. We had seen considerable growth in residential and commercial heat pumps. At colder temperature these units stop producing heat efficiently and switch to resistance heating which causes a spike in demand. Our forecasts showed that we would need to plan for extra capacity to meet this potential demand under extreme conditions in upcoming winters.
I was raked over the coals and this forecast was strongly challenged. Providing extra generation capacity, ensuring committed (firm) deliveries of gas during the winter, upgrading transmission facilities are all expensive endeavors. Premiums are paid to ensure gas delivery and backup power and there is no refund if it’s not used. Such actions increased the annual budget and impact rates significantly for something that is not likely to occur most years, even if the extreme weather projections are appropriate. You certainly don’t want to over-estimate peak demand due to the increasing costs associated with meeting that demand. But back then we were obligated to provide for such “expected” loads. Our CEO, accountants and rate makers would ideally have liked a lower extreme demand projection as that would in most cases have kept our cost down. It was challenging to hold firm and stand by the studies and force the extra costs on our Members.
Fortuitously for us, we were hit with extreme winter conditions just when the plan went in place. Demand soared and the planned capacity we had provided was needed. A neighboring entity was hit with the same conditions. Like us they had significant growth in heat pumps – but they had not forecasted their extreme weather peak to climb as we had. They had to go to the overburdened markets to find energy and make some curtailments. The cost of replacement power turned out to be significantly greater proportionately than we incurred by planning for the high demand. They suffered real consequences due to the shortcomings of their planning efforts.
However, if extreme winter had not occurred, our neighbor’s costs would have been lower than ours that year and that may have continued many years into the future as long as we didn’t see extreme winter conditions. Instead of the praise we eventually received, there would have at least been some annoyance directed at my groups for contributing to “un-needed expenditures”. That’s the way of the world. You can often do things a little cheaper, save some money and most of the time you can get away with it. But sometimes/eventually you cut it too close and the consequences can be extreme.
The Approach in Texas
Who is responsible for providing adequate capacity in Texas during extreme conditions? The short answer is no one. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) looks at potential forecasted peak conditions and expected available generation and if there is sufficient margin they assume everything will be all right. But unlike utilities under traditional models, they don’t ensure that the resources can deliver power under adverse conditions, they don’t require that generators have secured firm fuel supplies, and they don’t make sure the resources will be ready and available to operate. They count on enough resources being there because they assume that is in their owner’s best interests. Unlike all other US energy markets, Texas does not even have a capacity market. By design they rely solely upon the energy market. This means that entities profit only from the actual energy they sell into the system. They do not see any profit from having stand by capacity ready to help out in emergencies. The energy only market works well under normal conditions to keep prices down. While generally markets are often great things, providing needed energy during extreme conditions evidently is not their forte. Unlike the traditional approach where specific entities have responsibilities to meet peak levels, in Texas the responsibility is diffuse and unassigned. There is no significant long term motivation for entities to ensure extra capacity just in case it may be needed during extreme conditions. Entities that might make that gamble theoretically can profit when markets skyrocket, but such approaches require tremendous patience and the ability to weather many years of potential negative returns.
This article from GreenTech media praises energy only markets as do many green interests. Capacity markets are characterized as wasteful. Andrew Barlow, Head of the PUC in Texas is quoted as follows, “Legislators have shown strong support for the energy-only market that has fueled the diversification of the state’s electricity generation fleet and yielded significant benefits for customers while making Texas the national leader in installed wind generation. ”
Why has Capacity been devalued?
Traditional fossil fuel generation has (as does most hydro and nuclear) inherent capacity value. That means such resources generally can be operated with a high degree of reliability and dependability. With incentives they can be operated so that they will likely be there when needed. Wind and solar are intermittent resources, working only under good conditions for wind and sun, and as such do not have capacity value unless they are paired with costly battery systems.
If you want to achieve a higher level of penetration from renewables, dollars will have to be funneled away from traditional resources towards renewables. For high levels of renewable penetration, you need a system where the consumers’ dollars applied to renewable generators are maximized. Rewarding resources for offering capacity advantages effectively penalizes renewables. As noted by the head of the PUC in Texas, an energy only market can fuel diversification towards intermittent resources. It does this because it rewards only energy that is fed into the grid, not backup power. (Side note-it’s typical to provide “renewable” resources preference for feeding into the grid as well. Sometimes wind is compensated for feeding into the grid even during periods of excess generation when fossil fuel resources are penalized. But that’s another article.)
Traditional planning studies might recognize that wind needs to be backed up by fossil fuel (more so under extreme conditions) such that if you have these backup generators its much cheaper to use and fuel them, than to add wind farms with the accompanying significant investment for concrete, rare earth metals, vast swaths of land … . Traditional planning approaches often have to go to get around this “bias” of favoring capacity providing resources over intermittent resources.
When capacity value is rewarded, this makes the economics of renewables much less competitive. Texas has stacked the deck to make wind and solar more competitive than they could be in a system that better recognizes the value of dependable resources which can supply capacity benefits. An energy only market helps accomplish the goal of making wind and solar more competitive. Except capacity value is a real value. Ignoring that, as Texas did, comes with real perils.
In Texas now we are seeing the extreme shortages and market price spikes that can result from devaluing capacity. The impacts are increased by both having more intermittent resources which do not provide capacity and also because owners and potential owners of resources which could provide capacity are not incentivized to have those units ready for backup with firm energy supplies.
Personal Observations
Wind and solar have value and can be added to power systems effectively in many instances. But seeking to attain excessive levels of wind and solar quickly becomes counterproductive. It is difficult to impossible to justify the significant amounts of wind and solar penetration desired by many policy makers today using principals of good cost allocation. Various rate schemes and market proposals have been developed to help wind and solar become more competitive. But they come with costs, often hidden. As I’ve written before, it may be because transmission providers have to assume the costs and build a more expensive system to accommodate them. It may be that rates and markets unfairly punish other alternatives to give wind and solar an advantage. It may be that they expose the system to greater risks than before. It may be that they eat away at established reliability levels and weaken system performance during adverse conditions. In a fair system with good price signals today’s wind and solar cannot achieve high penetration levels in a fair competition.
Having a strong technical knowledge of the power system along with some expertise in finance, rates and costs can help one see the folly of a variety of policies adopted to support many of today’s wind and solar projects. Very few policy makers possess anything close to the skill sets needed for such an evaluation. Furthermore, while policy makers could listen to experts, their voices are drowned out by those with vested interests in wind and solar technology who garner considerable support from those ideologically inclined to support renewables regardless of impacts.
A simpler approach to understanding the ineffectiveness of unbridled advocacy for wind and solar is to look at those areas which have heavily invested in these intermittent resources and achieved higher penetration levels of such resources. Typically electric users see significant overall increases in the cost of energy delivered to consumers. Emissions of CO2 do not uniformly decrease along with employment of renewables, but may instead increase due to how back up resources are operated. Additionally reliability problems tend to emerge in these systems. Texas, a leader in wind, once again is added to the experience gained in California, Germany and the UK showing that reliability concerns and outages increase along with greater employment of intermittent resources.
Anyone can look at Texas and observe that fossil fuel resources could have performed better in the cold. If those who owned the plants had secured guaranteed fuel, Texas would have been better off. More emergency peaking units would be a great thing to have on hand. Why would generators be inclined to do such a thing? Consider, what would be happening if the owners of gas generation had built sufficient generation to get through this emergency with some excess power? Instead of collecting $9,000 per MWH from existing functioning units, they would be receiving less than $100 per MWH for the output of those plants and their new plants. Why would anyone make tremendous infrastructure that would sit idle in normal years and serve to slash your revenue by orders of magnitudes in extreme conditions?
The incentive for gas generation to do the right thing was taken away by Texas’s deliberate energy only market strategy. The purpose of which was to aid the profitability of intermittent wind and solar resources and increase their penetration levels. I don’t believe anyone has ever advanced the notion that fossil fuel plants might operate based on altruism. Incentives and responsibility need to be paired. Doing a post-mortem on the Texas situation ignoring incentives and responsibility is inappropriate and incomplete.
The Modelling-paper Mafiosi
The Pandemic Modellers Have a Conflict of Interest Problem from Rosemary Frei on Vimeo.
By Rosemary Frei, MSc | February 11, 2021
John Edmunds is on top of the world. He’s one of the modelling-paper mafiosi. The London, U.K., professor is a key government advisor on COVID-19-related policies.
Edmunds also was a co-author of one of the primary modelling papers that have been used to convince the masses that vigilance against Variant of Concern (VOC) B.1.1.7 should be their top priority.
And Edmunds co-wrote an influential January 21, 2021 report that concluded:
There is a realistic possibility that VOC B.1.1.7 is associated with an increased risk of death compared to non-VOC viruses.”
In addition, he speaks often to reporters about the deadliness of the new variant. Edmunds tells them, for example, that a “disaster” would ensue if lockdowns are eased too soon, because what first must be done is to “vaccinate much, much, much more widely than the elderly.”
FOLLOW THE FUNDS
Edmunds also happens to be the spouse of someone who, at least until April 2020, was an employee of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and held shares in the company. (Edmunds doesn’t disclose this in any of his media interviews that I’ve read and watched. He also doesn’t disclose his own stock holdings.)
According to an April 2020 Daily Telegraph article, Edmunds’s wife is Jeanne Pimenta and she works for GSK. The Daily Telegraph article states Edmunds asserted his partner had recently resigned from GSK. So it’s unclear whether Pimenta currently works there or not.
I did a little digging and found that the only Jeanne Pimenta LinkedIn profile indicates she’s currently director of epidemiology at GSK, while Jeanne Pimenta’s ResearchGate profile says she’s an epidemiologist at BioMarin Pharmaceutical. (I’ll have a bit more about Edmunds being married to a present or former Glaxo employee later in this article.)
In any case, GSK’s financial success is skyrocketing. On February 3 the company announced it’s collaborating with mRNA-vaccine company CureVac to spend 150 million Euros — approx $180 million — to make vaccines for the new variants. That effectively gives them first-entrant advantage in vaccines for the new variants. And that same Feb. 3 news release touts the new-variant vaccines as also able to serve as ‘booster’ shots after the initial rounds of vaccination.
In addition, GSK joined forces with CureVac to pump out, later this year, 100 million doses of CureVac’s ‘first-generation’ COVID-19 vaccine called ‘CvnCoV.’
Not only that: this fall GSK together with another international pharmaceutical firm, Sanofi, are scheduled to start producing what could turn out to be up to one billion doses of their COVID-19 vaccine annually. GSK’s understated Feb. 3 announcement of its Q4 2020 financial results said it will “continue to expect meaningful improvement in revenues and margins” because they are “building a high-value biopharma pipeline.”
Note that GSK and other pharma companies like Moderna and Pfizer are not responsible for damage and compensation payments to people seriously injured and killed by COVID-19 vaccines. Governments will pay instead – that is, if those injured and killed and their loved ones are able to beat the long odds and get any compensation at all.
And a remarkable February 8, 2021, investigative report in the German news outlet Welt Am Sonntag (which translates to World on Sunday) reveals another impetus for the wildly inaccurate modelling governments use to keep populations in a state of fear and control.
The German article shows that in March 2020 government officials enlisted [emphasis added]:
leading scientists from several research institutes and universities. Together, they were to produce a [mathematical-modelling] paper that would serve as legitimization for further tough political measures.”
These scientists obediently wrote a modelling paper tailored to the government’s instructions. The then-secret paper asserted that if lockdown measures were lifted immediately, up to one million Germans would die from COVID-19, some “agonizingly at home, gasping for breath,” after being turned away from overflowing hospitals.
EDMUNDS IS DEEPLY INVESTED IN THE VACCINE WORLD
There’s still more to the web of money and influence surrounding Edmunds and other modelling-paper mafiosi, including Neil Ferguson (information on Ferguson is in the section below titled More Modelling Mafiosi).
The first new-variant modelling paper Edmunds co-wrote, which I mention in the second paragraph of this article, was posted on December 23, 2020. Edmunds co-authored it with his fellow members of the Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). People in the centre’s COVID-19 Working Group also contributed.
The modelling paper was posted on the e-journal Medrχiv, which publishes only non-peer-reviewed papers. The journal is the creation of an organization headed by Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. I discuss Medrχiv and the Zuckerberg connection in my Feb. 3 article on the baselessness for the modelling papers that claim the new variants are very dangerous.
Edmunds also is dean of the LSHTM’s Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health. I contacted the institution’s media-relations department to request an interview with one of the Dec. 23, 2020, modelling paper’s authors. I didn’t receive a response.
In a Feb. 2017 video interview, Edmunds enthused that the LSHTM specializes in every aspect of vaccine development, from basic science to large-scale clinical trials. In the video he also touts using mathematical modelling as a good way to show that vaccines protect individuals and society. (And among other things he describes his group’s efforts in giving children flu vaccines and — in conjunction with Public Health England — promoting human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccines for girls and boys.)
In addition, Edmunds is a key member of the UK Vaccine Network (which until recently was known as the UK Vaccines Network – the URL for the organization has ‘UK Vaccines Network‘ in it).
And he’s a member of the U.K. government’s Science Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), which provides Covid-measure advice — much of it related to the push for an unprecedently forceful push for mass vaccination — to U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson and his cabinet.
On top of that, Edmunds is a member of the U.K. government’s New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG). It works hand in hand with SAGE, and it also heavily promotes vaccination.
And as mentioned earlier, Edmunds is married to a current or former GSK employee. A 2015 article that Edmunds co-authored states under ‘Competing interests’ for Edmunds that “My partner works for GSK.” Similarly, on the NERVTAG website’s conflict-disclosure pages – which for some reason haven’t been updated since Oct. 2017 – it reveals that Edmunds’s spouse works for GSK.
As a quick other note, the ‘Author Contributions and Acknowledgements’ section of the PDF of the December 23 modelling analysis of B.1.1.7 (pages 15 and 16) shows that almost all of the paper’s authors and members of the modelling centre’s COVID-19 Working Group receive funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and/or Wellcome Trust. (By the way, a search for Wellcome Trust yields the Wellcome website.)
And there’s more to the Edmunds story. Among other of my finds: he’s also on the Scientific Advisory Board for the Coalition for Epidemic Innovations (CEPI). CEPI was created primarily by the BMGF, the World Economic Forum and the major pharma company Wellcome. CEPI’s website states it was:
launched in Davos [at the meeting of the World Economic Forum in January] 2017 to develop vaccines to stop future epidemics. Our mission is to accelerate the development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases and enable equitable access to these vaccines for people during outbreaks.”
Investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley last year wrote a must-read two-part analysis of the ties between the key individuals, institutions, companies and funders of the UK’s Covid-19 response. She mentioned that GSK is working with CEPI to develop COVID-19 vaccines. This alliance is still going strong today.
Note also that the LSHTM’s Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, which Edmunds heads, is primarily funded by the BMGF and the Gavi alliance.
Gavi promotes mass vaccination of people around the world — including by quarterbacking the COVAX program. Gavi’s biggest funders include the BMGF. Doctors Without Borders has criticized GAVI for being:
aimed more at supporting drug-industry desires to promote new products than at finding the most efficient and sustainable means for fighting the diseases of poverty.”
BMGF funding for the LSHTM’s Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health is growing very fast. For example, BMGF’s new grants to the faculty rose from $4.9 million USD in 2013-2014 (see page 14 [p. 9 in the PDF] of the LSHTM’s 2014 annual report) to $13.19 USD in 2015-2016 (see page 14 [p. 9 in the PDF] of the LSHTM’s 2016 annual report) (top new research grants to each faculty at the LSHTM stopped being reported in the annual reports after 2017). Funding from the BMGF to the LSHTM as a whole was 30.2 million pounds ($40.2 USD) in 2017-2018 (see page 9 [p. 6 in the PDF] in the school’s 2018 annual report).
By the way, the LSHTM also has a Vaccines Manufacturing Innovation Centre. It develops, tests and commercializes vaccines. (I couldn’t find any information on where the vaccines centre’s funding comes from.)
The vaccines centre also performs affiliated activities like combating ‘vaccine hesitancy.’ The latter includes the Vaccine Confidence Project. The project’s stated purpose is, among other things:
to provide analysis and guidance for early response and engagement with the public to ensure sustained confidence in vaccines and immunisation.”
The Vaccine Confidence Project’s director is LSHTM professor Heidi Larson. For more than a decade she’s been researching how to combat vaccine hesitancy. LSHTM underpins the project, which also is a member of the WHO’s Vaccine Safety Net.
MORE MODELLING MAFIOSI
Here’s information about two other members of this club:
Public Health England (PHE) issued its first detailed report on the new variant in late December 2020 and continues to provide updates. None of their reports are peer-reviewed. One of the highest-profile co-authors of the PHE reports is PHE director Susan Hopkins. She’s also a professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College London.
The college receives tens of millions of dollars a year from the BMGF. See for example this grant, this one, this one and this one.
(I emailed PHE media relations to request an interview about PHE’s new-variants reports. PHE communications person Zahra Vindhani responded, “Dr. Hopkins won’t have the capacity for this in the upcoming weeks, and we aren’t able to confirm anyone else for this either.)
PHE is guided in its approach to vaccination by PHE’s “Strategic Priority 1” for combating infections diseases in 2020-2025. It is to “Optimise vaccine provision and reduce vaccine preventable diseases in England” (see p. 9 of PHE’s Infectious Disease Strategy 2020-2025).
Neil Ferguson is a co-author of the PHE reports and also of a widely quoted December 31 modelling paper on the dangerousness of B.1.1.7. He’s Acting Director of the Imperial College London-based Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium.
Ferguson’s modelling has been extremely faulty again over the years. This has been thoroughly documented.
For example, as investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley wrote in Part One of a two-part investigative report in April-May 2020, Ferguson’s modelling over-estimated by about three million-fold the death toll from the bird flu, also known as H5N1. As a result, a lot of money was made by bird-flu-vaccine manufacturers, ranging from Roche (for its now-infamous, ineffective Tamiflu) to Sanofi, and they were used widely.
Ferguson also grossly overestimated the effects of swine flu, or H1N1. As a result, millions of people were needlessly given GSK’s Pandemrix. It caused brain damage, primarily narcolepsy and cataplexy, in hundreds if not thousands of vaccine recipients, mostly children. The pharma giant was granted no fault in any damage claims. Therefore the British government paid more than 60 million pounds (approx. $80 million USD at 2017 conversion rates) to victims.
And as mentioned earlier in this article, GSK and other pharma companies are similarly protected from having to pay damages to people injured or killed by their COVID-19 vaccines.
Ferguson also is a member, together with Edmunds and others, of SAGE.
Another group he’s a member of is the highly influential NERVTAG. It’s the group that issued the January 21, 2021 warning, mentioned earlier in this article, that B.1.1.7 is deadly.
Ferguson is a NERVTAG member even though he was reported to have resigned last spring after being caught visiting with his married lover when everyone in England was supposed to only be having contact with members of their own households (based in large part on Ferguson’s modelling and his urging the government to lock the country down).
Ferguson also is a member of the UK Vaccines Network, along with Edmunds and others such as the Network chair Chris Whitty, who’s also the UK government’s top Covid-19 adviser Chris Whitty. The network’s focus, according to its website:
to support the [U.K.] government to identify and shortlist targeted investment opportunities for the most promising vaccines and vaccine technologies that will help combat infectious diseases with epidemic potential, and to address structural issues related to the UK’s broader vaccine infrastructure.”
These ties bind Edmunds, Ferguson and Hopkins – along with the rest of the modelling-paper Mafiosi — to the bidding of governments, Big Pharma, Bill Gates and other powerful players.
They present an image of being fully devoted to the public good, while in fact actively helping to destroy it.
Students Told To Take Unconscious Bias Test AND Get 100 Per Cent Mark!
By Richie Allen | February 16, 2021
Students of Somerville College Oxford have been told to complete an online unconscious bias test by this Friday and receive a 100 per cent mark in the subsequent test. Every student at the college has been ordered to participate in the course to root out racism, homophobia and transphobia. Apparently, the students might not be aware of their hatred and fear of Blacks, Asians Gays and Trannies. Tranny is considered to be an offensive noun by the way, but sod it, I’m very conscious of my bias.
I’m not really biased against anyone of course. Baroness Royall of Blaisdon is the principal of Somerville College. She’s demanded the students pass with full marks. You receive a score of 99 per cent? You’re a hateful racist bastard. Report for re-education classes in Room 5B on Monday.
The UK government has recommended that unconscious bias courses be phased out. According to The Times newspaper this week, Boris Johnson will appointment a “free speech champion” to monitor universities that engage in the de-platforming of speakers and other measures which stifle free speech. Oh the irony! This is the same government that is working with Facebook and Twitter to ban anyone who dares question the safety of the coronavirus vaccines right?
The Daily Mail newspaper has seen the Somerville College Unconscious Bias Test and it’s ridiculous and also just a bit scary.
The Mail says:
During the test used by Somerville College, seen by the Daily Mail, students must admit that they are ‘susceptible to bias’ and need to ‘accept responsibility for monitoring our own behaviours’. They are also forced to admit to suffering from the bizarrely-named ‘mini-me syndrome’, because they ‘automatically favour’ people like themselves. In one section, students must concede that a black lecturer would be more likely to be disliked by students than her white colleagues. In another section, they are also told that thinking their tutor ‘doesn’t look smart’ and is ‘a bit unprofessional’ may not be appropriate.
Forcing students to admit that they “suffer from the so called “mini-me syndrome” is barking. It’s preposterous and dangerous. As is demanding that they accept as a fact that black lecturers are more likely to be disliked by students. The Free Speech Union has condemned it. It has advised Baroness Blaisdon that her orders could be a breach of both the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act.
She has backed down somewhat, saying that she should have ‘thought further’ about her order that all students must score 100 per cent. She wrote in reply to the FSU: ‘On reflection, it has been agreed that completing the test with less than 100 per cent will be seen as the opportunity for a chat about the issues involved, nothing more.’
No you cloth-eared bint, scrap the test and stop gaslighting the young men and women you are supposed to be educating. Telling people that unknown to themselves, they are racist and biased and fearful and not inclusive enough is a form of psychological abuse. Enough already.
Rapid Covid Tests Could Be Route Back To Socialising – Boris Johnson
By Richie Allen | February 16, 2021
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is refusing to rule out the introduction of Domestic Vaccine Passports. “We’re looking at everything” he told the press at yesterday’s Downing Street briefing. He went on to say:
“What we are thinking of at the moment is more of a route that relies on mass vaccination… we intend to vaccinate all the adults in the country by the autumn… plus lateral flow testing, rapid testing.
I think that will be the route that we go down and that businesses will go down. You are already seeing lots of businesses using the potential of rapid, on-the-day testing as well. I think that, in combination with vaccination, will probably be the route forward.”
Imagine a world, where you must stock up on testing kits (similar to pregnancy tests), that you will be expected to self-administer and pass, before being admitted to your workplace, or the shops, or even the theatre? Welcome to that world. Boris Johnson wants rapid testing to become part of everyday life. That’s what Operation Moonshot proposed.
It’s lunacy. He wants to routinely test people who don’t have so much as a runny nose or a fever, people who are perfectly healthy, to see if they’re carrying a virus. Let’s not forget that the man running the US coronavirus response, Dr. Anthony Fauci, said last year that asymptomatic people do not spread the virus.
And as for domestic vaccine passports, The Telegraph newspaper reported today that UK cinemas are keen to implement them, if it means they can get bums back on seats as soon as possible. According to the paper:
David Chadwick of Verifiable Credentials, which has received government funding to develop vaccine passports, said he had already agreed a tie-up with one UK theatre and cinema complex to trial the technology. Under the scheme, Verifiable Credentials would create electronic certificates for people to show they have been vaccinated. These certificates would be verified by the NHS and stored in a digital wallet on users’ smartphone.
When users buy a film ticket from a participating cinema, that ticket would be combined with the digital vaccine passport to generate a QR Code that would provide them with access to the theatre. Mr Chadwick said the trial was currently assessing the technical feasibility of the system rather than whether it was commercially or legally viable.
Do not believe government ministers, when they say that there are no plans for domestic vaccine passports. The government itself has funded the scheme. Pubs and restaurants will quickly follow cinemas lead. In the future, if ministers are ever challenged on the sheer tyranny of it, they will say, “Don’t look at us. We are liberal Conservatives. We can’t tell private business who they should and shouldn’t let in.” How utterly predictable this is becoming.
Bernays and Propaganda – The Marketing of War
By Larry Romanoff for the Saker Blog | February 15, 2021
In the revelation of propaganda as a tool of public mind control and its use for war marketing, it is worthwhile to examine the historical background of Bernays’ war effort. At the time, the European Zionist Jews had made an agreement with England to bring the US into the war against Germany, on the side of England, a favor for which England would grant the Jews the occupation of Palestine for a new homeland. Palestine did not ‘belong’ to England, it was not England’s to give, and England had no legal or moral right to make such an agreement, but it was made nonetheless. The Jews had created in US President Wilson an intense desire to enter the war, but the American population had no interest in the European war and public sentiment was entirely against participating.
To facilitate the desired result, Wilson created a body named the Committee on Public Information (CPI), to propagandise the war by the mass brainwashing of America. The group was led by a muckraking publicist/advertising man named George Creel, and the CPI was known as “The Creel Commission”, but it appears Creel was only a ‘front’, with little contribution to the events that actually occurred. The CPI was staffed with a heavy slate of psychologists and carefully-selected men from the media, academia, advertising, and the movie and music industries. Two of the most important members were Walter Lippmann, whom Wilson described as “the most brilliant man of his age”, and Edward Bernays, who was the group’s top mind-control expert, both Jews and both aware of the stakes in this game. Bernays planned to combine his uncle Freud’s psychiatric insights with mass psychology, blended with modern advertising techniques, and apply them to the task of mass mind control. Movies were already powerful new tools for misinformation and opinion control, as was radio, and TV would soon be added to this list.
“Wilson’s agreement to create the CPI was actually a turning point in world history, the first truly scientific attempt to form, manipulate and control the perceptions and beliefs of an entire population.” (1) (2) (3)
With Wilson’s authority, these men were given almost unlimited scope to work their magic, and in order to ensure the success of their program and guarantee the eventual possession of Palestine, these men and their committee carried out “a program of psychological warfare against the American people on a scale unprecedented in human history and with a degree of success that most propagandists could only dream about”.
In his 1922 book Public Opinion, Lippmann wrote, “The only feeling that anyone can have about an event he does not experience is the feeling aroused by his mental image of that event … For it is clear enough that under certain conditions men respond as powerfully to fictions as they do to realities.” And it was this psychological manipulation that these men employed to turn an entire nation of peaceful Americans into rabid war-mongers. (4) (5)
Note to readers: Some part of the immediately-following paragraphs is not mine. They are partially verbatim and partially paraphrasing, of some content I discovered many years ago and, even with diligent effort, I am today unable to locate the original source.
Having received permission and broad authority from the US President to “lead the public mind into war” and, with success threatened by widespread anti-war sentiment, these men determined to engineer what Lippmann called “the manufacture of consent”. The committee first identified all the different ways that information flowed to the population, examined the characteristics of each, and filled every channel with specially-crafted pro-war material. Their effort was unparalleled in its scale and sophistication, since the CPI had the power not only to manufacture false news and distribute it nationally through all channels, but to officially censor news and withhold information from the public. “They produced and distributed many thousands of ‘official’ press releases, virtually functioning as the information arm of the US government and were in fact the major provider of war news to the nation.”
These men wasted no time in organising a vast propaganda network and began flooding the US with anti-German propaganda consisting of hate literature, hate movies, songs, media articles and much more.
Lippmann and Bernays divided their Committee into nineteen ‘divisions’, each responsible for a different type of propaganda, and each utilising the expertise of vast numbers of psychologists, advertising experts, media personnel and movie moguls. (6) (7) The intention was to flood every means of communication with the goal of inciting hatred of everything German and to promote American entry into the war as the only option for patriotic Americans. They filled every part of US print media with anti-German hate propaganda. In the News Division alone, in an average week, more than 20,000 newspaper columns carried entirely false propaganda articles produced by the CPI, promoting hatred of Germany and Germans, describing atrocities that had never occurred and painting the Germans as vicious and inhuman monsters. Lippmann and Bernays not only instituted (compulsory) “voluntary guidelines” for the inclusion of their monstrous tales in all media, but they rigidly enforced a censorship in the American mass media to suppress any contradictory content.
Bernays cleverly realised that much of the public is disinclined to read long articles, and so formed a special division to produce brief rants and sound bytes meant to arouse the loathsome emotions of those with short attention spans. They created a Syndicated Features Division employing popular novelists to produce essays containing the official propaganda, which reached 10 to 15 million people each month. Another division was responsible for the cartoon sections of newspapers and other media, with the stated intention to “mobilize and direct the scattered cartoon power of the country for constructive war work”. They employed thousands of cartoonists who “achieved new heights in hate-mongering”, picturing the Germans as primitive and evil animals who stole, killed or raped everything they encountered.
They created a similar Division for Cinema that resulted in the Hollywood production of dozens of outrageous and virulently anti-German movies, hate films containing completely fictional tales of atrocities and bestialities committed by the Germans. Bernays was the source of movie scenes where “dirty” Germans (and later the dirtier Japanese) machine-gunned brave American pilots while parachuting to the ground. (8) None of these tales were ever true; these and all others were total fabrications. Then, as now, the motion picture industry in the US was entirely controlled by Jews who were eager to assist. One Jewish editorial stated that “every individual at work in this industry wants to do his share . . . through slides, film leaders and trailers, posters and newspaper publicity they will spread that propaganda so necessary to the immediate mobilization of the country’s great resources”.
In addition to movies produced by the film studios, the CPI created its own Film Division which produced 60 or 70 “official” films that were viewed by many tens of millions of people each week. They created an Advertising Division to influence commercial advertisers to insert anti-German war propaganda into newspaper and magazine advertising, with almost every major US publication carrying a large quota of these ads. Then, as today, much of the media was Jewish-owned or controlled, and these men received much free space.
They created a ‘Division of Work with the Foreign Born’ (9) to reach all immigrants in the country in their own languages, and used members of these communities to propagandise their own people, especially targeting all military-age foreigners who might become war conscripts. The CPI hired bi-lingual speakers to target every specific immigrant group in the US, and even had a Sioux ‘Four-Minute Man’ delivering speeches in seven native languages. They specially targeted all Jews in America, providing Yiddish speakers in thousands of theaters and workplaces. There also was a Foreign Section with sixteen divisions, which established offices in over thirty countries, to propagandise the populations of other nations.
Lippmann and Bernays wrote: “It is a matter of pride to the Committee on Public Information, as it should be to America, that the directors of English, French, and Italian propaganda were a unit in agreeing that our literature was remarkable above all others for its brilliant and concentrated effectiveness”.
Bernays’ Speaking Division organised a group known as the “Four-Minute Men’, 75,000 volunteers who gave speeches provoking hatred and fear of Germany and Germans, and urging war. They used farmers to appeal to farmers and businessmen to businessmen, with short, rousing speeches filled with imagery. These were so emotionally-loaded they often had dreadful consequences, in thousands of instances mobs gathering afterward and vandalised German homes and businesses in their city. (10) In total, their speakers gave nearly 8 million speeches to more than 300 million listeners, all provoking hatred of Germany and Germans, and urging war. (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
A continuing atrocity is that even today misinformation sources like Britannica and the Smithsonian, and many American history websites, carry articles claiming “the CPI’s representatives, known as four-minute men, traveled throughout the U.S. urging Americans to buy war bonds and conserve food.” (16)
The Committee particularly targeted women, establishing a major Women’s Division, from fear that women “might constitute a subversive element in the nation, detrimental to wartime unity and the smooth functioning of [mandatory military conscription]”. They created a womens’ Four-Minute Man division to speak at womens groups and matinees to counteract the resistance to sending their sons and husbands to war. They inserted themselves into many women’s magazines where they controlled the cover and much of the internal content, encouraging women to send their sons to war, claiming he would return as “a man” instead of a corpse. The Ladies Home Journal, once the most inoffensive of publications, had many covers with dirty anti-German posters and most every issue with patriotic articles written by Bernays’ staff extolling the sacrifices of war.
One of Bernays’ mind-control divisions was responsible for popular music, the CPI hiring thousands of songwriters to create songs with anti-German lyrics, these playing constantly on the nation’s radio stations. Another division was responsible for public library content, tasked with the removal of any books favoring Germany, including the works of famous German authors and philosophers. Everything favorably German was censored, removed from public accessibility, or destroyed.
Perhaps the division most indicative of the moral bankruptcy of these men was their work with public school children. They heavily utilised psychologists in programs to spread hatred of Germany throughout America’s public school system where small children were taught the full gamut of Bernays’ hateful propaganda, then used as travelling salesmen to visit other schools and spread the hatred to their classmates, delivering totally fabricated tales of German atrocities to other small children. Uncounted thousands of children were organized as Four Minute Men speakers, with more than 200,000 schools participating. Bernays’ psychologists did their work well: American children became not only hate-filled but terrified of Germans. After these inflamed propaganda sessions, many American children demonstrated their “patriotism” by groups attacking German-Americans and stoning them, sometimes being congratulated by local newspapers for “doing their duty”. The ‘patriotic’ Boy Scouts of America contributed to the effort by regularly burning bundles of German newspapers that were on sale, and Germans were regularly insulted and spat upon by other citizens.
Bernays’ group published many thousands of children’s books and comics containing the most vile and hateful propaganda lies. Libraries sponsored anti-German children’s ‘story hours’ that used hate propaganda supplied by Bernays. Sunday school children were given coloring books depicting and encouraging violence against Germans.
Bernays’ Public literature attacked everything German in America, including schools and churches. In many schools the German language was forbidden to be taught to “pure Americans”, and administrators were urged to fire “all disloyal teachers”, meaning any Germans. The names of countless towns and cities were changed to eliminate their German origin: Berlin, Iowa became Lincoln, Iowa. German foods and food names were purged from restaurants; sauerkraut became ‘liberty cabbage’ and German Shepherds became ‘Alsatians’.
All American orchestras were ordered to eliminate from their performances any music by classic German composers like Beethoven, Bach and Mozart. In some states, the use of the German language was prohibited in public and on the telephone. German professors were fired from their universities, German-language or German-owned local newspapers were denied advertising revenue, constantly harassed, and often forced out of business.
Bernays instituted a program of questioning the patriotism and loyalty of all Germans in America, including those who had lived there for generations. He created a plan that enlisted volunteers to gather information on Germans, forming a semi-official organisation named the American Protective League that eventually had more than 200,000 members deputised as FBI agents to “police” community loyalty. This group and others “investigated” every German, and soon every person with anti-war views, as prima facie evidence of treason.
Germans were forced to gather in public meetings and denounce Germany and its leaders. They were forced to purchase war bonds and publicly declare their allegiance to the US flag. As Bernays’ rhetoric reached dangerous levels, the anti-German hysteria and violence increased proportionately. Many Germans were forcibly removed from their homes, often torn from their beds during the night, taken out into the street and stripped naked, beaten and whipped, then forced to kneel and kiss the American flag. Many were tarred and feathered, then forced to leave their cities or towns. Some were lynched from trees. Priests and pastors were dragged out of their churches and beaten for giving sermons in German. (17) (18) (19) (20)
The anti-German hysteria had people seeing spies everywhere, with House and Bernays greatly inflaming this trend by preparing Wilson’s infamous “Flag Day” speech (21) (22) where he claimed “The military masters of Germany have filled our unsuspecting communities with vicious spies and conspirators and have sought to corrupt the opinion of our people”. Newspaper editors were screaming that all Germans were spies who were poisoning American water supplies or infecting medical shipments to hospitals, and that most “ought to be taken out at sunrise and shot for treason”. The Saturday Evening Post, one of America’s most popular and influential magazines, announced that it was time to rid America of Germans, “the scum of the melting pot”. Congressmen recommended hanging or otherwise executing all Germans in America, State Governors urging the use of firing squads to eliminate “the disloyal element” from the entire state. The US Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels stated that Americans would “put the fear of God into the hearts” of these people.
According to Bernays, the key was to dehumanise and demonise the German people by filling American minds with fabricated tales of horror. The compliant media, largely Jewish-owned, obediently carried fake stories of poisoned candy being dropped from airplanes, German soldiers skewering babies like shish kebabs, the raping of nuns, and so much more. Eventually, the stories were accepted as true and the public’s natural resistance to war was overcome. From his uncle Freud, Bernays learned that a particularly effective strategy for demonising Germans was the use of atrocity stories. According to Harold Lasswell:
“So great are the psychological resistances to war in modern nations that every war must appear to be a war of defense against a menacing, murderous aggressor. There must be no ambiguity about who the public is to hate. A handy rule for arousing hate is, if at first they do not enrage, use an atrocity. It has been employed with unvarying success in every conflict known to man.” (23)
The CPI used every weapon available to spread their message to, as Creel would later say, “turn the American people into one white-hot mass (of hatred) . . .” Their psychological travesty so indoctrinated the public that daily life in America became infused with hatred and with Americans automatically conditioned to disgust and hatred for all things German.
They succeeded, and not only in the US. Teams of the same Jewish ‘specialists’ were following the same script in most other nations, all instilling massive hatred for Germans who, in every nation were vehemently portrayed as evil incarnate, simply from the fact of their German origin. In countries all around the world, the media spread the same message of hatred against Germany and the Germans.
In Brazil, anti-German demonstrations and riots consumed the country, with German businesses being destroyed and Germans being assaulted and killed. The Brazilian press carried Bernays’ intensely anti-German atrocity propaganda, stimulating demonstrations that were very ugly anti-German affairs. In some cities, hundreds of businesses, schools and homes were burned. In Porto Alegre, almost the entire German district was burned to the ground. In others, almost all German assets were seized. (24)
In almost every nation, the German-language press and use of the German language completely disappeared during the war from fear of reprisal, as did all German schools and most businesses. None re-opened. In Canada and Australia, many names of towns or streets were changed to eliminate their German origin. In Britain, France, and Canada also, thousands of people were falsely interned and their apartments and shops most often looted. They didn’t miss any opportunity; in one case, they found a photo of a German soldier with a child on his knee and published it with the caption, “One wouldn’t believe I have just killed the mother.” The Jews’ atrocity war propaganda in Canada was almost as bad as in the US, with even the military vandalising German businesses, and all Germans not imprisoned having to register with the government. (25)
The UK was as bad as the US. Persons bearing a German name were driven to despair, driven out of their positions and their businesses ruined. The Guardian archives document that anti-German riots in England were remarkable for their destruction and violence. “Some Germans were pursued into their homes by the mob and pitched through the windows into the street, others were ducked in troughs, and others had their clothing stripped off their backs.” (26) The anti-German hysteria became so severe that King George V had to change his German name of ‘Saxe-Coburg’ to ‘Windsor’, and relinquish all his German titles. (27)
Most Americans are aware that during the (again Bernays-induced) national hysteria during the Second World War the US government forced more than 100,000 US-born Japanese into concentration camps, but history has deleted the fact that many more Germans were interned in concentration camps in the US prior to and during the First War. German Mennonites who refused the draft as conscientious objectors were given prison sentences for as long as 30 years, and many died from abuse and torture in US prisons. Not only were Germans imprisoned, but all their assets were confiscated, this during both world wars, and not only personal assets but entire corporations owned by Germans were simply seized and sold. The government amassed more than half a billion dollars in seizures, nearly equivalent to the entire national budget at the time. Bayer in America was auctioned off on its own doorstep, to a friend of the Administration. (28) In fact, the US military entered every country with a German corporate presence and claimed ownership of all German assets. This portion is of such consequence I have dealt with it in detail in a separate article. (29)
While Bernays was “making the world safe for democracy”, that safety was not meant for Americans. Under the coaching of Col. E. M. House who was Wilson’s Jewish handler, Wilson passed oppressive legislation including the Espionage Act and Sedition Act that were prepared by Bernays, were entirely fascist in content and which made illegal anything that might hinder American entry into the war. Freedom of speech and assembly, and press freedom virtually disappeared from America during this time, it eventually becoming illegal to say or write anything critical of the US government, its officials and even its “symbols”.
Any expression of objection to American entrance into the war would result in a fine of $10,000 (ten years’ average wages at the time) or 20 years in prison, with much of the policing power given to what were in effect private vigilante groups like the infamous American Protective League that operated virtually without oversight. The suppression of public opinion and of dissent, and the control exercised on anti-war communication was universal. The Espionage Act stated “Every letter, writing, circular, postal card, picture, print, engraving, photograph, newspaper, pamphlet, book, or other publication, matter or thing of any kind containing any matter which is intended to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States is hereby declared to be non-mailable.” Nothing was permitted that might prevent the successful recruitment of American soldiers for a war that only the Jews wanted.
Because of Bernays, atrocity propaganda, the deliberate spreading of fabricated evils and inhuman war crimes became the foundation of the Committee’s efforts. With all of this and much more, Bernays and Lippmann turned America into a hotbed of hatred for the entire German population, accomplishing the goal of the Zionist Jews to use the US military as a tool, their own private army in the European war to fulfill their ambition for Palestine, and thus these two men changed the course of history.
Of course, the causes and aims of the propaganda were far more evil than anything the supposed ‘enemy’ had contemplated, but the goal was to not only invent an enemy but to make that enemy “appear savage, barbaric, and inhumane”, and thus worthy of destruction. This process has been followed many dozens of times in recent history, the latest being the US-Israeli destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria. Usually, the compliant media repeat and embellish the stories without attempt at confirmation and, in virtually every instance, later attempts to confirm the atrocity tales prove fruitless with researchers able to uncover no evidence whatever of the events. Think of Iraq’s gassing of hundreds of thousands and burial in mass graves and the tales of Libyan Viagra; these and many others proved groundless fabrications – typical atrocity propaganda. Prior to the Iraq invasion, stories appeared of Saddam using wood shredders to eliminate political opponents and dissidents but, as always, researchers later determined there was no evidence whatever to support those horrendous allegations. Thanks to Bernays, there were World War One tales of Germans cutting off the breasts of every woman they encountered, of eating babies, of rendering the bodies of massacred Jews for fat and glycerine to make weapons, tales of a tub-full of eyeballs collected by the Nazis. After the war, Bernays openly admitted that he used fabricated atrocities to provoke hatred against Germany. It appears the media will cooperate in propagating the most fantastic lies, and the people will believe almost everything they read.
Bernays and his group produced thousands of posters containing lurid descriptions of these fake atrocities (30), to say nothing of the newspaper articles, cartoons and so much more, but the historical record of this years-long tapestry of lies and hate has been quite well buried. It is possible to find copies on the internet of many wartime posters, but this collection has been well sanitised with virtually all of the genuinely evil and dirty productions apparently lost to history. The narrative today in the history books casually dismisses all this as “an innovative use of graphic arts to stir patriotism”, but it was hatred rather than patriotism that was being stirred, and both America and the Jews will one day need to openly face this entire reprehensible chapter of history.
The official story is that after World War One, propaganda developed such a poor reputation that the US Congress terminated the Committee in disgust, “ending these activities amidst great controversy”, and refused to bother with funding to preserve and archive its vast collection of hate literature and propaganda, but the truth is that the White House, Congress and the Committee conspired to eliminate or destroy much of the evidence of their crimes. There exists a section of Records of the Committee on Public Information in US Government archives (31), but little of use remains, the more dangerous elements all sanitised. And in fact, far from developing a bad reputation, Bernays and his propaganda methods became widely popular with governments and large corporations for both consumerism and the control of public perception during peacetime.
This wouldn’t be the last time Lippmann and Bernays would use these techniques against Germany. This massive attack was repeated little more than ten years later to destroy Germany and push it into yet another war the Germans didn’t want. In the 1930s, the same Jewish European bankers with largely the same agenda wanted the US to join another war they planned to initiate against Germany. In 1933 they embarked on an extensive worldwide commercial war intended to destroy Germany financially, with newspaper headlines screaming “Judea Declares War on Germany”. They had already induced in Roosevelt “an intense desire for war”, but were having the same problem again with the unwilling American public. And they employed precisely the same solutions, this time demonising Hitler.
In all of this, Lippmann and Bernays were not working independently or without guidance. Prior to their massive ‘war effort’ in the US, they had operated a successful pilot test case in the UK, using British newspapers owned by their controllers, primarily Rothschild, to determine the efficacy of their methods. You may want to think about this next sentence and apply it to recent world events. “They (Bernays and his group) practiced revealing fabricated stories of atrocities, false accusations of terror and brutality against any nation or people they wanted the public mind to view as “the enemy”, then tested and evaluated public reactions to their manipulations of this false propaganda.”
Compare those words with George W. Bush’s demonisation of Iraq, the sordid tales of mass slaughters, the nuclear weapons ready to launch within 15 minutes, the responsibility for 9-11, the babies tossed out of incubators, all the fake propaganda against Saddam and Iraq to get the public mind onside for an unjustified war launched only for political and commercial objectives. Compare them to the demonisation of Khaddafi in Libya, his supplying of Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women, the long list of fabrications and lies to get the public onside for yet another war launched for more political and commercial objectives. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and dozens of other demonisations followed this same template, usually culminating in wars and invasions. It was Bernays who created “war marketing”, the theory and the template for the manipulation of public opinion, the plan and pattern for the propaganda and lies that the US government would use repeatedly for the next century to successfully deceive the American public about its motivations and actions in more than 100 military adventures, and to blind everyone to the tragic results of America’s brutal foreign policy. This is the man Americans celebrate today as “the father of Public Relations”.
The plan to mass-engineer public opinion began in a propaganda factory at Wellington House in London in the early 1900s, with Lords Northcliffe and Rothmere, Arnold Toynbee, and of course our two war-marketing geniuses Lippmann and Bernays. It was from this source that the scheme was hatched to force the Rothschild’s privately-owned Federal Reserve banks onto the US Congress, and that trained and coached Lippmann and Bernays on the methods of molding American public opinion to push the US into the First World War for the promotion of Zionism. Bernays’ book ‘Propaganda’ offers a clear vision of his training, not only for war marketing but for the pathology of American consumption, automobiles, the hysteria of patriotism and much more.
Funding reportedly came from the UK Royal Family, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, and eventually included the formation of trans-Atlantic relationships. At various periods, memberships in the Tavistock Institute, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Rothschild’s Round Table, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, the Stanford Research Institute, the Trilateral Commission and NATO, were interchangeable. They also created the ideology for the large American Foundations like Rockefeller and Carnegie that today play a silent but major role in population management.
Wellington House eventually morphed into the Tavistock Institute, which was created at Oxford University in London by the founders of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Round Table (Rothschild again), and was essentially a kind of mass brainwashing facility beginning as a psychological warfare bureau. It was the Tavistock Institute’s studies in psychological programming that were used to create and then exploit a grand mass hysteria during the cold war, evoking fearful delusions of a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union that even led to millions of Americans building bomb shelters in their back yards. In Tye’s biography of Bernays (32), he wrote that:
“It is impossible to fundamentally grasp the social, political, economic and cultural developments of the past 100 years without some understanding of Bernays and his professional heirs.”
Many dirty things emerged from this rat’s nest of Satan-worshippers, one being Britain’s Psychological Warfare Bureau which hatched a plan to destroy Germany not by attacking the military but by virtual genocide of the population. It seems that international bankers owned munitions plants and other valuable military targets on both sides of the war fence, and wanted their property maintained in working order in spite of the war. The solution was saturation bombing of the civilian population to collapse the morale of the German people. These ‘scientific sociologists’ determined that the destruction of 65% of German housing, usually including its occupants, would be sufficient to achieve such a collapse. This was the origin of the fame of the British aviation hero “Bomber” Harris, who carried out these night raids – always at night – that culminated in the fire-bombing of Dresden. The explanation of night raids is usually given as safety for the bomber crews, but its purpose was mostly to engender more terror among the civilian population. Working class housing areas were targeted because they had a higher density and firestorms were more likely.” This would disrupt the German workforce and Germany’s ability to produce war materials in its defense. Harris’ widespread deliberate massacres of German civilians – and those by the Americans as well – were desperately kept secret from the public and still appear nowhere in history books in useful detail or with any sincere attempt to accurately estimate civilian casualties. As I pointed out elsewhere, this was the plan that US General Curtis Lemay was following, the same low-level night raids attempting to exterminate the populations of Japan and Korea.
Everything we have seen, read, or heard in the past 70 years that demonised other nations, usually leading to military intervention or “color revolutions”, stems from this template by Lippmann and Bernays originally to support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and to promote the agenda of Zionism. This template has been in constant use by the US government since the World War I, ‘engineering consent and ignorance’ in the American and Western populations to mask nearly a century of atrocities, demonising innocent countries and peoples in preparation for 60 or 70 politically-inspired ‘wars of liberation’ fought exclusively for the financial and political benefit of a handful of European bankers, using the US military as a private army for this purpose, resulting in the deaths and miseries of hundreds of millions of innocent civilians.
It does not appear widely-known, but the intense anti-German propaganda surrounding World War I (and also World War II) had an aim additional to the seizure of Palestine, and this was the destruction of the culture and the very soul of Germany. Churchill was clear on this matter, stating “This war is for the soul of the German people.” It was largely successful. There is no question that Bernays’ propaganda had a devastating effect on Germans and their cultural heritage. (33) Germany today is a cowed nation, still humiliated and still paying billions in reparations for crimes it never committed, in large part because the propaganda has never ceased. Even today, movies and TV programs depict Germans as cold robots lacking humanity, and we were recently treated to a widely-publicised revelation that Hitler had been cursed with a “twisted micro-penis”. Few peoples today are ashamed to admit their national heritage, but no Germans boast of being German. Where in America do we find German beer halls and restaurants, German churches or newspapers? In 2004, The Guardian published a review of a book titled “The loneliness of being German”. (34) This is not an accident.
In one CPI publication, Professor Vernon Kellogg asked “Will it be any wonder if, after the war, the people of the world, when they recognize any human being as a German, will shrink aside so that they may not touch him as he passes, or stoop for stones to drive him from their path?” (35) No wonder at all.
In this context, you may care to read my recent article titled “The Anger Campaign against China”, (36) and think of the physical and other attacks ethnic Chinese are experiencing today in the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and other Western nations. Consider the accusations of ‘genocide’ in China’s Xinjiang, China’s ‘cover-up’ and full blame for COVID-19, all the (undocumented) tales of spying, of IP theft, of prison camps, of forced abortions, of being ‘Communists’, and much more. Only the atrocity details have changed; all else is the same. Bernays’ template is being followed to the letter, in preparation for World War III.
Introduction – If America Dissolves – http://thesaker.is/if-america-dissolves/
Part 1 of 5 – Bernays and Propaganda – http://thesaker.is/bernays-and-propaganda/
Part 2 of 5 – This current essay
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 30 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English-language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. His full archive can be seen at https://www.moonofshanghai.com/ and http://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/
He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com
Notes
(2) https://theconversation.com/how-woodrow-wilsons-propaganda-machine-changed-american-journalism-76270
(3) https://www.history.com/news/world-war-1-propaganda-woodrow-wilson-fake-news
(4) https://www.amazon.com/Public-Opinion-Original-Walter-Lippmannn/dp/1947844563
(5) https://archive.org/details/publicopinion00lippgoog
(6) https://propagandacritic.com/previous-version-propaganda-critic/articles/ww1.cpi.html
(8) Cinema as an imperialist weapon: Hollywood and World War I; https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/08/holl-a05.html
(9) https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1917-72PubDip/comp1
(12) https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/03/11/anti-german-hysteria-city-during-wwi/98895422/
(13) https://spartacus-educational.com/FWWantigerman.htm
(14) http://www.revisionist.net/hysteria/index.html
(15) http://www.revisionist.net/hysteria/german-triangle.html
(16) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/wilson-asks-for-declaration-of-war
(18) https://journal.historyitm.org/2013/10/17/feathered-and-tarred/
(19) https://johnbrownnotesandessays.blogspot.com/2014/05/wwi-and-german-americans.html
(20) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4992032/Germans-AMERICA-World-War.html
(21) https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-president-woodrow-wilson-gives-flag-day-address
(22) https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/president-wilson-proclaims-flag-day-224127
(23) http://www.revisionist.net/hysteria/cpi-propaganda.html
(24) https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1168&context=historyfacpub
(26) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/13/anti-german-riots-lusitania-1915-first-world-war
(27) https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-25450726
(29) https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/04/the-greatest-intellectual-property.html
(30) https://www.historyhit.com/anti-german-propaganda-posters-from-world-war-one/
(31) https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/063.html
(32) https://www.amazon.com/Father-Spin-Edward-Bernays-Relations-ebook/dp/B0091I177W
(33) https://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entries/german-americans-during-world-war-i/
(34) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/sep/07/germany.society
(35) https://propagandacritic.com/previous-version-propaganda-critic/articles/ww1.demons.html
(36) https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/08/blog-post_49.html
Israel To Ban Citizens From Gyms, Cafés and Shops If They Refuse Vaccine
By Richie Allen | February 15, 2021
SKY News correspondent Mark Stone is in Tel Aviv today, reporting on Israel’s vaccine roll-out. Israel offered the jab to everyone over-16 at the beginning of this month. Since then, uptake has dropped significantly. Younger people are reluctant to be vaccinated. The country’s Health Minister has proposed that the unvaccinated be excluded from museums, cinemas, shops and cafés. Taking to Twitter Health Minister Yuli Edelstein declared:
“Decide whether you are part of the celebration or whether you will be left behind. Just lend a shoulder to the vaccine.”
The Health and Culture ministries confirmed yesterday, that museums, libraries, concert venues and other cultural events will reopen later this month, but only to those who have been vaccinated.
Israel is blaming misinformation and fake news for the low uptake amongst the young. The government set up a digital task force to counter the alleged misinformation on the coronavirus vaccines. Incredibly, DJ’s have been sent to vaccination centres to lure the kids and free food has been offered as a further incentive. They, and by they I mean our governments and their advisers, are desperate for us to take this vaccine. The only question of any value now is why?
UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told LBC Radio yesterday that domestic vaccine passports, for shops and café’s hadn’t been ruled out. Upon hearing this, Good Morning Britain presenter Piers Morgan was delighted. He Tweeted:
“Love the idea of covid vaccine passports for everywhere: flights, restaurants, clubs, football, gyms, shops etc. It’s time covid-denying, anti-vaxxer loonies had their bullsh*t bluff called & bar themselves from going anywhere that responsible citizens go.”
Morgan would undoubtedly have told his viewers back in 2009, that they should have the Pandemrix Swine Flu Vaccine, to protect themselves and others. Then, when people began dying and coming down with narcolepsy, he would have ignored it. Nothing to see here and all that. Morgan is wretched, but he’s not alone. Raab made his chilling comments on domestic vaccine passports nearly 24 hours ago.
There isn’t so much as a murmur of dissent in today’s British newspapers. It is no exaggeration to say now, that the UK is a fascist state. Did you ever imagine that your government would threaten to destroy your life, if you didn’t consent to being vaccinated? Welcome to Dystopia.
`We Don’t Debate with Anti-Vaxxers – Whether They’re Right or Wrong’ – Says BBC
Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA | February 12, 2021
At the beginning of what I started off calling the coronavirus hoax, but which I now prefer to refer to as the covid fraud, I expected to see some fairly active debate about the importance of what seemed to me to be a rather over-marketed disease.
The forecasts upon which governments were basing their decisions were clearly over-dramatic and the main forecaster, Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, has a terrible track record – having already been seriously wrong about a great many things.
In 2001, the Imperial team did the modelling on foot and mouth disease which led to a cull of six million sheep, pigs and cattle. The cost to the UK was around £10 billion. The Imperial’s work on this has been described as `severely flawed’. In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from mad cow disease. He said that could rise to 150,000 if sheep were involved. In the UK the death total was 177.
In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could be killed by bird flu. The total number of deaths was 282 worldwide so he was out by 199 million 999 thousand seven hundred and eighteen. If Ferguson designed a mug he’d put the handle on the inside.
In 2009, Ferguson and his chums at Imperial advised the Government again, and they then warned that swine flu would kill 65,000 people in the UK. In the end swine flu killed 457 people in the UK.
Finally, Ferguson is said to have admitted that his model of the covid-19 is based on undocumented 13-year-old computer code that was intended for use with an influenza epidemic.
And it has been reported that early modelling which helped guide the British Government’s approach in 2020, used Wikipedia – which is edited by all sorts of saddos, wierdos and freaks as well as by people with very particular political agendas to pursue. Read what co- founder Larry Sanger has to say about Wikipedia.
So those of us with some experience in these matters decided that the Government had got it wrong again.
And then on March 19th 2020, the public health bodies in the UK, and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, decided to downgrade the coronavirus to flu level. The proof of this is on my website.
Naively, I thought that would be that.
Sadly, I was wrong.
Around the world governments have continued to lie, to deceive and to create fear and the media has aided and abetted the lies. All debate has been suppressed and the many doctors and other practitioners who have spoken up and tried to share the truth have been abused and demonised and had their careers ruthlessly destroyed.
The result is that the millions who doubt the Government’s propaganda and who question the safety and efficacy of the jabs have been disenfranchised by the media.
No media organisation has, in my view, been more egregiously dishonest than the BBC which has exhibited staggering ignorance mixed with prejudice and has forgotten that its job is to report the news not to bend it.
I am tired of them ignoring the science, avoiding debate and demonising those of us speaking the truth. I am convinced they believe that by demonising us they can silence us and more easily sustain the fraud and perpetuate the hoax.
They also seem to believe that they are immune to the consequences of this fraud. Do they think they and their relatives will escape the dangers of these lethal jabs?
The tragedy is that the BBC, funded with public money, deliberately suppresses valuable information that could help its viewers and listeners.
Speaking last autumn a BBC presenter called, Emma Barnett, said `we actually don’t, as a matter of editorial policy, we don’t debate with anti-vaxxers, whether they’re right or wrong. We actually don’t do that.’
There’s the proof of the BBC’s one-sided, corrupt approach to the biggest fraud in history. Right or wrong the BBC suppresses the truth.
Why does the unjustifiably arrogant BBC think it knows better than the science? Who told them that vaccines are so good that there is no need to debate their value, their safety or their effectiveness? Is it a stretch to fear that there’s drug company influence lurking somewhere.
And it’s no stretch to conclude that the BBC won’t allow me live on air to counter its misinformation because I can prove that vaccines kill and injure and often don’t work at all, and that would upset Bill Gates and the Government.
The BBC won’t let me discuss covid-19 because I can prove that masks kill and don’t work, that social distancing and lockdowns do far more harm than good, that the Government policy is arguably responsible for more deaths than covid-19 and that the experimental jabs being so heavily promoted are already killing and maiming thousands of people who have been denied informed consent.
Could it be that the bean counters at the BBC are frightened that the truth might upset the BBC’s cosy relationship with arch pro-vaxxers the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Gates, remember, has boasted that putting money into vaccines was the best investment he’s ever made.
Why do the BBC staff allow this to happen? Whatever happened to editorial integrity and independence?
I’m not what the BBC would call an anti-vaxxer, I am simply interested in facts and scientific truths, but I can prove that some of the companies making vaccines have over the years been found guilty of fraud and I can prove that billions of dollars have been paid out in compensation to people injured by vaccines.
The BBC isn’t interested in any of those uncomfortable truths. When faced with scores of scientific papers proving that face masks are dangerous, they dig out a scientist who will follow the party line – and then claim that a few quotes trump the inconvenient scientific truths.
Decent broadcasters and journalists would walk away from an organisation which has such oppressive policies – out of tune with an obligation to the public – but they stay for the big salaries and the power and the modest and ethereal fame.
The BBC seems to me to be a propaganda department for, among others, the powerful, rich and fraudulent vaccine industry. They don’t seem to care how many people die as long as they get their fat salaries, fat pensions and a chance to get their picture in the papers occasionally.
Lord Reith would weep.
Many BBC presenters probably don’t know who the hell he was. But he’d weep. He is identified with the BBC’s aims to educate, inform and entertain.
In my view if you deliberately suppress scientific truths that would be inconvenient to one of your financial partners then you deserve all the opprobrium that is available.
Could the BBC and its vast army of reporters and presenters be legally responsible when people who have been denied the truth, fall ill?
I believe so.
The BBC has a legal responsibility to provide both sides of a scientific discussion with a voice but it has deliberately chosen to provide only one point of view.
The BBC is a self-confessed biased organisation and I don’t think it is a stretch to describe it as corrupt. It is, after all, helping Gates get ever richer by silencing, libelling, trashing and attempting to humiliate those trying to reveal the science behind this scam.
The BBC refuses to allow presenters to discuss the downside of vaccination. It is deliberately and knowingly refusing to allow any debate on an issue which affects the health, and possibly the life, of everyone.
Let us not forget, too, that the BBC has financial links with the world’s arch pro-vaxxers – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has interests in a number of vaccine makers – including Pfizer.
In the US the National Vaccine Information Center has so far reported 501 deaths and 10,748 other injuries following the covid-19 jab.
That was before the end of January so I expect its higher now. And don’t forget that in America, as in the UK and elsewhere, they admit that they only receive details of a tiny proportion of the problems after vaccination.
Sadly, the figures from the UK are also horrifying. Officially, more than a third of those having the jab have a reaction. But it’s the serious adverse events that worry me.
UK Government figures show that the Pfizer jab in the UK is already responsible for 107 deaths and 49,472 people injured. In the first few weeks.
If you want to see the horrifying details of the UK government figures they are on my website. Press the health button and the figures are there, near the top in an article entitled `How many are the vaccines killing?’. (Note: Since this video was recorded, there has been an update on the UK Pfizer deaths and injuries. There are now 143 deaths)
This isn’t a vaccination programme. It’s genocide, supported, defended and protected by the BBC. Still, some people are happy. The UK Government is delighted. It will save £600 million in pension payments because of all the old people who’ve been murdered in the last twelve months. And the Financial Times reports that covid-19 deaths, and presumably the jab deaths, will cut £60 billion from corporate pension costs. I have no doubt that the BBC is aware of these figures. After all the Government has appointed, as the new chairman of the BBC, an ex-Goldman Sachs banker – a money man. Goldman Sachs, in my opinion, one of the most corrupt companies in the world has rightly been described as a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity. I’m guessing that the BBC might have welcomed Goebbels as their new chairman if he’d been alive.
Instead the BBC got an ex-Goldman Sachs banker who was appointed by the conservative party and who has allegedly given more than £400,000 to the conservative party. He’s being paid a huge salary and will doubtless get a peerage or a knighthood in due course.
Don’t the coincidences just keep mounting up. You couldn’t make this up. You couldn’t satirise it.
The BBC’s financial partner, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has financial links to The Guardian, and since BBC job ads often appear in The Guardian, advertising provides a constant source of new, hubristic pseudo journalists. And, of course, the Gates have a huge shareholding in the Pfizer vaccine. Oh what a simple web these conspirators have woven. Whenever the BBC is involved the stench of corruption seems to me to be nauseating.
Bill and Melinda will no doubt be delighted to hear that Pfizer expects to generate $15 billion, or a quarter of its total revenue, from sales of its experimental covid-19 jab. Moreover Pfizer say they expect there to be a long lasting need for covid-19 vaccines to combat new variants and boost waning immune responses.
As far as I know the BBC has failed to tell the public that both the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority and Public Health England have received huge sums of money from Gates.
Is there not one person at the BBC with the integrity, the wisdom, the decency, the self- respect to be ashamed that the corporation has allied itself to one of the most reviled men in modern history, and that in doing so they have betrayed themselves, their families and their viewers, listeners and readers?
Corruption, remember, is fraudulent conduct by those in power – often involving money.
If you lay down all the lies the Government has told in the last twelve months they would go round the world twice and end up on the steps outside Broadcasting House. If you give money to the BBC you are buying the bullets to kill your family. There appears to be no end to the lack of integrity at the BBC. Without talent, without honour and without self-respect – that’s the BBC in 2021.
I haven’t seen the BBC warning that the second dose of the jab may well cause worse problems than the first dose. I doubt if you have either.
Nor have I seen them warn that people who are receiving the jab are going to be in real trouble when they next come into contact with a coronavirus. There will be a problem called a cytokine storm or pathogenic priming, their immune systems will overreact and that’s likely to be when there are lots of deaths. Details can be found on my website and in the International Journal of Clinical Practice for October 2020. If there is someone at the BBC who can read they might like to take a look.
The BBC deliberately and cold-bloodedly suppresses the truth about vaccines (because the pro-vaxxers aren’t going to tell you about the dangers) and has financial links with people promoting vaccines.
Is that corruption?
The BBC derides the truth-tellers as conspiracy theorists.
But the BBC itself is now part of a huge conspiracy and a conspiracy which is practice – not theory. Hundreds of BBC staff are involved in a self-aggrandising, self-enriching betrayal of duty. Every truly independent scientist knows that the covid jabs are experimental and hugely dangerous.
Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose would be welcomed into the bosom of the BBC.
The sooner we get rid of this wretched, treacherous organisation the safer and healthier we will all be.
We can easily judge if the BBC has a shred of honesty left. Here is a simple challenge, a chance for the BBC to redeem itself and show that it is prepared to allow debate of the most important health issue in modern times.
I am prepared to debate the fraud, and the vaccination programme, with any combination of Dr Whitty and Dr Vallance and Mr Hancock live on BBC television. I will try to avoid mentioning that Dr Vallance has shares in his former employer vaccine manufacturer and that Dr Whitty has loose financial links with Bill Gates. I will point out that informed doctors know that the death totals for covid-19 have been grossly exaggerated. Indeed, I’m convinced that in the long run the lockdowns will kill far more people than covid-19.
I also suspect that the vaccines may eventually kill as many as covid-19 – though the vaccine deaths will be wrongly blamed on covid-19. And the side effects will be blamed on mutant strains of the virus or the so-called long covid.
One stipulation: the programme must be live.
I doubt if am alone in not trusting the BBC to edit a programme fairly and without bias. I’ll hire a couple of guys to bring a few thousand scientific papers with me as evidence.
Unlike the BBC which too often relies on a quote from an isolated government approved scientist, I prefer to use scientific papers from reputable journals.
Why should they debate with me? Well, I’m medically qualified and I’ve been writing about medicine and drug companies and vaccines for over 50 years. In 1975 my book, The Medicine Men exposed the way the drug industry had bought control of the medical establishment. Ironically, the BBC made a film about that book.
Today, my books sell around the world and have been bestsellers for years. This is no time for false modesty – I have for many years been the world’s leading medical author. My campaigning has in the past changed government policy.
If the BBC prefers someone else for the live debate then that’s absolutely fine with me. I have, in the past, presented scores of programmes for the BBC but I have now absolutely no personal interest in ever going into a BBC studio again.
If the BBC is to salvage anything from its shattered reputation it has to arrange a debate – otherwise everyone will know that what they have long suspected is true: the BBC is a propaganda machine which is paid for by the British public but which has sold its allegiance to the Government and, quite possibly, to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their massive commercial interest in vaccines. The BBC gleefully defends the medically and scientifically indefensible – preferring, it seems to me, to deceive rather than inform.
They know as well as I do that the debate I have proposed would produce huge ratings. It’s the debate people want to see.
But I doubt if the BBC, or indeed Whitty, Vallance or Hancock, will accept my challenge. It is no idle boast when I say that they are rightly afraid that I will destroy all their arguments and expose the fraud. I have facts and scientific truths on my side.
If they had confidence they would jump at the chance to debate with me but they know they’ll lose and so they’ll ignore the challenge.
However, if they don’t accept the challenge everyone in Britain will know the truth: the BBC and the Government are frightened that their paper thin deceits will not stand up to scrutiny.
What reason, other than cowardice, could there possibly be for rejecting the debate?
Finally, I leave you with these thoughts.
First, through ignorance or a lack of integrity the BBC has suppressed the truth, and silenced and sneered at the truth-tellers. The only things it seems to do well these days is, it seems to me, to lie and cheat.
Second, the Government’s programme has undeniably resulted in huge numbers of deaths from the lockdowns and from the jabs. There will be thousands more deaths from these indefensible policies.
I believe the BBC staff who are guilty of suppressing the truth are responsible for many of these deaths.
Third, of course, the BBC has close links to vaccine company investors.
Remember, John Reith, the BBC’s first director general originally demanded that the BBC inform and educate – as well as entertain.
Current BBC staff have failed miserably to inform and educate or to represent the huge part of the country which has serious doubts about government policies. The BBC has become a crude propaganda machine, with a vast army of squalid and overpaid pseudo journalists spewing out a never ending stream of lies, deceptions and half-truths and sneering at passionate, caring health practitioners who have spoken out, not for money or prestige, but because they believe it is their duty to share the truth even when doing so costs them dearly – leaving their reputations dishonestly trashed by hundreds of scummy, crooked pseudo-journalists.
It has been well-known for years that the BBC is unreliable and dishonest. The BBC’s biased support of the EU and opposition to Brexit was outrageous. But the BBC’s role as a ruthless propaganda tool, fear creator and disinformation medium has become embarrassingly apparent in recent months. When the BBC opens its mouth it’s the voice of Bill Gates which we hear.
We should work together to demand that the BBC licence fee is stopped. Meanwhile, we should all look for legal ways to stop paying it.
As I have shown in precise detail in previous videos there is no doubt whatsoever that the BBC is our mortal enemy.
Don’t watch any of their programmes. Don’t listen to any of their lies. Shun anyone who works there. The BBC has chosen to side with the enemy of the people, to suppress the truth and to distort the news. Ignore their wretched website. If you care about the truth, and about the lives of those around you, then you must fight to see the BBC abolished. The BBC today seems to me to be all about money and power – and oppressing and deceiving the licence fee payers. The BBC, seems to me to specialise in disinformation.
Meanwhile, ask the BBC why they won’t organise the debate I’ve suggested. And avoid paying the BBC licence fee – legally, of course. Share this video with everyone you know wherever in the world they may live. Warn them about the BBC – in my view it is the world’s most scurrilous, most dishonourable media organisation.
Vernon Coleman’s bestselling medical books include `Coleman’s Laws’, `Bodypower’ and `How to stop your doctor killing you’. These are all available on Amazon as paperbacks and eBooks.
Copyright Vernon Coleman February 12th 2021
Social Distancing To Last Until Autumn, Masks Forever – SAGE
By Richie Allen | February 12, 2021
The Times is reporting this morning that social distancing measures will be with us until at least Autumn to reduce the transmission of Covid-19. Government sources told the newspaper that some restrictions might remain in place for the whole of 2021. The paper reported:
“The thinking is that social distancing will need to be in place for a long time to come,” a Whitehall source said. “It has repercussions for the scale of any reopening. Restaurants, pubs and offices will all need to be Covid-secure.”
Ministers believe it will allow other controls to be relaxed. A government source said: “The more restrictions we have in place like social distancing rules the more we can do in terms of easing.”
SAGE member Jeremy Farrar said that it is believed that there are around 750,000 Covid cases in the country. SAGE (the scientists advising the government), is recommending that lockdown measures remain in place until there are significantly less than 10,000 cases in total. Farrar, speaking on BBC Radio 4 said:
“If transmission were still at this level and we were not in lockdown, we would be going into lockdown. We’ve got to get it lower, we’ve got to get it, in my view, into the single thousands before we can possibly think of lifting restrictions. I appreciate that businesses have to plan and everything else. But the data has to drive us, and in 2020 we lifted restrictions too quickly when the data would not really have allowed that and as a result the transmission went back up in this country.”
Farrar’s SAGE colleague Professor John Edmunds, appearing on ITV’s Peston show, said that most of the current restrictions on daily life are likely to be in force until the end of this year, while wearing masks on public transport and indoors could possibly be in place “forever.”
If Jeremy Farrar is right and it’s a big if, and there really are 750,000 coronavirus cases in the UK right now, the great majority of them are asymptomatic people, who tested positive after a PCR test. Leaving aside the redundant, completely unreliable PCR test for a minute, the point is, these people are not sick. This is something the public has struggled to comprehend. Cases do not equate to illness.
The entire hoax hinges on this. Every day, the media gives the latest score. It goes something like this. “Yesterday there were 13,400 new coronavirus cases in the UK and 670 people died within 28 days of a positive test.” It’s the same every day of the week. I call it rinse and repeat journalism. Joe public hears 13,000 plus cases and believes that we are living through a plague, despite the fact that there is nothing wrong with the vast majority of those who have tested positive via the debunked PCR test.
He hears 670 deaths and said like that it sounds terrifying. But it’s deaths for “any reason” within four weeks of a positive test. If you drop dead of a stroke in that time, they’ll add you to the Covid death stats. If you have a brain haemorrhage and fall down dead, you’re added to the Covid death list. It is a hoax. I cannot put it any other way.
The government’s scientific advisers know this. They have not made a mistake here. They’re not simply applying the precautionary principle. They KNOW the truth, which makes them unimaginably evil. This is not about a virus. It never has been. The mainstream media is your enemy. It knows the truth too and works day and night to keep you in the dark. There are thousands of doctors and scientists, from some of the worlds most prestigious universities, calling out this hoax. But the media has denounced them as Covid deniers and banned them from the airwaves. I never saw this coming.
Firms CAN Insist That Staff Are Vaccinated Say Ministers
By Richie Allen | February 8, 2021
No jab no job is moving ever closer. Last night UK health ministers said that companies should be able to amend their existing health and safety policies to demand that employees are vaccinated against Covid-19. It has been suggested however, that it may be easier to enforce the policy when hiring staff. Firing existing employees who refuse to comply, may prove more difficult.
The government has been discussing the introduction of vaccine passports, which would allow employers to ask for proof of vaccination.
Yesterday, Vaccine Minister Nadhim Zahawi was dismissive of any such scheme calling it “discriminatory” and “not how we do things in the UK.” However, The Telegraph newspaper says that it understands that health ministers are arguing in favour of the scheme:
One government source said: “If someone is working in an environment where people haven’t been vaccinated, it becomes a public health risk. “Health and safety laws say you have to protect other people at work, and when it becomes about protecting other people the argument gets stronger. “If there is clear evidence that vaccines prevent transmission, the next stage is to make sure more and more people are taking up the vaccine. “If people have allergies or other reasons for not getting jabbed, then of course they should be exempt, but where it’s an unjustified fear, we have got to help people get into the right place.”
Other ministers argued that allowing firms to insist that staff be vaccinated is discriminatory and sets a dangerous precedent. Those voices are being drowned out though. Vaccine passports are here to stay. Back in November Nadhim Zahawi said that health passports would be driven by the private sector. Speaking to SKY News at the time, he acknowledged that businesses would want to know that customers had proof of a negative test or had been vaccinated. Soon, you will be unable to do anything or go anywhere without your health passport.
Lost in all of this of course, is the fact that none of the jabs prevent the recipient from contracting the virus. Equally, there’s no evidence that suggests they prevent against transmission. By definition, these medicines are not vaccines at all. All they have going for them is the claim that if you have been vaccinated and then you come down with Covid, your symptoms MIGHT be milder than if you hadn’t had the jab at all. I know that this is ridiculous, you know that this is ridiculous, but we are in a tiny minority.
Dominic Cummings Will Not be Prosecuted Over COVID-19 Lockdown Breaches, Media Claims
Dominic Cummings Received £40,000 Wage Hike Before Exiting Downing Street © AP PHOTO / ALASTAIR GRANT
By Matthew Daniel – Sputnik – 06.02.2021
Since being forced out of his senior role in No.10 Downing Street, Dominic Cummings has largely disappeared from the public spotlight. However, frustration over his repeated breaching of the COVID-19 lockdown still lives on among many Brits.
Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, will not be prosecuted following his breaching of the COVID-19 lockdown back in March, according to revelations by The Mirror.
Mr Cummings, who was ultimately forced out of No.10 by Boris Johnson in November 2020, came under heavy public fire after making a trip to a family home in county Durham in April 2020, during the height of the UK’s first nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. He had also taken a separate 60-mile journey from Durham to the town of Barnard Castle, despite admitting that he had coronavirus symptoms.
Subsequently, the former prosecutor for northwest England, Nazir Afzal, submitted a 255-page dossier of evidence of Cummings’ lockdown breach to detectives in Durham, and urged them to investigate and take action against against him for breaking the law.
According to The Mirror, however, Durham Police Deputy Chief Constable David Orford has now written to lawyers representing Mr Afzal to inform that they “will be taking no further action”.
“We do not consider the relevant tests are made out in relation to any potential offences raised within your submission”, the letter seen by The Mirror reportedly elaborates.
Mr Afzal is reported to have provided the police with detailed allegations against Mr Cummings, which included location data from number plate recognition of his car filmed by CCTV camera footage, as well as footage of the former government adviser wandering around Barnard Castle. Mr Afzal later claimed that the “legal test” for prosecution against Mr Cummings had been met, given the substantial evidence proving his breaking of the legally mandated COVID-19 lockdown.
Since learning that Durham police will not be acting against Mr Cummings, Mr Afzal told The Mirror that he found it “hugely disappointing”.
“I am considering with my legal team what further avenues to pursue because millions of people would want us to. This is also going to form part of my recent decision to examine the legal implications of the whole extent of the government’s failures on COVID”, he added.
In his own defence, following the revelations that he had breached the COVID-19 lockdown in April, Mr Cummings gave what was widely seen as an unrepentant press conference in May, in which he claimed that he had always behaved “reasonably and legally”.
Revoking CGTN’s Licence is Attack on Freedom of Speech, Part of Broader UK-China Row
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 06.02.2021
On 4 February, the Office of Communications, the UK government-approved regulatory body commonly known as Ofcom, announced that it had withdrawn the licence for China Global Television Network (CGTN) to broadcast in the UK.
China Global Television Network has been banned by Ofcom in the UK on the pretext that Star China Media Limited (SCML), the licence-holder for the broadcaster, did not have editorial responsibility for the latter’s output; and that an entity called China Global Television Network Corporation (CGTNC), which exercises general control over the broadcaster, cannot hold the licence since it is controlled by the Chinese government.
On 5 February, the Information Department of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) of pushing “fake news” in its 29 January coverage of the People’s Republic’s tackling the pandemic. According to the ministry’s statement, the BBC video linked COVID-19 with politics and hyped up topics concerning the origins of the virus. Beijing urged the BBC to offer public apologies to China, adding that it “reserves the right to take further measures“. In response, the BBC said it stood by the story, rejecting the accusations of “fake news or ideological bias”.
Freedom of Speech is Under Attack
The revocation of licence for CGTN seems surprising given that the regulator did not mention any complaint regarding the content provided by the broadcaster, according to Earl Rasmussen, executive vice-president of Eurasia Centre. When it comes to CGTN’s links to the Chinese Communist Party, one should bear in mind that the BBC has an obvious connection with the British government, the scholar adds.
Indeed, according to the BBC website, four of the non-executive members are specifically appointed as members for each of the nations of the UK, and “the chairman and the non-executive members for the nations are appointed by HM The Queen on the recommendation of ministers while the other members of the Board are appointed by the BBC through the Board’s Nominations Committee”.
So, when one talks about one’s editorial independence, one can hardly say that the BBC is “independent” in this respect, says Andy Vermaut, a Belgian human rights activist and political commentator. He suggests that the UK is “preparing a new cold war, where China and the Chinese voice in society is cut short and another dimensional voice is not allowed”, adding that “this is diametrically opposed to the British model which supposedly promotes freedom of the press”.
“What channel and country will be next?” Vermaut asks.Although London could regard CGTN’s narrative as “pretty unpleasant” it’s unclear why the UK decided to ban it “because after all, this was a satellite station”, according to Andrew Tettenborn, professor of Law at Swansea University.
“I believe this is politically motivated and a move to steer the narrative that is presented to the public, essentially a form of censorship to silence dissident or countering voices,” Rasmussen says. “In a free and open society it is important that we are able to obtain differing perspectives and to promote a diversity of thought. However, the UK has now lost the perspective and voice of the world’s largest economy and one of the most globally influential countries. It is a sad day for the freedom of the press, freedom of speech and democracy.”The trend of limiting “the spectrum of conversation” goes beyond Ofcom’s actions, warns Gordon Dimmack, an independent media reporter: “Media freedoms in the UK and worldwide have been constricted ever more so over the past few years, and I expect that to continue”, he adds in an apparent reference to the US Big Tech wiping out accounts of former President Donald Trump and his ardent supporters in the wake of the Capitol Hill riots, and suppression earlier of The New York Post’s reporting of the supposed foreign business dealings of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.
Revocation of CGTN’s Licence is Part of a Broader Trend
Ofcom’s move is yet another sign of deteriorating relations between London and Beijing, deems Kerry Brown, professor of Chinese studies and director of the Lau China Institute at King’s College, London.
“I think the UK is aligned with America on a relatively soft target because it’s kind of saying that it’s going to do something like America did with Xinhua and other news agencies about 18 months ago,” the professor says. “This is not a kind of huge move because the CGTN wasn’t a big player. It’s not important for Britain. It’s a way that Britain wants to show solidarity with America. And also the ruling Conservative Party in Britain shows that they’re trying to be tough on China without any hugely consequential outcomes at the moment”.Although the Johnson government previously indicated that it was willing to enhance UK-China ties in the post-Brexit era, tensions between the two countries have escalated over the past few years. Thus, No 10 abruptly reversed its plans to use 5G Huawei equipment in its next-generation wireless networks because of pressure from Washington. The UK also joined the US-led chorus of nations who pinned the blame for the pandemic spread on Beijing and questioned the coronavirus’s origins.
To complicate matters even further, in 2020 the UK offered a path to citizenship for around 3 million Hong Kongers with British National (Overseas) status, accusing the People’s Republic of breaking the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration after Beijing formally adopted a new security law in Hong Kong. Once the British scheme came into force in January 2021, China declared that it would no longer recognise the passports of British national overseas citizens as a travel or ID document, and “reserves the right to take further actions”.
China is Facing Growing Challenges from Western & Indo-Pacific States
Beijing is unlikely to ignore Ofcom’s insult and may take it out on the BBC, believes Jeff J. Brown, editor of China Rising Radio Sinoland: “Beijing could possibly react by reducing the number of its staff in-country, but would be unlikely to kick them out”, he suggests.
Citing the Chinese Foreign Ministry statement accusing the BBC of political bias, Kerry Brown suggests that this move could be seen as a backlash for stripping CGTN of its broadcasting licence.
“One way China will hit back is by basically attacking the credibility of the BBC,” he says. “The BBC has been a big problem for China for many decades. I think they’re basically escalating their kind of language towards the BBC. One of the issues is that obviously China is very sensitive about this responsibility for the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak and has said that it’s been unfairly blamed and it was kind of not willing to share information”.Though it would appear that Beijing sees the UK now “as easier to attack because it’s not in the EU” and “a more isolated target”, China is now facing a growing challenge from a number of states, aside from the EU, including the US, Australia and others, according to the professor.
On 22 November, the UK’s influential conservative think tank Policy Exchange issued a report calling upon British allies and partners to team up in order to confront China’s rise and advocating the British naval build up in the South China Sea along with the US forces. According to the think tank, the report “reflects a broad consensus of views on Britain’s role in the Indo-Pacific region” voiced by former political and military leaders of the UK, Canada, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia.
“I don’t think that [China’s] argument with the UK is necessarily going to escalate, but I don’t think it’s going to improve”, Brown says. “I think that the relationship is now in a period of long-term negativity. And I don’t think that that’s going to change for some while. I think this is the new normal”.
Featured Video
Trump Announces Operation To Escort Ships – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel’s recurring use of terror on civilians
By Bob Finch | January 26, 2009
Insanely disproportionate use of violence against unarmed civilians… continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- 1977 Influenza Pandemic Sequence Shows Signs of Laboratory Creation: Journal ‘Cell’
- China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law
- Iran rejects Trump’s ‘Project Freedom,’ warns US over Hormuz role
- TRUMP ANNOUNCES OPERATION TO ESCORT SHIPS – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
- A few observations on Iran’s latest proposal to Trump
- ‘I urged that our objective be regime change… so did Netanyahu’ – ex-Trump adviser on Iran
- “STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!
- NATO courts screenwriters to embed alliance messaging in film, TV
- Iran replaces UAE ports with Pakistan corridor to break US blockade
- Iran sets one-month deadline for end to US-Israeli war, blockade: Report
- If Americans Knew
- As Palestinians die, Ben-Gvir celebrates birthday with golden noose cake – Daily Update
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- Israeli Strikes Kill at Least 32 Across S Lebanon, Including Children – Amid “Ceasefire”
- Israel to pour $730m into propaganda arm amid reputational crisis
- Real Cost of Iran War Likely Double the $25 Billion Figure the Pentagon Gave to Congress
- Israel conducts farthest-ever strike in long history of attacks on Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- No Tricks Zone
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
Aletho News 