Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The WHO Overplays its Hand and Watches Support Drain Away

BY BEN KINGSLEY AND MOLLY KINGSLEY  | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | FEBRUARY 9, 2024

Cracks are forming in the World Health Organisation’s plans to secure a vast expansion of its powers and resources. Presented as a necessarily urgent response to the empirically unsupported assertion that pandemics are increasing in frequency and severity, negotiations for a broad package of amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) and a new parallel Pandemic Treaty had been expected to be over by the end of 2023. Having missed that deadline, in late January the Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pleaded for WHO member states to give ground so that the negotiations could be completed at all. In the same comments he sought to apportion blame for the unexpected headwinds on those who had misconstrued, or misrepresented, the benign intentions of the WHO and its key supporters (which include China and some wealthy private organisations).

Reading between the lines, it appears that Mr. Ghebreyesus and his supporters may finally have realised that the game could soon be up: the strength of opposition to the ambitions of this unelected technocratic administration has compounded rapidly in recent weeks. That opposition has become more evident not only in smaller less influential countries, but in countries which are major contributors to the WHO. Significantly this has included groups of politicians in the U.K. and the U.S. who are seriously alarmed by the vision of a WHO-centred ‘command and control’ public health system, and by the constitutional and public spending implications of these two proposed international agreements.

The Director-General has perhaps realised that his blind ambition has not only put at risk the negotiations that might have elevated his unelected advisory organisation to the status of a supra-national rule-making authority, but is also now starting to jeopardise the future status, funding and membership of the WHO.

Secrecy, opacity and delay

The original timeline presented by the WHO had envisaged a final text of the proposed IHR amendments – where many of the most contentious proposals reside – being published before January 27th 2024, with a view to their adoption taking place at the World Health Assembly meeting scheduled from May 27th to June 1st 2024, alongside adoption of the proposed new Pandemic Treaty. That timeline, although tight, would have allowed four months for negotiators to brief domestic stakeholders, for national legislatures to debate the combined proposals and for any necessary pre-adoption formalities (approvals, technical scrutiny, cost/benefit analyses, etc.) to be completed prior to a vote at the WHA meeting in May.

Yet, on its own initiative, in October 2023 the Working Group for the negotiation of the IHR amendments unilaterally moved its own goalposts so that in place of publishing a final draft text to be scrutinised well in advance of that WHA meeting, it instead committed to circulate by the end of January a copy of the original set of proposed amendments and an interim ‘working draft’ text showing the current state of play. Negotiations would then continue between February and April 2024.  It was – and remains – ambiguous whether this move was compatible with the procedural legal requirements already enshrined in the International Health Regulations, but perhaps member states quietly agreed with the WHO secretariat not to look too hard at that issue.

Notwithstanding this commitment, no interim working draft of the IHR amendments appears yet to have been published, and the U.K. officials involved in the negotiations have been inexplicably reluctant to reveal the current position of the text. Indeed, to date all demands for transparency by U.K. parliamentarians have been ignored or deflected by the ministers responsible for the U.K.’s relationship with the WHO. Astonishingly the U.K. Government has refused even to confirm who is negotiating on the U.K.’s behalf.

We understand that the IHR Working Group anticipates a final text being settled only during April or possibly even into May, but there remains no official deadline for it to publish that final text. It refuses to confirm what the documents say, and it refuses to say when it will reveal those documents. If any further evidence were needed of the disregard and disrespect for democratic process and the sovereignty of national parliaments now alleged of the WHO, then surely this is it.

Out of time

That corrosive secrecy, opacity and delay has left a vanishingly narrow window for domestic public health organisations and parliamentarians to review or comment meaningfully on what may become generationally-significant changes to the U.K.’s relationship with the WHO, with other countries and with the public health business community. It means Parliament will have scant opportunity to scrutinise the IHR amendments and the new international funding and resource-sharing commitments enshrined in the parallel Pandemic Treaty. Yet these are documents with the potential to impact materially on the U.K.’s ability to act autonomously, on freedom of speech and opinion, on health security and on the nature of U.K. democracy itself. They also have the potential to commit future generations to very significant public spending obligations.

Given their significance, the IHR proposals and the parallel Pandemic Treaty require a commensurate degree of examination by Parliament. The current nature of the WHO’s funding, 85% of which now comes from private commercially-interested organisations, creates an additional imperative for rigorous, investigative scrutiny. In November 2023, Human Rights Watch wrote that:

The draft [treaty] reflects a process disproportionately guided by corporate demands and the policy positions of high-income governments seeking to protect the power of private actors in health including the pharmaceutical industry.

Without sight of any working drafts of the revised IHRs, nor of the current state of the draft treaty, scrutiny is completely frustrated. At this late stage in the process, after repetitive calls for transparency seemingly have been ignored, one is left to wonder whether this is precisely the intent of the officials involved.

Deferral is the rational solution

As the window for full, fair, candid appraisal by national democratically-elected legislatures is now all but shut, the logical and necessary solution is for member states to demand that any vote to adopt either of these two international accords is held over to the next WHA meeting in May 2025. This will allow ample time both for the conclusion of the negotiations and for member state-level scrutiny of the proposals served up by the negotiating teams.

If it is truly the case that the WHO and its member officials do not intend for national legislatures to cede rule-making sovereignty to an enlarged WHO technocracy, they will surely accept the need for state-level legislatures to control the timing of this process. Calls for deferral have begun, but more voices will be needed to press relevant political leaders and officials to accept that deferral is the only legitimate response to this situation.

A turning point

Even now, in the face of a chorus of rational legally-grounded concerns raised by U.K. parliamentarians about the substance of the proposed amendments and the opacity of the negotiations, the Government has remained steadfastly unwilling to comment on its negotiating intent and objectives, beyond vague platitudes. Efforts by members of the public, legal experts and parliamentarians to understand the current state of negotiations, and even just the arrangements within the U.K. Government to conduct the negotiations, have been stonewalled. The WHO equally has remained virtually mute and offered no meaningful evidence to support claims that its ambitions have been misunderstood.

This has served only to fuel distrust in this process, in the Government and its senior officials, in the U.K.’s relationship with the WHO, and in the WHO’s relationship with its influential funding providers.

Behaviour of this overtly undemocratic nature indicates that the WHO project has long since lost sight of its noble foundations in post-war benevolent multilateralism, and indeed of its reason for being: health for all in pursuit of global peace and security. Unfortunately, the WHO is now a symbol of all that is wrong with what has become a system of global public health patronage. This shamelessly undemocratic and chaotic power grab is also indicative of an organisation which has reached the end of its useful life, at least in its current guise. We suggest that this sorry episode should become the impetus for the U.K. to revisit its relationship with the WHO, and the relationship of the WHO with its funding providers.

The U.K. will not be an outlier if it does so, but rather a role model and – judging by the breadth and strength of international expressions of antipathy for the WHO’s ambitions – a leader of fast followers. This may well be the U.K.’s best post-Brexit opportunity to be an actor of global significance on the international stage.

Molly Kingsley is a founder and Ben Kingsley is the Head of Legal Affairs at children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Find UsForThem on Substack. Ben and Molly’s new book (co-authored with Arabella Skinner) The Accountability Deficit is available now at Amazon and other book stores.

February 11, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Max Planck Institute Fires Professor Over Criticizing Israel

Pro-Palestine Ghassan Hage was a visiting professor of anthropology at the Max Planck Society in Germany
Press TV | February 11, 2024

A German research institute has terminated the contract of a pro-Palestine professor of anthropology after criticizing the Israeli regime’s ongoing war on the Gaza Strip.

The Max Planck Society said they had severed their relationship with “highly acclaimed” academic Ghassan Hage over a set of social media posts that they said were “incompatible” with the society’s values, media reported this week.

The leading German research institution added that “racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, discrimination, hatred, and agitation have no place in the Max Planck Society.”

The Lebanese-Australian Melbourne University professor, who had posted a series of pro-Palestine posts on social media condemning the Israeli regime forces’ months-long genocidal war on Palestinians in Gaza, criticized the Max Planck Institute for its decision to sever its ties with him over his support for peace.

He said he could live with being characterized as having “incompatible values” with the German institution; however, “implying that I am a racist, I cannot accept.”

Since the Israeli regime launched the genocidal war on Gaza in early October, Germany has seen an escalating crackdown on pro-Palestinian advocacy, with rallies and Palestinian flags banned in many parts of the country.

Events and rallies where pro-Palestinian speeches were held have been banned in schools, and the traditional keffiyeh scarfs are also barred.

Samidoun, a group that advocates for Palestinian prisoners, was banned in the immediate aftermath of the 7 October attack.

Pro-Palestinian voices have also been widely silenced with cultural institutions reporting pressure to cancel events featuring groups critical of Israel.

The Frankfurt Book Fair canceled a planned award ceremony for the Palestinian author Adania Shibli in October.

Oyoun Cultural Institution’s state funding was cut in November after hosting an event for a Jewish-led organization that supported the BDS movement against Israel, a movement that Germany’s Bundestag classified as anti-Semitic in 2019.

Also, pro-Palestine British playwright, Caryl Churchill, was stripped on October 31 of the European Drama Prize she had received in April in recognition of her life’s work, over her support for Palestine.

February 11, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Prepare for conflict with Russia in five years – German general

RT | February 11, 2024

Germany should beef up its military to prepare for a potential conflict with Russia in five years’ time, Bundeswehr General Carsten Breuer has argued. He called for a “change in mentality” within German society, insisting that the nation needs to build credible deterrence.

In an interview with Welt am Sonntag published on Sunday, Breuer warned that Germany does not have “endless time” to become war-capable, claiming that the potential of a military confrontation with Moscow is at its highest since the end of the Cold War.

“If I follow the analysts and see what military threat potential comes from Russia, then it means five to eight years of preparation time for us,” he predicted.

Breuer, who serves as the Bundeswehr’s inspector general, claimed that “this doesn’t mean that there will be a war then. But it’s possible.”

The general also did not rule out the reintroduction of some form of mandatory military service in Germany. Breuer noted that the issue is still being discussed, but cited the “Swedish model,” which envisages mandatory military training for most citizens, who then become reservists.

Breuer’s comments come after German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius stated in November that the country must become “war-capable.” He insisted again in January that Berlin and the whole of NATO should arm itself more actively to be able to “wage a war that is forced upon us.”

However, the German defense chief noted last month that “at the moment, I don’t see any danger of a Russian attack on NATO territory or on any NATO partner-country.”

Also speaking in January, British Defense Secretary Grant Shapps claimed that “in five years’ time, we could be looking at multiple theaters [of conflict] including Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.”

Elsewhere, Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom stated last month that Stockholm “must be realistic and assume – and be prepared for – a drawn-out confrontation” with Moscow. Defense Minister Pal Jonson echoed that sentiment, saying that “war can also come to us.”

Commenting on claims that Russia might be planning an attack on NATO, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in January that European officials were “inventing an external enemy” to divert attention from domestic problems.

Speaking at UN headquarters in New York the following day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stressed that “no one wants a big war,” especially Moscow.

President Vladimir Putin has also repeatedly dismissed such speculation as “complete nonsense,” insisting that Moscow has “no geopolitical, economic… or military interest” in starting a conflict with NATO.

February 11, 2024 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Taxpayers not manufacturers made to pay compensation to patients

The Hughes Report: Options for redress released by the Patient Safety Commissioner

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | February 8, 2024

Many patients have been fighting for years for compensation after birth defects and developmental disorders were caused by the epilepsy drug Valproate; pain and tissue erosions caused by synthetic mesh used in incontinence operations or the reproductive and fetal developmental problems caused by Primodos. Dr Henrietta Hughes, the Patient Safety Commissioner (PSC), has released her recommendations for compensation for Valproate and mesh victims: £100k for Valproate, £20k for mesh and zero for Primodos!

Whilst proposed compensation payments are a start, the amounts are insufficient for people whose lives have been ruined; recommended mesh payments are less than an average year’s salary despite years of lost employment for many. And why has the hormone pregnancy test, Primodos, been forgotten again?

It is also shocking that the government is putting their hands in their (our) pockets for payments, rather than making the pharmaceutical industry pay. The industry will not improve safety until there is a financial benefit for them to do so – there is no incentive if governments keep paying for their mistakes.

If there is sufficient evidence to justify government funds to compensate victims, why isn’t there sufficient evidence to demand this compensation comes from the manufacturers?

Why is the PSC’s remit so narrow, on one medicine and one medical device? What about the dozens of other medicines and devices that have caused harm over the past few decades?

How can systemic failures be identified if only looking at a fraction of the medicines and devices that have caused harm?

The tunnel vision on only 2 products helps drive the divide and rule, which encourages those harmed by medicines to work in silos, focused on their own legal battles and compensation claims, rather than working together in a single coordinated effort.

The elephant in the room however is why neither the report nor the media coverage address the regulatory failures that allowed Mesh and Valproate to harm for so long?

Whilst redress is important, what is  critical is how we prevent future scandals from other medicines?

Looking back to Dr Henrietta Hughes 100 day report published a year ago, her proposed strategy to prevent future harm is Priority 1 “Culture change”. Whilst good in intent, culture change is difficult to measure and even more difficult to implement. Anyone with experience trying to change culture in even a small company will know the challenge, how do you achieve that across the diverse range of medical services providers in the UK?

Emma Muphy’s statement ‘I got fobbed off. I was told I was reading into things’ reflects how many have been treated. My own mum was told for many years there was no link between the HRT and breast cancer that killed her, was told off for “internet research” and was told the symptoms of her brain tumour had psychological rather than physical causes. The culture of playing down harm is systemic.

Nearly all of the victims I speak to tell the same story with different words: changing this culture could take decades, the PSC only has 3 years.

Dr Henrietta Huges clearly listens to patients and has done a great job to outline the harm to patients in their own words, share their requested outcomes and she makes some great recommendations for improvements, for example:

  • mandatory Yellow Card reporting,
  • having a named patient voice on all boards and
  • working with policy teams to improve conflict of interest declarations.

But a year on we see little progress on these actions – does the PSC have the teeth to implement these ideas?

Given systemic failure of MHRA that was identified in The Cumberlege report, First Do No Harm (FDNH) that resulted in the PSC role, why isn’t “regulatory reform” Priority 1?

Surely it’s simpler to reform a single regulator, than change the culture across the entire health service?

If the PSC won’t call for regulatory reform, then we have no choice but to demand this ourselves.

Please sign my petition demanding the reform of MHRA.

Thank you to guest author: Alex Hicks @hicksyalex

February 9, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | | Leave a comment

Who does ‘our’ NHS really serve?

Still relentlessly promoting covid ‘safe and effectives’

Health Advisory & Recovery Team | February 7, 2024

A concerned reader sent in this letter inviting him for more covid and flu injections, as he was considered a ‘priority’ case:

The fact that the NHS is wasting millions of taxpayer pounds continuing to promote and administer these ineffective and harmful products is symbolic of what the health service has become; another cog in the medical industrial machine, whirring to improve Pharma profits with little or no concern for end-user health. In a service allegedly crushed by lack of resources, why on earth are they still pushing these products on an unsuspecting public?

You will note in the full letter that:

  • There is no mention that the injections stop infection;
  • There is no mention that the injections stop transmission;
  • They make the dubious claim that injections lead to “less severe illness” without backing up this statement.
  • They use the misleading statement that ‘seasonal vaccines have proven safety records‘. This is certainly not the case for covid injections as they have not existed long enough and no-one has bothered to collect the data.

It seems that even the NHS has abandoned the mendacious claims originally attached to the ‘Safe and Effectives™’ probably because they know it would open them up to legal action. The propaganda job is complete. For those poor souls still unquestioningly worshipping at the alter of the quasi-religious NHS, a promise of real benefit is now surplus to requirements in the ad campaign. It has seamlessly transformed into an annual ritual to benefit drug companies whilst causing insidious harm to the collective health of the nation. What a clever spell they have cast to make entire populations believe that good health is only achievable by injecting unidentified substances into their body on a seasonal basis. And if they feel awful directly afterwards? It means its working!!

Evil genius.

If anyone can find the time and has received such a letter, the claim of “proven safety records” deserves a Freedom of Information request to “please supply all reports memos papers statistical analyses etc supporting the claim of “proven safety records”. We would love to see the response should one be forthcoming. We won’t hold our breath.

February 9, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

UK tenders $7m pro-Israel contract, imposing discredited IHRA definition of anti-Semitism on students

MEMO | February 8, 2024

A new £5.5 million ($6.9 million) pro-Israel initiative aimed at students has been launched by the UK. It’s reported that the initiative will seek to propagate the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition” of anti-Semitism, to young children and students.

Details of the initiative were revealed by the UK government on Tuesday as part of what it calls an initiative to tackle anti-Semitism in education. According to the government website, the British Department of Education is seeking to tender a contract worth $6.9 million for potential suppliers to undertake the task of delivering its programme to schools and universities.

The successful bidder will be required to deliver the contract across the UK in the North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands, East of England, London, South East, South West. Bids have to be placed by 7 March this year.

The procurement is split into two distinct lots: The first is to develop and implement a programme of initiatives aimed at tackling anti-Semitism in universities. “The cornerstone” of the contract is the anti-Palestinian IHRA, which will be rolled out across the country and used to set basic guidelines.

The second lot requires the supplier to develop and implement a programme of initiatives aimed at tackling anti-Semitism in schools and colleges. This will involve the development and rollout of training for school and college staff and student engagement opportunities.

Concerns have been raised over the government’s deployment of the discredited IHRA definition of anti-Semitism for an initiative targeting children and universities. The so-called “working definition” of anti-Semitism favoured by Israel has been weaponised against critics of the apartheid state.

This week saw advocates of the IHRA suffer a major blow in their effort to proscribe anti-Zionist and anti-Israel views. In the landmark case involving Professor David Miller, a Bristol-based Employment Tribunal ruled that “anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic.”

The case is seen as being not only a vindication of Miller, who successfully sued the University of Bristol for wrongful dismissal, but the verdict has also exonerated those who have been warning for years about the weaponisation of anti-Semitism by the pro-Israel lobby against critics of the apartheid state.

Miller was a victim of a toxic anti-free speech culture generated after UK institutions adopted the IHRA definition. Governments, political parties, employers and universities began to impose speech codes with the clear aim of policing the boundaries of free speech regarding Israel and Zionism.

As an expert on the threat to democracy posed by corporate lobbying who exposed, among other things, the role of the global Zionist movement in fuelling anti-Muslim hatred, Miller became an obvious target. He was accused of breaching the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. The University of Bristol adopted in full the “working definition” in 2019, three years before firing Miller.

Miller’s victory has sent shockwaves through the pro-Israel lobby in Britain. Already there are calls for reckoning to take place over the way in which anti-Semitism has been weaponised through the adoption of the IHRA definition in order to purge members from the Labour Party for their avowedly anti-Zionist views.

February 8, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | Leave a comment

From Rule Britannia to Decrepit Old Bulldog

UK flagship aircraft carrier breaks down before it has even fired a shot. If ever there was a fitting image for its modern true state, this is it.

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | February 7, 2024

British rulers think they can start a war against Russia. They can’t even contain Yemeni fighters in the Red Sea. And its top-notch aircraft carrier just got towed away before it even saw action.

Delusions about “Great Britain” and its military power are laughable. Britain is nothing but a rogue state whose arrogance and delusions are – like its American overseer – a danger to global security and peace.

Britain’s Royal Navy flagship, the recently built aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, has embarrassingly been forced to pull out of a major NATO war drill due to a mechanical breakdown.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is supposed to be the showpiece of Britain’s military firepower. Built for $5 billion, the warship is spanking new. It is billed as a “super-carrier”. The vessel is not just a flagship for the Royal Navy. It is a flagship for Britain.

At the last minute, the ship had to cancel participation in the huge NATO war exercises currently underway across Europe. One of its propellers was discovered to be faulty. Instead of leading Britain’s contingency in the biggest NATO mobilization since the Cold War, the aircraft carrier is now laid up in the repair yard.

The weeks-long NATO war maneuvers known as Steadfast Defender are intended as a demonstration of robust military power to Russia. Coming at a time of heightened tensions over the war in Ukraine, the NATO exercises across Northern Europe and Scandinavia are viewed by Moscow as a veiled threat. The rehearsal for a war involves 90,000 troops from over 30 nations, an armada of warships, and nuclear-capable fighter jets flown from the U.S.

The failure of HMS Queen Elizabeth to muster at the crucial moment only adds to Britain’s embarrassment. It underscores criticism voiced even by British military experts that the country is not fit to wage a modern war contrary to the bellicose posturing of British politicians and military commanders. Certainly not against Russia whose advanced firepower has been proven against NATO-backed Ukraine.

Moreover, several independent military analysts contend that the entire U.S.-led NATO alliance is no match for Russia, nor China for that matter. After all, the U.S. and NATO allies were forced to retreat from Afghanistan in 2021 unable to defeat Taliban insurgents despite 2o years of occupying that country.

During the past two years of conflict in Ukraine, Russian forces have been able to destroy a vast array of weapons supplied by NATO. Admittedly, the Ukrainian regime has occasionally been able to inflict grievous damage on Russia. The killing of 28 people at the weekend in the city of Lysychansk with U.S.-supplied HIMARS rockets is a case in point. The shooting down of a Russian transport plane with U.S. Patriot missiles on January 24 with the loss of 74 onboard is another example.

Nevertheless, the NATO arsenal at the disposal of Ukraine has not succeeded in enabling any strategic gain against Russia. As former Pentagon advisor Doug Macgregor and others have noted, Russia has all but won the proxy war. The implication is that the U.S. and its NATO allies are outgunned by superior Russian military technology.

Therefore, the deployment of NATO’s forces in the current war maneuvers in Europe is something of a toothless tiger. That said, however, the provocation to Moscow is still a dangerous escalation in hostilities considering the potential for miscalculation between nuclear powers.

The saga of Britain’s super aircraft carrier is an apt metaphor. Britain and its NATO allies are more and more a projection of image without substance. It’s more psychological operation to intimidate rather than actual effective offensive capability.

Soon after completing sea trials only a couple of years ago, HMS Queen Elizabeth’s first assignment was a world tour to show off “Global Britain”. For post-Brexit Britain with the bumptious Boris Johnson in Downing Street, the spectacle was meant to advertise “Rule Britannia” in the modern age. The nostalgia for former imperial glory is cringe-making but it is essential to the British myth of “greatness”.

Fast forward to the present, Britain’s navy is deployed in the Red Sea helping the Americans bomb Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab region. The Anglo-American duo are supposedly defending international shipping from Yemeni forces who have interdicted the vital sea route in an act of solidarity with Palestinians being slaughtered in Gaza by U.S.-armed Israel.

After the last salvo of missiles on Yemen at the weekend, British Foreign Minister David Cameron warned the Yemeni armed forces “to stop” targeting merchant ships trying to transit the Red Sea. Who does “Lord Cameron” think he is? The Yemenis have told the Eton-educated ponce to shove his edicts. They say their blockade on shipping will continue until Israel’s genocidal offensive in Gaza is ended. The United States and Britain could stop the Gaza horror immediately if they ceased supporting Israel with weapons and political cover.

The Yemeni Ansar Allah government is allied with other “resistance” groups in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon as well as Iran. They all say it is the United States and Britain who are destabilizing the region with their “reckless aggression” and support for the Israeli genocide in Gaza.

The Biden administration is currently bombing three countries: Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and threatening to attack Iran – all in support of Israel’s criminal annihilation of Palestinians.

Britain has deployed a guided-missile destroyer HMS Diamond to hit Yemen along with American warships. Turns out though that the British destroyer does not have the missiles capable of striking Yemeni land from the sea. The Royal Air Force is having to fly Tornado fighter jets to Cyprus in the East Mediterranean from where they take off to drop bombs on Yemen. That’s roughly a 10,000-kilometer round trip. This “show of might” is farcical if not pathetic.

For such a supposedly “vital” defense of international shipping, one would think that Britain should have dispatched its flagship aircraft carrier to partner with the American counterpart USS Dwight Eisenhower in the Red Sea.

Just as well London did not. With a broken propeller, the HMS Queen Elizabeth would have been a sitting duck for the Yemenis. Rather than the Union Jack, the Brits would have quite possibly been running up the white flag.

Several respected military analysts say the American and British forces in the Red Sea have badly underestimated the Yemeni operation. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson and former U.S. Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter have both said that the Yemenis possess drones and ballistic missiles capable of sinking the U.S. and British ships. With mounting attacks by the Yemenis, it’s only a matter of time before one of the American or British warships is sunk.

The multiple barrages that the U.S. and Britain have carried out on Yemen since January 12 – at least 16 rounds of air strikes on dozens of locations – have not deterred the Yemenis in the slightest. Scott Ritter says that is because the Yemeni weapons are buried deep underground or are highly mobile systems that can evade strikes.

To say the least, Britain has a serious image and reality problem. It proclaims to be defending freedom of navigation and international law. The reality is Britain is once again acting as America’s attack dog – as it always does. This time, the Brits are more like an old bulldog whose legs are gone.

Arrogant, delusional British politicians haven’t realized yet that “Great Britain” is nothing but a broken-down has-been empire whose heyday was over a century ago. Its economy and society are decrepit and falling apart from a failed capitalist system that generates rampant inequality and poverty.

There was a distant time when Britain was a formidable naval power.

Now its flagship aircraft carrier breaks down before it has even fired a shot. If ever there was a fitting image for modern Britain’s true state, this is it.

February 7, 2024 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Who Will Fight These Wars Anyhow?

By Kym Robinson | The Libertarian Institute | February 6, 2024

The war drums are beating, and public officials and the media are certain that the enemy must be conquered. The war is over there, away from home, in someone else’s land. The public is conditioned to accept that war is inevitable, that for the liberal democracies of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States it is an “obligation.” It seldom matters whether the voting tax base wants war or not. As bombs drop in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, as Israel destroys Gaza and the Russians fight in Ukraine, Washington and its allies talk about expanding the warfront to include Iran, China, and North Korea. Perpetual war is the health of empire, the glory of the nation, and the profit for a few. But who fights these wars?

Many of the veterans who fought in the Global War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan are past their prime, dead, injured, or cynical of the government that exploited them. The recruitment drives, even as the criteria are lowered, are seducing less and less willing bodies to fill the uniforms. The career incentive to join the military is not as appealing when war is a guarantee. Eligible young men are not so naive and removed from the understanding that their mental and physical health may be at risk that they’ll venture into another overseas war. Those who traditionally joined to protect and defend are less inclined to do so given that the mlitary is an offensive instrument of policy, recklessly used without regard for consequence.

In 2024 it’s hard enough for employers to find capable young workers who can handle physical or moderately skilled work, and who will turn up consistently. It’s easier for a lot of people to lean into the welfare state, to seek comfortable, inconsequential jobs or to find careers that don’t involve killing. Physical and mental health is a meandering factor in a culture that swells with obesity and has a populace riddled with depression and anxiety over the mundane. In Australia it is easier and far more profitable for someone to either go on a disability pension (for a litany of real or imagined reasons), or to become a high paid support worker for said pensioners rather than diving into military or even police service.

War is often a voyeur’s experience, where some are cuckolded for the entertainment or cynicism of others. War is the religion of the Anglosphere. Every generation has its war, a foreign land that rolls off the tongue with ease only to return to forgotten obscurity in a generation’s time. Some, however, like Vietnam or Iraq linger permanently. But most are forgotten as war zones and now only exist as destinations for the soldier’s grandchildren to visit, enjoy the food, or marry from, like Korea and Malaysia. The adventurers, true believers, mercenaries, and those with seemingly no other options do still enlist, but there’s less of them.

It’s not just that the military is struggling to get new recruits, but also re-enlistments. The relationship between the military and its members is disfigured as inefficiency and dysfunction become more openly discussed. On social media anti-military voices are competing against their slogans and the empty promises of recruiters in a tug of war between the warfare state and those who are skeptical of its very existence. Social media “influencers” like the Island Boys are paid to push recruitment for the Army alongside the advertising of energy drinks and other affiliate marketing thrown their way—though it is unlikely that they themselves would enlist or be capable of doing so. The children watching are impressionable, all the same.

Woke cultural messaging has also harmed the military, as it has disenfranchised its traditional base while attempting to appeal to those who have no stomach for training, let alone warfare. The wars themselves, along with the government’s own woke cultural shift and attempts at inclusion, have deranged the recruiters task of satisfying numbers and valuable candidates for the services. Confused advertising and a disdain for the people who usually fill the uniforms in warfare has hamstrung the military when it needs bodies to kill and die for it. A woke window dressing to satisfy the academic and corporate zeitgeist may seem empowering, but in reality is another form of mandated delusion.

The government’s will for war exceeds its population’s capacity to wage it. Conscription tends to not be a viable solution. Ukraine and Russia have embraced such traditions of martial slavery and it has unveiled a force of fodder to be killed. Another generation of “McNamara’s Morons” is an unsatisfactory solution which may lead to liability for both commanders and what few skilled and motivated professionals remain in the military.

Regardless of the human attrition and how thinly spread the capable and willing may become in such a war, the high maintenance of modern weapon systems will erode their capabilities over time. Skilled crews and technicians will be required to work almost non-stop, not to mention the manufacture and logistics required to feed such machines for prolonged operations, especially in combat against an enemy who is near peer or in some theaters a peer level threat. It is one thing to attack Houthis in Yemen who are recovering from years of war against the Saudi coalition but it is another to wage war against Iran or China on their home turf, a war they have been preparing for. Let’s not forget, neither of them have ambitions to invade Australia, the United States or United Kingdom. But the reverse is a constant.

Images of drones chasing Russian or Ukraine soldiers around their AFVs, only to detonate once in proximity, exposes us to the modern realities of war. The distance between the killer and the killed is not a new thing. The drone and remote weapon system is becoming smaller, with a greater range and versatility that may have people logging on for a few hours a day from home to assassinate strangers thousands of miles away with as much regard as though they are killing NPCs in a computer game. That in itself is not how wars are to be won. That same technology and efficiency of distance will be used against the invader as well. The likeliness of sympathetic outsiders “logging on” to join the fight is a reality that may also occur. Those who will fight for either side given any incentive is also a reality, so long as they have a device that allows them to connect to the remote killing machines. The future remains.

Contractors are becoming more common, professionals who are not constrained by government religion when it comes to how a military must serve and act in matters of formal tradition and legal status. They’re killers and operators who serve the government, work alongside the military, and should they die will not become a statistic that influences politics at home. Many are ex-servicemen of the government that they now are hired by, trained and motivated elements that perform tasks as a service to their singular customer. The Russians on the other hand have a more varied mercenary custom, one that is made up of contractors while also using prisoner units, inspired by the promise of pay and freedom. Both ancient aspects of war are to be dug up in a modern context.

Mercenaries and even drone operators are still only a finite resource, and automated systems are a little ways off. Wars of such a grand scale on so many fronts will still require boots on the ground. The imaginations of the stoic German soldier manning the Atlantic wall in the weeks before D-Day betray the reality that many of the defending Wehrmacht were former Soviet soldiers and a rag tag of convalescing others. Horse-drawn weapons from those captured to mutations of expedience with men in ill fitting uniforms crisscrossing a frontier that consumed men and material was the other reality far in the East. Contrary to the mechanized depictions of a technologically superior, super race of warriors, the reality, then as it is now, is that logistics, man power, and attrition are immutable factors in war.

Waging numerous small wars on a limited scale or even as an occupying force in an attempt to “civilize” a wilderness will always consume. They can become black holes that suck the life, money, and material out of an invader. Yet, still mostly men will be required for these prolonged operations and the well for such men is running dry. The post-9/11 era provided many eager bodies who felt the euphoria for vengeance against enemies. The terrorists and their “alien religion” was an easy to hate specter as the twin towers smouldered into smoke and ash. Over two decades later and the reality of such wars is more apparent to the wider public, while those willing men are now dead, injured, or robbed of their youth. The next generation does not have the eagerness for war, and the crusader’s zeal is not so widely felt.

So, as the drums of war beat and the call to arms is made by those who will never fight it, the question remains: who will? No matter what the claimed reasons for war is—spreading democracy, human rights, humanitarianism, security, or hegemonic expedience for many at home—many may very well. But agree enough to enlist? Unlikely. Many who do believe in the need for war are the creatures of Facebook or social media bobble heads, spectators and opinion spewers alike. They are most welcome to form their own battalions to fight for their cause. They won’t, but rather instead they will merely support the government in its ambition to send mostly men to die and kill. Those killers, however, are becoming fewer. Improving technology so that the human element for war is less important and finding incentives to pay, reward, and motivate human beings so that they will kill strangers with little regard are weak solutions.

The one constant, regardless of the means and methods, is that war will always hurt the innocent. Perhaps in time, as the liberal democracies depress into ill health and rely on automated machines to do the killing, it will be from the minds of the weapons who grow the morality to say, “No more.” For now, while some minds in government seek more war, the public’s flesh is less willing or too flabby to make it so.

February 6, 2024 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Militarism | , , | Leave a comment

University professor sacked for anti-Zionist views wins discrimination case

Press TV – February 5, 2024

A sociology professor sacked by the University of Bristol over his anti-Zionist comments has won a landmark decision by an employment tribunal, which decided that he was discriminated against because of his beliefs.

In its judgment on Monday, the Bristol employment tribunal ruled that Professor David Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief, which are protected under the Equality Act 2010.

It added that Miller was subject to direct discrimination because of his anti-Zionist beliefs.

Rahman Lowe Solicitors, who represented Miller at court, called the judgement a significant triumph, establishing that anti-Zionist beliefs are legally protected in the workplace.

“Prof. Miller successfully claimed discrimination based on his philosophical belief that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial, [which is] a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, alongside a finding of unfair dismissal,” a statement issued by the solicitors said.

“This judgement establishes for the first time ever that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace,” they added.

“I am extremely pleased that the tribunal has concluded that I was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by the University of Bristol. I am also very proud that we have managed to establish that anti-Zionist views qualify as a protected belief under the UK Equality Act,” Miller said.

Professor Miller was fired by the University of Bristol in October 2021 after he made statements about the role of the Zionist movement in promoting Islamophobia.

Following his dismissal, Miller asserted that he was subject to an organized campaign by groups and individuals opposed to his anti-Zionist views, which was aimed at getting him sacked.

He took the University of Bristol to the Employment Tribunal on the basis of unlawful discrimination for his beliefs in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

In a post on X social media platform after winning the case, Miller said, “This is not just a victory for me, but also a victory for pro-Palestine campaigners across Britain.”

“Over many years, anti-Zionists have faced harassment and censorship in Britain due to the efforts of the Israel lobby. Many people have faced disciplinary procedures and lost their jobs for manifesting their anti-Zionist beliefs,” he added.

Miller expressed hope that “this case will become a touchstone precedent in all the future battles that we face with the racist and genocidal ideology of Zionism and the movement to which it is attached.”

“This verdict is also a vindication of the approach I have taken throughout this period, which is to say that a genocidal and maximalist Zionism can only be effectively confronted by a maximalist anti-Zionism,” he noted.

February 5, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , , | Leave a comment

FOR WESTERN MEDIA, ISRAEL’S BOMBING OF GAZA IS NOT ‘DEADLY’

Right across the Anglo-American mainstream media, the killing of Palestinians is seen as normal. It’s only Israeli lives that matter.

BY DES FREEDMAN | DECLASSIFIED UK | JANUARY 30, 2024

Twenty-four Israeli soldiers were killed in two separate incidents in Gaza on 22 January. Mainstream media outlets around the world reacted in unison: that this was the “deadliest day” for Israel since 7 October.

This exact phrase was used in headlines on 23 January carried by news agencies such as Reuters and AFP, and major broadcasters including the BBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC and ITV News.

The exact same phrase was also used by leading news titles including the New York TimesWashington PostWall Street JournalTime magazine, Daily Telegraph, the Sun, Jerusalem PostGuardian, London’s Evening StandardFinancial TimesIndependent and Yahoo News.

On the same day, Israeli forces killed almost 200 Palestinians in Gaza including at least 65 people in Khan Younis alone.

These deaths received no headlines in the above outlets. Where they were reported, they were listed as part of the regular daily round-up of events in an unfolding genocide that has now seen more than 26,000 people killed in Gaza.

How is it possible that the world’s media could embrace exactly the same phrase in relation to Israeli victims but largely ignore the identities of the much higher number of Palestinians killed?

Why would 22 January be described as “deadly” for one group of people but not for another?

Unequal value

You might expect that editors took the “deadliest day” phrase from press statements from the Israeli government or military.

Yet Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson Daniel Hagari did not use this phrase in his statement and neither did the IDF Chief of the General Staff, Herzi Halevi, who instead simply called it a “difficult day”.

Prime minister Benjamin Netanhayu also described it as “one of the most difficult days” while Israel’s President, Isaac Herzog, spoke of “an unbearably difficult morning”.

He used the same language as both Knesset speaker Amir Ohana and minister Benny Gantz, both of whom referred to a “painful morning”.

Of course, it is possible the phrase was used in private and informal briefings to the press on the morning of 23 January. It is, however, equally conceivable that this was a trope that came “naturally” from a deep-rooted idea in the western media that the lives of Israelis and Palestinians are not of equal value.

And, therefore, that measuring the “deadliness” of a particular day should only be done for Israelis (where every life matters) and not for Palestinians (whose individual lives clearly appear to count for less).

‘Deadliest day’

Indeed, a search of the Nexis database of UK national and local news (including BBC broadcast bulletins) reveals that there were 856 uses of the phrase “deadliest day” from 7 October 2023 until 25 January 2024, none of which directly referred to evidence of Palestinian deaths in Gaza.

The only exception to this were some BBC bulletins on 25 October which mentioned “Palestinians reporting the deadliest day in Gaza” (emphasis added).

Otherwise, there was not a single reference during this period across the British media to “the deadliest day for Palestinians” or “for the people of Gaza”.

The other approximately 850 references directly related only to Israeli casualties. Some 28 per cent of them focused on the killing of IDF soldiers on 22 January.

The vast majority referred to the events of 7 October, described either as “the deadliest day for Jews” or “the deadliest day for the Jewish people” which accounted for some 25% of all references.

Many of these stories were focused on the words of US president Joe Biden who, in a much publicised speech to Jewish leaders at the White House, described the Hamas attack on 7 October as the “deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust”.

Biden’s words alone make up 20% of all references to the “deadliest day” trope.

Perhaps Biden’s words were on the minds of editors across the world as they listened to Israeli spokespeople on the morning of 23 January and that the deaths of 24 IDF soldiers merited such a phrase when talking about Israeli lives.

Framing the war

But why has the phrase not been used in relation to Palestinians and, indeed, why is there so little preoccupation with days when particularly large number of Gazans are killed?

Precisely because the war is not framed in a way which recognises the equal worth of all those affected – in other words, a situation where every instance of significant Palestinian casualties would deserve a headline – it’s hard to be certain of which have been the very deadliest days for the residents of Gaza.

However, it’s clear that the period immediately after the temporary ceasefire in the last week of November saw particularly intense airstrikes and there were, according to Al Jazeera, at least 700 Palestinians killed on 2 December alone.

Yet there was no mention in the UK media about this being the “deadliest day” for Palestinians. Instead, the Guardian simply ran with a headline of “‘Israel says its ground forces are operating across ‘all of Gaza’” while the Sunday Times wrote that “Fears for hostages as Gazans say bombardment is worse than ever”.

According to the Mail Online, “Israel says it is expanding its ground operations against Hamas’ strongholds across the whole of the Gaza Strip as IDF continues to bomb territory after terrorists broke fragile truce”.

The BBC’s TV news bulletins on 3 December carried distressing footage of casualties but also featured a quote from an adviser to Netanyahu saying that “Israel was making the ‘maximum effort’ to avoid killing civilians” without carrying an immediate rebuttal of this outrageous claim.

In other words, despite the fact that 30 times more Palestinians were killed on 2 December than when the 24 IDF soldiers were killed, there was no recognition of the “deadliness” of that day.

Instead, the framing was all about the strategic plans of the Israeli military rather than the mass slaughter of Palestinians.

‘Intensive strike’

On 26 December, a further 241 people were killed by Israeli bombs. Britain’s “newspaper of record”, The Times, responded with the headline: “Israel-Gaza war: Palestinians hit by ‘most savage bombing’” with a sub heading that “Israel launches most intensive strike since Hamas attack on October 7”.

You could be forgiven for thinking that there was nothing deadly about this episode because, after all, Palestinians were only being “struck” as opposed to brutally killed.

But this was hardly an exceptional day given that Oxfam reported earlier this year that Israel’s military was killing Palestinians at an average rate of 250 people a day, a figure it said exceeded the daily death toll of any other major conflict of recent years.

There is clearly a brutal politics to counting the dead. The New York Times ran an article on 22 January headlined “The Decline of Deaths in Gaza” arguing that average daily deaths across a 30-day period have now fallen below 150.

For the NYT, it is “plausible that a lower percentage of deaths are among civilians now that Israel’s attacks have become more targeted and the [average] daily toll has declined”.

Not only, however, is there little evidence that the IDF is in any way opposed to killing civilians but the idea that casualties are declining at a time when we are soon likely to see a total of 30,000 Palestinian deaths is profoundly shocking.

Any slowdown in the rate of killing is hardly a consolation to the millions who still live in fear of IDF raids and rockets.

Media consensus

The media consensus that only Israelis are the victims of the “deadliest days” in the region and not Palestinians, despite the latter accounting for 95% of deaths since 7 October, is one of the many illustrations of the unequal and profoundly distorted coverage of this war.

Until the South African government submitted its partially successful claim to the International Court of Justice, news organisations were unwilling even to investigate the genocidal language of Israeli political and military leaders.

The media also routinely uses dehumanising and differential language where Israelis are “massacred” while Palestinians simply “die”. This illustrates the awful role of the mainstream media in paving the way for the ethnic cleansing we are currently seeing.

The real reason you don’t see or hear the media talk about a “deadly day” for Palestinians is that every day is deadly when you live in Gaza.

February 4, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , | Leave a comment

New wave of US, UK strikes target Yemen

The Cradle – February 4, 2024

US and UK warships and fighter jets bombed Yemen on 4 February, in a wave of missile strikes US officials claim hit 36 targets.

The US said in a CENTCOM statement that it hit “36 targets at 13 locations,” striking “underground storage facilities, command and control, missile systems, UAV storage and operations sites, radars, and helicopters.”

According to the statement, the US, UK, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and New Zealand took part in the attacks.

The strikes were in response to Yemeni efforts to target Israeli-linked commercial ships passing through the narrow Bab al-Mandab Strait in the Red Sea. The Yemeni attacks are in response to Israel’s genocidal bombing campaign in Gaza.

Rather than press its ally Israel to stop its military campaign, which has killed over 27,000 Palestinians, the majority women and children, the US has joined forces with the UK to bomb Yemen.

Saturday’s strikes were launched by US F/A-18 fighter jets from the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier, British Typhoon FGR4 fighter aircraft, and the Navy destroyers USS Gravely and the USS Carney firing Tomahawk missiles from the Red Sea, according to US officials and the UK Defense Ministry.

The Yemen Armed Forces issued a statement detailing where the attacks took place, reporting 13 raids on Sanaa, 9 on Hodeidah, 11 on Taiz, 7 on Al-Bayda, 7 on Hajjah, and one on Saada.

“These attacks will not deter us from our moral, religious, and humanitarian stance in support of the steadfast Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, and will not go unanswered and punished,” read the statement.

The strikes come one day after the US sent B-1 bombers to target 85 locations affiliated with the Islamic Resistance of Iraq in eastern Syria and western Iraq, killing at least 16. This was in response to an operation by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq that targeted US military outpost Tower 22 in Jordan last week, killing three US soldiers.

US officials reportedly told Al-Jazeera that the strikes on Yemen are “considered a next round of retaliation for the killing of the [US] soldiers in Jordan.”

Like Ansarallah, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq coalition, formed after 7 October, has also targeted Israel, as well as US bases in Syria and Iraq. The groups say their attacks are in response to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, which the US has supported militarily and diplomatically.

Ansarallah leaders in Yemen say they have no intention of scaling back their campaign despite pressure from the US and UK bombing.

Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, an Ansarallah official, said, “military operations against Israel will continue until the crimes of genocide in Gaza are stopped and the siege on its residents is lifted, no matter the sacrifices it costs us.” He wrote on social media that the “American-British aggression against Yemen will not go unanswered, and we will meet escalation with escalation.”

February 4, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Possible NATO Corps Deployment to Ukraine May Become ‘Suicide Mission for Those Troops’

By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 04.02.2024

The UK has urged its NATO allies to consider sending the alliance’s expeditionary force to Ukraine, an informed source told Sputnik. According to the source, the alleged move came “in connection with the unfavorable developments in the Ukrainian theater of military operations for Kiev”.

The insider added that Britain also called on NATO to consider imposing a no-fly zone over the territory controlled by the Zelensky regime and to increase military aid to Ukraine.

”The UK’s reported plans about deploying NATO’s expeditionary corps to Ukraine is “a fantastical delusion on the part of the Brits and has no foundation in reality,” retired CIA intelligence officer and State Department official Larry Johnson told Sputnik.

“But just because the Brits are insane does not mean Russia can ignore them. It is a serious proposal,” he added.

Johnson was partly echoed by Matthew Gordon-Banks, an international relations consultant, former member of Parliament and retired senior research fellow at the UK Defence Academy, who said he didn’t think the rumors of a NATO force in Ukraine should be taken seriously.

“The suggestions I have heard are quite unrealistic at present,” Gordon-Banks stated.

Asked to comment on the “unfavorable development of events” for Kiev on the battlefield, he emphasized that “things are collapsing in Kiev quite quickly”.

“[Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky has not been able to fire his top general, and I think he is now very much a ‘lame duck’ president,” Gordon-Banks argued, referring to the commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces, Valery Zaluzhny.

The same tone was struck by Earl Rasmussen, a retired US Army lieutenant colonel turned geopolitical and military affairs consultant, who warned that if the information about London’s plans is true, and “if this is somebody’s dream, it could quickly become a nightmare for British and NATO forces.

“But it is not a realistic solution or proposal. Russia has complete air dominance, escalatory dominance, logistical dominance, ammunition dominance. This would be catastrophic for any UK forces and definitely would show a symbol of direct NATO involvement, which could really be dangerous, as far as escalation goes,” Rasmussen emphasized, noting that “the British forces would probably be wiped out, fairly rapidly.”

The US Army veteran suggested that someone in the UK military might be having “some type of delusional experience” for even suggesting such a scenario. “It’s a suicide mission for those troops. And it definitely would pull NATO into a much more dangerous situation and direct confrontation [with Russia],” Rasmussen concluded.

February 4, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , | Leave a comment