The Washington D.C. police turned down a request by George Washington University president to clear out the anti-genocide encampment on campus, reports Joe Lauria.
By Joe Lauria in Washington, D.C. Special to Consortium News
From the university’s perspective, it seemed like the perfect time for the police to move in and break up the students’ anti-genocide camp: 3 a.m.
George Washington University had given the students until 7 p.m. on Thursday night to clear out. Instead more than a thousand students from other area universities and other supporters flooded the university yard, forming a circle around around the camp.
As the time advanced beyond midnight the crowd dwindled, leaving the encampment less protected. It seemed logical that under the cover of darkness, with fewer media also present, the police would intervene, as they have on a growing number of campuses around the United States.
And that’s what the GWU president wanted. But the Washington mayor and the police brass refused, according to The Washington Post.
“D.C. police rejected pleas from George Washington University officials to clear pro-Palestinian demonstrators out of an on-campus encampment early Friday morning, saying they worried about the optics of moving against a small number of peaceful protesters, according to two officials familiar with the talks,” the Post reported.
The newspaper said:
“Officers had assembled around 3 a.m. and were prepared to enter the encampment, but senior leaders in the police chief’s and mayor’s office ordered them to stand down, the officials said. The demonstrators were small in number and largely peaceful, and the city officials told their university counterparts they wanted to avoid images of violent altercations between police and protesters flashing across TV screens across the country. The George Washington campus is just west of downtown Washington, five blocks from the White House.”
This is a critical moment in the way the U.S. and European establishments deal with the exploding resistance to their unconscionable support for genocide.
Either they face the stark reality that their actions are spurring fierce resistance that threatens their political survival, and thus stop arming and funding Israel, or they increase the repression against opposition, beginning with the student protestors. These decisions will be made in these days and will have enormous repercussions.
That the Washington mayor and police chiefs showed the guts to leave the students alone reveals serious doubts creeping into official thinking. Even public officials see what Israel is doing.
This is Ohio State University tonight. Back in November, Biden officials predicted that the outrage over Israel’s slaughter in Gaza would fizzle out in a few weeks… #CeasefireNOW
Back in November, Biden officials predicted that the outrage over Israel's slaughter in Gaza would fizzle out in a few weeks… #CeasefireNOWpic.twitter.com/27YR4aBI0t
Meanwhile, campus rebellions against Israel’s ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people and the U.S. support for it, is spreading rapidly.
Whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted out this map on Friday:
At New York University professors blocked the police from going after their students. Encampments sprung up at the City College of New York (CCNY) part of the City University (CUNY); and at the University of Connecticut. There was police violence at Ohio State, as these tweets report:
And in Berlin, German police forcibly broke up an anti-genocide camp at the Reichstag.
German police officers, infamous for deploying brutality against peaceful demonstrators in solidarity with Palestine, once again used excessive force to remove individuals sitting outside the Bundastag in Berlin. pic.twitter.com/L9CU4389E8
The author has no doubt the Western political elite are complicit in the genocide of Palestinians at a much deeper level than the people have yet understood.
Sunak and Netanyahu in Israel, Oct. 19, 2023. (No. 10/Wikimedia Commons)
Governments cannot take big decisions extremely quickly except in the most extreme of circumstances.
There are mechanisms in all states that consider policy decisions, weigh them up, involve the various departments of the state whose activities are affected by that decision, and arrive at a conclusion, though not necessarily a good one.
The decision to stop aid funding to UNRWA, the specialized U.N. refugee agency for Palestinians, was not taken by numerous Western states in a single day.
In the U.K., several different government ministries had to coordinate.
Even within only a single ministry, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO,), views would have to be coordinated through written submissions and interdepartmental meetings between the departments dealing with the Middle East, with the United Nations, with the United States, with Europe and then of course between the diplomatic and development wings of the ministry.
That process would include seeking the views of British ambassadors to Tel Aviv, Doha, Cairo, Riyadh, Istanbul and Washington and to the United Nations in Geneva and in New York.
It is not necessarily a lengthy process but it is not a day’s work, and nor would it need to be. There was no practical impact to making the announcement of cutting UNRWA funding a day sooner or a day later.
Consider that the parallel process had to be completed in the United States, in Canada, in Germany, in Australia and in all the other Western powers that contributed to starvation in Gaza by cutting aid to UNRWA.
All of these countries had to go through their procedures, and it could only be by prior coordination – weeks in advance – between these states that they announced all on the same day the destruction of the life support system for Palestinians, then in absolute need.
And then consider that we now know for certain that the Israelis had produced no evidence whatsoever of UNRWA complicity in Hamas resistance, on which these decisions in all those states were allegedly based.
I have no doubt at all that the Western political elite, paid tools of the zionist machine, are complicit in the genocide of Palestinians and ethnic cleansing of Gaza at a much deeper level than the people have yet understood.
The refusal by Labour leader Keir Starmer and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to contemplate ending arms sales and military support to Israel is not due to inertia or concern for the arms industry. It is that they actively support the destruction of the Palestinians.
Within an Hour
British barrister Malcom Shaw arguing for Israel before the World Court on Jan 12, 2024. (UN TV Screenshot)
The coordinated decision of the Western nations to fast track famine by stopping UNRWA funding was announced within an hour of the ICJ ruling that Gazans were at immediate risk of genocide, driving from the headlines that adverse ruling against Israel.
This sent the clearest signal in response that the Western powers would not be stopped from genocide by international law or institutions.
The Western powers give not a fig for 16,000 massacred Palestinian infants. No evidence of mass graves in hospitals will move them. They knew genocide was happening and continued actively to arm and abet it.
This genocide is the desired goal of the West. No other explanation is remotely plausible.
I have never believed the spin that Joe Biden is trying to restrain Benjamin Netanyahu, while simultaneously arming and funding Netanyahu and using U.S. forces to fight alongside him.
Biden is making no effort to restrain Netanyahu. Biden fully supports the genocide.
My reading of this was reinforced when I was looking back at the Israeli murders on the Mavi Mamara in 2010, when they killed ten unarmed aid workers attempting a Freedom Flotilla aid delivery to Gaza.
Israel’s actions were clearly both murderous and in breach of international law. Biden as vice president defended Israel staunchly then. It is essential to understand that Genocide Joe has always been Genocide Joe. I wrote:
“Joe Biden took the lead in defending the raid to the U.S. public. In an interview with PBS, he described the raid as ‘legitimate’ and argued that the flotilla organizers could have disembarked elsewhere before transferring the aid to Gaza.
‘So what’s the big deal here? What’s the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza?’ Biden asked about the humanitarian mission. ‘Well, it’s legitimate for Israel to say, ‘I don’t know what’s on that ship. These guys are dropping eight — 3,000 rockets on my people.’”
Biden is not being outplayed by Netanyahu. He is actively abetting Netanyahu and shares with him the objective of full Israeli occupation of Gaza after the Palestinian people are killed or expelled into Sinai.
He also shares with Netanyahu the aim of a wider regional conflict in which the U.S. and Gulf states ally with Israel against Iran, Syria, Yemen and Hezbollah. This is their joint vision of the Middle East – Greater Israel, and U.S. hegemony operating through the Sunni monarchies.
“This genocide is the desired goal of the West. No other explanation is remotely plausible.”
If you believe all the spin from the White House about Biden trying to restrain Netanyahu, I suggest you look instead at the White House and State Department spokesmen refusing to accept any single instance of Israeli atrocity and deferring to Israel on every single crime.
I am currently in Pakistan, and I must say it has been a great refreshment to be in a country where everybody understands why ISIS, Al Nusra etc. never attacked Israeli interests, and sees precisely what Western governments are doing over Gaza. What is understood by developing nations is thankfully understood by Gen Z in the West as well.
The Arab regimes of the Gulf and Jordan are dependent upon Israeli and U.S. security services and surveillance for protection from their own people.
The lack of really massive street protest against their own regimes by Arab peoples is a direct testimony to the effectiveness of that vicious repression, particularly when states like Jordan actually fight alongside Israel against Iranian weapons.
The anti-Iranian card is of course the trick both Biden and Netanyahu have left to play. By promoting an escalation with Iran, Western politicians were able to default to a position of claiming the case for arming Israel was proven – and I think were genuinely perplexed to find the public did not buy it.
The political class, across the Western world and the Arab world, is utterly divorced from its people over Gaza.
We are seeing worldwide repression, as peaceful conferences are stormed by police in Germany, students are beaten by police on American campuses, and in the U.K. old white people like me suffer the kind of continual harassment long suffered by young Muslim men.
This is not the work of Netanyahu operating as a rogue. It is the result of the machinations of a professional political class across the Western world welded to zionism, with the supremacy of Israel as an article of fundamental belief.
Times are not this dark by accident. They were designed to be this dark.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism only gets away with their Lies because Press & Politicians Render Invisible the Thousands of Jews Who Take Part in the anti-Genocide Demonstrations
Sky News Extended Video Showed the Duplicity & Dishonesty of Falter
Gideon Falter’s attempt to play the ‘victim of anti-Semitism’ card ignominiously collapsed this week as he was shown to be a charlatan and a liar. Sky News video of his confrontation with the Police, unlike the carefully edited one the CAA released, shows that his claim of wanting to cross the road was a lie and that he was trying to walk into the march, with bodyguards, and provoke a confrontation.
Falter was going out of his way to say ‘I am Jewish’ not for religious reasons but as a way of pretending that hostility to him was on account of his being Jewish rather than a supporter of genocide.
Even John Mann Criticised Gideon Falter
I forgot that I actually did take a short video of the Gideon Falter incident on the Palestine march last weekend. He had clearly come over from a small pro Israeli protest to try to antagonise people with his video guy to capture it.
0:10
117.6K Views
As the Guardian noted, in footage of the incident, Falter appeared to be accompanied by a security guard as he was confronted by police officers. When asked by an officer what his intentions were and how many people were in his group he said: “I’m just waiting for a couple of people and then we are planning to carry on our way.”
When asked to confirm that footage showed Falter accompanied by a security guard, the CAA said it couldn’t comment. In fact it seems that he was accompanied by a whole bevy of Israeli security.
The claims that the Palestine demonstrations in London were anti-Semitic or that Jews were afraid to go near them falls down on one simple fact. Thousands of Jewish people have taken part in them. No one has been attacked. We have always been welcomed on the march.
Ben Jamal of PSC and Falter Discuss The Failed Scam
Holocaust Survivor Message to US Campus Protesters: This survivor of the Holocaust is against Genocide in Gaza & conflating Jewishness with Zionism, which does nothing but increase antisemitism. Your protests are so persistent, large and global that eventually the Western leadership, which are trying to deny what’s going on, will be forced to face up to it. There is a historic responsibility towards injustice, genocide and fascism. Thank you for being brave and on the right side of history. Stephen Kapos
a group representing Holocaust survivors, who attended the same pro-Palestinian demonstration as Falter, disputed his claim that the march was a no-go zone for Jews.
Holocaust Survivor Message to US Campus Protesters: This survivor of the Holocaust is against Genocide in Gaza & conflating Jewishness with Zionism, which does nothing but increase antisemitism. Your protests are so persistent, large and global that eventually the Western leadership, which are trying to deny what’s going on, will be forced to face up to it. There is a historic responsibility towards injustice, genocide and fascism. Thank you for being brave and on the right side of history. Stephen Kapos
0:26 / 4:01
1.4M Views
The group, which included Stephen Kapos, a Holocaust survivor from Budapest, and four other child survivors, said in an email:
“Throughout [Falter’s] interactions with the police, we were standing only a few yards away from him, yet we experienced nothing but warmth and solidarity from the pro-Palestine demonstrators and not a hint of antisemitism.
“Our group was ‘openly Jewish’ in that we all wore placards saying that, as descendants of Holocaust survivors, we oppose the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
“Every major pro-Palestine demonstration in London has included a large Jewish bloc which has received nothing but support and warmth from their fellow demonstrators.”
The Guardian only printed excerpts from the press release. The original is below:
It has been widely reported that Gideon Falter, chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, was threatened with arrest when he approached a pro-Palestine demonstration on 13 April in the Aldwych area of London.
Mr. Falter is reported to have said that his interactions with police officers “show that the Met believes that being openly Jewish will antagonise the anti-Israel marchers and that Jews need protection, which the police cannot guarantee. Instead of addressing that threat of antisemitic violence, the Met’s policy instead seems to be that law-abiding Jewish Londoners should not be in the parts of London where these marches are taking place. In other words, that they are no-go zones for Jews.”
We are writing to disagree strongly with these claims. This is because throughout his interactions with the police we were standing only a few yards away from him, yet we experienced nothing but warmth and solidarity from the pro-Palestine demonstrators and not a hint of antisemitism.
Our group was “openly Jewish” in that we all wore placards saying that, as descendants of Holocaust survivors, we oppose the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Indeed, one of us, Stephen Kapos, is a child survivor of the Holocaust who wasinterviewed by Sky News and the BBC’s Leigh Milner at the time.
Every major pro-Palestine demonstration in London has included a large Jewish bloc which has received nothing but support and warmth from their fellow demonstrators. Claims that these protests are no-go zones for Jews are completely untrue.
Haim Bresheeth (son of two survivors of Auschwitz),
Mark Etkind (son of a survivor of the Lodz ghetto and Buchenwald)
Stephen Kapos (survivor of the Holocaust in Budapest)
Peter Kapos (son of a Holocaust survivor)
Yosefa Loshitzky (daughter of survivors of the Holocaust in Poland)
It is no surprise that when Ben Jamal mentioned the presence of thousands of Jews on the march, including the Jewish bloc, Falter refused to continue the interview. Zionists like him can’t face the fact that many Jews do not support genocide and the murder of children by the Nazi-style mass assassination factories of Israel.
Falter ducks debate with Ben Jamal as he is thrown by references to anti-Zionist/anti-racist Jews
Met insiders were apparently dubious that Falter had been out merely for a stroll and just happened across the march. Falter has said he had been walking in the capital after attending synagogue and was not there to counter-protest.
Falter was filmed on the north and south sides of Aldwych in different encounters with officers. In one video on the north side, he said he wanted to “carry on my way” and was asked how many people were with him. He said he was waiting for a couple of friends.
In another, on the south side, he said he wanted to walk on the north side. An officer says he had already been seen “walking against the march”
Gideon Falter, CEO of Campaign against antisemitism is seen in discussion with the police during the Pro Palestine March on Saturday. He brought his own security detail.
Falter’s purpose was to provoke an incident and then spin it as anti-Semitic. When a Policeman said that he was ‘openly Jewish’ what he meant was that he openly supported Israel. Unfortunately the Police have imbibed, as I said in a previous blog, the idea that the marches pose a threat to Jews. The officer’s remarks were therefore logical given what they have been told rather than anti-Semitic.
How long do you have to wait for a march to arrive, with a film crew and bodyguard, before you can no longer claim to have ‘stumbled’ across it? Asking for a Falter.
Falter had been a Muslim and tried to walk into a Zionist march the Police wouldn’t have spent 13 minutes arguing with him and simply pushed him back when he tried to push past. He’d have been arrested.
On a previous demonstration the Police interposed themselves between the Jewish bloc and the rest of the march because they believed them to be in danger! This is the product of the media equation of being Jewish and supporting Israel. They cannot handle the fact that thousands of Jews today are anti-Zionist and opposed to the existence of a racist, apartheid ‘Jewish’ state.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism
The CAA was founded in the summer of 2014 during Operation Protective Edge when 2,200 Palestinians died, including 550 children.
The CAA was founded at the instigation of Israel’s dirty tricks Ministry of Strategic Affairs. Its mission was to portray opposition to Israel’s attacks on Gaza as motivated by anti-Semitism.
Falter, who chairs the CAA, is a board member of the Jewish National Fund UK. The JNF has a long history of supporting ethnic cleansing in Palestine. An openly racist organisation, it controls 93% of Israeli land which is off limits to Israel’s Palestinian population.
In its entry on the Charity Commission website JNF-UK stated that:
THE OBJECTS ARE THE RELIEF OF POVERTY, AND THE FURTHERANCE OF ANY OTHER PURPOSES WHICH ARE CHARITABLE ACCORDING TO ENGLISH LAW, WITHIN THE STATE OF ISRAEL AS CONSTITUTED FROM TIME TO TIME, ESPECIALLY SUCH CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS BENEFIT PERSONS OF JEWISH RELIGION, RACE OR ORIGIN
The CAA only became a charity because the Charity Commission at the time was headed by Islamaphobic bigot William Shawcross. In 2012, as Director of the Henry Jackson Society, Shawcross said:
Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future. I think all European countries have vastly, very quickly growing Islamic populations
That is why the many complaints which had been made against the CAA for being a political organisation have been rejected. Its aim between 2015-19 was to remove Corbyn as Labour Leader.
Falter has become ever more hysterical at the support that the Palestinians in Gaza have received from people. Falter even called for the ‘home secretary to trigger draconian powers and even send in the army to “uphold the values that our country stands for”.
Falter forgot that he wasn’t in Israel where bringing in the army is quite normal to prevent Palestinians demonstrating! The total number of people who have taken part in the London marches, is probably in the region of 2-3 million. What irks Falter and the CAA is that millions of people are repelled by Israel’s continued genocidal attacks on defenceless Palestinians. War crimes are not popular.
Opinion polls have consistently shown that over 70% of British people support an immediate ceasefire and oppose Britain selling arms to Israel.
The only support that Israel has received is from the British Establishment. Nowhere was this more evident than in Sunak’s panicked reaction to George Galloway’s victory in the Rochdale by-election when he dashed out of Downing Street to froth about mobs roaming the streets and Jewish children afraid to walk the streets.
If we had a genuine media in this country as opposed to a prostitute press, then the obvious question to ask would be why Sunak and Braverman have expended so much effort in demonising refugees coming to Britain and devising the ludicrously expensive Rwanda scheme whilst at the same time bleating on about ‘anti-Semitism’.
The CAA has specialised in targeting anyone who opposes Zionism and the Israeli state, in particular Jewish people. Since 2014 the CAA had produced an ‘anti-Semitism barometer’ telling us how anti-Semitism is increasing in Britain. Despite everything they found that anti-Semitism was more common on the right than the left. As their 2017 Anti-Semitism Barometer concluded:
‘Supporters of left-wing political parties and ‘remainers’ are less likely to be antisemitic than those on the right or supporters of the ‘leave’ camp’.
Daniel Allington – King’s College’s Fake Academic
It therefore decided to invent a new measure of anti-Semitism which was signed off by academic-for-hire Daniel Allington of King’s College, London who was willing to prostitute himself and King’s by producing bogus ‘research’ that would fit the CAA’s predetermined conclusions that anti-Semitism was a left-wing problem.
What the CAA needed was to invent a set of questions that would ‘prove’ that it is the Left who are the real anti-Semites. Step forward Allington who was more than willing to use his academic credentials to ‘prove’ that the far-Right was really benevolent to Jews.
From 2015 to 2018 the CAA used Yougov to ask a series of statements that were allegedly anti-Semitic in order to show that the level of anti-Semitism was high in Britain. They were:
1. “British Jewish people chase money more than other British people.”
2. “Having a connection to Israel makes Jewish people less loyal to Britain than other British people.”
3. “Jewish people consider themselves to be better than other British people.”
4. “Compared to other groups, Jewish people have too much power in the media.”
5. “Jewish people talk about the Holocaust just to further their political agenda.” or in 2015 “Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy.”
6. “Jewish people can be trusted just as much as other British people in business.” or in 2015 “In business, Jews are not as honest as most people.”
7. “I am just as open to having Jewish friends as I am to having friends from other sections of British society” or in 2015 “I would be unhappy if a family member married a Jew.”
It is arguable that a majority of these statements are not anti-Semitic since there is a factual basis to them. But even if some people believe such generalisations about Jews, it doesn’t mean they are hostile to Jews, which is the classic way of understanding anti-Semitism.
Commenting on these questions Anshel Pfeffer wrote in Ha’aretz that:
take for example the statement that “Jews think they are better than other people.” Of course it’s not the thing that one should normally be caught saying in public – but is it anti-Semitic? For a start, many Jews do subscribe to the Jewish notion of “the chosen people,” and for that matter it’s not only Jews; members of many if not most nations, religions and ethnicities believe they are better than the others. That’s natural and normal national pride. Even if this view runs counter to liberal orthodoxy, believing that Jews think of themselves that way can certainly be a fair and honest assessment.
The same can be said of another of the survey’s statements: “Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy.” That’s a rather nasty accusation but the fact is too many Jews, both political leaders in public appearances and ordinary Jews on social media, are often too quick to bring up the Holocaust in order to make a point. The sad truth is that many Jews have cheapened the memory of the Holocaust by using it in an inappropriate fashion. Holding that opinion doesn’t necessarily make you an anti-Semite.
Pfeffer accused the CAA of an ‘eagerness to see the anti-Semitism in Britain, which inarguably exists, as much more widespread than it really is’. There are no prizes for guessing why.
About the ‘finding’ that 56% of British Jews agree that “the recent rise in anti-Semitism in Britain has some echoes of the 1930s.” Pfeffer wrote that
‘If the majority of British Jews and the authors of the CAA report actually believe that, then it’s hard to take anything they say about contemporary anti-Semitism in their home country seriously.’
He went on to say that
‘To compare today’s Britain, for all its faults, with the Jews’ situation in 1930s exhibits a disconnect from reality which borders on hysteria.’
In 2018 the CAA employed Allington to fix their Antisemitism Barometer. In 2018 it still concluded that anti-Semitism was more prevalent on the right than left. The problem was what to do about this? Allington added 6 new questions with the sole intention of skewing the results. Allington embarked on what can only be called an act of academic fraud. His ‘research’ valueless. He decided what his conclusions were first and fitted the ‘evidence’ around them.
The 2019 Antisemitism Barometer was the first to show that ‘anti-Semitic views were most widespread on the far-left.’
What had changed in one year? Had people on the left and right suddenly changed their opinions? Was there really a shift in peoples’ attitudes to Jews? Of course not. All that happened was that under the guidance of two dishonest academics – Allington and David Hirsh – the CAA had added a new set of 6 questions, all of which were to do with Israel not anti-Semitism. They were:
1. Israel and its supporters are a bad influence on our democracy.”
2. Israel can get away with anything because its supporters control the media.”
3. Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews.”
4. I am comfortable spending time with people who openly support Israel.”
5. Israel makes a positive contribution to the world.”
6. Israel is right to defend itself against those who want to destroy it.”
The fraudulent nature of these questions is immediately obvious. They have nothing at all to do with Jews but with a racist state that calls itself ‘Jewish’. The CAA conceded that Question 5 had nothing to do with anti-Semitism but they added it anyway
‘Although… not antisemitic in itself, analysis showed that it was in fact a very good predictor of a respondent’s responses to other statements and therefore a good indicator of anti-Zionist antisemitic attitudes in general.’
Question number 4 is particularly egregious. I didn’t find myself comfortable spending time with supporters of Apartheid in South Africa or indeed racists generally. Did this make me a racist? I would be equally unhappy spending time with defenders of General Pinochet in Chile. Does that make me anti-Chilean? Perhaps not liking spending time with Nazis means you are an anti-German racist.
You can see where equating Israel with a Jew leads. Question 6 says that if you don’t accept Israel’s ‘right to defend itself against those who want to destroy it’ you are anti-Semitic. This assumes that Israel is the victim whereas today it is clear that Israel is a genocidal state.
On the basis of Allington’s ‘research’ the CAA concluded that:
‘Among the very left-wing, 42% believe that Israel’s supporters are damaging British democracy, and 60% believe that Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews, which directly evokes one of the examples of antisemitism in the International Definition of Antisemitism.’
By Quoting Israel’s First Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion Jackie Walker Became a Holocaust Denier!
Deceit and dishonesty are programmed into the CAA’s DNA and Falter is their Dr Strangelove. The CAA will therefore print the most outrageous lies if that serves its purposes. Anything and everything in the hands of the CAA can be distorted into becoming anti-Semitic.
A vivid example of this was on 7 February 2017 when the CAA put up a post “Jackie Walker posts text asking whether Hitler can really be blamed for the Holocaust“. The opening sentence of their post said that it ‘leaves open the possibility that he was justified.’
Linger over those last few weasel words, ‘leaves open the possibility’ hint, hint, nudge, nudge. She didn’t actually say it but we all know that she meant to say!
Jackie Walker was the Black-Jewish activist who was expelled from the Labour Party after having been targeted repeatedly by the racist Jewish Labour Movement.
Jackie Walker was the ideal target. She was Black. Even worse, she claimed to be Jewish when every Zionist knows that is impossible.
You may think that the CAA would have difficulty with the following quote. However that is to underestimate the skills of the CAA.
Any normal person would ask how on earth anyone could conclude from the above that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust.
Unfortunately for the CAA the quote was from Nahum Goldmann’s The Jewish Paradox – A Personal Memoir1978 p.99. Goldmann was a former President of the World Jewish Congress and World Zionist Organisation! Goldmann was quoting directly from David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel.
Like most Zionists the CAA knows nothing about the history of Zionism except that which they are spoonfed. The quote is included in the Wikipedia entry on David Ben-Gurion. See my blog at the time
Of course the CAA deleted the post when they realised their mistake but not before it had been widely distributed and commented upon by people like Jack Mendel, a Jewish News ‘journalist’. Dishonesty pervades everything the CAA touches. It is a Midas touch in reverse.
When you live in a permanent haze of Zionist propaganda and lies, nothing seems real. It is a wilderness of mirrors. The CAA are no more interested in eradicating genuine anti-Semitism than Rishi Sunak is in redistributing wealth. The CAA have no case for remaining a charity. They provide absolutely no public benefit and nor are their purposes charitable.
Dishonesty and plain old-fashioned lying are their main attributes. That they are treated as a serious organisation by the mainstream media is testament to the inability of organisations like the BBC to investigate who they are dealing with. Britain’s rabid tabloid press is more than happy to take these imposters at their word.
How the CAA Manipulates Statistics
As a Zionist organisation the CAA believes that the ‘real home’ of Jews is in Israel, not Britain. This is what Netanyahu told French Jews after the murder of 4 Jews in 2015. The CAA therefore conducted an unscientific poll of British Jews in order ‘prove’ that most Jews were thinking about leaving Britain for Israel. It found that:
58% of Jews believed that they had no future in Europe.
More than half of British Jews feel that antisemitism now echoes the 1930s
1 in 4 British Jews has considered leaving the country in the past two years because of rising antisemitism.
45% of Jews questioned feel their family is threatened by Islamist extremism.
77% of Jews questioned have witnessed antisemitism disguised as a political comment about Israel.
84% of Jews consider boycotts of businesses selling Israeli products to be intimidation &
82% say that media bias against Israel fuels persecution of Jews in Britain.
These were loaded questions. Contrast this witha rigorously controlled, academic survey of the British Jewish community by the Department of Sociology at City University (November 2015). This found that nearly a quarter, 24%, of British Jews supported sanctions to bring about a peace settlement. There was a ‘sizeable minority’ supporting sanctions (34%-41%) among the young, the highly qualified academically and those who are not affiliated to a synagogue). The survey even found that whilst 59% identify as a Zionist nearly a third, 31%, didn’t see themselves as Zionists.
Even the Jewish Chroniclepoured cold water on the CAA’s ‘findings’ with its own Survation poll. Some 88% of British Jews stated that they had no intention of emigrating. Jewish Chronicle 14.1.15.
The CAA poll was junk but it served its purpose, which was to whip up fears of anti-Semitism among Jews. Zionist organisations see their goal as ‘helping’Jewish people to emigrate to Israel.
The CAA’s Islamaphobia
Under the title Profile of British Muslim Antisemitism the CAA published a highly racist and offensive cartoon of a typical Muslim male. It has since deleted it. Islamaphobia is an integral part of Zionism.One of the campaign’s stated objectives is to “promote racial harmony.” In practice, its activities are designed to achieve the exact opposite. The CAA consistently targets Muslims.
“Littered with flaws”
The CAA published a report in 2016 on “British Muslim anti-Semitism.” (also deleted). It included a ‘profile’ of the kind of person that the campaign was targeting. The profile was highly racist. According to the CAA, the typical Muslim anti-Semite was likely to be a first-generation immigrant and living in public housing.
If someone had posted a similar portrayal of Jews, the CAA would have been the first to claim “anti-Semitism.” The report alleged that “many British Muslims reserve a special hatred for British Jews.”
“On every single count, British Muslims were more likely by far than the general British population to hold deeply anti-Semitic views,” it added.
The conclusions were based on a poll conducted for Channel 4. Yet even the Community Security Trust, a staunchly pro-Israel group, raised doubts about the conclusions which the CAA drew.
“This latest poll showed something else that is interesting, and is not specific to Muslims: that people who believe anti-Semitic things about Jews rarely think of themselves as anti-Semitic.”
“What is perhaps curious, though, is that this is not reflected in a more basic question that was asked in the same poll about how favorable or unfavorable Muslims feel towards Jewish people as a religious group,”
Asked what their feelings were towards Jews: on a sliding scale from 0-100 – where 0 is the least favourable, British Muslims scored 57.1. This hardly suggests rampant anti-Semitism.
The CAA specialises in distorting statistics. In its annual “anti-Semitism barometer” report for 2015, it claimed that an opinion poll showed that “almost half (45 percent) of British adults believe at least one of the anti-Semitic statements shown to them to be true.”
The questions were carefully chosen to elicit the required answers. One statement was that “Jews’ loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people.” Is it surprising that one in five people believe this given that Jewish anti-Zionists are regularly accused of being “traitors”?
Clearly many Zionists believe that their first loyalty is to Israel. In 2013 Israel’s ministries for foreign affairs and immigrant absorption distributed a questionnaire to American Jews asking where their loyalties would lie in the event of a crisis between the two countries.
In January 2015 the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in London found that the CAA’s “barometer” report was “littered with flaws” and the group’s work “may even be rather irresponsible.”
The IJPR criticized the way that the CAA had used data collected by YouGov to make the “rather sensationalist claim that almost half of all British adults harbor some sort of anti-Semitic view.” YouGov had been commissioned to undertake the poll by the CAA.
According to the IJPR,
a far more accurate and honest read” of the data would “highlight the fact that between 75 percent and 90 percent of people in Britain either do not hold anti-Semitic views or have no particular view of Jews either way, and only about 4 percent to 5 percent of people can be characterized as clearly anti-Semitic.
In 2009 Foreign Office diplomat Rowan Laxton was accused by Falter of having shouted out, whilst exercising by himself in a gym, ‘fucking Israelis, fucking Jews’ after having seen on a TV screen footage of an elderly Palestinian man killed by Israel in Gaza.
Laxton, who is High Commissioner to the Republic of Cameroon, was prosecuted under s.5 of the Public Order Act for using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour …’ in a public place. The Police were not inclined to prosecute at first but Falter leaked it to the Daily Mail and put the Police under pressure. Laxton was convicted by Westminster Magistrates Court and was then suspended by the Foreign Office.
Laxton appealed to Southwark Crown Court who acquitted him of using the phrase ‘fucking Jews’. In other words Gideon Falter was a liar who had tried to ruin someone’s career for expressing their emotions about an Israeli attack on Gaza which killed 1400 civilians. The death of Palestinians is not something which disturbs Falter in the slightest. As Professor Geoffrey Pullum noted in The diplomat, the bishop, the bomber, and the fruit bat the Daily Mail which reported the initial conviction did not report Laxton’s successful appeal.
Fig. 1: Common Era temperature reconstructions featured in IPCC reports since 2001.
Source Esper et al 2024 Note: In each graph, instrumental global annual mean land and marine temperatures are shown in a red spike, while lower resolution proxy estimates are in blue.
Common Era temperature variability has been a prominent component in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports over the last several decades and was twice featured in their Summary for Policymakers. A single reconstruction of mean Northern Hemisphere temperature variability was first highlighted in the 2001 Summary for Policymakers, despite other estimates that existed at the time. Subsequent reports assessed many large-scale temperature reconstructions, but the entirety of Common Era temperature history in the most recent Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was restricted to a single estimate of mean annual global temperatures. We argue that this focus on a single reconstruction is an insufficient summary of our understanding of temperature variability over the Common Era. We provide a complementary perspective by offering an alternative assessment of the state of our understanding in high-resolution paleoclimatology for the Common Era and call for future reports to present a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of our knowledge about this important period of human and climate history.
Fig. 5: Standard deviations in observed temperature data and Common Era temperature reconstructions.
Estimates for the observed and reconstructed temperatures are determined over the 1878-2000 CE (blue), 1001-1877 CE (orange) and 1-1000 CE (gray) periods. Instrumental records shown on the left side include mean annual temperatures averaged over 90°S-90°N land and marine areas (global), mean annual temperatures averaged over 0°−90°S land and marine areas (SH), and mean summer (JJA) temperatures averaged over 30°−90°N land-only areas (NH).
While interpretations of the similarities and differences across the various domains and reconstructions, as shown in Fig. 5, remains the subject of important and interesting research, diagnosing the differences is not the focus of our commentary herein. Our primary concern is that substantial uncertainty exists. The consequence is that there are notable differences in the representation of large-scale estimates of CE temperature variability, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, that were overlooked and poorly communicated by the 2021 IPCC WGI report. Both the different summary of the global P2k19 ensemble provided in Figs. 2b and 3c, and the inclusion of the additionally available NH and SH temperature reconstruction estimates in Fig. 3, imply substantial uncertainties in large-scale temperature reconstructions that better summarize the existing challenges associated with the science.
Fig. 3: Reconstructions of large-scale temperature variability over the last 2000 years published since AR5 of the IPCC.
Reconstructions variably target seasonal to annual mean temperatures in the (a) Northern Hemisphere (Sch15, Sto15, Wil16, Xin16, Gui17, Bün20), and annual temperatures for the (b) Southern Hemisphere (Neu14) and (c) globally (P2k19; as shown in Fig. 2) over varying periods of the Common Era (see Table 1 for details). All reconstructions were smoothed using a 20-year low-pass filter and temperatures are shown as anomalies from their 1850–1900 means. Hemispheric and global means of land and ocean temperatures derived from HadCRUT5 instrumental analysis1 are also shown in each respective panel from 1850-2020 (red). Instrumental temperatures were also referenced to zero mean in the 1850–1900 interval and filtered with a 20-year lowpass filter. These instrumental representations are all consistent with the 2021 IPCC report.
Conclusions and future priorities
We propose that a visualization of the contemporary research, as in Fig. 3, offers a more accurate depiction of the uncertainty and temporal evolution of CE temperature variability compared to any single reconstruction. A general feature of Fig. 3 is that long-term trends during the second millennium CE are more coherent and robust, but major discrepancies still exist during the first millennium CE. These uncertainties in the first millennium are the product of severe reductions in the availability of high-resolution proxy records, which affects all large-scale temperature reconstructions. The SH also remains grossly under-sampled.
It is therefore premature, and possibly incorrect, to conclude that the first millennium was free of centennial-scale temperature trends and that the decadal variations were systematically smaller than during subsequent centuries, as detailed in the 2021 SPM.
Regarding global temperature reconstructions specifically, we also highlight the following limitations that must continue to be contextualized in consensus reports on CE temperature reconstructions:
(i) warm season biases due to the dominance of tree-ring records during the CE, (ii) spatial biases in proxy sampling, with a persistent lack of high-resolution proxy records from the tropics and SH, which are needed for accurately representing lower-latitude and SH temperatures over the past 2000 years, (iii) the likely loss of variability when including time-uncertain and smoothed proxies in a large-scale reconstruction, (iv) the potential limited ability of conventional tree-ring records to capture millennial-scale trends in climate, and (v) the need to more accurately estimate reconstruction uncertainties that reflect changes in replication and statistical model fidelity of the underlying proxy network back in time (a constant uncertainty range back in time is unlikely to accurately represent the increasing uncertainties that exist).
With any set of methods, however, their outcome is ultimately dependent on the data that they incorporate and the assumptions that underpin the statistical model. A major initiative to produce new high-resolution proxy records that span the entire CE is therefore necessary if we are to fundamentally improve our understanding of pre-instrumental temperature variations at policy-relevant timescales. It otherwise remains uncertain how warm and cold first millennium CE temperatures actually were and what caused these earlier changes at hemispheric to global scales, with implications for our understanding of the true range of externally and internally forced variability.
The first graph appeared in the IPCC 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR) credited to H.H.Lamb, first director of CRU-UEA. The second graph was featured in 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) the famous hockey stick credited to M. Mann.
The Nobel Peace Laureates are casually blaming Russia, without recalling the history of nuclear war, not to mention Joe Biden’s 1.3 trillion dollar program to develop “more usable”, “low intensity” “preemptive nuclear weapons” to be used on a “first strike basis” against both nuclear and non nuclear states as a means of “self defense”. This is the nuclear doctrine which currently prevails in US-NATO’s confrontation against Russia.
It is clearly outlined in the Neocons’ Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
America’s Manhattan Project
Let us recall the history of the “doomsday scenario” which was part of America’s Manhattan project launched in 1939 with the participation of Britain and Canada.
The Manhattan Project was a secret plan to develop the atomic bomb coordinated by the US War Department, headed (1941) by Lieutenant General Leslie Groves.
Prominent physicist Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer had been appointed by Lt General Groves to head the Los Alamos Laboratory (also known as Project Y) which was established in 1943 as a “top-secret site for designing atomic bombs under the Manhattan Project”. Oppenheimer was entrusted in recruiting and coordinating a team of prominent nuclear scientists including Italian Physicist and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Enrico Fermi who joined the Los Alamos Laboratory in 1944.
Oppenheimer not only played a key role in coordinating the team of nuclear scientists, he was also engaged in routine consultations with the head of the Manhattan project Lieutenant General Groves, specifically withregard to the use of the first atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which resulted in more than 300,000 immediate deaths.
The September 15, 1945 Blueprint to “Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map”
Barely two weeks after the official end of World War II (September 2, 1945), the US War Department issued a blueprint (September 15, 1945) to “Wipe the Soviet Union off the Map” (66 cities with 204 atomic bombs), when the US and the USSR were allies. This infamous project is confirmed by declassified documents. (For further details see Chossudovsky, 2017)
Below is the image of the 66 cities of the Soviet Union which had been envisaged as targets by the US War Department.
The preparatory documents (see below) confirm that the data pertaining to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were being used to evaluate the viability as well as the cost of a much larger attack against the Soviet Union. These documents were finalized 5-6 weeks after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (6, 9 August 1945).
“To Ensure Our National Security”
Note the correspondence between Major General Norstad and the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves, who was in permanent liaison with Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Los Alamos team of nuclear scientists.
On September 15, 1945 Norstad sent a memorandum to Lieutenant Leslie Groves requesting an estimate of the “number of bombs required to ensure our national security.” (The First Atomic Stockpile Requirements )
Lieutenant General Groves no doubt in consultation with Dr. Oppenheimer responded to Major General Norstad in a Memorandum dated September 29, 1945in which he refers to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
See section 2, subsections a, b and c.
“It is not essential to get total destruction of a city in order to destroy its effectiveness. Hiroshima no longer exists as a city even though the area of total destruction is considerably less than total.”
Read carefully. The text below confirms that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “A Dress Rehearsal”.
Bear in mind the name of the country which is threatening America’s “national security” is not mentioned.
Answering the memorandum of 15 September 1945, [see response below].
The 1949 “Dropshot Plan”: 300 Nuclear Bombs, Targeting More Than 100 Soviet Cities
Numerous US war plans (under the Truman presidency) to attack the Soviet Union were “formulated and revised on a regular basis between 1945 and 1950”. Most of them were totally dysfunctional as outlined by J.W. Smith in his book entitled “The World’s Wasted Wealth 2”.
“The names given to these plans graphically portray their offensive purpose: Bushwhacker, Broiler, Sizzle, Shakedown, Offtackle, Dropshot, Trojan, Pincher, and Frolic.
The US military knew the offensive nature of the job President Truman had ordered them to prepare for and had named their war plans accordingly.”
Dr. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod in their book entitled: “To Win a Nuclear War: the Pentagon’s Secret War Plans,” provide evidence (based on declassified documents) that the September 1945 blueprint was followed by a continuous plan by USG to bomb the Soviet Union (as well as Russia in the post-Cold War era):
“This book [preface by Ramsey Clark] compels us to re-think and re-write the history of the Cold War and the arms race… It provides a startling glimpse into secret U.S. plans to initiate a nuclear war from 1945 to the present.”
The September 1945 Blueprint (66 Cities) was followed in 1949 by another insidious project entitled the Dropshot Plan:
According to Kaku and Axelrod, the 1949 DropShot consisted of a plan directed against the Soviet Union to “drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000 tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas, including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg).
According to the plan Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.
The Dropshot Plan was formulated prior to Russia’s August 1949 announcement pertaining to the testing of its nuclear bomb.
The Cold War List of 1200 Targeted Cities
The initial 1945 Blueprint to attack 66 cities, the subsequent 1949 Dropshot Plan(targeting 100 cities) were updated in the course of the Cold War. The 1956 Planincluded some 1200 cities in the USSR, the Soviet block countries of Eastern Europeand China (see declassified documents below).
The bombs slated for the attack significantly more powerful in terms of explosive capacity than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (see below).
We are talking about planned genocide against the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe.
Excerpt from list of the 1200 cities targeted for nuclear attack in alphabetical order. National Security Archive, op. cit.
Details pertaining to the “The SAC [Strategic Air Command] Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959, produced in June 1956” were declassified on December 22, 2015 (Excerpts below, click to access full text).
According to the National Security Archive www.nsarchive.org, the SAC, 1956:
“…provides the most comprehensive and detailed list of nuclear targets and target systems that has ever been declassified. As far as can be told, no comparable document has ever been declassified for any period of Cold War history.
The SAC study includes chilling details. … the authors developed a plan for the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted “population” in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw.
The SAC document includes lists of more than 1100 airfields in the Soviet bloc, with a priority number assigned to each base. …
A second list was of urban-industrial areas identified for “systematic destruction.” SAC listed over 1200 cities in the Soviet bloc, from East Germany to China, also with priorities established. Moscow and Leningrad were priority one and two respectively. Moscow included 179 Designated Ground Zeros (DGZs) while Leningrad had 145, including “population” targets. … According to the study, SAC would have targeted Air Power targets with bombs ranging from 1.7 to 9 megatons.
Exploding them at ground level, as planned, would have produced significant fallout hazards to nearby civilians. SAC also wanted a 60 megaton weapon which it believed necessary for deterrence, but also because it would produce “significant results” in the event of a Soviet surprise attack. One megaton would be 70 times the explosive yield of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. (emphasis added).
[…]
The Bulletin: Founded by Manhattan Project Scientists in September 1945
In a bitter irony, in the immediate wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 in Chicago by Manhattan Project scientists, who had been involved in the development of the atomic bomb.
Two years later, in 1947, The Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock, “with an original setting of seven minutes to midnight”.
The initiative was formulated at a time when there was no arms race: There was only one nuclear weapons state, namely the USA, which was intent upon carrying out a Doomsday scenario (genocide) against the Soviet Union formulated in September 1945.
In 1947, when the Doomsday Clock was created, the “justification” which was upheld by The Bulletin was that:
“the greatest danger to humanity came … from the prospect that the United States and the Soviet Union were headed for a nuclear arms race.”
The underlying premise of this statement was to ensure that the US retain a monopoly over nuclear weapons.
While in 1947, “The Plan to Wipe the Soviet Union of the Map” was still on the drawing Board of the Pentagon, the relevant documents were declassified thirty years later in 1975. Most of the former Manhattan project scientists were not aware of the September 1945 blueprint against the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union emerged as a nuclear power in August 1949, two years after the launching of the Doomsday Clock, largely in view of applying what was later entitled “deterrence”, namely an action to discourage a nuclear attack by the US. At the height of the Cold War and the Arms Race, this concept eventually evolved into what was defined as “Mutually Assured Destruction”.
While several authors and scientists featured by The Bulletin have provided a critical perspective concerning America’s nuclear weapons program, there was no cohesive attempt to question the history nor the legitimacy of the Manhattan Project.
The broader tendency has been to “erase history”, sustaining the “rightfulness” of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while also casually placing the blame on Russia, as well as China and North Korea.
Whatever happened to the WEF? One minute they were everywhere in the media and now they have all but disappeared from public discourse. After the pandemic agenda was defeated and the plan to exploit public fear to create a perpetual medical autocracy was exposed, Klaus Schwab and his merry band of globalists slithered back into the woodwork. To be sure, we’ll be seeing them again one day, but for now the WEF has relegated itself away from the spotlight and into the dark recesses of the Davos echo chamber.
Much of their discussions now focus on issues like climate change or DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion), but one vital subject continues to pop up in the white papers of global think tanks and it’s a program that was introduced very publicly during covid. Every person that cares about economic freedom should be wary of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) as perhaps the biggest threat to human liberty since the attempted introduction of vaccine passports.
The WEF recently boasted in a new white paper that 98% of all central banks are now pursuing CBDC programs. The report, titled ‘Modernizing Financial Markets With Wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency’, notes:
“CeBM is ideal for systemically important transactions despite the emergence of alternative payment instruments…Wholesale central bank digital currency (wCBDC) is a form of CeBM that could unlock new economic models and integration points that are not possible today.”
The paper primarily focuses on the streamlining of crossborder transactions, an effort which the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has been deeply involved in for the past few years. It also highlights an odd concept of differentiated CBDC mechanisms, each one specifically designed to be used by different institutions for different reasons. Wholesale CBDCs would be used only by banking institutions, governments and some global corporations, as opposed to Retail CBDCs which would be reserved for the regular population.
How the value and buying power of Wholesale CBDCs would differ is not clear, but it’s easy to guess that these devices would give banking institutions a greater ability homogenize international currencies and transactions. In other words, it’s the path to an eventual global currency model. By extension, the adoption of CBDCs by governments and global banks will ultimately lead to what the WEF calls “dematerialization” – The removal of physical securities and money. The WEF states:
“As with the Bank of England’s (BOE) RTGS modernization programme, the intention is to introduce a fully digitized securities system that is future-proofed for incremental adoption of DLT (Distributed Ledger Technology). The tokenization of assets involves creating digital tokens representing underlying assets like real estate, equities, digital art, intellectual property and even cash. Tokenization is a key use case for blockchain, with some estimates pointing towards $4-5 trillion in tokenized securities on DLTa by 2030.”
Finally, they let the cat out of the bag:
“The BIS proposed two models for bringing tokenization into the monetary system: 1) Bring CBDCs, DTs and tokenized assets on to a common unified ledger, and 2) pursue incremental progress by creating interlinking systems.
They determined the latter option was more feasible given that the former requires a reimagination of financial systems. Experimentation with the unified ledger concept is ongoing.”
To interpret this into decoded language – The unified ledger is essentially another term for a one world digital currency system completely centralized and under the control of global banks like the BIS and IMF. The WEF and BIS are acknowledging the difficulty of introducing such a system without opposition, so, they are recommending incremental introduction using “interlinking systems” (attaching CBDCs to paper currencies and physical contracts and then slowly but surely dematerializing those assets and making digital the new norm). It’s the totalitarian tip-toe.
The BIS predicts there will be at least 9 major CBDCs in circulation by the year 2030; this is likely an understatement of the intended plan. Globalists have hinted in the past that they prefer total digitization by 2030.
A cashless society would be the end game for economic anonymity and freedom in trade. Unless alternative physical currencies are widely adopted in protest, CBDCs would make all transactions traceable and easily interrupted by governments and banks. Imagine a world in which all trade is monitored, all revenues are monitored and transactions can be blocked if they are found to offend the mandates of the system. Yes, these things do happen today, but with physical cash they can be circumvented.
Imagine a world where your ability to spend money can be limited to certain retailers, certain services, certain products and chosen regions based on your politics, your social credit score and your background. The control that comes with CBDCs is immense and allows for complete micromanagement of the population. The fact that 98% of central banks are already adopting this technology should be one of the biggest news stories of the decade, yet, it goes almost completely ignored.
Rwandan regime and Western intelligence agencies and their media and academic assets have spread disinformation for three decades
On April 7, Rwandan President Paul Kagame commemorated the 30th anniversary of the 1994 Rwandan genocide by lighting a flame in honor of the victims in front of foreign dignitaries, and giving a speech in which he blamed the international community for “failing all of us” because of its inaction “whether from contempt or cowardice.”
Kagame also stated that Rwandans were disgusted by critics who “questioned or revised the history of the genocide,” said to have been perpetrated by Hutus against Tutsis.
One of the dignitaries in the crowd was former president Bill Clinton, who wrote in his memoir that his administration “did not act quickly enough after the killing [by the Hutu against the Tutsi] began.”[1]
President Joe Biden, a U.S. Senator at the time of the genocide, released a statement on April 7 emphasizing that “most of the more than 800,000 women, men and children killed in the one hundred days that followed the launching of the genocide were ‘ethnic Tutsis.’”
Biden’s claim is contradicted by the 1991 Rwandan census, which listed 596,000 Tutsis living in Rwanda, with 300,000 estimated to have survived. That would mean that 296,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu and that the rest of the dead—over 500,000—were Hutus. An overwhelming number of the latter were killed by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which Kagame led.[2]
The RPF had helped trigger the genocide by invading Rwanda illegally from Uganda in 1990 against the wishes of U.S. Ambassador Robert Flaten, starting a civil war; and by shooting down the airplane of Rwanda’s Hutu President Juvénal Habyarimana to avoid implementing a power-sharing agreement between Hutu and Tutsis.
Contrary to Clinton’s claims that the U.S. did not act quickly enough, the Clinton administration had in reality “acted quickly” by a) providing military training to the RPF beginning in January 1994; b) allegedly supplying Kagame, through the CIA, with the missiles used to shoot down Habyarimana’s airplane; c) landing 330 Marines at Burundi’s Bujumbura Airport in April 1994; d) off-loading material rumored to be weapons to the RPF in Mombasa harbor; and e) deploying 800 U.S. soldiers after the genocide to rebuild and control Kigali’s airport and provide military training, satellite surveillance and arms to the RPF.[3]
A U.S. soldier from Texas said that “we are not supposed to let our families know that we were sent to Rwanda,” while one from Connecticut said, “human rights and democracy are none of our concerns. We are concerned with making sure that Kagame’s regime is well planted and can survive.”[4]
The myth of non-U.S. intervention in Rwanda has been used by liberal hawks like Samantha Power, National Security Adviser in the Obama administration and current USAID administrator, to initiate more “humanitarian interventions.” On the eve of the 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn over Libya, Power claimed that the U.S. could not allow another Rwanda to happen.
The real agenda underlying U.S. intervention in Rwanda was to supplant French influence in Central Africa (France supported Habyarimana’s regime), and to establish a regional proxy that could destabilize the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and help U.S.-based investors, including prominent Clinton family donors, gain access to the DRC’s lucrative mineral wealth.
U.S. covert intelligence and guerrilla warfare operative Roger Winter, head of the U.S. Committee for Refugees, cultivated close ties with the Tutsi guerrilla exile community, beginning in the late 1980s, when Kagame emerged as a leader of the Tutsi exile force in Uganda plotting to take back power in Rwanda.[5]
The RPF forces supporting Kagame went into exile during the reign of Habyarimana (1973-1994) and his predecessor, Grégoire Kayibanda (1961-1973), who ruled Rwanda after the triumph of the so-called Hutu Power revolution in the early 1960s.
The Belgian colonial rulers had empowered a Tutsi ruling aristocracy, which badly repressed Rwanda’s majority Hutu population, who reclaimed power under Kayibanda and Habyarimana.
Paul Kagame was one of the “’59ers” who left Rwanda in 1959 when he was a child.
The organization which in the late 1980s became the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was founded by Tutsis in Uganda who left Rwanda 1959-1967, or were the children of those. Most monarchist Tutsis chose exile over subordination to any Hutu, who they considered inferior. Kayibanda’s Hutu majority government welcomed refugees to return as long as they denounced the Inyenzi terrorism and their avowed commitment to overthrow the First Republic.
To enable the RPF’s reconquest of Rwanda, the Bush I administration had provided $183 million in economic aid to Uganda—a higher amount than in the previous 27 years combined. The aid was channeled to the RPF, enabling it to carry out its invasion of Rwanda that provoked the genocide.
Further, the Bush administration increased the military training budget for Uganda and procured TOW missiles for the Ugandan military, which assisted the 1990 RPF invasion of Rwanda.[6]
While being groomed for power, Paul Kagame was trained in psychological warfare tactics at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas—a training that has paid off handsomely.
Kagame has legitimated his rule and repeated invasions of the DRC by claiming to be a hero for saving his country from genocide carried out by Hutu militias (Interahamwe) under orders from extremist leaders who spread anti-Tutsi hatred over the radio.
However, this story is contradicted by the census data and on numerous other levels.
An alleged “genocide fax” warning of a premeditated plot by Hutu extremists sent by General Roméo Dallaire, commander of UN peacekeeping forces, to another Canadian general, Maurice Baril, in January 1994, has all the markings of a fabrication.[7]
The fax was not seen until November 1995 when it was mysteriously sent to UN headquarters bearing the address of the British military academy at Sandhurst. The informant upon whom Dallaire based his information, Jean-Pierre Turatsinze, a Hutu Interahamwe (paramilitary) defector, was an RPF agent who was conveniently killed in Tanzania after joining the RPF there. After Habyarimana’s plane exploded in mid-air, Kagame’s RPF forces circled around Kigali rather than heading south where most of the Interahamwe killings were taking place.
Kagame refused the Rwandan government forces’ repeated requests for a cease-fire to allow civilian protection measures. An International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) witness recounted examples of General Kagame ordering his troops not to intervene to save civilians and of officers being removed from their command for attempting to do so.
Kagame’s apparent calculation was that the greater the massacres, the better their justification for seizing power, a goal the U.S. and UK governments shared.
[…]
The Atlantic used Kennedy Ndahiro to produce their agitprop, in 2019, and they did not vet him then and did not vet him as a source in 2023, but he is a Tutsi extremist, and he offers a prime example of Ubwenge put into practice.
Ubwenge is the Kinyarwanda term that describes a very sophisticated, studied and inculcated practice of lying. The term also includes an element of pride that the user demonstrates in their ability to pull something over on the victim [typically, but not only, the white man].
Ndahiro’s original piece in The Atlantic was what I would call a coup d’état achieved by the RPF propaganda machine, except that it really was nothing more than regurgitated distortion recycled, repackaged, reconstituted in a new form. The RPF won the propaganda war.
U.S. intelligence and defense attache’s who facilitated the RPF “victories” in Rwanda and Congo-Zaire—some of them on the ground with the RPF—during the multiple genocides (1994-1998) include Lt. Col. Thomas P. Odom, Richard Skow, Lt. Col. Richard K. Orth, Lt. Colonel Bud Rassmusen and the Defense Intelligence Agency’s “Mr. Africa” spymaster William G. Thom. These guys must be very proud of their accomplishments.
[…]
Related to the question about Clinton and the U.S. government response, the people of the United States will some day actually recognize the obvious fact that virtually every U.S. president from at least Eisenhower on [and, arguably, each one before that] had a propensity to practice their own [North] American form of Ubengwe.
William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s interests in Central Africa followed a trajectory that began with their organized criminal activities in the diamond sector [and others] in Arkansas long before Bill began hosting diamond kingpin Maurice Tempelsman at the White House or on Templesman’s yacht moored off Martha’s Vineyard.
[…]
The English-speaking Tutsi RPF shot and massacred and burned[9] its way to power in Rwanda from 1990 to 1995, not caring about its role in facilitating the genocide of the French-speaking Tutsis (the so-called 100 days of genocide in 1994). The RPF also committed genocide against the Hutus in Rwanda, prior to 1994, and those Hutus who got away from the RPF [and the rest of its Ugandan military brotherhood] in Rwanda were then hunted and slaughtered in Zaire [1996-1998].
[…]
The U.S. backed Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni and trained Kagame at Ft. Leavenworth. Uganda proxy wars for the U.S. and allies included Sudan, Rwanda, and Zaire. Then Congo and still Congo [today], Darfur, and now Mozambique. The USA instigated, supported, facilitated and participated in the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi committed by Hutu extremists and by RPF infiltrators. Ditto the genocides against the Hutus pre-1994 and post-1994. More specifically, we are talking about war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
the Hutu dogs and snakes and other terms that dehumanized them. The Inyenzi then went about killing, bombing and assassinating Hutu leaders. Who were the henchmen for the extremist Tutsi chiefs? They were the Mwamis’ (kings’) elite commandos, the Twa, and the many still-indoctrinated Hutu loyalists who collaborated and benefited from the Tutsi monarchists’ complete control over the Hutu. [Think institutionalized white Klu Klux Klan (Tutsis) antebellum southern USA gulag over black/brown slaves (Hutus).] When Bertrand Russell screamed “genocide” over the plight of the Tutsis in 1964 (and grossly misrepresented the statistics, winners, losers, etc.), he was reacting to the propaganda campaign of the monarchist Tutsis: He had no idea what he was talking about. He was hysterical and self-righteous.
Sound familiar? Fast forward to the 1990s: Every attack by the RPF led to more death and despair. Like the Inyenzi in the 1960s, they did not care about Tutsis. They wanted total and absolute control. The Inyenzi in the 1960s wanted to force more Tutsis to leave Rwanda. The RPF wanted revenge on the Tutsis who never left.
[…]
The First Republic, which was born out of the independence from Belgium, was a situation where one people, the Hutu, were emancipated from the minority Tutsi extremist monarchist system. Previously, you had the Tutsi overlords in control of the Hutus who were the slaves, were lynched, and had their balls cut off—among other atrocities.
[…]
All of these academics completely omit the role of the U.S., Canada, Britain and Israel in the invasion of Rwanda and the genocide there—genocides really should be plural considering the RPF genocide against Hutus and their invasion of Zaire and the genocides committed there as well.
Rumble rejects New Zealand’s censorship demand after whistleblower reveals alleged Covid vaccine-related deaths.
The CEO of Rumble, a free-speech YouTube competitor, says that global censorship levels are on the rise, but that what’s particularly noticeable are censorship demands coming from Australia and New Zealand – who seem to be following in the controversial, to say the least, footsteps of France and Brazil.
On the one hand, this is surprising, given these countries’ formal democratic provenance.
On the other hand, their actions over the last years, including site blocking at ISP level, constant demands for more stringent regulation to facilitate social media content removal, and even the draconian Covid – and post-Covid era measures, tell a different story.
Chris Pavlovski told Mat Kim that the FreeNZMedia channel has now become a deplatforming target in New Zealand, for reporting about leaked data from the National Vaccination Database, that a whistleblower, former Health New Zealand IT employee Barry Young, made available.
And the data Young gave to reporters and activists concerns Covid vaccine-related deaths and claims that these facts are being covered up.
For referring to Young, and referring to the data he provided to the public, a letter has been sent to Rumble to remove FreeNZMedia. It came from the National Health Authority.
However, Pavlovski said that the company has decided to refuse to do that, or to withdraw from the country, and will instead “challenge it and see what happens.”
Pavlovski went on to refer to this particular New Zealand case as “absurd” and “disgusting” – in that it bears resemblance to the Pentagon Papers. At that time, journalist Daniel Ellsberg emerged as a hero of free speech that was protected by the courts in the US.
But that was nearly 50 years ago, and things have clearly changed not only in faraway lands, but in the US itself, and whistleblowers face anything from deplatforming to life in prison.
Speaking about the case of Young, and FreeNZMedia, Pavlovski said that the whistleblower “has a statistics background, went through all the data, found the different batches of vaccines that had an irregular high death rate and published that, and gave out different interviews on doing it.”
New court documents reveal that ministers David Cameron and Kemi Badenoch authorised UK arms sales to Israel right after an airstrike killed three British charity workers in Gaza, writes James McEvoy.
U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron on Oct. 7 aftermath tour in the Be’eri Kibbutz with Israel’s Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, Nov. 23, 2023. (Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing, Flickr)
On 1 April, Israeli forces launched a series of airstrikes on a convoy of aid workers in Gaza, killing three Britons, a Polish national, a Palestinian, an American-Canadian dual citizen, and an Australian.
The Israeli Air Force carried out the bombing with a Hermes 450 drone. According to Campaign Against the Arms Trade, this drone may be powered by a R902(W) Wankel engine produced in Britain by UAV Engines Limited (UEL).
New court documents show that the U.K. government decided to continue arms exports to Israel on 8 April, one week after the strike on the aid workers who were employed by the charity World Central Kitchen (WCK).
The revelation will put additional pressure on the Foreign Office to justify its decision not to suspend arms sales to Israel.
‘Killed with British Weapons’
Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq challenged the UK government today in court over arms sales to Israel.
Documents provided to the court show that the UK government has conducted five legal assessments of the situation in Gaza since 18 December.
One of those assessments, which covered the period 18 December to 29 February, was delivered to UK foreign secretary David Cameron on 28 March.
On 3 April, two days after the Israeli airstrike on the aid workers, Cameron used this assessment to recommend that the UK continue arms sales to Israel.
Five days later, U.K. trade secretary Kemi Badenoch authorised the continuation of extant licences and new licences to Israel, according to GLAN’s press statement.
The court documents further show that the UK government is capable of making “out of cycle assessments… where circumstances require” on Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law.
However, such an assessment was apparently not conducted following Israel’s attack on the WCK staff.
Charlotte Andrews-Briscoe, a lawyer at GLAN, said:
“The world has watched as 34,000 people have been killed, and more are being killed every day… Has the Government no regard for the immense loss of human life thus far, some of whom will have been killed with British weapons?”
Hermes 450 Drone
A Hermes 450 Drone used by the IDF. (IDF via Creative Commons)
The U.K. government is also refusing to rule out whether British machinery was used in the killing of the aid workers.
On 12 April, Kenny MacAskill MP asked in parliament whether the government had made an assessment of whether UEL engines or engine parts had been used in the strike. Trade minister Alan Mak said his department could not comment “on specific licences”.
On 17 April, Andy McDonald MP also asked whether the three British aid workers “were killed by weapons manufactured in Britain”. Foreign Office minister David Rutley responded simply that “we have strong export controls”.
UEL designs and manufactures engines for drones, specialising in Wankel technology which delivers an “outstanding power-to-size and weight ratio… ideal for tactical unmanned aircrafts”.
The company was established in Staffordshire in 1992, before being acquired by Israeli arms firm Elbit Systems.
Over recent decades, concerns have been raised that UEL produces engines and engine parts for Israel’s drone fleet, which is frequently used to support bombing campaigns over Gaza.
Made in Britain
In 2009, it was reported that the engines for Israel’s Hermes 450 drone had been manufactured by UEL. These claims were supported by information on Elbit’s own website.
British arms control officials subsequently admitted that they had licensed engines to Israel for onward export, but could not confirm that the engines had not instead been fitted to the Hermes 450 drone.
Since then, the U.K. government has continued to issue licences to UEL for exports to Israel. The most recent licence was seemingly granted in 2021, allowing UEL to export parts for military engines to Israel.
Campaign Against the Arms Trade’s Sam Perlo Freeman told Middle East Eye:
“The evidence seems to stack up that it is a U.K. engine and, if it’s not, then Elbit need to clarify that… Definitely it seems to be based on a U.K. design at the very least”.
An Elbit Systems spokesperson told Declassified:
“Elbit Systems U.K., its subsidiaries and joint ventures, including UAV Engines Limited and U-Tacs, are not involved in the Hermes 450 programme”.
The company’s spokesperson, however, would not respond to a further question on whether Israel’s Hermes 450 drones use engines or engine parts produced by UEL in the U.K. They said: “We have nothing further to add to the [previous] statement”.
A U.K.-based subsidiary of Elbit Systems and Thales also produces the Watchkeeper drone, which is modelled on Elbit’s Hermes 450 and used by the British army.
“The British government is, in effect, buying technology that has been ‘field tested’ on Palestinians”, noted campaign group War on Want.
‘A Full, Transparent Explanation’
Palestine Action assemble outside UAV Tactical Systems, a subsidiary of Elbit Systems UK, on May 1 2023, to protest over its supply of armed drones to the Israeli military. (Great Central Gazette/Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED)
The day after the Israeli airstrikes on the aid convoy, U.K. foreign secretary David Cameron announced that he had “called on Israel to immediately investigate and provide a full, transparent explanation of what happened”.
On 5 April, the IDF published the conclusions of its investigation, claiming that Israeli forces had identified gunmen near the trucks and “mistakenly assumed that the gunmen were located inside the accompanying vehicles and that these were Hamas terrorists”.
The report continued:
“Those who approved the strike were convinced that they were targeting armed Hamas operatives and not WCK employees”.
The IDF chief of the general staff subsequently dismissed the Israeli brigade’s commander and chief of staff.
Israel’s self-exonerating investigation was led by Yoav Har-Even, the former head of the IDF operations directorate, and now the president and CEO of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.
Rafael is one of Israel’s biggest arms firms. It is owned and controlled by the Israeli state, and its largest client is the IDF. The investigation into the killing of the aid workers was therefore led by the CEO of a company which supplies many of the bombs that Israel is using to destroy Gaza.
The UK government has not commented on whether this satisfies its demand for a “full, transparent explanation”, and the extent to which the Foreign Office is pressing Israel on the matter remains unclear.
Mak recently told parliament: “We are carefully reviewing initial findings of Israel’s investigations into the killing” He continued:
“The findings of the inquiry must be published in full and followed up with a wholly independent review to ensure the utmost transparency and accountability”.
Prior to the attack on the WCK staff, at least 357 humanitarian-run sites in Gaza had reportedly been attacked.
Much has been made of the draft of the International Health Regulations released last week. Although some changes have been made and some wording moved around, the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) plans are the same as they were before.
This week, from 22 and 26 April, the 8th meeting of WHO’s Working Group on the International Health Regulations (2005) (“WGIHR”) is convening. The WGIHR’s task has been to incorporate 300+ proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (“IHR”).
Although there have been several drafts of the proposed Pandemic Treaty, there has been little official information released regarding the IHR amendments. The proposed 300+ amendments to the IHR were released in February 2023 and, a year later, an unofficial draft of the amended IHR was leaked, in February 2024.
With the release of this draft, it appears as if WHO has taken out some of the more controversial provisions. While some have claimed WHO is “backing down” and this is a “major victory for freedom,” they may have been too hasty.
Dr. Meryl Nass, who has been following WHO’s negotiations and various drafts of both the IHR amendments and Pandemic Treaty closely, has said: “The current language has been watered down, and is a bit trickier to disentangle, but the plan is exactly the same.”
Referring readers to an article published on Door to Freedom comparing the latest draft of the amended IHR to the currently applicable IHR, Dr. Nass wrote on her Substack:
People said surveillance and censorship: control of misinformation and disinformation had been removed. Not so. They are just moved to an Annex and inserted elsewhere … The control of information is now even more stringent, as “surveillance” and managing misinformation are now considered “Core Capacities” that all nations will have to develop, and on which they will be scored using a monitoring system still to be developed.
So what if the term “non-binding” is no longer crossed out? The document is still binding on nations due to other language, the requirement to report back to the WHO on how well nations are complying, and the new compliance and implementation committee, which will ride herd on nations that do not comply.
Human rights, which were crossed out in the earlier draft, are now back. This shows you that those negotiating these treaties think your human rights are negotiable and can be given or taken away with the stroke of a pen.
It is worthwhile reading Dr. Nass’ article in full to understand how the WGIHR has tried to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes with its latest IHR draft.
Bearing the above in mind, in the video below TalkTV’s Julia Hartley-Brewer interviewed Professor Carl Heneghan on Tuesday about the World Health Organisation’s latest draft IHR and its pandemic plans. Unfortunately, Hartley-Brewer mistakenly thought the new draft indicates a “massive climb down” and a “huge victory for democracy, free speech and human rights” – which is not the case.
Sharing the interview above, Trust the Evidence (“TTE”), for which Prof. Heneghan is a co-author, published the following article.
In March 2021, world leaders, including UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, announced a new pandemic preparedness and response treaty.
In November 2022, a petition garnered over 150,000 signatures calling for the Government “to commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the WHO, unless this is approved through a public referendum.”
The petition was on 17 April 2023. The government’s response was: “To protect lives, the economy and future generations from future pandemics, the UK government supports a new legally binding instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.” The Government did not consider a referendum necessary, appropriate, or in keeping with precedent for such an agreement to be ratified.
A year later, the World Health Organisation held the final working group meeting to amend the 2005 International Health Regulations (“IHR”).
The IHR is an international instrument legally binding on all World Health Organisation (“WHO”) Member States. Its purpose and scope are to prevent, protect against, control, and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease.
The text has been amended approximately 300 times. The latest revisions include additions and deletions that must be agreed upon before the final vote to approve them at the World Health Assembly in late May.
It’s taking the TTE office some time to process these regulations, but four interlocking definitions are of the utmost importance: early action alert, public health emergency of international concern, pandemic emergency and pandemic.
The new definitions start with an early action alert, which means information and non-binding advice issued by the Director-General to States Parties on an event which, at the time of the consideration under paragraph 4 of Article 12, they have determined does not constitute a public health emergency of international concern.
Non-binding advice means that as we go up the scale, the advice will be binding – a legally enforceable agreement.
“Public health emergency of international concern” means an extraordinary event which is determined, as provided in these Regulations:
(i) to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and
(ii) to potentially require a coordinated international response.
If the Director-General determines, in accordance with paragraph 4, that an event does not constitute a public health emergency of international concern, the Director-General shall issue an early action alert that includes advice to States Parties on preparing for and responding to the event.
We could easily find ourselves in an annual cycle of public health emergencies of international concern or early action alerts. Particularly given that acute respiratory pathogens give rise to a public health risk each year and spread globally, the whiff of the industry is all over the need for a coordinated international response. Just think of vaccines; then, the international reaction is on the table.
Now, we get to the pandemic emergency.
“pandemic emergency” means a public health emergency of international concern that is infectious in nature and:
(i) is, or is likely to be, spreading to and within multiple States Parties across WHO Regions; and
(ii) is exceeding, or is likely to exceed, the capacity of health systems to respond in those States Parties; and
(iii) is causing, or is likely to cause, social and/or economic and/or political disruption in those States Parties; and
(iv) requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action, with whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches.
TTE may have mentioned that in the UK, we often find ourselves in a winter crisis where a respiratory agent or two will likely exceed the capacity of the NHS to respond. Furthermore, who decides what social and economic disruptions are required to call a pandemic emergency? Perhaps if you’ve got no money left in the government piggy bank, that’s enough to sound the Pandemic emergency siren.
Once you decipher the need for coordinated international action, with whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches, you start to think of vaccines, antiviral stockpiles, and, if we fancy it, a bit of lockdown and some “enforced” surveillance to boot.
We do not know whether SARS-CoV-2 caused the disruption, but we know that the “measures” or actions did. How, pray, would WHO describe the current situation in Italy where psychologists and psychiatrists cannot cope with the volume of disturbed youngsters? Is “Whole of society” a euphemism for locking people up? It has a faint whiff of Stalinism about it.
Rapid, equitable, and enhanced are thrown in to detract from the fact that while most health systems are buckling under the weight of chronic disease, whatever these words mean, it is going to cost a fortune.
Finally, we get to the real reason WHO is pursuing the amendments – the definition of the pandemic.
“pandemic” means a public health emergency of international concern that is infectious in nature and:
(i) has spread and is spreading to and within multiple States Parties across WHO Regions; and
(ii) is exceeding the capacity of health systems to respond in those States Parties; and
(iii) is causing social and/or economic and/or political disruption in those States Parties; and
(iv) requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action, with whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches.
By this definition, you might consider the recent covid pandemic wasn’t actually a pandemic, as at no point did it exceed the capacity of health systems to respond. However, roll out a model or two, and suddenly you’ll be overwhelmed: Imperial’s Report 9 predicted ICU bed demand would be 30 times greater than the maximum number of beds available in the UK and USA. That should do it.
As for economic disruption, the last pandemic has put us in a permanent state of debt that will take decades to overcome. But don’t worry – whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches will save the day.
They could make the whole regulations a lot easier to understand if they wrote, “A pandemic is whatever the WHO Director-General declares is a pandemic” – that should be straightforward enough for our elected representatives to understand.
But apart from these marginal issues, all else is OK. WHO cares about sovereignty? Certainly not WHO.
This post will not self-delete or self-destruct and is not Teflon coated or commercial in confidence. If you criticise it, you will not get a knock on the door at 3 am.
Carl Heneghan is a professor of Evidence-based Medicine at the University of Oxford, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (“CEBM”) and NHS Urgent Care general practitioner (“GP”) who regularly appears in the media. Tom Jefferson is a clinical epidemiologist and a Senior Associate Tutor at the University of Oxford. Together they publish articles on a Substack page titled ‘Trust the Evidence’.
Worldtruth 
