offguardian--2020-08-12--CCDH – The Centre For Cancel Culture And Digital Hypocrisy – Part 2

In Part 1 we looked at the Center For Countering Digital Hate ( CCDH ) who , in accordance with the Commission on Countering Extremism definition , can be described as hateful extremists .
In particular , we looked at their recent attack upon people who express some doubts about vaccines .
It appears the CCDH are working with others to establish the censorship grid at the heart of an emerging Technofascist State .
The CCDH are a small organisation , employing no more than two people , who have been given disproportionate power and influence .
They appear to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrity ( as patron ) and six board members .
They state on their website that their small budget is funded by unnamed philanthropic trusts and members of the public .
The CCDH links to the parliamentary Labour Party are considerable .
They appear to benefit from a revolving door between them and the UK parliament .
Recently , former CCDH board member and founder Morgan McSweeney left to become Labour Leader Keir Starmer ’ s Chief of Staff .
Keir Starmer is the only parliamentarian who is also a serving member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by oil and banking tycoon David Rockefeller and political king maker Zbigniew Brzezinski , who devised Operation Cyclone to financially support , arm and equip Islamist extremists , it brings together world political leaders with global investors and bankers , academics and policy advisers .
The Trilateral commission is a powerful and influential globalist policy think tank whose stated aim is to build : The CCDH ’ s association with people like London Mayor Sadique Khan , McSweeney and Starmer , afford representatives like Ahmed the kind of political clout he needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banned from their platform .
While failing to convince Twitter to censor the views of George Galloway ( give them time ) they did rid the Twittersphere of right wing mouthpiece Katey Hopkins .
Personally , I have little time for Hopkins .
However , if we continue to allow the censorship of people , simply because they express views we don ’ t agree with , the freedom of speech we are supposed to value is finished .
The CCDH are a direct threat to plurality of opinion in an open and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Endeavours Ltd in 2018 , the CCDH re-registered their name in August 2019 .
As a so called Non Governmental Organisation ( NGO ) , despite an extensive web of connections to government and policy makers , under section 477 of the 2006 Companies Act , the CCDH are exempt from audit and can thus keep their finances largely secret .
Financial transparency is not a requirement for UK registered NGO ’ s .
The CCDH ’ s Stop Funding Fake News campaign , encourages advertisers to avoid placing ads on websites the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful campaign apparently influenced Twitter to ban the website Zero Hedge .
At least the CCDH are happy to give that impression .
Among their other campaigns , Stop Hate for Profit specifically targets Facebook advertisers .
Again the objective is to silence any and all who the CCDH don ’ t agree with .
The CCDH say Zero Hedge is a “ fake news ” site that spreads coronavirus misinformation .
Zero Hedge republish work from other sites and , it is fair to say , the quality can vary .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is well researched , cites all the evidence it uses .
It is very far from the genuine fake news we commonly see from the mainstream media ( MSM ) .
The CCDH report that Twitter banned Zero Hedge for the doxxing ( revealing personal contact details ) of a Chinese research scientist .
The offending article does report Dr. Zhou ’ s office contact email and work phone number , which were publicly available on the Wuhan Institute of Virology website at the time .
Zero Hedge didn ’ t reveal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information already in the public domain .
While failing to correct this erroneous charge of doxxing , the CCDH were spinning fake news of their own .
They wrote : Zero Hedge made no such claim in the article .
They cited a lot of evidence which made it a perfectly legitimate question to ask .
All they did was report the evidence and ask the obvious question the evidence raised .
According to the CCDH this is coronavirus disinformation .
Yet it is their misreporting of the facts that is disinformation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Which doesn ’ t lend much credibility to further allegations they have made against the other websites and small businesses they have decided to attack .
The CCDH numerous partners in their “ Stop Funding Fake News ” drive include the global NGO the World Wildlife Fund ( WWF ) .
The WWF is a project of the British Crown and has gathered support from many of the worlds biggest , so called , NGO ’ s , global financial institutions and governments alike .
Formed in 1961 by the eugenicists Julian Huxley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it has relentlessly pursued its goal of depopulation and undemocratic global governance .
All done using the ruse of environmental concern as a ploy to cover its appalling objectives .
Among it ’ s other founding members were Prince Bernard of the Netherlands , who established the Bilderberg Group and took bribes in the Lockheed Martin arms scandal , and his close friend Prince Phillip ( the husband of the Elizabeth II ) who in 1988 said that if he were reincarnated he would like to be a deadly virus to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in its 2008 document Healthy People , Healthy Ecosystems : A Manual on Integrating Health and Family Planning into Conservation Projects the WWF advocated mass sterilisation of human beings .
This research was produced with the help of Johnson & Johnson who were recently fined for putting asbestos in talcum powder .
On Page 39 the WWF happily inform the reader : The WWF , who think a healthy human being is an infertile one , is essentially a front organisation and fund raiser for the International Union for the Conservation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the World Bank , The European Commission , the United Nations and the US State Department .
The UK , and US governments , with the European Union , are also among the “ partners ” of the WWF .
This gives us an insight into just how “ independent ” the CCDH are .
It is also a glimpse at who it is that is collaborating with the social media and tech giants to establish the global censorship grid .
Despite its small size , it is clear that the CCDH pack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because , via their labyrinthine connections , they have the backing of institutions like the World Bank , The European Union , intelligence agencies , major political parties , multinational corporations and governments from around the world .
Some British Royal support never goes amiss either , and with the backing of groups like the WWF , is entirely as expected .
Their power-base is somewhat obscured through the network of NGO ’ s and globalist think tanks who partner with the CCDH and whom their board represent .
However , by exposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear who the CCDH are and whose agenda they serve .
CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed graduated from the University of Cambridge with an MA in Social and Political Sciences .
He did the obligatory stint in investment banking with Merrill Lynch , as a strategy adviser , before becoming a political aid to Labour Peer Hillary Benn .
In 2016 he supported Labour MP Angela Eagle in her failed leadership bid before establishing the CCDH ( as Brixton Endeavours ) in 2017 .
With extensive links to the right wing of the Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role on the Commission on Countering Extremism Task Force , Ahmed ’ s apparent Technofascist tendencies are worrying .
As we ’ ve already discussed , the CCDH meet the Commission on Countering Extremism definition of so called hateful extremists , however Ahmed ’ s personal views are particularly egregious .
He would like to see people who disagree with him imprisoned under anti-terrorist legislation .
He recently stated : In keeping with the objectives of the parliamentary Labour Party he represents , Ahmed fully supports State censorship .
Talking about the need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regard to the people he labels as anti-vaxxers , he said : Were Ahmed ’ s attempts to see people incarcerated for disagreeing with him not so dangerous , the irony that the CCDH ’ s Anti-Vax Industry report is brimming with quite staggering levels of misinformation would be hilarious .
For example , talking about the highly qualified research scientist Dr Judy Mikovitz , whose well informed whistle-blower opinion Ahmed considers to be disinformation , the CCDH misleadingly report : That is not what Mikovic or the film makers of Plandemic Part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honesty don ’ t seem to matter much to the CCDH .
What does appear to matter to them is censorship that will rule out any challenge to the global political and business interests they defend .
To “ evidence ” their claim , rather than citing the film itself , they offer the spurious opinion of Taylor Hatmaker writing for TechCrunch .
TechCrunch are part of the Verizon Media empire , and Verizon are a participating business partner in the CCDH Stop Hate For Profit campaign .
Verizon , formerly Oath inc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in order to : While neither Mikovic nor the makers of Plandemic Part 1 said the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation “ planned the epidemic ” in order to “ profit ” from the vaccine , development of the vaccine is , nonetheless , heavily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation .
They have contributed $ 750 million to the Atrazeneca / Oxford vaccine alone .
They also hosted Event 201 with the John Hopkins University and the World Economic Forum ( WEF ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ exercise of global public health “ leaders ” which just happened to model a global coronavirus pandemic weeks before a global coronavirus pandemic broke out .
That it also modelled , in quite precise detail , the lockdown and media response we have seen to the global coronavirus pandemic is simply an amazing , almost completely unbelievable , coincidence .
Apparently .
However , the CCDH don ’ t think you need to know this either , and they really don ’ t want you to watch Plandemic .
So they have made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and have then had the gall to claim their own disinformation is evidence .
But don ’ t take my word for it .
Watch Plandemic and decide for yourself if the CCDH claims are plausible .
No one can say , with any categorical certainty , that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation were party to planning the COVID 19 pandemic , thereby intending to profit from it .
What can be said is that there is factual evidence clearly indicating this possibility .
There is also a significant conflict of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pandemic and organisations , such as WHO and Imperial College , who give policy makers the information they have used to formulate and justify their response .
This fact isn ’ t disinformation , no matter what the CCDH want you to believe .
Not to ask these questions , or explore the evidence that prompts them , is antithetical the the very existence of a free society that values plurality of opinion .
Yet somehow rank censors , like the CCDH , are among the many organisation who , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customs , have the temerity to falsely claim the moral high ground .
Following a very brief stint as an investigative journalist , Ayesha hopped between the UK Government Foreign and Commonwealth Office ( FCO ) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe ( OSCE . )
Finally settling to work for the Barrow Cadbury Trust ( BCT ) for the last 12 years or so .
Ayesha is the Migration Program Manager for the BCT .
The BCT stated purpose included influencing public opinion .
As part of their efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Connect Fund whose objective is to build a better social fund market .
The BCT partners , Access – the Foundation For Social Investment , were formed with the support of the Big Society Capital ( BSC ) and the UK government Cabinet Office .
Responsibility for managing the Connect Fund has now shifted to the House of Commons Digital , Culture , Media and Sport Select Committee ( DCMS ) , chaired by Ayesha ’ s fellow CCDH board director , Damian Collins .
The public are given the impression that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the public-private partnership state .
This is essentially a deception .
Big Society Capital is funded by the UK ’ s leading private banks , Barclays , HSBC , Lloyds Banking Group and RBS ( now re-branded as Nat West Group . )
The Connect Fund is a project of the Big Society Trust ( BST ) chaired by Sir Stuart Etherington , a member of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union .
As chair of the BBC Appeals Advisory Committee , there won ’ t be much point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrutiny by the BBC .
Other BST board members include Ian Holmes , former Finance Director for BBC News and Current Affairs .
Another is Robin Budenberg , Chair of the Crown Estate as well as chair UK Financial Investments which merged with the Shareholder Executive to become UK Government Investments ( who manage the UK Government ’ s banking industry investment portfolio . )
Direct oversight of BST by the UK Government is provided by Jo Fox from HM Treasury ’ s Corporate & Private Finance team .
This relationship between BCT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the epitome of how the NGO and charities shell game works .
The Connect Fund doles out grants to charities who , though well meaning and staffed by honest , hard working people , are controlled at the board level by funding commitments ordained by the State and it ’ s corporate partners .
They control the finance and the flow of information .
Someone like Ayesha , with a background in government and defence and security policy making organisations , is then appointed to a group like the CCDH , who can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite the sprawling web of connections they have to government and the corporations .
Ayesha may well have the very best of intentions but , via her connections to the Barrow Cadbury Trust , the network controllers stay abridged of the situation and can operate the levers of finance as and when required and make the decisions that count when they choose .
As we look at the Board Directors of the CCDH these connection become increasingly clear .
Despite its claims of independence nothing could be further from the truth .
Lord @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Staff to former UK deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg .
Clegg is currently the Head of Global Affairs for the social media giant Facebook .
With a background in public relations and political campaign management he received a life peerage in 2015 .
He ’ s a spin doctor .
From 2004 Oates was a director of the PR firm Bell Pottinger .
This probably gave him a fantastic insight into fake news and propaganda .
During his time as a director , the Pentagon were working with Bell Pottinger a to produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contract , worth more than half a billion dollars , saw a Bell Pottinger team stationed at the U.S. Military base Camp Victory , in the summer of 2006 .
As a former Director of Communications for Number 10 Jonny has plenty of experience in government .
He also worked for the Westminster Foundation For Democracy .
Another globalist governmental organisation with strong ties to the European Union , the World Bank , the United Nations and the OSCE who fellow CCDH board director Ayesha Saran worked for .
Simon is a non @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tank the Center for American Progress ( CAP ) and an adviser to the Scowcroft Group .
He is also the Chairman of Foreign Policy for America ( FP4A ) where he is joined by many former US government officials and advisers including Dr Stephen Grand , senior fellow of the NATO think tank the Atlantic Council .
Among the FP4A advisory board are Amb .
Dan Baer , U.S. ambassador to the OSCE , and Avril Haines , former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA . )
With a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Simon was also the first director of Web Services for the global news agency Reuters ( called Thomson Reuters since 2008 . )
Simon was key in the efforts to build Fidelity ’ s European venture capital operation .
It is no surprise that CAP list the Fidelity charitable group among their major financial supporters .
They are among the leading grant makers in the U.S , having committed more than $ 4.2 Bn to good causes , such as devising political policy , in 2020 alone .
They manage an asset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rather than pay the tax that would theoretically allow the people to prioritise where the money is spent , the globalist class , often misnamed the elite , effectively withhold tax to pursue their own objectives .
Fidelity is one of the leading investment management firms who channel their tax deductible investments to further their agenda .
This enables philanthropists like the Gates , the Carnegies , The Rockefellers , Soros and other globalist oligarchs to run their projects .
These always advance their goals , objectives and business interests , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aforementioned families finance the Center for American Progress who , through their FP4A Action Network ( PAC ) , fund U.S. Democrat party candidates and election campaigns .
This isn ’ t done in exchange for nothing .
The Center for American Progress recently proposed A Comprehensive COVID 19 Vaccine Plan .
That policy assessment came directly from interviews with vaccine manufacturers .
They recommended that , amid the process of funnelling billions of tax dollars directly into their business accounts , their pet politicians should : This massive , tax funded propaganda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s behaviour .
Rather than openly discuss the relative costs and benefits of vaccines , providing people with the facts and evidence they need to make their own judgement , CAP suggest using “ country music stars , NASCAR drivers , and faith leaders ” to change people ’ s opinions .
The CCDH determination to roll out the flip side of this propaganda operation , namely the censorship grid , sits well with the commitments of its board director Simon , and the network of globalists he represents .
Aside from her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of the European Council of Foreign Relations ( ECFR ) Another globalist policy think tank whose stated objective is : It seems Kirsty only supports the activists and influencers who share her world view .
Those who don ’ t agree with her should be censored and certainly don ’ t deserve any safe meeting spaces .
Presumably , because the CCDH are totally independent and impartial , Kirsty forgets all about her commitment to European foreign and security policy when she takes her seat on the CCDH board .
As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an organisation which is funded , not only by governments , but by the Atlantic Council ( NATO ) , the Open Society Foundation ( George Soros ) , The United Nations , the Rockefeller Brother ’ s Fund and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation .
Kirsty was a special adviser to the former UK Prime Minister and Labour leader Gordon Brown .
As a staunch advocate for a New World Order he unsurprisingly said the global coronavirus pandemic was an opportunity to establish global a government .
In 2015 Kirsty became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Children Fund ( STCF ) after her predecessor , Brendan Cox ( also an ECFR member ) , resigned following allegations of sexual misconduct .
From 2016 to date , during Kirsty ’ s time as Policy Director , the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ( BMGF ) have donated more than $ 40 million to the STCF .
None of which had any influence over the CCDH decision to describe ordinary citizens who question vaccines as fringe radicals and extremists .
The STCF are also partners of the GAVI vaccine alliance created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the WHO and BMGF .
STCF say they are really worried about the horrific loss of children ’ s lives in Yemen .
While most of them are starving to death or being blown to bits by Saudi and UAE supplied weaponry , the STCF are also very concerned that they aren ’ t getting enough vaccines .
Perhaps their Director of Policy could help , because the ECFR Kirsty represents are also funded by the French weapons manufacturer Thales whose missile systems are being used to kill the children in Yemen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ considers them to be extremists .
The CCDH describe themselves as an international not for profit “ non governmental organisation.
” While many of their board members have links to government and policy makers , in Damian Collins they have cut out the middle man and simply given a seat on the board to a Member of Parliament for the ruling government party .
Damian isn ’ t just any old government back-bencher .
As an A-Listed Chair of the House of Commons Digital , Culture , Media and Sport Select Committee ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the governments efforts to roll out mass censorship .
The DCMS responsibilities include advising ( devising ) policy related to the British Broadcasting Corporation ( BBC ) and Online Harms .
Damian is well placed in government to be part of the CCDH ’ s non governmental censorship operation .
The DCMS published their “ Fake News ” Report in February 2019 .
Obsessed with an imperceptible threat from Russia , despite acknowledging that the UK government had reported that they have “ not seen evidence of successful use of disinformation by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the DCMS , led by Damian , concluded : That is to say , no evidence of something is considered to be proof that it might exist by the DCMS .
The same logic means that unicorns and soup dragons are distinct possibilities .
What it really reveals is that , under Collins ’ leadership , the DCMS has no interest in evidence , uncovering the truth or forming balanced conclusions .
It has a clear agenda , in this case to demonise Russia , and the absence of any justification is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Damian on the board , the CCDH have adopted the same approach .
With the help and support of their influential network of government and non governmental backers , the CCDH have established themselves as an influential social media watchdog in a very short space of time .
This is entirely in keeping with its board director Damian Collins ’ plans for an Online Harms censorship grid .
the DCMS state : This statement is key to understanding the censorship grid that is being created .
You are not encouraged to consider evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but rather to trust the right , authoritative “ sources ” without question .
Those sources are the ones favoured by the government and its NGO and corporate partners .
Any alternative media sources that question the State ’ s narrative will be deemed organisations linked to disinformation .
The DCMS recommended Newsguard is another truth-teller and fact checker which sells itself as a great bastion of epistemological certainty .
Touting themselves as the Internet trust tool , they have created a handy browser extension that will automatically censor the Internet for you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical thinking , any independent research or intellectual autonomy , but rather a colour coded warning system , perfect for infants , that will do your thinking for you .
Selected websites will receive Newsguard ’ s trust rating .
This is based entirely upon a set of meaningless criteria , which sound great , but absolutely boil down to Newsguard ’ s bought and paid for opinion .
Newsguard ’ s founder and leading investor is Steven Brill .
He is a member of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Kirsty McNeill graces .
As a leading U.S. foreign policy think tank the CFR is arguably one of the most influential policy organisations on Earth .
It is likely that Newsguard ’ s advisers , such as Anders Fogh Rasmussen , former General Secretary of NATO , and Michael Hayden , former Director of the CIA , share Brill ’ s enthusiasm for U.S. foreign policy objectives .
Safe to say any source which questions U.S. foreign policy will be considered very untrustworthy by Newsgaurd .
As will anyone who questions vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Group are among the seed funders that got Newsguard up and running with a $ 6 million cash injection .
One arm of their business is Publicis Health who boast highly lucrative accounts with a range of pharmaceutical giants and vaccine manufacturers , such as Astrazenaca and Sanofi , and were excited to announce their $ 1.5 Bn deal with the worlds leading vaccine corporation GlaxoSmithKline .
No source questioning vaccines can expect a very high “ trust rating ” from Newsguard .
Damian Collins resigned as a trustee and Director of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a couple of months after becoming Chair of the DCMS .
Damian is a signatory to the Henry Jackson Society Statement of Principles .
Those principles include a supremacist ideology that all countries should adopt the policies of so called western democracies , which are all controlled by global corporations ; The HJS strongly support economic and political imperialism to assist countries to adopt essentially western corporate policies ; they are enthusiastic advocates for UK , European and US military dominance , including U.K and US supremacy over European defence ; the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OSCE ; crony capitalism ( monopolies run by global corporations ) is an HJS principle , but a true free market economy has to be “ limited , ” and they clearly state their firm belief that any nation that isn ’ t within the NATO , OSCE , western military industrial and intelligence complex sphere of influence is “ illegitimate.
” Damian Collins wholeheartedly subscribes to these principles .
Damian Collins supports the CCDH efforts to see anyone who questions vaccines silenced and , if they won ’ t shut up , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Damian Collins is elected by the people .
Or at least he was , until the government he represents banned all elections .
The CCDH Are Propagandists and Censors Regardless of its claimed lofty ideals and feigned deference for freedom of speech and democracy , the CCDH represent a globalist cartel of monopolists who seek to utterly control society under their un-democratic , authoritarian rule .
The CCDH are given the power they enjoy by this same cartel , and exercise it as part of a concerted effort to destroy everything they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Technofascist clique they serve , they are systematically preparing the ground for a legislative censorship clampdown upon all dissent and opinion that question the ambitions and orders of their corporate and government masters .
They exist in a fake environment of fake NGO ’ s and charities , deliberately constructed to exploit the good will of men and women who are labouring in a climate of fear created by , among others , the CCDH .
The families of vaccine injured children and those who have suffered injury themselves are not anti-vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed medical advice and were either vaccinated or allowed their to child to receive vaccines .
The scientists who have undertaken research which highlights concerns about vaccines are not anti-science nor opposed to vaccines .
They aren ’ t pro-disease .
Nor are independent researchers and commentators like myself who have read the evidence and have some questions .
I don ’ t want people to die from preventable illnesses and disease .
I want vaccines to work .
I want them to be everything the manufacturers say they are .
But there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Contrary to the ludicrous allegations of the CCDH , it isn ’ t those who question vaccines that are making billions .
It is those who adamantly declare their vaccine products are all perfect .
Led by someone like Imran Ahmed , whose rhetoric is so vicious he describes people who ask any questions about vaccines as vile , hateful , extremists , the CCDH are a particularly nasty and corrosive organisation .
Nothing they say is plausible and all they have is propaganda which they can not defend .
All they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brand of vitriolic censorship .
The CCDH is not the defender of democracy , it cares nothing for our traditions and customs , nor our precarious free speech and freedom of expression .
It wants to end all of it and unless we wake up and see these corporate censors and propagandists for who they truly are , we will have everything we value torn from us .
We will have no one and nothing to blame but our own apathy .

Iain Davis
In Part 1 we looked at the Center For Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) who, in accordance with the Commission on Countering Extremism definition, can be described as hateful extremists. In particular, we looked at their recent attack upon people who express some doubts about vaccines. It appears the CCDH are working with others to establish the censorship grid at the heart of an emerging Technofascist State.
The CCDH are a small organisation, employing no more than two people, who have been given disproportionate power and influence. They appear to comprise of one CEO, one b-list celebrity (as patron) and six board members. They state on their website that their small budget is funded by unnamed philanthropic trusts and members of the public.
The CCDH links to the parliamentary Labour Party are considerable. They appear to benefit from a revolving door between them and the UK parliament. Recently, former CCDH board member and founder Morgan McSweeney left to become Labour Leader Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff.
Keir Starmer is the only parliamentarian who is also a serving member of the Trilateral Commission. Founded in 1973 by oil and banking tycoon David Rockefeller and political king maker Zbigniew Brzezinski, who devised Operation Cyclone to financially support, arm and equip Islamist extremists, it brings together world political leaders with global investors and bankers, academics and policy advisers. The Trilateral commission is a powerful and influential globalist policy think tank whose stated aim is to build:
[An] international system to navigate successfully the major challenges of the coming years.”
The CCDH’s association with people like London Mayor Sadique Khan, McSweeney and Starmer, afford representatives like Ahmed the kind of political clout he needs to meet with Twitter bosses and have people banned from their platform. While failing to convince Twitter to censor the views of George Galloway (give them time) they did rid the Twittersphere of right wing mouthpiece Katey Hopkins.
Personally, I have little time for Hopkins. However, if we continue to allow the censorship of people, simply because they express views we don’t agree with, the freedom of speech we are supposed to value is finished. The CCDH are a direct threat to plurality of opinion in an open and free democratic society.
CCDH Disinformation
Incorporated as Brixton Endeavours Ltd in 2018, the CCDH re-registered their name in August 2019. As a so called Non Governmental Organisation (NGO), despite an extensive web of connections to government and policy makers, under section 477 of the 2006 Companies Act, the CCDH are exempt from audit and can thus keep their finances largely secret. Financial transparency is not a requirement for UK registered NGO’s.
The CCDH’s Stop Funding Fake News campaign, encourages advertisers to avoid placing ads on websites the CCDH don’t like. Their successful campaign apparently influenced Twitter to ban the website Zero Hedge. At least the CCDH are happy to give that impression.
Among their other campaigns, Stop Hate for Profit specifically targets Facebook advertisers. Again the objective is to silence any and all who the CCDH don’t agree with.
The CCDH say Zero Hedge is a “fake news” site that spreads coronavirus misinformation. Zero Hedge republish work from other sites and, it is fair to say, the quality can vary. However Zero Hedge also produce their own content which is well researched, cites all the evidence it uses. It is very far from the genuine fake news we commonly see from the mainstream media (MSM).
The CCDH report that Twitter banned Zero Hedge for the doxxing (revealing personal contact details) of a Chinese research scientist. The offending article does report Dr. Zhou’s office contact email and work phone number, which were publicly available on the Wuhan Institute of Virology website at the time. Zero Hedge didn’t reveal anything at all, they simply reported information already in the public domain.
While failing to correct this erroneous charge of doxxing, the CCDH were spinning fake news of their own. They wrote:
…They [Zero Hedge] claimed [Dr. Zhou] was behind the global Coronavirus pandemic.”
Zero Hedge made no such claim in the article. They cited a lot of evidence which made it a perfectly legitimate question to ask. All they did was report the evidence and ask the obvious question the evidence raised.
According to the CCDH this is coronavirus disinformation. Yet it is their misreporting of the facts that is disinformation and their claims that are fake news. Which doesn’t lend much credibility to further allegations they have made against the other websites and small businesses they have decided to attack.
The CCDH numerous partners in their “Stop Funding Fake News” drive include the global NGO the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The WWF is a project of the British Crown and has gathered support from many of the worlds biggest, so called, NGO’s, global financial institutions and governments alike.
Formed in 1961 by the eugenicists Julian Huxley and Max Nicholson (among others), it has relentlessly pursued its goal of depopulation and undemocratic global governance. All done using the ruse of environmental concern as a ploy to cover its appalling objectives.
Among it’s other founding members were Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, who established the Bilderberg Group and took bribes in the Lockheed Martin arms scandal, and his close friend Prince Phillip (the husband of the Elizabeth II) who in 1988 said that if he were reincarnated he would like to be a deadly virus to do something about overpopulation.
True to form, in its 2008 document Healthy People, Healthy Ecosystems: A Manual on Integrating Health and Family Planning into Conservation Projects the WWF advocated mass sterilisation of human beings. This research was produced with the help of Johnson & Johnson who were recently fined for putting asbestos in talcum powder. On Page 39 the WWF happily inform the reader:
…Projects also facilitate access to long-term methods [of sterilisation] such as IUDs (intrauterine devices) and permanent methods (vasectomy and tubal ligation), including organizing medical missions to travel to remote populations to deliver these services…….These efforts require particular care in ensuring that clients are fully informed and that all participation and choice is voluntary.”
The WWF, who think a healthy human being is an infertile one, is essentially a front organisation and fund raiser for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature which brings together globalist institutions like the World Bank, The European Commission, the United Nations and the US State Department.
The UK, and US governments, with the European Union, are also among the “partners” of the WWF. This gives us an insight into just how “independent” the CCDH are. It is also a glimpse at who it is that is collaborating with the social media and tech giants to establish the global censorship grid.
Despite its small size, it is clear that the CCDH pack a considerable punch. They do so because, via their labyrinthine connections, they have the backing of institutions like the World Bank, The European Union, intelligence agencies, major political parties, multinational corporations and governments from around the world. Some British Royal support never goes amiss either, and with the backing of groups like the WWF, is entirely as expected.
Their power-base is somewhat obscured through the network of NGO’s and globalist think tanks who partner with the CCDH and whom their board represent. However, by exposing these relationships, it’s pretty clear who the CCDH are and whose agenda they serve.
CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed
CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed graduated from the University of Cambridge with an MA in Social and Political Sciences. He did the obligatory stint in investment banking with Merrill Lynch, as a strategy adviser, before becoming a political aid to Labour Peer Hillary Benn.
In 2016 he supported Labour MP Angela Eagle in her failed leadership bid before establishing the CCDH (as Brixton Endeavours) in 2017.
With extensive links to the right wing of the Labour Party, given his government policy advisory role on the Commission on Countering Extremism Task Force, Ahmed’s apparent Technofascist tendencies are worrying. As we’ve already discussed, the CCDH meet the Commission on Countering Extremism definition of so called hateful extremists, however Ahmed’s personal views are particularly egregious.
He would like to see people who disagree with him imprisoned under anti-terrorist legislation. He recently stated:
I would go beyond calling anti-vaxxers conspiracy theorists to say they are an extremist group that pose a national security risk.”
In keeping with the objectives of the parliamentary Labour Party he represents, Ahmed fully supports State censorship. Talking about the need for the Online Harms Act, with regard to the people he labels as anti-vaxxers, he said:
It’s not just hatred……..There is no excuse for delay. The government must urgently table the online harms bill to put an end to vile hatred and dangerous medical misinformation online.”
Were Ahmed’s attempts to see people incarcerated for disagreeing with him not so dangerous, the irony that the CCDH’s Anti-Vax Industry report is brimming with quite staggering levels of misinformation would be hilarious. For example, talking about the highly qualified research scientist Dr Judy Mikovitz, whose well informed whistle-blower opinion Ahmed considers to be disinformation, the CCDH misleadingly report:
Mikovits enjoyed a recent surge in popularity after fronting a conspiracy theory video titled Plandemic which claimed the Coronavirus pandemic was planned in order for Bill Gates and others to profit from a vaccine.”
That is not what Mikovic or the film makers of Plandemic Part 1 said. Though basic research and honesty don’t seem to matter much to the CCDH. What does appear to matter to them is censorship that will rule out any challenge to the global political and business interests they defend.
To “evidence” their claim, rather than citing the film itself, they offer the spurious opinion of Taylor Hatmaker writing for TechCrunch.
TechCrunch are part of the Verizon Media empire, and Verizon are a participating business partner in the CCDH Stop Hate For Profit campaign. Verizon, formerly Oath inc, received $510,000 in 2016 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in order to:
…Raise awareness and understanding of neglected diseases through content creation and engagement around immersive and 360 videos.”
While neither Mikovic nor the makers of Plandemic Part 1 said the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation “planned the epidemic” in order to “profit” from the vaccine, development of the vaccine is, nonetheless, heavily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
They have contributed $750 million to the Atrazeneca / Oxford vaccine alone. They also hosted Event 201 with the John Hopkins University and the World Economic Forum (WEF).
This planning meeting was a table top exercise of global public health “leaders” which just happened to model a global coronavirus pandemic weeks before a global coronavirus pandemic broke out. That it also modelled, in quite precise detail, the lockdown and media response we have seen to the global coronavirus pandemic is simply an amazing, almost completely unbelievable, coincidence. Apparently.
However, the CCDH don’t think you need to know this either, and they really don’t want you to watch Plandemic. So they have made up some stuff to put you off, and have then had the gall to claim their own disinformation is evidence.
But don’t take my word for it. Watch Plandemic and decide for yourself if the CCDH claims are plausible.
No one can say, with any categorical certainty, that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation were party to planning the COVID 19 pandemic, thereby intending to profit from it. What can be said is that there is factual evidence clearly indicating this possibility.
There is also a significant conflict of financial interest pervading both the official account of the pandemic and organisations, such as WHO and Imperial College, who give policy makers the information they have used to formulate and justify their response. This fact isn’t disinformation, no matter what the CCDH want you to believe.
Not to ask these questions, or explore the evidence that prompts them, is antithetical the the very existence of a free society that values plurality of opinion. Yet somehow rank censors, like the CCDH, are among the many organisation who, while seeking to destroy our democratic values and customs, have the temerity to falsely claim the moral high ground.
CCDH Board Director Ayesha Saran
Following a very brief stint as an investigative journalist, Ayesha hopped between the UK Government Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE.) Finally settling to work for the Barrow Cadbury Trust (BCT) for the last 12 years or so. Ayesha is the Migration Program Manager for the BCT.
The BCT stated purpose included influencing public opinion. As part of their efforts they are partners with Access in the Connect Fund whose objective is to build a better social fund market.
The BCT partners, Access – the Foundation For Social Investment, were formed with the support of the Big Society Capital (BSC) and the UK government Cabinet Office. Responsibility for managing the Connect Fund has now shifted to the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (DCMS), chaired by Ayesha’s fellow CCDH board director, Damian Collins.
The public are given the impression that the NGO sector and large charities are independent of the public-private partnership state. This is essentially a deception.
Big Society Capital is funded by the UK’s leading private banks, Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group and RBS (now re-branded as Nat West Group.) The Connect Fund is a project of the Big Society Trust (BST) chaired by Sir Stuart Etherington, a member of the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union.
As chair of the BBC Appeals Advisory Committee, there won’t be much point complaining about CCDH disinformation reported without any scrutiny by the BBC.
Other BST board members include Ian Holmes, former Finance Director for BBC News and Current Affairs. Another is Robin Budenberg, Chair of the Crown Estate as well as chair UK Financial Investments which merged with the Shareholder Executive to become UK Government Investments (who manage the UK Government’s banking industry investment portfolio.) Direct oversight of BST by the UK Government is provided by Jo Fox from HM Treasury’s Corporate & Private Finance team.
This relationship between BCT and Access, via BST, is the epitome of how the NGO and charities shell game works. The Connect Fund doles out grants to charities who, though well meaning and staffed by honest, hard working people, are controlled at the board level by funding commitments ordained by the State and it’s corporate partners. They control the finance and the flow of information.
Someone like Ayesha, with a background in government and defence and security policy making organisations, is then appointed to a group like the CCDH, who can legitimately claim they are an NGO, despite the sprawling web of connections they have to government and the corporations. Ayesha may well have the very best of intentions but, via her connections to the Barrow Cadbury Trust, the network controllers stay abridged of the situation and can operate the levers of finance as and when required and make the decisions that count when they choose.
As we look at the Board Directors of the CCDH these connection become increasingly clear. Despite its claims of independence nothing could be further from the truth.
CCDH Board Director Lord Jonny Oats
Lord Jonny Oates is the former Chief of Staff to former UK deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. Clegg is currently the Head of Global Affairs for the social media giant Facebook. With a background in public relations and political campaign management he received a life peerage in 2015. He’s a spin doctor.
From 2004 Oates was a director of the PR firm Bell Pottinger. This probably gave him a fantastic insight into fake news and propaganda. During his time as a director, the Pentagon were working with Bell Pottinger a to produce fake terrorist videos in Iraq. The contract, worth more than half a billion dollars, saw a Bell Pottinger team stationed at the U.S. Military base Camp Victory, in the summer of 2006.
As a former Director of Communications for Number 10 Jonny has plenty of experience in government. He also worked for the Westminster Foundation For Democracy. Another globalist governmental organisation with strong ties to the European Union, the World Bank, the United Nations and the OSCE who fellow CCDH board director Ayesha Saran worked for.
CCDH Board Director Simon Clark
Simon is a non resident senior fellow for the policy think tank the Center for American Progress (CAP) and an adviser to the Scowcroft Group. He is also the Chairman of Foreign Policy for America (FP4A) where he is joined by many former US government officials and advisers including Dr Stephen Grand, senior fellow of the NATO think tank the Atlantic Council. Among the FP4A advisory board are Amb. Dan Baer, U.S. ambassador to the OSCE, and Avril Haines, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA.)
With a background in venture capitalism and investment management, Simon was also the first director of Web Services for the global news agency Reuters (called Thomson Reuters since 2008.) Simon was key in the efforts to build Fidelity’s European venture capital operation.
It is no surprise that CAP list the Fidelity charitable group among their major financial supporters. They are among the leading grant makers in the U.S, having committed more than $4.2 Bn to good causes, such as devising political policy, in 2020 alone. They manage an asset portfolio worth an estimated $30 Bn.
Rather than pay the tax that would theoretically allow the people to prioritise where the money is spent, the globalist class, often misnamed the elite, effectively withhold tax to pursue their own objectives. Fidelity is one of the leading investment management firms who channel their tax deductible investments to further their agenda.
This enables philanthropists like the Gates, the Carnegies, The Rockefellers, Soros and other globalist oligarchs to run their projects. These always advance their goals, objectives and business interests, while reducing their tax burden. All the aforementioned families finance the Center for American Progress who, through their FP4A Action Network (PAC), fund U.S. Democrat party candidates and election campaigns. This isn’t done in exchange for nothing.
The Center for American Progress recently proposed A Comprehensive COVID 19 Vaccine Plan. That policy assessment came directly from interviews with vaccine manufacturers. They recommended that, amid the process of funnelling billions of tax dollars directly into their business accounts, their pet politicians should:
Plan a massive vaccination campaign by recruiting medical experts, sports stars, celebrities, and community leaders and partnering with grassroots organizations and medical organizations.”
This massive, tax funded propaganda campaign is envisaged to change people’s behaviour. Rather than openly discuss the relative costs and benefits of vaccines, providing people with the facts and evidence they need to make their own judgement, CAP suggest using “country music stars, NASCAR drivers, and faith leaders” to change people’s opinions. The CCDH determination to roll out the flip side of this propaganda operation, namely the censorship grid, sits well with the commitments of its board director Simon, and the network of globalists he represents.
CCDH Board Director Kirsty McNeill
Aside from her role with the CCDH Kirsty is a member of the European Council of Foreign Relations (ECFR) Another globalist policy think tank whose stated objective is:
…To conduct cutting-edge independent research on European foreign and security policy and to provide a safe meeting space for decision-makers, activists and influencers to share ideas.”
It seems Kirsty only supports the activists and influencers who share her world view. Those who don’t agree with her should be censored and certainly don’t deserve any safe meeting spaces. Presumably, because the CCDH are totally independent and impartial, Kirsty forgets all about her commitment to European foreign and security policy when she takes her seat on the CCDH board.
As a member of the ECFR, she represents an organisation which is funded, not only by governments, but by the Atlantic Council (NATO), the Open Society Foundation (George Soros), The United Nations, the Rockefeller Brother’s Fund and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Kirsty was a special adviser to the former UK Prime Minister and Labour leader Gordon Brown. As a staunch advocate for a New World Order he unsurprisingly said the global coronavirus pandemic was an opportunity to establish global a government. In 2015 Kirsty became Director of Policy at the Save The Children Fund (STCF) after her predecessor, Brendan Cox (also an ECFR member), resigned following allegations of sexual misconduct.
From 2016 to date, during Kirsty’s time as Policy Director, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) have donated more than $40 million to the STCF. None of which had any influence over the CCDH decision to describe ordinary citizens who question vaccines as fringe radicals and extremists. The STCF are also partners of the GAVI vaccine alliance created by the World Bank, UNICEF, the WHO and BMGF.
STCF say they are really worried about the horrific loss of children’s lives in Yemen. While most of them are starving to death or being blown to bits by Saudi and UAE supplied weaponry, the STCF are also very concerned that they aren’t getting enough vaccines. Perhaps their Director of Policy could help, because the ECFR Kirsty represents are also funded by the French weapons manufacturer Thales whose missile systems are being used to kill the children in Yemen. It isn’t known if Kirsty considers them to be extremists.
Board Director Damian Collins
The CCDH describe themselves as an international not for profit “non governmental organisation.” While many of their board members have links to government and policy makers, in Damian Collins they have cut out the middle man and simply given a seat on the board to a Member of Parliament for the ruling government party.
Damian isn’t just any old government back-bencher. As an A-Listed Chair of the House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (DCMS) he has a central role in the governments efforts to roll out mass censorship. The DCMS responsibilities include advising (devising) policy related to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Online Harms. Damian is well placed in government to be part of the CCDH’s non governmental censorship operation.
The DCMS published their “Fake News” Report in February 2019. Obsessed with an imperceptible threat from Russia, despite acknowledging that the UK government had reported that they have “not seen evidence of successful use of disinformation by foreign actors, including Russia,” the DCMS, led by Damian, concluded:
The Government also cannot state definitively that there was no evidence of successful interference”
That is to say, no evidence of something is considered to be proof that it might exist by the DCMS. The same logic means that unicorns and soup dragons are distinct possibilities.
What it really reveals is that, under Collins’ leadership, the DCMS has no interest in evidence, uncovering the truth or forming balanced conclusions. It has a clear agenda, in this case to demonise Russia, and the absence of any justification is no reason not to pursue it. With Damian on the board, the CCDH have adopted the same approach.
With the help and support of their influential network of government and non governmental backers, the CCDH have established themselves as an influential social media watchdog in a very short space of time. This is entirely in keeping with its board director Damian Collins’ plans for an Online Harms censorship grid. the DCMS state:
Social media users need online tools to help them distinguish between quality journalism, and stories coming from organisations that have been linked to disinformation or are regarded as being unreliable sources. The social media companies should be required to either develop tools like this for themselves, or work with existing providers, such as Newsguard.”
This statement is key to understanding the censorship grid that is being created. You are not encouraged to consider evidence and make up your own mind, but rather to trust the right, authoritative“sources” without question.
Those sources are the ones favoured by the government and its NGO and corporate partners. Any alternative media sources that question the State’s narrative will be deemed organisations linked to disinformation.
The DCMS recommended Newsguard is another truth-teller and fact checker which sells itself as a great bastion of epistemological certainty. Touting themselves as the Internet trust tool, they have created a handy browser extension that will automatically censor the Internet for you.
There is no attempt to encourage critical thinking, any independent research or intellectual autonomy, but rather a colour coded warning system, perfect for infants, that will do your thinking for you. Selected websites will receive Newsguard’s trust rating. This is based entirely upon a set of meaningless criteria, which sound great, but absolutely boil down to Newsguard’s bought and paid for opinion.
Newsguard’s founder and leading investor is Steven Brill. He is a member of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) whose European branch (the ECFR) Kirsty McNeill graces. As a leading U.S. foreign policy think tank the CFR is arguably one of the most influential policy organisations on Earth.
It is likely that Newsguard’s advisers, such as Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former General Secretary of NATO, and Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA, share Brill’s enthusiasm for U.S. foreign policy objectives. Safe to say any source which questions U.S. foreign policy will be considered very untrustworthy by Newsgaurd.
As will anyone who questions vaccines. The French communications technology giant Publicis Group are among the seed funders that got Newsguard up and running with a $6 million cash injection.
One arm of their business is Publicis Health who boast highly lucrative accounts with a range of pharmaceutical giants and vaccine manufacturers, such as Astrazenaca and Sanofi, and were excited to announce their $1.5 Bn deal with the worlds leading vaccine corporation GlaxoSmithKline. No source questioning vaccines can expect a very high “trust rating” from Newsguard.
Damian Collins resigned as a trustee and Director of the neocon Henry Jackson Society in January 2017, a couple of months after becoming Chair of the DCMS. Damian is a signatory to the Henry Jackson Society Statement of Principles.
Those principles include a supremacist ideology that all countries should adopt the policies of so called western democracies, which are all controlled by global corporations; The HJS strongly support economic and political imperialism to assist countries to adopt essentially western corporate policies; they are enthusiastic advocates for UK, European and US military dominance, including U.K and US supremacy over European defence; the have unbridled admiration for NATO and the OSCE; crony capitalism (monopolies run by global corporations) is an HJS principle, but a true free market economy has to be “limited,” and they clearly state their firm belief that any nation that isn’t within the NATO, OSCE, western military industrial and intelligence complex sphere of influence is “illegitimate.”
Damian Collins wholeheartedly subscribes to these principles. Damian Collins supports the CCDH efforts to see anyone who questions vaccines silenced and, if they won’t shut up, imprisoned under anti-hate and possibly anti-terrorism legislation. Damian Collins is elected by the people. Or at least he was, until the government he represents banned all elections.
The CCDH Are Propagandists and Censors
Regardless of its claimed lofty ideals and feigned deference for freedom of speech and democracy, the CCDH represent a globalist cartel of monopolists who seek to utterly control society under their un-democratic, authoritarian rule. The CCDH are given the power they enjoy by this same cartel, and exercise it as part of a concerted effort to destroy everything they pretend to protect.
On behalf of the Technofascist clique they serve, they are systematically preparing the ground for a legislative censorship clampdown upon all dissent and opinion that question the ambitions and orders of their corporate and government masters. They exist in a fake environment of fake NGO’s and charities, deliberately constructed to exploit the good will of men and women who are labouring in a climate of fear created by, among others, the CCDH.
The families of vaccine injured children and those who have suffered injury themselves are not anti-vaccine. Each and every one of them followed medical advice and were either vaccinated or allowed their to child to receive vaccines. The scientists who have undertaken research which highlights concerns about vaccines are not anti-science nor opposed to vaccines. They aren’t pro-disease.
Nor are independent researchers and commentators like myself who have read the evidence and have some questions. I don’t want people to die from preventable illnesses and disease. I want vaccines to work. I want them to be everything the manufacturers say they are. But there are legitimate questions that need answers.
Contrary to the ludicrous allegations of the CCDH, it isn’t those who question vaccines that are making billions. It is those who adamantly declare their vaccine products are all perfect.
Led by someone like Imran Ahmed, whose rhetoric is so vicious he describes people who ask any questions about vaccines as vile, hateful, extremists, the CCDH are a particularly nasty and corrosive organisation. Nothing they say is plausible and all they have is propaganda which they cannot defend. All they can do is silence critics with their pernicious brand of vitriolic censorship.
The CCDH is not the defender of democracy, it cares nothing for our traditions and customs, nor our precarious free speech and freedom of expression. It wants to end all of it and unless we wake up and see these corporate censors and propagandists for who they truly are, we will have everything we value torn from us. We will have no one and nothing to blame but our own apathy.


offguardian--2020-08-13--WATCH: New Zealand to move all “covid cases” to “Quarantine Centres”

WATCH : New Zealand to move all “ covid cases ” to “ Quarantine Centres ” The New Zealand government announced yesterday that ALL cases of Sars-Cov-2 infection “ are to be managed in a quarantine facility ” .
Health Director-General Dr Ashley Bloomfield made the announcements in a press conference yesterday ( August 12th ) .
As of today , New Zealand has 36 active cases* of alleged coronavirus infection .
That has not prevented the government from locking down Auckland , the countries largest city .
Under Section 70 of the Health Act , the NZ government has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against their will .
According to a report from stuff.co.nz quarantine centres have – among other things – “ more stringent security ” than isolation hotels .
According to Dr Broomfield the new quarantine rules : A reminder that the PCR tests are incredibly unreliable and can return very large numbers of false-positive results .
Nevertheless , if you are in NZ , get a positive test or have any respiratory symptoms , you and your family will be forcibly taken to a “ quarantine ” camp .
How long for and if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s guess .
How long before other countries start doing this ?
How long before a “ positive PCR ” is the excuse for shipping all the dissidents and the non-compliant off to “ quarantine ” , where , sadly , that darn corona sees them off ?
*Updated 16:15 on 13th Aug. to provide a better link and more accurate case count .

WATCH: New Zealand to move all “covid cases” to “Quarantine Centres”
The New Zealand government announced yesterday that ALL cases of Sars-Cov-2 infection “are to be managed in a quarantine facility”.
Health Director-General Dr Ashley Bloomfield made the announcements in a press conference yesterday (August 12th). As of today, New Zealand has 36 active cases* of alleged coronavirus infection. That has not prevented the government from locking down Auckland, the countries largest city.
Under Section 70 of the Health Act, the NZ government has the power to compel people into quarantine against their will. According to a report from stuff.co.nz quarantine centres have – among other things – “more stringent security” than isolation hotels.
According to Dr Broomfield the new quarantine rules:
Will apply to all test-positive cases and also family members who may be at risk, where appropriate.
A reminder that the PCR tests are incredibly unreliable and can return very large numbers of false-positive results.
Nevertheless, if you are in NZ, get a positive test or have any respiratory symptoms, you and your family will be forcibly taken to a “quarantine” camp. How long for and if you will leave alive is anyone’s guess.
How long before other countries start doing this?
How long before a “positive PCR” is the excuse for shipping all the dissidents and the non-compliant off to “quarantine”, where, sadly, that darn corona sees them off?
*Updated 16:15 on 13th Aug. to provide a better link and more accurate case count.


offguardian--2020-08-14--GM Crops: Experts Debunk Claims of Success

On 6 July 2020 , an article extolling the benefits of genetically modified ( GM ) crops appeared on the BloombergQuint website based on an interview with Dr Ramesh Chand , a member of the key Indian Government think tank Niti Aayog ( National Institution for Transforming India ) .
On 17 July , another piece that placed a positive spin on GM crops and gene-editing technology ( Feeding 10 Billion People will Require Genetically Modified Food ) appeared on the same site .
According to Prof Andrew Paul Gutierrez , Dr Hans R Herren and Dr Peter E Kenmore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pieces reported “ sweeping unsupported claims ” about the benefits of and need for genetically modified organisms ( GMOs ) and related technologies in agriculture in India .
The three academics felt that “ a responsible and factual response ” was required and have written a letter – containing what could be described as the definitive analysis of Bt cotton in India – to Dr Ramesh Chand , Dr Rajiv Kumar ( Niti Aayog Vice Chancellor ) and Dr Amitabh Kant ( Niti Aayog CEO ) .
Chand is reported as saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any adverse impact of growing Bt cotton in the last 18 years in the country ( India ’ s only officially approved GM crop ) .
This is simply not the case .
Moreover , Gutierrez et al argue that all of the credible evidence shows any meagre increases in cotton yield after the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002 were largely due to increases in fertiliser use .
Before proceeding , it is pertinent to address the claim that ‘ feeding 10 billion people will require genetically modified food ’ .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its 1.3 billion-plus population , it has achieved self-sufficiency in food grains and has ensured that , in theory at least , there is enough food available to feed its entire population .
It is the world ’ s largest producer of milk , pulses and millets and the second-largest producer of rice , wheat , sugarcane , groundnuts , vegetables and fruit .
However , food security for many Indians remains a distant dream .
Hunger and malnutrition remain prevalent .
But that is not because farmers don ’ t produce enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors , including inadequate food distribution , social and economic policies , inequality and poverty .
It is a case of ‘ scarcity ’ amid abundance ( reflecting the situation globally ) .
India even continues to export food while millions remain hungry .
Productivity is not the issue .
And while proponents say GM will boost productivity and help secure cultivators a better income , this too ignores crucial political and economic contexts ; with bumper harvests , Indian farmers still find themselves in financial distress .
India ’ s farmers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are reeling from the effects of neoliberal policies and years of neglect .
It ’ s for good reason that the calorie and essential nutrient intake of the rural poor has drastically fallen .
Yet the pro-GMO lobby has wasted no time in wrenching these issues from their political contexts to use the notions of ‘ helping farmers ’ and ‘ feeding the world ’ as lynchpins of its promotional strategy .
The Chand interview occurred at a book release event for a new volume titled ‘ Socio Economic Impact Assessment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Case Studies from India ’ edited by Sachin Chaturvedi and Krishna Ravi Srinivas of the Delhi-based Research and Information System ( RIS ) for developing countries – a policy research think tank in the Ministry of External Affairs .
Gutierrez et al state that what Niti Aayog and RIS representatives say and write are existentially important because of their deep links to Indian policy makers : their views can have a large impact on the future development of policy in the area of genetic engineering and related technologies such as genomic editing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , livelihood and welfare of Indian farmers and the nation .
Chand posits that opposition and uncertainty to GM technology lingers because it has created fear in the minds of people .
He appears to imply this is one reason why the Indian government did not embrace the technology and that media reporting has relied more on activists than on scientists .
GMO biotech lobbyists have often stated that science has been sidelined by activists who have swayed the policy agenda .
In the journal Current Science ( September 2019 ) , Dr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the same journal by eminent scientists P C Kesavan and M S Swaminathan , whose piece cited good evidence that questioned the efficacy of and the need for GMO agriculture in India .
Pental argued that the two authors had aligned themselves with environmentalists and ideologues who have “ mindlessly ” attacked the use of GM technology and that aspects of their analysis are a reflection of their “ ideological proclivities ” .
However , in India it was a unique four-month scientific enquiry , not activism , that led to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2010 .
And if we look at Europe , robust regulatory mechanisms are in place for GMOs as it is agreed they are not substantially equivalent to their non-GM counterparts .
Numerous studies have highlighted the flawed premise of ‘ substantial equivalence ’ .
Furthermore , from the outset of the GMO project , the sidelining of serious concerns about the technology has occurred and , despite industry claims to the contrary , there is no scientific consensus on the health impacts of GM crops .
Both the Cartagena Protocol and Codex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and foods in that they agree that GM differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GMOs are used in food or released into the environment .
These concerns can not be brushed aside as being non-science based .
Such accusations are political posturing , part of a strategy to slant the policy agenda and divert attention away from evidence that leads to the questioning of the safety , environmental impacts and record of GM crops .
Gutierrez et al also comment on the Chaturvedi–Srinivas book in their letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-GMO statements about the book reported in the press , most of the chapters contain some points that temper or criticise this over-simplified enthusiasm .
In reviewing the book , the three researchers note the general policy position , that Bt cotton benefits smaller and poorly connected farmers , is not always supported by the case study data presented .
Moreover , Bt cotton yields were not necessarily higher ( than non-Bt cotton ) for all farmers and even when economic gains occurred , it was not demonstrated that those gains came from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased yields .
Bt cotton is also not scale neutral : it has mainly benefited larger farmers and high Bt cotton seed prices are a big concern for many farmers as are monopolistic pricing practices .
Gutierrez and his colleagues conclude that the RIS volume cited gains in yield and reductions in insecticide use in Bt cotton that are inaccurate .
The three researchers note that at least 25-30 peer reviewed papers have been published recently in India from almost all the agricultural universities dealing with cotton , validating the short-season high-density ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In all the studies , SS-HD plantings invariably got the highest yields , clearly pointing to the inappropriateness of the current long-season low-density hybrid system .
Yet , none of these studies were cited in the Chaturvedi–Srinivas RIS volume .
Gutierrez et al note that hybrid cottons unique to India were introduced in the mid-1970s purportedly to increase yield and quality , but the hybrid seed is considerably more expensive , the plants require more fertiliser and stable water and the hybrid technology serves as a value capture mechanism requiring annual purchases of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are planting inappropriate long-season hybrid cotton varieties at inappropriate low planting densities due to high seed costs , which contributes to low yield stagnation .
They also provide an overview of how , in long-season hybrid cotton , insecticide use caused ecological disruption , inducing outbreaks of secondary insect pests : The three researchers conclude that Bt cotton did not increase yields but did contribute to increased cost of production in the face of stagnant yields , leading to economic distress .
They argue that hybrid Bt cotton in India is a failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welfare and say that HD-SS non-GMO pure line rainfed cotton varieties have been developed in India that could double yield and triple net income .
The potential exists for development of even higher yielding HD-SS non-hybrid non-GMO varieties in India , which would allow seed saving by Indian farmers .
However , they assert that this approach has been sidelined : we now see hybrid Bt cotton falsely being used as an example of success and as a template for rolling out GMOs , gene editing and other technologies across Indian agriculture .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in The Hindu ( ‘ Nip this in the bud ’ ) noted that the Ministry of Agriculture , the Indian Council of Agriculture Research and the Ministry of Science and Technology were deeply compromised due to their strong and active ties with the GMO biotech industry .
Indeed , Monsanto had been granted access to agri-research public institutions , which had placed that company in a position to seriously influence policy .
By 2014 , 95 per cent of cotton grown in India was GM and non-GM seeds had almost disappeared from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to see a similar value-capture scenario take root with genetically engineered food crops based on a myth of Bt cotton success , which has in recent years been promoted by a number of government officials in India .
Science and reason ( and farmers and the public ) are in danger of being sacrificed for the “ ideological proclivities ” of key figures and bodies directly linked to national policy making .
The letter mentioned in this article can be read in full on the GMWatch.org website .
It contains a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than presented here , including numerous graphics and references to key studies .

Colin Todhunter
On 6 July 2020, an article extolling the benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops appeared on the BloombergQuint website based on an interview with Dr Ramesh Chand, a member of the key Indian Government think tank Niti Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India) . On 17 July, another piece that placed a positive spin on GM crops and gene-editing technology (Feeding 10 Billion People will Require Genetically Modified Food) appeared on the same site.
According to Prof Andrew Paul Gutierrez, Dr Hans R Herren and Dr Peter E Kenmore, internationally renowned agricultural researchers, the pieces reported “sweeping unsupported claims” about the benefits of and need for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and related technologies in agriculture in India.
The three academics felt that “a responsible and factual response” was required and have written a letter – containing what could be described as the definitive analysis of Bt cotton in India – to Dr Ramesh Chand, Dr Rajiv Kumar (Niti Aayog Vice Chancellor) and Dr Amitabh Kant (Niti Aayog CEO).
Chand is reported as saying that there is no credible study to show any adverse impact of growing Bt cotton in the last 18 years in the country (India’s only officially approved GM crop). This is simply not the case. Moreover, Gutierrez et al argue that all of the credible evidence shows any meagre increases in cotton yield after the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002 were largely due to increases in fertiliser use.
Before proceeding, it is pertinent to address the claim that ‘feeding 10 billion people will require genetically modified food’. If we take the case of India and its 1.3 billion-plus population, it has achieved self-sufficiency in food grains and has ensured that, in theory at least, there is enough food available to feed its entire population. It is the world’s largest producer of milk, pulses and millets and the second-largest producer of rice, wheat, sugarcane, groundnuts, vegetables and fruit.
However, food security for many Indians remains a distant dream. Hunger and malnutrition remain prevalent. But that is not because farmers don’t produce enough food. These problems result from other factors, including inadequate food distribution, social and economic policies, inequality and poverty. It is a case of ‘scarcity’ amid abundance (reflecting the situation globally). India even continues to export food while millions remain hungry. Productivity is not the issue.
And while proponents say GM will boost productivity and help secure cultivators a better income, this too ignores crucial political and economic contexts; with bumper harvests, Indian farmers still find themselves in financial distress. India’s farmers are not experiencing hardship due to low productivity. They are reeling from the effects of neoliberal policies and years of neglect. It’s for good reason that the calorie and essential nutrient intake of the rural poor has drastically fallen.
Yet the pro-GMO lobby has wasted no time in wrenching these issues from their political contexts to use the notions of ‘helping farmers’ and ‘feeding the world’ as lynchpins of its promotional strategy.
Valid concerns
The Chand interview occurred at a book release event for a new volume titled ‘Socio Economic Impact Assessment of GM crops: Global Implications Based on Case Studies from India’ edited by Sachin Chaturvedi and Krishna Ravi Srinivas of the Delhi-based Research and Information System (RIS) for developing countries – a policy research think tank in the Ministry of External Affairs.
Gutierrez et al state that what Niti Aayog and RIS representatives say and write are existentially important because of their deep links to Indian policy makers: their views can have a large impact on the future development of policy in the area of genetic engineering and related technologies such as genomic editing, which will affect the long-term health, livelihood and welfare of Indian farmers and the nation.
Chand posits that opposition and uncertainty to GM technology lingers because it has created fear in the minds of people. He appears to imply this is one reason why the Indian government did not embrace the technology and that media reporting has relied more on activists than on scientists.
GMO biotech lobbyists have often stated that science has been sidelined by activists who have swayed the policy agenda.
In the journal Current Science (September 2019), Dr Deepak Pental responded to a previous paper in the same journal by eminent scientists P C Kesavan and M S Swaminathan, whose piece cited good evidence that questioned the efficacy of and the need for GMO agriculture in India.
Pental argued that the two authors had aligned themselves with environmentalists and ideologues who have “mindlessly” attacked the use of GM technology and that aspects of their analysis are a reflection of their “ideological proclivities”.
However, in India it was a unique four-month scientific enquiry, not activism, that led to the rejection of the commercialisation of Bt Brinjal in 2010. And if we look at Europe, robust regulatory mechanisms are in place for GMOs as it is agreed they are not substantially equivalent to their non-GM counterparts.
Numerous studies have highlighted the flawed premise of ‘substantial equivalence’. Furthermore, from the outset of the GMO project, the sidelining of serious concerns about the technology has occurred and, despite industry claims to the contrary, there is no scientific consensus on the health impacts of GM crops.
Both the Cartagena Protocol and Codex share a precautionary approach to GM crops and foods in that they agree that GM differs from conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be required before GMOs are used in food or released into the environment.
These concerns cannot be brushed aside as being non-science based. Such accusations are political posturing, part of a strategy to slant the policy agenda and divert attention away from evidence that leads to the questioning of the safety, environmental impacts and record of GM crops.
False narrative of Bt cotton
Gutierrez et al also comment on the Chaturvedi–Srinivas book in their letter and note that, in contrast to pro-GMO statements about the book reported in the press, most of the chapters contain some points that temper or criticise this over-simplified enthusiasm.
In reviewing the book, the three researchers note the general policy position, that Bt cotton benefits smaller and poorly connected farmers, is not always supported by the case study data presented. Moreover, Bt cotton yields were not necessarily higher (than non-Bt cotton) for all farmers and even when economic gains occurred, it was not demonstrated that those gains came from Bt traits: higher fertiliser levels usually increased yields.
Bt cotton is also not scale neutral: it has mainly benefited larger farmers and high Bt cotton seed prices are a big concern for many farmers as are monopolistic pricing practices.
Gutierrez and his colleagues conclude that the RIS volume cited gains in yield and reductions in insecticide use in Bt cotton that are inaccurate.
They add:
…a failed picture emerges of an unsustainable eco-social Bt cotton system based on a dystopic relationship between those who control and sell the inputs, and the vast majority of farmers… Nowhere in the volume is there mention of potential viable non-GMO alternatives.”
The three researchers note that at least 25-30 peer reviewed papers have been published recently in India from almost all the agricultural universities dealing with cotton, validating the short-season high-density (SS-HD) concepts using non-Bt varieties. In all the studies, SS-HD plantings invariably got the highest yields, clearly pointing to the inappropriateness of the current long-season low-density hybrid system. Yet, none of these studies were cited in the Chaturvedi–Srinivas RIS volume.
Gutierrez et al note that hybrid cottons unique to India were introduced in the mid-1970s purportedly to increase yield and quality, but the hybrid seed is considerably more expensive, the plants require more fertiliser and stable water and the hybrid technology serves as a value capture mechanism requiring annual purchases of seed.
They argue that Indian farmers are planting inappropriate long-season hybrid cotton varieties at inappropriate low planting densities due to high seed costs, which contributes to low yield stagnation.
They also provide an overview of how, in long-season hybrid cotton, insecticide use caused ecological disruption, inducing outbreaks of secondary insect pests:
Farmers were spending money on insecticides to lose money from (insecticide) induced pests… While the Bt technology initially solved the bollworm problems, outbreaks of secondary pests not controlled by the Bt toxins began to occur, again increasing insecticide use in Bt cotton that by 2013 surpassed pre-2002 levels. This caused ecological disruption and induced outbreaks of still newer secondary pests… and increased levels of resistance to insecticides. By 2013, Indian farmers were solidly on both the insecticide and biotechnology treadmills.”
The three researchers conclude that Bt cotton did not increase yields but did contribute to increased cost of production in the face of stagnant yields, leading to economic distress.
They argue that hybrid Bt cotton in India is a failure or at best very suboptimal for farmer welfare and say that HD-SS non-GMO pure line rainfed cotton varieties have been developed in India that could double yield and triple net income. The potential exists for development of even higher yielding HD-SS non-hybrid non-GMO varieties in India, which would allow seed saving by Indian farmers.
However, they assert that this approach has been sidelined: we now see hybrid Bt cotton falsely being used as an example of success and as a template for rolling out GMOs, gene editing and other technologies across Indian agriculture.
On 12 August 2013, an article in The Hindu (‘Nip this in the bud’) noted that the Ministry of Agriculture, the Indian Council of Agriculture Research and the Ministry of Science and Technology were deeply compromised due to their strong and active ties with the GMO biotech industry.
Indeed, Monsanto had been granted access to agri-research public institutions, which had placed that company in a position to seriously influence policy. By 2014, 95 per cent of cotton grown in India was GM and non-GM seeds had almost disappeared from the market.
The push is now on to see a similar value-capture scenario take root with genetically engineered food crops based on a myth of Bt cotton success, which has in recent years been promoted by a number of government officials in India.
Science and reason (and farmers and the public) are in danger of being sacrificed for the “ideological proclivities” of key figures and bodies directly linked to national policy making.
The letter mentioned in this article can be read in full on the GMWatch.org website. It contains a more in-depth analysis of Bt cotton in India than presented here, including numerous graphics and references to key studies.


offguardian--2020-08-14--The New Normal: “Covert Moral Enhancement” for “coronavirus defectors”

Four days ago the Conversation – an “ independent source of news and views , sourced from the academic and research community ” – published an article headlined : The article ’ s author is Parker Crutchfield , an Associate Professor of Medical Ethics , Humanities and Law at Western Michigan University , and his argument can be broken down into four key points : • Wearing masks and social distancing are good for public health • People who refuse to follow these rules are “ defectors ” who need to be “ morally enhanced ” • This moral enhancement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people more “ empathetic ” and “ co-operative ” • This medication should be compulsory and/or administered secretly via the water supply .
I swear I ’ m not exaggerating .
Not even a little bit .
To absorb the full horror I suggest you read it for yourself ( and then read the comment section as well , it will make you feel better ) but , if you ’ re not so inclined , here are some choice quotes : This isn ’ t just a panicked response to an unforeseen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bioethics research focuses on “ questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what ’ s best for the public good ” , and a look through his articles reveals that this is an agenda which pre-dates our current “ pandemic ” .
There ’ s The epistemology of moral bioenhancement from 2016 and then Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert from just last year .
This isn ’ t just about masks , if it were implemented it would be a lot more far-reaching .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , beyond even the “ pandemic ” .
The author admits as much himself [ our emphasis ] : Happy Pills in our water to make us proper cooperative citizens ?
“ Covert moral enhancement ” to produce “ superior post-persons ” ?
That is literally “ Soma ” from Huxley ’ s Brave New World .
It can ’ t be satirized or exaggerated .
It is the very zenith of dystopian horror .
And it is being seriously suggested by research scientists in apparently respectable publications .
This may be just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and murkily funded ) magazine , but that ’ s how it starts .
Of course , it also further feeds into the stream of propaganda which seeks to dehumanise those who express dissent .
We ’ ve already been told that “ defectors ” are more likely to be narcissists or psychopaths , and seen them subject to police brutality with total impunity .
New Zealand are setting up “ quarantine centres ” where you will have to stay “ indefinitely ” if you refuse a to be tested .
And now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who refuse to comply should be subject to covert medication to render them more malleable to the “ public good ” .
It ’ s not hard to see where this is going .
Show this article to everyone you know .
People have to be told what their world is being turned into , while we still have the brainpower to stop it .

Kit Knightly
Four days ago the Conversation – an “independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community” – published an article headlined:
‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist
The article’s author is Parker Crutchfield, an Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law at Western Michigan University, and his argument can be broken down into four key points:
Wearing masks and social distancing are good for public health People who refuse to follow these rules are “defectors” who need to be “morally enhanced” This moral enhancement can be achieved with medication to make people more “empathetic” and “co-operative” This medication should be compulsory and/or administered secretly via the water supply.
I swear I’m not exaggerating. Not even a little bit. To absorb the full horror I suggest you read it for yourself (and then read the comment section as well, it will make you feel better) but, if you’re not so inclined, here are some choice quotes:
like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior.
Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.
These substances interact directly with the psychological underpinnings of moral behavior […] Then, perhaps, the people who choose to go maskless or flout social distancing guidelines would better understand that everyone, including them, is better off when they contribute, and rationalize that the best thing to do is cooperate.
Another challenge is that the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it […] a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply.
This isn’t just a panicked response to an unforeseen emergency, Crutchfield’s area of bioethics research focuses on “questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good”, and a look through his articles reveals that this is an agenda which pre-dates our current “pandemic”.
There’s The epistemology of moral bioenhancement from 2016 and then Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert from just last year.
This isn’t just about masks, if it were implemented it would be a lot more far-reaching. From masks to vaccines to anything else, beyond even the “pandemic”. The author admits as much himself [our emphasis]:
But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change.
Happy Pills in our water to make us proper cooperative citizens? “Covert moral enhancement” to produce “superior post-persons”?
That is literally “Soma” from Huxley’s Brave New World. It can’t be satirized or exaggerated. It is the very zenith of dystopian horror. And it is being seriously suggested by research scientists in apparently respectable publications.
This may be just one article in a comparatively small (and murkily funded) magazine, but that’s how it starts.
Of course, it also further feeds into the stream of propaganda which seeks to dehumanise those who express dissent.
We’ve already been told that “defectors” are more likely to be narcissists or psychopaths, and seen them subject to police brutality with total impunity.
New Zealand are setting up “quarantine centres” where you will have to stay “indefinitely” if you refuse a to be tested.
And now it’s being seriously posited that those who refuse to comply should be subject to covert medication to render them more malleable to the “public good”.
It’s not hard to see where this is going. Show this article to everyone you know. People have to be told what their world is being turned into, while we still have the brainpower to stop it.