EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


A largely upbeat assessment from Ben this Monday, but essentially it's more of the same, although there is some interesting stuff on the Monkeypox scenario and the future that he sees for the Ukraine.

Modest subscription required.

See also this useful round-up from UK Column today.



Health Freedom Defense Fund has helpfully noted the actual changes to the IHR that are being pushed through at the WHO.

There is also a Declaration that you can sign if you feel so inclined.

Personally I object to petitioning Parliament lest I provide our servants in Parliament with confirmation of ideas that are already above their station, but a declaration is a different ball-game.

The WEF signed up the UN in partnership in June 2019 (just in time to help out with Covid?) so the United Nations (including the WHO) is now to all intents and purposes the political arm of the World Economic Forum.

Neither of these institutions have any democratic credentials whatsoever.

Essentially these changes accumulate powers into the hands of the Director-General. No votes by member states required. 

Certainly no need to take any account of the thousands, probably millions of medical practitioners worldwide who profoundly disagreed with the WHO's analysis yet somehow survived Covid, despite working directly with Covid patients for their living.

The omens do not seem propitious for improved health, security and freedom whilst this unaccountable cabal oversees the world, with the support of the United Kingdom.

Right on cue, showing that the WHO is not just monkeying around, the Mail is drumming up the next pandemic - and surprise! - Bill Gates has a vaccine for it! How long before SAGE is dusting off the latest projections from Imperial College, Boris is sternly prestigitating to the nation, and the NHS clears its decks of its cancer patients and those already ill, for another vaccine roll-out to the still healthy?

Form an orderly queue.

PS: They did a Table-top Simulation in 2021 ... 


As the media (and many others) have been pulling out all the stops to "support the Ukraine", it has become pretty hard to find anyone who is prepared to take an even-handed viewpoint - you are either with them or against them - whoever "they" may be.

The problem I have with that is that being "with them" these days is automatically to be put into the "we must send them more arms" warmongering bucket, and being against them is to be put in the "supporter of evil Putin" bucket.

Apparently there isn't a "please stop the fighting and negotiate" bucket, and there now won't be until at least one side has been fought a standstill. Which side will that be?

Judging by the surrender at the steelworks (what steelworks requires a labyrinth of underground tunnels?), it doesn't seem likely it will be the Russians.

But just how democratic are the Ukrainians anyway?

Janice Davis writing for TCW reminds us of their deficiencies ...   but every country has its deficiencies as we in the UK have discovered these past years, so you will have to make up your own mind as to the relevance of these matters.

From my point of view, whereas Mr Putin may have had a fair point that he couldn't tolerate bio-weapons labs on his borders, nobody now needs this war except the arms manufacturers - follow the money.

It's time to sue for peace and to put our money not into destruction, but into reconstruction.



There is a great deal of confusion about matters legal.

I am reasonably well educated and certainly I have trouble trying to unravel the legal niceties that seem to govern our courts, but I was unprepared for this one. Or should that be three?

This article was published in 2016.

It purports to describe the legal chicanery that set up the global control of all the earth by the elite, in the shape of the "Holy Father".

But as I understand it the mechanism is based upon a fraud - the omission of the relevant facts at particular stages of one's life. Under Common Law, fraud vitiates everything dependent upon that fraud.

If true, It cannot stand.



This is an interesting list which appears to "prove" certain truths by logical deduction.

I might cavil that it fails at the first hurdle by not initially defining its axioms (foundational tenets that are held to be self-evident) and proceeding from there by logical deduction.

Part of the problem arises from ambiguous or missing definitions of terms (for example: "dream"), part from unproven assertion (example: nbr 39), and mixed together these two facets certainly drive a coach and horses through the necessary rigour required of a proof.

I'm not sure that I could disagree with their deductions even if I might disagree with their reasoning, but that doesn't mean to say that I necessarily agree with them all either.

I am sure that those who codified these 144 tenets knew what they meant, but from my perspective it can only be regarded as a work-in-progress.

See what you think.