In 2013, British journalist Vincent Cooper wrote: “By the year 2050, in a mere 37 years, Britain will be a majority Muslim nation.”
Religion seems a far more important part of life for Muslims than for other Britons: it appears central to their sense of identity. According to a report from 2006: “Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law…. Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.”
‘This follow-up is to my recent sub stacks attempting to connect the dots of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and their goals for expanding their agenda in order to stick to their timeline regarding the continent of Africa.
I look at things this way when I think about the WEF: hypothetically speaking, if a gang decides to get together once a month with knives and decide under the cover of darkness to go out and slash the tires of every car parked on residential streets of a city, and the next day all the tires of every car parked on those streets have in fact been slashed, you may not be able to prove the gang did it, but if it happens enough you might start to suspect and question what is happening and who is responsible.
After covering this for some time now, I am convinced not only does the WEF consistently tell you what they are going to do, they sure love to prepare in advance/undertake all of these preparations before they implement what they are going to carry out. For example, before COVID-19 and Monkey pox, they prepared for and ran their germ games; then COVID-19 and Monkey pox happened.
We may tend to assume WEFs decisions only center on health or viruses/diseases. Now they appear to be reprioritizing/reassessing their priorities based on policy. With this updated announcement, there are six themes developed in 2022 that have continued to be refined to set the stage for the 2023 conference beginning in less than a month, from 16-20 January:
Theme #1: Ukraine shines a light on importance of global cooperation
Theme #2: Three interconnected crises – climate, food, energy
Theme #3: Don’t use the ‘R’ (recession)word (but it might be coming anyway)
Theme #4: Preparing for the next pandemic requires endinghealth disparities
Theme #5: Gender, inequality and Jobs of Tomorrow
Theme #6: ‘Our future is digital’
Theme #6 is enough of a looming threat because it invokes the rollout of things like central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), universal basic income and a social credit system like we are seeing in places like China and India.
But it was Theme #4 that had me shake my head and do a double-take. Ending health disparities…what the heck does that mean?
When I started to read and unpack what Theme #4 was saying and found that it stated right up front “…where just 13% of people are vaccinated (compared to 75% of people in high-income countries)”, I knew they must be mainly talking about Africa. I’ve seen that statistic before, so I guessed Africa right off the bat before reading any further, and I was right. I questioned the 13% metric and wanted to double check it, so based upon a total population in Africa of 1.4 billion, based on this search; 373.1 million Africans have been fully-vaccinated as of December 21, 2022, making the percentage closer to 37%, still a relatively low percentage compared to many developed countries.
FYI: Joshua Phillip also did a nice Crossroads piece on Epoch TV on this topic the other day, and you can catch that here if you missed it.
Then, I saw this this very concerning statement from the WEF announcement under Theme #4:
“Investing in health systems and regional bodies like Africa CDC and African Medicines Agency must be a key priority,” said Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda. “We have to act in the full expectation that there will be another pandemic.”
Rolling out COVID-19 vaccines in Rwanda | WHO | Regional Office for Africa Source: afro.who.int
My goodness, could Africa become the next epicenter, the next Ground-zero of the next pandemic? Is this their intention? Africa has one of the lowest percentages of COVID-19 infection rates and deaths in the world, and perhaps the low vaccination rate could explain why. Is it possible the WEF and corrupt, globalists’ corporations now want to punish Africa for this because they don’t like these statistics? Mostly due to malaria, Africa is also a nation where many have trusted taking repurposed anti-viral drugs to prevent malaria such as Hydroxychloroquine, which has also been distributed widely and is much easier to access relative to the Unites States (after Janet Woodcock and Rick Bright conspired to circumvent both the will of the POTUS and Peter Navarro). Of course, it is highly likely that Hydroxychloroquine is one way Africa has managed to minimize the spread and reduce the number of cases and hospitalizations from the novel Coronavirus
Of course, deaths per million is the final endpoint.
So let’s compare… The United States of America (green line) to Africa (red line). For those that are color blind, the line on the bottom of both charts- with almost no new cases and no deaths- yeh, that is Africa…
It is hard to argue with this chart. How did the “health disparities” between the USA and Africa cause Africa more death or more COVID cases per million (as the WEF claims)? It didn’t. Clearly, it didn’t and it doesn’t take a statistician to see that!
Why would all of this matter? Well, it seems as though the WEF is moving the goalpost and trying to redefine what constitutes a global health crisis, what constitutes improved health equity. This is a recipe for more concentrated socialist health policies forced on the people who live in nations like Africa. The WEF has fairly consistently up until now framed global health crises along the lines of deadly viruses, outbreaks of infectious diseases.
This move would seem like a new virtue signaling tactic to link it to health disparity as a new way to frame a global health crisis. As if to say: if we don’t think your country has enough socialized medicine, we can solve this problem for you. On top of this, Winnie Byanyima, Undersecretary-General of the UN and Executive Director of the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), during a recent session on racial equity on the anniversary of George Floyd’s death, made this bizarre statement:
“Racism is when black people, brown people, people of colour take their last breath because of policy violence, when they are denied life-saving, pandemic-ending medicines,” she continued, “when they can’t access care or education because debt is choking them.”
She elaborated by what she meant by ‘policy violence’ as being a failure to share COVID-19 vaccines with the Global South as being ‘Racism’. So if you are a corporation, a business, a nation that has not vaccinated enough Africans, by her definition, you are guilty of the crime of policy violence (and by extension, racism).
It’s easy to see why this move is appealing to the WEF: if the WEF can step in and end racial disparity in Africa, they can vaccinate more Africans and achieve their goals in that region.
This background may help to understand why the Biden Administration just last week pledged $55 Billion in aid to Africa over the next three years. President Biden declared that his country is “all in on Africa’s future,” adding, “When Africa succeeds, the United States succeeds.”
This reminds me of the steady stream of money the U.S. keeps printing to send over to Ukraine which is getting harder and harder to trace and show any accountability for. Perhaps out of guilt or shame, both of which play right into this narrative, corporations mentioned in the Biden $55 Billion aid article are now coming out of the woodwork and pledging money for various related globalist projects that will build a framework necessary to target Africa.
There is always plenty of money to go around when the WEF is involved. Therefore, we must continue to monitor what the WEF is doing (and who they are motivating to partner along with them). It is important to pinpoint what does and what does not come true, based on what they tell us they are going to do. Just how far does their influence reach? Are they directly impacting future globalist trends? Is their goal truly“endinghealth disparities” or is it relating to the expansion of a command economy and centralized planning – otherwise known as socialism on a global scale?
Republicans’ first order of business this coming 118th Congress must be to introduce a legislative firewall between the White House — and its offshoot federal law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice and its offshoot, the FBI — and private social media companies.
The dissemination of news and the facilitation of public discourse is central in any democracy that allows genuine participation on the part of its citizens. Open public dialogue is a “public good”, or something which, like clean air, benefits everyone equally and greatly.
Providers of public goods are generally regulated under common carriage laws. The Communications Act of 1934, for instance, allowed AT&T to enjoy monopolistic power over the public good it provided: the interconnecting of the American people by way of a unified, national standard for telephone communication.
In exchange for enjoying monopoly power, and to ensure that public goods truly remain beneficial to the public, special duties or restraints are generally imposed on such companies.
With companies such as Compuserve and AOL in mind, Congress sought to hand out special liability relief with the idea of promoting two public goods: an internet characterized by a wide dissemination and diversity of ideas; and an incentive system for platforms to create family-friendly environments.
Unfortunately, in the ensuing case law that has been built up in dealing with Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, two giant, related problems have emerged, both involving a misreading of a landmark court decision: Zeran v. AOL.
The first problem is that what Congress intended when it comes to protecting social media companies from liability tied to defamatory messages posted on their platforms has been greatly expanded and now encompasses virtually any and all decisions regarding “content moderation”, such as removing the accounts of epidemiologists with whom Dr. Anthony Fauci, the FBI, CIA, and possibly other federal agencies, might disagree.
The second problem is that the “good faith” condition Congress imposed on these companies to ensure against arbitrary or biased content-removal decisions has been completely erased. It is now never applied to social media companies at all.
Both problems can be traced to a misunderstanding and incomplete reading of Zeran v. AOL.
As a result, as Michigan State University law professor and former Commerce Department telecom official Adam Candeub writes, “social media platforms are now treated like they’re above the law.”
Thankfully, this can be easily changed, even at the regulatory level. Non-discrimination policies need not create a “wild west” scenario. To a large extent, people really do not need moderators to curate what they see on social media. They are free to do that themselves.
Removing the distortive “curators”, editors, “fact-checkers” and middlemen from the information process — and reaching people who previously have been sheltered from diverse opinions — will likely not tear people apart. It might even help to bridge misunderstandings and fill in a few gaps. That, perhaps, is the ultimate public good.https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19261/big-tech-censorship
‘Last year, the VSRF produced the first explanation of the consortium behind the unprecedented Corporate Media and Big Tech censorship surrounding COVID, elections, and any topic that the countered the government narrative.
We review the latest news like these stories and host special guests each Thursday at 7pm EST on the VSRF Weekly Update with Founder Steve Kirsch. Join us! Register: https://www.VacSafety.org
The VSRF’s mission is to advance COVID-19 vaccine safety through scientific research, public education, and advocacy, and to support the vaccine injured. https://www.vacsafety.org/‘
‘A Norwegian woman is under investigation by authorities in Norway and is facing criminal charges and possible prison time for saying that men cannot be lesbians.
If charged and convicted, artist Tonje Gjevjon, who is herself a lesbian, could face up to three years in prison.
On November 17, Gjevjon was told that she was being investigated by the police over allegations of “hate speech.”
She came under investigation over a Facebook post that criticized men who said they were lesbians.
EXCLUSIVE: A Norwegian woman is facing criminal charges for stating men can not be lesbians.
Tonje Gjevjon is the second woman in the country to be investigated for criminal "transphobia" in 2022. She faces a potential prison sentence of three years.https://t.co/L2qBNMcj8k
Gjevjon has faced intense pushback for publicly standing up for women’s rights.
In her post, she also criticized transgender activists who try to prosecute women for refusing to comply with “woke” gender ideology.
“It’s just as impossible for men to become lesbian as it is for men to become pregnant,” Gjevjon wrote.
“Men are men regardless of their sexual fetishes.”
In the post, translated to English by Facebook, Gjevjon wrote, “men with fetishes have been protected as a vulnerable minority through the foolish and constructed concept of gender identity is koko. [sic]”
Gjevjon said she posted her Facebook message on purpose to bring attention to Norway’s hate speech law.
The law was changed in 2020 when the country’s parliament voted to outlaw speech against people who identify as transgender.
Gjevjon is also not the first to be confronted with charges over saying men cannot be lesbians or mothers.
Last year, Gjevjon asked Anette Trettebergstuen, a politician in the Labour Party, what she was going to do to safeguard the rights of women and girls.
She also asked if she thought that men could be lesbians.
“I believe it is absolutely necessary to place biological sex as the basis in all contexts where sex has legal, cultural, or practical relevance, and that equating sex with gender identity has harmful, discriminatory consequences for women and girls – especially lesbians,” Gjevjon said in her question.
“Will the Equality Minister take action to ensure that lesbian women’s human rights are safeguarded, by making it clear that there are no lesbians with penises, that males cannot be lesbians regardless of their gender identity, and by tidying up the mess of the harmful gender policies left behind by the previous government?” She asked.
Trettebergstuen replied, “I do not share an understanding of reality where the only two biological sexes are to be understood as sex.
“Gender identity is also important.”
Gjevjon has also described being pushed out of the art community over her views, even though she was a prominent member of the music and art establishment for over 15 years.
“I have stated that women are female, that lesbians do not have penises, that children should not be responsible for decisions they do not have the capacity to understand the scope of, and that no-platforming is harmful to democracy,” Gjevjon wrote in Klassekampen, a Norwegian outlet.
“For these opinions, I have been canceled several times.
“I was not prepared for the extent of how queer organizations, politicians, and activists would demonize a lesbian artist who was not in step.
“Trans activists contact people I work with, portraying me as hateful and warning against being associated with me,” she said.’
whatyareckon 