Suchergebnisse

Chapter 1: Permanent Counterrevolution, Technocracy, and World War III -- Chapter 2: Shock and Stress -- Chapter 3: Trauma-Based Mind Control -- Chapter 4: Fear and Thread -- Chapter 5: Cognitive Attack -- Chapter 6: Weaponised Deception -- Chapter 7: Mass Paranoia and Hysteria: Turning Society against itself -- Chapter 8: The coming Unrest.

David Hughes enjoyed a long career as a secondary-school teacher and his pupils used to say of him that although he was not always right, by golly he was never wrong. He is certainly never one to follow fashions blindly or to accept without thinking the views of those around him. He is always prepared to listen carefully to the arguments of others. He likes a good debate. He is always asking questions. Here he expounds the common-sense ideas he has formed about humankind and the world of tod

Doctors called him 'the amazing man', consultants called him 'one in a million' and many others called him 'a blooming miracle'! On 4 August 2005 David Hughes fell while pruning a tree, and a scaffold pole fractured the side of his skull, causing serious damage to his brain. He wasn't expected to live. But David has been astounding people all his life. As cyclist, marksman, archer, designer and engineer he has always been a high achiever. Now with the same energy and drive David has disprove

David Hughes reviews Blurring Intelligence Crime: A Critical Forensics

How and why has it come to pass that children as young as 12 in the UK are being injected with a novel form of mRNA technology that is unlicensed, has no long-term safety data, and remains in clinical trials until May 2023? This article traces the path by which the unthinkable became an alarming reality between October 2020 and September 2021 and also follows developments since then. Working chronologically, the actions and claims of the manufacturers, the regulators, politicians, and in particular the establishment media in promoting "COVID-19 vaccination" for children are examined. The actions taken by policy makers are juxtaposed to scientific evidence available showing that there has never been any rational justification for the mass rollout of "COVID-19 vaccines" to children. The rollout has been predicated on shifting narratives, obfuscations, faux justifications, outright lies, regulatory capture of supposed guardians of the public interest, and mass propaganda. Evidence of actual and potential injuries to children has accumulated from before the beginning of the rollout, in spite of repeated attempts to cover it up, and yet, the under-12s are now also in the crosshairs and children are being targeted for "booster shots." A clear picture emerges of collusion and corruption at the highest levels in forcing through an agenda that runs contrary to public health, democracy, and freedom. It is becoming clear that the rollout to children has nothing to do with "SARS-CoV-2" and everything to do with ongoing efforts to refashion the international monetary system in the image of central bank digital currencies and biometric IDs. In pursuit of that agenda, the transnational ruling class has revealed that it is willing to maim and kill children knowingly, creating enormous potential for a backlash as the public becomes aware of what is being done.

Abstract
This contribution engages with Ardi Imseis's article 'Negotiating the Illegal: On the United Nations and the Illegal Occupation of Palestine, 1967–2020'. In reply, I contemplate whether an occupation's legal status can or should affect the requirement that an occupying power must withdraw from the territory that it controls. I consider Imseis's claim that it is necessary to declare that an occupation has become illegal to move beyond the tension that exists between the requirements of state responsibility and a political preference for negotiations. I question the effectiveness of Imseis's proposed approach, argue that the duty to terminate an occupation is a positive legal duty that exists regardless of an occupation's legal status and suggest that the negotiation process cannot be completely uncoupled from the withdrawal requirement. In conclusion, I suggest that grounding calls to terminate occupation in the principle of temporality and the international consensus prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force better reflects international law's capacity to contribute to an occupation's termination.

International Relations (IR) scholars uncritically accept the official narrative regarding the events of 9/11 and refuse to examine the massive body of evidence generated by the 9/11 truth movement. Nevertheless, as calls for a new inquiry into the events of 9/11 continue to mount, with the International 9/11 Consensus Panel and World Trade Centre Building 7 Evaluation inquiries having recently published their findings, and with a U.S. Federal Grand Jury on 9/11 having been announced, now would be an opportune moment for IR scholars to start taking the claims of 9/11 truth seriously. A survey of the 9/11 truth literature reveals that the official 9/11 narrative cannot be supported at multiple levels. Two planes did not bring down three towers in New York. There is no hard evidence that Muslims were responsible for 9/11 other than in a patsy capacity. Various U.S. government agencies appear to have had foreknowledge of the events and to have covered up evidence. Important questions regarding the hijacked planes need answering, as do questions about the complicity of the mainstream media in 9/11. IR scholars avoid looking at evidence regarding the events of 9/11 for several reasons. They may be taken in by the weaponized term, "conspiracy theory." A taboo on questioning the ruling structures of society means that individuals do not wish to fall outside the spectrum of acceptable opinion. Entertaining the possibility that 9/11 was a false flag requires Westerners to reject fundamental assumptions that they have been socialized to accept since birth. The "War on Terror" has created a neo-McCarthyite environment in which freedom to speak out has been stifled. Yet, if IR scholars are serious about truth, the first place they need to start is 9/11 truth.

This article considers whether there is a rationale for criminalisation of the sexual transmission and exposure to HIV by reviewing the harm principle. The article then provides a comparative jurisdictional analysis of transmission and exposure in three particularised jurisdictions: England, Canada and the US. It will be established that few jurisdictions truly consider the risk of serious harm, and thus lack a theoretical foundation for criminalisation. A comparison of relational judicial precepts will follow the discussion of extant law in each country. The final part of the article proposes a bespoke new legislative framework that will criminalise certain types of transmission and exposure.