EHC4. Germs the ultimate weapon and the European Health Community

Germs have been called the ‘ultimate weapon.’

So when Matthew Pottinger, Deputy National Security Adviser to US President Trump told a global Zoom conference of Parliamentarians that the Coronavirus pandemic originated from the Wuhan virology laboratory, we should take notice. China is using investigations by the World Health Organisation, WHO, as camouflage, he said.

Pottinger was formerly a Reuters and Wall Street Journal correspondent in China. He speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese. His brother is a virologist.

At Wuhan, Shi Zhengli, known as the Batwoman is known to have collected deadly viruses from distant bat caves. The Coronavirus strain in Covid-19 seems to be modified for ‘gain of function‘ that allows it to spread rapidly and genetic modification that requires high technology. In the spring of 2020, Chinese doctors in Wuhan who warned of the coming disaster disappeared or ‘were disappeared‘.

Where did the Chinese learn these high technology and highly dangerous virology techniques?

US agencies were banned from such research at home but then Dr Anthony Fauci of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease collaborated with Wuhan on multi-million dollar contracts aimed at bat Coronavirus ‘gain of function‘ research. This makes a virus more infectious for humans and can lead to a pandemic.

War as Fear-mongering

Bio-weapons have an extra attribute compared to other systems — spreading widespread fear and panic across continents. Fear of disease can paralyse societies, lockdown the economy and allow an enemy, who knows the secrets, to gain the supremacy of power, production and prestige.

Bio-weapons are potent. During World War II, atomic weapons killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese. Bioweapons much more. In the Middle Ages, Black Death killed an estimated millions upon millions — an estimated 40 to 60 percent of Europe’s population. If weaponised, such germs would be absolutely devastating.

In today’s world of communications and propaganda, the fear factor can have massive repercussions, far greater than the minimal percentage of extra deaths that may or may not have been involved. Taking into account the psychological warfare causing addictions and suicides, the normal death rates in 2020 may well be below average rates in many countries. In some countries deaths by influenza has disappeared from the ‘official’ statistics. Many ask: why is the West in lockdown?

Of all countries, China has real grounds for concern about biological warfare. It learned from bitter experience about biological attacks last century — as a victim.

This experience may have set that nation’s security goals like no other. The means of defence is a priority. Morale at home must remain high, panic minimised, centralised government firm, and official death rates as low as possible.

Korean War

On 25 June 1950, barely a month after Robert Schuman had announced the French proposal for a European Community, the Korean War broke out.

Allegations were made that biological warfare was being used. By whom?

The Chinese Communists said that the Americans were guilty. Captured airmen confessed, they said. The American authorities riposted that they were victims of ‘brainwashing‘.

The Chinese had good reason to be afraid of biological warfare. And with the USA’s victory over Japan in WW2 and capture of their secrets, they had good reason to suspect the Americans had advanced biowarfare techniques. In WW2 Japan was the foremost power that had developed biological weapons for attack and defensive schemes at home.

In December 1952, when before representatives of European States, French Foreign Minster Robert Schuman proposed the creation of a European Health Community, these allegations were still current.

Schuman’s Purpose

Was the threat of a new wave of biological warfare part of Schuman’s project for a European Community of Health to protect its populations? The battle to get such an idea accepted was formidable but so were the consequences if Europe had no defence against such threats. Such an ambitious project with such a variety of opposers required a steady political hand to navigate it through the waters against nationalism, pharmaceutical cartels, and left-wing propaganda allied to the USSR in Europe and the rising Chinese Communist powers in Asia who threatened French interests in Indochina.

Schuman had suggested the European Defence Community to the French Government in mid-September 1950 just after the outbreak of the Korean War. But the idea provoked heavy opposition, both from Gaullists and Communists, inside and outside Parliament.

Why was such a Defence Community necessary when, in April 1949 western leaders had signed the Treaty of Washington creating NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance? NATO was the broad picture for defence against the USSR but it did not ensure full European needs and protection of their interests. The EDC attempted to find an efficient, common approach to a common danger by integrating national armies with a European command against a powerful USSR.

Having the necessary political and military infrastructure was of primary importance. But what if the population itself was held hostage by the threat of biological war? How could civilians be protected? If integrating the national units of the army, navy and airforces into European ones was becoming an almost impossible task, how would politicians be able to find a unified policy to deal with complex civilian threats like disease? Without such a policy Europe could easily fall into the chaos caused by the intentional spread of disease exacerbated by undisciplined refugee movements.

The European Health Community seems tailor-made to deal with these life and death issues. A democratically organised defence including even countries outside NATO would provide solidarity against tyrants with bio-weapons.

Schuman, unfortunately, was unable to see the project through to a signed treaty. He was forced out of office in early 1953 by a combination of nationalists, Communists and Gaullists. What he proposed then should be examined to decide what is needed now.

Making war impossible

Mutual defence against biological warfare and outlawing it inside the Community fits in directly with Schuman’s avowed purpose in creating the European Community system. It was designed to cover a number of problems, all within the theme of ‘making war not only unthinkable but materially impossible‘ among its Member States.

Schuman’s Plan for a European Health Community would have resolved not only the major problems of the health of Europeans but provided a mighty shield of protection against biowarfare.

Today it could have resolved Covid-19 problems emanating from the Wuham biosecurity laboratory in China, according to US authorities.

How?

This was the height of the Cold War. The Community drew on the studies that the European population should expect and design defence correspondingly. The properly functioning Community system enables detailed investigation of fact, submitted to intense questioning by interest groups, and the means to take unified action based on a democratic process that engages all strata of societies.

The Community’s purpose was also to provide democratic, transparent and effective defence against chemical and biological warfare, not to mention the health devastation of radiation that might be caused by atomic war.

Ancient biowarfare

In war the population should expect the unexpected. Civil rules are thrown out the window. Romans bathed their swords in excrement or fluid from corpses to infect their enemies with tetanus.

In second century Hatra, near Mosul, the Parthian inhabitants defended their fortress from the attacking Romans by launching pots full of deadly scorpions onto the legionnaires.

And then came an attack with global consequences…

In 1346 the Mongols catapulted diseased bodies into the Italian trading post of Caffa in the Crimea. The Italians fled in the ships and brought the disease to Italy and Europe. The ensuing bubonic plague or Black Death killed between 30 and 60 percent of Europeans.

Spanish ‘Flu, H1N1

In World War 1, Germans tried to cripple the horsepower of the Allies by spreading anthrax or glanders. At the close of the war Spanish Flu wiped out more people than had been killed in battle. It illustrated the debilitating spread of such a disease, a Corona virus. Known as H1N1, it infected 500 million people, a third of the world’s population. Estimates of deaths range from 17 to 100 million. It attacked young people, at first soldiers in crowded barracks. Fear and panic spread worldwide. If the strongest section of society was stricken down so easily, who could escape this disease?

The disease may have been generated from the spread of disease in animals, to fowl and then to humans by the conditions of modern agriculture and the economy. But what if such a disease was artificially produced for military purposes?

Because of these dangers the League of Nations proposed a treaty banning bacteriological weapons. At Geneva on 17 June 1925, 128 nations signed the ‘Protocol for the prohibition in War of Asphyxiating, poisonous and other Gases, and of bacteriological Methods of Warfare.’

That did not solve the problem. Far from it.

Japan’s Plague Polemology

Lieutenant General Shiro Iishi, supremo of Japan’s bacteriological warfare programme.

In Japan it led to a cynical escalation of bio-weapon research. One Japanese officer took a different view to the commonly expressed horror and revulsion at bio-weapons.

Shiro Iishi (later Lt General) argued that if all nations banned such warfare, Japan must do all in its power to create the most virulent germ weapons and investigate the most effective methods for destroying enemies with lethal diseases.

That was the start of the operation known as Unit 731, a hellish atrocity that plumbed greater depths of depravity than the Nazis and Dr Mengele.

Born of a wealthy family, surrounded by servants, Iishi made a world tour studying bio-war research: major institutions across USA, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, Scandinavia, the Baltics, USSR, Turkey, Ceylon and Singapore.

In 1931 General Tetsuan Nagata launched a false flag war on China. An explosion ripped into Japanese owned railway property. The military blamed the Chinese and decimated a Chinese military base. It led to the Japanese take-over of mineral-rich Manchuria.

As Japan conquered Manchuria and parts of China, Nagata called on Iishi to begin his experiments on Chinese human beings. Type A research, said Iishi, was attack warfare; type B, defence, could be done in Japan.

Thus began a decade of human experimentation including dissection without anaesthetics, and production of plague, typhoid, cholera and anthrax. Victims included Americans, French, British, Ukrainians, Koreans and Mongolians. Following the systematic kidnapping of some of its citizens in Harbin, the Soviets took aerial photographs of the vast Pingfan installation where they were kept.

Japanese military squadrons released anthrax bombs over China and poisoned waterways. Use against the USSR when war broke out was planned.

Spanish Flu and Swine Flu

Swine Flu was a respiratory disease like Covid-19. It was another form of H1N1. It hit in 2008 and more people were infected than the Spanish Flu but with less lethality (0.01 to 0,03 compared with 2 to 3 % for Spanish Flu.)

The fact that the historic virus of 1919 suddenly raised its lethal head nearly a century later, raised the question about whether it had been experimented with to produce a gain of function of its transmissibility.

About half a million people died, the same sort of figure as seasonal ‘flu. Like Covid-19 it was more infectious than lethal. The obese and those with other health problems are most often the victims.

Figures for mid October 2020 show similar lethality at between 2 and 3%. In September the European death rate for all diseases including Covid-19 were below the average annual death rate. Thus people were living longer! But in October the number of infections started to increase.

Germs and germ warfare

Germs were obviously a main theme of a European Health Community, but what about germ warfare?

There were already well-established health services in all the Member States. A large sector of the population was employed. Many States had their own pharmaceutical firms. Some, like Switzerland and Germany, had extensive international interests that they wished to protect against intrusion.

In the international sphere there were already world organisation like the United Nations and specifically the World Health Organisation, WHO.

WHO and Europe

Should European nations submit entirely to the WHO? Would that help in the needs and interests of Europeans? That is a question that is still relevant today.

To the latter question Paul Ribeyre replied that for Europe, the action of the WHO was too universal to hope to respond to Europe’s specific needs. Besides, he added diplomatically, a Community (composed of nations who were not part of the Soviet bloc) had to deal with their own special characteristics.

The United Nations at this time was the major scene of ideological battling. The Soviet influence inside the UN could seriously interfere with health issues, especially if an agency like WHO was ‘captured’ by the Communists of the Soviet States and its allies.

Ribeyre went further. He said that the Community needed to set up its own form of authority that would deal inside its own European limits. WHO had already proved inadequate to deal with far lesser problems.

An example of UN incoherent policy was that of narcotics. Some countries had an economic interest in the export of narcotics to the detriment of health of others.

It was not possible to gain worldwide consensus. Countries that had a monopoly control of pharmaceuticals or an economically discriminatory policy across borders had a potential tool in the ideological warfare of the time.

Europe had to define its health interests and protect them.

Schuman to the defence

Schuman was at the forefront in creating a defensive structure for France within Europe. He analysed the various means that could be exploited to ignite war across Europe.

After WW2, Europeans reverted to their own forms of nationalism. The military alliances of the war dissolved. The West had combined with the Soviet Union to fight Fascist German and Italy.

In the early postwar years, Europeans faced two major dangers, Schuman said. First was the uncertain future of Germany, presently divided between East and West. Secondly, the Soviet Union, which retained its massive Red Army, was threatening to invade the rest of Europe.

Schuman expanded the Dunkirk Treaty with UK to create with the Benelux countries the Western Union or Brussels Pact. While stressing the preservation of western values such as human rights, it required the means to resist external aggression. Its military committee was the embryo of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

How should Europeans boost their defence structure and ensure the safety of their citizens?

The European Coal and Steel Community of 1951 had the twin aims of strengthening the means to make arms while overseeing that armament firms did not get into the driver’s seat of government.

The Korean War, required more urgent means to be applied to collective European defence. The invasion of Korea was seen as a dry run for the invasion of Europe by the USSR. However, although the treaty for the European Defence Community was approved in the parliaments of five nations, in France parliament with a combination of communists, nationalists and Gaullists made sure that French approval was suspended. That put the EDC into long-term cold storage.

NATO could provide the defensive umbrella against Soviet aggression. But Europe’s many nations and opposing histories was far different from North America. Europeans had a far more difficult challenge about how to protect themselves in the event of war.

Europeans competed with each other, even wanting to build their own atomic bombs. The question of atomic war was later tackled in the Euratom treaty of 1957.

Germ Wars

But what of Germ Warfare? Protection was evidently something that Europeans had to do for themselves. They could not expect the Americans and Canadians to provide it.

The European Health Community Treaty provides a few possibilities that this could be instigated on a European Community basis with strong Community institutions to safeguard democratic values.

The most obvious gain would be to share expertise and and supplies against all the varied maladies of mankind. Europeans would be stronger and the economy would benefit hugely. But all that could be lost if war broke out or if an enemy tried to infect the population before invasion. So it is logical to surmise that EHC could be the nucleus of means of protection and defence.

Politically this was a very delicate subject. Nations of Western Europe still did not trust each other even though they had fought a war together.

The Democratic Mechanism

How could Europeans get together and trust each other in such a delicate but essential task? The goal to be attained was to create a powerful decisional system but also to find a way to encourage the free cooperation of experts, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical firms and people.

While the countries and peoples were different from the first Community of Coal and Steel, the governance was to be the same.

This shows that in the minds of architects of the European Health Community, there was only one model to that had the potential for this. That was the supranational Community and its already know five institutions.

The plans of the structure of the EHC were published in striking detail in 1952. 

EHC3. Sick Europe has lost the plot & Big Picture on Defence

17, November, 2020

Has Europe lost the Plot on Defence? Are Europe’s leaders blind to the Big Picture too? They seem confused about who Europe’s defence should be aimed against.

The plot has been lost for more than half a century! That does not mean the plotting against Europe has stopped. Europe has been under constant deadly attack since the European Community began.

Realistic Defence ‘against external threats’ is not only about classical bullets and tanks, planes and ships, but about preserving western civilisation in the long term– over a span of a century or more to come.

Europeans have failed to see the big picture — which is prerequisite to understanding what the plot is for defence.

Brexit in Defence

The potential rupture of UK and Continental European defence efforts, brought about by Brexit, is just one tear in the larger canvas.

Who gains if UK and EU do not patch things up?

Europe is presently war-wounded and in the sick bed. It is overspending trillions of Euros that will affect its future for a generation or more.

We are presently suffering from the devastation of the Covid-19 plague. The economy has crashed. Major social changes, never considered possible before, have suddenly taken place.

Small firms and workers have lost their livelihood, with often zero chance of regaining a life’s work.

Society has been turned upside down. Some say ‘normal’ will never return.

Families are separated. Old people are isolated. Then, through politicians blind care for national health systems, the same senior citizens are infected in ‘care homes’. The old take by far the biggest death toll.

Normal hospitals, recreation centers, public meetings and churches are closed. What happened to the freedoms that people fought world wars to defend?

Fierce family arguments rage among those that feel the government rules must be adhered to and others who say they are logically incoherent. The rupture of bonds and trust in government may have irreversible consequences for our future.

 

War on Western Society

Disease is war in the human body. It can also be war on society. What have the EU and UK defence agencies done to prevent this disruption, both foreseeing it and presenting policy? The EU has not even tackled properly the security aspects of disease and the cartels in the pharmaceutical industries.

Germs are considered to be the ultimate weapon. But in this case Covid is not a major plague and the death rate is no more than a bad winter. Its effects have, however, been massive.

The Wuhan virus acts as a torpedo of economic destruction bringing with it a wave of seemingly deliberately orchestrated panic and fear. Why is panic out of all proportion to the problem?

To date China, with 1.4 billion people, recorded just 4634 deaths.

Other countries less. Why?

 

Chinese Unrestricted Warfare

Who gains from such devastation of the West? Certainly those who see warfare as multifaceted and a long-term clash for global dominance – a doctrine the Chinese military call ‘Unrestricted Warfare’.

Civilisations like the Chinese think in terms of a centuries-long struggle for mastery of the planet. The ideology predates Mao. They have flexible, opportunistic strategies that use all means to gain it.

The Chinese have moved away from the communist pipe-dreams of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. They are fired up by a new syncretic version that sees world submission to the Middle Kingdom or rather Middle Republic ruled by the dictators of the proletariat.

 

Godless Communism

Soviet communism left the West in an effete state. The West won the arms race but its youth had absorbed Marxism’s poison of materialism. Dialectical materialism was the reason the USSR failed. It is the reason materialistic China will fail. Any society based on materialism will fail.

It was proved false in the Cold War. Why? Because it denies the spiritual world which is the basis for values like freedom of assembly and debate, human rights and sound belief based on the Creator of the physical universe, its mathematical basis and the Originator of all law and moral order. Denial of the moral order brings an inevitable reaction as much as it does in physics.

The Magna Carta and the US Constitution, the European Community, which has brought Europe its longest peace, were not inspired by materialism but directly from our common spiritual heritage.

Atheistic Defeat

The Soviet bloc was shown to be dialectically derelict by Protestants in East Germany, Catholics in Poland and Hungary, and Orthodox and Jews in USSR. The Nazis and the Fascists of Italy suffered the same opposition and the same fate.

Given the lessons of the last century, the West should hopefully begin to understand that it must defend itself against ideologies that have existed for millennia and seek global dominance.

That must include religious ideologies that deny the obvious truths and values of the West. False religious doctrines can be as devastating as false political doctrines.

 

Blackmail of Infidels

Half a century ago the West, especially Europe, suffered devastation as severe as a major war. Its huge global currency reserves were snatched away. Europe was reduced to poverty levels and debt.

The cause? A global cartel applying ideology to change western foreign policy. In this case it was religious. After the failure of Egypt, Syria and its allies to annihilate Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Islamic oil exporters (AOPEC) placed a total oil embargo on the West. That was the equivalent of a declaration of war.

Why? The European States weren’t involved in any fighting. The Arab States wanted to overturn any pro-Israel policy of the Europeans.

When this jihad stumbled they introduced a four-fold increase of the price of oil. They later quadrupled the price again in 1979.

Europe’s factories closed down.

Motor vehicles ran by horse power not petrol power.

 

Petrodollar Boom and Bust

Has Europe today really recovered from this? Certainly the City of London has taken advantage of the flood of recycled petrodollars picked from millions of European pockets, but for the west it debased and diluted the currencies. It has only resulted in turning the currency into a moth-ridden inflationary rag of what was once solid money.

A dot.com economy based on dot.com imaginary money and bloated stock market graphs will find itself part of a Great Reset.

That monetary illusion makes the west vulnerable to other dangers. Global finance cartels could turn the population into poor slaves. In history it is a well-known technique.

What is the solution? Is it just to make sure that UK and EU retain common defence structures of the EU?

That would hardly be adequate to deal with any of the above assaults on western civilisation.

What is required is an up-to-date Community approach to defence that brings together all democratic interests of all society.

Today foreign and global forces can attack critical aspects of society by using modern means of communications. Defence is no longer just Atomic weapons, hypersonic rockets and airplanes. It is also about money, raw materials, religion, chemicals and disease. It is about space wars and the use of the Moon.

 

Strong Plan

The European Defence Community of the 1950s was agreed in all parliaments except the French (then dominated by Gaullists and Communists). It was foreseen to work in coordination with the Council of Europe and the safeguards of its Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

That organic link was broken.

How?

Much of the democratic vision that the Community structure offered was attenuated in the Gaullist and nationalist 1960s and 1970s. De Gaulle turned out to be a dupe or a eighteenth century nationalist dreamer.

French Prime Minister Robert Schuman, in contrast, had taken a quite different and highly innovative step to end Europe’s incessant wars and provide a strong common defence.

He said in 1948 that the Community must be based on strong, democratic States that sought the means to end wars between themselves.

He had initiated both the Council of Europe and the Community system with the idea that they should work hand in glove.

Nato was the expansion of the initiative he took in creating the Brussels Treaty Organisation for Continental defence.

He was co-author of the Washington Treaty, in particular article 5.

 

 

USSR won this war

The disinformation battle was won by the Soviet Union.

Eurocommunists, like Altiero Spinelli, sold gullible politicians a fake bill of goods called a federal Europe. It would only be successful, they said, if European political parties abandoned the democratic Community structure and put the Council of Europe and its human rights in the dustbin. What he did not say was written in his earlier wartime manifesto. He wrote that his goal was to ’emancipate the working class’ and abolish private property.

The ‘federalists’ had no idea what institutions to put in place. The only process they knew was ‘dialectical materialism’ and an end to the rich plutocrat classes whoever they were. The self-selecting theorists would be the new ruling class. This federalist fake, starting with the 1986 Single European Act, set back Europe for decades.

The Community system was replaced by the undemocratic EU, run by the closed-door European Council and the secretive Coreper. The powerful EuroGroup, a committee not mentioned in the treaties as an institution, controls the money and hence the lives of many Europeans.

From a defence point of view this is flashing red lights. Lack of real democracy makes Europe vulnerable to outside trouble-makers as well as insidious insiders.

Protecting Democracy

How does that contrast with a democratic Community system?

The European Coal and Steel Community of 1950 provided Europe’s first agency to break international cartels in armaments and other sectors. Coal, steel, arms and banking cartels forced an arms race on indolent governments. That led to World Wars 1 and II. An industrial cartel with major international links to US and other capitalists paid for Hitler.

The later European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom, prevented the outbreak of atomic war amongst its member States.

The European Economic Community / Customs Union provided the means to prevent trade wars among member States and protect all against external threats.

 

The Big Picture

Today we need to regain the big picture.

There is no reason to limit western defence to the present Member States of the EU. The projected European Health Community of 1952 was open to all European States from Turkey to Iceland.

It would have been invaluable in fighting Covid.

Today, Europe’s democratic structure is not fit to provide the debating and deciding mechanism for warfare that might attack on all sides. For example in the UK major parliamentary reform was necessary before the Chinese virus struck. Brexit was the result, not democratic reform of the EU.

For defence strategy and management that indistinct parliamentary voice was stifled by the pandemic. Parliaments and ‘democracy’ became virtual. The press was suppressed.

Democracy defends itself

The needed democratic structure should allow the voices of all people to be heard. They are the ones who can detect early warning signs. Industrialists, trade-unionists and consumers can provide much expert analysis of the threats to Europe. A democratic Europe is its best defence.

The rickety structures of today, shaken by pandemics from China, energy embargoes and extortion from ideological foes, materialism, neo-Marxist propaganda, and arms cartels will not make Europeans feel safe and secure at home.

A return to first principles is urgent.

 

Trillion Euro Torpedo: Covid Censorship, Disinformation or Global Warfare?

Who do you believe?

Is the world living through a Covid crisis affecting football fans or a Global Famine?

We could be facing multiple famines of biblical proportions within a short few months
There is also a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself. The World Food Programme analysis shows that, due to the Coronavirus, an additional 130 million people could be pushed to the brink of starvation by the end of 2020. That’s a total of 265 million people.
The World Food Programme Executive Director, David Beasley, 21 April 2020

or

Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel CoronaVirus identified in Wuhan, China.

World Health Organisation, Director Tadros, 14 January 2020

How do you tell information from disinformation, truth from lies?

By analysis of all information sources. A censor is someone who is authorised by a State to stop uncomfortable information from reaching the public.

What is the difference between a censor and someone stopping ‘disinformation’? A censor stops all information the authorities do not like. Someone stopping disinformation stops information that he or she defines as not acceptable. But who guards her choice?

Disinformation may originate from someone trying to help the public because official sources are wrong or inadequate.

• Why should that be stopped rather than lead to a public debate?

The usual sources of information may be biased as they come from commercial interests, wanting to fleece the public.

• How should that be corrected except by public debate?

They may be party political, where, for example a Marxist or revolutionary or perhaps a fascist ideology is overactive in news media organisations.

• Shouldn’t the people with opposing views have similar access to public debate?

Disinformation may also originate from a one-party State, such as Communist China, that wants to dominate the coming century.

• There too, information needs to be exposed, not stopped.

The real difference with censorship and stopping ill-defined or self-defined ‘disinformation’?

• NOTHING. Both functions depend on control and ideological judgement.

The function of a journalist and the duty of a citizen is to publish information that the controllers do not want the public to know. Authoritarian States and technocratic organisations would like to make any disagreement ILLEGAL.

YouTube CEO Wojcicki “Remove information”

“Anything that went against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy. So REMOVE is an important part of our policy.”

Censorship? Can journalists correct government spin and disinformation (only some States are under democratic control).Who can oppose global commercial cartels, bigger than States? Can journalists correct international organisations with global power and little public control?

Only if they can publish and circulate diverse view points and unwelcome facts.
Take the case of WHO, the World Health Organisation. It gives out contradictory opinions. Must the public and the press follow this in lock-step.
* First yes sir, no threat.

* Then yes sir, just follow China’s lead about how to deal with the global pandemic threat you are in.

In mid-January it advised the world that CoranaVirus was not contagious! It was, it seems, following instructions from the Chinese Communist Party who were trying to cover up the chaos in Wuhan while letting the virus be spread worldwide. Why were no proper checks made?

The virus had already spread to France and USA in December. It is therefore likely that the Chinese knew about the contagion in November, perhaps earlier.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said there was ‘an enormous amount of evidence‘ that the virus came from the Wuhan Level 4, Biological Warfare/Defence laboratory. It is known to be leaky from previous virulent epidemics like SARS. The best experts say the virus was man-made.

Several months later the world is in lock-down or rather a lock up or ‘stickum-up’.

Trump: “Who would believe that!”

The West economies are cut to ribbons. And China? China released statistics showing that very few people died in China.

Remember!

“Anything that went against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy. So REMOVE is an important part of our policy.”

What does the European Commission say about ‘censorship’?

5 May My question to the Commission (at 2 mins)

YouTube is banning any discussion which criticises the WHO (World Health Organisation). They have taken down other YouTube videos which are very relevant on the statistics of Covid problems in various countries. And so the whole discussion on the economics and politics of the Covid problem are being curtailed by YourTube and other large international InfoTech companies. They are taking down important information. Has the Commission reacted to this policy?

Commission Spokesman Response

I am not aware of any information that would substantiate the comments that you are making on this issue. We would need more precise information from you to ascertain that this is really happening in order to assess it.

DP, EurDemocracy

The Chief Executive Officer of YouTube, Susan Wojcicki, made this public announcement.

“Anything that went against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy. So REMOVE is an important part of our policy.”

Commission Spokesman

We are not aware of that statement. We will come back to you if we have a comment on this.

My Email from eurDemocracy to Commission

re: My question today at the midday press conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=334&v=sPrbGU0Wyh4&feature=emb_logo

At around 5 minutes

This is the interview with Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, on CNN and comments by Fox analyst Tucker Carlson. YouTube is the largest video hosting site in the world.

In it she says that anything that disagrees with WHO policy will be taken down. (WHO has had contradictory policies and has been shown to be unreliable and biased leading to corruption.) Are journalists supposed to follow its pronouncements or be banned?

She also says that anything her company disagrees with will also be taken down. Who guards the guardians?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8269475/YouTube-accused-censorship-removing-videos-criticize-shutdowns.html

The company has also taken down video of press conferences by doctors with millions of views reporting on serious problems with official positions on

• vaccines
• therapeutics
• false post mortem designations and
• other matters having implications for the work and mental health of the public.

This information censorship has massive implications about how to resolve Europe’s political, social and economic policy problems about Covid-19, its origin and dispersion, here and elsewhere. Trillions of euros are involved. Fundamental freedoms are being denied. The effects of the pandemic have unforeseen consequences. This is no time for censorship.

A number of international disputes and court cases are under way so a diffusion of accurate information to the public is vital.

Q: What is the Commission’s reaction to the misuse of dominant position of this infoTech company and its effects on the EU?

Thanks.

Reply from Commission Spokesman

Thank you for following up and for providing clarifications to your Midday question in writing.

We are aware of the statements by Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki – from several weeks ago – saying that the platform was focused on “raising authoritative information” and removing information that is false and “medically unsubstantiated.” We have no comment to make on her comments directly. We would however suggest not to confuse the fight against disinformation with “censorship”.

As I had the occasion to express also from the podium recently, we are aware of an increasing number of false information about the coronavirus outbreak appearing in public discourse. We are concerned that some of them can lead to public harm. In this context, we are in contact with online platforms.

The Commission is meeting regularly with online platforms, including Google / Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Mozilla and trade association EDiMA to discuss the spread of disinformation around the outbreak of coronavirus. All these platforms are signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation.

To help fight disinformation, the EU is working in close cooperation with these platforms. We are encouraging them to promote authoritative sources, such as public health authorities or the World Health Organisation, and demote content that is fact-checked as false or misleading, and take down illegal content or content that could cause physical harm.

During her last meeting with the platforms, Vice President Věra Jourová urged the companies to share relevant data with the research and fact-checking community, as well as to work together with authorities in all Member States and the Commission to fully enforce their new policies and offer more evidence that their measures are working. The Commission will continue to monitor actions taken by the platforms.

You may have also seen today the reaction of the Commission on the intermediary report of the European Regulators Group of Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) regarding the effectiveness of the Code of Practice on disinformation, that is the framework of cooperation with these platforms. It will feed in the reflection for upcoming actions, such as the Digital Services Act and the European Democracy Action plan.

Johannes

(my emphasis)

Schuman’s open information policy

Robert Schuman the architect of the European Community, implemented a fair and open, democratic system for the European Community’s information policy. Schuman was asked by the United Nations Secretary General to advise them on how to do the same for their organisation. I passed on a copy of his report to the then European Commissioner for Information, vice president Margot Wallstrom.

Both the EU and the UN seem to have buried it. The EU in general, and the European Commission, ‘the Guardian of the Treaties’, have seemingly forgotten that this year 9 May should celebrate the longest period of peace, 75 years, initiated by the Schuman Declaration, seventy years ago.

Fake News and Fraudulent Information is now rampant in Europe and USA. The European Union is projected to lose more than 7 1/2 percent of its economy in the Covid crisis.

Q: Is this economic torpedo due to Fake News, Fraud, student errors in the Wuhan Virology Institute laboratory or economic warfare? If the latter who are the willing or unconscious troops?