This article is a couple of months old, but if you hadn’t noticed that Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has sunk a lot of cash in helping to bring about global, digital ID.
Only Governments & supranational bodies need us to have digital ID. We don’t need them at all in order to have a perfectly good life.

So private money is going into digital ID. How kind!

Reject anything which looks like common format digital ID.

Best wishes
Mike

https://petersweden.substack.com/p/digital-id-2030

Michael Parenti - The U.S. War on Yugoslavia (1999)

https://youtu.be/YZ6QpjPTaG8

Streaming LIVE, link here:

https://counterspinmedia.com/

Are you ready! We have a star studded line up today as experts from around the world join CSM and FREENZ to bring the facts and evidence direct to you, in support of Baby Will and his family whilst they exercise their parental rights and fight for the right to choose non-vaccinated blood.

We call on Kiwis to support baby Will and his family outside Auckland High Court on Tuesday, December 6th, 2022, from 0900 and consider contributing to the family's legal fund and general well-being -
www.buymeacoffee.com/savebabywill or
Samantha Savage
06-0663-0388886-00

Share far and wide!

WHERE THERE'S A WILL THERE'S A WAY!

🔄 Counterspin
NZs Media Revolution
Facts & Evidence based
Not a pay to say platform
www.counterspinmedia.com

Giving Up the Belief in Flu Shots
https://open.substack.com/pub/drtenpenny/p/giving-up-the-belief-in-flu-shots

I’ve been saying for many months that, shockingly, flu vaccinations too are of essentially no value, especially to those who really need protection.

I’ve also been saying that hardly any of what we term influenza-like illnesses are due to influenza. 80-90% aren’t flu!

Even if flu vaccines worked, they’d hardly move the needle.

We’ve been lied to yet again.

Given this well known backdrop, who in pharma & public health really believed that covid vaccines could ever have worked?

They relied on you being deceived, just like you have been with flu, and it worked.

Best wishes
Mike

NATURE MUST BE PROTECTED FROM THE “NATURE POSITIVE ECONOMY”

– OPEN LETTER TO THE WWF, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY & EUROPEAN COMMISSION
November 2022

"A big campaign is underway to promote a so-called “nature positive economy.” While this may seem at first glance like a good idea, the “nature positive” framing and related proposals raise serious concerns:

1. The nature positive agenda promotes a meaningless monetary valuation of nature

This is evidenced in our view by calls to “recognize the value of nature,” “start valuing nature in economic transactions,3” calls for “complementary measures of economic progress (…) including natural capital” (natural capital accounting being the official name for the monetary valuation of nature) and references to the Dasgupta Review on the Economics of Biodiversity - a report promoting the monetary valuation of nature.

Yet, it has been found that the monetary valuation of nature’s functions relies on incorrect assumptions, such as the idea that traditional environmental regulation has failed, that monetary considerations would lead to better conservation outcomes or that it would be possible to reflect all the values of nature in monetary values.

In reality, most valuations models only value a few main ecological functions and ignore the rest as well as their interdependences. Comprehensive modelling would require a complete scientific knowledge that we do not possess and would be too complicated and too costly. It has also been documented that the monetary valuation methodologies being used are weak and vulnerable to many biases, and provide at best lower bounds of monetary values8. As a result, the monetary values being produced do not represent the value of nature’s ecological functions, not even a proxy. Yet misleading figures are not better than nothing but worse than nothing, as they can lead to wrong policy decisions with irreversible consequences.

The monetary valuation of nature’s ecological functions can also give a dangerous and misleading illusion of substitutability between critical ecosystemic functions, where one assumes incorrectly that as long as the total monetary value remains stable, nature is in good shape.

History shows that there is absolutely no need for monetary valuation for sound conservation policies.

2. The nature positive agenda promotes biodiversity offsetting

“Nature positive” is described as stopping and reversing the loss of nature from 2020 towards a net gain of biodiversity by 2030. In this respect, it seems similar to the EU biodiversity strategy’s Net Gain principle, as well as the UK’s forthcoming biodiversity net gain requirement.

Just as with net zero climate targets, the “net” element allow for “offsetting” destruction with restoration promises. While, according to a WEF document, ‘“net” nature positive must clearly state companies and countries cannot destroy nature in one place and restore elsewhere,’ a number of elements suggest precisely the opposite: WWF’s proposal for a nature positive economy roadmap explains indeed that “well-governed nature markets” embedding the value of natural capital are needed in the global architecture for nature positive. The same document also references the Taskforce on Nature Markets – a newly created lobby group that promotes nature markets that “deliver nature positive outcomes” such as intrinsic markets, offset markets and derivatives markets on nature. Other examples include WWF’s call for investments in Nature-Based Solutions, one of the new codewords for carbon and biodiversity offsetting. All of this is consistent with WWF’s view that “markets can be a force for good.”

This would also be consistent with an international context where the UK is working hard to set up markets for nature including biodiversity offsetting, the EU is promoting biodiversity offsetting and the UN is expected to do the same at the CBD COP15 later this year.

Biodiversity offsetting is unfortunately not a new idea at all, having been promoted since 2010 by the European Commission and having been implemented in several countries with an appalling track record of failure.

Biodiversity offsetting has also been shown to have critical environmental and social issues:

i. Recreating or restoring ecosystems to a former state is often unlikely to be feasible within reasonable timeframes or prohibitively costly. “Given the complexity and variability of natural systems, the ecological community is increasingly recognizing that recreating or restoring ecosystems to some specified former state is often unlikely to be feasible, especially within reasonable timeframes.”

The environmental integrity of biodiversity offsetting is further weakened in the case of “like for like or better” biodiversity offsetting, an extreme approach historically favoured by the European Commission, where under some conditions the destruction of one ecosystem can be deemed to be compensated by the restoration of another.

To be clear, restoration can be a good thing, but only as long as it comes in addition to and not instead of curbing destruction, since the two are not comparable. Thus, while it is essential that governments curb destruction and ensure restoration, restoration should never be considered as - and financed through - offsets. Yet, this is precisely what happens within “net” gain biodiversity strategies, where destruction and restoration are measured together under a single metric, thereby considering implicitly that restoration and curbing destruction are equivalent, and favouring the former as it is much cheaper.

The same dynamic is already at play in “net zero“ climate policies, where rich countries often prefer to pay for planting a few trees where land is cheap or protecting forests allegedly at risk of destruction rather than change their lifestyle and curb more drastically their emissions.

ii. Offsetting by definition is not about curbing destruction, at best displaces it, promotes destroying to restore: addressing the 6th mass extinction requires both drastically curbing the destruction of ecosystems and restoring past destruction; offsetting, by contrast is about promising future compensation to enable additional destruction.

If comprehensive recreation of the ecosystem functions that are destroyed were possible, offsetting would lead to a mere displacement of destruction; since in reality, such recreation is generally even on purely ecological grounds not possible, offsetting most often leads in practice to a net loss of biodiversity.

iii. Offsetting in general has also been found to often result in land-grabbing, conflicts over land-use and human rights abuse. Offsetting often requires lots of cheap land to plant trees or restore ecosystems. As a result, it has been documented to often lead to land-grabbing of indigenous land in poor countries, related human-rights abuses, as a form of green neo-colonialism.

It has also been found that the cumulative offset commitments are already so large that they threaten to exacerbate conflicts over land-use and could lead to spiralling food prices.

iv. Privatizing conservation and reconceptualizing it based on profitability considerations

Promoting biodiversity offset markets could transfer critical conservation decisions for our future to financial markets and their well-known irrational mood swings. This is problematic because financial markets have been found to be unable to price scarcity adequately, and because prices are often far too volatile to be able to incentivize changes in behaviour.

More fundamentally, this raises crucial public interest questions, such as should critical conservation policies be based on short-term cost-benefit and profitability considerations, and do we want to let private speculators determine the price of destruction and therefore what is to be saved or destroyed?

3. The nature positive agenda diverts the conversation away from the need to curb destruction, further entrenches the status quo

While this could be a good idea all other things being equal, here is why we find this suggestion problematic in the broader political context:

- It diverts the conversation away from the need for tighter environmental regulations curbing biodiversity destruction: all the media and policy space used to discuss the regulation of sustainable finance is not used to discuss the inadequacy of our conservation policies, and can give an illusion that the issue is being addressed. Likewise, most often financial regulation for sustainability purposes does not come in addition to appropriate environmental policies but instead of it, as private lobbies are prompt to claim that there is no longer any need to tighten conservation regulations.

The nature positive agenda also includes calls to central bankers and financial supervisors to use monetary policy and financial regulation, for example through publishing their own transition plans, to address the biodiversity and climate crises.

- It is not a more promising political avenue than public pressure for tighter environmental regulations: believing that financial regulation would lead to more ambitious results than environmental policies ignores the fact that the same power dynamics are at play in financial and environmental policymaking, leading to the same results.

Shifting the conversation from environmental regulations to financial supervision regulations is however arguably worse, since most citizens tend to disengage from finance topics as they fear (incorrectly) that they will not understand, thereby reducing public pressure and scrutiny.

- It further empowers private finance and financial markets: the idea that finance would have a key role to play is a very specific political framing that empowers private finance actors – who can then negotiate dearly their participation - while downplaying the power of governments to set up appropriate regulations. It is part of a political push to promote economic incentives for private actors instead of constraining regulations. Yet, it should be remembered that traditional environmental regulations could shift capital flows faster and more comprehensively: any regulation automatically changes the future expected profits of the impacted economic sectors, and as a result private capital flows shift mechanically to adjust to the new future expected returns.

Conclusion

Behind its cheerful and vague name, the nature positive economy agenda promotes in our view the financialization of nature’s destruction, via a monetary valuation of ecosystems, biodiversity offsetting and diverting the conversation away from the need to curb biodiversity destruction and towards “sustainable” finance regulation.

We understand its political objective to be maintaining the status quo – i.e., providing the social licence for economic growth maximization to continue as long as there is a “net” reversal of biodiversity decline, i.e., thanks to alleged offsetting – while creating tremendous profit opportunities for private finance.

As such, it is in our view a neoliberal agenda hidden behind cheerful and meaningless keywords, that continues to prioritize economic growth and competitiveness in rich countries over truly addressing critical biodiversity loss, and must be resisted.

In essence, this is what happened with climate change and carbon markets 15 years ago, but it will be much worse, as while there are only 6 greenhouse gases, there are millions of species with incredibly complex webs of interdependences.

Unfortunately, many scientific experts, from biologists to economists, appear to ignore the historical context and politics of biodiversity finance. As a result, a large number of well-meaning experts can end up endorsing vested agendas, that are being fostered by a few institutional and civil society enablers and are designed to maintain the destructive status-quo that benefits a few at the cost of many.

Addressing the 6th mass extinction of species does not require at all the alleged monetary valuation of ecosystems, nor the creation of offset markets and the privatization of conservation, which would most likely worsen the issue. For all these reasons, we strongly oppose the nature positive economy agenda and call on governments and the European Commission to instead put in place tighter environmental regulations mandating a reduction in biodiversity destruction."

https://greenfinanceobservatory.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/openletternaturepositive-final-3.pdf

>>>The 15th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity takes place in Montreal this week - from December 7th-19th.<<<

"At the next Convention on Biological Diversity summit (Dec 7, 2022), world leaders are likely to agree a plan to turn 30% of the Earth into “Protected Areas” by 2030.

Big conservation NGOs say this will mitigate climate change, reduce wildlife loss, enhance biodiversity and so save our environment. They are wrong."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRc7Ez8uY7A

"Behind the call for a New Deal for Nature—recently rebranded Nature Positive, also referred to as a Global Deal for Nature, a Global Goal for Nature, or a Paris Agreement for nature—lie the world’s most powerful capitalist interests, behavioural change organisations such as Avaaz, and big conservation NGOs such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) who partner with the world's biggest polluters...

Also behind the global push to "protect and restore nature" is the World Economic Forum, which entered into partnership with the United Nations on June 13, 2019 to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals or Global Goals.

The World Economic Forum and the WWF have chosen three leading influencers—Greta Thunberg, Jane Goodall and David Attenborough—to help secure a social licence for what would be the world's biggest land grab (30x30) from thousands of largely self-sufficient rural communities in the Global South. These proposals are currently marketed under the #NaturePositive, #ForNature and #NatureNow branding."

https://nodealfornature.wixsite.com/info

"The conservation industry is looking to get $140 billion every year to fund its land grab."

https://www.survivalinternational.org/campaigns/biggreenlie

The accomplice and the sovereign
Speech to the DU.PRE commission of 28-XI-2022

I would like to share with you some reflections on the extreme political situation that we have experienced and from which it would be naive to believe that we have gone out or that we just are able to get out of. I believe that not all of us have realized that what we are facing is more and more of a flagrant abuse in the exercise of power or a perversion – however serious – of the principles of law and public institutions. I think we are rather faced with a heart of darkness which, unlike that of Conrad's novel, no generation can believe that it can climb over with impunity. And if one day historians investigate what happened under the cover of the pandemic, it will turn out, I believe, that our society had perhaps never reached such an extreme degree of brutality, irresponsibility and, together,of decay. I have rightly used these three terms, linked today in a Borromean node, that is, a node in which each element cannot be dissolved by the other two. And if, as some do not without reason argue, the seriousness of a situation is measured by the number of killed, I believe that this index will also be much higher than what has been believed or pretended to be believed. Taking on loan from Lévi-Strauss an expression he had used for Europe in the Second World War, it could be said that our society « vomited itself ». That's why I think that there is not a way for this society from the situation in which she has more or less consciously confined herself, unless something or someone has puts it in question in its entirety.

But that's not what I wanted to talk to you about; I rather want to ask myself with you about what we have done so far and we can continue to do in such a situation. In fact, I fully agree with the considerations contained in a document that was circulated by Luca Marini regarding the impossibility of a reconciliation. There can be no reconciliation with those who said and did what has been said and done in these two years.

We do not have simply men before us who have deceived themselves or professed erroneous opinions for some reason, which we can try to correct. Those who think this are deluded. We have in front to us something different, a new figure of man and citizen, to use two terms familiar to our political tradition. In any case, it is something that took the place of that and that I propose to you to provisionally call with a technical term of criminal law: the accomplice – on condition that it is a special figure of complicity, an absolute complicity, so to speak, in the sense that I will try to explain.

In the terminology of criminal law, the accomplice is the one who has put in place a conduct which in itself does not constitute a crime, but which contributes to the criminal action of another subject, the offender. We found ourselves and we are in front of us to individuals – or rather to an entire society – which became complicit in a crime whose offender is absent or in any case unmentionable for it. A situation, that is, paradoxical, in which there are only accomplices, but the offender is missing, a situation where everyone – whether it's the President of the Republic or the ordinary citizen, of the minister of health or of a simple doctor – always act as accomplices and never as offenders.

I believe that this singular situation can allow us to read the Hobbesian pact in a new perspective. The social contract has assumed, that is, the figure – which is perhaps its true, extreme figure – of a complicity pact without the offender – and this absent offender coincides with the sovereign whose body is formed by the same mass as the accomplices and is therefore nothing more than the embodiment of this general complicity, of this being com-plicit, that is, bent together, of all individuals.

A society of accomplices is more oppressive and suffocating than any dictatorship, because those who do not participate in the complicity – the non-complicit – are purely and simply excluded from the social pact, it no longer takes place in the city.

There is also another way where we can speak of complicity, and it is the complicity not so much and not only between the citizen and the sovereign, as also and rather between man and citizen. Hannah Arendt has repeatedly shown how ambiguous the relationship between these two terms is and how the inscription of birth, that is, of the biological life of the individual, is actually in question, in the legal-political order of the modern nation state.

Rights are attributed to man only to the extent that this is the citizen's immediately amateur assumption. The emergence of man as such on a stable basis in our time is the sign of an irreparable crisis in that fiction of the identity between man and citizen on which the sovereignty of the modern state is based.

What we are facing today is a new configuration of this relationship, in which man no longer passes into the citizen dialectically, but establishes a singular relationship with it, in the sense that, with the nativity of his body, he provides the citizen with the complicity he needs to form himself politically, and the citizen for his part declares himself an accomplice of life of man, whose care he takes. This complicity, you will have understood, is biopolitics, which has reached its extreme – today and hopefully last – configuration.

The question I wanted to ask you is then this: to what extent can we still feel obliged with respect to this society? Or if, as I believe, we feel somehow still obliged, in what ways and within what limits can we respond to this obligation and speak publicly?

I don't have a comprehensive answer, I can only tell you, like the poet, what I know I can't do anymore.

I can no longer, in front of a doctor or anyone who denounces the perverse way in which medicine has been used in these two years, not question the same medicine first. If you don't think again about what medicine has gradually become and perhaps the whole science of which it believes it is part, in no way can one hope to stop its lethal race.

I can no longer, in front of a jurist or anyone who denounces the way in which the law and constitution have been manipulated and betrayed, do not revoke the law and constitution in question first. It is perhaps necessary, not to mention the present, that you remember here that neither Mussolini nor Hitler needed to question the constitutions in force in Italy and Germany, but did they find in them the devices they needed to establish their regimes? It is possible, that is, that the gesture of those who try today to base their battle on the constitution and on the rights is already defeated at the start.

If I have evoked this double impossibility of mine, it is not in the name of vague metastoric principles, but, on the contrary, as an unavoidable consequence of a precise analysis of the historical situation in which we find ourselves. It is as if certain procedures or principles in which it was believed or, rather, he pretended to believe they had now shown their true face, which we cannot fail to look at.

By this I do not mean, devaluing or considering useless the critical work that we have done so far and which certainly will continue to be carried out here with rigor and acuteness. This work can be and is certainly tactically useful, but it would be to show blindness to identify it simply with a long-term strategy.

In this perspective much remains still to be done and can only be done by dropping concepts and truths that we took for granted without reservation. The work ahead can begin, according to a beautiful image by Anna Maria Ortese, only where everything is lost, without compromise and without nostalgia.

Giorgio Agamben

Weaponisation of medical history - UK Column News - 30th November 2022

- Injecting Hope—Science Museum (London) gets Wellcome Trust and Huo Family Foundation to fund a travelling exhibition on vaccines, with a coronavirus model as the big draw; due to travel to China and India
- Brian Gerrish analysis: The Wellcome Trust is but one of many using psychological techniques of this sort
- Stillbirths: Debi Evans watched the October 2022 NHS England board meeting 
- Tommys: Stillbirth rise in England and Wales confirmed by ONS data (August 2022)
- UK Column repository of Yellow Card data on Covid vaccine adverse reactions—can be filtered by category "Pregnancy conditions", unlike the MHRA's own provision of the data
- Gaslighting galore—Justin Trudeau urges Canadians to get more Covid jabs and a PubMed paper by the head of an Australian biologics firm (!) proffers this explanation of Covid jab adverse effects:
- Raymond D Palmer (in the abstract of his paper)
- Daily Telegraph: Pfizer's CEO (Albert Bourla) rapped by regulator for making “misleading” statements about children's vaccines
- Repeat of Monday's announcement of French event on 10 December for the public to demonstrate against Covid jab harm: "A day to bear witness and make history"

Sources: https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-news-30th-november-2022

Why are the nurses really going on strike? - UK Column News - 30th November 2022

- UNISON (trade union) general secretary Christina McAnea:
- The decision to take action and lose a day's pay is tough.
- But thousands of ambulance staff and NHS colleagues know delays won't lessen, nor waiting times reduce, until the gov[ernment] acts on wages.
- Decision to strike was made by union members in five ambulance areas only—but they are some of the country's biggest areas
- In my opinion, UNISON and the Royal College of Nursing are gaslighting those they represent. Yes, of course pay is part of the problem, but it's certainly not all of the problem. This is about patient safety. Those leaving are highly qualified, highly skilled people who have been driven out of the NHS deliberately.
- Clip: Psychiatric nurse Pat Cullen, outgoing head of the Royal College of Nursing, hammers home the notion that the strike is all about "winning" the "justice" of more money, and is positively proud of having achieved a strike, commiserating with those who narrowly missed out on the chance to abandon their patients
- Debi Evans commentary: Meanwhile, an army of qualified nurses no longer in the NHS is being kept from returning by bureaucracy and unacceptably sloppy standards
- Refugees—the nursing stopgap?
- NHS Employers: Code of Practice red and amber list of countries—Nepal is on the WHO red list because it has so few nurses at home, yet UK is shipping them over
- Debi Evans analysis: Nepalese nurses are much less likely to be able and willing to say no to unsafe situations in British hospitals than British nurses are
- Brian Gerrish commentary: Deliberate and calculated breakdown, as heralded by the Conservatives' Danny Kruger as "a period of creative destruction"

Sources: https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/uk-column-news-30th-november-2022

Our open discussion group for lovers of art, cinema and music:

t.me/lovenotfearmankindgroup

UK: Military being trained to step in during strikes - Zahawi

"In case you missed it earlier, the chairman of the Conservative party, Nadhim Zahawi, told Laura Kuenssberg that the government is working on plans to deal with strikes - including sending in the armed forces.

Zahawi says: "We are operationalising contingency plans...we've got a great team - cobra team - that's doing this every day. So - whether it's our military personnel that we've trained up, or a surge capacity - that we can actually make sure things like borders are safe and protected, and of course people's lives are not disrupted."
But he did not confirm a story in the Telegraph about giving pharmacists more powers if nurse strikes go ahead."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-63846865

This is the open discussion group linked to this channel:

t.me/robinmggroup