Giving the game away: the criminocracy's fatal own goal

Imagine, for a moment, that you are part of the criminocracy.

Yes, I know that’s not easy for anyone with a modicum of self-respect, ethics or humanity, but try to put yourself there, nonetheless.

OK. Now imagine that, for whatever self-destructive reason, you want to bring down that criminocracy from within, by exposing its noxious nature to the general public.

What would be the best way to go about that, do you think?

A good plan might be to launch some kind of Grandiose Project, packed full of profitable possibilities, to be carried out by one of the institutions you control.

This would set out to smear and criminalise your critics and ostensibly pave the way for legislation and restrictions that would silence their voices.

But your cunning plan would involve letting slip that a particular report, produced by one of your other organisations, was a major influence on this Grandiose Project.

And through the background and activities of the people involved in this other organisation, the real agenda behind the project and all its propaganda would quickly become clear to anyone who took even a cursory look.

You would then, accidentally on purpose, have shattered the wall of invisibility surrounding your criminocracy and left it vulnerable to righteous revolt from the vast majority of the population!

If you think this self-sabotaging scenario seems somewhat unlikely, I would point you in the direction of the EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021-2030).

This decidedly grandiose scheme is described by the EU as “an ambitious and comprehensive strategy”.

It declares: “Generations after the end of the Shoah, antisemitism is worryingly on the rise, in Europe and beyond. Antisemitism is incompatible with Europe’s core values. It represents a threat not only to Jewish communities and to Jewish life, but to an open and diverse society, to democracy and the European way of life. The European Union is determined to put an end to it”.

We learn that the strategy involves three pillars and “seeks to place the EU firmly in the lead of the global fight against antisemitism, complementing measures within the EU with international efforts along all the three pillars”.

Pillar 1 is “preventing and combating all forms of antisemitism” with the aim of “a European Union free from antisemitic hate speech and hate crime, online and offline”.

Obviously this is all about censorship.

Indeed, the intent is described as to “strengthen the fight against online antisemitism by supporting the establishment of a Europe-wide network of trusted flaggers and Jewish organisations, in line with the Code of conduct. It will also support the European Digital Media Observatory and its national hubs to increase the capacity of their fact-checkers on disinformation and will work with independent organisations to develop counter-narratives, including in non-EU languages”.

The big question here is what exactly will be regarded as “anti-semitic” by these “trusted flaggers” and “fact-checkers on disinformation” – a point we will come back to later.

Pillar 2 is “Protecting and fostering Jewish life in the EU” – creating “a European society aware of Jewish life, culture and history, past and present, and where Jews feel safe”.

Pillar 3 is “Education, research and Holocaust remembrance”, aiming for “a Europe that remembers its past and looks into the future through research and education”.

Alongside the propagandistic purposes clearly implied by both these “pillars” comes the ever-important issue of what the EU terms “funding opportunities”.

It declares that “the implementation of the proposed policy measures and targeted actions will be supported through various EU funding programmes, under the current multi-annual financial framework 2021-2027”.

The project stands to receive European taxpayers’ money from no fewer than ten different EU funding programmes.

Top of the list is the “Citizens, equality, rights and values (CERV) Programme”, with a budget of EUR 1.55 billion.

But the cash will also be flooding in via “The Justice programme”; “Horizon Europe”; “Creative Europe”; “Erasmus+”; “The EU Internal Security Fund”; “The Cohesion policy funds”; “The Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI)”; “The Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance” and “The Technical Support Instrument (TSI)”.

In charge of the Grandiose Project is Katharina von Schnurbein, who was appointed the first “European Commission Coordinator on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life” in December 2015.

Although she is not Jewish, her parents were “ardent supporters of Israel” and she has made a career out of drawing attention to an alleged “rise in anti-semitism”.

The Electronic Intifada website wrote in 2018: “The German official has used her EU perch in a tireless campaign to smear defenders of Palestinian human rights.

“She has pushed for the wide adoption of an official definition of anti-Semitism supported by Israel lobby groups that falsely equates criticism of Israel and its discriminatory state ideology Zionism with anti-Jewish bigotry.

“She has smeared the nonviolent boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights by claiming without offering a shred of evidence ‘that anti-Semitic incidents rise after BDS activities on campuses’.”

Asked in a 2016 article how her post came to be created, von Schnurbein replied, tellingly: “European Jewry, as well as the State of Israel, has been calling for this position for some time, given the recent rise in anti-Semitism”.

But what were the origins of this perception of a rise in anti-semitism that justified the creation of her post and her appointment to it?

In a 2019 piece singing her praises, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency declared: “Some of the most shocking headlines about anti-Semitism in Europe since 2015 came from work promoted by von Schnurbein, who began working at the European Union in 2002 as a press officer”.

The article quotes the chief rabbi of Rome as saying that during her tenure “anti-Semitism has exploded” – and that this was meant as a compliment!

The great achievement of her “relentless efforts” was to have “generated headlines that drew considerable attention to the problem that she was hired to fight, amplifying its footprint in the media and government”.

Von Schnurbein insisted: “Because we are looking into it, it is more visible”.

In other words, she had worked for years to whip up a “problem” for which a “solution” had to be provided – namely the creation of the post of EU anti-semitism czar, long sought by the Israel lobby, her appointment to this post and the launch of the current Grandiose Project.

An important part of this manipulator’s mission is to fend off criticism of the Israeli state and its backers by depicting this as some kind of “hate crime”.

She maintained in 2017: “Anti-Semitism hides behind anti-Zionism”.

And she has long called for restrictions on people’s right to express views of which she and her friends disapprove.

Von Schnurbein said in the 2016 interview: “One of the priorities now is to tackle online hate speech. We recently initiated a European dialogue with IT companies. Then we will ensure the enforcement of existing EU legislation, which includes the Holocaust denial ban.

“We will also work closely with NGOs that are helping to prevent and combat, among other things, anti-Semitism through projects. We currently have an open call for 5.5 million euros to tackle hate crime and hate speech”.

Once again, the enticing glitter of “funding opportunities” lights up the hate-filled gloom!

For all these efforts, von Schnurbein has been lauded by Laurence Weinbaum, director of the World Jewish Congress’s Israel Council on Foreign Relations, as the “indefatigable heroine of the struggle for many of us”.

But von Schnurbein’s dishonest agenda doesn’t stop there.

In recent years she has been talking about the threat of “new forms” of anti-semitism that have allegedly emerged in response to the Covid manoeuvre.

In a June 2023 Jerusalem Post article she sought to depict anything that could be described as “conspiracy theory” as necessarily tainted with “anti-semitism”.

“Where conspiracy grows, antisemitism has already grown,” she said.

The article adds: “As for conspiracy theories that are publicized on social media, von Schnurbein cited the COVID-19 pandemic, in which conspiracy theories about Jewish involvement in the spread of the disease resulted in so many fatalities”.

This is a truly puzzling statement. What on earth is it referring to?

She told the same story in an interview with Politico, claiming that there had been a huge increase in “anti-Jewish racism” in online spaces during the scamdemic.

“It really exploded and I think that we saw that many of the old conspiracy myths, the old ideas, were repackaged,” she said. “How quickly this increased was really shocking”.

The only cited evidence for von Schnurbein’s claims was that “a recent study commissioned by the EU’s directorate-general for justice found that when it comes to anti-Jewish hate on Telegram, Twitter and Facebook, there was a 13-fold increase in German language posts, and a seven-fold increase in French ones during the pandemic”.

So what is this report? What kind of “anti-Jewish hate” does it identify? And what kind of people produced it?

It is entitled The Rise of Antisemitism Online During the Pandemic: A Study of French and German content and, having read the thing, I have to say that it is an extremely spurious document.

Its hysterical propagandistic tone is perhaps summed up best by its claim that the Covid-19 “pandemic” was accompanied by “a virus of hate”.

It strikes me that it is really describing the “great awakening” that many of us have noticed emerging since 2020.

The measures unleashed against us all were so extreme, so cruel, and the co-ordination so tightly organised across the world that they opened many people’s eyes to the existence of the very real global ruling mafia.

The report sees this phenomenon from the perspective of that same mafia, from the vantage point of someone who is absolutely enraged that so many people have woken up and would dearly like to deliver them a heavy blow to the head to send them back into their previous unconscious state.

It fumes: “Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the economic uncertainties and anxieties around the virus have been weaponised by a broad range of extremists, conspiracy theorists and disinformation actors, who have sought to propagandise, radicalise and mobilise captive online audiences during global lockdowns”.

This, it says, has “dangerous implications for public safety, social cohesion and democracy”.

Anyone managing to see through this smokescreen of insults and scaremongering rhetoric – they really roll them all out here! – might still wonder exactly where the problem lay in people questioning the official narrative on Covid.

But, of course, there is that familiar trump card to be pulled from the sleeve – “Antisemitic hate speech is often a common feature of these diverse threats”.

The authors of the report had clearly been told to come up with something that would reveal a rise in “anti-semitism”, but in order to do so they needed to completely conflate “conspiracy theory” with “hate speech”.

At one point they even admit that the vast majority of the thoughtcrimes they identify were merely “conspiracy theories about elites secretly controlling world events”.

They add, with regard to Germany: “A smaller number of posts (4%) contained material ‘calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion’, as well as Holocaust denial or distortion (3%)”.

So, by their own reckoning, 93% of the online “anti-semitism” identified by their analysis was, in truth, nothing of the sort!

The report ties itself in knots trying to get around this inconvenient lack of actual anti-semitism.

The authors complain: “Our research showed French and German language antisemitism online to be often characterised by coded language and subtle insidious tropes that are both challenging to detect and to categorise neatly”.

They add: “One especially common trope remains the alleged control of a vague ‘system’ enslaving mankind, by the whole of Jewry or certain ‘elite’ Jewish individuals like the Rothschild family or George Soros”.

For them, identifying the existence of the global system is, itself, an “anti-semitic trope”.

So in order not to be “anti-semitic” you presumably have to keep your eyes firmly shut and refuse to see the obvious?

This following passage is quite revealing and worth quoting in full:

“As many online conspiracy theory movements started to argue that the virus was either not real or far more harmless than suggested by public health authorities, the narrative of a ‘New World Order’ (NWO) became prominent.

“While ‘NWO’ conspiracy theories are not exclusively antisemitic, there is a considerable overlap with anti-Jewish stereotypes, such as elites in control of financial institutions, and they establish a natural narrative environment prone to antisemitism.

“It is also notable that many alleged perpetrators have, according to this conspiracy theory, a Jewish background.

“For example, a French Instagram user posted an image of alleged members of the Bilderberg Group. These include George Soros, Jacob Rothschild, Jacques Attali and other Jewish individuals alongside some non-Jews like the Clintons and Bill Gates.

“Adapting this old trope to fit current affairs, conspiracy theorists claimed that the world’s ‘elites’ (often framed in terms of prominent Jewish individuals) faked a pandemic to curb civil liberties through lockdown measures, introduce communism through economic support programmes or undermine data protection with vaccine passports and tracking apps”.

Elsewhere, they cite as an example of “anti-semitism” what they describe as “a caricature of France’s former health minister Agnès Buzyn, who is Jewish”, ignoring the possibility that during the Covid tyranny there might have been very real reasons for targeting the health minister other than her ethnic identity.

And they push it still further, when they write: “In France, well-known Jewish figures such as politicians, government advisors and well known intellectuals as well as President Emmanuel Macron, who previously worked for the Rothschild bank, are targeted with accusations that they are part of a malicious secret organisation”.

They later again refer to “antisemitic allusions to Emmanuel Macron’s past employment at the Rothschild bank”.

How can it be “anti-semitic” for French people to mention the very real and undisputed employment record of their hugely unpopular and authoritarian president?

The confusion increases in a particularly convoluted section which declares: “Conspiracy theories about blood-drinking elites and powerful bankers holding people in ‘debt slavery’ allow those propagating them to deny that these narratives are directly targeted against Jewish people.

“Furthermore, non-Jewish individuals such as Bill Gates and the Clintons are frequently targeted using tropes with antisemitic origins”.

What does it mean to target non-Jewish individuals with “tropes with antisemitic origins”? Are they saying here that because they have themselves defined analysis describing high-level public-private corruption as “anti-semitic”, because it might be targeting Jewish individuals, then any such analysis, whether or not Jewish people are implicated, is necessarily “anti-semitic”?

This is not so much expanding the definition of “anti-semitism” as entirely reinventing it!

The authors add that “this could be an example of ‘harmful but legal’ antisemitic content”, a category which provides much frustration for those who would like to see any challenging of the global criminocracy crushed by the firm hand of their authority.

They complain: “Most antisemitic content that we analysed that crossed the threshold of the non-legally binding IHRA working definition was non-violent and not obviously illegal under German and French law.

“Addressing the proliferation of such ‘legal but harmful’ antisemitic content provides a considerable challenge for tech companies and governments alike”.

Ah yes, a tricky one, that. How can they concretely criminalise the expression of opinion that is entirely legal but harmful to certain powerful interests?

The report contains some pitiful barrel-scraping attempts to demonstrate that resistance to the Covid scam is the same thing as “anti-semitism”.

It claims that “trivialised comparisons of Covid-19 vaccinations to the Holocaust” is “potentially antisemitic expression”, as indeed are all “false Nazi analogies”.

There is, of course, nothing “false” about comparisons between the Great Fascist Resetters and their 20th century totalitarian equivalents, but that doesn’t stop the report’s authors from ploughing ahead, regardless, desperately trying to frame this as anti-Jewish hate speech.

“Opponents of lockdown measures and Covid-19 vaccinations have been comparing the treatment of Jewish people under fascist regimes to public health measures.

“This arguably represents a trivialisation of the suffering of Jewish people under the Nazi regime. The insignia and rhetoric of historic French and German fascist regimes have been used to describe the respective governments’ responses to the pandemic, with some conspiracy theorists even claiming that the contemporary situation is worse than Vichy France or the Third Reich.

“For example, French actors repeatedly shared an image where Emmanuel Macron’s face was merged with a portrait of Philippe Pétain, the Chief of State of Vichy France (although the original image appears to predate the pandemic).

“In another case, a French Instagram user posted a cartoon of Macron in a Nazi uniform with a red banner on which two syringes form a symbol similar to a swastika”.

They seem very sensitive about criticism of Macron, which is strange since his well-being is presumably beyond their remit. Could it be that there is something else at stake here, that does not actually relate to Jewishness?

The same indignation that Covid totalitarianism might be interpreted as… well, totalitarianism… is expressed with regard to Germany, where naughty dissidents took to calling Bavarian Minister-President Markus Söder “Södolf” for his draconian policies “in a reference to Adolf Hitler”, complains the report.

It continues: “Opponents of vaccination programmes have likened themselves to victims of the Holocaust by wearing yellow Stars of David or posted edited pictures of the gates of Auschwitz where the slogan ‘Arbeit macht frei’ (work sets you free) has been changed to ‘Impfen macht frei’ (vaccination sets you free)”.

Ja und? as they say in Germany. So what? Does being against modern-day fascism suddenly make you “anti-semitic”?

Apparently what this amounts to is the thoughtcrime of the “trivialisation of the Holocaust”.

The report’s authors, themselves clearly well to the Hitler side of the libertarian-totalitarian scale, deeply regret that although this is a “punishable offence” under German and French law, “there has not been systematic prosecution of these offences”. [1]

The report’s approach to detecting “anti-semitism” is rather similar to the PCR test approach to detecting “Covid”.

They explain that they used a “high-certainty” keyword list “compiled of terms that very probably lead to antisemitic content”.

These included “names of groups or individuals (for example ‘Rothschild’, ‘Soros’, and ‘Zionist lobby’) who are frequently linked to antisemitic beliefs in these online subcultures”.

Mentioning the Rothschilds, Soros or the Zionist lobby is a “high-certainty” indicator of “anti-semitism”? Utterly ridiculous.

That is how absurdly low the report’s authors needed to set the bar in order to come up with the required conclusion of a rise in “anti-semitism” that could be cited by von Schnurbein and used to justify her Grandiose Project.

Although the report was published in Luxembourg by the Publications Office of the European Union, it was not in fact written by EU staff.

The task had been outsourced to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, an international “think tank” focused on combatting what it describes as “disinformation”, “hate” and “extremism”.

On the “partnerships & funders” page of its website, the ISD boasts of its “independence” and describes itself as “non-partisan”, only to go on to provide a list of the aforementioned partnerships and funders that entirely demolishes this claim!

Public sector funders include, of course, the European Commission and the Council of Europe, as well as various ministries in Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Canada and Australia.

The ISD is also financed by three different parts of the United Nations – its Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), its Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) and its Development Programme (UNDP).

Other funders include the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats, the Global Coalition to Defeat Daesh/ISIS and the US Department for Homeland Security.

Private sector funders include Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Spotify and YouTube.

Among the foundations funding the ISD we find the British Council, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, the National Democratic Institute, the Omidyar Group, George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Entirely “non-partisan” on the whole Covid issue, then!

Its “institutional partnerships” feature the German Marshall Fund Alliance for Securing Democracy, the Global Center on Cooperative Security, the Global Counterterrorism Forum, the United Nations Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate and the ultra-Zionist Anti-Defamation League.

The ISD has a very peculiar understanding of the term “independence”!

In fact, as Iain Davis has pointed out, it is “essentially an anti-democratic organisation that serves to undermine purported democracies”.

One of its two co-founders was publisher George Weidenfeld (Baron Weidenfeld) who died in 2016 at the age of 96.

Even Wikipedia makes no bones about where his allegiances lay, describing him as “a lifelong Zionist and renowned as a master networker”.

It adds: “He was on good terms with popes, prime ministers and presidents and put his connections to good use for diplomatic and philanthropic ends”.

A friend of Henry Kissinger, Weidenfeld was a Bilderberg attendee whose name appeared in Jeffrey Epstein’s black book.

ISD’s other co-founder, and current CEO, is Sasha Havlicek, known to the British public as an “expert advisor” to the UK Counter-Extremism Commission and the Mayor of London’s counter-extremism programme.

She was a speaker at StratCom DC 2019, described here as a “spooky conference arranged by the deep state Atlantic Council”.

Held on October 23 and 24 of that year – and thus just a few months before the Covid coup – the event brought together a number of deep state agendas, like “vaccines”, “climate change”, “extremism “, “fake news” and how to most efficiently censor any opposing voices.

Havlicek is a member of the WEF’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety and is acknowledged by the WEF in their booklet “Global Principles on Digital Safety: Translating International Human Rights for the Digital Context”.

She is also a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, which is funded by George Soros.

ISD chairman Michael Lewis is a South African-born British-Jewish business tycoon, the chairman of Foschini Group, one of South Africa’s big clothing retail groups.

Lewis generally keeps a low profile, but he came into the limelight in 2021 when he married Lady Kitty Spencer, niece of Diana, King Charles’ previous and deceased wife and therefore the first cousin of William, Prince of Wales and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.

Lord Adair Turner, who chairs the ISD’s Policy Board, is a self-described “technocrat”, whose career has seen him working for BP, Chase Manhattan Bank, McKinsey & Co (as a director), the Confederation of British Industry (as director-general) and Merrill Lynch Europe (as vice-chairman).

In 2008, he was appointed chairman of the UK’s Financial Services Authority and in 2013 he became a senior fellow at the Institute of New Economic Thinking, whose funders include Lord Sainsbury, David Rockefeller and, most notably, George Soros.

Oh no! I just inadvertently mentioned George Soros yet again! I’d better hand myself in for hate crime!

There are plenty of other interesting characters on the ISD board, such as its treasurer Stuart Fiertz of Cheyne Capital.

Fiertz’s CV includes spells at Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, the now-defunct international bank whose collapse prompted the 2008 banking crisis.

He is described as “a longstanding advocate” for “Impact Investing“, that innovative new UNSDG-fuelled system of digital slavery.

And then there is Mark Bergman, who for 39 years was part of the New York-based international law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, where he says he “managed and executed complex capital markets, financing and other corporate transactions”.

He adds: “I am a member of Chatham House, and a supporter of its US and the Americas Programme”.

Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, is the London think tank identified by Professor Carroll Quigley as being at the heart of the Rothschild-linked “Anglo-American Establishment“.

Another ISD director is Stephen Zinser, an American-born, London-based hedge fund manager.

Having worked for Chase Manhattan Bank and Merrill Lynch, Zinser co-founded European Credit Management and then Roxbury Asset Management.

From 2014 to June 2021 he was on the board of GAVI – the “Vaccine Alliance” dominated by UNICEF, WHO, the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – and he continues to act as advisor to its Investment Committee.

Don’t forget, folks! The ISD is entirely independent and non-partisan!

But what of the actual authors of the report that is inspiring the EU’s Grandiose Project?

One of them is Lea Gerster who is – or was at the time, at least, given that her bio has now disappeared from the site – an analyst at ISD.

The archives reveal that she previously “worked for two years in online extremism-related roles at TRD Policy and the Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism”.

TRD Policy describes itself as “a pro liberal order political strategy firm” and is visibly the same thing as Article 7, which aims to “put technology at the service of defending democracy”.

Its founder Dr Garvan Walshe is a former foreign policy adviser to the British Conservative Party, who “serves as Head of Communications for the European Policy Centre”, a body boasting “strong links to foundations that share the principles, values and basic objectives of the EPC”.

This line is telling us that the EPC is part of the deeply intertwined institutional infrastructure set up by the criminocracy.

The EPC has a “long-standing strategic partnership with the King Baudouin Foundation”, which seeks “sustainable and positive change in society, in Belgium, Europe and around the world”.

Gerster’s other cited former employer, the Centre on Radicalisation and Terrorism, is part of the neocon Henry Jackson Society, which has been described as “a hard-line militarist strategy think tank, filled with former leaders of intelligence services and deep state operatives, especially connected to Israeli intelligence and the British Conservatives”.

The Henry Jackson Society’s activities have been openly funded by the Rothschilds and its 2014 Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, co-hosted by the City of London Corporation and EL Rothschild investment firm, was attended by Christine Lagarde of the IMF and the future King Charles III, who officially launched the Great Reset in 2020.

The other author of the EU-commissioned report is Milo Comerford, described as “Head of Policy & Research, Counter Extremism, leading ISD’s work developing innovative research approaches and policy responses to extremism”.

In 2023 he wrote an article, trying to make a link between “conspiracy beliefs” and “terrorism”, for the Global Network on Extremism and Technology, a partner of Tech Against Terrorism, a “public-private partnership working with the global tech industry” which works with various governments and “inter-governmental organisations such as UN, OSCE, [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] and the Commonwealth CVE Secretariat”.

Comerford’s article is very revealing of the real agenda behind the EU report and the associated Grandiose Project.

He describes “the diverse manifestations of violence that have emanated from conspiracy theories, especially in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic which helped to mainstream such movements across societies”.

And what “violence” would this be?

“Specific examples of conspiracy-related violence include the targeting of 5G masts, based on conspiracy theories… perpetrators are often inspired by a blend of conspiratorial and extremist ideological perspectives in their attack planning”.

His definition of “harms” proves to be even more spurious than the notion that sabotaging dangerous 5G infrastructure amounts to “violence”.

Comerford writes: “It is also important to note that conspiracy theories can also result in a range of harms beyond violence.

“This can include disengagement from the state and reduced cooperation with government bodies (e.g. homeschooling, refusal to pay taxes or lower vaccine uptake), as well as longer-term threats to democratic institutions and civic culture”.

This is unbelievable stuff. He is actually suggesting that not wanting to take the Big Pharma jab or preferring to educate your children at home amount to “harms” worthy of being discussed in an article with “terrorism” and “violent” in its title!

In his next paragraph, Comerford (pictured) essentially dismantles his claim about “longer-term threats to democratic institutions and civic culture”, when he notes: “As is explored in a later Insight in this series focused on policy responses to violent conspiracy movements, this ‘threat to democracy’ framing is increasingly being adopted by governments in their conceptualisation of these threats”.

So there we have it. The so-called “threat to democracy” is just a “framing” by which authorities demonise dissent.

The same goes for all the “violence”, “terrorism” and “hate” that Comerford and his like are constantly invoking to justify the silencing of all criticism of the system they serve.

It’s all just propaganda, and here he has admitted as such.

It turns out that propagandist Comerford was previously “Senior Analyst at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change”, a sinister organisation whose connections are explored in my article on Tony Blair and the Rothschilds.

He has also had the honour of speaking at an “emerging leaders” conference staged in Israel by the World Union of Jewish Students and B’nai B’rith International, “The Global Voice of the Jewish Community”.

Funnily enough, another “confirmed speaker” identified on the B’nai B’rith site is none other than Katharina von Schnurbein, European Commission Coordinator on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life and 2018 recipient of B’nai B’rith Europe’s Human Rights Prize.

It’s a small world, for globalists.

So, to wrap up, the EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021-2030) is based on assumptions derived from sources that are as far from independent and non-partisan as it is possible to be.

Simply by following the trail of breadcrumbs laid down by von Schnurbein’s leadership of this Grandiose Project, and the ISD report she cites as justification, we come across numerous players in the criminocratic global game that these people would like us to believe does not actually exist.

Because of the repeated multiple interconnections between these various elements – that I have also described in previous articles – it is quite clear to me that they constitute one single entity, a self-concealing corrupt global governance that I have termed the criminocracy.

These criminocrats make no secret of the fact that they wish to control what we do and what we say.

But they are lying when they say this is out of a desire to prevent bad things like “anti-semitism”, “extremism”, “hate” or “terrorism”.

As Milo Comerford rather foolishly spelled out in his article for the Global Network on Extremism and Technology, their idea of dangerous “harms” to be combatted includes anything – such as “disengagement from the state and reduced cooperation with government bodies” – that involves us remaining or moving outside the domination of a system that they aim to make entirely “inclusive”.

The criminocracy would like to close down all discussion of its existence and ill deeds by means of deceitful gaslighting.

Starting from the (false) assumption that there is no such thing as the system, they insist that those who dare say otherwise are therefore necessarily bad – “extremists, conspiracy theorists and disinformation actors” – who must be silenced by any possible means.

However, embedded in their approach is a major strategic error which it is now impossible for them to rectify.

The use of the “anti-semitism” smear has worked very well for them so far, but it is also a double-edged sword.

In order to explain to the public why it is “anti-semitic” to criticise a system which they claim does not exist, they have had to themselves point out that many leading figures on the global stage are Jewish (such as George Soros) or closely linked to Jewish/Zionist networks (such as Emmanuel Macron vis-à-vis the Rothschilds).

They have walked into a logical trap in which the very act of denouncing an analysis they consider dangerous itself reinforces and propagates that analysis.

People naturally ask themselves why it would be “anti-semitic” to criticise the banking system or Big Pharma if those entities were not, in fact, largely controlled by Jewish interests.

But at the same time, they ponder, how could it be automatically “anti-semitic” to criticise those entities, simply on the basis that they were largely controlled by Jewish interests?

If I condemned a local drug dealer who happened to be, I don’t know, Icelandic, would that make me Icelandophobic, or would it just mean that I don’t like drug dealers?

Should my right to condemn drug dealing be removed because it risked stirring up hate against Icelandic people?

Should the whole of my community be sternly told never to condemn drug dealing because to do so would threaten the well-being of Icelandic residents, even though these people amounted to only 0.22% [2] of the local population and most of them had nothing to do with drugs?

Should new laws be passed making it illegal for the other 99.78% of us to refer to drug dealing and the people behind it, because of the risk of inciting anti-Icelandic hate?

Should the local council pour huge amounts of taxpayers’ cash into a Grandiose Project on “combating Icelandophobia and fostering Icelandic life” on the basis of the allegedly anti-Icelandic nature of all criticism of drug dealing?

And if the local authority figure proposing all this was known to hang out with the drug dealer and his mates, some of whom were mightily interested in the “funding opportunities” presented by the Icelandophobia project, where would that leave his credibility?

Trying to disqualify and ban all analysis exposing the existence of the corrupt global mafia on the basis that it amounts to “anti-Jewish hate” is, in truth, a fatal own goal.

It gives the game away to such an extent that I believe it will inevitably lead to the ignominious collapse of the whole criminocratic racket.

[Audio version: Pt 1, Pt 2, Pt 3, Pt 4]

[1] The German state nevertheless tried to punish dissident C.J. Hopkins for a book cover implying a thematic link between historical fascism and the Covid-pretexted variety. He commented: “Apparently, comparing governments and political figures to the Nazis is now a ‘hate crime'”. In his statement to the court on January 23, 2024, he said: “You can haul me into criminal court and make me sit here, in Germany, in front of my wife, who is Jewish, and deny that I am an anti-Semite who wants to relativize the Holocaust… However, I hope that you will at least have the integrity to call this what it is, and not hide behind false accusations that I am somehow supporting the Nazis by comparing the rise of a new form of totalitarianism to the rise of an earlier totalitarian system, one that took hold of and ultimately destroyed this country in the 20th Century, and murdered millions in the process, because too few Germans had the courage to stand up and oppose it when it first began. I hope that you will at least have the integrity to not pretend that you actually believe I am disseminating pro-Nazi propaganda, when you know very well that is not what I am doing”.

[2] The Institute for Jewish Policy Research gives a variety of figures for the Jewish population of the EU, depending on the tricky definition of “Jewish”, ranging from 781,000 to 1.5 million. If we take 1 million as a fair figure, and bear in mind that the total population of the EU is 445 million, we can quickly see that 1 in 445 people in Europe are Jewish – 0.22%.