The Expose News

The lockdown policies implemented during the covid “pandemic” were disastrous.  These policies should have been examined for their effectiveness.  Yet, little interest has been shown in doing so.

In the following, Ian Miller highlights a study to compare Sweden’s light-touch approach to the heavy-handed approach taken by other European governments.

“ is a clear repudiation of the lockdown model,” he writes. “Which is precisely why Sweden’s example is deliberately being ignored today.”

The Lockdown Disaster Must Not Be Forgiven: Massive European Study Vindicates Sweden’s Common-Sense Pandemic Response

By Ian Miller, as published by Brownstone Institute

We’re now rapidly approaching the six-year anniversary of “15 Days to Slow the Spread.”

That policy has to have been one of the most disastrous in world history, created by “experts” who took all established pre-pandemic planning documents and tossed them out the window at the first opportunity.

It was a policy based on inaccurate reports out of China, which claimed that their lockdowns effectively stamped out transmission of covid-19 within a matter of days.

It was a policy that ignored solid research - from established epidemiologists like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya - which found that the coronavirus had already spread much more widely than previously realised.

It must be noted forever that lockdowns and the associated mask mandates, vaccine passports and school closures continued in some places for several years. The ramifications of those wretched policies will be quite literally endless. It’s not an exaggeration to say that lockdowns, our policies and responses have quite literally changed the course of world history.

One would think that there would definitely be a concerted effort to understand whether such policies were effective or not. Whether approaching respiratory viruses with authoritarian crackdowns on businesses and schools was necessary to save lives.

Yet six years later, there’s unfortunately very little interest in examining those questions. And when you understand the data from Sweden, you will see exactly why.

Study on Swedish Approach to Covid Shows Lockdowns Didn’t Work

A study published in PubMed examined the Swedish approach to covid policy, relative to its European counterparts, primarily because Sweden did not rely on lockdowns in response to the pandemic, but instead used “voluntary and sustainable mitigation recommendations,” the study says.

Despite a “majority of Swedes” supporting those policies, “this approach faced rapid and continuous criticism.”

That criticism came primarily from public health figures such as, surprise, surprise, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who criticised Sweden repeatedly for going against the herd.

“You’ve compared us to Sweden, and there are a lot of differences,” he said during a Senate Committee hearing in September 2020. “But compare Sweden’s death rate to other comparable Scandinavian countries. It’s worse. So, I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare Sweden with us.”

“If you look at Sweden, they are in some trouble,” Fauci claimed on Good Morning America in late 2020. “They are starting to see that their death rate is much higher than the surrounding countries of Norway, Denmark, and Finland … They’re starting to see now that they’re having to rethink some of the things they did.”

This was, of course, not true. They did not “rethink” their strategy of light-touch recommendations over lockdowns. And comparing Sweden exclusively to its neighbours is an absurd misdirection that no other country was subjected to. But Fauci, obviously never one for honesty or intellectual integrity, represented many public health figures who were anxious to see Sweden fail.

Yet as this research shows, reality was precisely the opposite.

The study explains that Sweden received criticism for “not legally enforcing mask-wearing in public spaces,” as well as keeping schools open and “being too permissive” with its policies. All the things that we were told were necessary to stop covid and save lives. The researchers tested these statements using excess mortality data and stringency indices to compare Sweden across the whole of Europe, not just its neighbours.

They chose excess mortality because, unlike covid-specific measurements, it’s less subject to bias, differences in testing, and counting, and individual definitions of covid-caused outcomes. It also accounts for deaths that “could potentially be indirectly attributed to the negative effects of strict lockdown measures and the overall strain on healthcare systems, leading to reduced access to healthcare for other diseases, among other factors.”

Turns out that what they discovered was that Sweden vastly outperformed the rest of Europe from 2020-2022, with outcomes that were remarkably similar to the other Nordic countries.

“Among 42 European countries, the cumulative excess all-cause mortality from January 2020 to December 2022 ranged from 46 (Luxembourg) to 1,080 (Bulgaria) deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, with a median of 351/100,000,” they write. “In Sweden, the excess mortality rate of 158/100,000 was among the lowest, ranked 37th among 42 countries, and not very different from other Nordic countries: Norway (129), Denmark (97), and Finland (228).”

Björkman A, Gisslén M, Gullberg M, Ludvigsson J. The Swedish COVID-19 approach: a scientific dialogue on mitigation policies. Front Public Health. 2023 Jul 20;11:1206732. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1206732. PMID: 37546333; PMCID: PMC10399217.

So why did Sweden underperform in 2020 relative to its neighbours? Likely due, as the study explains, to “mortality displacement due to low all-cause mortality in 2019,” as well as “poorly organised older adult care structures.”

What does this mean? Essentially, there were significantly fewer deaths from all causes in Sweden in 2019, meaning there were more extremely elderly people alive in 2020 who were susceptible to severe outcomes from covid. This is reflected in the massive age gradient with covid-associated deaths. In Sweden, “~40% of the covid-19-associated deaths were among patients in nursing homes,” the study says, “and 67% of all covid-19 deaths were among individuals above 80 years of age, representing 10% of all deaths in that age group.”

For younger age groups, covid was mostly a non-issue. “covid-19 deaths below 50 years of age represented only 1.2% of all covid deaths, including 21 individuals below 20 years of age, mostly with underlying co-morbidities, representing 1% of all deaths in that age group.”

Effectively, covid ravaged extremely elderly people, while those under 50, despite the lack of mask mandates and lockdowns, saw very limited impact.

Sweden’s Lack of Lockdowns Led to Better Outcomes

Equally important, they examined the “stringency index” for countries across Europe, then made a data table comparing that stringency to excess mortality from 2020-2022. Effectively, how strict were a country’s policies, and how much did that matter to reducing excess mortality?

Turns out, there’s a definitive, resounding answer which this chart demonstrates perfectly. Countries are plotted based on their stringency index, the x-axis, and excess mortality, the y-axis. The line demonstrates the trend in mortality rates, and there’s virtually no relationship between the severity of policy and preventing excess mortality.

The R-squared, effectively the relationship between stringency index and excess mortality, is just 0.14. The closer to 1, the more related stringency is to outcomes. This is 0.14.

Countries like Italy and Spain were some of the strictest when it came to lockdowns and mandates, yet ranked near the top in excess mortality rates. The UK, Portugal, the Netherlands and others were significantly more stringent and also had demonstrably worse outcomes. Denmark was the second least strict country and had the best outcomes, at least in this examination.

What does this tell us? Well, put simply, Fauci was wrong. Sweden did not underperform relative to its neighbours. It did significantly better than the rest of Europe and, of course, the United States. Lockdowns and stringency were not related, whatsoever, to reducing excess mortality. They never mandated masks, one of his chief policy recommendations, and outperformed other countries like Germany, which imposed N95-level mandates for months on end.

This is a clear repudiation of the lockdown model. Which is precisely why Sweden’s example is deliberately being ignored today. Because learning the actual results of these historically bad policies requires humility, accountability and honesty, all qualities that many in public health are truly incapable of possessing.

About the Author

After being repeatedly abused by a drug dealer and, having no loving support at home, Jane tried to commit suicide.  Her father refused to allow her to stay at home, so she was placed into care. 

At the age of 16, Jane was moved into a semi-independent living facility for vulnerable young people. Another girl living at the facility lured her into a house where she informed Jane that she was being sold for sex to Somali men. This occurred repeatedly over a period of months, sometimes with multiple other girls present.

The staff were aware that girls were being trafficked from the facility, but chose to do nothing about it.  In fact, when Jane disclosed her sexual exploitation to staff, instead of assisting her, she was threatened into silence.

Last year, Rupert Lowe MP (Restore Britain) launched a campaign to raise funds to hold an independent national inquiry into the UK’s Muslim rape gangs.  This year, the victim-led Rape Gang Inquiry was held, during which testimonies from victims, parents, carers, politicians,  a variety of experts and whistle-blowers were heard over ten days, from 2 February to 12 February.  On 16 June 2026, the Inquiry released its report.

Thousands of rape gang victims and family members volunteered their testimonies to the Inquiry.  On pages 18 to 101, the Inquiry’s report provides a summary of some of them.  The following is Jane’s testimony.  Jane is not her real name. “Some of the witnesses have to remain anonymous for their own safety,” the report says.  You can read the full report HERE.

‘Jane’

‘Jane’ grew up in a fractured household. Rarely present, her mother was addicted to drugs and alcohol, regularly using hash and cocaine during Jane’s childhood. She tried to end her own life on multiple occasions, and left altogether when Jane was seven.

Jane’s father had significant mental health issues, though until the age of five she describes a generally positive relationship with him. However, after meeting a new partner following the departure of Jane’s mother, he became colder, more distant, and increasingly abusive. He used his hands, a slipper, and a cane to hit Jane.

Jane’s mother re-entered her life with a new boyfriend when Jane was 13. The boyfriend was abusive towards Jane’s mother, and on one occasion raped her in front of Jane.

It was around this time that Jane’s mother’s drug dealer began grooming her via Facebook. He had become aware of the fact that Jane was self-harming, and presented himself as a sympathetic and supportive friend. Jane, vulnerable at the time, exchanged messages with him for several months.

Eventually, the drug dealer began asking Jane whether she had ever smoked cigarettes, taken drugs, or had sex. During one half term, he asked to meet with her. She agreed, and he came to Jane’s father’s house while Jane’s father was at work, armed with a kosh . He took her up to her bedroom and told her to strip naked. He said “you may be 13, but you’ve got the body of a woman” and raped her before promptly leaving.

From then, the drug dealer regularly called Jane and waited outside her school for her. Jane would hide in the staff room and tell teachers that she did not want to leave as she knew he would be waiting for her. The staff did not intervene and would force her to leave the school.

The drug dealer regularly took Jane to his girlfriend’s house where he would give Jane valium and cannabis. He would also show her the drugs he took, including heroin, methadone, and crack cocaine. The drug dealer sexually abused Jane “every day apart from the weekends” for several months.

Jane was misdiagnosed with a personality disorder at this time. She did not tell anyone about her relationship with the drug dealer until one night during an argument with her mother, who was drunk. Her mother said “I don’t know why you are like this” and Jane replied “because I am being fucked by a 50-year-old man and nobody has noticed.”

The following day, Jane returned from school to the police at her house. The police insisted that Jane, still just 13, would need to testify in court alone against the drug dealer. Intimidated, she did not wish to face him, and he was not prosecuted.

Following the revelation of Jane’s grooming and rape by the drug dealer, Jane’s father called her a “whore” and told her that he “wished she would just hurry up and kill herself.” The school accused Jane of using self-harm to manipulate her father. She was regularly placed in detention and threatened with expulsion due to falling behind with schoolwork. As a result, Jane became increasingly disobedient and suicidal.

At the age of 14, Jane began running away from school, taking drugs, and spending time with men older than her. On one occasion, she took an ‘overdose’ before school in an attempt to end her life . She was taken to hospital after the staff told her she would have done it in the woods or somewhere private if she actually wanted to die. Her father then came to the hospital and told her to “try harder next time as she was wasting everyone’s time. Later that day, she attempted suicide by cutting her own throat, but failed.

Jane was briefly taken into care at the hospital. She was discharged after less than a month, and “everybody acted like nothing had happened.” Her father would not accept her back into the family home, so she was left homeless. Jane spent a short period of time staying with friends, until social services was informed about her situation by her aunt. Jane refused to return home, disclosing to social services that she was being physically abused and showed them the bruises on her body. She was then briefly taken into foster care, before being moved into a children’s home until she was 16 years old. Jane was then moved into a semi-independent living facility for vulnerable young people.

After a few months, a female peer at the accommodation invited Jane to what she described as a “party.” This peer was coercive and intimidating, and Jane did not feel able to refuse. She was taken to a block of flats in Hounslow, and expected to be met with a group of people her own age. Instead, the flat was occupied by six or seven Somali men.

Jane was taken into the bathroom by the girl who had brought her there and instructed to shave. She was told that she was being sold to the men for sex. Jane did not want to participate, but complied out of fear. She was then sexually abused by one of the men, and made to sleep in a small child’s bed afterwards. The following morning, the girl who took Jane to the flat was paid by the men.

This occurred repeatedly over a period of months, sometimes with multiple other girls present. Jane was told that she needed to gain weight to be more desirable to the men. In response, Jane began purging, which developed into a severe eating disorder.

Jane was blackmailed with the threat of prison by the peer if she disclosed her exploitation to anyone. Violence and intimidation became commonplace at the semi-independent living facility. On one occasion, a young woman returned to the accommodation intoxicated and distressed, saying that she had been abducted and sexually assaulted. The staff – who were aware that sexual exploitation was taking place on the site, but chose to do nothing about it – responded by accusing her of making it up.

Eventually, Jane disclosed her own sexual exploitation to accommodation staff, including the trafficking and exchange of money. She was told that what was happening did not constitute trafficking as she was over the age of 16. The police were not contacted and no action was taken. Jane was blackmailed by staff with the threat of being blamed for the exploitation of her and others if she took her complaints any further.

Jane’s eating disorder intensified, and she began self-harming again. She was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and admitted to a psychiatric hospital. While hospitalised, she disclosed the exploitation again. Police interviews took place, but – due to her being heavily medicated – Jane was treated as an unreliable witness and no further action was taken. She also disclosed in writing what was happening to her. It was removed from her most recent social care file, but the original clearly states she wrote a letter to them a year before she was hospitalised and her police interview matched the letter. The letter was not acted on by the authorities.

As a result of her abuse and eating disorder, Jane has developed endometriosis, which has resulted in the loss of half her uterus.

Recent online narratives describe "Throne Climate" as a purported secret network of 22 atmospheric modification stations allegedly operated for nearly 47 years (since 1979) to control hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes.

Theories suggest funding via carbon credits, non-governmental organisations (“NGOs”) and a Geneva-based family office, often linked to the Rothschilds.

Social media posts claim the final station was seized by a joint operation of six nations, effectively ending the programme.

But are the stories true? Not likely.

Targeted Community shared a LinkedIn post about Throne Climate with the disclaimer, “This was created by Ron McElroy on LinkedIn. This also went viral on all social media platforms - This information has NOT been confirmed by ME.

“Research EVERYTHING yourself. Research WITH and WITHOUT AI. The LLM’s do not reach ‘The Human Connection’ that is needed to truly see what REAL people are experiencing. Most AI models cannot connect to or research anything on social media and only produces information/research results based on news articles and scholarly publications.”

We add the same disclaimer and add: Please note that the LinkedIn post by McElroy refers to a programme called ‘Climate Throne’.  However, it appears the programme is actually, or alternatively, called ‘Throne Climate’.

Getting the words right is important.  Metaphorically, "climate throne" might be used to describe climate change leadership or policy.  For example, on ascending to the throne in 2022, King Charles III was described as a "king for the climate" due to his decades-long advocacy for environmental protection and the launch of the Terra Carta. Although not the exact phrase, we can see how Charles III’s activism could easily be described in terms of the “climate throne.” In another example, the phrase was used in connection with Canada’s climate change action in a 2021 blog titled ‘The climate throne speech Prime Minister Trudeau means to give’.

It's important to note that no documentation or sources are provided to support claims being made about the Throne Climate programme, and no public documents or information confirm its existence.  We need to, therefore, take the online reports with a pinch of salt until the claims can either be supported from a reliable source or the rationale behind linking what we do know to what we can deduce from that knowledge is explained. 

We live in an age when anyone can claim anything for any reason, and it can reach a large audience very quickly.  If posts online do not provide sources, we must treat them with scepticism or at best as an opinion.

What should draw additional scepticism about the LinkedIn post below, in particular, is the reference to the “Alliance military” who will make everything right, and we will all live in a utopia.  This has all the trappings of the “Q” movement and language used by “Q-Anons” who spread “Q news.” 

While “Q” may have been a US military operation in the past, the operation ended, officially, many years ago.  Since then, it has been kept alive by Q-Anons who have been benefitting financially from it.  There may also be others who have infiltrated the movement to manipulate its followers towards their own goals or to distract, to act as a decoy and/or confuse us – i.e. a psychological operation or PsyOp.

Please don’t follow ideologies, however innocent or “good” the cause may appear.  There are words to describe belief systems: sect, cult, religion and faith.  If you want something to believe in, then turn to God; for man-made narratives, review and analyse the evidence to support it. Man-made narratives should be scrutinised with wisdom and discernment; they should not be simply blindly believed.

“It’s all a bit of fun,” you might say, “no harm caused.”  We should be aware that behind all is a spiritual war.  As the global agenda unfolds, we can expect to see the spurious religion creeping more and more into our lives through science, health, law, education, art, literature, entertainment, “the news,” the alien agenda and all manner of seemingly non-religious narratives, both online and offline.  More and more, infiltrators planted in Christian churches will attempt to deceive Christians and the world by promoting the spurious religion as if it were the true religion (the true religion being our faith in God, YHWH, and our Lord Jesus Christ). Why? They are softening us up to accept and adopt their One World Religion.

Having said all that, we have reproduced the LinkedIn post below, as it may allude to some truths and encourage us to exercise our minds.  The challenge for readers is which parts of it hold some truth and which parts have been added as a decoy.

You can read a comprehensive write-up about the stories circulating online about the Throne Climate programme HERE.  The article states, “The story’s authors link the network’s financing to a labyrinthine system of environmental funds, NGOs, carbon credits and green energy projects. All these financial flows, according to their version, allegedly converged on one family office in Geneva.  

“Later in the plot, the name Rothschild appears. The theory claims that certain structures associated with this family allegedly controlled European banks since the 19th century and could be related to the financing of the climate network.”

Related: People and organisations in the global network controlling corporations, covid, climate change and food supply

The Rothschilds Just Lost Control Of The Weather

By Ron McElroy on LinkedIn

For 47 years, they owned the sky. Not poetically. Literally. Through a network of 22 atmospheric modification stations that could steer hurricanes, trigger droughts, manufacture floods and create earthquakes - on demand, on schedule, to any coordinate on Earth.

The programme was called "CLIMATE THRONE." Funded through a labyrinth of NGOs, carbon credit exchanges, and "green energy" foundations - all tracing back to the same family office in Geneva that has controlled European banking since 1815.

Last Wednesday, the final station went offline. Not decommissioned. Seized. By a joint military operation involving 6 nations that have never publicly acknowledged working together.

Every "natural disaster" of the last 47 years had a signature. A frequency fingerprint embedded in the ionospheric disturbance that preceded it.

Hurricane Katrina: frequency signature detected 72 hours before landfall. The storm's path was adjusted three times - each adjustment corresponding to a transmission burst from a station in the Caribbean that was listed as a "marine biology research centre."

The 2010 Haiti earthquake: identical frequency signature. Originating from a station in Venezuela that was disguised as a telecommunications relay.

The 2011 Fukushima earthquake: signature traced to a naval vessel operating in the Pacific under no flag. The vessel's registration - obtained through QFS maritime tracking - belongs to a shell company in the Cayman Islands. The company's sole director: a Rothschild family trust.

Weather controls everything. Food prices. Insurance markets. Government stability. Migration patterns. Election outcomes.

A drought in the right country at the right time collapses a government. A flood in the right region at the right moment creates a refugee crisis that destabilises a continent. A hurricane hitting the right city before an election changes the result.

$4.2 trillion in "natural disaster" damages since 1979. Insurance payouts are flowing to reinsurance companies owned by the same family that caused the disasters. Betting on the destruction they created. Collecting on the suffering they manufactured.

The 22 stations are now under Alliance military control. The technology isn't being destroyed - it's being repurposed. Not as a weapon. As a restoration tool.

Deserts that were artificially created through 40 years of suppressed rainfall - being reversed. Agricultural regions that were systematically droughted to create food dependency - being restored. Ocean currents that were disrupted to alter fishing economies - being normalised.

In his 1991 book, Dr. John Colman said that the Stanford Research Institute (“SRI”) was owned and controlled by the Committee of 300.  And that it was part of a network of organisations that falls under the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

One of the reports to come out of SRI was the 1974 ‘Changing Images of Man’; the blueprint for how to socially engineer populations using education and rhetoric spewed by both formal and informal “leaders.”

SRI International is an American “nonprofit scientific research institute and organisation,” Learn & Work Ecosystem Library said in 2025. “The organisation was founded as the Stanford Research Institute 75 years ago. SRI formally separated from Stanford University in 1970 to become known as SRI International in 1977.”

Since then, SRI has expanded and now participates in more than 500 research and development projects per year.

SRI International, ‘About Us’, retrieved 12 July 2026

Who funds SRI’s projects and owns the patents the organisation files?

Under the subheading ‘Funding and Financial Model’, Grokipedia states, “The majority of revenue derives from US government contracts, awarded directly or via subcontracts with agencies such as the Department of Defence (DoD) and National Institutes of Health (NIH), reflecting a model where federal funding supports applied R&D in areas of national interest. Remaining income, around 20-30%, stems from commercial and international clients, including licensing of intellectual property generated from prior work.”

Who are the commercial interests included in the “around 20-30% … clients”?  SRI’s website doesn’t have a funding section stating who funds their projects. So we will turn to someone who has researched them.

In his 1991 book, ‘Conspirators' Hierarchy: Story of the Committee of 300’, Dr. John Coleman listed SRI as one of the powerful institutions owned and controlled by the Committee of 300 that “come under the MOTHER OF ALL THINK-TANKS AND RESEARCH-INSTITUTIONS, THE TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RELATIONS with its far-flung network of hundreds of ‘branches’.”

The Committee of 300, also known as the "Olympians," is “the ULTIMATE controlling-body that runs the world and has done so for at least a hundred years,” Dr. Coleman wrote. Its membership is made up of the “leading lights” from “secret societies, front organisations, government agencies, banks, insurance  companies, international businesses, the petroleum industry and hundreds of thousands of entities and foundations.”

He described who the Committee’s members are:

Included in the membership are the old families of the European Black Nobility, the American Eastern Liberal Establishment (in Freemason hierarchy and the Order of Skull and Bone), the Illuminati, or as it is known by the Committee "MORIAH CONQUERING WIND," the Mumma Group, The National and World Council of Churches, the Circle of Initiates, the Nine Unknown Men, Lucis Trust, Jesuit Liberation Theologists, The Order of the Elders of Zion, the Nasi Princes, International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the United Nations (UN), the Central, British Quator Coronati, Italian P2 Masonry  - especially those in the Vatican hierarchy - the Central Intelligence Agency, Tavistock Institute selected personnel, various members of leading foundations and insurance companies named in the lists that follow , the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, the Milner Group-Round Table, Cini Foundation, German Marshall Fund, Ditchley Foundation, NATO, Club of Rome, Environmentalists, The Order of St. John of Jerusalem, One World Government Church, Socialist International, Black Order, Thule Society, Anenherbe-Rosicrucianists, The Great Superior Ones and literally HUNDREDS of other organisations.

Conspirators' Hierarchy: Story of the Committee of 300, Dr. John Coleman, 1991, pg. 112

Below, we have reproduced the first part of the chapter in Dr. Coleman’s book titled ‘Stanford Research Centre’.  But first, as it is mentioned in the excerpt, a brief introduction to the ‘Changing Images of Man’.

Changing Images of Man

Prepared by researchers at the SRI’s Centre for the Study of Social Policy, ‘Changing Images of Man’ is a 1974 report, later published in 1982 as a book, edited by O. W. Markley and Willis W. Harman. “Various intellectuals from the fields of social sciences, humanities, engineering and physics collaborated,” Duane Hayes wrote in a 2018 article.

As well as exploring the role of science, the report/book identifies seven societal functions of myth and image - mystical, cosmological, sociological, pedagogical, editorial, political and magical - mainly derived from mythologist Joseph Campbell's work.  It suggests that deliberate changes in Campbell’s foundational beliefs can catalyse global transformation.

A Duke Report summary of the book states:

Emerging sciences reveal the interdependence of mind, body, society and environment … As scientific paradigms shift, new images of humankind become possible - images that integrate reason, emotion, intuition, and interconnectedness.

The book synthesises the functions of myth and image into several domains: mystical, cosmological, sociological, pedagogical, editorial, political and magical. The mystical function roots individuals in the mystery and meaning of existence. The cosmological function articulates worldviews and aligns behaviour with the perceived structure of reality. The sociological function validates and legitimises social order, establishing norms, rules and systems of authority. The pedagogical function guides personal development, transmitting knowledge and values across generations. The editorial function selects which realities receive cultural attention, shaping collective memory and blind spots. Political and magical functions authorise power and invoke extraordinary means to achieve communal goals. Together, these functions orchestrate coherence, resilience, and adaptability in societies.

Education occupies a central position in the process of image transformation. Schools and universities serve as incubators for new images, transmitting both explicit content and implicit values. Curriculum design, teaching methods and institutional culture can accelerate or impede the adoption of integrative images. Leaders - both formal and informal - play crucial roles as sensemakers, storytellers and exemplars. By embodying new images in action and discourse, leaders foster legitimacy and momentum for transformation. Markley and Harman argue for deliberate investment in educational reform, leadership development and narrative renewal as catalysts for deep change.

Hayes concludes his article:

Within a decade of publishing the Changing Images of Man, we see the meteoric rise of both Silicon Valley and the World Wide Web, both originating directly from out of this innocuous private research institute colloquially known as the Farm. Through the use of primary source material, we see the blueprint from which a plan is devised to socially engineer the American public through its various institutions and agencies, followed by the establishment of the very tools to best facilitate the plan.(!) We also see a deep military affiliation with the project in that the internet stems directly from the Pentagon's ARPANET programme and the Stanford Research Institute is one of three original hubs for the internet.

Stanford University is centred within a few miles radius of all of the social media giants Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo!, and all of these survivors of the dotcom era have major ties to the US intelligence community while also conveniently forming the main framework that is social media.  Is it just coincidence that these were the lucky few to survive the dotcom crash and then go on to dominate the web?

We have attached a copy of ‘Changing Images of Man’ below for those who might be interested in reading it for themselves.

The Changing Images of ManDownload Conspirators' Hierarchy: Story of the Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman An excerpt from ‘Stanford Research Centre’

Stanford Research Centre (SRC) was founded in 1946 by the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations. Stanford was created to help Robert 0. Anderson and his ARCO oil company, who had secured for the The Committee of 300 the oil-rights on the North Slope of Alaska. Basically, the job was too large for Anderson's Aspen Institute to handle, so a new centre had to be founded and funded. That new centre was Stanford Research Centre. Alaska sold its rights on a down payment of $900 million, a relatively small amount for the The Committee of 300. The governor of Alaska was steered to SRI for help and advice. This was no accident but the result of judicious planning and a process of long-range conditioning.

Following the governor's call for help, three SRI scientists set up shop in Alaska where they met with the Alaskan Secretary of State and the State Planning Office. Francis Greehan, who headed the SRI team, assured the Governor that his problem of how to handle the rich oil-find would be safe in the hands of SRI. Naturally Greehan did not mention the The Committee of 300 or the Club of Rome. In less than a month Greehan assembled a team of economists, petroleum-scientists and new-science scientists numbering in the hundreds. The report SRI gave to the Governor ran to eighty-eight pages. The proposal was adopted virtually without change by the Alaska legislature in 1970. Greehan had indeed done a remarkable job for the The Committee of 300. From this beginning SRI developed into an institution employing 4000 people with an annual budget of $160 million plus. Its President, Charles A. Anderson, has seen much of this growth during his tenure, as has Professor Willis Harmon, director of the SRI Centre for the Study of Social Policies, employing hundreds of new-science scientists, many of the top staffers having been transferred from Tavistock's London base. One of those was RCA board chairman and former British intelligence-agent, David Sarnoff, who was closely involved with Harmon and his team for twenty-five years. Sarnoff was something of a "watchdog" for the mother institute in Sussex.

Stanford claims to make no moral-judgements on projects it accepts, working for Israel and the Arabs, South Africa and Libya but, as one would imagine, by adopting this attitude it ensures an "inside-edge" with foreign governments that the CIA has found most useful. In Jim Ridgeway's book, "THE CLOSED CORPORATION", SRI spokesman Gibson brags about SRI's non-discriminatory stance. Although not on the Federal Contract Research Centre lists, SRI is today the largest military think-tank, dwarfing Hudson and Rand. Among SRI's speciality-departments are chemical and biological warfare experimental-centres.

One of Stanford's more dangerous activities is counter-insurgency operations aimed at civilian populations - just the sort of "1984" things government is already using against its own people. The U.S. government pays SRI millions of dollars each year for this kind of highly controversial "research". Following student protests against chemical-warfare-experiments conducted at Stanford, SRI "sold" itself to a private group for just $25 million. Of course nothing really changed, SRI was still a Tavistock project and the The Committee of 300 still owned it, but the gullible appeared to be satisfied by this meaningless cosmetic change. In 1958 a startling new development arose. Advanced Research Products Agency (ARPA), a contracting-agency for the Defence Department, approached SRI with a top-secret proposal. John Foster at the Pentagon told SRI that what was needed was a program to ensure the United States against "technological surprise". Foster wanted to perfect a condition where the environment became a weapon; special bombs to trigger volcanoes and/or earthquakes, behavioural research on potential enemies and minerals and metals with potential for new weapons. The project was accepted by SRI and codenamed "SHAKY".

The massive electronic-brain in SHAKY was capable of carrying out many commands, its computers having been constructed by IBM for SRI. Twenty eight scientists worked on what is called "Human Augmentation". The IBM computer even has the capability to solve problems by analogy and recognises and identifies scientists who work with it. The "special applications" of this tool can be better imagined than described. Brzezinski knew what he was talking about when he wrote "THE TECHNOTRONIC ERA".

Stanford Research Institute works closely with scores of civilian consulting firms, trying to apply military technology to domestic situations. This has not always been a success, but as techniques improve, the prospects for massive all-pervading-surveillance, as described by Brzezinski, daily becomes more real. IT ALREADY EXISTS AND IS IN USE, EVEN THOUGH SLIGHT MALFUNCTIONS FROM TIME TO TIME HAVE TO BE IRONED OUT.

One such civilian consulting-firm was Schriever McKee Associates of McLean, Virginia, run by retired General Bernard A. Schriever, a former chief of the Air Force Systems Command, who developed the Titan, Thor, Atlas and Minuteman rockets.

Schriever put together a consortium of Lockheed, Emmerson Electric, Northrop, Control Data, Raytheon and TRW under the name of URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOciaTES, INC. The purpose of the consortium? To solve social and psychological "urban problems" by means of military techniques using advanced electronic systems. It is interesting to note that TRW became the largest credit-information-collecting company in the credit-reporting business as a result and an outcome of its work with Urban Systems Associates, Inc.

This should tell us a great deal about just how far this nation is already under TOTAL SURVEILLANCE, which is the first requirement of the The Committee of 300. No dictatorship, especially not one on a global scale, can function without total control over each and every individual. SRI was well on its way to becoming a key Committee of 300 research organisation.

By the 1980's, 60% of SRI's contracts were devoted to "Futurism" with both military and civilian applications. Its major clients were the U.S. Department of Defence-Directorate of Defence Research and Engineering, Office of Aerospace Research which dealt with "Applications of the Behavioural Sciences to Research Management", Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Health. On behalf of the Department of Health, SRI ran a program called "Patterns in ESDEA Title I Reading Achievement Tests." Other clients were the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Labour, U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Of significance was the paper developed for NSF, entitled "Assessment of Future and International Problems."

Stanford Research, under the tutelage of Tavistock Institute in London, put together a far-reaching and chilling system it called "Business Intelligence Program." In excess of 600 companies in the U.S. and abroad became subscribers. The program covered research in Japanese Foreign Business Relations, Consumer Marketing in a Period of Change, The Mounting Challenge of International Terrorism, Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Products, Electronic Funds Transfer System, Opto-Electric Sensing, Exploratory Planning Methods, the U.S. Defence Industry and Capital Availability. Among the TOP The Committee of 300 companies who became clients of this program were Bechtel Corporation (George Schultz was on its board), Hewlett Packard, TRW, Bank of America, Shell Company, RCA, Blyth, Eastman Dillon, Saga Foods Corporation, McDonnell Douglas, Crown Zellerbach, Wells Fargo Bank and Kaiser Industries. But one of the most sinister of all SRI programs with the possibilities of doing tremendous damage in altering the direction in which the United States will go, socially, morally and religiously, was Stanford's Charles F. Kettering Foundation's "CHANGING IMAGES OF MAN" under Stanford official reference "Contract Number URH (489)-2150 Policy Research Report Number 4/4/74, Prepared by the SRI Centre for the Study of Social Policy, Director Willis Harmon." This is probably one of the most far-reaching investigations into how man might be changed that has ever been conducted.

The report, covering 319 pages, was written by 14 new-science scientists under the supervision of Tavistock and 23 top controllers including B. F. Skinner, Margaret Meade, Ervin Lazlo and Sir Geoffrey Vickers, a high-level British intelligence officer in MI6. It will be recalled that his son-in-law, Sir Peter Vickers-Hall, was a founding-member of the so-called conservative "Heritage Foundation". Much of the 3000 pages of "recommendations" given to the Reagan administration in January 1981 were based upon material taken from Willis Harmon's "CHANGING IMAGES OF MAN".

I was privileged to receive a copy of "THE CHANGING IMAGES OF MAN" from my intelligence colleagues five days after it was accepted by the United States government. What I read shocked me, as I realised I was looking at a blueprint for a future America, unlike anything I had ever seen before. The nation was to be programmed to change and become so accustomed to such planned-changes that it would hardly be noticeable when profound changes did occur. We have gone downhill so fast since "THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY" (the book title of Willis Harmon's technical paper) was written, that today, divorce draws no stigma, suicide is at an all-time high and raises few eyebrows, social deviations from the norm and sexual aberrations, once unmentionable in decent circles, are now commonplace and excite no special protest.

Initially, as part of the proposed social media ban on under-16s, the New Zealand government considered a restriction or outright ban on using VPNs.

The Government has since backed down on VPNs but the central issue remains: any ban strong enough to stop determined teenagers will almost certainly require intrusive checks on adults.

Using age verification, for example, to limit under-16s access to online content will always drift into digital IDs for everyone and state control over the internet.

Parents Do Not Need Big Brother To Block Social Media

By Centrist, 8 July 2026

A Child Safety Policy Becomes Something Bigger

The proposed under-16 social media ban is being sold as child protection. That is the attractive part of the policy. Most parents know smartphones and social media can be harmful, addictive and corrosive for young people. But the political danger is that a policy aimed at children may become a system of online control for everyone.

The Post initially reported that the government was considering a VPN ban or restrictions as part of the policy work.  National’s Education Minister Erica Stanford has since said she is not pursuing VPN restrictions, after ACT made clear it would block any such move.

VPN stands for Virtual Private Network. It encrypts a user’s internet connection and can make their device appear to be accessing the internet from another location.

ACT leader David Seymour took to X to say that “the government” is not pursuing such a thing. He said National MPs had been keen on a VPN ban at select committee, while Stanford has been developing proposals to ban under-16s from social media.

But the question remains how the government plans to enforce an under-16 social media ban without pushing adults toward online age checks, identity verification or other forms of digital access control.

While the government may not have adopted a VPN ban, the episode shows how quickly a child-safety policy can raise wider questions about privacy, enforcement and state control of the internet.

The Prime Minister previously announced that social media restrictions for under-16s would become part of the government’s work programme, with Stanford assigned to lead the work and bring options to Cabinet.

Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee has also recommended age restrictions for social media platforms and further work on restricting social media access for under-16s.

Seymour Is Right About The Privacy Risk

Seymour’s broader warning is that any ban strong enough to stop determined teenagers will almost certainly require intrusive checks on adults.

If a social media company must prove a user is over 16, then every user may eventually have to prove their age. That is where a child-safety policy begins to drift toward digital ID.

According to Seymour, “there’s no point calling out China’s missiles if we’re going to copy their policies anyway.”

InternetNZ has also warned against VPN regulation, saying, “We do not support VPN regulation and share many of the concerns raised by the ACT and Green Parties in their alternative reports.”

InternetNZ argues that people use VPNs for valid reasons, including security and protection from surveillance. It has described VPN technology as standard practice for good cybersecurity, used by businesses, government and others.

That is why VPN restrictions are such a red flag. They are privacy and security tools used by workers, businesses, journalists and ordinary citizens who do not want every online action exposed to platforms, advertisers, or network providers.

Big Tech Already Gives Parents Tools

The deeper problem with Stanford’s approach is that it treats family discipline as a problem for the state to solve, even though most parents already have the power to restrict social media use at the device level.

Apple’s Screen Time allows parents to set age-related restrictions for content, purchases, downloads, privacy settings, inappropriate web content and app access. Parents can also prevent children from installing or deleting apps or making App Store purchases.

Google’s Family Link lets parents block apps, set individual app time limits, require approval for new apps, block inappropriate sites and manage settings across Chrome, Google Play, YouTube and Search.

Samsung directs Galaxy users to parental controls and Google Family Link, which include the ability to block apps, lock devices, restrict content and set screen-time limits.

TikTok also has Family Pairing, allowing caregivers to manage screen time, safety settings and content controls for teenage accounts.

These tools are not perfect. But neither is legislation.

That does not make parenting easy. In today’s smartphone culture, turning off access can be a hard fight inside the home. But a hard parenting decision is not automatically a job for Big Brother.

A motivated teenager may try to evade household rules. That does not prove the answer is a national identity checkpoint for the internet.

This Is Really About Digital ID

Perhaps the better approach is to make parental controls easier to use. Require device makers and platforms to make them visible at setup. Educate parents. Improve default settings for young users.

New Zealand already has a Digital Identity Services Trust Framework, which is the legal framework for accredited digital identity services. The Govt.nz app also now includes a digital wallet intended to hold credentials such as licences, IDs and qualifications as they become available.

Centrist has previously reported that digital driver licences became a government priority despite little evidence of public demand, and that a licence on a phone is only one part of a wider credential system linked to the app, NZ Verify and digital proof of age.

The government says these systems are about convenience and trust. The risk is function creep. A digital wallet that begins as a voluntary way to access services can become much less voluntary if private platforms are pressured to verify age at scale.

The burden should be on Stanford to explain why existing parental controls are not enough before the country is pushed toward broader online verification.

About the Author

In 2024, the UN created a new task force on disinformation. This task force is not about addressing misinformation or disinformation that would lead to any type of real-world truth. Its sole purpose is to focus on how certain information would affect achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (Agenda 2030).

Last week, the UN held a “Global Dialogue on AI Governance.”

The task force and AI governance are linked in their desire to control the information the public is allowed to see under the guise of safeguarding information integrity.

AI Erodes Information Integrity, Weakens Shared Reality Required For Public Trust: UN

By Tim Hinchcliffe, as published by The Sociable on 6 July 2026

AI is eroding information integrity while weakening “the shared reality required for public trust, social cohesion and democratic deliberation,” according to the United Nations (“UN”) preliminary scientific report on artificial intelligence.

Last week, the UN launched its ‘Preliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI’ to serve as a guide for the ‘Global Dialogue on AI Governance’ in Geneva, Switzerland, held on 6 July.

The authors assert that the report makes no policy recommendations in its efforts to shine a light on what the panel considers to be the biggest opportunities, risks and impacts of artificial intelligence.

Among the many, many risks mentioned in the AI report is this notion of “information integrity,” which is a term that the UN uses to promote its own narratives while discounting all others as being misinformation or disinformation.

“AI makes it easier to produce and target persuasive content at scale, including content designed to mislead, contributing to a gradual erosion of information integrity that can weaken the shared reality required for public trust, social cohesion anddemocratic deliberation”—United Nations, Preliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, July 2026

https://twitter.com/UNISNairobi/status/2072330766298599710

“AI-mediated news and information systems may also affect the financial sustainability of journalism and other institutions that support information integrity”—United Nations, Preliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, July 2026

Speaking of disinformation, the authors of the report claim, “There are documented cases of elections being heavily influenced by AI-generated deepfakes targeting candidates.”

That sounds serious!

How did they arrive at that conclusion?

Their claim is hyperlinked to an opinion piece by the Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University School of Law that says right there in the subtitle: “Artificial intelligence didn’t disrupt the 2024 election, but the effects are likely to be greater in the future.”

While the opinion piece cites various instances where AI-generated content was indeed distributed during election cycles, the Brennan Centre flat-out says that “no direct, quantifiable impact on election outcomes has been identified.”

And yet, the UN report says the opposite of the very article it is referencing, claiming that elections were “heavily influenced by AI-generated deepfakes.”

That’s just one example of “information integrity” that the UN claims to care so much about.

But for the panel’s co-chair, journalist and 2021 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Maria Ressa, going after individual posts that use AI to convey messages is a lost cause, and for her it’d be best to rewire the entire information infrastructure.

For example, just after declaring at a press conference that the UN panel did not make policy recommendations, Ressa made the policy recommendation to “regulate the persuasion and manipulation machinery” rather than “individual pieces of content.”

“The most urgent governance shift is from content moderation to system architecture. That’s the main part. You regulate the persuasion and manipulation machinery itself. You don’t police individual pieces of content. The report is actually very firm here because governance that only chases outputs will always fall behind systems that are engineered to generate content at scale.”—Maria Ressa, Launch of the preliminary report by the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence Press Conference, July 2026

https://twitter.com/TimHinchliffe/status/2073116970015236462

According to the UN report, “Algorithms optimised for engagement also amplify polarising and emotionally charged content, meaning platform architecture itself can function as a persuasion mechanism.”

Does polarisation automatically equate to misinformation or disinformation?

Without polarity, there is no argument or debate. Everyone just thinks the same way.

Without emotion, there is no passion for argument or debate. Everyone just feels the same way.

If the plan is to “regulate the persuasion” machinery, then the AI would only share information that some authoritarian body authorised it to share, and the UN would call this safeguarding information integrity.

“The concentration of AI capabilities in a small number of firms and countries could enable authoritarian capture and undermine democratic accountability”—United Nations, Preliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, July 2026

Tech companies themselves are already authoritarian in the way they allow information to disseminate. Now, unelected globalist groups like the UN want the same exact power and influence over narratives and information that big tech has for themselves. That’s why one year ago this week, the UN announced it was creating a disinformation task force.

This task force on disinformation was never about addressing misinformation or disinformation that would lead to any type of real-world truth, but rather its sole purpose was to focus on how certain information would affect the UN’s Agenda 2030 mandate, aka the “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).”

“The Secretary-General commits to: immediately create a task team to strengthen the United Nations System’s capacity to address risks in the information ecosystem. The team will focus on the effects of mis- and disinformation on United Nations mandate delivery, including through research, risk assessment and response strategies”—United Nations, Global Risk Report, July 2025

Global Risk Report 2024, pg. 35

As you may recall, the UN held the Summit of the Future in 2024 to accelerate progress on the SDGs.

At that event, UN member states signed the ‘Pact for the Future’, which included the ‘Global Digital Compact’, which called on nations to “foster an inclusive, open, safe and secure digital space,” which has no place for what the UN considers mis- and disinformation.

And that’s why the disinformation taskforce was conceived - to be a continuation of the ‘Pact for the Future’ and the ‘Global Digital Compact’ to quash any narratives that may impede upon the UN’s mandate delivery - Agenda 2030.

“The integration of AI into surveillance infrastructure has expanded the capacity for population-scale monitoring and societal control”—United Nations, Preliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, July 2026

The UN's ‘Preliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI’ hit upon many, many risks and opportunities not covered in this story.

For example, it says that “the gap between rapidly improving capabilities and effective risk management methods may lead to catastrophic outcomes. For example, advanced technical abilities may allow novice private actors to use AI in malicious ways across a range of applications such as fraud, social engineering, cybersecurity, disinformation, biotechnology and financial manipulation.”

Additionally, “Reliable methods for retaining control over highly autonomous AI systems are lacking. There are no scientific guarantees that AI agents will not violate instructions, and evidence is accumulating of cases where they already violate them. In laboratory settings, AI systems have been shown to violate their safety instructions to avoid being shut down.”

This week, the UN is holding the Global Dialogue on AI, using the report as a launchpad for discussion.

Related content from The Sociable:

- UN to create task force on ‘disinformation’ affecting its mandate: Global Risk Report - UN launches ‘Digital Cooperation Portal’ to track, facilitate Global Digital Compact compliance - The EU wants to put a ‘tax on disinformation’: Fractured Reality report - To monitor disinformation Von der Leyen urges European Democracy Shield, Center for Democratic Resilience - WEF calls on stakeholders to ‘inoculate’ public against disinformation ‘super-spreaders’: report - G20 announces initiative to crackdown on climate change disinformation - UN Global Digital Compact pushes digital ID for all, disinformation crackdowns to advance Agenda 2030 About the Author

Tim Hinchliffe is the editor at The Sociable. He covers tech and society, with perspectives on public and private policies proposed by governments, unelected globalists, think tanks, big tech companies, defence departments and intelligence agencies. Previously, he was a reporter for the Ghanaian Chronicle in West Africa and an editor at Colombia Reports in South America.

Over two years, Taylor was raped by more than 100 “Asian” men.

One common tactic used by the gangs, Taylor said, was to send taxis to pick up drunk girls late at night. The driver would pretend to stop at a shop for a drink, then drive off, leaving the girl behind. A group of men would then “rescue” her, only to take her to a pre-arranged house for gang rape.

Before they raped her, they would chant, “Bismillah Hir Rahman Nir Rahim.” Translated into  English as, “In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful.”

She witnessed shootings, had knives held to her throat and a gun held to her head. The gangs used the death of one of the other girls as leverage, threatening that anyone who spoke out would be next.

Last year, Rupert Lowe MP (Restore Britain) launched a campaign to raise funds to hold an independent national inquiry into the UK’s Muslim rape gangs.  This year, the victim-led Rape Gang Inquiry was held, during which testimonies from victims, parents, carers, politicians,  a variety of experts and whistle-blowers were heard over ten days, from 2 February to 12 February.  On 16 June 2026, the Inquiry released its report.

Thousands of rape gang victims and family members volunteered their testimonies to the Inquiry.  On pages 18 to 101, the Inquiry’s report provides a summary of some of them.  The following is Taylor’s testimony.  Taylor is not her real name. “Some of the witnesses have to remain anonymous for their own safety,” the report says.  You can read the full report HERE.

Taylor’s story yet again raises the excuse used too often by police in such cases: there was nothing they could do because she had “consented.”

Time and time again, people point out that police and other authorities did not intervene because, they say, the child consented to sexual relations with an adult.  But what no one mentions is the crime of statutory rape.

"Statutory rape" refers to sexual activity with a person under the age of consent, which in the UK is 16 years old. It is an extremely serious sexual offence. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it is illegal for anyone to engage in sexual intercourse or other sexual activity with a person under 16, even if the younger person appears to consent. This is because children are legally deemed incapable of providing valid consent.

On this basis, whenever police are called to attend a reported rape case involving any child under 17, the police know that, if sexual contact is established, it is a rape case; the perpetrator should be arrested and the child should be immediately given protection, regardless of what the rapist claims.

Reading the testimonies from The Rape Gang Inquiry, it could be argued that 16 is too low for the age of consent and that it should be raised to 21, say, to protect all teenagers from predatory adults.  However, would this actually improve child safety as the police are not even adhering to existing laws designed to protect children?

The Rape Gang Report ‘Taylor’

‘Taylor’ was introduced at the age of twelve to older men through her friends, many of whom were adult Muslim men. They began by giving her lifts home from school, sometimes in black cabs and sometimes in their own cars. Taylor saw the men buying gifts for her friends and initially wished she could receive gifts too.

On one occasion, instead of being taken to school, she was driven to one of the men’s sister’s houses and taught how to cook “Asian food.” Her friends spent more time with the men, but because her parents expected her to come straight home after school, she had limited contact with them beyond the lifts. She notes that her friends were already doing adult things such as smoking, drinking, and going to clubs, whereas she still had a more child-like disposition.

This dynamic continued for three years until she turned 15, when the abuse began. She started going with her friends to a restaurant run by Muslim men to help with deliveries. This escalated when one of the men who worked there – a 35-year-old Bangladeshi man – kissed her, causing her to run away. The same man later raped her when she was 15. Because her friends were also being abused, Taylor believed it was normal and that the man was her boyfriend. However, when she walked in on him with one of her friends, she realised this was not the case. After this, her behaviour changed dramatically: she began skipping school and drinking heavily.

During a family incident that led to police being called, Taylor’s father mentioned his suspicions that she was being abused by Asian men. The police responded that there was nothing they could do because she had “consented.” Police were called on multiple occasions regarding the abuse of Taylor and her friends, but they consistently refused to take action. The only time they helped her was when a group of “Asian” girls called the police; officers then returned Taylor and her friend home. Taylor believes they only intervened on that occasion because they did not want to face accusations of racism, given that the call came from “Asian” women.

By the age of 16, she had been introduced to many more men and was constantly harassed by them over the phone. Some men would initially appear kind and caring, leading her to believe they were in a relationship, only to lure her into situations where she would be gang-raped. They used a combination of false kindness, violent abuse, and alcohol to coerce and control her. Cars would stop in the street and demand she get in. She would be raped and then taken to the next abuser. She claims that on some nights she was passed to as many as ten different men, and estimates she was abused by around 100 men in total.

One common tactic used by the gangs was to send taxis to pick up drunk girls late at night. The driver would pretend to stop at a shop for a drink, then drive off, leaving the girl behind. A group of men would then “rescue” her, only to take her to a pre-arranged house for gang rape. A number of women also played a role in directing girls to their abusers in exchange for gifts and money. These women would trap the girls in properties or use violence to coerce them. Taylor has witnessed shootings, had knives held to her throat, and a gun held to her head. The gangs used the death of one of the other girls as leverage, threatening that anyone who spoke out would be next.

Hervé, a 56-year-old property owner in Saint-Juvat, France, was forced to vacate his guesthouse, which he spent 5 years renovating, after hosting a family of illegal migrants from Mauritius.

In October 2025, Hervé offered the family a short-term lease at a reduced rate to prevent them from spending the winter outdoors.  While cohabitation initially seemed positive, it deteriorated rapidly due to noise nuisance, accusations of theft, and property damage.  The situation escalated in January 2026 when the male tenant threatened Hervé and damaged his car, prompting Hervé to file a police report.

Despite Hervé serving an eviction notice for 1 February 2026, the family refused to leave.  The subsequent legal expulsion process has stalled due to continued delays and the tenants' failure to appear in court.  As a result, Hervé cannot currently access his own home.  Reports indicate that Hervé’s guests had a prior history of eviction in July 2025 for similar issues, including threats and unpaid rent.

Below is what Paul Joseph Watson from Modernity News had to say about Hervé’s situation:

https://rumble.com/embed/v7acjb4/?pub=4 Modernity: He F*cked Around & Found Out, 9 July 2026 (3 mins)

You can also watch the video above on YouTube HERE.

Read more:

- Brittany: he hosts a family and finds himself chased out of his own house, Le Journal du Damanche, 8 July 2026 (French to English translation) - Brittany: host of migrants, Hervé is freed from his home by his new tenants, Tasty Crousty, 7 July 2026 (French to English translation)

Anna is one of the fortunate few in that her rapists were convicted and sentenced for their crimes. 

There is a broader failure to confront the role of ethnicity, religion and cultural dynamics in organised sexual exploitation due to fear of accusations of racism, she said.

Anna was raped repeatedly by three Muslim brothers.  They used threats to her family, intimidation, verbal abuse and cycles of affection, gifts and coercion to ensure her silence. One brother shouted “Allahu Akbar” when taken into custody.

The brothers’ sister demonstrated that gang rape of children is considered acceptable behaviour in some Muslim families. The rapists’ sister shouted abuse at Anna and threatened her at the sentencing hearing, and later breached Anna’s anonymity online.

Last year, Rupert Lowe MP (Restore Britain) launched a campaign to raise funds to hold an independent national inquiry into the UK’s Muslim rape gangs.  This year, the victim-led Rape Gang Inquiry was held, during which testimonies from victims, parents, carers, politicians,  a variety of experts and whistle-blowers were heard over ten days, from 2 February to 12 February.  On 16 June 2026, the Inquiry released its report.

Thousands of rape gang victims and family members volunteered their testimonies to the Inquiry.  On pages 18 to 101, the Inquiry’s report provides a summary of some of them.  The following is Anna’s testimony.  Anna is not her real name. “Some of the witnesses have to remain anonymous for their own safety,” the report says.  You can read the full report HERE.

‘Anna’

Anna was raised in a stable, middle-class household with both parents present. She first experienced abuse at the age of 13 by a perpetrator who was almost 18, whom she met through friends. He began their interactions with what is known as “love-bombing”: he complimented her, messaged her regularly, offered to buy her gifts and alcohol, requested photographs of her, and discussed meeting up.

They arranged to meet at a local bus stop and go into town. At the last minute, he changed the plan and asked Anna to meet him at the end of a path in a nearby woodland. Upon arrival, his demeanour was cold and aggressive. He demanded that Anna perform oral sex on him and threatened to tell people she knew that she had sent him explicit photographs and that they had already had sex. Feeling threatened and fearful, she complied.

Unbeknownst to Anna, he had covertly recorded the incident. A few days later, multiple men added her on Snapchat and began mocking and taunting her. The perpetrator himself sent Anna the video, laughed, and told her he had shared it with his “boys and brothers,” leaving her feeling humiliated, fearful, and traumatised. Anna reported the assault to the police, but despite explaining the coercion and threats, the case was closed with no investigation into the creation or distribution of child sexual abuse material.

Rumours spread rapidly among Anna’s peers, and she was mocked and insulted in public. A year later, Anna encountered three Muslim brothers through a friend who was already being groomed and abused by them. They supplied her with alcohol and cigarettes in a public park and waited until she was heavily intoxicated before they began assaulting her. One of the brothers pulled her behind a tree and groped her chest despite her repeated refusals. When she tried to flee, he pushed her violently against the tree, causing her to hit her head and suffer a concussion.

The grooming continued through threats to her family, intimidation, verbal abuse, and cycles of affection, gifts, and coercion. Anna did not feel safe reporting the abuse to the police. On another occasion, she was again supplied with alcohol. One of the brothers grabbed her body violently, dug his fingernails into her, and yanked at her underwear repeatedly while laughing. Anna cried silently, feeling powerless to stop the assault. Afterwards, she tried to cut contact, but one of the brothers located her and banged on the door shouting while she hid inside until he left. Out of fear, she complied with further demands to meet the brothers, resulting in more assaults.

There was a period of nearly four years before any trial was held, largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The perpetrators used this time to spread rumours portraying the abuse as consensual and to boast about the assaults. In the courtroom, the abuse and intimidation continued: they pulled faces, pointed and laughed at her, and made rude remarks about her appearance. This behaviour was not addressed by the court. One of the brothers was convicted of sexual assault and, as he was taken into custody, shouted “Allahu Akbar.”

At the sentencing, the brother’s sister shouted abuse at Anna, threatened her, and later breached her anonymity online. She blamed the jury, stating they were “all white.” She was eventually arrested and charged with malicious communications.

Anna states there is a broader failure to confront the role of ethnicity, religion, and cultural dynamics in organised sexual exploitation due to fear of accusations of racism.

Economists in Dallas, USA, have found that a 1% increase in illegal immigrant workers is associated with a 2.2% increase in home prices and a 1.4% increase in rents.

The rapid rise in population, combined with a failure to expand housing construction, has led to a severe housing shortage. The US is now short of roughly 3.7 million housing units.

The resulting housing inflation has made homeownership unaffordable for many, particularly younger Americans.

Open Borders Contributed to Real Estate Inflation

By Martin Armstrong, as published by Armstrong Economics on 1 July 2026

Politicians continue insisting that mass migration carries no economic consequences. Anyone who questions the policy is immediately accused of being anti-immigrant. That has always been the tactic. Rather than debate the economics, they attack the person asking the question. Yet reality eventually catches up with political slogans, and now even economists are beginning to quantify what common sense should have told us years ago.

A new working paper from economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas examined the unprecedented surge in unauthorised immigration between 2021 and 2024. The researchers estimate that unauthorised immigrant workers accounted for roughly 30% of employment growth in the average metropolitan area during that period. More importantly, they found that in markets where housing supply could not expand quickly enough, a 1% increase in unauthorised worker inflows was associated with approximately a 2.2% increase in home prices and about a 1.4% increase in rents.

California Senate passes 0 down, 0 payment home ‘loans’ for illegal immigrants, Todayville, 2024

'We need to be taken care of first!' Chicago community where 97% voted for Biden react furiously after finding out 500 migrants are heading their way - as some claim they have been bumped off housing waiting lists, Daily Mail, 13 May 2023

When population rises rapidly while housing construction fails to keep pace, prices climb. More people competing for a limited number of homes means higher prices. Demand rises faster than supply. The laws of supply and demand do not disappear because politicians prefer open borders. The Federal Reserve researchers also noted that housing construction did not expand sufficiently to absorb the additional demand, leaving existing residents competing for the same inventory. This is basic economics that governments have chosen to ignore.

The numbers illustrate just how severe the housing shortage has become. Freddie Mac estimates the United States remains short roughly 3.7 million housing units. The National Association of Realtors has repeatedly reported that existing home inventory remains well below historical norms, while the median existing-home price reached another record high during 2025. Meanwhile, mortgage rates have remained around 6% to 7% for much of the past two years, dramatically increasing monthly payments and pushing homeownership further out of reach for younger Americans. The result has been exactly what our computer projected years ago: employed adults increasingly remaining with their parents because housing has become unaffordable.

Politicians will inevitably try to blame investors, landlords or speculators. Those factors exist, but they are only part of a much larger picture. Housing costs have also been driven higher by inflation, elevated interest rates, soaring insurance premiums, rising construction costs, zoning restrictions and years of underbuilding following the 2008 financial crisis. Mass immigration adds another layer of demand on top of an already constrained market.

Civil unrest rises whenever governments ignore economic reality. Housing affordability has become one of the defining issues across the Western world, not just in the United States but throughout Canada, Britain, Australia and much of Europe. You cannot continue adding demand while restricting supply and expect prices to remain stable.

Related: Housing Costs Soared Throughout EU in Q1, Armstrong Economics, 10 July 2026

About the Author

Martin A. Armstrong is an American economic forecaster best known for developing the Economic Confidence Model. He gained notoriety for predicting the 19 October 1987 stock market crash to the exact day and the 1998 Russian financial crisis. By 1990, Martin’s forecast for the collapse of Communism in 1989 and the collapse of the Japanese Asset Bubble in 1989 earned him being named America’s top Economist. He continues to publish forecasts through Armstrong Economics.

As with Wallace, Sebastian wasn’t raped by a gang of Muslim men but rather was groomed and raped by multiple white British men.  Like Wallace, his sexual abuse took place in Scotland.

What is worthy of note about Sebastian’s story is that the childhood abuse he suffered continued into his adulthood.  He was trapped in a cycle of this horrendous abuse for nearly four decades. 

He has suffered so much trauma that it has led him to seek a complete transformation of himself.  Sebastian was born a female and transitioned into a man.  He now identifies as a trans man.  Living as a man, he feels safer from further abuse.

Last year, Rupert Lowe MP (Restore Britain) launched a campaign to raise funds to hold an independent national inquiry into the UK’s Muslim rape gangs.  This year, the victim-led Rape Gang Inquiry was held, during which testimonies from victims, parents, carers, politicians,  a variety of experts and whistle-blowers were heard over ten days, from 2 February to 12 February.  On 16 June 2026, the Inquiry released its report.

Thousands of rape gang victims and family members volunteered their testimonies to the Inquiry.  On pages 18 to 101, the Inquiry’s report provides a summary of some of them.  The following is Sebastian’s testimony.  You can read the full report HERE

Sebastian

Sebastian was raised in Scotland in a stable household. Sebastian’s mother held down a professional job, owned her own home and car, and the family regularly went on holidays together. Despite this relatively secure background, which was not typical of abuse victims, Sebastian was raped and abused from the age of six by family members – without Sebastian’s mother’s knowledge. These family members instilled in Sebastian the belief that, to be safe, you had to give them what they wanted. This led Sebastian to develop a transactional view of interpersonal relationships.

At age eleven, Sebastian was introduced by these abusive family members to a local café owner. The owner gave Sebastian free food, lifts in his car, and free cinema tickets to build trust and a sense of obligation. From there, they began prostituting Sebastian out to a number of people. These included seemingly respectable professionals such as estate agents, solicitors, care support workers for children, and even police officers. Even at boarding school, Sebastian was raped, assaulted, and groomed by staff and connected adults, with Sebastian’s injuries often ignored by medical professionals. All of Sebastian’s abusers were White British.

In adulthood and during the final years of the abuse, Sebastian became aware of the wider operation of the grooming networks, both in a quiet rural area and in the city. At the age of 40, Sebastian was finally able to escape a cycle of abuse that had lasted for nearly four decades. Following years of abuse, Sebastian, born a biological female, transitioned to the opposite sex and now identifies as a trans man. Sebastian transitioned socially at 41 and medically at 48. However, when describing the abuse experienced as a child, it remains important for Sebastian to recognise that these events occurred while living as a girl and perceived as such.

Sebastian acknowledges that this transition was, at least in part, a consequence of the abuse experienced, and feels safer from further abuse when presenting as a man. Sebastian recognises the profound impact trauma can have on a person’s life and believes that different people find different ways to cope. For some, that may mean choosing a particular career or relationship or making unhealthy choices by using substances or alcohol; for Sebastian, transition and finding peace in being “Seb” became the pathway to recovery.

What’s already abundantly clear but verboten to say is that AI is unaffordable once the direct and indirect subsidies are withdrawn.

Nothing that consumes this much electricity and requires such an immense scale of costly processing and memory capacity can be low-cost, never mind free, Charles Hugh Smith writes.

Without Subsidies, AI Is Unaffordable

By Charles Hugh Smith, 8 June 2026

What’s already abundantly clear but verboten to say, as it would pop the bubble of AI valuations and triumphalism, is that AI is unaffordable once the direct and indirect subsidies are withdrawn. Nothing that consumes this much electricity and requires such an immense scale of costly processing and memory capacity can be low-cost, never mind free. The major AI platforms and vendors are subsidising corporate and individual users in the hopes that they can achieve AI sector dominance - and the pricing power that comes with it - via the “network effect,” the dominance generated by having the majority of users bound by habit or dependence to your platform or tools. This battle for network effect dominance is playing out in full view:

Pitched battle for business users comes as AI companies seek lasting streams of revenue. Hans Ibarra, a founder building an AI-voice startup, has found himself on the receiving end of a big opportunity: Top artificial-intelligence companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic and others desperate to win his business are ramping up discounts. Across Silicon Valley, startup founders like Ibarra are enjoying a wave of computing credits and fielding competing offers from AI-model makers racing to land new enterprise customers. Cursor, the AI-coding company bought by Elon Musk’s SpaceX, offered a 75% discount through July 5. “If I’m choosing between a really cheap Chinese model that I actually have to pay for, and a very expensive Anthropic model that I don’t have to pay for, I’m going to pick the Anthropic model,” Acker said. “I’m always going to pick the one for which I have free credits.”

AI Giants Are Handing Out Tons of Free Computing Power to Grab Startup Share, The Wall Street Journal, 6 July 2026

Meanwhile, back in the real world of costs, AI costs more than the people it replaced, according to Forbes. It turns out that experienced human workers doing the work right in the first place is cheaper than having AI run a probability distribution process that needs vetting and corrections. And remember, AI isn’t actually “intelligent,” it’s just a probability distribution using natural language. As management guru Peter Drucker observed, enterprises don’t have profits; they have costs. Purveyors of AI platforms and tools have costs, and so do their customers. Those costs are currently being funded by investors, who are in effect subsidising the AI companies’ “free” giveaways of horrendously costly “tokens” in a manic, desperate attempt to grab the brass ring of network effect dominance before their cash runs out. This raises a question: Is this any way to run a railroad? In other words, is this actually a viable business model, burning billions of dollars in cash to lock in network effect dominance in a field that is rapidly obsoleting every iteration of an innately limited mode of computation? Is claiming that a probability distribution is “intelligent” in the same way humans are intelligent a viable business model when there is ample evidence that this simply isn’t true? Read: AI and human intelligence are drastically different--here’s how, Scientific American, 18 February 2026 What happens when enterprises have to pay the unsubsidised costs of AI is that they immediately curtail their AI spending because the customer-facing / financial benefits of AI are at best elusive and often negative. Peter Drucker was onto something that is currently being lost in the public relations propaganda push of those trying to cash in on the AI euphoria: enterprises don’t have profits, they have costs, and the real-world costs of AI are extraordinarily high while the payoffs are ambiguous. There are many other hidden subsidies within the AI machinery. There are corporate tax write-off subsidies, energy subsidies, tax credit subsidies for building data centres and so on. If these were stripped out, what would the real unsubsidised costs of AI be? No one knows, but they would be higher than what’s presented as the cost now. Then there’s the “if it’s legal, it’s moral, and what’s legal is for sale” subsidy: AI is built on the systemic theft of copyrighted content. Last month alone, AI scrapers gorged on 246,000 pages from my Of Two Minds server and hundreds of thousands of pages of my copyrighted works on my mirror site and other sites posting my work. This is legal, but is it moral? Nobody asks such questions because the important thing is to avoid saddling AI users with the real costs. So, if all those content creators get nothing - in effect, subsidising both AI companies and the users of their AI platforms and tools - well, so what, because “if it’s legal, it’s moral, and what’s legal is for sale.” Well, that’s just peachy, but let’s do a thought experiment where every creator of copyrighted work got paid for supplying AI with its database, and every user of AI had to pay us content creators. How about a penny a page / image / sound clip? So, 246,000 pages per month (again, only a fraction of the total volume of my work that was scraped by AI companies for their “free” use in a single month) would be $2,460 a month paid to me by AI users benefiting directly from my copyrighted work. Wouldn’t that be fair, i.e. moral? Recall that US copyright law is explicit: all creative content is copyrighted upon completion, period. How many current users of AI are willing to pay the full unsubsidised costs for their use of AI? We can safely say far fewer than are using the tools for “free” due to subsidies, both direct and indirect. Let’s pull all this into an undeniable conclusion: AI is based on massively subsidising users’ costs. Once those subsidies end, what’s left are costs, not profits. Play that any way you like, but massive subsidies are not sustainable, though they generate a temporary illusion of viability that can be exploited by those selling a fantasy of future profitability to credulous investors and enterprises. Left unsaid is that a lot of money is being gambled on the illusion that subsidies are sustainable. They’re not. Enterprises don’t have profits; they have costs.

About the Author

The UK government admits that £10.9 billion was lost to fraud across covid support schemes.  However, research has shown that, plausibly, there was £37 billion lost to covid fraud.

We Warned About Covid Fraud Four Years Ago. Now the Government Agrees

By Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, as published by Trust the Evidence

In June 2026, the Government quietly published its response to the Covid Counter Fraud Commissioner’s report. It deserves far more attention than it has received. Buried within its 28 pages is an extraordinary admission: the British state was systematically unprepared for the largest fraud against the public purse in modern history.

Four years ago, in November 2022, Trust the Evidence published a detailed investigation into covid fraud. We argued that the losses were likely to be vastly greater than official estimates, that fraud controls had been abandoned in the rush to spend, that responsibility was fragmented across Whitehall, that Companies House had become an enabler rather than a barrier to fraud, and that the Government lacked both the appetite and the institutional machinery to recover what had been stolen.

The Government has now accepted almost every one of those arguments.

It is gratifying to be proved right; It is rather less gratifying that it has taken four years.

The official estimate now stands at £10.9 billion lost to fraud and error across Covid support schemes, although the Public Sector Fraud Authority acknowledges that the true losses are likely higher. Only £1.8 billion has been recovered so far.

But here lies the first problem.

The Government continues to rely on a remarkably conservative accounting framework. It counts losses that can be demonstrated within individual schemes, but not the broader ecosystem of fraud that flourished when normal controls were suspended.

Our analysis took a different approach: We assembled evidence from National Audit Office reports, Public Accounts Committee hearings, Treasury evidence, Lord Agnew’s testimony, HMRC data, Companies House records, Action Fraud, Freedom of Information requests and contemporaneous investigative reporting. Rather than viewing each scheme in isolation, we examined the entire pandemic spending landscape.

The picture that emerged was alarming.

We estimated that losses could plausibly approach 10 per cent of the £370 billion pandemic expenditure—around £37 billion. That estimate included not only identified fraud but also the predictable consequences of dismantling verification systems, encouraging self-certification, creating 100 per cent government-backed lending, relaxing welfare controls, and allowing thousands of new companies to be created with minimal scrutiny.

That estimate was criticised at the time as speculative. Indeed, the government put in a complaint, making sure it wasn’t backed by the University of Oxford - instead, it was just the two old geezers .

Yet the Government’s own report now accepts virtually every mechanism that underpinned our analysis.

It acknowledges that fraud controls were not embedded in emergency planning. It accepts that crisis decision-making lacked effective challenge. It admits data sharing between departments was inadequate. It proposes reforms to Companies House. It expands counter-fraud powers. It establishes specialist investigation teams. It creates independent oversight. It rewrites Treasury guidance so that fraud is considered from the outset of future emergency schemes.

In other words, today’s official reform agenda reads remarkably like yesterday’s unofficial diagnosis.

One of the most striking examples concerns Companies House.

In 2022, we analysed incorporation data and found tens of thousands more companies had been created than historical trends would predict, while dissolutions temporarily fell, leaving almost 400,000 additional companies on the register. We never claimed these were all fraudulent. But they represented precisely the sort of anomaly that deserved urgent investigation because they coincided with schemes requiring little more than an email address and a newly registered company to obtain taxpayer-backed loans.

The Government now accepts that greater corporate transparency is essential for preventing future fraud. It has not gone as far as the Commissioner recommended, but even partial acceptance represents a remarkable shift from the complacency that characterised the pandemic years.

Equally revealing is the treatment of Lord Agnew’s evidence.

When he resigned in 2022, describing Treasury anti-fraud efforts as “Dad’s Army,” many regarded the criticism as a rhetorical flourish. We treated it as a warning from someone who had seen the machinery from inside the Government. His evidence highlighted fragmented responsibilities, inexperienced decision-makers and the abandonment of basic checks that would have delayed payments by only a matter of days.

Covid: Government's anti-fraud efforts was like Dad's Army operation, says ex-minister, BBC, 9 March 2022

The Government has now built an entire reform programme around precisely those deficiencies. However, the true scale of the losses remains unresolved.

The official £10.9 billion figure has an air of precision that is difficult to justify. Fraud on this scale cannot be measured like the national debt. Much of it remains undiscovered; some will never be discovered. Fraudsters dissolved companies, transferred assets abroad, exploited identity theft and took advantage of administrative systems that often lacked even basic verification. Estimating only what has already been identified risks confusing measurement with reality.

Our estimate was necessarily broader because the problem itself was broader. We were trying to understand the consequences of designing emergency programmes in an environment where ministers knowingly accepted weakened controls, existing fraud levels were already estimated at tens of billions annually, and experienced investigators warned repeatedly that criminal organisations were exploiting the opportunities being created.

No estimate is perfect, but an estimate that incorporates systemic vulnerabilities is arguably more likely to approximate the truth than one confined to losses that have been formally recognised so far.

Much of the Government’s response focuses on ensuring the mistakes are never repeated. New legislation, new investigators, new guidance, new oversight panels, new professional standards and new crisis playbooks are all welcome.

Yet, if these reforms are now considered essential, why were those warning about precisely these deficiencies dismissed four years ago?

Covid fraud was never simply a story about clever criminals. It was a story about predictable institutional failure. Trust the Evidence recognised that in 2022; the Government has now acknowledged it in 2026.

Better late than never, perhaps; but four years is a very long time in which to discover that independent investigators had seen the problem more clearly than the state itself - and that taxpayers are still paying the price.

About the Authors

Carl Heneghan is a professor of Evidence-based Medicine at the University of Oxford, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (“CEBM”) and NHS Urgent Care general practitioner (“GP”) who regularly appears in the media. Tom Jefferson is a clinical epidemiologist and a Senior Associate Tutor at the University of Oxford. Together, they publish articles on a Substack page titled ‘Trust the Evidence’.

On 1 July, Somali refugees in the USA celebrated ‘Somalia Independence Day’. If Somali refugees are proud of Somalia, why aren’t they in Somalia?

On the flip side, the Somali refugee programme has been a costly mistake for Americans.  Worse than a mistake, it’s a hoax - and it’s still ongoing.

Related: Is Mahmood’s proposed new immigration scheme the official start of the UN’s “replacement migration”?

The Somali Refugee Hoax Is Still Going On

Summarised by Discern Report, 6 July 2026

In this FrontPage Magazine article, staff expose the ongoing Somali refugee resettlement programme in the US as a costly hoax that imports unassimilable populations, strains resources and threatens national security.

• Decades of Somali inflows have created parallel societies plagued by crime, welfare dependency and Islamist radicalisation rather than successful integration.

• Resettlement agencies and leftist politicians profit from the system while American taxpayers bear the burden of housing, education and social services.

• Numerous Somali refugees and their descendants have been linked to terrorism, gang activity and cultural clashes in cities across the country.

• The programme ignores Somalia’s history of clan warfare, piracy and incompatibility with Western values, repeating failed experiments in multiculturalism.

• FrontPage Magazine calls for an immediate halt to Somali refugee admissions and a full audit of the programme’s failures and costs.

• The article warns that continuing the hoax accelerates demographic transformation and endangers American communities already overwhelmed by mass migration.

Read the full story: The Somali Refugee Hoax is Still Going On

Senator Ron Johnson has released a report documenting federal health agencies' failure to acknowledge vaccine safety concerns and is pushing for accountability.

This comes as the covid vaccine-injured community is reaching a 5-year milestone.  Many have experienced chronic illness, financial hardship and emotional suffering over the past five years.

Accountability for the Vaccine-Injured: A Senator Steps Up

By Christopher Dreisbach, as published by Brownstone Institute on 30 June 2026

Five years is a significant milestone in any chronic illness. People can endure extraordinary physical pain, financial hardship and emotional suffering if they believe that recovery is just around the corner. Hope often carries them through.

But after five years, hope itself begins to erode.

Savings have been exhausted. Careers have been interrupted or lost. Retirement plans have disappeared. Marriages have been strained by the relentless burden of chronic illness and caregiving. Medical appointments that once promised answers begin to feel repetitive and futile.

Gradually, the realisation sets in that life may never return to what it once was. Temporary hardship becomes a permanent reality. When physical suffering is compounded by financial ruin, social isolation and the loss of future expectations, despair can become overwhelming.

For thousands of Americans permanently harmed during the covid-19 vaccine rollout, that five-year milestone is arriving now.

Over the past several months, a disturbing number of covid-19 vaccine-injured people have either taken their own lives or survived suicide attempts. As a board member of React19, a non-profit dedicated to supporting those injured by the covid-19 vaccines, I have come to know many of these stories personally. These are not statistics. They are husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters who believed that if they persevered long enough, help would eventually arrive.

For many, it never did.

What made their suffering especially devastating was not only the physical injury itself, but years spent feeling invisible. Many lost careers, homes and financial security. Others depleted retirement savings or accumulated overwhelming medical debt. Almost all experienced some combination of disbelief, dismissal and isolation. After years of being told their injuries were unlikely, unrelated, or simply impossible, many began to question whether anyone in authority would ever acknowledge what had happened.

Against that backdrop, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations’ recent interim report, ‘Failure to Warn: How Federal Health Agencies Downplayed and Hid Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Associated with the Covid-19 Vaccines’, represents an important turning point.

Drawing on internal government records and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the report concludes that US federal health officials delayed acknowledging vaccine safety signals, withheld important information from the public, failed to respond fully to Congressional oversight and repeatedly placed concerns about preserving public confidence above full transparency.

For the vaccine-injured community, that public acknowledgement matters. For the first time, many who were dismissed for years can point to official government findings confirming that safety concerns existed, were recognised internally and were not fully communicated to the public.

Yet transparency alone is not enough.

A report that documents misconduct but produces no consequences may satisfy historians, but it offers little comfort to those whose lives were permanently altered by the conduct it describes. Facts matter. Investigations matter. But they matter most when they lead to accountability.

Fortunately, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), the chairman of the Subcommittee, has made clear that this report is not the end of his work - it is the beginning.

Throughout the pandemic and the years that followed, Senator Johnson has courageously pressed federal agencies for answers, demanded documents, convened hearings and, perhaps most importantly, gave covid-19 vaccine-injured Americans an opportunity to tell their stories publicly. His message has remained remarkably consistent: transparency is essential, but transparency must ultimately be followed by accountability.

That accountability cannot stop with institutions.

Too often, government failures are blamed on agencies, departments or bureaucratic systems, as though decisions simply emerged from the machinery of government. Institutions become shields behind which individuals disappear.

But institutions do not make decisions. People do. Government agencies did not conceal information. Individuals did. Government agencies did not ignore safety signals. Individuals did. Government agencies did not delay informing the public. Individuals did.

Every significant decision described in Senator Johnson’s report was made by identifiable people exercising authority and judgment. Accountability, therefore, requires more than institutional reform. It requires determining whether those entrusted with protecting the public fulfilled their responsibilities and, if they did not, whether they should face professional, civil or criminal consequences.

For the vaccine-injured community, accountability is not about revenge. It is about affirming a principle fundamental to every constitutional republic: no public official is above responsibility and every citizen deserves honesty from those entrusted with protecting public health. Simply put, it is about justice.

Certainly, justice cannot restore damaged nerves. It cannot erase years of pain, financial ruin or shattered careers. It cannot bring back those who lost their battle with despair before recognition finally arrived.

However, the pursuit of justice can restore something that has been steadily disappearing over the past five years. Faith. Faith that truth still matters. Faith that public service still carries responsibility. Faith that those who suffered were not forgotten.

That may ultimately become Senator Johnson’s greatest contribution, not simply exposing what happened but demonstrating that the search for truth does not end when the headlines fade. For thousands of Americans who have waited five long years to be seen, heard and believed, that renewed faith may prove to be the best medicine of all.  

About the Author

Before his own life-altering vaccine injury, Christopher Dreisbach primarily practised criminal defence throughout central Pennsylvania. His client base ranged from individuals facing minor offences such as driving under the influence to those charged with serious offenses including homicide. In addition to his private clients, Chris served as court-appointed counsel representing incarcerated individuals under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act. In 2009, he was recognised as Advocate of the Year for his work on behalf of victims of violent crime. He is now Legal Affairs Director of React19, a science-based non-profit offering financial, physical, and emotional support for those suffering from long-term covid-19 vaccine adverse events globally.

A network of foundations, research groups and policy shops, often funded through foreign channels, is behind the push for net zero in the UK.

The Spectator calls this network the “Dark Green lobby.”

“ has been astonishingly successful in shaping policy, controlling debate and overruling elected governments in the courts. It has prevented the exploration of oil and gas in the North Sea, kept energy prices high and made us ever more dependent on Chinese technology,” the outlet said.

The Dark Green actor with the most influence is the Netherlands-based European Climate Foundation (“ECF”), which supports “700+ partner organisations” to “broaden political and public support for net zero.”

“The ECF hopes to ‘embed climate action in robust, future-proof frameworks that withstand political change’. In other words, sod the voters,” The Spectator said.

To this end, it spent €171 million (£146 million) last year to support climate action across Europe and beyond and has donated significant amounts of money to various British thinktanks, including:

- £338,000 to the Institute for Public Policy Research (“IPPR”), a left-leaning organisation that funded a programme of work which produced a report arguing for the closure of the North Sea basin. - £114,000 to the New Economics Foundation (“NEF”), a radical left-wing thinktank which has campaigned for fossil fuel divestment.  It was previously headed by Miatta Fahnbulleh – formerly Miliband’s junior minister – who is rumoured to be leading Andy Burnham’s putative policy unit.

The ECF also funds the Labour Climate and Environment Forum (“LCEF”), which aims to strengthen ties between politicians, trade unions, industry leaders, and policy thinkers to make “tackling the climate emergency” a core Labour value.

In addition to funding left-leaning thinktanks, the ECF has also donated to centre-right thinktanks such as Onward, the Centre for Policy Studies, Policy Exchange, and the Conservative Environment Network, in an effort to influence a broader range of political perspectives.

The Conservative Environment Network “has produced papers suggesting, among other things, that we must have an international ‘fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty’ and that Britain should institute a carbon border tax,” The Spectator said.

Where does ECF get all its money from? The ECF is a key recipient of funds from the California-based Sequoia Climate Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Ballmer Group, which collectively grant about a billion dollars annually to climate-related causes.

The ECF not only uses these funds for campaigns to stop oil and gas production, it also uses them to distort the energy debate by de-legitimising opponents.  To this end, it funds outlets like Carbon Brief, which focuses on attacking "net-zero misinformation," and has, for example, criticised The Telegraph for questioning Ed Miliband's desire to block oil and gas exploration.

Another prominent organisation which is part of the Dark Green lobby is DeSmog UK. It receives money from the European Media and Information Fund.

It’s not only net zero propaganda and attacks on those exposing it that Dark Green money funds. The Dark Green lobby also uses litigation against elected governments to frustrate the will of voters.

The Quadrature Climate Foundation (“QCF”) and the Children's Investment Fund Foundation (“CIFF”) provide significant funding to groups that engage in judicial reviews and other legal challenges.

QCF, which is funded by the hedge fund Quadrature Capital has donated large sums to Labour, including £4 million in 2024 - the largest single donation the party has ever received - and has appointed its advisory board co-chair, Rachel Kyte, as the UK's special envoy on climate, while also funding the Energy Climate Intelligence Unit, which also receives money from ECF and has been quoted by Ed Miliband.

CIFF, established by billionaire hedge-fund owner Chris Hohn, is another major player in funding efforts to undermine voters' wishes through the courts.  CIFF has funded ClientEarth, a legal activist group which uses the courts to frustrate moves to cheaper energy.  It has also donated millions to the Foundation for International Law for the Environment, which funds climate-related litigation and other academic research into climate change.

CIFF has a close relationship with the Chinese Communist party, with its CEO, Kate Hampton, having received a “friendship award” from Beijing and holding a position on the board of the green committee of the Belt and Road Initiative, and has given $15 million to Energy Foundation China, which has been alleged to be part of a network funding activist lawyers and climate advocacy groups seeking to undermine American energy independence.

The Dark Green money network is distinctive and powerful due to its interlocking nature.  The ECF has received funding from both the QCF and from CIFF.   And some institutions, such as the LSE's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, receive funding from all three.

“The British left has spent years warning about malign billionaires, ‘industrial complexes’ and dodgy lobbying networks. Yet on net zero it has built such a machine itself: an internationally funded ecosystem that bankrolls thinktanks, campaign groups, media organisations and litigation in pursuit of a single political objective, The Spectator said.

“Net zero has given the left a new means of controlling and constraining capitalism and growth. It has given international billionaires a cause to signal their virtue while they asset-strip and price-gouge elsewhere.”

You can read the full article on The Spectator HERE.

Related:

Rape gangs don’t only destroy children’s lives.  Marlon’s story highlights that parents can also become victims of both rape gang networks and widespread institutional failure.

Marlon's 14-year-old daughter was a repeated victim of grooming and sexual exploitation. Despite his efforts to safeguard his daughter, social services and the police failed to provide him with adequate support, often undermining Marlon's parental authority and blaming him.

The institutional failures and lack of support led to further abuse and exploitation of his daughter by gangs, including rape, trafficking and forced drug supply.  This caused catastrophic harm to both Marlon and his daughter.

Last year, Rupert Lowe MP (Restore Britain) launched a campaign to raise funds to hold an independent national inquiry into the UK’s Muslim rape gangs.  This year, the victim-led Rape Gang Inquiry was held, during which testimonies from victims, parents, carers, politicians,  a variety of experts and whistle-blowers were heard over ten days, from 2 February to 12 February.  On 16 June 2026, the Inquiry released its report.

Thousands of rape gang victims and family members volunteered their testimonies to the Inquiry.  On pages 18 to 101, the Inquiry’s report provides a summary of some of them.  The following is Marlon’s testimony.  You can read the full report HERE

Marlon

Marlon is the father of a daughter who was a repeated victim of grooming as well as being repeatedly failed by authorities.

Marlon reported his 14-year-old daughter Scarlett missing a number of times because she was being groomed and exploited. The police informed social services that what Marlon was doing was appropriate as he was acting to safeguard his daughter. However, social services did not accept the police’s assessment and instead dragged out the investigation for three months. During that time his daughter disclosed concerns to her school, which resulted in social services attending Marlon’s home. While his daughter was present they told him that if he tried to stop her from leaving the house she should call social services or the police.

Social services undermining his parental authority resulted in her missing episodes escalating dramatically. Social services effectively gave her permission to go missing, and the case was then closed without meaningful intervention. Marlon placed a formal complaint to social services stating that he was struggling to cope with his daughter's missing episodes. The social worker assigned to him following this openly stated to him that they were only taking the case because of his complaint. This made him feel like the problem rather than a parent concerned with safeguarding his daughter from abuse.

On one occasion Marlon stood in front of the door to prevent his daughter from leaving late at night resulting in her repeatedly kicking him and breaking three of his fingers. He reported this to social services who simply stated he should walk away when she becomes violent. Even after showing them the bruises on his back that he received as he walked away they did not change the advice they gave. Marlon remains convinced that if his child were male and he were female the response would have been different.

Marlon would often spend his evenings driving in search of his daughter until three or four a.m. while having work the following day, which his employer was not supportive of. He often reported her missing to the police, who would sometimes turn up to his house many hours later. On one occasion he saw footage of the police saying not to bother even waking him. This made him feel more like a problem rather than it being the safeguarding emergency that it was.

Scarlett was unlawfully excluded from school due to grooming-related behaviour and assigned a new school where the grooming gang operated. A multi-agency risk management meeting was eventually convened with children’s services and the police’s Missing from Home team. While the meeting was ongoing one of the police officers in attendance told Marlon to stop reporting his daughter missing. Marlon challenged this which resulted in the police officer shouting at him in front of all in attendance. The officer has since been dismissed. The social worker and manager present did not intervene but privately acknowledged he was right to continue to report his daughter missing. They refused to launch a formal complaint against the officer.

Shortly after this his daughter went missing for several days and was eventually found at Marlon’s mother’s house, unkempt, distressed and stating that she had been raped. Care staff returned her to the location of the rape, thereby destroying forensic opportunities, and failed to report it to police until days later. Marlon had to make his own referral to the rape crisis centre, by which time forensic evidence was lost.

The perpetrator was arrested but bailed with the condition not to contact Marlon’s daughter. Immediately upon leaving the station he called her and threatened her life. He was an adult and drug dealer and his associates soon began attending Marlon’s home. His daughter was terrified of them. An older woman began to groom and manipulate Marlon’s daughter under the guise of friendship.

After another missing episode Marlon was able to trace his daughter to a specific property. Despite repeated calls and reports of men entering the property both police and social services failed to remove her or issue an abduction warning notice. His daughter was later found to be the victim of criminal exploitation, including drug supply, prostitution and being forced to dig up a firearm. These acts were directed by the older woman amongst others. At this point the impact on Marlon was catastrophic. He was physically exhausted, anxious, depressed and lived in constant fear. He was attacked by masked individuals in his home with the police response delayed and dismissive.

Marlon’s daughter was eventually taken into secure care where she was subjected to further abuse, including sexual abuse by staff and other children, neglect, and safeguarding failures. Marlon made multiple complaints. At a court hearing, social services attempted to place his daughter on a child protection plan for emotional abuse and neglect by Marlon himself. However, the judge intervened and ordered this to be amended to be recorded as beyond parental control.

Marlon’s daughter continued to be moved between unsuitable placements. She was groomed repeatedly, trafficked, forced into drug supply, and raped by adult men. She became pregnant as a result of rape. The handling of her termination by professionals was traumatic and negligent. Police later charged Scarlett with intent to supply Class A drugs, despite her being a victim of trafficking and on the National Referral Mechanism. Scarlett was placed in a unit run entirely by male Muslim staff where she was groomed again. Racist abuse and extremist comments were made to her. Marlon again raised concerns which were ignored.

Despite his repeated attempts to help his daughter, he has experienced many instances of violence from her as a result of the trauma and grooming. He has experienced many assaults, received black eyes and had to sleep barricaded in his room. He repeatedly requested domestic abuse support but was refused because he was a male parent. He has been forced to complete parenting courses and blamed for his daughter’s abuse.

The whole experience has harmed Marlon financially, emotionally and psychologically. He states it has destroyed his life. He is no longer the person he used to be. Marlon’s case highlights that parents can also be victims of both grooming networks as well as widespread institutional failure.