Sir Tim Barrow duly delivered Theresa May’s Brexit Article 50 letter to Donald Tusk yesterday. Meanwhile, the fake ‘grass-roots’ activist group Avaaz was moaning about ‘A day most of us hoped we’d never see’.
Just to make sure they spread their catchment net as widely as possible, they claimed ‘And still others of us hoped would be a very different Brexit.’
‘Profoundly depressing’
Out comes the trowel as Alex Evans, one of many ‘campaign directors’ at Avaaz, drones on in an email sent to its claimed 44 million supporters worldwide: ‘It feels profoundly depressing. Not just because of the divisions the referendum left in its wake, the lies and fear, but also for what it could mean for our futures: for us, for our kids.’
Firstly, the Remoaners lost the Referendum. Secondly, they lost in the courts their attempted SNP veto. Thirdly, they lost their blocking moves in Parliament. Avaaz raised petitions and money around most of that.
Now the die is cast and negotiations will shortly begin on the terms of Brexit. The UK is leaving the Revived Roman Empire. But Avaaz are promoting this as ‘the moment at which the big fight begins’, trotting out figures:
‘16.1 million people didn’t want Brexit. 70% of young people voted for a different future.’
So ‘regardless of if we voted for or against Brexit, a majority now want to make sure we have a say in any deal.’
No, they don’t. YouGov found just this month that only 32% want the LibDem’s Second Referendum.
Avaaz: ‘Sign now with just one click’
Alex Evans’ Avaaz email is pretentiously headed ‘We can be heroes’. Other recent emails have had subjects like ‘A beautiful blow against Trumpism’, ‘Back the Bees’, ‘Aleppo – stop the massacre’ and ‘Join the Brexit rebellion’. No, that’s not the people’s rebellion against the Eurocrats. It was an Avaaz clicktivist lobbying campaign in February to try to get a Brexit deal veto for MPs.
‘Sign now with just one click!’ screamed the email. It signed off, ‘With hope and determination, Bert, Alex, Meredith, Spyro, Fatima and the rest of the Avaaz team’.
‘We can be heroes just for one day,’ David Bowie sang. Revise that down to one second, the time it takes to click.
So what is ‘Avaaz’ all about? Why do their campaigns focus solely on supporting left-liberal elitist positions, knocking the Russians and promoting environmentalism?
Yes, bees are important pollinators and we all hate Monsanto. It’s easy to build an emailing list around ‘the planet’. Add in some issues pushed by Remoaners and Clintonites and other ‘right-on’ causes and before long you are up to 44 million. That’s 44 miilion people you can now tap for money to keep the show rolling.
But who is really behind Bert, Meredith, Alex and company? How did it all start?
How Avaaz works
First the operating method. It depends on weight of numbers, and Avaaz has them. That is why we need to be aware of them and pray about them. Avaaz says it is ‘a 44-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people shape global decision-making. (The word “Avaaz” means “voice” or “song” in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages.’
In other words, those who run it decide on an issue. Then they email their 44 million supporters to encourage them, usually, to sign the latest Avaaz petition or send them money. All it takes to be considered as ‘a member of the Avaaz movement’ is to put your name to one of their petitions and, naturally, give them your name and email address. As I did, apparently, in March 2013.
‘Right-on’ causes
Now for the causes. Avaaz is practiced at touching the environmentalist chord. Their favourite target is also one of ours, the genetic modifiers of Monsanto, maker of the hated ‘Roundup’ pesticide.
In November 2016 Monsanto and pesticide giant Bayer announced a merger. This was the Avaaz take on it:
‘Monsanto poisons our food and fields. Bayer kills bees with pesticides. Now they want to merge into a $100 Billion mega-corporation to dominate our entire global food system!
‘The firms are right now on a shopping spree for an army of lobbyists to steamroll the plan through US and EU regulators. It’ll take an even bigger people-powered lobby to stop them.
‘That’s where we come in. Avaaz has beaten both of these corporations before so we know how to do it: show massive public opposition through campaigns and polls, win over the regulators with powerful personal appeals, and have lawyers review every detail.’
An invitation followed to donate an amount from $2 to $32 to Avaaz.
Two-thirds of wild animals
An even more recent campaign claims: ‘by 2020, two-thirds of wild animals will be gone … humanity is taking a chainsaw to the tree of life.’ This time, those on the Avaaz emailing list were invited to sign a petition as ‘global citizens’ to ‘Governments meeting right now.’.
There was no defence of the ‘two-thirds’ figure. Neither was there a statement of just where the governments were meeting nor the dates of their get-together.
That is all deliberate. Never give too much detail. In fact, the figures are based on the ‘Living Planet Index’. It was first compiled in 2008 by ZSL, the Zoological Society of London, and World Wildlife Fund, as it was then. The aim was to present figures on how much ‘biological diversity’ had decreased by 1970 to the Convention on Biodiversity meeting that year in the German city of Bonn. Why choose 1970 as the base year? Who knows. But by ignoring the base, Avaaz gave as bad an impression as they could.
Globalist agenda
In 2010 the figures were beefed up for a further meeting in Nagoya, Japan. That was the International Year of Biodiversity, but you knew that.
Now the BBC were reporting ‘that animal populations plummeted by 58% between 1970 and 2012, with losses on track to reach 67% by 2020′.
So that’s where the two-thirds figure comes from, but the starting point is not this year, or even this century, but 1970. Nor is it animal species, but ‘populations’.
Some of them, perhaps even all of them, are really important, but for Avaaz the hype to advance their globalist agenda is everything.
Indeed the Convention was due to meet from 2nd to 17th December 2016 in Cancun, Mexico. Naturally, the Avaaz petition called on it to ‘forge a new agreement so that at least 50% of our lands and oceans are protected and restored, and ensure our planet is completely sustainably managed.’ Where has the 50% figure come from? How is ‘the planet’ divided up? Is Carmarthen set to become a wildlife reserve? How is all to be enforced? We don’t know. But for the 913,000 environmentalists who signed the petition, it all sounded great.
Syrian no-fly zone
Moving away from the environment, another persistent Avaaz campaign has been against President Assad in Syria. On 1st October, Alice Jay of Avaaz shrieked:
‘100 children have been killed in Aleppo since last Friday. Enough is enough!’
The solution? Sign another petition. This time it was to ‘build a resounding global call to Obama, May, and other leaders to stand up to Putin and Assad’s terror. This might be our last, best chance to help end this mass murder of defenceless children.’
And what did the resounding petition, signed by 1,622,000 ‘global citizens’, propose? It demanded, and is still demanding, a ‘no-fly zone to protect civilians’. It would ‘mean that an international coalition can threaten to down planes that try to bomb Northern Syria’.
Let us be very clear. Avaaz actually wanted the US and UK to threaten to shoot down Russian warplanes over the sovereign state of Syria. The petition is still there. They are actually calling for a declaration of war. There remains no acknowledgment of the dangers. All we have is a bland assertion that ‘a no-fly zone is the only decent thing to do in this awful situation’.
Curiously, the idea of a no-fly zone across Syria was also proposed in October by one Hillary Clinton. And it was opposed by a certain Donald Trump, who warned that Clinton’s proposal would ‘lead to world war three’.
Naturally, Avaaz also supported the White Helmets, Syrian propaganda vehicle of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Opposition to Donald Trump
It will come as no surprise that Avaaz was also cheerleading for Mrs Clinton during the US election. The campaign started in October 2016 and soon latched onto environmentalist concerns.
Avaaz’s Emma Ruby Sachs sent out an email screaming: ‘Trump wants to tear up the Paris climate deal, and that’s just the start of his horrifying plans!’ Wow. No understatement there. What were the rest of his, er, ‘horrifying’ plans? Well, ‘Trump and the racist, sexist, anti-climate, isolationist message he peddles is a threat to the entire world, to everything we fight for as a community.’
Ah. The key word there is ‘isolationist.’ Trump wants to end ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and stop interfering in nations around the world. You would think Avaaz would get that, seeing as how ‘Our founding campaign was opposing the Iraq war, and we’ve repeatedly campaigned against the West’s often cynical engagement in the Middle East’.
But no. Their thinking is neither that consistent nor that honest. But, ‘now there’s a way we can all help stop him, just by texting.’ Avaaz suggested that if ‘thousands of us around the world text these young voters urging them to get to the polls, we could help ensure Trump loses in a landslide.’
The Russians are coming!
Not even Donald Trump actually winning the election could put a dampener on the Avaaz campaign to get Hillary in after all. Just days ago Emma was again frantically emailing the 44 million Avaaz supporters. This time she was drumming up support for the idea that the Russians rigged the election. Avaaz were not trying to do exactly the same with their texting stunt, now were they?
‘This could be our chance to stop a stolen election,’ yelled Emma. ‘Ten members of the US Electoral College are calling for a security briefing about Russia’s interference in the vote.
‘And they have seven days to get it before they are called on to approve Donald Trump as President.
‘The CIA says there is Russian interference, Obama and top Republican lawmakers are calling for an investigation and Trump is denying everything.’ There you are then! Trump is denying it. Must be true.
‘Knowing the facts,’ Emma bellowed, ‘is the least the Electoral College deserves! When our call hits a five hundred thousand strong, allies will deliver the petition directly to the National Intelligence Director:’
Even in December, the petition had been signed by just 37,653 of the hoped-for half-a-million. Today it has reached 77,381. And the ‘target’ has been, er, revised downwards, to 100,000. Too little, too late, guys. Perhaps the Avaaz ‘community’ are getting petition fatigue.
Anti-Brexit Clicktivists
It’s not just the US and environmentalism that excites Avaaz. They hated the Brexit result. Back in July, one Catte on the left-of-centre ‘Off-Guardian’ website put in a headline: ‘Avaaz once again telling us what the Establishment wants us to think?’
Catte went on. ‘Any doubt that might have remained about how a certain section of the elite want to spin Brexit is now put to rest as that most entirely fake of all fake “grassroots activist” sites Avaaz is herding its obedient fandom to sign on and “stop the hate.” This is the wording of its latest touchy-feely petition, already signed by 90,000 well-meaning clicktivists.’
The petition said: ‘We, the people of the United Kingdom, stand against hate. We call on those editors who tar our country’s reputation by fuelling xenophobia and racism to step down, and pledge to confront racists wherever they are.’ What? Apparently this was targeted against The Sun and the Daily Mail who had done, well, that was not very clear.
‘Responsible journalism’
Catte went on to quote what she called ‘the accompanying blurb’: “If enough of us call for it, we can make it untenable for newspapers like the Daily Mail and The Sun to fan the flames of hate, and editors will know their jobs depend on responsible journalism.” Ah, ‘responsible journalism’. That means ‘You write what the elite want you to write.’
Catte continued: ‘I’d be the first to agree the Sun is an open sewer of lowest common denominator ordure, and of course any rational person deplores racism and “hate.” But equally we all should deplore – and fear – accusations of racism and “hate” being invoked as political weapons to beat down dissent and demonise a majority of UK citizens. … when Avaaz enters the arena with these clarion calls to under-informed Social Justice Warriors, it’s never a good day for democracy and reason.’
Interestingly, Catte tagged her piece with ‘Avaaz’, ‘Brexit’ and ‘George Soros’, so let’s follow up on that clue by asking just who is behind this globalist clicktivist army.
Who Is behind Avaaz?
This is what Avaaz says on its pressfaq page: ‘Avaaz.org was co-founded by Res Publica, a global civic advocacy group, and Moveon.org, an online community that has pioneered internet advocacy in the United States. Our co-founding team was also composed of a group of leading global social entrepreneurs from six countries, including our founding President and Executive Director Ricken Patel, Tom Perriello, Tom Pravda, Eli Pariser, Andrea Woodhouse, Jeremy Heimans, and David Madden.’
According to Catte, the website NGO Monitor tells us ‘Res Publica’ ‘received grants totalling $250,000 from the Soros Open Society Institute in 2008.’
Catte goes on to quote the National Catholic Reporter which said in 2004 that ‘Res Publica was founded by three of the people now running Avaaz – Ricken Patel, Tom Perriello and Tom Pravda, and was – back in 2004 – claiming to be “developing the political and communications infrastructure of the religious left.” So Avaaz is Res Publica under a different name.’
Follow the money
What about Moveon.org? Apparently, they are a Democratic party front group, ‘currently campaigning against GMO salmon, the Confederate flag, Greek austerity and numerous other things, many of which seem eminently reasonable,’ says Catte. But crucially, according to the Washington Post, ‘they received $1.6 million from “George Soros and his wife” back in 2004.’
Now here’s a funny thing. Avaaz says: ‘Since 2009, Avaaz has not taken donations from foundations or corporations, nor has it accepted payments of more than $5,000 (£3,100)…Instead, it relies simply on the generosity of individual members, who have now raised over $20m (£12.4m)’
But Avaaz was actually founded in 2007. So pretty clearly for two full years it was in receipt of a whole slosh of pump-priming liquidity from George Soros and his Open Society Institute. It has that in common with the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, the Ukraine Maidan Square revolution and anti-Christian causes around the world. None would exist or have existed without money from George Soros or Open Society. More recently, the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe has been linked to activist groups funded by Soros.
Ricken Patel
The Avaaz Executive Director, who puts his name to many of their emails, is indeed Ricken Patel. The mainstream media portray him as ‘a fearless crusader for marginalised truth and justice’, as Catte puts it. Born in 1977, he studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) at Balliol College, Oxford, where he helped organize against the 1998 introduction of tuition fees.
Patel held leadership roles in student activism and came down with a First. He then moved to Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, taking a Masters in Public Policy. He also helped lead the campus’ highly publicised living wage campaign.
He then worked for the International Crisis Group, the United Nations, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, Harvard University, CARE International and the International Center for Transitional Justice. Just an ordinary guy? With a CV like that, this man is very well-connected.
The International Crisis Group was formed in 1993. Then-President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Morton I. Abramowitz and then future World Bank Vice-President Mark Malloch Brown met on a flight to Sarajevo. According to its Wikipedia page, ‘the Bosnian War provided the catalyst for “an independent organisation that would serve as the world’s eyes and ears on the ground in countries in conflict while pressing for immediate action.”‘ It will come as no surprise that ‘George Soros was involved in discussions early on and provided seed money’.
It now offers ‘behind the scenes support and advice’ and ‘new strategic and tactical thinking’. But it will come as no surprise either that The International Crisis Group and George Soros invented the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (also known by its opponents as ‘Justification to Interfere’).
Insiders
International Crisis Group trustees include Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Sweden, several retired state department officials, ambassadors, diplomats and prime ministers and, of course, George Soros.
Tom Perriello, the second of Avaaz’s three individual founders is a “United States State Department official”, and a lawyer, who “served one term as a U.S. Representative for Virginia’s 5th congressional district.” He is a member of the Democratic Party. He was formerly President and CEO of the Center for American Progress Action Fund and an avowed supporter of the war on terror.
The third of the triumvirate is Tom Pravda. He came down from Balliol College, Oxford with an MA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. He describes himself on his LinkedIn page as ‘Diplomat, Entrepreneur, Consultant’, worked for a year at the United Nations and is now both Co-Founder and Co-Director of Res Publica, since 2003, Co-Founder of Avaaz.org since 2006 and a diplomat at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office since October 2003. It appears he has most recently been working at the FCO ‘dealing with European Union development policy and relations with the Middle East and Africa’.
War-mongers
In short, Avaaz maintains an illusion of grassroots activists advocating for human rights, but it is run by insiders. Its three founders bring together Soros internationalism, the US State Department and the British Foreign Office. Avaaz exists to herd public opinion to campaign for things which will please liberal, hawkish, neo-conservative interventionists and globalists. Avaaz ‘victories’.
Psalm 120:7 I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.
Jer 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.
Luke 8:17 For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad. 18a Take heed therefore how ye hear:
Rom 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Click on the links below to share this article:
Tom Pravda cannot legitimately both be serving as a UK civil servant (I was one) in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office AND a prominent political campaigner. He has one duty, that to British national interests as determined by the Government. Any campaigning role, for example anti-BREXIT, is totally incompatible with his role as an impartial, non-political diplomat. Room for further investigative journalism methinks.
These people make me sick. Look at them smiling away, blissfully unaware of the punishment that awaits them, like most of the world. I suppose we must continue to pray for these people, for them to repent.. Some illumination on the salaries they draw would be interesting, I doubt they live “by faith”!.
ps I had to laugh when I saw the photo of the chainsaw: thanks for that Stephen!
If all sinners looked as unhappy as Mark would like, it would rather let the cat out of the bag. I’m pretty sure Mark wouldn’t really want everybody to repent and avoid punishment. I get the impression that he is quite enthusiastic about the wrong type of person getting justly punished for their sins.
well I must admit I’m rather keen on justice. Eternal punishment (hell) being so bad that as Christians we must pray they repent and avoid it. Which brings us back to you, Rox, are YOU going to repent?
Rox: ” I’m pretty sure Mark wouldn’t really want everybody to repent and avoid punishment. I get the impression that he is quite enthusiastic about the wrong type of person getting justly punished for their sins.”
so Rox,you’re “pretty sure”, etc” and you “get the impression” etc: any basis in actual evidence for these claims?
And btw, Stephen, do I have to put up with these constant sniping attacks from this guy?
No, you don’t. Ignore him. Pearls before swine and all that. The Lord never spent as long on someone as you have on Rox. He was like: ‘Salvation. Do you want it or not?’ So get out on the streets. Meet new people. Evangelise.
Thanx Stephen, good advice
Well, I have spent a lot of time on Mark, and he has a marked tendency to ignore my rational arguments and tell me to repent or else I will go to hell, which is quite offensive really. I don’t think there is anything that I want to repent. It’s really up to me.
When I write of him “I’m pretty sure that” and “I get the impression that” (which is quite subjective) , that is as far as I can go based on reading what he writes over the months. Of course there is no evidence. What kind of thing would Mark accept as valid evidence ?
I could accuse Mark of “constant sniping attacks”, but that’s debate isn’t it, and that’s what forums are for.