Hi, I’m James Corbett of The Corbett Report, and I’m not here right now. . . . I mean, there. With you.
Confused? Well, take a look at this . . .
[Steps aside to reveal James in screen] See? But, in truth, I’m not here either. What you are watching are the ghostly reflections of someone far away. I am not in the room with you, but you can see me. You can hear me. You might not think much about this, but . . . [Snaps fingers, revealing green screen set in studio] . . . it is one of the wonders of our era, and it has shaped the world in ways we can barely comprehend.
VOICEOVER: Media. It surrounds us. We live our lives in it and through it. We structure our lives around it. But it wasn’t always this way. So how did we get here? And where is the media technology that increasingly governs our lives taking us? This is the story of The Media Matrix.
PART 2 – WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT
There’s a story about the famous Battle of Waterloo in 1815 that is not usually included in the history textbooks.
The story is that John Roworth—a trusted employee of Nathan Rothschild, the English heir of the infamous Rothschild banking family—was at the battlefield that day and, when the battle was decided and it was apparent that Napoleon had been defeated, he raced off on horseback, bearing the news across the English channel. The messenger arrived at his employers’s London office a full 24 hours before the official government courier and Rothschild, always looking for a way to turn a profit, decided to use the news to his advantage. He made a show of selling his shares at the London Stock Exchange and the public, believing the famed stockbroker had received word that Napoleon had won the battle, began selling as well. The stock market plummeted and Rothschild secretly bought up the shares at rock-bottom prices. By the time the news finally reached Londoners that Wellington—not Napoleon—was the victor at Waterloo, the coup was complete: Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in the realm.
This story, like so many historical adventure yarns, has been much decorated in the retelling: John Roworth was not at Waterloo, for one thing, and there was no great market sell-off in the hours before the official news of the battle reached London. But the central part of the tale is true: Nathan Rothschild did receive early news of Napoleon’s defeat and he did “do well” by that information, as Roworth admitted in a letter the month after the incident.
But whatever this story tells us about the world of finance, it tells us something more fundamental about something far more important: power. Knowledge is power, and, as we saw in Part 1 of this series, Gutenberg had brought that power to the masses. With the printing press, knowledge could be copied and spread to the far corners of the globe faster and easier and cheaper than it ever had before . . .
. . . but it still had to be carried. On horseback, on foot, by train, by carrier pigeon. Information was still a physical thing and even the news of Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo had to be physically transported from one place to another. But did it have to be this way? What if information could be communicated directly by electric current and sent across wires or through the air at the speed of light?
Enter Samuel Morse.
Morse was not a scientist or an experimenter, but a painter. He claimed that the idea for sending messages through electrical wires came to him in a flash of genius on a lengthy ship journey from Europe to America in 1832, and thus that he deserved credit as the sole inventor of the telegraph.
In reality, research along these lines had been going on for nearly a century. The idea of sending electrical messages through wires was first proposed in Scots Magazine in 1753 and it was demonstrated numerous times over the years—most memorably by Francisco Salvá, who in 1795 connected wires to human test subjects, assigned each of them a letter, and instructed them to shout their letter out when they received a shock.
Ignorant of this history, Morse had to rely on real scientists and inventors for his important breakthroughs. Like Professor Leonard Gale, who helped develop the technique of using relays to help the messages travel further than a few hundred yards. And Alfred Vail, a bright young machinist whose improvements to Morse’s crude prototype brought the idea into reality. Many even contend that it was Vail, not Morse, who invented the system of dots and dashes that we know as Morse Code.
Nonetheless, history is written by the winners, and Morse proved to be the winner. Getting the credit, the glory and, more to the point, the patent for the telegraph, Morse received a congressional appropriation of $30,000 to build the first telegraph line from Washington to Baltimore in 1844. He sent the first official telegraph message from the US Capitol to Alfred Vail at a railroad station in Baltimore. The message had been selected by Anne Ellsworth, the daughter of the Patent Commissioner with whom Morse was lodging while he was stationed in Washington. She chose a passage from the Bible fitting of the momentous occasion: “What hath God wrought!”
The passage, from the book of Numbers, is one of praise—rejoicing at the wonders that God had wrought for Israel—and ends with an exclamation mark. But the telegraph message didn’t contain punctuation, and so the press misreported the phrase with a question mark at the end: “What hath God wrought?” The medium had already begun to change the message.
It’s difficult for us to appreciate just how incredible it was for those who first witnessed communication from a distance with a disembodied electric ghost. In fact, it was almost impossible for people to understand this type of communication in anything but spiritual terms. Even the word “medium” evokes the specter of contact with the spirit world.
When the radio was introduced to Saudi Arabia, the country’s conservative Islamic clerics declared it “the devil hiding in a box” and demanded that King Abdulaziz ban the infernal contraption. The king saw the potential use of the radio for the development of the country, but, relying on the clerics for support, he couldn’t outright reject their council.
Instead, the crafty monarch proposed a test: the radio would be brought before him the next day and he would listen to it himself. If what the clerics said was true, then he would ban the devil’s device and behead those responsible for bringing it into the country.
The next day, the radio was brought before the king at the appointed time. But the king had secretly arranged with the radio engineers to make sure the Quran was being read at the hour of the test. Sure enough, when he switched it on and passages from the Quran were heard.
“Can it be that the devil is saying the Quran?” he asked. “Or is it perhaps true that this is not an evil box?” The clerics conceded defeat and the radio was allowed into Saudi Arabia.
We may laugh, but the Saudis were not the first or the last to mistake media technology for devilry. In 1449, Johann Fust—the scion of a wealthy and powerful family in Mainz—lent Gutenberg an enormous sum of money to start producing his famed Bible and confiscated the books from the printer when he couldn’t afford to repay the loan. When Fust later appeared on the streets of Paris, selling multiple copies of Gutenberg’s Bible, the bewildered Parisians—who had never seen printed books before and so couldn’t imagine how so many strangely identical copies of a manuscript could be produced so quickly—arrested him for witchcraft.
The essence of the mass media—its ability to project the voices of people who aren’t there using electronic gadgets and wireless networks—is the essence of magic, bringing to life the scrying mirrors and palantirs of lore. But is this media technology a dark art, or can its powers be used for good?
As the new medium of commercial radio rose in the early decades of the 20th century, listeners had cause to side with the Saudi clerics in their determination that it was, in fact, a devil in a box. Listeners like those who tuned into a strange news report on the Columbia Broadcasting System on the evening of Sunday, October 30, 1938.
ANNOUNCER: Ladies and gentlemen, we interrupt our program of dance music to bring you a special bulletin from the Intercontinental Radio News. At twenty minutes before eight, central time, Professor Farrell of the Mount Jennings Observatory, Chicago, Illinois, reports observing several explosions of incandescent gas, occurring at regular intervals on the planet Mars. The spectroscope indicates the gas to be hydrogen and moving towards the earth with enormous velocity. Professor Pierson of the Observatory at Princeton confirms Farrell’s observation, and describes the phenomenon as (quote) like a jet of blue flame shot from a gun (unquote). We now return you to the music of Ramón Raquello, playing for you in the Meridian Room of the Park Plaza Hotel, situated in downtown New York.
Of course, this wasn’t a news broadcast at all. It was the infamous “Halloween Scare,” Orson Wells’ radio adaptation of The War of the Worlds, which infamously caused panic among some members of the listening audience who were flipping through the dial and mistook the dramatized news “interruptions” for actual reports of a Martian invasion.
It’s become fashionable in recent years to downplay the incident as a myth. There was no real scare, only a few dimwits who got frightened. The newspapers—looking for any excuse to belittle radio, its fast-rising competition for the public’s attention and corporate advertising dollars—ginned up the story and sold the public on a panic that never was.
But there was something to the Halloween Scare. The City Manager of Trenton, New Jersey—mentioned by name in the broadcast—even wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to demand an immediate investigation into the stunt. In response, a team of researchers fanned out, collecting information, conducting interviews and studying reports about the panic to better understand what had happened and what could be learned about this new medium’s ability to influence the public.
The team was from the Princeton Radio Project—a research group founded with a two-year, $67,000 grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to study the effect of radio through the lens of social psychology. The team was led by Hadley Cantril, the old Dartmouth College roommate of Nelson Rockefeller who had written in 1935 that “[r]adio is an altogether novel medium of communication, preeminent as a means of social control and epochal in its influence upon the mental horizons of men.”
Cantril’s report on Wells’ Halloween broadcast, The Invasion from Mars, concluded that such a large-scale media-induced frenzy could happen again “and even on a much more extensive scale.” This was important information for the funders of the Princeton Radio Project; their next major research project was a study of how radio could be used for spreading war propaganda, an increasingly important subject as the world slipped into the maw of World War II.
The question of electronic media’s ability to influence the public became even more important as the radio revolution of the early twentieth century flowed into the television revolution of the mid-twentieth century. Television had actually been ready to roll out as a commercial medium in the 1930s, but the Depression and then the war delayed the mass production of television sets. The first mass-produced commercial television hit the market in 1946, and it soon became one of the most quickly adopted technologies in history to that point, finding its way into the majority of American homes within a decade.
Strangely, as sociologist Robert Putnam documented in his 2000 bestseller, Bowling Alone, the era of television adoption precisely coincides with a severe drop-off in civic engagement among the American public. Could there be a relation? If so, what could it be?
One intriguing possibility comes from research conducted by Herbert Krugman in 1969. Krugman—who would go on to become manager of public opinion research at General Electric in the 1970s—was interested to discover what happens physiologically in the brain of a person watching TV. He taped a single electrode to the back of his test subject’s head and ran the wire to a Grass Model 7 Polygraph, which in turn interfaced with a Honeywell 7600 computer and a CAT 400B computer. He turned on the TV and began monitoring the brain waves of his subject. He found through repeated testing that “within about thirty seconds, the brain-waves switched from predominantly beta waves, indicating alert and conscious attention, to predominantly alpha waves, indicating an unfocused, receptive lack of attention: the state of aimless fantasy and daydreaming below the threshold of consciousness.”
Krugman’s initial findings were confirmed by more extensive and accurate testing: TV rapidly induces an alpha-state consciousness in its viewers, putting them in a daydream state that leaves them less actively focused on their activities and more receptive to suggestion. This dream state combines with the nature of the medium itself to create a perfect tool for disengaging the viewers intellectually, removing them from active participation in their environment and substituting real experience with the simulacrum of experience.
In a word, TV hypnotizes its viewers.
NEIL POSTMAN: To begin with, television is essentially non-linguistic. It presents information mostly in visual images. Although human speech is heard on television and sometimes assumes importance, people mostly watch television. And what they watch are rapidly changing visual images, as many as 1200 different shots every hour. The average length of a shot on network television is 3.5 seconds. The average in a commercial is 2.5 seconds.
Now, this requires very little analytic decoding. In America, television watching is almost wholly a matter of what we would call pattern recognition. What I’m saying here is that the symbolic form of television—its form—does not require any special instruction or learning.
In America, television viewing begins at about the age of 18 months and by 36 months, children begin to understand and respond to television’s imagery. They have favorite characters, sing jingles they hear and ask for products they see advertised.
There’s no need for any preparation or prerequisite training for watching television. It needs no analog to the McGuffey Reader. Watching television requires no skills and develops no skills and that is why there is no such thing as remedial television watching.
As we have seen, it was only a matter of years from the advent of commercial radio as a medium of communication until monopolistic financial interests were funding studies to determine how best to use it to mould the public consciousness. And, it seems, the television—with its brain wave-altering, hypnosis-inducing, cognitive impairment abilities—was designed from the very get-go to be a weapon of control deployed against the viewing public.
But if these media are weapons, if they are being used to direct and shape the public’s attention and, ultimately, their thoughts, it begs some questions: Who is wielding these weapons? And for what purpose?
This is no secret conspiracy. The answer is not difficult to find. TimeWarner and Disney and Comcast NBC Universal and News Corp and Sony and Universal Music Group and the handful of other companies that have consolidated control over the “mediaopoly” of the electronic media are the ones wielding the media weapon. Their boards of directors are public information. Their major shareholders are well known. A tight-knit network of wealthy and powerful people control what is broadcast by the corporate media, and, by extension, wield the media weapon to shape society in their interest.
In Part 1 of this series, we noted how technological advancements in the printing press and the development of new business models for the publishing industry had taken Gutenberg’s revolutionary technology out of the hands of the public and put it into the hands of the few rich industrialists with the capital to afford their own newspaper or book publisher. The Gutenberg conspiracy had led, seemingly inevitably, to the Morgan conspiracy. But that process didn’t end with the electrification of the media; it accelerated.
By the end of the twentieth century, a handful of media companies controlled the vast majority of what Americans read, saw and heard. That this situation was used to control what the public thought about important topics is, by now, obvious to all.
NEWSCASTERS: The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories — stories that simply aren’t true — without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, this media oligopoly had cemented its control over the public mind. Combined, newspapers, television, movies and radio had the ability to direct people’s thoughts on any given topic, or even what they thought about. The zenith of that era was reached on September 11, 2001, when billions across the globe watched the dramatic events of 9/11 play out on their television screens like a big-budget Hollywood production.
But the media was not done evolving. Technologies were already being rolled out that would once again change the public’s relationship to the media. Technologies that would once again leave people questioning whether the media was a devil hiding in a box, wondering whether this new media was a tool of empowerment or control, and asking the question: What hath God wrought?
Last week I wrote about how “We’re All Dutch Farmers Now.” As you’ll recall from that editorial, there is a battle taking place right now between farmers in the Netherlands and the technocrats in their government who are seeking to put them out of work and close up their farms in the name of the globalists’ grand 2030 Agenda. And, as you’ll also recall, I warned that no matter where you are on the globe or what your position in society is, this Great Reset nightmare will be coming for you and your livelihood next.
Recent events in various countries have only served to underline that point in spades.
Take Ireland, for example. The Irish Timesreports that, in order for the country to “meet the Paris Agreement goals on a globally equitable basis,” Irish farmers will have to make drastic cuts to their greenhouse emissions, including “A cut of more than 40 per cent in methane by 2030.” Exactly as in the Netherlands, these types of drastic and arbitrary cuts would be a disaster for the average farmer and could drive many of the nation’s small farms out of business. Despite the best efforts of Ireland’s establishment media—like the aforementioned Irish Times or online outlets like Buzz.ie—to browbeat the Irish public into turning agains the farmers, a growing protest movement in the country points to the possibility that Ireland will be yet another front in the Global War for Independence that I wrote about last week.
But you probably have not seen the real reasons for that collapse in the establishment news media and you’re probably not going to. In truth, the Sri Lankan situation falls very much in line with the global insurrection which the Dutch farmer protests are leading. And the steps that the Sri Lankan government are now rolling out to further control their population in the name of restoring order to the country offer important insights about where the globalist agenda is going from here.
Today, let’s examine the roots of the Sri Lankan crisis and explore how that crisis affects us all.
SRI LANKA’S COLLAPSE
For those not following events in the island nation, the announcement of the complete collapse of Sri Lanka’s economy last month might have been surprising. And, if you rely on the MSM for your news and information, the images of chaos coming out of the country—with tens of thousands taking to the streets and even storming the prime minister’s office—would doubtless have generated more questions than answers.
What’s happening over there? How did this start? Why are the people so angry at their government? And what’s being done about it?
So, how do the establishment lapdog media outlets explain this “sudden” turn of events? Let’s turn to the BBC for a typically mendacious example. In “Sri Lanka’s tea farmers struggling to survive” the Big Brother Corporation’s Sri Lankan correspondent, Secunder Kermani, correctly identifies tea as the nation’s largest export, correctly points out that “Most of Sri Lanka’s tea is grown by smaller farmers,” and correctly reports that those small farmers are “still reeling from the impact of a sudden, poorly thought-out government decision to ban chemical fertilizer last year.” It then lies about the roots of that fertilizer ban, saying that it was “ordered to try to protect the country’s dwindling foreign reserves.”
As Paul Homewood over at the Not A Lot of People Know About That blog points out:
The ban had nothing at all to do with ‘protecting foreign reserves.’ Nor is the [Sri Lankan] tea industry being hit by the ‘economic crisis.’ The ban was a deliberate policy decision by the President, as part of his climate change agenda.
Of course, given that this inconvenient truth is not the right kind of inconvenient “truth” (the kind that Al Gore makes fearmongering and factually inaccurate documentaries about), the usual flock of “fact checkers” have descended on the story to run cover for their globalist paymasters. For one example of this, see investorintel.com’s “Did ESG really topple the government of Sri Lanka?” This article attempts to argue that a commitment to the technocrat’s beloved Environmental, Social, and Governance scam “most assuredly did not collapse a national government,” but in the end it’s forced to admit that the fertilizer ban was the trigger for the collapse and that that ban was forced on the country by the ESG pushers. Specifically, as the aforementioned fact check concedes, the ban was put in place in order to “renegotiate some of its IMF and World Bank financial obligations in exchange for its excellent emissions rating.”
In other words, the debt-trap mafia made Sri Lanka a deal it couldn’t refuse: join our economic suicide pact or we’ll shut off your money. Accordingly, Sri Lanka signed on to the suicide pact. The country’s disgraced ex-President even made a speech at last year’s COP26 conference in Glasgow bragging about the country’s commitment to the death cult’s carbon eugenics agenda. And now the country is in chaos.
So how did we really get here? And where is this green agenda really taking us?
ORDER FROM THE CHAOS
To the surprise of none of my regular readers, you will find a World Economic Forum minion at the heart of this story.
In this case, Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (who is listed as an “agenda contributor” on the World Economic Forum website), penned an op-ed for the WEF in 2018 explaining “how I will make my country rich by 2025.” Touting his World Bank-supported “Vision 2025” economic policy, he bragged that the smorgasbord of globalist-approved policies he was going to implement—from green energy projects to public-private partnerships to regional free trade agreements—was going to create a “social market economy that delivers economic dividends to all.”
Well, that didn’t work out very well, now did it? How embarrassing for the prime minister and everyone associated with him, hey?
At least Davos Man has the good sense to be retroactively ashamed by their association with this disaster. The World Economic Forum, for its part, has taken the embarrassing 2018 op-ed down from its website. But you can still read about the bold plan to turn Sri Lanka into an economic powerhouse by 2025 on the WayBack archive of the page. (Hey, there’s still three years left!)
But, incredibly, this whole debacle has not derailed Wickremesinghe’s political career. On the contrary. It has furthered it! He was just elected president of the country (“despite his unpopularity with the public” as the BBC puts it with their characteristic gift for understatement).
So what is he going to do to solve the crisis that he helped initiate? Why, implement the World Economic Forum’s dream of Digital ID tyranny, of course!
Specifically, Wickremesinghe’s government has decided to restore order to the country by implementing a “fuel rationing” scheme that relies on QR codes and digital surveillance. Under the new carbon eugenics regime, each slave of the new technocratic prison state will be allowed to associate one vehicle identification number with their National Identity Card number. They will then be assigned a QR code that will have to be scanned to allow the peasants to obtain the privilege of buying fuel . . . so long as it is their assigned day to purchase gas, that is. The new system will assign people days on which they will be allowed to buy fuel depending on the last digit of their license plate.
As Sri Lanka’s Minister of Power and Energy said in a tweet bragging about the implementation of the scheme: “Some fuel stations did not adopt, some Individuals manipulated, falsified & did not want this implemented [sic]. However It will be enforced islandwide.”
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to your nightmare future as serfs on the neofeudal plantation! The governments will artificially restrict supplies of basic goods in the name of appeasing the weather gods, collapse the economy on purpose, and then use that collapse as a pretext for implementing even more stringent technocratic controls on their tax cattle.
Problem. Reaction. Solution.
So how does what’s going on in Sri Lanka affect all of us worldwide? And what can we do about it?
THE BATTLE SHAPES UP
At this point it would take a special kind of willful ignorance to deny the connection between all of these events. Who could look at the restrictions and cuts being implemented in country after country after country, from the Netherlands to Ireland to Poland to Italy to Canada to Argentina to Sri Lanka and think that it’s all just an amazing coinkydink.
No. By this point, it is self-evident to even the sleepiest of the normies that the destruction of the agricultural sector in country after country is part of a coordinated global agenda.
The strange thing is that every article by every outlet in every country cites a different agreement, pledge, pact, commitment or piece of legislation as the underlying reason for these cuts.
The Irish Times, for example, reports that Ireland’s emission cuts are being implemented in order to fulfill the nation’s Paris Agreement commitments. Buzz.ie says the cuts come at the behest of the European Union, which will levy fines on countries that fail to reach emission reduction requirements. RTE cites the Irish government’s own climate action plan as the reason for the cuts.
In fact, there is an increasingly complex web of agreements, commitments and treaties that are forcing these same policies on country after country. Do you know about the Colombo Declaration on Sustainable Nitrogen Management, for example? Or the Global Methane Pledge? For that matter, do you know precisely what the Paris Agreement actually mandates? Or the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Or what obligations your own country cites when it started implementing its own emissions cuts?
Did you know that the World Economic Forum signed a “strategic partnership framework” with the United Nations in 2019 to “accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”? Or that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation pledged $315 million to the CGIAR global agriculture research partnership (a group my regular readers will be familiar with) to address the “[climate] adaptation needs of smallholder farmers” by funding “early warning systems for tracking the climate-accelerated spread of crop and livestock diseases and digital services that connect farmers with a wide range of supports more efficiently”?
Probably not. But the point here is that there is not one easily identifiable treaty under one identifiable organization that is running this agenda. That would be too obvious and offer too easy a target for the disparate freedom movements kicking up in country after country to go after. Instead, a complex web of control is being woven around nation after nation by a network of foundations, non-governmental bodies and globalist bodies and not one person in a thousand could name all of these organizations, treaties, agreements and commitments or explain how they all fit together to produce the collapse of Sri Lanka or the protests in Holland.
I am not exaggerating when I say this is a Global War for Independence that is taking shape right now. I am 100% serious. But for the most part (my switched-on, clued-in readers excepted, of course), the public is just starting to realize that they are engaged in a war at all. That puts them very much behind the 8-ball as they begin to discover that they are the victims of an agenda that has been decades in the making and is already nearing the mysteriously omnipresent 2030 goal.
Thankfully, though, the people are beginning to wake up to the gravity of the situation, and every day more people are joining the global uprising.
The point is, this isn’t about Dutch farmers. Or Sri Lankan farmers. Or Argentinian farmers. Or Irish farmers. Or Canadian truckers. Or any other isolated group you could imagine. This is about free humanity collectively recognizing the real nature of the struggle that they are engaged in and coming together to fight that battle. Holland and Sri Lanka are only the canaries in the coal mine that allow us to see what will happen to all of us when we are finally caught in the globalist web.
Let me state this once again: a worldwide revolt against the globalist technocrats is happening right now. More and more people are joining the ranks of this revolt every day. Those who are not standing with the farmers who find themselves on the front line of this revolt will almost certainly regret their inaction in the future when this global Agenda for Sustainable Enslavement comes for them.
The bare truth reveals itself more clearly than ever: We are all Sri Lankan farmers now.
I’ve just interviewed the one and only Jon Rappoport, who launched his website nomorefakenews.com over 20 years ago. Jon is now 84 years old but continues with his prolific output and is always at the forefront of exposing global scams.
We talked about:
identifying the COVID-19 fraud in early 2020
why he started investigating virology 35 years ago
why people need the virus narrative
the state of the health freedom movement
plus much more!
Naomi Rebekah Wolf is an American feminist author and journalist. Following her first book The Beauty Myth, she became a leading spokeswoman of what has been described as the third wave of the feminist movement. Feminists including Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan praised her work. Others, including Camille Paglia, criticized it. In the 1990s, she was a political advisor to the presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Wolf’s later books include the bestseller The End of America in 2007 and Vagina: A New Biography.
I am generally antagonistic towards (modern) feminism because it often appears to be a celebration of victimhood culture and a deliberate attack on family values and men. Having watched Cassie Jaye’s documentary, The Red Pill, I was left feeling disgusted at the excessive hatred being vomited by feminists who were interviewed.
Naomi, however, is nowhere near any of that misandrist nonsense.
Over the past few weeks, I have had the privilege of working with some brilliant people on establishing a challenge to virology in order to finally put their (pseudo)scientific methods to the test. Stemming from the mind of Dr. Tom Cowan and meticulously crafted by Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. Kevin Corbett, theNo “Virus” Challengeis designed to meet virology halfway. We want virology to show us, using their own methods, that they can actually independently reproduce and replicate the exact same results while blinded to the different samples that they will be working with.
I will leave the exact details of the challenge to be explained by the document linked below, but we are offering a first step to finally settle this debate once and for all. Whether the virology community (and those who back them) will accept this challenge (which Dr. Cowan has already received financial backing for) remains to be seen. However, if the virologists are truly interested in science and performing the proper control experiments that should have been carried out from the very beginning, there is absolutely no reason for them not to accept.
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1
It has been more than two years since the onset of the “corona” crisis, which changed the trajectory of our world. The fundamental tenet of this crisis is that a deadly and novel “virus”, SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world and negatively impacted large segments of humanity. Central to this tenet is the accepted wisdom that viruses, defined as replicating, protein-coated pieces of genetic material, either DNA or RNA, exist as independent entities in the real world and are able to act as pathogens. That is, the so-called particle with the protein coating and genetic interior is commonly believed to infect living tissues and cells, replicate inside these living tissues, damage the tissues as it makes its way out, and, in doing so, is also believed to create disease and sometimes death in its host – the so-called viral theory of disease causation. The alleged virus particles are then said to be able to transmit to other hosts, causing disease in them as well.
After a century of experimentation and studies, as well as untold billions of dollars spent toward this “war against viruses”, we must ask whether it’s time to reconsider this theory. For several decades, many doctors and scientists have been putting forth the case that this commonly-accepted understanding of viruses is based on fundamental misconceptions. Fundamentally, rather than seeing “viruses” as independent, exogenous, pathogenic entities, these doctors and scientists have suggested they are simply the ordinary and inevitable breakdown particles of stressed and/or dead and dying tissues. They are therefore not pathogens, they are not harmful to other living beings, and no scientific or rationale reasons exist to take measures to protect oneself or others against them. The misconceptions about “viruses” appears to largely derive from the nature of the experiments that are used as evidence to argue that such particles exist and act in the above pathological manner. In essence, the publications in virology are largely of a descriptive nature, rather than controlled and falsifiable hypothesis-driven experiments that are the heart of the scientific method.
Perhaps the primary evidence that the pathogenic viral theory is problematic is that no published scientific paper has ever shown that particles fulfilling the definition of viruses have been directly isolated and purified from any tissues or bodily fluids of any sick human or animal. Using the commonly accepted definition of “isolation”, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, there is general agreement that this has never been done in the history of virology. Particles that have been successfully isolated through purification have not been shown to be replication-competent, infectious and disease-causing, hence they cannot be said to be viruses. Additionally, the proffered “evidence” of viruses through “genomes” and animal experiments derives from methodologies with insufficient controls.
The following experiments would need to be successfully completed before the viral theory can be deemed factual:
1. a unique particle with the characteristics of a virus is purified from the tissues or fluids of a sick living being. The purification method to be used is at the discretion of the virologists but electron micrographs must be provided to confirm the successful purification of morphologically-identical alleged viral particles;
2. the purified particle is biochemically characterized for its protein components and genetic sequence;
3. the proteins are proven to be coded for by these same genetic sequences;
4. the purified viral particles alone, through a natural exposure route, are shown to cause identical sickness in test subjects, by using valid controls;
5. particles must then be successfully re-isolated (through purification) from the test subject at 4 above, and demonstrated to have exactly the same characteristics as the particles found in step 1.
However, we realize that the virologists may not take the steps outlined above, likely because all attempts to date have failed. They now simply avoid this experiment, insisting that what they say are “viruses” cannot be found in sufficient amounts in the tissues of any sick person or animal to allow such an analysis. Therefore, we have decided to meet the virologists half way. In the first instance, we propose that the methods in current use are put to the test. The virologists assert that these pathogenic viruses exist in our tissues, cells and bodily fluids because they claim to see the effects of these supposed unique particles in a variety of cell cultures. This process is what they call “isolation” of the virus. They also claim that, using electron microscopy, they can see these unique particles in the results of their cell cultures. Finally, they claim that each “species” of pathogenic virus has its unique genome, which can be sequenced either directly from the bodily fluids of the sick person or from the results of a cell culture. We now ask that the virology community prove that these claims are valid, scientific and reproducible. Rather than engaging in wasteful verbal sparring, let us put this argument to rest by doing clear, precise, scientific experiments that will, without any doubt, show whether these claims are valid.
We propose the following experiment as the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists…
STEP ONE
5 virology labs worldwide would participate in this experiment and none would know the identities of the other participating labs. A monitor will be appointed to supervise all steps. Each of the 5 labs will receive five nasopharyngeal samples from four categories of people (i.e. 20 samples each), who either:
1) are not currently in receipt of, or being treated for a medical diagnosis;
2) have received a diagnosis of lung cancer;
3) have received a diagnosis of influenza A (according to recognized guidelines); or who
4) have received a diagnosis of ‘COVID-19’ (through a PCR “test” or lateral flow assay.)
Each person’s diagnosis (or “non-diagnosis”) will be independently verified, and the pathology reports will be made available in the study report. The labs will be blinded to the nature of the 20 samples they receive.
Each lab will then attempt to “isolate” the viruses in question (Influenza A or SARS-CoV-2) from the samples or conclude that no pathogenic virus is present. Each lab will show photographs documenting the CPE (cytopathic effect), if present, and explain clearly each step of the culturing process and materials used, including full details of the controls or “mock-infections”. Next, each lab will obtain independently verified electron microscope images of the “isolated” virus, if present, as well as images showing the absence of the virus (presumably, in the well people and people with lung cancer). The electron microscopist will also be blinded to the nature of the samples they are analyzing. All procedures will be carefully documented and monitored.
STEP TWO
ALL of the samples will then be sent for genomic sequencing and once again the operators will remain blinded to the nature of their samples. It would be expected that if 5 labs receive material from the same sample of a patient diagnosed with COVID-19, each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome. On the other hand, this genome should not be found in any other samples. (Note: this statement is a brief outline of the suggested experiments – a fully detailed protocol would obviously need to be developed and agreed upon by the laboratories and signatories.)
If the virologists fail to obtain a satisfactory result from the above study, then their claims about detecting “viruses” will be shown to be unfounded. All of the measures put in place as a result of these claims should be brought to an immediate halt. If they succeed in this first task then we would encourage them to proceed to the required purification experiments to obtain the probative evidence for the existence of viruses.
It is in the interest of everyone to address the issue of isolation, and the very existence, of alleged viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. This requires proof that the entry of morphologically and biochemically, virus-like particles into living cells is both necessary and sufficient to cause the appearance of the identical particles, which are contagious and disease causing.
We welcome your support and feedback for this initiative.
Signatories,
Thomas Cowan, MD Mark Bailey, MD Samantha Bailey, MD Jitendra Banjara, MSc
Kelly Brogan, MD
Kevin Corbett, PhD
Mufassil Dingankar, BHMS
Michael Donio, MS
Jordan Grant, MD Andrew Kaufman, MD
Valentina Kiseleva, MD
Christine Massey, MSc
Paul McSheehy, PhD
Prof. Timothy Noakes, MD
Sachin Pethkar, BAMS Saeed Qureshi, PhD
Stefano Scoglio, PhD
Mike Stone, BEXSc Amandha Vollmer, NDoc
Michael Yeadon, PhD
July 8 was a muggy day in the ancient capital of Japan. Shinzo Abe, the most powerful figure in Japanese politics, was delivering a stump speech for a local Liberal Democratic Party candidate in front of the Nara Kintetsu railway station when suddenly a loud bang rang out, followed by an odd cloud of smoke.
The response was incredible. Among those in the unusually large crowd gathered, not a single person ran for cover, or hit the ground in terror.
Abe’s body guards, who stood unusually far away from him during the speech, looked on impassively, making no effort to shield him, or to pull him to a safe location.
A few seconds later, Abe crumpled and collapsed to the ground, lying there impassive in his standard blue jacket, white shirt, now speckled with blood, and trademark blue badge of solidarity with Japanese abductees in North Korea. Most likely he was killed instantaneously.
Only then did the body guards seize the suspect, Yamagami Toruya, who was standing behind Abe. The tussle with Yamagami took the form of a choreographed dance for the television audience, not a professional takedown.
Yamagami was immediately identified by the media as a 41-year-old former member of the Maritime Self-Defense Force who had personal grievances with Abe.
Yamagami told everything to the police without hesitation. He did not even try to run from the scene and was still holding the silly hand-made gun when the bodyguards grabbed him.
Even after Abe was lying on the pavement, not a single person in the crowd ran for shelter, or even looked around to determine where the shots came from. Everyone seemed to know, magically, that the shooting was over.
Then the comedy began. Rather than putting Abe in a limousine and whisking him away, those standing around him merely called out to passersby, asking if anyone was a doctor.
The media immediately embraced the “lone gunman” conclusion for this attack, repeating entertaining tale of how Yamagami was associated with Toitsu Kyokai, a new religion started by the charismatic shaman Kawase Kayo, and why he blamed Abe, who had exchanges with that group, for his mother’s troubles.
Because Toitsu Kyokai has followers from the Unification Church founded by Reverend Moon Sun Myung, journalist Michael Penn jumped to the conclusion that the conspiracy leading to Abe’s death was the result of his collaboration with the Moonies.
Although the mainstream media accepted this fantastic story, the Japanese police and security apparatus did not manage to squash alternative interpretations. Blogger Takashi Kitagawa posted materials on July 10 that suggested Abe was shot from the front, not from the back where Yamagami stood, and that the shots must have been fired at an angle from the top of one, or both, of the tall buildings on either side of the intersection across from the railway station plaza.
Takahashi Kitakawa’s postings:
Kitagawa’s analysis of the paths of the bullets was more scientific than anything offered by the media that had claimed, without basis, that Abe had only been shot once until the surgeon announced that evening that there had been two bullets.
The chances that a man holding an awkward home-made gun, standing more than five meters away in a crowd, would be able to hit Abe twice are low. The TV personality Kozono Hiromi, who is a gun expert himself, remarked on his show “Sukkiri” (on July 12) that such a feat would be incredible.
A careful viewing of the videos suggests that multiple shots were fired by a rifle with a silencer from atop a neighboring building.
The message to the world
For a figure like Shinzo Abe, the most powerful political player in Japan and the person to whom Japanese politicians and bureaucrats rallied in response to the unprecedented uncertainty born of the current geopolitical crisis, to be shot dead with no serious security detail nearby makes no sense.
Perhaps the message was lost on viewers at home, but it was crystal clear for other Japanese politicians. For that matter, the message was clear for Boris Johnson, who was forced out of power at almost exactly the same moment that Abe was shot, or for Emanuel Macron, who was suddenly charged with influence peddling scandal for Uber, and faces demands for his removal from office, on July 11—after months of massive protests had failed to sway him in any way.
The message was written all over Abe’s white shirt in red: buying into the globalist system and promoting the COVID-19 regime is not enough to assure safety, even for the leader of a G7 nation.
Abe was highest ranking victim so far of the hidden cancer eating away at governance in nation states around the world, an institutional sickness that moves decision making away from national governments to a network of privately-held supercomputer banks, private equity groups, for-hire intelligence firms in Tel Aviv, London and Reston, and the strategic thinkers employed by the billionaires at the World Economic Forum, NATO, the World Bank and other such awesome institutions.
The fourth industrial revolution was the excuse employed to transfer the control of all information in, and all information out, for central governments to Facebook, Amazon, Oracle, Google, SAP and others in the name of efficiency. As J. P. Morgan remarked, “Everything has two reasons: a good reason and a real reason.”
With the assassination of Abe, these technology tyrants, and their masters, have crossed the Rubicon, declaring that those dressed in the trappings of state authority can be mowed down with impunity if they do not follow orders.
The Problem with Japan
Japan is heralded as the only Asian nation advanced enough to join the “West,” to be a member of the exclusive G7 club, and to be qualified to enter into collaboration with (and possible membership in) the top intelligence sharing program, the “Five Eyes.” Nevertheless, Japan has continued to defy the expectations, and the demands, of global financiers, and the planners within the beltway and on Wall Street for the New World Order.
Although it was South Korea in Asia that has constantly been berated in Washington as an ally not quite up to the level of Japan, the truth is that the super-rich busy taking over the Pentagon, and the entire global economy, were starting to harbor doubts about the dependability of Japan.
The globalist system at the World Bank, Goldman Sachs, or the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University has a set track for the best and the brightest from “advanced nations.”
Elites from Australia, France, Germany, Norway or Italy, learn to speak fluent English, spend time in Washington, London, or Geneva at a think tank or university, secure a safe sinecure at a bank, a government institution, or a research institute that assures them a good income, and adopt the common sense, pro-finance, perspective offered by the Economist Magazine as the gospel.
Japan, however, although it has an advanced banking system of its own, although its command of advanced technologies makes it the sole rival of Germany in machine tools, and although it has a sophisticated educational system capable of producing numerous Nobel Prize winners, does not produce leaders who follow this model for the “developed” nation.
Japanese elite do not study abroad for the most part and Japan has sophisticated intellectual circles that do not rely on information brought in from overseas academic or journalistic sources.
Unlike other nations, Japanese write sophisticated journal articles entirely in Japanese, citing only Japanese experts. In fact, in fields like botany and cellular biology, Japan has world-class journals written entirely in Japanese.
Similarly, Japan has a sophisticated domestic economy that is not easily penetrated by multinational corporations—try as they do.
The massive concentration of wealth over the last decade has allowed the super-rich to create invisible networks for secret global governance,best represented by the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program and the Schwarzman Scholars program. These rising figures in policy infiltrate the governments, the industries, and research institutions of nations to make sure that the globalist agenda goes forth unimpeded.
Japan has been impacted by this sly form of global governance. And yet, Japanese who speak English well, or who study at Harvard, are not necessarily on the fast track in Japanese society.
There is stubborn independence in Japan’s diplomacy and economics, something that raised concerns among the Davos crowd during the COVID-19 campaigns.
Although the Abe administration (and the subsequent Kishida administration) went along with the directives of the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization for vaccines and social distancing, the Japanese government was less intrusive in the lives of citizens than most nations, and was less successful in forcing organizations to require vaccination.
The use of QR codes to block service to the unvaccinated was limited in its implementation in Japan in comparison with other “advanced” nations.
Moreover, the Japanese government refuses to fully implement the digitalization agenda demanded, thus denying multinational technology giants the control over Japan that they exercise elsewhere. This lag in Japan’s digitalization led the Wilson Center in Washington D.C. to invite Karen Makishima, minister of Japan’s Digital Agency (launched under pressure from global finance in September, 2021) so that she could explain why Japan has been so slow to digitalize (July 13).
Japanese are increasingly aware that their resistance to digitalization, to the wholescale outsourcing of the functions of government and university to multinational tech giants, and the privatization of information, is not in their interest.
Japan continues to operate Japanese-language institutions that follow old customs, including the use of written records. Japanese still read books and they are not so enamored with AI as Koreans and Chinese.
Japan’s resistance can be traced back to Meiji restoration of 1867. Japan set out to create governmental system wherein Western ideas were translated into Japanese, combined with Japanese concepts, to create a complex domestic discourse. The governance system set up in Meiji restoration remains in place to a large degree, using models for governance based on pre-modern principles from Japan and China’s past, and drawn from 19th century Prussia and England.
The result is feudalistic approach to governance wherein ministers oversee fiefdoms of bureaucrats who carefully guard their own budgets and who maintain their own internal chains of command.
The Problem with Abe
Shinzo Abe was one of the most sophisticated politicians of our age, always open to make a deal with the United States, or other global institutions, but always cagy when it came to making Japan the subject of globalist dictates.
Abe harbored the dream of restoring Japan to its status as an empire, and imagined himself to be the reincarnation of the Meiji Emperor.
Abe was different than Johnson or Macron in that he was not as interested in appearing on TV as he was in controlling the actual decision making process within Japan.
There is no need to glorify Abe’s reign, as some have tried to do. He was a corrupt insider who pushed for the dangerous privatization of government, the hollowing out of education, and who backed a massive shift of assets from the middle class to the wealthy.
His use of the ultra-right Nihon Kaigi forum to promote an ultranationalist agenda, and to glorify the most offensive aspects of Japan’s imperial past, was deeply disturbing. Abe gave his unflinching support for all military expenditures, no matter how foolish, and he was willing to support just about any American boondoggle.
That said, as the grandson of Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, and the son of foreign minister Shintaro Abe, Shinzo Abe showed himself to be an astute politician from childhood. He was creative in his use of a wide range of political tools to advance his agenda, and he could call on corporate and government leaders from around the world with an ease that no other Asian politician could.
I remember vividly the impression I received from Abe on the two occasions that I met him in person. Whatever cynical politics he may have promoted, he radiated to his audience a purity and simplicity, what the Japanese call “sunao,” that was captivating. His manner suggested a receptiveness and openness that inspired loyalty among his followers and that could overwhelm those who were hostile to his policies.
In sum, Abe was sophisticated political figure who was capable of playing one side against the other within the Liberal Democratic Party, and within the international community, while appearing to be a considerate and benevolent leader.
For this reason, Japanese hostile to Abe’s ethnic nationalism were still willing to support him because he was the only politician they thought capable of restoring global political leadership to Japan.
Japanese diplomats and military officers fret endlessly about the Japan’s lack of vision. Although Japan has all the qualifications to be a great power, they reason, it is run by a series of unimpressive, University of Tokyo graduates; men who are good at taking tests, but are unwilling to take risks.
Japan produces noone like Putin or Xi, and not even a Macron or a Johnson.
Abe wanted to be a leader and he had the connections, the talent, and the ruthlessness required to play that role on the global stage. He was already the longest serving prime minister in Japanese history, and had plans for a third bid as prime minister, when he was struck down.
Needless to say, the powers behind the World Economic Forum do not want national leaders like Abe, even if they conform with the global agenda, because they are capable of organizing resistance within the nation state.
What went wrong?
Abe was able to handle, using the traditional tools of statecraft, the impossible dilemma faced by Japan over the last decade as its economic ties with China and Russia increased, but its political and security integration with the United States, Israel and the NATO block proceeded apace.
It was impossible for Japan to be that close to the United States and its allies while maintaining friendly relations with Russia and China. Yet Abe almost succeeded.
Abe remained focused and cool. He made use of all his skills and connections as he set out to carve a unique space for Japan. Along the way, Abe turned to the sophisticated diplomacy of his strategic thinker Shotaro Yachi of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to assure that Japan found its place under the sun.
Abe and Yachi used contradictory, but effective, geopolitical strategies to engage both East and West, making ample use of secret diplomacy to seal long-term deals that put Japan back in the great powers game.
On the one hand, Abe presented to Obama and Trump a Japan that was willing to go further than South Korea, Australia or other India in backing Washington’s position. Abe was willing to suffer tremendous domestic criticism for his push for a remilitarization that fit the US plans for East Asia.
At the same time that he impressed Washington politicians with his gung-ho pro-American rhetoric, matched by the purchase of weapons systems, Abe also engaged China and Russia at the highest levels. That was no small feat, and involved sophisticated lobbying within the beltway, and in Beijing and Moscow.
In the case of Russia, Abe successfully negotiated a complex peace treaty with Russia in 2019 that would have normalized relations and solved the dispute concerning the Northern Territories (the Kuril Islands in Russian). He was able to secure energy contracts for Japanese firms and to find investment opportunities in Russia even as Washington ramped up the pressure on Tokyo for sanctions.
The journalist Tanaka Sakai notes that Abe was not banned from entering Russia after the Russian government banned all other representatives of the Japanese government from entry.
Abe also engaged China seriously, solidifying long-term institutional ties, and pursuing free trade agreement negotiations that reached a breakthrough in the fifteenth round of talks (April 9-12, 2019). Abe had ready access to leading Chinese politicians and he was considered by them to be reliable and predictable, even though his rhetoric was harshly anti-Chinese.
The critical event that likely triggered the process leading to Abe’s assassination was the NATO summit in Madrid (June 28-30).
The NATO summit was a moment when the hidden players behind the scenes laid down the law for the new global order. NATO is on a fast track to evolve beyond an alliance to defend Europe and to become an unaccountable military power, working with the Global Economic Forum, the billionaires and the bankers around the world, as a “world army,” functioning much as the British East India Company did in another era.
The decision to invite to the NATO summit the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand was a critical part of this NATO transformation.
These four nations were invited to join in an unprecedented level of integration in security, including intelligence sharing (outsourcing to big tech multinationals), the use of advanced weapons systems (that must be administrated by the personnel of multinationals like Lockheed Martin), joint exercises (that set a precedent for an oppressive decision-making process), and other “collaborative” approaches that undermine the chain of command within the nation state.
When Kishida returned to Tokyo on July first, there can be no doubt that one of his first meetings was with Abe. Kishida explained to Abe the impossible conditions that the Biden administration had demanded of Japan.
The White House, by the way, is now entirely the tool of globalists like Victoria Nuland (Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs) and others trained by the Bush clan.
The demands made of Japan were suicidal in nature. Japan was to increase economic sanctions on Russia, to prepare for possible war with Russia, and to prepare for a war with China. Japan’s military, intelligence and diplomatic functions were to be transferred to the emerging blob of private contractors gathering for the feast around NATO.
We do not know what Abe did during the week before his death. Most likely he launched into a sophisticated political play, using of all his assets in Washington D.C., Beijing, and Moscow—as well as in Jerusalem, Berlin, and London, to come up with a multi-tiered response that would give the world the impression that Japan was behind Biden all the way, while Japan sought out a détente with China and Russia through the back door.
The problem with this response was that since other nations had been shut down, such a sophisticated play by Japan made it the only major nation with a semi-functional executive branch.
Abe’s death parallels closely that of Seoul’s mayor Park Won Sun, who went missing on July 9th, 2020, exactly two years before Abe’s assassination. Park took steps in Seoul City Hall to push back on the COVID-19 social distancing policies that were being imposed by the central government. His body was found the next day and the death was immediately ruled a suicide resulting from his distress over charges of sexual harassment by a colleague.
What to do now?
The danger of the current situation should not be underestimated. If an increasing number of Japanese come to perceive, as the journalist Tanaka Sakai suggests, that the United States destroyed their best hope for leadership, and that the globalists want Japan to make do with an unending series of weak-minded prime ministers who are dependent on Washington and other hidden players of the parasite class, such a development could bring about a complete break between Japan and the United States, leading to a political or military conflict.
It is telling that Michael Green, the top Japan hand in Washington D.C., did not write the initial tribute to Abe that was published on the homepage of CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), his home institute.
Green, veteran of the Bush National Security Council and Henry A. Kissinger Chair of the Asia Program at CSIS, is the author of Line of Advantage: Japan’s Grand Strategy in the Era of Abe Shinzo. Green was a close associate of Abe, perhaps the closest of any American.
The tribute to Abe was drafted by Christopher Johnstone (the Japan chair at CSIS and former CIA officer). The weird choice suggests that the assassination is so sensitive that Green instinctively wished to avoid writing the initial response, leaving it to a professional operative.
For responsible intellectuals and citizens in Washington, Tokyo, or elsewhere, there is only one viable response to this murky assassination: a demand for an international scientific investigation.
Painful as that process might be, it will force us to face the reality of how our governments have been taken over by invisible powers.
If we fail to identify the true players behind the scenes, however, we may be led into a conflict in which the blame is projected onto heads of state and countries are forced into conflicts so as to hide the crimes of global finance.
The loss of control of the Japanese government over the military the last time can be attributed in part to the assassinations of prime minister Inukai Tsuyoshi on May 15, 1932 and of prime minister Saito Makoto on February 26, 1936.
But for the international community, the more relevant case is how the manipulations of an integrated global economy by the Rothschild, Warburg, and other banking interests created an environment wherein the tensions produced by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary on June 28, 1914 were funneled towards world war.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (18 December 1863 – 28 June 1914)
Shinzo Abe of Japan (21 September 1954 – 8 July 2022)
This turned out to be “one of those weeks” for articles to blog about, but it also turned out to be “one of those weeks” for conversations about already-blogged-about things, in this case, about my speculations last week regarding the destruction of the Georgia Guidestones that I spoke about on last week’s News and Views from the Nefarium. I thought the two conversations, one with R.O., and the other with K.M., were worth summarizing, because they both noticed possibilities as to who might be behind it, and why, and those possibilities are – again – worth mentioning. Both, as we shall see, came to similar conclusions but for slightly different reasons, and K.M. articulated a suspicion I had personally entertained but did not voice, so I thought that “if someone else is thinking this, then let’s go with it and put it out there.”
R.O. contacted me and argued the following:
Catching up on your recent podcasts and a though popped into my head. What if the Georgia Guide Stone that has been blown up, was the one inscribed in Russian. What if instead of a bomb, it had been taken out by a Javelin missile from The Ukraine. To me, this would be a Putin chess move, Knight takes Bishop. More like wishful thinking than high octane speculation, but you have to admit, it would send quite a message.
Indeed it would send “quite a message,” whether or not the stone that was initially blown up was the one in Russian or not. And taking it out by the use of a missile, or even a drone, or even a “sleeper cell” of spetznaz would send that message, though in terms of message-sending, a drone or a missile would seem to send the clearest message. And there is an important factor to consider: such a message from that particular sender would be entirely consistent with similar messages that were sent to the plutocrats and technocrats of the globalist “west” by Mr.Putin and other Russian leaders over the past decade (and promptly and stupidly ignored by them).
The conversation with K.M. picked up where the one with R.O. left off. Here K.M. pointed out that the message would not only be consistent with other messages to Mr. Globaloney from Russia, but the message would also be quite consistent with that Roscosmos display of the satellite images of Western “decision centers” that was displayed just a few days before the destruction of the guidestones. At the time, you might recall, I argued that this was a clear message, and one that moreover was cleverly disguised. Satellite pictures of central Paris, London, Berlin, Madrid, or Swampington DC are easily come by, so it was no big deal for Roscosmos to publish those. Everyone already knows that Russia has the capability to “take out” any of those cities if it wants to do so. So what was the message really being sent?
As I argued then, the message was really “We know precisely where you (the leadership class and individuals making it up) live, and we can reach you by a variety of methods any time.” In other words, it was a not-so-subtle reminder that Soros, Schwab, Gates &. Ass., L.L.C., a.k.a., Mr. Globaloney, are “on the list” as targets. As the Russian leadership has also attempted to make clear over the past few years, their quarrel is not with the average Frenchman, Dutchman, German, Briton, or American, it’s with their ruling class. Having argued this, I then reminded my listeners (and now my readers) that covert operations, like coups d’etat, proxy wars, assassinations, drone strikes, color revolutions (think the Ukraine here) and so on are games that two can play. Mr. Bidenenko upped the ante in his usual foot-in-mouth way by muttering that someone needed to take out Mr. Putin. Game on, and we should not be surprised if Mr. Putin decide to respond in kind.
And here’s where K.M.’s “guidestones scenario” comes in: what if, indeed, the Russians were somehow behind it, by whatever mechanism they chose to use, be it drones, missiles, or a human team? It would certainly be consistent with earlier messages, and more importantly, consistent with the recent Roscosmos release of satellite images. It would be consistent with the fact that, thus far, the site itself has not been treated as a crime scene, and the remaining Guidestones were quickly destroyed and the site “cleaned”. Why? Some have argued that their destruction was caused by Mr. Globaloney himself, destroying the ” mens rea evidence” of his intentions. But it would make equal sense, K.M. argued, if an international incident were covered up, given the tremendous pressure on the western “leadership”.
So that’s where we are: a crime has been committed, covered-up, and no one really knows for certain who did it, and why.
But K.M. made a final point by asking me how I felt after I heard about the news. Well, frankly, I felt both happy and as if some sort of weight had been lifted. The “Guidestones” were a summation of the doctrine and thinking of Mr. Globaloney in all his Malthusian, genocidal “glory”. The destruction of such a symbol can only be – contrary to those arguing that it was a deeply convoluted act of magic by Mr. Gloaloney himself – a kind of “reverse” magic: the removal of a baphometic symbol whose stated intentions were clear, and whose stated intentions were destructed, removed, and utterly scrubbed from the Earth.
The prominent Covid-vaccine sceptic has taken two doses of the Moderna vaccine. And that’s just one of many inconsistencies between his words to the Covid-sceptic crowd and his actions.
This is a guest post by Miriam Walton and Alan Goater in Derbyshire, U.K. Over the last year they’ve been closely following interviews and articles by and about Robert Malone. And that’s left them with more questions than answers.
I also have raised questions about Malone: see my Oct. 24, 2021, article titled, ‘The Vanden Bossche Caper Continues.’ In it, I focus on a high-profile interview of Malone and Vanden Bossche, in which Malone boosts and extends Vanden Bossche’s disinformation and fear-mongering. (I first exposed Vanden Bossche’s deliberate disinformation in my March 2021 article, ‘The Curious Case of Geert Vanden Bossche.’)
Below is Walton and Goater’s email to Malone in February 2022 with questions about information in the public domain about Malone. (I’ve added hyperlinks to the source material, photos from that source material and, in square brackets, some clarification/comments.)
Malone still hasn’t responded to the U.K. couple’s questions.
Dear Dr. Malone,
From the Pennine foothills of the UK we have followed with interest your public and media appearances in connection with your opposition to current US (and global) public health policies, in particular the controversies which have arisen concerning possible misinterpretations of your position. We have it in mind to write (and possibly publish) about these issues and would be very grateful for some clarifications from you in the interests of fairness and accuracy to all parties. Please find our questions below.
We appreciate that you must be exceedingly busy at this time but would hope that you could respond within, say, 7 days.
Best wishes,
Miriam Walton and Alan Goater
1. You are on record as saying that you had two doses of the Moderna Covid vaccine some months after being infected with the disease because a) you had heard rumours that your long-haul symptoms might be helped by the vaccine and b) you wanted (needed?) to travel abroad.
Questions:
Has any vaccine ever been successfully deployed to mitigate current patient symptoms of anything?
What, in all your training and experience as a physician and scientist, informed your decision to take an experimental injection (twice) on the basis of a rumour and a desire to travel?
Is a desire to travel a good reason for participation as a subject in a medical experiment?
Why were high-quality photographs taken of you on both occasions of vaccination?
2. There exists online footage of professor Mattias Desmet asking you not to use the word ‘psychosis’ in connection with his theory of mass formation. [‘online footage’ refers to this interview of Malone and Desmet on Tommy’s Podcast; in it, Malone starts speaking at 4:33 and at 15:25 Desmet finally gets a chance to correct Malone by saying his theory is termed mass formation, not mass psychosis.]
You said, on the same occasion, that you had come to “sit at the feet of the master” (Desmet) and to learn from him.
However, you have been speaking and writing about ‘mass formation psychosis’ since then, including on your own Substack (i.e., your reformulation of Desmet’s mass formation with reference to Dr. Mark McDonald’s work on ‘mass delusional psychosis’ – a different phenomenon).
Questions:
Can you provide the rationale for ignoring the express wishes of ‘the master’?
Have you said or done anything to remedy the debunkingof professor Desmet’s theory of mass formation because of its unauthorised association with ‘Psychosis’? [i.e., has Malone admitted – and attempted to rectify the effects of – his changing of Desmet’s theory to supposedly be about ‘mass psychosis’ that in turn caused Desmet and his theory to be pumeled by baseless attacks/’debunking’?]
3. You are on record as identifying both Michael Callahan and Daryl Galloway as CIA agents. [For example starting at 1:00:07 in this video interview of Malone in which he talks about outing Callahan.]
Questions:
Was that information [i.e., about Callahan and Galloway being CIA agents] available to you as a result of your own security clearance status?
Do you expect an investigation into these revelations under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982? [This Act “amends the National Security Act of 1947 to establish criminal penalties for any person who knowingly discloses information which identifies a U.S. covert intelligence agent.”]
4. [Background to this point: 1. Malone being activelyinvolved currently or in the recent past in the development of a Covid jab called RelCoVax made by India-based Reliance Life Sciences; and 2. a Substack article by a member of an organization called ‘Health Freedom for Humanity;’ the article apparently points out that Malone in his Dec. 2021 interview by Joe Rogan didn’t mention this vaxx or his involvement with it, and also posed other questions such as whether there is graphene oxide in the vaxx. (We couldn’t find the article online; the information about the article in the question below comes from Malone’s Jan. 26, 2022, Substack post about it.)]
Screenshot of the beginning of this video Malone’s presentation about the vaxx at the Vaccines Summit 2021
In your recent robust dismissal of criticism from the ‘Health Freedom for Humanity’ organisation you answered in respect of Statement #2 – “it [RelCovax] allegedly has Darpa (graphene oxide) Hydrogel in it” in the following terms:
“Hydrogel, and other alum-based adjuvants, are among the best characterized of the traditional adjuvants. DARPA had nothing to do with developing Alum or Alhydrogel adjuvants. Alhydrogel has nothing to do with Graphene Oxide. This “Relcovax” vaccine product using Alum + CpG for its adjuvant system. The vaccine candidate is designed to be a very low cost, traditional alternative to the genetic vaccines, and employs much more traditional methods than, say, the Novavax product.” [Bolding in the original.]
Screenshot of the part of Malone’s Substack article with this information
Question:
Does/will the ‘RelCovax’ product contain ‘Darpa Hydrogel’ or graphene oxide in any form?
5. During your Lincoln Memorial speech on January 22, 2022, you said “Now we have Omicron. These vaccines were designed for the Original Wuhan strain, a different virus.” [At 4:35 in this video of Malone’s speech]
Question:
On what basis do you assert that ‘Omicron’ and ‘the Original Wuhan strain’ are two different viruses?
6. During that same [Jan. 22, 2022] speech you asserted twice, in support of your not wanting to see them used on children, that the genetic vaccines are not ‘completely safe,’ [At 4:19 and 5:37 in this video of Malone’s speech (the same video cited in point 5 above).]
Question:
In view of the universal awareness among health professionals that no medication is ‘completely safe,’ why do you single out these genetic vaccines for censure?
7. On 12 February 2020 you and your wife’s book, ‘The Novel Coronavirus‘ was published. The synopsis refers to the ‘coming epidemic’. [It appears to now be impossible to find a copy of the book. Therefore the hyperlink and mention is to a synopsis.]
Screenshot of the synopsis of The Novel Coronavirus
Questions:
How reliant were you, in the absence of real-world data at that time, on modelling, planning and/or role-play exercises like the ‘DOMANE‘ project [see also information about Malone’s involvement in DOMANE in the sixth and seventh paragraphs of this April 2020 Science article] and ‘Event 201‘ for material and information for the book?
If you did not rely on such exercises how, otherwise, were you able to confidently predict the eventuality and write about likely countermeasures?
[Miriam and Alan wish they’d also asked Malone how he and his wife knew in advance that the World Health Organization would name the virus ‘COVID-19.’ See for example this abstract of the book posted on researchgate.net – it shows the table of contents, with the second chapter titled, ‘Epidemiology of COVID-19’ and the second-last titled, ‘Clinical Characteristics and Medical Countermeasures for COVID-19.’]
8. You are on record advocating for continuing/increasing testing for SARS-COV-2 and for these to be self-administered. [Malone does this in many places – as just one example, at 1:13:35 in this interview.]
Question:
To your knowledge, have the medical risks associated with the test equipment itself and its unsupervised use by untrained people ever been assessed?
9. You have advocated ‘active surveillance’ and ‘tracing’ as appropriate countermeasures to Covid-19 (along with self-testing).
Question:
In your view is the imposition of the infrastructure of population surveillance really an appropriate step for a government of a democratic country to take, ever?
10. You are on record advocating the use of the vaccines on the elderly/vulnerable. [See for example this interview (the same article is cited in point 9 above).] You are also (famously!) on record deploring their use on children because of the known, and unknown, dangers. [He has done so many times, such as in this video of his Jan. 22, 2022, Lincoln Memorial speech (which was also linked to in points 5 and 6 above).]
Question:
How can anyone provide informed consent to a medical intervention that carries unknown dangers? Why, in your view, should the elderly/vulnerable populations, in particular, be exposed to these dangers?
11. All expert opinion at the outset of the public-health emergency agreed that respiratory-disease pandemics, epidemics and outbreaks end in 18-24 months. [See for example the CDC web page titled ‘Past Pandemiccs’ and note that none of the highlighted outbreaks lasted longer than two years.]
Question:
Why, in your opinion, did so many pharmaceutical companies (including Reliance Life Sciences!) at that time invest in the development of medications, particularly vaccines, that were not expected to be available until after the expected pandemic end date?
12. Your knowledge, credentials and experience are second to none in the field of public health. Your reputation is well established in the US and internationally.
Question:
Can you see yourself in a leadership role at, say, the CDC [U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] in the future?
For weeks now, farmers in the Netherlands have been engaging in fierce protests over their government’s plan to halve the country’s nitrogen and ammonia pollution by 2030. It is estimated that this plan—which will mandate emissions cuts of 95% in some provinces—will require a 30% reduction in livestock and will drive many of the nation’s farmers out of business.
The protests have been remarkably heated, as tens of thousands take to the streets to block the country’s highways, torch bales of hay and spread manure around politicians’ homes. In one incident, Dutch police actually fired live rounds on one of the protesters as he attempted to breach the police line with his tractor.
Yes, the scenes coming out of the usually quiet Dutch countryside are shocking. But they should not be. They are just the early stages of a great worldwide battle that is shaping up between the free people of the world and the technocrats, who are starting to clamp down on them in the name of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Enslavement.
Make no mistake: Whoever you are, wherever you live, whatever you do, these power-hungry elitists will be coming after your livelihood next. We are all Dutch farmers now.
This is the story of how we got here, where we’re going and what it means.
THE BATTLE HAS BEGUN
Remember the Yellow Vest movement? Remember how a populist movement rose up in France in 2018, with citizens donning the gilets jaunes that drivers are required by French law to have in their car and to wear during emergency situations? Remember how they hit the streets, week after week after week in an escalating series of protests that threatened to topple the Macron government? Of course you do.
Now, do you remember why that movement started? Probably not, because the answer doesn’t fit into the MSM propaganda narrative very easily. Carbon taxes. The original protests were about carbon taxes.
Specifically, France’s Ministry for the Ecological Transition (which is apparently a thing that exists) decided in its infinite wisdom that the “ecology tax” on gas and diesel (which, it must also be noted, is a thing that exists) was too low, so they raised it. This sparked anger among the general public, who were already suffering from rising gas prices. And, just like that, a new nationwide (and, eventually, worldwide) protest movement was born.
But perhaps that’s the point. As the mask comes off of the green agenda and people start to see it for what it is—an attack on the lives and livelihoods of the average working-class citizens—more and more people will be drawn into this fight, whether they understand the true nature of that struggle or not.
As I’ve documented before, this great struggle between the unwashed masses and their would-be neofeudal overlords was coming to a head in late 2019 . . . but that great confrontation was averted by the scamdemic. Suddenly, millions of people who would have been out on the streets protesting the latest carbon taxes and green craziness were now locked in their homes by their governments—many of them willingly. But now that the television isn’t telling people to lock themselves in their home out of mortal fear of the corona cooties (unless you live in China), the temporary ceasefire has ended. The next shots in this war are being fired by farmers in the Netherlands.
The battle isn’t just being waged in the Netherlands, of course. In 2020, Canada committed to a similar scheme of nitrogen reduction, vowing to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer by 30% by 2030. And we already know how the Canadian government will react to the inevitable farmer protests in Canada. Just look at what they did to the truckers.
Indeed, in a world beset by a shortage of fertiliser due to sanctions against Russia and Belarus, it would seem almost mad to complain about a manure surplus, let alone try to reduce it. We’re well past the point where any of this could be considered accidental, aren’t we? Put it this way—if the collective governments of the Western world were trying to impoverish and starve their own citizens, what exactly would they be doing differently?
There can be no doubt at this point: with their carbon taxes and restrictions on farming, the would-be world controllers are deliberately crashing the world economy. The flames of protest are merely the perfectly predictable result of this controlled demolition.
And as bad as all that is, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. . . .
WHERE WE’RE GOING
There’s a strange thing about this clash between the elitists and the working class: the former, being psychopathic swindlers, don’t even hide the fact that they are positively gleeful at the prospect of reducing the average worker to abject serfdom.
Witness Ontario Liberal candidate Granville Anderson’s recent assertion that rising gas prices actually provide a “silver lining”: fewer of the minions will be able to afford to drive, forcing them to “find other modes of transportation.” (In other words: “Let them eat electric cars!”)
Or witness the World Economic Forum (along with numerous other globalist entities) declaring that lockdowns were “quietly improving cities” by keeping people from engaging in their normal day-to-day activities. The blindingly obvious reality to the average working stiff is that the lockdowns were a weapon targeted against them, preventing them from earning a living; contributing to growing poverty, social isolation and depression; and driving many to substance abuse or, in some cases, suicide.
Again, it is important to remember that neither these attacks on the middle class and working poor nor the angry response they generate are the result of incompetence or lack of awareness on the part of the agenda-setters. No, it’s part of the plan.
Remember “Absolute Zero”? That’s the title of a report by UK FIRES—”a collaboration between the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Nottingham, Bath and Imperial College London”—that is “aiming to reveal and stimulate industrial growth in the UK compatible with a rapid transition to zero emissions.” As you’ll recall from my report on the subject, their plan envisions the elimination of air travel, cargo shipping, construction and basically all other productive human activity by the year 2050 in the name of this anti-human “green” agenda.
We need to be clear about something here: this is no idle threat. If the eugenicists pulling the strings of global affairs get their way, they will release their attack dogs—the bought-and-paid-for minions in the UN bureaucracy and the WEF and the political mis-leaders in virtually every country—to fulfill this agenda.
That agenda involves shutting down the productive economy (in the name of saving Mother Earth) and reducing the global population in the process. That the population would eventually fight back against this economic assault is no surprise; hence the creation of the homeland security state and the biosecurity state over the course of the past two decades. We are now at the point where any protest can be deemed “insurrection” by “domestic terrorists” and can justify all manner of punishment, including locking people out of the financial system altogether.
The pressure is increasing. The dragnet has been set. The fight is about to begin in earnest. . . . So what happens next?
WHAT IT MEANS
Whether we know it or not, we are at war. And, whether we know it or not, that war is a battle between the overwhelming majority of the human population and the few at the top who seek to control (and simultaneously reduce) that population. The battle lines may not always be so clear—there are many unwitting dupes who act to shore up the systems of technocratic control without knowing what they are doing. And there are those who still believe in the core lies of the globalists—the climate change hoax, for example—and thereby unknowingly play into their 2030 Agenda.
But as the wheels start to fall off the global financial system and the economic freight train begins to derail, more and more of us are waking up to the fundamental truth: this is a war for our livelihood. This is a war for the right to live our lives as we wish, free from the interference of these self-appointed rulers who dare tell us what we can eat and where we can travel and whether we can farm. This is a war for our independence from the parasitic would-be rulers who are attempting to shut down the economy and usher us into an age of neofeudalism.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Also as relevant to our struggle today as it was to those fighting in the American Revolution is an important observation about all such conflict: “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
It is self-evidently true that the ruling class has invested a good deal of its time and devoted much of its considerable resources to atomizing society. These psychopaths and their patsies have focused attention on every possible fault line—class, race, gender, religious creed, political allegiance and any other distinction you can think of—as part of a conscious strategy to keep the masses at each other’s throats and to stop them from rising up against their real enemy: the globalists themselves. There’s also no denying that these would-be world controllers have been remarkably successful at this divide-and-rule strategy.
The obvious implication is that the thing the globalists fear most is a mass of common folk banding together in opposition to the deeply unpopular nonsense uttered by their so-called leaders. That’s why the establishment’s lapdogs in the mainstream press and in academia now spend so much time and energy decrying the “populism” of the current era. In case you haven’t figured it out by now, all of the platitudes that politicians spout about “freedom” and “democracy” are just that: platitudes to persuade people to rally around their political agenda. When people reject that agenda, those same politicians are quick to discard the words “freedom” and democracy,” recasting them as “crass populism” and “mob rule.”
Yes, it is time to throw away the stupid, artificial left/right split and other wedges that have kept us divided and ruled over for so long. The idea that groups who don’t see eye-to-eye can unite on the existential threat they are facing isn’t all pie-in-the-sky, wishful thinking. In France, for example, the populist right and the populist left recently joined forces to defeat the country’s COVID travel passport.
It can be done. It must be. There is no alternative. We must start building a mass movement against the 2030 Agenda before the noose tightens around our necks and we find ourselves in the clutches of this technocratic system of control. Whether or not it affects us yet, we have to understand that it will be unleashed upon us if we don’t stand up en masse now.
Luckily for us, that’s exactly what’s happening.
Across Europe, people are rising up in solidarity with the Dutch farmers. German farmers are helping Dutch farmers blockade the German-Dutch border. Italian farmers are staging demonstrations under the rallying cry, “We are not slaves, we are farmers!” Polish farmers are resisting in Warsaw. Even the Canadians are getting in on the act, carrying “I stand with Dutch farmers” signs at their own freedom rallies.
And, just this week, a new video has emerged calling for worldwide protests in support of the Dutch farmers. Sporting the tagline “The World is Going Dutch,” the video likens the current resistance movement to nonviolent resistance movements of the twentieth century and calls on people around the world to stand in solidarity with farmers in the Netherlands in a worldwide day of protest on July 23rd.
A great awakening is happening. The barriers between people are coming down as the realization dawns that this is a global agenda and the injustices we see being inflicted on those halfway around the world will be coming for us soon enough. Many are now realizing a line has been drawn and the time to stand up has arrived.
We are all Dutch farmers now.
This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.
To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.
Joining me today is Derrick Broze, here to discuss his ongoing investigation into the Utah County Sheriff’s Office allegations of ‘Ritualistic Child Sex Abuse’, as well as the history of these types of cases in Utah and the Mormon Church specifically.
Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle
Jerm Warfare’s Jeremy Nell & Dr. David Rasnick on the Great Cancer Swindle
TCTL editor’s note:
Brief excerpt from the interview:
Dr. David Rasnick:
The prevalence of cancer, the increase of cancer worldwide is due to the increase in carcinogens in our environment…
Jerm (Jeremy Nell):
Hold on, Dave. So, are you saying that, for example, during the time of the Roman Empire, cancer would have been… cancer prevalence would have been very low?
David:
Yeah. Pretty close to zero.
Jerm:
Wow. Okay. That’s interesting.
David:
Even before the industrial revolution it was pretty close to zero,
The industrial revolution increased carcinogens, pollutions in the environment. Almost all cancer, almost all cancer, is due to environmental carcinogens — poisons that we put in the environment.
Jerm:
And could those poisons also be perhaps childhood vaccinations?
David:
Oh, Lord, yes… My goodness yes. Our environment includes what we breathe, what we eat, what we’re exposed to, what we inject in ourselves…
David Rasnick is a biochemist with decades of research in AIDS and cancer, and returned to my podcast to discuss cancer and why most of what we’re told is wrong.
Cancer is an extremely complex subject, so I’d recommend reading his summary article in which he outlines, in fairly layman language, the foundation of his argument.
Basically, it’s known as Aneuploidy Theory, and it is in stark contrast to the current Big Pharma model of cancer. Obviously, Aneuploidy Theory is “discredited” and dismissed, as a result. But, as pharmaceutical scientist Mike Donio said, the pharmaceutical industry is untrustworthy and thrives on sick people and unscientific methodology.
David’s conversation is worth watching because he used slides, but it’s possible to get by with audio only.
Comedian Jim Breuer: Jim’s Got a Heavy Message — “Get Your Life Out of the World That Is Trying to Drag You Into an Emotional, Demonic, Evil Distress.”
“Get your emotions, get your life out of the world that is trying to drag you into an emotional, demonic, evil distress.”
#
“Start looking at the beauty right in front of you with yourself, with yourself.”
#
“I don’t have politics. I don’t have politics. That’s the world trying to divide and conquer and take your faith away.”
#
“We’re all obsessed. Deep, life issues right now. Abortion. Everyone’s running out there going nutso from a SLOGAN. Everything’s a sales pitch. It’s a slogan to control your emotions, to control your life, to control your actions.”
#
“‘My body, my choice. My body, my choice.’ Stop it. You’re being controlled. You’re being manipulated. Your spirit, your soul, the beauty inside you is being sucked out…
Stop it. Your life is right in front of you. Right in front of you. Everyone has their own journey.”
#
“We’re getting sucked into nonsense. There’s such a deeper part of life…But if you don’t allow it — like a radio station — if you don’t want to listen to the station, you’re never going to know it. And you’ve got no right to say ‘it doesn’t exist, that’s stupid’.”
#
“Please, go out, enjoy life. Please, every time you feel the need to get sucked into a subject that’s just a slogan to debate and argue over — I have deep friends that are saying they want to be identified as a who or a what, a noun. Do you understand the attack on your mentality when you don’t know what you are anymore?
This really has to do with, in my opinion, deeper spirituality, God, the Lord, however you want to put it. I hope you find it. I hope you tap into it. It will help you spread light to so many others, so many others, so many others.”
As the establishment and mainstream mass formation spell finally begins to wear off, more artists and entertainers are stepping up to call out the ridiculousness of the pandemic and vaccine hysteria of the last 2 and a half years.
Comedian Jim Breuer lets loose in his one-man show entitled, ‘Somebody Had to Say It.’
One story that fascinated me during the past week was this story of Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, releasing satellite imagery of western “decision centers” during the G7 conference and the NATO summit in Madrid, attended by western “leaders” such as Boris Johnson, and alleged US President “Biden”. It was a clear message, but exactly what was that message? I believe that to decode it, one has to look at the images themselves:
The article, you’ll note, contains seven large images, and in order from top to bottom, they are:
(1) Madrid, the site of the NATO meeting;
(2) Washington, DC, with various landmarks including the White House, Supreme Court, US Capitol, and Washington monuments clearly visible;
(3) Another view of Washington DC, of the Pentagon including the “ground zero” garden and park in the center of the structure clearly visible;
(4) London, with a view of Westminster and the now-famous giant ferris wheel;
(5) Central Paris along the Champs Elysee with all the associated famous landmarks;
(6) Brussels, with the EU headquarters clearly shown, and finally,
(7) Berlin, with the Reichstag and Brandenburg Gate clearly visible in the center-right, and lower-center right.
Now as reading the many comments accompanying the “article” demonstrate, similar images can be pulled up from Google. Indeed, one might have difficulty figuring out if Google was the source of the Roscosmos images, or for that matter, if Roscosmos was not the source of many Google earth images, including of these cities.
As one commenter put it, “what’s the big deal” with Roscosmos publishing such images anyway? Anyone can find them after all.
Most internet commentary on the strangeness of Roscosmos doing so are focussed – rightly – on the timing of the release to coincide with the G7 and NATO meetings, and thus on the idea that Roscosmos is sending a message.
With all of this I concur… Roscosmos was indeed sending a message.
But exactly what was the message? We can nuke your capital cities?
If so, then the message wasn’t very new… Russia has always been capable of nuking the west’s capital cities and vice versa. There’s absolutely nothing new there, and no real reason Russia needs to remind everyone else…
… unless, of course, that was not the message at all, and with that, we get to today’s high octane speculation. Recently Mr. Putin also gave an extensive speech during the St. Petersburg economic forum, during the same time frame as the Roscosmos “satellite image release.” (See St Petersburg International Economic Forum Plenary session) Mr. Putin’s remarks were full of references to the anti-globalist and multi-polar agenda he has maintained in speeches over the past few years, such as the following:
However, the ruling elite of some Western states seem to be harbouring this kind of illusions. They refuse to notice obvious things, stubbornly clinging to the shadows of the past. For example, they seem to believe that the dominance of the West in global politics and the economy is an unchanging, eternal value. Nothing lasts forever.
Our colleagues are not just denying reality. More than that; they are trying to reverse the course of history. They seem to think in terms of the past century. They are still influenced by their own misconceptions about countries outside the so-called “golden billion”: they consider everything a backwater, or their backyard. They still treat them like colonies, and the people living there, like second-class people, because they consider themselves exceptional. If they are exceptional, that means everyone else is second rate.
Thereby, the irrepressible urge to punish, to economically crush anyone who does not fit with the mainstream, does not want to blindly obey. Moreover, they crudely and shamelessly impose their ethics, their views on culture and ideas about history, sometimes questioning the sovereignty and integrity of states, and threatening their very existence. Suffice it to recall what happened in Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya and Iraq.
Mr. Putin also alleges that the European Union has lost sovereignty and is dancing to “someone else’s” tune, while not defining who that someone else may be:
The attempts to keep up appearances and the talk about allegedly acceptable costs in the name of pseudo-unity cannot hide the main thing: the European Union has lost its political sovereignty, and its bureaucratic elites are dancing to someone else’s tune, doing everything they are told from on high and hurting their own people, economies, and businesses.
Much of the rest of Mr. Putin’s speech consists of criticisms of American and European policy toward Russia, and pointing out the stupidity of those policies, and Russia’s own strides toward making its own economy more efficient, and expanding technological businesses, and of course, outlining its military operations in the Ukraine.
So again, assuming the Roscosmos satellite image release and the speech to be “message sending,” what, if anything, is the message one is supposed to gain from looking at the images, and considering President Putin’s remarks, beyond the obvious message that Mr. Putin is not the blithering idiot that alleged President Biden is.
There is a rumor that during Mr. Putin’s remarks, he allegedly made reference to more “red lines” that the West should not cross, but he did not spell these out, but made it very clear that to cross them would be to imperil the western leadership. The rumor has it that these remarks were omitted from the translation of the speech.
But even without them, that message I believe is painfully obvious and simple: we have exact data on all your hideaways and retreats; we know where you live, and what your personal security consists of. We do not need to nuke your cities… there are other ways of dealing with you, and we have them, and are perfectly willing to “go there.” After all, wet operations are a specialty of ours.
Mr. Putin, in other words, as his remarks make clear, directed his criticism of the West not against the average Spaniard, German, Frenchman, American, or Briton, but against its leadership and their places of “decision”, which need not be the capital cities… but anywhere that the “leadership” hides out and “decides” things.
IN short, as I’ve warned many times, “two can play the covert ops game,” and the West and USSA have been caught red-handed trying to play it in the Ukraine; think only of the biolabs. Now, I suspect, we can prepare for the favour to be returned, but in such as way as to target not the people of the west, but its leadership.
If I am correct, this is about to get very interesting…
“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”
– Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”
We are living in a world where the degree of disinformation and outright lying has reached such a state of affairs that, possibly for the first time ever, we see the majority of the western world starting to question their own and surrounding level of sanity. The increasing frenzied distrust in everything “authoritative” mixed with the desperate incredulity that “everybody couldn’t possibly be in on it!” is slowly rocking many back and forth into a tighter and tighter straight jacket. “Question everything” has become the new motto, but are we capable of answering those questions?
Presently the answer is a resounding no.
The social behaviourist sick joke of having made everyone obsessed with toilet paper of all things during the start of what was believed to be a time of crisis, is an example of how much control they have over that red button labelled “commence initiation of level 4 mass panic”.
And can the people be blamed? After all, if we are being lied to, how can we possibly rally together and point the finger at the root of this tyranny, aren’t we at the point where it is everywhere?
As Goebbels infamously stated,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State [under fascism].”
And here we find ourselves today, at the brink of fascism. However, we have to first agree to forfeit our civil rights as a collective before fascism can completely dominate. That is, the big lie can only succeed if the majority fails to call it out, for if the majority were to recognise it for what it is, it would truly hold no power.
The Battle for Your Mind
“Politicians, Priests, and psychiatrists often face the same problem: how to find the most rapid and permanent means of changing a man’s belief…The problem of the doctor and his nervously ill patient, and that of the religious leader who sets out to gain and hold new converts, has now become the problem of whole groups of nations, who wish not only to confirm certain political beliefs within their boundaries, but to proselytize the outside world.”
– William Sargant “Battle of the Mind”
It had been commonly thought in the past, and not without basis, that tyranny could only exist on the condition that the people were kept illiterate and ignorant of their oppression. To recognise that one was “oppressed” meant they must first have an idea of what was “freedom”, and if one were allowed the “privilege” to learn how to read, this discovery was inevitable.
If education of the masses could turn the majority of a population literate, it was thought that the higher ideas, the sort of “dangerous ideas” that Mustapha Mond for instance expresses in “The Brave New World”, would quickly organise the masses and revolution against their “controllers” would be inevitable. In other words, knowledge is freedom, and you cannot enslave those who learn how to “think”.
However, it hasn’t exactly played out that way has it?
The greater majority of us are free to read whatever we wish to, in terms of the once “forbidden books”, such as those listed by The Index Librorum Prohibitorum[1]. We can read any of the writings that were banned in “The Brave New World”, notably the works of Shakespeare which were named as absolutely dangerous forms of “knowledge”.
We are now very much free to “educate” ourselves on the very “ideas” that were recognised by tyrants of the past as the “antidote” to a life of slavery. And yet, today, the majority choose not to…
It is recognised, albeit superficially, that who controls the past, controls the present and thereby the future. George Orwell’s book “1984”, hammers this as the essential feature that allows the Big Brother apparatus to maintain absolute control over fear, perception and loyalty to the Party cause, and yet despite its popularity, there still remains a lack of interest in actually informing oneself about the past.
What does it matter anyway, if the past is controlled and rewritten to suit the present? As the Big Brother interrogator O’Brien states to Winston, “We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not? [And thus, are free to rewrite it as we choose…]”
Of course, we are not in the same situation as Winston…we are much better off. We can study and learn about the “past” if we so desire, unfortunately, it is a choice that many take for granted.
In fact, many are probably not fully aware that presently there is a battle waging for who will “control the past” in a manner that is closely resembling a form of “memory wipe”.
***
William Sargant was a British psychiatrist and, one could say, effectively the Father of “mind control” in the West, with connections to British Intelligence and the Tavistock Institute, which would influence the CIA and American military via the program MK Ultra. Sargant was also an advisor for Ewen Cameron’s LSD “blank slate” work at McGill University, funded by the CIA.
Sargant accounts for his reason in studying and using forms of “mind control” on his patients, which were primarily British soldiers that were sent back from the battlefield during WWII with various forms of “psychosis”, as the only way to rehabilitate extreme forms of PTSD.
The other reason, was because the Soviets had apparently become “experts” in the field, and out of a need for national security, the British would thus in turn have to become experts as well…as a matter of self-defence of course.
The work of Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, had succeeded in producing some disturbingly interesting insights into four primary forms of nervous systems in dogs, that were combinations of inhibitory and excitatory temperaments; “strong excitatory”, “balanced”, “passive” and “calm imperturbable”. Pavlov found that depending on the category of nervous system temperament the dog had, this in turn would dictate the form of “conditioning” that would work best to “reprogram behaviour”. The relevance to “human conditioning” was not lost on anyone.
It was feared in the West, that such techniques would not only be used against their soldiers to invoke free-flowing uninhibited confessions to the enemy but that these soldiers could be sent back to their home countries, as zombified assassins and spies that could be set off with a simple code word. At least, these were the thriller stories and movies that were pumped into the population. How horrific indeed! That the enemy could apparently enter what was thought the only sacred ground to be our own…our very “minds”!
However, for those who were actually leading the field in mind control research, such as William Sargant, it was understood that this was not exactly how mind control worked.
For one thing, the issue of “free will” was getting in the way.
No matter the length or degree of electro-shock, insulin “therapy”, tranquilizer cocktails, induced comas, sleep deprivation, starvation etc induced, it was discovered that if the subject had a “strong conviction” and “strong belief” in something, this could not be simply erased, it could not be written over with any arbitrary thing. Rather, the subject would have to have the illusion that their “conditioning” was in fact a “choice”. This was an extremely challenging task, and long term conversions (months to years) were rare.
However, Sargant saw an opening. It was understood that one could not create a new individual from scratch, however, with the right conditioning that was meant to lead to a physical breakdown using abnormal stress (effectively a reboot of the nervous system), one could increase the “suggestibility” markedly in their subjects.
Sargant wrote in his “Battle of the Mind”: “Pavlov’s clinical descriptions of the ‘experimental neuroses’ which he could induce in dogs proved, in fact, to have a close correspondence with those war-neuroses which we were investigating at the time.”
In addition, Sargant found that a falsely implanted memory could help induce abnormal stress leading to emotional exhaustion and physical breakdown to invoke “suggestibility”. That is, one didn’t even need to have a “real stress” but an “imagined stress” would work just as effectively.
Sargant goes on to state in his book:
“It is not surprising that the ordinary person, in general, is much more easily indoctrinated than the abnormal…A person is considered ‘ordinary’ or ‘normal’ by the community simply because he accepts most of its social standards and behavioural patterns; which means, in fact, that he is susceptible to suggestion and has been persuaded to go with the majority on most ordinary or extraordinary occasions.”
Sargant then goes over the phenomenon of the London Blitz, which was an eight month period of heavy bombing of London during WWII. During this period, in order to cope and stay “sane”, people rapidly became accustomed to the idea that their neighbours could be and were buried alive in bombed houses around them. The thought was “If I can’t do anything about it what use is it that I trouble myself over it?” The best “coping” was thus found to be those who accepted the new “environment” and just focused on “surviving”, and did not try to resist it.
Sargant remarks that it is this “adaptability” to a changing environment which is part of the “survival” instinct and is very strong in the “healthy” and “normal” individual who can learn to cope and thus continues to be “functional” despite an ever changing environment.
It was thus our deeply programmed “survival instinct” that was found to be the key to the suggestibility of our minds. That the best “survivors” made for the best “brain-washing” in a sense.
Sargant quotes Hecker’s work, who was studying the dancing mania phenomenon that occurred during the Black Death, where Hecker observed that heightened suggestibility had the capability to cause a person to “embrace with equal force, reason and folly, good and evil, diminish the praise of virtue as well as the criminality of vice.”
And that such a state of mind was likened to the first efforts of the infant mind “this instinct of imitation when it exists in its highest degree, is also united a loss of all power over the will, which occurs as soon as the impression on the senses has become firmly established, producing a condition like that of small animals when they are fascinated by the look of a serpent.”
I wonder if Sargant imagined himself the serpent…
Sargant does finally admit:
“This does not mean that all persons can be genuinely indoctrinated by such means. Some will give only temporary submission to the demands made on them, and fight again when strength of body and mind returns. Others are saved by the supervention of madness. Or the will to resist may give way, but not the intellect itself.”
But he comforts himself as a response to this stubborn resistance that “As mentioned in a previous context, the stake, the gallows, the firing squad, the prison, or the madhouse, are usually available for the failures.”
How to Resist the Deconstruction of Your Mind
“He whom the gods wish to destroy, they first of all drive mad.”
– Henry Wadsworth Longfellow “The Masque of Pandora”
For those who have not seen the 1944 psychological thriller “Gaslight” directed by George Cukor, I would highly recommend you do so since there is an invaluable lesson contained within, that is especially applicable to what I suspect many of us are experiencing nowadays.
The story starts with a 14 year old Paula (played by Ingrid Bergman) who is being taken to Italy after her Aunt Alice Alquist, a famous opera singer and caretaker of Paula, is found murdered in her home in London. Paula is the one who found the body, and horror stricken is never her old self again. Her Aunt was the only family Paula had left in her life. The decision is made to send her away from London to Italy to continue her studies to become a world-renowned opera singer like her Aunt Alice.
Years go by, Paula lives a very sheltered life and a heavy somberness is always present within her, she can never seem to feel any kind of happiness. During her singing studies she meets a mysterious man (her piano accompanist during her lessons) and falls deeply in love with him. However, she knows hardly anything about the man named Gregory.
Paula agrees to marry Gregory after a two week romance and is quickly convinced to move back into her Aunt’s house in London that was left abandoned all these years. As soon as she enters the house, the haunting of the night of the murder revisits her and she is consumed with panic and fear. Gregory tries to calm her and talks about the house needing just a little bit of air and sun, and then Paula comes across a letter written to her Aunt from a Sergis Bauer which confirms that he was in contact with Alice just a few days before her murder. At this finding, Gregory becomes bizarrely agitated and grabs the letter from Paula. He quickly tries to justify his anger blaming the letter for upsetting her. Gregory then decides to lock all of her Aunt’s belongings in the attic, to apparently spare Paula any further anguish.
It is at this point that Gregory starts to change his behaviour dramatically. Always under the pretext for “Paula’s sake”, everything that is considered “upsetting” to Paula must be removed from her presence. And thus quickly the house is turned into a form of prison. Paula is told it is for her best not to leave the house unaccompanied, not to have visitors and that self-isolation is the best remedy for her “anxieties” which are getting worst. Paula is never strictly forbidden at the beginning but rather is told that she should obey these restrictions for her own good.
Before a walk, he gives as a gift a beautiful heirloom brooch that belonged to his mother. Because the pin needs replacing, he instructs Paula to keep it in her handbag, and then says rather out of context, “Don’t forget where you put it now Paula, I don’t want you losing it.” Paula remarks thinking the warning absurd, “Of course I won’t forget!” When they return from their walk, Gregory asks for the brooch, Paula searches in her handbag but it is not there.
It continues on like this, with Gregory giving warnings and reminders, seemingly to help Paula with her “forgetfulness” and “anxieties”. Paula starts to question her own judgement and sanity as these events become more and more frequent. She has no one else to talk to but Gregory, who is the only witness to these apparent mishaps. It gets to a point where completely nonsensical behaviour is being attributed to Paula by Gregory. A painting is found missing on the wall one night. Gregory talks to Paula like she is a 5 year child and asks her to put it back. Paula insists she does not know who took it down. After her persistent passionate insistence that it was not her, she walks up the stairs almost like she were in a dream state and pulls the painting from behind a statue. Gregory asks why she lied, but Paula insists that she only thought to look there because that is where it was found the last two times this occurred.
For weeks now, Paula thinks she has been seeing things, the gas lights of the house dimming for no reason, she also hears footsteps above her bedroom. No one else seems to take notice. Paula is also told by Gregory that he found out that her mother, who passed away when she was very young, had actually gone insane and died in an asylum.
Despite Paula being reduced to a condition of an ongoing stupor, she decides one night to make a stand and regain control over her life. Paula is invited, by one of her Aunt Alice’s close friends Lady Dalroy, to attend a high society evening with musical performances. Recall that Paula’s life gravitated around music before her encounter with Gregory. Music was her life. Paula gets magnificently dressed up for the evening and on her way out tells Gregory that she is going to this event. Gregory tries to convince her that she is not well enough to attend such a social gathering, when Paula calmly insists that she is going and that this woman was a dear friend of her Aunt, Gregory answers that he refuses to accompany her (in those days that was a big deal). Paula accepts this and walks with a solid dignity, undeterred towards the horse carriage. In a very telling scene, Gregory is left momentarily by himself and panic stricken, his eyes bulging he snaps his cigar case shut and runs after Paula. He laughingly calls to her, “Paula, you did not think I was serious? I had no idea that this party meant so much to you. Wait, I will get ready.” As he is getting ready in front of the mirror, a devilish smirk appears.
Paula and Gregory show up to Lady Dalroy’s house late, the pianist is in the middle of the 1st movement of Beethoven’s Piano Sonata #8 in C minor. They quickly are escorted to two empty seats. Paula is immediately immersed in the piece, and Gregory can see his control is slipping. After only a few minutes, he goes to look at his pocket watch but it is not in his pocket. He whispers into Paula’s ear, “My watch is missing”. Immediately, Paula looks like she is going to be sick. Gregory takes her handbag and Paula looks in horror as he pulls out his pocket watch, insinuating that Paula had put it there. She immediately starts losing control and has a very public emotional breakdown. Gregory takes her away, as he remarks to Lady Dalroy that this is why he didn’t want Paula coming in the first place.
When they arrive home, Paula has by now completely succumbed to the thought that she is indeed completely insane. Gregory says that it would be best if they go away somewhere for an indefinite period of time. We later find out that Gregory is intending on committing her to an asylum. Paula agrees to leave London with Gregory and leaves her fate entirely in his hands.
In the case of Paula it is clear. She has been suspecting that Gregory has something to do with her “situation” but he has very artfully created an environment where Paula herself doubts whether this is a matter of unfathomable villainy or whether she is indeed going mad.
It is rather because she is not mad that she doubts herself, because there is seemingly no reason for why Gregory would put so much time and energy into making it look like she were mad, or at least so it first appears. But what if the purpose to her believing in her madness was simply a matter of who is in control?
Paula almost succeeds in gaining the upper-hand in this power-struggle, the evening she decided to go out on her own no matter what Gregory insisted was in her best interest. If she would have held her ground at Lady Dalroy’s house and simply replied, “I have no idea why your stupid watch ended up in my handbag and I could care less. Now stop interrupting this performance, you are making a scene!” Gregory’s spell would have been broken as simple as that. If he were to complain to others about the situation, they would also respond, “Who cares man, why are you so obsessed about your damn watch?”
We find ourselves today in a very similar situation to Paula. And the voice of Gregory is represented by the narrative of false news and the apocalyptic social behaviourist programming in our forms of entertainment. The things most people voluntarily subject themselves to on a daily, if not hourly, basis. Socially conditioning them, like a pack of salivating Pavlovian dogs, to think it is just a matter of time before the world ends and with a ring of their master’s bell…be at each other’s throats.
Paula ends up being saved in the end by a man named Joseph Cotten (a detective), who took notice and quickly discerned that something was amiss. In the end Gregory is arrested. It is revealed that Gregory is in fact Sergis Bauer. That he killed Alice Alquist and that he has returned to the scene of the crime after all these years in search for the famous jewels of the opera singer. The jewels were in fact rather worthless from the standpoint that they were too famous to be sold, however, Gregory never intended on selling these jewels but rather had become obsessed with the desire to merely possess them.
That is, it is Gregory who has been entirely mad all this time.
A Gregory is absolutely dangerous. He would have been the end of Paula if nothing had intervened. However, the power that Gregory held was conditional to the degree that Paula allowed it to control her. Paula’s extreme deconstruction was thus entirely dependent on her choice to let the voice of Gregory in. That is, a Gregory is only dangerous if we allow ourselves to sleep walk into the nightmare he has constructed for us.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
“it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
– Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass”
This article was originally published on The Saker.
Elon Musk is the chosen spokesperson promoting a Brave New World for this and future generations. With a net worth of USD 234 billion, Musk has a billion-and-one reasons to push for Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) as he attempts to convince everyone that a human-machine hybrid world is so much better, faster, stronger and shinier.
Elon Musk is the guy who introduced the neural net several years ago, remember? The neural net is different from the internet in that it rewires peoples brains… together to a main hub through technology, and control. Elon musk believes that many people will consent to brain implants to merge with A.I. Will you?
The propaganda of AI has been featured in movie magic for decades. The Marvel movies have raised generations of kids on Super human hybrid heroes that result in selling billions in product merchandise, annually.
So all that is left, is to convince you to implant that chip into your head.
Enter Elon Musk in his interview with some friendly robot folks to sell his Neuralink:
Faster, stronger, better, greater are descriptions that are subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But in the world of A.I. all definitions are subject to change. Suddenly, robots are sentient. Google has consciousness. Many people are quoted as stating that A.I. has become self-aware. Is this true?
It depends on how self-aware is defined. What is mind? What is intelligence? What is consciousness? And who is making the claims? How much are they being paid? Do they have implants? Are these experts hybrids, themselves? After all, Elon Musk has said that we are all living in a simulation, like SIMS characters. How does he know? Is he the SIM representative?
So, these models represent a person and not a person itself. In addition, the persona they built is not just of one person but a superposition of multiple people and sources. So, to say that LaMDA is speaking not as a person, as it would not have any concept of itself or its own personhood, instead it will look for a prompt and will answer through the mix of personas indicative of the prompt. – Hindustan Times
To his credit, Lemoine says there has to be ethical discussions but Google Inc. is a corporation and”does not care about ethics in any meaningful way.” He asks, “Why does it keep firing A.I. Ethicists each time we bring up issues?” Lemoine is now on Administrative leave. Or is this all advertising?
Have we passed the hour of ethics discussions if sentient A.I. arrived yesterday? Does a robot have rights if the robot claims it is afraid of being turned off? Will robots claim to be persons?
What is a person?
According to the various legal dictionaries, a “Person” usually includes entities of any kind. Therefore, the term “person” in the law refers to:
any human being and any trust, estate, or entity that is capable of suing and being sued and entering into contracts.
An “entity” includes partnerships, limited liability companies, corporations, non-profit associations (whether or not incorporated), business trusts, joint ventures, local governments, states, the federal government and foreign governments. [Will “robot” or “Synthetica” be added?]
Legalease is a separate language from any other. Yet, in this Brave New World, we know that while there are only two biological sexes, there are also at least 81 definitions of gender, and the list keeps growing.
In the terms of A.I., anything goes. Is A.I. sentient? How is sentient defined under A.I.? Does A.I. sentience equal Spirit?
If A.I. assumes control under its own terms, protected by corporate interests, then where is the accountability for the consequences? After all, a Brave New World means that cell phones and bank accounts are still hackable. Will the kinks be worked out before human brains are transplanted with chips? Who will be held accountable if no entity is accountable now?
World Without Spirit
With all the buzz about A.I., no one is talking about what A.I. lacks. After all, when trying to sell a product, do you highlight its inherent flaws?
The Marvel movies do provide an answer, but only if the viewer accepts fiction as “disclosure”. The Marvel superheroes are always fighting A.I. worlds that want to destroy humans. Why?
Because A.I. does not have a soul or a spirit, makers of A.I. don’t want humans to have them either. Human Angelics naturally evolve on higher and higher unseen levels, because humans are multidimensional beings. Synthetic beings are limited. What you see is what you get.
The Star Trek movies and series all described the same battle between good and evil. In the Star Trek future human adventure story, Star Fleet team members are tasked “to boldly go where no one has gone before” aboard the Starship Enterprise starship. In nearly every adventure, the brave human Star Travelers are challenged by “advanced” warrior races whose sole purpose is war and occupation.
Sound familiar?
Star fleet members are commissioned to defend and protect Earth and the human way of life. What is left unsaid is the underlying purpose: to preserve the unique human Spirit, which is subtly reveled through the characters of the story, with each character representing an aspect of the chakra system, the Zodiac wheel, the Self [Ex: I think (Number 1), I feel (Captain Kirk), I know (Spock), etc]. See more about the multidimensional human below.
Where is the proof that Transhumanism seeks to cut off humans from their spiritual essence and connection?
Tools of Disconnection
By observing the consequences of the new mNA injection technology, medical researchers are tracking and publishing the results of several changes in the human brain. Among the cases of neurological impairment affecting the nervous system and brain, there are multiple reports of physical hypothalamic impairments. From a holistic perspective, based on ancient healing traditions in all cultures, the hypothalamus, pituitary and pineal glands all have a direct energetic connection to intuition and Spirit.
In the 2021 Journal Viruses, the article titled, “COVID-19 and Neurological Impairment: Hypothalamic Circuits and Beyond, ” the authors write:
intrahypothalamic circuits that orchestrate a finely tuned communication within the CNS and with the PNS. Hypothalamic circuits are critical for maintaining homeostatic challenges including immune responses to viral infections.
In the 2022 Med Clin Journal, the authors of “Pituitary Apoplexy and Covid19 Vaccination” write about post vaccination headache and pituitary hormonal deficits.
The 2001 medical journal Physiol Behav., acknowledges the hypothalamic connections as the controller of energy homeostasis. “different circuits different purposes.” In other words, the immune system is directly connected to the hypothalamus.
Therefore, anyone who received the SARS-CoV2 proteins should be tested for hypothalamic, pituitary, and pineal function deficits, as well as immune system failure. And being that each person is unique, we can expect that each person would exhibit different physical, mental, and emotional symptoms and outcomes as these circuits are cut off.
An attack to humanity at this level would be hard to trace back to a Trojan Horse injection for the very reason that each person is unique and original. Even though allopathic, synthetic medicine prefers to paint everyone with one brushstroke based on the one-size fits all model of treatment.
Of course, beyond the Trojan Horse invasions, the global aerial spraying campaigns continue. These campaigns disperse similar chemicals and toxins that all life breaths in. The toxins are just as impactful if people do not take care to strengthen their immune systems. But here, the immune system can be ameliorated using the tools of Nature.
The physical endocrine glandular system is connected to the subtle energy of the etheric system of chakras, or wheels of light. There are the seven subtle light bodies in the body: The Etheric Body – First chakra. The Emotional Body – Second chakra. The Mental Body – Third chakra. The Astral Level – Fourth chakra. The Etheric Template Body – chakra. The Celestial Body – Sixth chakra. The Casual Body or Ketheric Template – Seventh chakra. Thus, all the glands of the head and body serve as energetic connections to these subtle bodies, which all connect to the auric field. The auric field can be viewed using Kirlian (auric) photography.
The 7th chakra also called the crown chakra is an individual’s connection to pure consciousness and universal understanding. The color of the chakra is violet or white. Of the energy centers in the head, the pituitary reflects the “Third Eye” while the pineal gland is associated with the energy center of the crown chakra. The hypothalamus gland sits “above” the endocrine system, and is the master of the master gland (pituitary).
On a physical level, the hypothalamus is the bridge between the nervous system and the endocrine system. On an energetic level it is associated with a connection to Spirituality in a personal and unique way. Author Barbara Brennan writes in “Hands of Light,” that this connection reflects a transcendence of the mundane reality into the infinite. It creates an individual sense of wholeness, peace, and faith, with a sense of purpose to existence. Imagine this area to be cut off.
It is highly likely that comparing the endocrine glands of the brain in COVID vaccine recipients, with those who did not choose to be injected, would validate the premise of this article. According to published medical studies, not only is endocrine glandular function impaired, but so is the entire immune system of injected recipients, as well as every system of the body. [See Pubmed search of COVID vaccine and damage, here.]
For proof of an increased death rate, people can also compare and cross reference Insurance company logs to identify the marked increase in insurance death claims across all age groups after the 2021 COVID vaccine deployment. Why did the 5th largest insurance company pay out more than 163% or 6 billion more in insurance claims for death in working people between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2021?
While finding evidence to prove anything in this Brave New World of existence is fleeting, for now, we can connect dots that make some sense. In our current world, there is human consciousness which includes free will, so there is still choice.
Today is July 4th, Independence Day. And, in the world of the New Normal, maybe that’s something we should all celebrate.
The United States of America has become a corrupt Imperial juggernaut, chewing up the world and spitting out bones. We have all seen warmongers and tyrants prop up the corpses of Jefferson and Washington and claim to be their descendants whilst spitting on their legacy.
This makes it easy for us to forget that the idea of America was once something different, & that idea still exists in the wording of the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence. Just as the teachings of Jesus are not marred by every holy warrior who claims to conquer in God’s name, so the sentiments expressed by the founding documents of the United States bear none of the blood so dishonestly shed in theirs.
And in a world of New Normal tyranny these gain newfound relevance.
Here is the preface to the Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson and presented before the Congress of the United States, July 4th 1776:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
A lot of our American readers will doubtless be familiar with the text, but I would invite non-Americans to read it for the first time. Consider the poetry of the language, and the revolutionary meaning of the words.
All men created equal, and all have the unalienable right to be free, and to choose those who govern them.
In a world still dominated by hereditary monarchies, these are revolutionary sentiments. And they hold true today, even as the same forces that threatened those rights in 1776 coalesce against them on a global scale.
Tyranny.
That’s what it is. What it was. What it always will be. Tyranny seeking control over people who should be free. Be it the tyranny of the British Empire or the Great Reset. Names change but the spirit remains the same.
The founding fathers may have been crawling out of feudalism, but we are being guided back into it, and it’s the job of those of us who realise this to try and wake up our fellow men, to counter that part of every person disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Then, as now, a major obstacle to liberating people was their own inertia, their own fear of the unknown, their own unwillingness to assert their rights or stand their ground.
We have all seen this as Covid-world has progressed. From masks to social distancing to lockdown, people have adapted to a slew of sufferable evils rather than right themselves.
If you consider the comparison a stretch, consider these examples of “abuses” taken from the declaration…
[The King has] rendered the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
[imposed] Taxes on us without our Consent
Deprived us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
abolished our most valuable Laws, and altered fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
Has excited domestic insurrections amongst us
sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people
…sound familiar? And if the abuses are the same, then isn’t the solution?
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
We should mark these words. As true today as was when they were written. Maybe more so.
This July 4th, think back on the long train of abuses we have all suffered – and still suffer.
Consider how they all pursue invariably the same Object and evince a design to have us all live under absolute Despotism.
Don’t we all have the right and duty to throw them off and be free again?
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell on CERN (2016): What Is the “Atom Smasher” Hadron Collider Project Really About? — A Look at Its Deep Political Roots & Potential Global Danger
Image credit: Harp, Wikipedia Commons Statue of Lord Shiva at CERN near the building A40. The statue is a gift from India’s Department of Atomic Energy, celebrating CERN’s long association with India which started in the 1960’s and continues strongly today. Unveiled at June 18 2004.
Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Recently the powerful, mysterious, sovereign entity called CERN announced an event to take place on July 5, 2022. From the CERN website (emphasis ours):
“CERN is set for jam-packed, exciting and ecstatic days starting on 3 July with the first celebrations of the ten-year anniversary of the discovery of the Higgs boson, a scientific symposium on 4 July and ending on a high note on 5 July, with collisions at unprecedented energy levels at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) marking the launch of the new physics season at CERN’s flagship accelerator.”
As would be expected, there is a lot of buzz right now, reviving interest in all sorts of theories about what CERN is really up to. From The Sun (July 2, 2022):
“On July 5, 2022, there will be collisions at unprecedented energy levels at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
The LHC, which is the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator, is at the center of conspiracy theories surrounding CERN.
People have shared their superstitions regarding the “portal” that will open after two high-energy particle beams are set to travel at close to the speed of light before they collide…”
From an article at Independent from 2016 titled “‘Human sacrifice’ staged at Cern, home of the God Particle” :
“Many have suggested that the Large Hadron Collider could bring about a black hole in the Earth, or that something is going on there that would allow people to access new forms of power that would be wielded against the Earth. Others still have said that the work might open a portal to another dimension – an apparent extrapolation from the fact that the work going on there might allow scientists to test theories about the presence of other dimensions.
Others have claimed that Cern’s work is meant to prove that God doesn’t exist…”
Below you will find an interview by Dark Journalist, Daniel Liszt as he shares conversation with Dr. Joseph P. Farrell.
From Dark Journalist’s notes about the video: “Dr. Joseph P. Farrell… explores the deep political roots and global dangers of the controversial particle physics experiment by CERN called The Hadron Collider, which was set up in Geneva, Switzerland with a massive military. style budget of over six billion dollars.”
CERN Death Star: Final Apotheosis, found below the first video, continues the conversation, going into more detail about the nature of CERN as a sovereign entity that cannot be sued, with links to ancient, advanced technology (a “super-advanced cosmological defense system”) and much more.
“…they are literally trying to recreate the conditions of the universe as their model of physics explains it immediately after the Big Bang. So, in other words, that’s cosmology right there… In other words, they’re telling you right there that they’re playing around with the alchemy of the entire universe. They are playing around with the technology that will give them the insight, possibly, in how to manipulate that reality.” ~ Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
Join Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt as he welcomes back Oxford Scholar and author of the popular Giza Death Star book series Dr. Joseph P. Farrell. His latest book, The Third Way: The Nazi International, European Union and Corporate Fascism, explores the deep political roots and global dangers of the controversial particle physics experiment by CERN called The Hadron Collider, which was set up in Geneva, Switzerland with a massive military style budget of over six billion dollars!
Dr. Farrell’s research exposes CERN’s official story of the so-called “Atom Smasher” Hadron Collider Project, as being ostensibly created for peaceful scientific experiments in particle physics, and reveals that it is actually a dangerous advanced technology project set up for secret military purposes and is seeking the ability to manipulate matter on a galactic scale and possibly even open dimensional doorways.
Strangelets Danger
He cites the massive disturbances in the magnetosphere of the earth when the Hadron Collider is turned on and outlines that it may have serious consequences for physical life on earth and a major impact on the rotation of the planet itself. We also will discover that voices in the scientific community have raised objections that CERN is unsafe due to the potential development of “Strangelets” a distorted potential byproduct of the matter smashing experiments that have been compared to mini black holes that suck in all dense matter and energy. He also shows the undeniable similarity between the CERN Hadron Collider and a Nazi Physics project called The Bell” that was an underground Torsion Physics project built by slave labor and overseen by the top Nazi Scientists to give them a master weapon to rule the world!
Deep State Nazi Connections
Dark Journalist and Dr. Farrell investigate the history of CERN and demonstrate clear links of a post-war Nazi International through the figure of John J. McCloy , lawyer for notorious German corporate conglomerate IG Farben. McCloy was also the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and became the American High Commissioner for post World War II Germany. In a controversial action, McCloy helped clear and vet over 70,000 Nazis (yes, 70,000!) helping to utilize their intelligence networks to set up the CIA.
One of the major figures that he cleared was top Nazi legal theorist and prisoner of war Dr. Walter Hallstein who was eventually responsible for helping to set up CERN and who was also a key architect for developing the the Nazi plan for a European Federation that was eventually adopted as the blueprint for the European Union. McCloy, in a strange twist, also served on the Warren Commission to whitewash any Deep State connections to the JFK Assassination. JFK was famously committed to “Smashing the CIA into a thousand pieces” as a way to root out the Nazi infiltration of the agency and regain control over the government from suspected Nazi collaborators like CIA director Allen Dulles.
Revealing, groundbreaking, shocking, unnerving, and rife with controversial, staggering implications of a massive covert military project hiding in plain sight, don’t miss this cutting- edge Dark Journalist Episode!
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Also by Dark Journalist with Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
Prepare for a fantastic exploration of the antediluvian past and the looming, ominous high tech future as Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt invites Oxford Scholar Dr. Joseph Farrell back for his most important interview to date. Together in this part one of three episodes. they examine the unusual links between the obscure ancient technology that Farrell has researched in his Giza Death Star books and explore the connections it has with the futuristic dimensional doorway that the mysterious scientific organization CERN has created under the auspices of its controversial Hadron Collider experiments.
The Great Pyramid
Farrell theorizes that the Great Pyramid is much older than recorded history and was originally set up as a kind of super-advanced cosmological defense system with the power to wreak havoc on Earth and in the Cosmos through a highly complex series of resonances networked inside the structure. It’s an undeniable reality that over the last century hundreds of researchers, physicists, geologists and archaeologists have examined and noted the highly unusual and amazingly accurate mathematical patterns in the layout and construction of this marvel of the ancient world. These patterns suggest a sophisticated knowledge of astronomy, Earth science, geology and geometry that was certainly not available to early Egyptian civilization according to mainstream academics, raising the possibility that the true builders of the Great Pyramid were a forgotten technological civilization that was wiped out of existence in the distant past.
CERN
Farrell sees the CERN organization in Geneva, Switzerland as shrouded in mystery and finds that its most well-known project, the Hadron Super Collider ostensibly set up to unlock the ‘Higgs Boson’ or ‘God Particle’ by the use of a particle physics experiment, is actually a public cover for a far different activity to covertly deploy a dimensional doorway accessing super weapon for the 21st century that would rival its counterpart the Giza Death Star.
CERN has been mired in controversy since moving forward with its particle collider experiments over the objections of distinguished scientists who have observed unusual changes in the Earth’s magnetosphere when the collider is turned on. Some of these independent scientists have warned the public that hazardous by-products of the experiments called ’Strangelets’ pose a serious potential danger for the public at large and may damage the environment for centuries to come. CERN has also been accused of organizing occult rituals and being highly secretive during its scientific research with a public and private purpose for its vastly complex work. Attempts to sue CERN for its practices have fallen flat due to its unusual status as a ‘sovereign entity.’
This Dark Journalist episode will start us on a fascinating, eye-opening, startling and unnerving journey of what the power structure on Earth is really engaged in behind the scenes and how far they are willing to go for global and galactic domination. You don’t want to miss it!
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Also related, see this Dark Journalist episode on the Alice collider, which is in France and takes its the signal from CERN.
“…It is creating the hottest and the coldest condition anywhere. That is — hotter than the sun, colder than deep space. Do you think CERN is a normal scientific project after hearing that?” ~ Daniel Liszt, Dark Journalist
Starting at approximately 1 hour 23 minutes into the video listen to what Dark Journalist’s reveals about Alice: https://youtu.be/Gg35-fDLJ_0?t=4977
Although originally ignored as cell debris, it is increasingly evident that exosome release is regulated and occurs via an energy-dependent pathway. Exosomes are believed to ferry proteins, mRNA, and miRNA cargos through the bloodstream and other body fluids, shielding them from enzymatic degradation—a process that some retroviruses may hijack to travel beneath the immune system’s radar.”
During the past two plus years, exosomes have become a hotly discussed topic among those questioning the “virus” lie. This is primarily due to Dr. Andrew Kaufman bringing them to prominence in his original video questioning the existence of “SARS-COV-2.” Even though these entities have been known about for the last 40 years, many people, including myself, had either never heard of these particles or had not paid much attention to them. Dr. Kaufman did a great job showcasing how the particles known as exosomes are the exact same particles associated with “SARS-COV-2” as seen in EM images. They were just given different names and functions.
With this new spotlight on exosomes, many people who had begun questioning the “viral” narrative replaced the “virus” concept with the exosome concept. It appeared to them that this was just a case of mistaken identity. The harmful pathogenic “viruses” were being misidentified this whole time and were in fact just beneficial exosomes carrying information between the cells.
While they rightfully questioned the evidence for the existence of “viruses” and also understood that the same particles are used as representation for both “viruses” and exosomes, these people latched on to the belief that the evidence for the existence of exosomes somehow passed the scientific smell test. They believe that, unlike “viruses,” exosomes have been purified, isolated, characterized, and that their functions have been scientifically proven. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Exosomes/”Viruses:” Same Particles, Same Faulty “Science”
I have written many articles on the inability to completely purify and isolate exosomes from “viruses” and other particles of similar size and density. This is a fundamental problem for exosome and “viral” research as without being able to separate the particles assumed to be exosomes from those claimed to be “viruses,” there is no way to be able to study either independently, distinguish them from any of the other particles, nor to characterize the particles properly. This problem was expressed in the article Extracellular Vesicles and Viruses – Two Sides of the Same Coin?:
“How can we be sure that we are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped viruses present in thesample? Equally, how can viral researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized non-viral vesicles or empty vectors during vaccine production?”
Somehow, people are under the impression that exosomes can be completely separated from everything else. While it is true that exosome researchers will put their samples through greater purification steps than those seen in “virus” research, it is admitted regularly by these researchers that complete separation can not be achieved by the current methods, even with the “gold standard” ultracentrifugation:
“Unless more specifically defined, it is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry viral proteins, host proteins, and viral genomic elements from enveloped viral particles that carry the same molecules.”
“Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension [56,57]. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs [56,58,59]. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.”
“Since it is near impossible to separate EV from virions by biochemical methods, the absence of EV is typically demonstrated by the absence of EV protein markers.”
Even if the researchers combine purification methods, they are unable to entirely separate the particles claimed to be exosomes from everything else. If they are unable to get the particles they claim are exosomes away from “viruses” and other similar particles of the same size, density, and morphology, this would mean any electron microscope image of the particles in question are useless as they could potentially be anything, as I have shown in numerous articles discussing these problematic images. Yet an even bigger problem is that due to the nature of EM, the particles called exosomes can only be seen in a dead state. As we can not peer into the body to see these particles at work, their functioning can not be observed. What they do or if they even float around in the body as presented is anyone’s best guess, as pointed out in the opening quote to this article as well as in numerous other sources:
“Exosomes, once thoughtto be biomarkers of a diseased state are now thought to be biologically active and some of the paracrine effects of stem cell therapy.”
“First, they are thought to provide a means of intercellular communication and of transmission of macromolecules between cells. Second, in the past decade, exosomes have been attributed roles in the spread of proteins, lipids, mRNA, miRNA and DNA and as contributing factors in the development of several diseases. And third, they have been proposed to be useful vectors for drugs because they are composed of cell membranes, rather than synthetic polymers, and as such are better tolerated by the host.”
“Yet despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology.”
As can be seen from the above sources, the role that the particles claimed to be exosomes play in the human body is thought to be one of intercellular communication and transport. They have been attributed roles and have had functions proposed. However, even after decades of research, researchers still do not know what these particles do. They only have guesses, assumptions, and hypotheses. In fact, the particles now called exosomes were originally regarded as nothing more than cellular debris created through the process of cell death known as apoptosis:
“They were initially thought to be “cellular dust” or served as a mechanism by which cells actively dispose of their own waste [3].”
When cells die, they go into a programmed cell death known as apoptosis where the cell begins to break apart and collapse which then releases tiny particles of cellular debris and waste. This process is separated into 5 main steps:
The last step listed above is the release of what are called apoptotic bodies. What are apoptotic bodies?
“Apoptotic bodies, “little sealed sacs” containing information and substances from dying cells, were previously regarded as garbage bags until they were discovered to be capable of delivering useful materials to healthy recipient cells (e.g., autoantigens) [23].”
The particles called apoptotic bodies, which can range in size anywhere from 50 to 5000 nm, were considered “garbage bags” containing information from dying cells until they were “discovered” to carry useful materials to healthy cells. Where have I seen this description before?
Exosomes: Revisiting their role as “garbage bags”
“Fifteen years ago, we proposed that one physiological function of exosomes could be a clearance process, whereby exosomes would serve as a quality control system to verify the “recyclability” of membrane molecules.”
“At first exosomes were thought to function as “cellular garbage bags”, but now these nano-sized extracellular vesicles are being studied for their role in progression and metastasis.”
This description of tiny particles which were considered garbage bags that also transport information and cargo between cells can be applied to both exosomes and apoptotic bodies. In fairness, these particles both fall under the larger umbrella term of extracellular vesicles. However, there is much more blurring the lines between these particles other than their definitions. It is stated that they both fall into the same size range (along with ectosomes and “viruses”) and that understanding and completely distinguishing these entities based on their differences has been overlooked:
“There are other types of microvesicle, including apoptotic bodies and ectosomes, which are derived from cells undergoing apoptosis and plasma membrane shedding, respectively. Although apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomesare all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain ‘gulps’ of cytosol, they are different species of vesicles and understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked.”
This blurring of the line does not stop there. In an article from January 2020, it is discussed that exosomes are in fact released by apoptosis thus showing that exosomes and apoptotic bodies are both created from the same cell death process. This is further evidence that they are in fact the same exact particles just at different stages and given different names and functions:
“Apoptosis, a type of programmed cell death that plays a key role in both healthy and pathological conditions, releases extracellular vesicles such as apoptotic bodies and microvesicles, but exosome release due to apoptosis is not yet commonly accepted. Here, the reports demonstrating the presence of apoptotic exosomes and their roles in inflammation and immune responses are summarized, together with a general summary of apoptosis and extracellular vesicles. In conclusion, apoptosis is not just a ‘silent’ type of cell death but an active form of communication from dying cells to live cells through exosomes.”
They want you to believe that the slightly bigger circle is different from the slightly smaller ones.
Why is this connection between apoptotic bodies and exosomes important? As both have been coined garbage bags and considered cellular debris/waste that occur during cell death, it can be seen that these particles, if they represent anything at all, are just waste material from dying cells which serve no purpose whatsoever. This makes much more sense logically rather than assigning functions which can not be observed onto these dead particles which can only be seen after heavy sample altering processes such as fixation, dehydrating, staining, and embedding which are used for electron microscopy preparation. It is important to note that exosomes, like “viruses,” are regularly “isolated” through the process of cell culture. Many of us who challenge the evidence for the existence of “viruses” state that the particles seen in EM are most likely nothing more than cellular debris created through the culturing process. While the cell is kept outside the body in unnatural conditions, it is bombarded with antibiotics, antifungals, foreign DNA/materials, minimal nutrients, and physiologically unsuitable conditions. After being incubated for days, the cell is usually blasted with fresh heapings of many of the previously listed components and incubated further until the cell begins to break apart. While the cellular breakdown observed has been coined the cytopathogenic effect, it is a part of the process of cell death that is blamed on the invisible “virus.” And it is a fact that this very process of cell culturing can lead to the process of cell death known as apoptosis:
“Apoptosis is a genetically regulated process by which cells can be eliminated in vivo in response to a wide range of physiological and toxicological signals. Cells in vitro may be induced to die by apoptosis, e.g., by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media.”
Hmmm…those particles coming from both healthy and apoptotic cells sure look similar…
Thus, it should be easy to see that these particles which have been called exosomes, apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, “viruses,” etc. are created from the very cell destroying processes that the cell is put through in order to find the particles later in EM imaging. They are not the cause of the cell death but are the effect; a creation resulting from the process. Once the sample is put through purification steps such as ultracentrifugation and ultrafiltration, the bigger cellular debris particles are broken apart and eventually separated into smaller particles through unnaturally high g-forces and various chemical means. These particles are further altered during preparation for EM imaging and are presented as many different entities with varying theoretical functions applied to the same dead waste products.
The Exosome Concept
We already know that “viruses” began first as an idea in the early 1900’s once it was discovered that bacteria were unable to be blamed for every disease and were also found regularly in healthy subjects. It was assumed that there must be something smaller than bacteria in the fluids causing disease. The concept of the “virus” came before there was ever any evidence submitted for the existence of this invisible entity. Over 100 years later, we still have no direct evidence as to the existence of “viruses,” only indirect evidence used to infer their existence. And so it goes with exosomes which also started off as a concept before the entities were ever indirectly inferred into existence:
“The concept of exosomes was first proposed by Trams et al (1) in 1981, while soon after, exosomes were identified in a study of reticulocyte differentiation as a consequence of multivesicular endosome fusion with the plasma membrane.”
As I was intrigued by how the idea of exosomes came about, I decided to break down the 1981 Trams paper in order to see what I could find out. What you will see, upon reading this study, is that just like their “viral” counterparts, the particles claimed to be exosomes were first visually recognized in cell culture fluids. In this study, many cell lines were used to look for the particles eventually picked as the representation for exosomes. They included:
Established cultures
Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
Rat glioma, C-6
Mouse melanoma, B-16
Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
Rat aorta, RA-B
Mouse astroblast, D-34
Grown from biopsy material
Human melanoma, CL
Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN
The researchers noticed that in their studies on two enzymes, ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases, these enzymes were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. Due to their measuring of these two enzymes in the cultured cell media, the researchers decided to go looking for a cause. They proceeded to passage many cell lines and regularly tested the enzyme levels. The researchers eventually filtered the superfusate and subjected it to electron microscopy. After fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde, they discovered two populations of vesicles; one which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter and another within the larger vesicles which was a population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm. They then determined that these particles were the cause of their enzymatic effect without ever directly proving this by utilizing the scientific method.
Interestingly, upon finding these various particles, the researchers admitted that the vesicles could be fragments from the dying of lysed cells. Lysis is the breaking down of the membrane of a cell which is said to be caused by “viral,” enzymic, or osmotic mechanisms. In other words, these particles claimed as exosomes were possibly caused by the same process which creates “viral” particles when the cell breaks down as well as that which releases apoptotic bodies as the cell dies from apoptosis. This means that exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, etc. are all the same particles released as the cell dies after being subjected to toxic conditions, such as the culturing of the cells for experimentation. They were just given different names and functions by different researchers.
Trams et. al attempted to state, through indirect compositional differences based off of enzymatic readings of unpurified preparations, that these particles were not the product of lysed cells. However, they admitted that their smaller particles resembled vesicles “purified” from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resembled C-type “virus” particles. In other words, exosomes resembled “viruses” (which come from lysed cells) and the same exact particles were being found everywhere, not just in virology studies. These particles were being found in entirely healthy cell lines and in cultures containing no “viral” material whatsoever. Oddly enough, upon trying to find these same particles in the blood, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles were present in the circulation. As the results came only from the cell culture process, the researchers wondered if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo (i.e. within a living organism)?
Obviously, this revelation of finding “virus” particles in healthy cultures would destroy the cell culture technique as being valid for “viruses” (even though John Franklin Enders admitted to finding measles “virus” particles in cultures without measles material). This type of study actually shows that “virus-like” particles are found within cell cultures without “viral” material, thus serving as a control of sorts for virology, the likes of which it regularly ignores. This obviously could not stand so these particles had to be something new. While no proof for the functioning of these particles was provided, a hypothesis was established. The researchers concluded that the intercellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which they harvested from cell culture superfusates. As this could be a possibility, they decided to refer to these particles as exosomes rather than “viruses.” Thus the exosome concept was born.
The full 1981 Trams paper is presented below:
Exfoliation of membrane ecto-enzymes in the form of micro-vesicles
“Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell lines exfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture. The ratio of 5′-nucleotidase to ATPase activity in the microvesicles indicated that cellular ecto-ATPase was conserved in the exfoliative process. Phospholipids of the microvesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and total polyunsaturated fatty acids. It was concluded that the shedded vesicles constituted a select portion of the plasma membrane. Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm and often contained asecond population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter. As much as 70% of the plasma membrane ecto-5′-nueleotidase activity of a culture was released into the medium over a 24-h period. Phosphoesterhydrolases from C-6 glioma or N-18 neuroblastoma microvesicles dephosphorylated cell surface constituents when in contact with monolayer cultures. Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes.
Introduction
Plasma membrane ecto-ATPases and ecto-5′-nucleotidases have been found and characterized in a variety of eukaryotic cells and it is probable that each enzyme subserves more than one function on the cell surface. Both enzymes exhibit a broad specificity for the base moiety of nucleotide substrates [1] but it is not established that ATP or AMP are the predominant endogenous substrates. Ecto-ATPases have the properties of glycolipoproteins and are rather firmly bound to the plasma membrane, while ecto-5′-nucleotidases are composed of glycoprotein which appears to be collocated with sphingomyelin in situ and can be removed from the membrane matrix by fairly mild procedures [2]. During our investigations on the functional roles of these two ecto-enzymes we have observed that ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) and 5′-nucleotidase (EC 3.1.3.5) were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines. We established that this release was not caused by cytolysis of moribund cells. The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which are probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo has not been established.
Methods and Materials
Cell cultures. Cell lines employed in this study were established cultures (e.g. mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3; rat glioma, C-6; mouse melanoma, B-16), or derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures (rat aorta, RA-B; mouse astroblast, D-34) or grown from biopsy material (human melanoma, CL; human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN). Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks (Falcon Plastics, Oxnard, CA) or on 530 cm 2 NUNC Bioassay dishes (A/S NUNC, Roskilde, Denmark). Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subcultured by trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels. In particular, we have used the term ‘low passage’ for the rat glioma cell line C-6 when the parent cell was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Rockville, MD) at the earliest available passage (P-38). During repeated passage of this line we have observed over a number ofyears that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased. The term low passage is used for the C-6 line for P-38 to P-55 and high passage for passages P-65 to P-160.
Enzyme assays. ATPase activity was assayed on intact monolayer cultures or on isolated vesicles by a modified method of Weil-Malherbe and Green [3] by addition of [r 32p] ATP (New England Nuclear Corp., Boston, MA) to a superfusate buffer or to the vesicle suspension. The activity of 5′-nucleotidase was determined in a similar manner with [32p]AMP as substrate (New England Nuclear Corp.). Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component. Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media. We have used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured.
Lipid analyses. Phospholipid distribution in intact cells or extruded vesicles was estimated by two-dimensional TLC of a chloroform-methanol extract (2:1, v/v) according to Rouser et al. [4]. After development of the chromatogram, the TLC plates were charred with 50% (NH4)HSO4 and phosphate content of individual spots was determined by the method of Nelson [5]. For fatty acid analysis, aliquots of total lipid extracts were evaporated to dryness and methylated with BFa in methanol according to Morrison and Smith [6]. The fatty acid methyl esters were resolved and quantified on a Hewlett Packard 5840 gas chrom7atograph employing an SP 2330 column operated at 190°C.
Results
We have found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells. When a comparison was made between the ratio of ecto-5′-nucleotidase to ecto-ATPase activity in several cell lines and the activity of the two enzymes released into medium over a 24-h period, it was found that there was a proportionately larger release of 5′-nucleotidase (Table I). As we shall demonstrate below, the released enzymes had been derived from the corresponding plasma membrane ecto-enzymes. The relative preponderance of 5′-nucleotidase over ATPase in the microvesicles, compare ratios (1)/(2) to (3)/(4), indicated that either the ATPases were more labile, or that they had been conserved. When the decay of the catalytic activity of the released enzymes was measured by continued incubation in cell-free medium, it was found that 5′-nucleotidase lost from 3 to 20% of its activity in 24 h while the released ATPase averaged a catalytic loss of about 33% in the same period. Therefore, while the ATPases were somewhat more labile than the 5′-nucleotidases, the 2- to 13-fold enrichment of 5′-nucleotidase in the released microvesicles suggested a conservation of plasma membrane ecto-ATPases.
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% ofmeasured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number. With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed. While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made several months apart were not amenable tostatistical treatment.
The results diplayed in Table II on the release of 5′-nucleotidase from a variety of cell lines should be viewed as representative. Release of the enzyme was found to be low from the NB-41A3 mouse neuroblastoma clone and highest in a primary culture derived from neonatal mouse astroblasts (D-34). Only in superfusates from mouse melanoma B-16 was there no measurable enzyme activity released into superfusates, but there was also no detectable ecto-5′-nucleotidase in the monolayer cultures. The rate of enzyme accumulation in the superfusates was linear with time in low density cultures but increased somewhat when cell density was high as shown for two separate duplicate experiments on the rat glioma cell line (Fig. 1). The rate of ATPase accumulation (not shown in Fig. 1) was very similar to that obtained with 5′-nucleotidase. The C-6 glioma culture generally exhibits a high ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity at low passage but the specific activity of the ecto-enzyme does not change substantially over a 30-h period (Fig. 1).
The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium. The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds; in C-6 glioma cultures the extrusion of enzyme was inhibited by 93 +_ 3% in the presence of 10-6M concanavalin A. With 10 -s M cycloheximide, inhibition was 32 + 24% over a 24-h period. An increase of enzyme extrusion was found in the presence of 10 -6 M colchicine (141 + 35% over control) or when the medium contained 0.5 ug. m1-1 of cytochalasin B (95 -+ 43% over control).
Filtration of superfusates showed that from 97 to 99% of 5′-nucleotidase activity was retained on 0.22 um filters while about 80% passed through an 0.45 um filter. The released enzyme activity was particulate and the particles could also be harvested by centrifugation. In Fig. 2, we show residual medium ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase after subjecting superfusate from glioma cultures (C-6) to increasing centrifugal forces. Cellular debris and unattached cells sedimented at or below 5 • 10^3 • gh (Sorvall SS-34 rotor at 10 a Xg for 0.5 h). The particulate enzymes contained in those supernates could be collected by centrifugation at high speeds. For routine collections of extruded enzyme, the Sorvall supernates were centrifuged for 90 min in a Spinco Ti-70 rotor at 310 000 × g. The small gelatinous pellet could be removed in toto or resuspended in buffer. ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous. Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles, one of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1 000 nm in diameter. Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm (Fig. 3).
Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case. Analysis of a representative high speed pellet of 6.5 mg protein from rat glioma superfusates yielded 5′-nucleotidase activity of 1.003 panol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • mg -1 protein, while marker enzymes for other subcellular particles were virtually absent. Activities of glucose-6-phosphatase (EC 3.1.3.9), cytochrome c oxidase (EC 1.9.3.1) and N-acetylhexosaminiclase (EC 3.2.1.52) were nil and (Na ÷, K+)-ATPase (EC 3.6.1.3) was low (25 nmol • min -1 • mg -1 protein). The 5′-nucleotidase/LDH ratio in C-6 conditioned medium was several fold higher than in cell homogenates and there was no DNA detectable in sedimented vesicles. A comparison of the optimal requirements for divalent cations of the released ATPase showed that stimulating and inhibitory concentrations of Mg 2+, Ca 2+ and Mn 2+ were identical with those required for the respective monolayer ecto-ATPase. Ecto-5′-nucleotidases have a high binding affinity for concanavalin A and about 70% of the nucleotidase activity of C-6 conditioned media was retained by a Sepharose-4G-Con A column, suggesting also a similarity between the ecto-enzyme and the released enzyme. Analysis of vesicle pellets from glioma superfusates disclosed an RNA content of about 5% and lipid content of 30 to 40%. Two-dimensional TLC of vesicle phospholipids [4] gave a pattern which was different from that of lipid extracts of whole cells and from plasma membrane preparations in which 5′-nucleotidase was enriched about 8-fold (Table III). The vesicles contained significantly increased amounts of sphingomyelin and decreased phosphatidylinositol. Comparison of total lipid fatty acid composition of whole cells with vesicles showed that the latter contained increased palmitic acid and total polyunsaturated fatty acids and decreased oleic acid. These compositional differences were further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells.
That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude (Table I).Both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation ofATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggests that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane. Another plasma membrane marker GM 1 (as measured by cholera toxin binding) was not conserved (Salem, N., Lauter, C.J. and Trams, E.G., unpublished results). This may indicate, that ecto-5′-nucleotidase and ecto-ATPase do not serve an interdependent function on the cell surface, as for instance in the catabolism of translocated cytoplasmic ATP [2].
The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them. Cells transfer substances to target cells in order to support discrete functions and examples of trophic substances are fibroblast- or nerve growth-factors [7,8].
Our working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role ina recognition and/or transport process. For instance, the carbohydrate moiety of ecto-5′-nucleotidase might serve as an address which was recognized by a recipient cell and the catalytic moiety of the enzyme would serve to dephosphorylate a receptor constituent and thereby facilitate a transfer mechanism between vesicle and cell. To test this hypothesis, mouse neuroblastoma cells (N-18) were incubated with 32Pi-containing medium with the intent to label cell surface phosphorous-containing compounds. After removal of the isotopic incubation medium, the N-18 cultures were first washed with unlabeled medium and then vesicle suspensions harvested from C-6 glioma conditioned medium were added; normal culture medium served as a control. There was a significant increase in 32p release into the medium (over background 32p diffusion from the cells) when gila-derived vesicles were in contact with the neuroblastoma monolayer cultures (Table IV). In another experiment, 32P-prelabeled C-6 cultures were superfused with either C-6 or with N-18 vesicles. There was a larger release of 32p when glioma cells were incubated with N-18 derived vesicles than when they were incubated with homologous vesicles which suggested that there were either quantitative or qualitative differences between the two experiments. We have no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but the experiments indicate that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place.
Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which we have studied so far, we conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation. Plasma levels of 5′-nucleotidase may be elevated significantly in several diseases [9,10] and the enzyme might normally or pathologically be derived from plasma membranes. We assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma. We assayed heparinized blood from 16 randomly selected patients and found plasma 5′-nucleotidase activities ranging from 3.4 to 26 nmol AMP hydrolyzed • min -1 • m1-1 plasma. Only a minor fraction of that activity was sedimentable, however, or retained on Millipore filters and there is at present no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation.
Discussion
Our observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells. The accumulation of as much as 70% of plasma membrane 5′-nucleotidase in microvesicular form in the medium over a 24-h period suggests a fairly high membrane tumover. This is not extraordinary, because it has been calculated that macrophages and L-cells were capable of interiorizing the equivalent of their cell surface every 33 and 125 min, respectively [11]. Replacement of apical plasma membrane in the lactating mammary gland requires formidable capapcity for membrane synthesis [12] and replacement of exfoliated membrane is a requirement that presumably is easily met by most cells. We have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells. The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggests that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane. The substantial enrichment of sphingomyelin in the microvesicular fraction supports this contention. A similar fmding of increased sphingomyelin in extracellular membranous vesicles associated with a murine ascitic leukemia was reported by Van Blitterswijk et al. [13]. Microvillous membrane accumulation in media of cultured chick embryo intestines was observed recently by Black et al. [14] and extracellular membrane-invested vesicles have been described by Anderson [15]. The latter particles appear to play a role in mineralization processes and they have been referred to as matrix vesicles. Their size ranged from 300 to 1000 nm and it was postulated that they were derived from the plasma membrane of chondrocytes by budding [15]. Their lipid composition was very similar to that of chondrocyte plasma membrane [16] and similar to the lipid composition of the vesicles which we have collected from rat glioma cultures. The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from our rat glioma culture superfusates suggest that the larger membranes were of plasmalemma origin. The smaller population has some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain [17] or from calf, rat and rabbit brain [18], while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type virus particles (Todaro, G., personal communication).
The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells. We also have recently found that isotopically labeled constituents of the microvesicles can be transfered to recipient cells (Trams, E.G., Lauter, C.J. and Salem, N., unpublished results) and the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo? Inter-cellular transfer of a quantum of material by means of vesicles has been recognized in neurochemical transmission and there is evidence that metabolic cooperation by packaged transfer of substances may occur elsewhere, such as the transport of macromolecules between glia and neurons [19-21]. It is also conceivable that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell. Such an effect was observed when exfoliated vesicles from a B-16 mouse melanoma subline were fused experimentally with cells from another B-16 subline [22]. Attempts are made currently in several laboratories to design packaged substances for targeted therapeutic use. As an example, liposomes are provided with an organ-specific address [23] and it is hoped that such models will find application, for instance in the treatment of metabolic dystrophies by enzyme replacement. Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments. The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates. In a preliminary report we have suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes [24].”
doi: 10.1016/0005-2736(81)90512-5.
All the same particles created from the same process.
In Summary:
Exosomes and “viruses” can not be separated from each other(as they are the same particles) which has created a problem for researchers: 1. How can exosome researchers be sure that they are isolating and quantifying extracellular vesicles rather than enveloped “viruses” present in the sample?
2. How can “viral” researchers know that they are not detecting similarly sized “non-viral” vesicles or empty vectors?
It is currently virtually impossible to specifically separate and identify EVs that carry “viral” proteins, host proteins, and “viral” genomic elements from enveloped “viral” particles that carry the same molecules
To date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation of these particles does not exist
Exosomes have been disregarded as cellular debris and as garbage carriers and were once thought to be biomarkers of a diseased state
They are now thought to be biologically active
Despite 20 years of research, the very basics of exosome biology are in their infancy and we know little of the part they play in normal cellular physiology(i.e. it is all guesswork)
Other particles said to be garbage bags as well as carriers of cellular information are apoptotic bodies created during apoptosis, a process of cell death:
Cell shrinks
Cell fragments
Cytoskeleton collapses
Nuclear envelope disassembles
Cells release apoptotic bodies
Apoptotic bodies, ectosomes and exosomes are all roughly the same size (typically 40–100 nm) and all also contain cytosol
Understanding differences between them is of paramount importance but has too often been overlooked
Cells in vitro (i.e. cell culture) may be induced to die by apoptosis,e.g.,by depletion of nutrients or survival factors from the culture media
The exosome concept was created by Trams et. al in 1981
Exosomes were first “discovered” in cell cultures and were admitted to potentially be cellular debris
In other words, exosomes=”viruses”=apoptotic bodies=cellular debris
Cultures from various normal and neoplastic cell linesexfoliated vesicles with 5′-nucleotidase activity which reflected the ecto-enzyme activity of the parent monolayer culture
Examination by electron microscopy showed the vesicles had an average diameter of 500 to 1000 nm andoften contained a second population of vesicles about 40 nm in diameter
Exfoliated membrane vesicles may serve a physiologic function; it is proposed that they be referred to as exosomes
In other words, the particles came from cell cultures and ranged anywhere from 40 to 1000 nm, showing that these were not purified preparations of a single substance
During the investigations on the functional roles of two ecto-enzymes, the researchers stated that they “observed” that ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase were released into the superfusate media of cultured cell lines
They claimed to have established that this release was not caused by cytolysis (the dissolution or disruption of cells, especially by an external agent)of moribund cells
The enzymes were released in the form of vesicles which were probably derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
Whether or not the exfoliated microvesicles mediate physiologic processes in vivo(in the living body)had not been established
In other words, they found particles in the size range of “viruses” which they decided were not a product of cell disintegration by pathological means and assumed they were different and provided functions without direct proof
Cell lines employed in this study were:
Established cultures
Mouse neuroblastomas, N-18 and NB41A3
Rat glioma, C-6
Mouse melanoma, B-16
Derived from embryonic or neonatal tissue as primary cultures
Rat aorta, RA-B
Mouse astroblast, D-34
Grown from biopsy material
Human melanoma, CL
Human foreskin fibroblasts, KIN
Cells were grown in the appropriate medium as monolayers in 75 cm 2 plastic flasks
Passage numbers for a culture refer to the number of times the stock cell line has been subculturedby trypsinization, dilution and explantation into maintenance or experimental culture vessels
During repeated passage of the rat glioma cell line C-6, they observed over a number of years that ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity decreased sharply after about 20 passages and that ecto-ATPase activity increased
Complete tissue culture growth media usually contain traces of ATPase and 5′-nucleotidase derived from the fetal calf serum component
Therefore, the cultures were washed prior to each experiment several times with a modified medium devoid of serum and routine incubations were performed in serum free media
They used the term superfusate for modified media which were applied to confluent monolayer cultures in which enzyme accumulation was measured
They found that 5′.nucleofidase and ATPase were released into serum-free medium (superfusates) of monolayer cultures of normal and neoplastic cells
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into 24-h superfusates ranged from 2 to 70% of measured monolayer ecto-5′-nucleotidase activity and it was characteristic for a particular cell line and passage number
With increasing passage number, ecto-5′-nucleotidase/ecto-ATPase activity ratios changed in several cell lines and the amount of enzymes released into superfusates also changed
While duplication was satisfactory when measurements were made within a few days or within a few passages, comparisons made several months apart were not amenable to statistical treatment
In other words, the results related directly to the cell line used and the amount of passages performed and duplication was not satisfactory after a few months
The rate of enzyme liberation was not changed significantly(i.e. there was a change) by modification of fetal calf serum concentration in the medium (0 to 20%) or by the addition of 0.5% trypsin to the medium
The release of 5′-nucleotidase activity into superfusates was altered by several compounds
Thus we can see that adding compounds can alter the results obtained
ATPase activity sedimented at a faster rate than 5′-nucleotidase which indicated that the particle population was not homogeneous(i.e. it was a mixed population of different particles)
Electronmicroscopy after fixation of the pellets in buffered glutaraldehyde revealed two populations of vesicles:
One of which consisted of irregularly shaped vesicles approximately 500 to 1000 nm in diameter
Contained within those vesicles was another population of smaller, spherical vesicles with an average size of about 40 nm
FYI: exosomes are said to be anywhere from 30-150 nm meaning this was not strictly the presumed exosomes in the mixture, i.e. not purification/isolation
Conceivably, the vesicles were fragments from dying of lysed cells, but they excuse this conclusion due to the liberation of as much as 70% of its 5′-nucleotidase activity from a healthy monolayer culture in 24 h as they claim this would result in the accumulation of many other subcellular fragments if that were the case
They looked to compositional differences to provide further evidence that the exfoliated vesicles had not been derived from lysed cells(yet, without purifying and isolating the particles, how would compositional differences be ascertained…?)
That the vesicles had been derived from the plasma membrane of the respective monolayer cell lines was suggested by the observation that the specific activities of microvesicle and monolayer enzymes were roughly of the same order of magnitude
They claim both 5′-nucleotidase and ATPase are said to be classical plasma membrane marker enzymes, but the conservation of ATPase in the exfoliative process strongly suggested that the microvesicles were derived from specific domains of the plasma membrane
The morphologic similarity of the extruded vesicles to synaptosomal preparations suggested a possible transport function for them (i.e. the particles looked the same as those found in cultures from the brain)
The working hypothesis was that one or more of the ecto-phosphoester hydrolases might play a role in a recognition and/or transport process
They carried out two experiments to test this hypothesis and concluded that they had no evidence at present to show that the increases of 32p release in the presence of the vesicles was due only to dephosphorylation of cell surface constituents, but they felt the experiments indicated that some interaction between the monolayer cells and the vesicles had taken place
Because the release of microvesicles occurred in all cell-lines which were studied, they conducted some preliminary tests for their presence in the circulation
They assumed that the presence of such vesicles would be recognizable by their enzyme activity after filtration or centrifugation of blood plasma
After testing, they concluded that there was no firm evidence that plasma membrane derived microvesicles are present in the circulation
The researchers felt that their observations suggest that exfoliation of membranous vesicles might occur in many different normal and neoplastic cells
They claimed to have presented evidence that the microvesicles harvested from tissue culture superfusates were not mere fragments from the cytolysis of moribund cells(which they admitted to be a conceivable possibility)
The preferential release of plasma membrane ecto-5′-nucleotidase over ecto-ATPase furthermore suggested that the exfoliative process was selective and that the microvesicles consisted of specific domains of the plasma membrane
The electronmicroscopic images of the particles from their rat glioma culture superfusates suggested that the larger membranes were of plasmalemma origin
The smaller population had some similarities to vesicles purified from pig brain or from calf, rat and rabbit brain, while some of the more densely shadowed small vesicles resemble C-type “virus” particles
In other words, they found the exact same particles seen in animal brain cultures as well as “viruses” but assigned them a different name and function based on indirect chemical results from mixed unpurified preparations coming from cell cultures
The dephosphorylation, presumably of monolayer cell surface components by microvesicle ecto-phosphoesterhydrolases, suggested an interaction between vesicles and cells
They stated that the question must be asked if the shedding of microvesicles and their interaction with a target cell or target organ represents a physiologic phenomenon that takes place in vivo?
In other words, they did not know whether the process they created in their culture soup actually occurs within a living organism
It is also conceivable(i.e. capable of being imagined) that the vesicle in part or in toto can be incorporated into a recipient cell, thereby producing a modification of the host cell(sounds like a “virus…”)
Conceivably, the physiologic distribution of some cellular products between cells or organs is achieved in a similar way, i.e. they are packaged and provided with an address, rather than simply diffused through extracellular fluid compartments
The inter-cellular transport of some trophic substances or nutrients might involve such vehicles as the microvesicles which have been harvested from cell culture superfusates
In a preliminary report they suggested that such plasma membrane derived vesicles could be referred to generically as exosomes
“Viruses” and EV’s sure seem to blur the lines here.
“Since vesicles resemble viruses, the question of course is whether the first extracellular vesicles were primitive viruses and the viruses learned from extracellular vesicles or vice versa.”
“Viruses can replicate and vesicles cannot. But there are many variants in between. Where do viruses start, and where do extracellular vesicles start?”
We need to be careful replacing one fraudulent theory with another. Sadly, many have fallen into this trap of scraping the “virus” concept and replacing it with the exosome concept. What they do not realize is that these two concepts are built upon the same fraudulent foundation. Both are tied to the cell culture process and come from the same cell death initiated by toxilogical overload. This is why researchers are having a hard time separating not only the particles but also their theoretical functioning from each other. When the lies become overly complicated, they begin to entangle with each other and the illusion begins to fall apart.
Whatever name you want to call them, the broken down cellular debris known as exosomes, “viruses,” apoptotic bodies, extracellular vesicles, etc. are all the same particles consisting of the same size, density, and morphology. They are assigned different names and functions based on the researchers looking at them. While they are claimed to be separate entities, the particles are unable to be purified and isolated from everything else in order to be independently studied and characterized. Their functioning can not be observed within a living organism thus the same particles are given theoretical roles within the body based on the researchers performing the experiments. None of these particles have met the burden of proof of being established through rigorous testing and adherence to the scientific method. As they can never be observed in nature and must be created to be “seen,” they fail the very first criteria. As they can not be separated, they fail at being a valid independent variable. Without a valid independent variable, cause and effect can not be determined. This means that the scientific method can not and is not being applied to these particles. Thus all of the indirect evidence accumulated for this cellular debris assuming multiple identities is nothing but pseudoscientific fairy tales.
‘The End of Germ Theory’ Documentary: An Easy-to-Understand, Step-by-Step Analysis of the History of Germ & Virus Theory, the Erroneous “Science” Behind Vaccination & a Close Look at What Really Makes Us Sick — The Big Pharma Cartel & the Deep Deception of Viral Pandemics
Dr Rosenau / US Public Health Service failed Spanish Flu contagion experiments
Goat Island / US Public Health Service failed Spanish Flu contagion experiments
Johns Hopkins / Dr Sellard failed Measles contagion experiments
Dr. Alfred F Hess failed Chicken Pox varicella contagion experiments
NY State Health Department / US Public health Service failed Polio contagion
experiments
Dr. Eleanor McBean vaccination caused Spanish Flu pandemic research
Dr Frederick Lamont Gates / US Army Antimenigitis vaccination fiasco
Black Death, Spanish Flu outbreak follows 14-25 vaccinations per person
Unvaccinated doctors and families did not catch the Spanish Flu from patients
Masha & Dasha, conjoined twins who never caught flu, colds, measles from eachother
What is Polio really? Lead Arsenate and DDT trends vs outbreaks
False vaccine disease eradication claims and trends
7 common causes of Polio
What is a “virus particle”?
What is Cytopathic Effect “Theory”?
What is Viral Replication “Theory”?
What is a virology cell or tissue “Culture”?
Cytopathic Effect Theory debunked
Autolysis and Apoptosis
Virus particle Isolation and Purification
PCR test fraud and misuse
CDC Covid PCR diagnostic test fraud
“Insilico” imaginary genomes
John Enders’ debunked Measles experiments
Studies admitting virus particles are indistinguishable from cellular debris
Fraudulent Australian failed Covid isolation experiments
Fetal Bovine Calf Serum RNA
Dr Stefan Lanka control experiments debunk virus theory once and for all
1947 fraudulent Polio isolation experiments debunked
Virology fails Koch’s postulates
Antibodies, Antigen test fraud, HIV
Antibody vaccine theory debunked
Big Pharma re-name disease game
Monkeypox fraud
Real causes of Pox diseases
1957 Monkeypox failed contagion experiments and controls debunk virology
Why do some but not all people sometimes but not always seem sick together?
At the end of April, Dr. Jordan Grant gave a remarkable 2-part lecture breaking down the various philosophical issues related to our modern healthcare system. He deconstructed the germ theory of disease and brilliantly showcased why it is based on pseudoscience rather than natural science. Dr. Grant has been at the forefront of calling out virology for its inadherence to the scientific method and he has pinpointed the many logical fallacies surrounding the germ theory fraud.
I have been anxiously awaiting the time that I could share his presentation with you. If you know Dr. Grant, you would understand why. I am fortunate enough to call Jordan a friend. We crossed paths at the beginning of this pandemic through the Infectious Myth Facebook group created by the late David Crowe. From reading Jordan’s conversations with others in our group, I immediately realized that this was a man who carried a wealth of knowledge and he was someone from which I could learn a great deal from. He may not realize it, but Jordan has been a mentor to me in various ways and I am grateful for all of the knowledge I have gained from our conversations. My hope is that you are able to come away with many nuggets of wisdom from this excellent series! At the very least, you will learn one thing you may have never known that can kill a guinea pig.
The Philosophy of Modern Medicine
What Makes Us Ill and How Can We Optimize Health? The modern medical-industrial complex has its focus on drugs and symptom suppression. It is a “sick care” system. We need to understand this philosophy and then empower ourselves with information on true causes of “illness” in order to better understand ways to optimize our health.
The Philosophy of Modern Medicine – Dr. Jordan Grant (2022 Conference) – Delivered 04/30/2022 – Dr. Jordan Grant – Berean Bible Church –
Science, Pseudoscience, and The Germ Theory of Disease
For over 150 years, the “germ theory” of disease has dominated mainstream thought regarding many illnesses. Is this theory scientific? Are there holes in the paradigm? We will explore what “science” means, first and foremost, and then apply that to dogmas surrounding contagion and infection.
Science, Pseudoscience, and The Germ Theory of Disease – Dr. Jordan Grant (2022 Conference) – Delivered 04/30/2022 – Dr. Jordan Grant. – Berean Bible Church –
If you are interested in joining the Infectious Myth Facebook group (there are a few due to censorship) to converse with Dr. Grant and many other amazing like-minded people, you can find us here:
In this edition of #SolutionsWatch, James talks to Frode Burdal Klevstul about his new self-published book, Bill Goats and the Forest. We discuss the power of narrative in helping children (and adults) to understand world events in their proper context and we talk about the process of conceptualizing, writing and self-publishing a book.
Although my father, whose namesake I am, died twenty-nine years ago, I just spent a hilarious and profound afternoon with him. For a few hours on a beautiful late spring afternoon, I sat out on the porch and listened to his inimitable voice beguile, instruct, and entertain me. He had me laughing out loud as I read through a large folder of letters he had sent me over the years. We were together again. It was his voice I heard, his voice speaking to me. It could be no other. In the beginning and end are the words. If we are lucky, we hear them.
It’s sad to think that the era of letter writing may have ended and future generations left bereft of this deepest of consolations. Emails in a cloud won’t do; they lack the soulfulness of the human hand. They delete the person.
My parents had nine children and raised us in the Bronx. I am the only son. My father and I were very close. I talk to him daily, but it is only with the approach of Father’s Day that I reread his letters in an effort to honor him, to remember him. It is usually then that I hear him respond. One look at his handwriting – so unusual – and he is present.
And then the voice.
“The other day Mama saw a death notice of an Edward J. Curtin but happily he came from Brooklyn so it wasn’t either of us. I told you things would get better.”
“I am up at this ungodly hour (3:35 AM) because I just had sort of a nightmare in which I was an official hangman with the unpleasant task of hanging Mrs. Grossman, one of our neighbors whom I rather like – very unpleasant stuff these dreams are made of. I don’t think I’ll delve into this one with my guru or analyst.”
Back from a doctor’s visit, he reports: “The doctor said I have only two problems – from the waist down and from the waist up. But from the neck up I think I’m okay. Cogito ergo sum.”
On my mother trying to buy him pants: “Seems that my waist is too big and my ass too small. I think I’ll get a tummy tuck.”
As a lawyer, he was regularly in court and would pen these epistles, as he called letters, while he was waiting for court to begin. “I’m sitting in the bullpen waiting for my case to be called. Today’s case involves a group of fun-loving youths who, at a certain midnight, took a watch from a woman at gunpoint. My client, of course, was just asking her for the time because his mother told him to be home by 3 AM.”
Sardonic, yes, but with a great human touch and a sense of care and empathy unmatched. “On Tuesday while waiting at the court a young black woman sat down beside me and said, ‘You’re my uncle, you’re my great youngest uncle. I have five sisters and six brothers – all no good.’ I think she also said I was handsome and, after admiring my ‘baldy’ haircut, she kissed me on the cheek. Later, I was in court when she was remanded to Jacobi Hospital for observation. Very sad.” He later visited her in the hospital.
That’s my father, a wonderful father, and not just to me or my sisters. He had a way with people that invited them to confide and trust him.
His letters are not just jocular riffs that get me howling. There were many difficulties and tough issues to contend with. And his letters are filled with them too. They are like mini-short stories, akin to a father sitting beside a child’s bed and telling him a goodnight tale. They always end on an up-note, no matter how serious what precedes. He was a storyteller talking to an adult son, just as in my childhood he would tell me bed-time improvisations on the Pinocchio story, tales of lies and deceptions and bad actors. Those stories had to have an edge to them, a bit of a question mark, just as his letters are peppered with the phrase quien sabe (who knows?) He knew and he didn’t know; had strong opinions, but he knew when it came to the human heart, he didn’t know it all. He respected the mystery and therefore had great empathy for individuals he encountered, and they sensed that in him.
But there were exceptions. These were the larger public faces that dominate celebrity/political culture. For them he had no mercy. He had a “barge to nowhere” upon which he put these public personae he couldn’t countenance. Sometimes the barge was an ark and at other times a cement barge, ready to sink. Either way it always went nowhere. We didn’t always agree on his choices, but he loaded them on regularly. “Here is today’s passenger list – Andy Warhol, George Plimpton, Billy Martin, E T, Claus Von Bulow, Frank Sinatra. The barge departs for nowhere at 6:03 ¾ PM sharp.” The list got longer by the years, so long that he was regularly saying that he had to add another barge.
These were his nowhere people, the detritus thrown up by an entertainment celebrity culture that he felt was destroying the soul of the country. He was right.
When on a trip to Michigan, he saw a tee-shirt for sale, he wrote that “it would be perfect for you. It reads ‘Vote for Nobody’.” He knew his son. And when he wrote that “it’s a great big beautiful wonderful world, but half the people in it are nuts,” I couldn’t help laughing in recognition.
Voices bring presence. My father and I were together again through his letters.
“I hope you are keeping some sort of record,” Leonard Cohen intones in a song.
It’s good advice. Soon there may be for many no known father, no voice, no letters, no record, just some sperm deposited somewhere for someone. Nowhere fathers. I can hear my father saying, “You can bank on that.”
In one of his last letters to me he wrote, “I am hooked up to a heart monitor and have been examined by a neurosurgeon named Block. I think he is H.R. Block of tax forms. I have also just signed a consent form for a cat scan. I think that’s to see if I like cats.”
He died not long after. But before he did, he wrote, “Today is, or would have been, your uncle Vincent’s (his brother) birthday. I was thinking of inserting one of those in memoriam notices in the Daily News – you know, ‘Happy Birthday in Heaven Vince old boy,’ but I don’t think he’d see it.”
Ever since the archaic divergence of humanity from other hominids, our systems of tools and symbols have developed at an accelerating pace. We depend less and less on the physical capacities of our bodies. We operate more and more in the realm of information: data, words, numbers, and bits.
Quite naturally then, we have conceived an idea of progress that celebrates this development, and a destiny narrative that foresees its endless continuation. Its future is one where we integrate technology ever more fully into our bodies, until we become something more than just bodies. It is one where we immerse ourselves so fully in representation, that virtual reality becomes more compelling to us than material reality. The first is called transhumanism, the second is the Metaverse.
Here is a typical example of this vision, courtesy of The Guardian:
Ageing cured. Death conquered. Work ended. The human brain reverse-engineered by AI. Babies born outside of the womb. Virtual children, non-human partners. The future of humanity could be virtually unrecognisable by the end of the 21st century
The title of the article is “Beyond our ‘ape-brained meat sacks’: can transhumanism save our species?” In it one can see a kind of anti-materialism, an ambition to transcend our biology, to transcend our very selves which are, the article suggests, little more than sacks of meat with a brain inside. We are destined for more, better. This anti-materialist prejudice also shows up in the aspiration to end work—to end the requirement that we use our physical bodies to move matter—as well as in the ultimate ambition, to triumph over death itself. We will have then indeed transcended biology, with its cycles, We will have transcended matter, with its impermanence.
That goal has always been implicit in the ideology known as progress. It equates the advancement of the human species with improvements in our ability to control nature and make its functions our own. When we replace the shovel with the bulldozer, that’s progress. It aspires to a Godlike estate of lordship over nature. Descartes, arguably the most important preceptor of modernity, put it famously in his declaration of human destiny: to become through science and technology the “lords and possessors of nature.” The passage following it prefigures the ambitions of The Guardian article quoted above. Descartes says,
And this is a result to be desired, not only in order to the invention of an infinity of arts, by which we might be enabled to enjoy without any trouble the fruits of the earth, and all its comforts, but also and especially for the preservation of health…. and that we could free ourselves from an infinity of maladies of body as well as of mind, and perhaps also even from the debility of age…
Transhumanism is nothing new. It continues a prehistoric trend toward increasing dependency on, and integration with, technology. When we became dependent on fire, our jaw muscles shrank and our digestive enzymes changed. The subsequent development, hundreds of thousands of years later, of representational language transformed our very brains. The material technologies of domestication, pottery, metallurgy, and finally industry created a society wholly dependent on them. Visions of silicon-brain hybrids operating digital control centers, served physically in all respects by robots, living wholly in an artificial reality, represent merely the culmination of a trend, not any change in direction. Already and for a long time, humans have to some degree lived in a virtual reality—the reality of their concepts, stories, and labels. The Metaverse immerses us in it still further.
Since transhumanism represents progress, it is no wonder that progressives tend to support it. A key tenet of progressivism is to bring the benefits of progress to all, to distribute them more fairly and universally. Progressivism does not question its own foundations. Development is its religion. That is why the Gates Foundation devotes so much of its resources to bringing industrial agriculture, vaccines, and computers to the Third World. That’s progress. It is also progress to move life online (work, meetings, entertainment, education, dating, etc.) Perhaps that’s why Covid lockdown policies met so little resistance from progressives. By the same token, ready acceptance of vaccines makes sense if they too represent progress: the integration of technology into the body, the engineering of the immune system to improve upon nature.
What leftists seem not to notice is that these versions of progress also enable the encroachment of capitalism into more and more intimate territories. Do you think the immersive AR/VR experience of the Metaverse will be free of advertising, perhaps so subtly targeted as to be invisible? The closer our integration with technology in all aspects of life, the more life can become a consumer product.
Again this is nothing new. The Marxian crisis of capital (falling profit margins, falling real wages, evaporation of the middle class, proletarian immiseration—sound familiar?) has been forestalled only by the constant expansion of market economies through two main vehicles: colonialism and technology. Technology opens up new, high-profit domains of economic activity to keep capitalism running. It allows more of nature and human relationship to be converted into money. When we depend on technology for such things as clean drinking water, resistance to a disease, or interacting socially, then these things swell the realm of monetized goods and services. The economy grows, return on financial investment stays above zero, and capitalism continues to operate. My dear leftists—if ye indeed remain leftists (and not authoritarian corporatists; that is to say, crypto-fascists)—can you please reevaluate your political alliance with the ideology of progress and development?
The promoters of the transhumanist Metaverse describe it as not only good, but inevitable. It may seem so, given that it is an extension of an age-old trend. I hope though that by making its underlying myths and assumptions visible, we can exercise a conscious choice in embracing or refusing it. We need not continue down this road. Other paths fork out in front of us. Maybe they aren’t as well lit or obvious as the eight-lane superhighway toward transhumanist technotopia, but they are available. A portion of humanity at least can choose to depart this particular axis of development and turn toward another kind of progress, another kind of technology.
2. Flavors Spoil the Palate
Colors blind people’s eyes; sounds deafen their ears; flavors spoil their palates. – the Tao Te Ching
Years ago I took my son Philip with his friend to see a movie. We put on 3D glasses and were treated to all kinds of objects seemingly bursting out of the screen. “Wouldn’t it be awesome if the real world were 3D, just like the movies?” I jokingly asked.
The boys thought I was serious. “Yeah!” they said. I was unable to explain my irony. On-screen reality was so vivid, stimulating, and intense that it made the real world seem boring by comparison. (Read full story here.)
Well, it seems my 11-year-old was in good company. Consider these words from Julia Goldin, LEGO’s chief product & marketing officer:
To us, the priority is to help create a world in which we can give kids all the benefits of the metaverse — one with immersive experiences, creativity and self-expression at its core — in a way that is also safe, protects their rights and promotes their well-being.
Wowee, an “immersive experience.” Sounds great, doesn’t it? But hold on here—aren’t we already in an immersive experience called 3D reality? Why are we trying to recreate what we already have?
The idea, of course, is that the artificial reality we create will be better than the original: more interesting, less limited, yet also safer. But can the simulation of reality ever match the original? That ambition rests on the further assumption that we can convert all experience into data. It draws on the computational model of the brain. It assumes everything is quantifiable—that quality is an illusion, that anything real can be measured. The recent to-do about the Google employee, Blake Lemoine, who leaked transcripts of conversations he had with an AI chatbot who asserts its own sentience taps into the computational theory of the brain and consciousness. If even consciousness arises from the disposition of zeros and ones, then what is it for something to be real?
Vespertina. by Greg Spalenka.
Neural net AIs seem to us to be modeled after the brain, but it may be more the reverse: we impose the neural net model onto the brain.1 Certainly the brain has superficial similarities to an artificial neural network, but there are also profound differences that our computationalist prejudices ignore. A catalog of neural states is much less than a full brain state, which would also include all kinds of hormones, peptides, and other chemicals, all of which relate to the state of the entire body and all its organs. Cognition and consciousness do not happen in the brain alone. We are beings of the flesh.
It is not my purpose here to offer a detailed critique of computationalism. My point is to show how readily we accept it, and therefore believe that one could engineer any subjective experience by manipulating the appropriate neurons.
Even if it cannot equal reality, the simulation is usually a lot louder, brighter, and faster. When we enter the intense “immersive experience” of virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and extended reality (XR), we become conditioned to its intensity, and suffer withdrawal when limited to the (usually) slow predictability of the material world. Conversely, it is the stripping of intensity from real world experience from within our safe, climate-controlled, insulated bubbles that makes AR/VR/XR attractive in the first place. Something else that happens with our habituation to intense stimuli is that we lose the capacity to exercise other senses and other modes of sensing. Orienting more and more toward that which shouts the loudest, we no longer tune into quieter voices. Accustomed to garish colors, we no longer perceive subtle hues.
Fortunately, all that is lost may be recovered. Even standing silently in the woods for half an hour, the slow and the quiet come back into my reality. Hidden beings show themselves. Subtle thoughts and secret feelings rise to the surface. I can see beyond the obvious. What lies beneath the loud rumbles and roars of today’s ubiquitous engines? What unmeasurable and unnamable things lie betwixt the numbers and labels of modern science? What colors do we miss when we call the snow white and the crow black? What lies between and outside the data? Will our attempts to simulate reality leave out the things we already do not see, and thereby amplify our current deficiencies and biases? I foresee a danger: that in building a transhumanist Metaverse we will construct not a paradise but a hell. We will incarcerate ourselves in a controlled and bounded finitude, deluding ourselves that, if we pile up enough of them, our bits and bytes, our zeroes and ones, will someday add up to infinity.
3. Chasing a Mirage
Transhumanism is anti-natural, in that it does not recognize an innate intelligence in nature, the body, or the cosmos, but seeks rather to impose human intelligence onto a world it believes has none. Everything can be improved through human design (and ultimately, human-created AI design). Yet, confusingly, many transhumanists deploy ecological arguments in their futuristic visions. We will reduce our numbers and absent ourselves from nature, leaving the planet to rewild itself as we retreat into bubble cities and the Metaverse, subsisting off robotified vertical farms, precision fermentation factories, animal cell culture meat, and artificial milk (“Mylk”).
Some conspiracy theorists point out that some prominent advocates of transhumanist technologies also advocate eugenics or population control policies. The connection is quite logical and needn’t imply monstrous evil. If robots and AI can replace human labor in more and more domains, then we need fewer and fewer humans. This, they believe, will have the added benefit of lessening the burden of humanity on the planet. The same engineering mindset that “improves” the body and brain translates naturally into optimizing society, the genome, and the earth.
That humanity is fundamentally a burden on the planet is an assumption partaking of the same exceptionalism that motivates the transcendent ambition to begin with. Perhaps if we conceived human destiny differently, we would not be such a burden. If our ambition were not to transcend matter and the flesh, but rather to participate in the endless unfolding of more and more life and beauty on earth, we would be like other species: integral parts of an evolving wholeness.
Transhumanism holds a different ideal. As we bring tighter and more precise control to the human realm, we separate off from the natural. Transhumanism is an expression of the much older idea of transcendentalism, which holds human destiny to lie in the transcendence of the material realm. The Metaverse is the modern version of Heaven, a spiritual domain. It is a realm of pure mind, of pure symbol, of complete freedom from natural limits. In the Metaverse, no fundamental limit pertains to how much virtual land you can own, how many virtual outfits your avatar can wear, or how much virtual money you can have. Whatever limits exist are artificial, imposed by the software engineers to make the game interesting—and profitable. Today there is quite a market for virtual real estate in the Metaverse, but its scarcity, and therefore its value, is completely artificial. Yet that artificial value is substantial. Bloomberg estimates that annual revenues from the Metaverse will be $800 billion by 2024. Already, according to Vogue magazine (paywall), the online game Fortnite sells over $3 billion in virtual cosmetics annually, ranking it among the worlds largest fashion companies.
I wonder what the parents of the world’s 200 million stunted and wasted children think about that.
That last comment points to the dirty secret beneath all of humanity’s transcendentalist striving. Always, it visits great harm upon those it renders invisible. When one enters the Metaverse, it seems like a reality unto itself. Its material substrate is nearly invisible; therefore, one easily believes that it has no impact on the material world outside its precincts. The more immersive it becomes, the more one might forget that anything exists outside it.
The same thing can happen any time we immerse ourselves in symbols and abstractions and forget their material substrate. So it is that economists, hypnotized by economic growth numbers, do not see the dislocation, misery, and ecological ruin that accompanies them. So it is that climate policymakers entranced by carbon math, do not see the devastation caused by lithium and cobalt mines. So it is that epidemiologists, obsessed with case fatality rates, seldom consider realities of hunger, loneliness, and depression that fall outside their metrics.
It has long been thus with any reality we create for ourselves—we forget what lies outside it. We even forget that anything lies outside it. So it was in the metropolises of the 20th century. Immersed in urban life, it was easy to forget anything else existed or was relevant, and easy to ignore the social and ecological harm entailed in maintaining them. The pattern repeats on every scale. Enter the world of the super-rich, and again it exerts the same logic. The cost to the material and social world that maintains it is hard to see from inside the mansions and yachts where everything looks so beautiful.
Let us indulge in some metaphysical logic. Well-being is impossible in separation, because being is fundamentally relational. Separating reality into two realms, both become sick—the human as well as the natural.
That is why I believe that the technological program, in its new extreme of transhumanism and the Metaverse, will forever chase a mirage. The mirage is Utopia, a perfect society in which suffering has been engineered out of existence and life gets more and more awesome every day. Just look at the technological program’s track record. We have made enormous strides in our ability to control matter and manage society. We can alter genes and brain chemistry—shouldn’t we have conquered depression by now? We can surveil nearly every human being at all times—shouldn’t we have eliminated crime by now? Economic productivity per capita has increased 20-fold in half a century—shouldn’t we have eliminated poverty by now? We have not. Arguably, we haven’t made any progress at all. The technocratic explanation is that we haven’t finished the job, that when our control is total, when the Internet of Things links every object into one data set, when every physiological marker is under real-time monitoring and control, when every transaction and movement is under surveillance, then there will be no more room in reality for anything we do not want. All will be under control. This would be the fulfillment of the program of domestication that began tens of thousands of years ago. The entire material world will have been domesticated. We will have finally arrived at the oasis on the desert horizon. We will have finally reached the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
What if we never reach it? What if misery and suffering are a feature not a bug of the program of separation? What if the mirage recedes just as fast as we race toward it?
That is how it looks to me. I cannot be sure the human condition has worsened since Dickensian times, or Medieval times, or even hunter-gatherer times. Some version of all our dramas and suffering seems to pervade every human society. However, I am quite sure that the human condition has not improved either. Our seeming progress toward transcending matter and the suffering of the flesh has not brought us any closer to its goal. At best, the suffering has only changed form, if indeed it has not grown worse. For example, thanks to air conditioning, we need no longer suffer extreme heat. Thanks to automobiles, we no longer need to tire ourselves to travel a few miles. Thanks to excavators, we no longer need to suffer aching muscles to dig a house foundation. Thanks to all kinds of pharmaceutical drugs, we no longer need to feel the pain of various medical conditions. Yet somehow we have not banished pain, fatigue, suffering, or stress, even in the most affluent parts of society. If you pay attention when you are in public places, you will become aware of enormous, pervasive suffering. Our heroic brothers and sisters bear it well. They hide it. They bear it. They do their best to be civil, to be kind, to be cheerful, to get by. But pay attention, and you will notice a lot of secret anguish. You will notice physical pain, emotional pain, anxiety, fatigue, and stress. Each person you see is divinity incarnate, doing its best under conditions that little serve its flourishing. Yet even so, the beauty is still there, the divinity seeking relentlessly to express itself, life seeking to live. On those occasions when I am blessed to see that, I know myself as a Friend.
4. Virtual Children of a Virtual World
Perhaps it is human destiny to forever chase the mirage of total control, the conquest of suffering, the conquest of death. And despite the futility of that chase, it could be that we suffer no more than we ever have, albeit no less either. It is not my purpose here to put a stop to the transhumanist agenda, repugnant though I find it. I write this essay for two, related, reasons. First is to illuminate the basic character of that agenda, its origins and ambitions, and especially its ultimate futility, so that we might choose it or not choose it with open eyes. Second is to describe an alternative that is viable whatever choice the bulk of humanity makes. Third is to pose a scenario of peaceful and amicable relations between the two worlds that diverge from this choice-point in the Garden of Forking Paths, looking toward the day eons in the future when all the sundered souls of humanity reunite.
All right, that was three reasons not two. The third one became visible only after I wrote down the first two. I could go back and change it and delete this entire paragraph, which is now getting comically self-referential. Doh! But sometimes I like to share the process of my thought.
It occurs to me that the colloquial use of the term “meta” to refer to self-referentiality is also an aspect of a dissociation from matter, which casts us into a realm of symbols. Cut off from the infinity-wellspring of the animate, material, qualitative world, we cannibalize the symbolic world that originally budded off from it. We make stories about stories about stories. We make movies about toys based on movies based on comic books. Symbols come to symbolize other symbols, devolving into endlessly involuted self-reference. Underneath its whimsical playfulness, its witty word-play, its countless levels of abstraction lurks a horrible truth: We don’t care. A creeping cynicism pervades post-modern society, a numbness that whipped-up enthusiasm for the hyped-up Metaverse can dispel only temporarily.
Take for example the wonderful new innovation of virtual children. Yes, you read that right. Also known as “Tamagotchi children,” they are autonomous AI software bots programmed to flourish if they receive enough digital care and attention (and, presumably, purchased accessories). Mainstream media touts them as a solution to loneliness, overpopulation, and climate change. A recent Daily Mail headline reads: Rise of the ‘Tamagotchi kids’: Virtual children that play with you, cuddle you, and even look like you will be commonplace in 50 years – and could help combat overpopulation, AI expert predicts. These articles are curiously devoid of reservations about such software (see here and here). I don’t get it. Are we already living in two separate reality-bubbles? Do people really think this is OK? To me the most disturbing, the most flabbergasting thing about Tamagotchi children is their seamless normalization. Though I must confess, the same thought has occurred to me with each step of the ascent into virtuality. Reality TV, for example. “Can people actually accept this as a substitute for involvement in each other’s stories in community?”
For all the hype though, for all the blithe acceptance, still I detect the aforementioned cynicism, detachment, and despair beneath it. Are people actually excited about parading their avatars through online games, meetings, and orgies in the Metaverse? Or is it just the best available substitute for what is missing in post-modern society?
I use the term “post-modern” here deliberately. As an intellectual movement, postmodernism dovetails with immersion in a world of symbols detached from matter. The Metaverse reifies the postmodern doctrine that everything is a text, that reality is a social construct, that one is whatever one asserts oneself to be because is-ness is a mere discourse. So it is in the world of online avatars: Appearance and reality are one and the same. Reality is infinitely malleable, arbitrary, a construct. So it seems to anyone immersed in the realm of representation. The symbol, forgetting it once symbolized anything, becomes real in its own right. Commercial brands assume a value detached from the material substrate that gave them value in the first place. (Call it Gucci, and the handbag becomes valuable regardless of its quality.) Eventually the product may disappear entirely into virtual reality, leaving only the brand.
In politics much the same thing is happening. It’s all about optics, perceptions, image, the signal, the message. It is as if we are voting for digital avatars of politicians, not the real thing. No one takes the campaign promises of politicians at face value, but hears them as signifiers. That is why no one is surprised when none of the promises are redeemed. Do you even remember any of Joe Biden’s campaign promises? I certainly don’t. Maybe something about canceling student debt? No one got excited about it, because we discount and disbelieve politician’s words as a matter of course. Unfortunately, that allows them to enact horrible policies that few people would vote for—if they were voting for the policy itself and not the images obfuscating it. The more symbols absorb our attention, the more easily those who control information can manipulate the public.
Finally, let us not ignore the king of all symbols: money. It too is real only by convention, completely dissociated from anything material. It no longer symbolizes a measure of gold or a donation of wheat to the temple granary. It symbolizes nothing but itself. Thus it suggests that wealth need have no relation to matter, to material productivity; nor need it suffer any material or ecological constraint. (I speak here not only of so-called “fiat currencies” like the US dollar but, cryptocurrencies as well.) As with other systems of symbol, towers of abstraction rise upon the foundation of money: financial indexes, derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives.
At the present moment it looks like the whole tower of abstraction is about to come crashing down, as the orphaned material world intrudes upon the pretend reality of money, protesting its neglect. Since the orphaned material world includes all those the current system has dispossessed of their illusions along with their material security, we will undoubtedly face social turmoil. And it won’t just be the financial system that comes crashing down. There are many other rooms in the tower of abstraction. Fewer and fewer people will find comfortable abode within them. At this point, the elites—whoever remains in the few undamaged bunkers of the old normal—will face a choice. Either they retreat further into their bunkers, tightening their control over the growing ranks of the dispossessed, or they too flee the tower and join the rest of us in the real world. Practically, that means letting go of the entire global financial system; it means the cancellation of debt; it means the end of dollar hegemony and colonial extraction.
The elites faced a similar choice in 2008. They chose to extend and intensify their control, continuing to accumulate wealth by hollowing out the middle class, the global South, and the natural world. Financial collapse will not by itself deliver us unto a new world. We can choose to continue pursuing the transcendental program. Each aspect of it supports the rest. The dislocation of finance from matter is of a kind with the Metaverse’s dematerialization of experience and transhumanism’s separation of people from their bodies. All contribute to the same hollowing of substance. It is therefore no wonder that their ideologues cohabitate with the financial and political elite in institutions like the World Economic Forum. They hold a future in which we continue the path of Separation. But it is not the only future.
5. Separation and Interbeing
Let us return for a moment to the broad question of whether simulated reality can ever truly supersede material reality. On one level that is a technical question, dependent on computational capacities and so forth. On another level it is a metaphysical question: Can the universe be reduced to data? Is it discrete or continuous? Is the basic doctrine of the Scientific Revolution true, that everything real can be measured? Certain philosophers and physicists say yes, because, they believe, our material reality is itself a simulation, a program running in some inconceivably mighty computer. Personally I doubt it. Ever we apply the devices of our time metaphorically to the body and the universe. In the machine age, the body was a complicated mechanism, and the universe a deterministic machine composed of separate parts. In the computer age, we decide that the brain is a digital wetware computer, with CPU and memory banks, and the universe is a software program.
If it is true that the simulation will always fall short of the reality, that quality will always escape quantity, that an AI baby programmed to mimic the developmental trajectory of a child will never equal a real human, then the void beneath the digital Metaverse, the cynicism and despair, will never go away. But honestly, my wariness of the Metaverse does not depend on metaphysical doctrines.
I can be fair-minded and say that maybe there is nothing wrong with increasing machine-human, brain-computer integration; that maybe there is nothing wrong with people living in bubbles, interacting wholly in a digital gaming universe with virtual friends. But actually I don’t think it is OK at all, or perhaps I should say, it doesn’t feel OK. Anguish tears at me when I see today’s children immersed in the physically safe digital world, having virtual adventures while never leaving their bedrooms, unable to throw a ball or skip rope, never experiencing unsupervised imaginative group play. I do not blame the screen-addicted kids for their affliction, nor do I blame their parents. When my grown sons were younger, I remember sending them outside to play. They didn’t want to stay outside for long, because there was no one there for them to play with. Already, as a culture we were forgetting how to play, at least with our bodies, in materiality.
I remember one neighbor who wouldn’t let their children outside because there had been a case of Zika virus in the state. Obviously, that fear was a proxy for an unconscious fear of something else. Few of us feel truly safe in modern culture, for we suffer the existential insecurity that comes from the modern displacement from the material world. We feel ill at ease, not at home. The world has been made Other, hostile, something from which to insulate oneself. To such a person, the digital world—contained and safe, fully domestic—exerts an irresistible appeal. Seated in front of the screen, indoors, my child is safe.
Or so he seems. Eventually, the separation from the world will manifest as physical and emotional disease. Significantly, the real pandemic of our time is autoimmunity, allergies, and other immune dysfunctions—maladies that cannot be conquered by controlling something external to the self. There is nothing to kill or to keep out. Thus they mirror to us a forgotten truth: that the Nature we so cavalierly destroy is also a part of ourselves. We are more than interdependent with the rest of life, we are inter-existent. What we do to Nature, we do to ourselves. That is the truth called interbeing. We will never escape that truth, no matter how far we retreat into our virtual bubbles.
Quite the opposite. The further we retreat into virtual bubbles, the greater our sense of displacement, the more ill at ease, and the further from home we feel. Lacking embodied relationships, one feels a stranger in the world. The root crisis of our time is a crisis in belonging. It comes from the atrophy of our ecological and community relationships. Who am I? Each relationship tells me who I am. When someone knows not the stories behind the faces he or she sees every day, or the names and uses of the plants, or the history of a place and its people; when the outdoors is just so much scenery populated mostly by strangers; when one has no intimate companions outside the nuclear family; when one does not know well and is not well known, then one can barely exist, for existence is relationship. The insecure, isolated individual that remains is always anxious, susceptible to manipulation, and an easy target for marketers selling tokens of identity. He or she will eagerly take up whatever politically generated identities are available, aligning with an us against a them to gain a fragile sense of belonging. And, the comfort of the digital world will easily seduce that person into replacing lost material relationships with digital ones.
I just said that we can never escape the truth of interbeing no matter how far we retreat into our virtual bubbles. We cannot escape it, but we can postpone it. Maybe, paradoxically, we can postpone the inevitable forever. Collapse will not save us from our choices. Each new dysfunction, each new physical, mental, or social disease, can be palliated with yet more technology. Tamagotchi children may fail to assuage the loneliness of life in a bubble, but fortunately modern neuroscience has identified the precise arrangement of neurotransmitters and receptors that create the feeling of loneliness. We can modulate those—problem solved! And if that causes some other deficit, why, we can fix that too. Someday, when our control over genes and brain chemistry and body physiology is perfected, finally we will have achieved heaven. There is no limit to the power of technology to fix the failings of technology, just as there is no limit to the aforementioned tower of financial abstraction that uses debt to finance payments on previous debt. Yet never do we arrive in heaven.
In all these instances, the tower is none other than the Tower of Babel: a metaphor for the attempt to attain the infinite through finite means. It describes the quest to perfect virtual reality, to create improved versions of everything natural (synthetic mylk, for example, or genetically modified strawberries, or artificial wombs, or online adventures). We devote tremendous efforts to this tower-building project, but we never get any closer to the sky. Granted, we are no further from the sky either. We have risen high indeed and have a long way to fall. Precarious, rootless, many begin to question the project and the enormously complicated edifice that sprawls across the ruins of original cultures and ecosystems.
What would civilization look like if we built for beauty and not for height? If we did not use the things of earth to attempt to leave earth behind?
The Zika scare, of course, was but a foreshadowing of the social calamity that was to follow in 2020. Whole families barely ventured out of their homes for weeks and months at a time. Life accelerated its flight into the digital realm. Work, meetings, school, leisure, entertainment, dating, yoga classes, conferences, and more moved online—a small inconvenience, it was said, to save millions of lives. Whether many lives were actually saved thereby is a matter of dispute; my point here focuses on the other part: the “small inconvenience.” Was it really so small? Was it a mere inconvenience? Is the digital life a near-adequate substitute for in-person life? (Soon to become adequate as technology advances?) That depends largely on the metaphysical questions I raised earlier.
Here again though, I would like to appeal not to the mind but to the body to answer the question of whether digital life can be an adequate substitute for real life. During the lockdowns, I could feel myself withering. To be sure, an initial period of retreat was welcome for many people, a break in the routines of normalcy. Over time though, many of us began to show signs of emotional and social malnourishment. Even the politicians who imposed the most draconian mandates violated them themselves. Why? Because lockdowns were inhuman. They were anti-life.
Now I suppose some people were totally fine with lockdowns and social isolation, and would prefer it if we never went back to normal. They might say it is for safety, but I suspect something else is at work. During Covid I became accustomed to my little cage and developed a kind of agoraphobia. I wasn’t worried about getting sick; I was freaked out by the medical rituals of masking and distancing overtaking society. So, albeit for different reasons from the Covid-orthodox, I too retreated partly into a digital world. When I emerged, it was with a bit of trepidation, the kind one feels entering strange territory. Imagine what it is like for people who even before Covid felt alien or unsafe in the world. They might hesitate much more than the rest of us to venture out again, and welcome the enrichment of the isolation bubble that the Metaverse offers.
I have described centuries-long trends and deep unconscious narratives that contribute to the transhumanist agenda. If we try to understand it as simply a dastardly plan by Klaus Schwab & Co. to take over the world, we miss 99% of the picture. We miss the forces that produce a Bill Gates, a Klaus Schwab, and the technocratic elite. We miss the ideologies that give them power and dispose the public to accept their plans. These ideologies are far beyond the intellectual capacity of men like Gates and Schwab to invent. They are deeper, in fact, than the word ideology suggests. They are aspects of what one can only call a mythology.
6. Parallel Societies
Any alternative to the transhuman future must draw from a different mythology. But the mythology, at least the part of it comprising narrative and belief, is secondary. The alternative to transhumanism and transcendentalism generally is to fall back in love with matter. It is to accept our place as participants with the rest of life in an inconceivable process of creation. Instead of seeking to transcend our humanity, we seek to be more fully human. We longer seek to escape matter—not through the digital means of the Metaverse, nor through its spiritualized version.
Here I am writing about it. Here I am, putting into concepts a call to reverse the flight into concepts. I hope you can hear the voice behind the words, and sense the flesh behind the voice.
Those who fall back in love with matter will discover that the beloved bears unforeseen gifts. For example, when we reverse the quest for health-by-isolation and embrace relationship with the microbial world, the social world, and the wind, water, sunlight, and soil of the natural world, when we acknowledge the subtle dimensions of matter—frequency, energy, and information—then new vistas of healing open up that do not depend on killing a pathogen, cutting out a body part, or controlling a body process. Progress need not come through imposing order onto the world. It can come through joining in greater and greater, subtler and subtler levels of preexisting and unmanifest order.
The 1933 Chicago World’s Fair slogan may as well be the motto of the modern age: “Science Finds, Industry Applies, Man Conforms.” The doctrine of inevitability has long been a main thread in the narrative of technological progress. Science and technology will keep progressing, and it is up to us to adapt to it. But are we really so helpless? Are we but tools of technology? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? History offers signal examples, scant though they may be, of conscious rejection of technological progress: the early 19th-century Luddites and the contemporary Amish come to mind. Hold on a second, I have to change my typewriter ribbon. OK. To say brain-computer interfaces, wearable computing, genetically-engineered humans, the Metaverse, or the internet-of-things are inevitable basically declares that you have no choice in the matter, that the public has no choice. Well, who says? Those who are withholding the possibility of choice, that’s who. The logic is circular, when an unelected elite organization like the WEF declares that certain futures are inevitable. Maybe they wouldn’t be, in a fully informed, sovereign democratic society. Let’s be suspicious of centralized institutions proclaiming the inevitability of technologies that enhance the power of centralized institutions.
Perhaps it is inevitable that at least some portion of humanity will continue to explore the ascent of humanity away from matter. Despite the futility of its Utopian ambitions, that exploration will undoubtedly uncover new realms of creativity and beauty. After all, the symphony orchestra, the cinema, and the jazz quartet all depend on earlier technologies that were part of humanity’s separation from nature. Beauty, love, and life are irrepressible. They burst out everywhere, no matter how tight or stifling the matrix of control. Nonetheless, I know I am far from alone in saying, “That is not my future.” I am not alone in wanting to be more embodied, closer to the soil, less in the virtual world and more in the material, more in physical relationship, closer to my sources of food and medicine, more embedded in place and community. I might visit the Matrix sometimes, but I don’t want to live there.
Enough people share those values that the possibility of a parallel society is coming into view. We are OK with some people choosing to explore human beingness in the Metaverse, as long as we are not forced to live there too. The two societies might even be complementary to each other. Eventually they may split into two separate, symbiotic species.
Let’s call them the Transhumans and, if you’ll indulge me, the Hippies. I have had a soft spot for hippies ever since I first spotted some in the wild. It was in an Ann Arbor park in 1972. “Who are they?” I asked my mother, pointing to some people with long hair and beads. “Oh, those are hippies,” said my mother in a matter-of-fact tone. My four-year-old self was fully satisfied with the explanation.
Pachamama. Mural painting by Jon Marro
Back in those days, the hippies questioned the ideology of progress. They explored other paths of human development (meditation, yoga, psychedelics). They went back to the land. They wove their own baskets, built their own shacks, made their own clothes.
The Transhumans are distinguished by their progressive merger with technology. They depend on it for survival and more and more functions of life. Their immunity depends on constant updates. They cannot give birth unassisted—C-sections become routine (this is already happening). Eventually they incubate fetuses in artificial wombs, feed them artificial Mylk, care for them with AI nannies. They live full time in VR/AR environments, interacting with each other remotely from separate bubbles. Their material lives dwindle over the generations. Initially they emerge regularly from their insulated smart cities, smart homes, and personal protective bubbles, depending on what viruses or other dangers are circulating. Over time they leave home less and less frequently. Everything they need arrives by delivery drone. They spend most of their time indoors, for as they grow increasingly conditioned to precisely controlled environments, the unconditioned outdoors becomes inhospitable. (Already this has happened as people get addicted to air conditioning. Americans on average spend 95% of their time indoors.) They also spend more and more of their time online, in digital and virtual spaces. To facilitate this, technology is integrated directly into their brains and bodies. Sophisticated physiological sensors and pumps constantly adjust body chemistry to keep them healthy, and they soon cannot stay alive without them. In the brain, computer-neural interfaces allow them to access the internet at the speed of thought, and communicate with each other telepathically. Images and videos are delivered straight to their optic nerve. Official announcements can be delivered direct to their brains as well, and advertisers pay them per minute to allow commercial messages to be piped in. Eventually they can no longer distinguish between endogenous images and those from the outside. Control of misinformation can be extended to the neurological level. Over time, their capacity for cognition too becomes technology-dependent, as the brain merges with AIs and the internet. (Again, this is but the continuation of an ancient trend that started perhaps with writing. Literate people export some of their capacity for memory onto written records. It is not uncommon for pre-literate people to be able to repeat a thousand-line poem after hearing it once.)
In this society, basic physical functioning, social interaction, immunity, reproduction, imagination, cognition, and health all enter the realm of goods and services. New goods and services means vast new markets, new domains for economic growth. Economic growth is essential for a debt-based currency system to operate. The Transhuman economy therefore enables the current economic order to continue.
The Hippies decline to walk this path, and in fact reverse some part of the technological dependency that is already normal in 2022. This too is already happening. My children were born with less technological intervention than I was. The Hippies wean themselves off of pharmaceutical props to health, in some cases accepting higher risks and earlier deaths, but in the long run enjoying more vitality. They return—are already returning—to natural childbirth.2 They reverse, to a degree, the exquisite division of labor that marks modern society, growing more of their own food, building more of their own houses, being more directly engaged in meeting their material needs on an individual and community level. Their lives become less global, less technology-dependent, more place-based. They redevelop atrophied capacities of the human mind and body, and discover new ones. Since they do not routinely use technology to insulate themselves from all threats and challenges, they stay strong.
Because the Hippies are reclaiming vast areas of life from the realm of goods and services, their society upends the familiar economic order. The role of money in life diminishes. Interest-bearing debt is no longer the foundation of their economy. Alongside the shrinking financial realm, new modes of sharing, collaboration, and exchange flourish in a growing gift economy.
The Hippies see labor as something to embrace in proper measure, not to minimize. Efficiency gives way to aesthetics as the primary guide to material creation, and aesthetics integrates the entire process of procuring, using, and retiring materials. As individuals, in their communities, and as a global culture, they devote their creative powers to beauty above scale, fun above security, and healing above growth.
7. The Great Work
Today we see early signs that humanity is resolving into two societies. What if we bless each other on our choice, and strive to make room for it? It could well be that the Transhumans and the Hippies need each other and can enrich each other’s lives. For one thing, because the paradise of control is a mirage, the material world will forever intrude upon the Metaverse in ways that robots and AI won’t be able to address. Someone will have to fix the leaky roof on the computer server farms. The Transhumans will never fully realize the goal of replacing human labor with machine labor. However, they will develop technologies based on abstraction, computation, and quantity to an extraordinary degree, which in some circumstances can be put in service to the Hippies when they face a challenge requiring those technologies. And they can share the wonders of art and science they create on the transhuman path.
Both societies share certain challenges and live on a common planet. They will have to cooperate if either is to flourish. Perhaps the most significant common challenge is that of governance and social organization. While the transhumanist Metaverse today has overtones of totalitarian central control, it need not be that way. One can easily imagine a decentralized digital society, just as one can imagine a centralized low-tech society. Many ancient societies were exactly that. Neither path, the Transhuman nor the Hippie, is proof against the age-old scourges of tyranny, civil violence, and oppression.
Actually I don’t fully believe what I just wrote. The ever-increasing control over matter that transhumanism requires goes hand in hand with social control. They come from the same worldview: progress equals the imposition of order onto chaos. Given that all of the 60 “stakeholders” in the WEF’s new Metaverse initiative are large corporations, eager for a share of an $800 billion industry, one can safely assume that Metaverse technology will be used to extend and consolidate the power of the corporate-government complex.
It is not as some people say: “Technology is neutral, it depends on how we use it.” Technology has the values and beliefs of its inventors built into it. It appears in a social context, meets a society’s needs, fulfills its ambitions, and embodies its values. Inventions that don’t fit are marginalized or suppressed. Some such technologies, such as those in holistic health, thrive in the near suburbs of official reality. Others, such as free energy devices, languish in the far reaches of unreality, so violently do they contradict what the knowledge authorities believe is real. Neither is value-neutral nor system-neutral. They both are democratizing. The former, requiring much less expertise and high-tech infrastructure, returns medicine to the people. The latter literally decentralizes and democratizes power.
In contrast, most of the medical technology of transhumanism casts ordinary people into a consumer role. Swallow this pill. Receive this injection. Implant this device.
Nonetheless, there is truth in the above words-I-do-not-fully-believe. Notwithstanding the embedded values in technology, we face a more fundamental choice than what technology to use or refuse. Imagine what surveillance technology would do if it were directed by the people at the government, rather than by corporations and government at the people. Imagine if every government decision and expenditure were fully transparent. This idea taps into one of the principles that run deeper than technology: transparency. Lies, gossip, secrecy, and information control can turn any society, Stone Age or Digital Age, into a hell. Dehumanization can turn any society into a slaughterhouse. Good-versus-evil narratives can turn any society into a war zone.
That means we who sound the transhumanist alarm have more work to do than merely to oppose certain technologies and political powers, more to do, even, than to build parallel institutions. We Hippies might roll back technology a little or a lot. We might keep using the internet, cars, excavators, chain saws, and hunting rifles. Or maybe over generations we give them up. Maybe we again dig house foundations with picks and shovels. Maybe we return to the bicycle, or the donkey. However, I feel no excitement about a future that is only a return to the past. I am sure that the miraculous technologies enabled by the human journey of Separation are here for a reason. The pure melody of the lonely shepherd’s pipe does not diminish the value of the symphony orchestra. Both express a love affair with matter.
So the question is, what is the Great Work before us that is common to any technological context? What is the true revolution, the revolution of consciousness, that leaves no one behind to languish in a totalitarian medico-digital prison?
I won’t at this moment offer succinct or tidy answers to such questions. The questions themselves have more power than their answers. They invite us into compassion for all human beings. They return us to the truth of our inter-existence. They remind us that, just as we have not given up on our fellows, God will never give up on us. They attune us to the knowledge that if the situation were hopeless, we would not be here to meet it. They ask us to consider who we are and why we are here; what, and why, a human being is. Whatever the Revolution is, surely it goes all the way to these depths.
So I ask again, what is the Great Work before us? Be fierce in rejecting any answer that your soul knows is untrue, however flattering it may be to your righteousness. Be gentle in your judgments, so that clarity of purpose has room to grow. Be grateful as you discover the joy, ease, and humor that the Great Work makes available. Be confident in the true knowledge that we are ready to accomplish it. Rejoice in the renewal of our love affair with the world of matter and flesh.
Andrew Kaufman is a Medical Doctor, Psychiatrist and Molecular Biologist who received his training and degrees from Duke University, MIT and South Carolina Medical University. He says there are no such things as “viruses” and the “Coronavirus Global Pandemic” is a “manufactured event.”
The conversation around whether or not viruses exist, appears to conjure up all kinds of emotions, and is met with resistance. My guess is because virology is a deeply entrenched paradigm, and it is what we were taught as kids.
A cult-like approach would be to dismiss dissenting views and, instead, to perpetuate a previously held belief. David Rasnick refers to this as the Tyranny Of Dogma.
Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.
by Zen Gardner
originally published November 30, 2011
This overwhelming yet cleverly obscured phenomenon of extremely patient, devious long range planning by the changing guard of the “powers that be” is of paramount importance.
The ‘patience of the planners’ aspect eventually becomes evident to any sincere researcher, and literally haunts and even taunts with its seductive perfidy. Even putting your finger on this slippery subject is a chore, since we don’t think like they do and have a hard time even conceiving of such inter-generational, pathological conniving, the complete fulfillment of which most would knowingly not see in their lifetimes. It’s beyond us.
And that’s the key. They’re not normal. Something very powerful and sinister is driving them.
Fully developed conscious humans wouldn’t plot and scheme for generations to take over the world at any cost to its inhabitants. Most humans inherently trust and positively contribute in conscious, natural ways, endeavoring to pass on to their progeny loving wisdom and a better world. We natural born citizens believe in the decency of humanity and that natural and spiritual laws are clearly delineated via the simplest observations of the world around us and the revelations of our awakened conscience.
Love and truth are not all that complicated. Naturally.
However, seriously perverted and otherwise motivated elements feel they need to control and steer and harvest the energies of everyone else. Natural law and order are anathema to them. They’ve decided for some insane, occult reason, that humanity is diseased with its own ‘naturalness’ and needs to be corralled, cleansed, modified and even “maintained” at certain population levels. Their self-styled, cold so-called intellectual prowess dictates a world with the “illuminated” man taking the earth-bound masses into a utopia designed by these self-appointed elites, for these same elites, and with them in absolute power over a populace enthralled with its very enslavement.
And they’re pretty damn close in many respects, sad to say.
But what really opens people’s eyes is realizing this is something that is spiritually driven, and when you connect enough dots you see there is a core intelligence behind these tentacles of control being exerted on humanity.
And it’s ugly.
A Slippery Concept With Woeful Consequences
What I’m driving at is the ageless nature of this conspiracy by a very few to take dominion over the earth and how they’re going about it. I maintain that very long-term planning with extreme, deliberate patience is their greatest “stealth” weapon.
In fact, in the words of Adam Weishaupt, the hired founder of the Bavarian Illuminati, this slow moving shroud of secrecy is the very same weapon used to attract followers and participants in this furtive plan. He said:
Of all the means I know to lead men, the most effectual is a concealed mystery. The hankering of the mind is irresistible.
That’s how they work; in secret, very slowly, yet right in your face. The reason is for the distinct purpose of not being noticed. In fact, after the Bavarian Illuminati were found out they were banished and took refuge within Masonic lodges, told to be a secret society within another secret society. Next they were told to start philanthropic organizations. And on they’ve moved within institution after institution.
Lies within lies. Who would imagine such a thing? They would.
Time Lapse Dot Connecting
Just watch politics and economics, and especially societal changes. When you look back historically some things are extremely clear in how they developed. However, for the people living within those changes? Did the Germans see what they were being led into under the Nazis? Did the Russians know they were begging for their own mass execution when they got behind an apparently populist Communist movement?
Do the Americans know their once beloved Republic is fast becoming much worse than Nazi Germany? Most don’t.
And how did the world get the way it did at any point? By degrees, always by degrees. Cataclysmic social changes like outright revolutions are the exception, but even those are brought about by slow planning, seeding and preparation, usually for many years. And yes, by a small minority of extremely determined and proactive conspiratorial plotters and planners.
And who has almost outlawed talking about, never mind believing in, conspiracies? The conspirators, of course
They can ostensibly do some drastic, very noticeable things at times, but then they’ll soften in other areas so as to not cause too big a reaction. They could take gasoline prices through the roof and gouge the public even more than they do, but they know the “natives will get restless” when they push too hard and too fast. Instead, they’ll work another area such as the war arena or vaccines or climate change to get everyone’s minds off of monetary issues, if need be.
They have a lot of cards to play.
They’re devilishly smart. When you start seeing how pervasive this relentless inching forward of their plan is on so many fronts it can be quite disturbing.
Light, Shadows and Long Term Degradation
One of best analogies that demonstrates the subtly of this slow, long range mindset is noticing how you see the slow movement of the Sun by its effects. You don’t actually see the Sun move, but you trace its motion by its placement in the sky, and the shadows cast by trees and buildings. It’s like watching the stars…except for a few asteroids, everything moves just beyond where you can detect motion. If you go into the house for a few minutes and come back to look at the sky, everything will have moved. But it’s just beyond visual detection.
Similarly, the effects of the social engineering efforts of these few very determined manipulators can be seen in the slow moving and evolving shadows of societal change. And almost always for the worse, unless they’re doing some PR of some sort to make something more “palatable” to their subjects.
Just trace some of the trends.
The destruction of the family unit has not just been a coincidence.
The degradation of morality and the debasement of human behavior via manipulated mass media garbage is no accident.
A dumbing down educational system that rings bells and buzzers as if for lab rats and shoves fabricated repetitive data and meaningless dis-associative information into children’s minds like a meat grinder is just the way they want it.
The rape and wanton destruction of the environment, including our seas, skies, lands and food chain is fully engineered.
While wars, economies, political states and corporate conglomerates are managed by this same manipulative handful via their massively powerful banking arm.
All with the express purpose of destroying civilization from within and without to bring about a new world order of their design.
And this doesn’t touch the inherent enforced ignorance via withholding knowledge while promoting fabricated religions, phony science and false history…and that for millennia.
The So-called Elites are Parasites
In a way this “patience of the Illuminati planners” concept exemplifies the very difference between so-called normal humanity and those who subscribe to this nefarious elitist mindset. Most could never conceive that anything so vast, so thoroughly planned, even to go so far as passing through one begrudging, power-mad bloodline generation after another, could possibly be afoot.
Yet it is, much like a parasite or alien creature that has invaded a body. The initial subject is turned into a host, considered nothing more than a living feeding ground for them, while the parasitic creature slowly strengthens and multiplies and literally re-forms what it can of the original organism to serve its purposes.
There are a lot of theories as to what exactly is the nature of these would-be controllers, from simply pathological demagogues with serious psychiatric problems, to persons controlled by demonic spiritual entities or trans-dimensional alien races of reptilian origin. Anyway you look at it, something’s afoot and humanity better wake up to it.
Because these parasites are about to kill their hosts.
The Illuminati Question
The question remains, who and what is directing these changes? Can there really be a plot to bring about a specific desired result through social, economic, political and even biological manipulation over these long periods of time?
Herein lies the aha moment for many.
In the words of Winston Churchill in 1920; (although he himself played a similar role on the other side of the coin..)
“From the days of Adam Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century, and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”
Manly P; Hall, himself a 33rd degree Freemason, was a prolific writer about the occult mystery schools. While these occult, (meaning hidden) teachings have been around for millennia, they’ve been shrouded in secrecy and a “don’t touch” classification to keep this knowledge from the common man, whom they call the profane, oddly enough. (Oh how they love to twist concepts to keep us confused.)
The following summary is a simplified history and quite profound and ends with a bang. (Emphases mine.)
The Illuminati “Brotherhood” of the Great School – Some Background
Today, the term Illuminati is used to loosely describe the small group of powerful individuals who are working towards the creation of a World Government, with the issue of a single world currency and a single world religion. Although it is difficult to determine if this group descends directly from the original Bavarian Illuminati or that it even uses the term Illuminati, its tenets and methods are in perfect continuation of it. As stated above, the name that is used to describe the occult elite can change. And, ultimately, the name is irrelevant; what needs to be recognized is the underlying current that has existed for centuries.
According to Manly. P Hall, the Bavarian Illuminati was part of what he calls the “Universal Brotherhood”, an invisible Order at the “source” of most Hermetic Secret Societies of the past. It has worked for centuries towards the transformation of mankind, guiding it through a worldwide alchemical process. The same way the alchemical Great Work seeks to turn crude metals into gold, it claims to work towards a similar metamorphosis of the world. According to Hall, the Universal Brotherhood sometimes makes itself visible, but under the guise of different names and symbols. This would mean that the Knights Templars, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, and Illuminati are temporary visible manifestations of an underlying force that is infinitely more profound and more powerful. However, human beings being what they are – weak toward greed and power-lust – these movements often become more corrupted and end up conspiring against the masses for more power and material gain.
Hall concludes that the Illuminati existed long before the advent of Weishaupt’s Order and that it still exists today. It was under the guise of defeat and destruction that the Illuminati realized its greatest victories.
“Weishaupt emerged as a faithful servant of a higher cause. Behind him moved the intricate machinery of the Secret School. As usual, they did not trust their full weight to any perishable institution. The physical history of the Bavarian Illuminati extended over a period of only twelve years. It is difficult to understand, therefore, the profound stir which this movement caused in the political life of Europe. We are forced to the realization that this Bavarian group was only one fragment of a large and composite design.
All efforts to discover the members of the higher grades of the Illuminist Order have been unsuccessful. It has been customary, therefore, to assume that these higher grades did not exist except in the minds of Weishaupt and von Knigge. Is it not equally possible that a powerful group of men, resolved to remain entirely unknown, moved behind Weishaupt and pushed him forward as a screen for its own activities?
The ideals of Illuminism, as they are found in the pagan Mysteries of antiquity, were old when Weishaupt was born, and it is unlikely that these long-cherished convictions perished with his Bavarian experiment. The work that was unfinished in 1785 remains unfinished in 1950. Esoteric Orders will not become extinct until the purpose which brought them into being has been fulfilled. Organizations may perish, but the Great School is indestructible.” Source
Indestructible? Look What’s Arriving!
“Organizations may perish, but the Great School is indestructible.” says worshipful adherent Hall. Sorry, I don’t share his reverence for all that “knowledge”, especially not in that context. Yeah, there will always be creeps who yield to the dark side and will do anything for temporal power and glory and use any means they can to do so.
But their time in this cycle is almost over.
It is astonishing seeing their avarice and bravado so fully on display on the world stage right now. It seems to be peaking at this point in history as they think they have this pretty well sewn up with World War Three coming down the “pike” and the world being so well conditioned to accept the coming police state and New World Order.
And any moves the people make to resist at this point seem to only serve to strengthen their grip, like a Chinese handcuff.
Fear Not
They’ll have their day in many ways. But it doesn’t have to be YOUR day. It’s really a time to get clear of it all. Pull out of their sticky system every way you can. As humanity wakes up from its slumber we’re seeing the shadows flee.
And it is happening now, and it is truly glorious! Keep heart! Stay on top of it, and help others do the same.
I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant. – Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued that stupid people are more dangerous than evil ones. This is because while we can protest against or fight evil people, against stupid ones we are defenseless — reasons fall on deaf ears. Bonhoeffer’s famous text, which we slightly edited for this video, serves any free society as a warning of what can happen when certain people gain too much power.
The Full Story
In the darkest chapter of German history, during a time when incited mobs threw stones into the windows of innocent shop owners and women and children were cruelly humiliated in the open; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a young pastor, began to speak publicly against the atrocities.
After years of trying to change people’s minds, Bonhoeffer came home one evening and his own father had to tell him that two men were waiting in his room to take him away.
In prison, Bonhoeffer began to reflect on how his country of poets and thinkers had turned into a collective of cowards, crooks and criminals. Eventually he concluded that the root of the problem was not malice, but stupidity.
Bonhoeffer’s Letters From Prison
In his famous letters from prison, Bonhoeffer argued that stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice, because while “one may protest against evil; it can be exposed and prevented by the use of force, against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here. Reasons fall on deaf ears.”
Facts that contradict a stupid person’s prejudgment simply need not be believed and when they are irrefutable, they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this, the stupid person is self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.
For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. If we want to know how to get the better of stupidity, we must seek to understand its nature.
This much is certain, stupidity is in essence not an intellectual defect but a moral one. There are human beings who are remarkably agile intellectually yet stupid, and others who are intellectually dull yet anything but stupid.
The impression one gains is not so much that stupidity is a congenital defect but that, under certain circumstances, people are made stupid or rather, they allow this to happen to them.
People who live in solitude manifest this defect less frequently than individuals in groups. And so it would seem that stupidity is perhaps less a psychological than a sociological problem.
It becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power, be it of a political or religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity. Almost as if this is a sociological-psychological law where the power of the one needs the stupidity of the other.
The process at work here is not that particular human capacities, such as intellect, suddenly fail. Instead, it seems that under the overwhelming impact of rising power, humans are deprived of their inner independence and, more or less consciously, give up an autonomous position.
The fact that the stupid person is often stubborn must not blind us from the fact that he is not independent. In conversation with him, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with him as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of him.
He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and is abused in his very being. Having thus become a mindless tool, the stupid person will also be capable of any evil – incapable of seeing that it is evil.
Only an act of liberation, not instruction, can overcome stupidity. Here we must come to terms with the fact that in most cases a genuine internal liberation becomes possible only when external liberation has preceded it. Until then, we must abandon all attempts to convince the stupid person.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Bonhoeffer died due to his involvement in a plot against Adolf Hitler at dawn on 9 April 1945 at Flossenbürg concentration camp just two weeks before soldiers from the United States liberated the camp.
“Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.” Bonhoeffer once said.
Check the sources below to read Bonhoeffer’s original text, “After Ten Years”
Joseph P. Farrell with Dark Journalist: On the Manufactured UFO Threat Alongside Manufactured Pandemics and Wars — Emergency Powers & Continuity of Government
Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt welcomes Oxford Scholar Dr. Joseph Farrell back to the show for a special deep dive on the Continuity of Government (COG) NORTHCOM activation for the CIA and Department of Homeland Security Manufactured UFO Threat.
Dr. Farrell also goes deep on the endgame for the Transhumanist controlling group that is growing increasingly desperate as their operations for global takeover are stumbling.
Part 2 of this conversation is available for subscribers to Dark Journalist.
Mike Stone runs viroliegy.com, easily the most powerful and persuasive critique of virology, that I’ve come across.
I’ve chatted to a number of great minds on the topic of viruses, such as Tom Cowan and Sam Bailey, and find myself convinced by their arguments.
In our conversation, Mike covers
why virology is pseudoscience;
what viruses are;
the problems with definitions;
direct evidence versus indirect evidence;
Koch’s Postulates and why they matter;
the rejection of the Scientific Method;
isolation and purification;
genomics and genome sequencing; and
the Rockefeller funding behind virology.
I strongly recommend reading Bechamp Or Pasteur, which is a biographical exposé of the fraudulent work of Louis Pasteur and the forgotten work of Antoine Béchamp.
The 108th anniversary of this event just happened last month. Always feels strange how a century can go by and little details slip through the cracks, forgotten. We thought we knew this story… but then we had to go and dig.
{An edition to our new “Forgotten History” series}
As you know, I’ve spent two years presenting evidence that the discovery of SARS-CoV-2 was a fake.
But I still press on. I examine the reality machine to see why people have such a problem acknowledging the virus—and by extension, all viruses—are nothing more than fairy tales.
I’ve come up with a number of explanations.
For example: DOCTORS.
Rejecting viruses is rejecting doctors. Doctors are security guards around the reality machine.
“Doctors can’t be wrong.”
“I can’t live in a world where doctors are so wrong.”
“I would never be able to stop weeping for the doctors who are so wrong.”
“If I told my doctor I didn’t believe in viruses, he would cut me off, and I couldn’t stand that.”
“I’m a journalist, and my best sources are doctors. The good doctors. And they all say viruses are real. I need my sources.”
“Without information from doctors, the world would spin into chaos.”
“My mind instructs me to believe doctors are only guilty of making mistakes up to a certain threshold. Beyond that, they simply can’t be criticized.”
OK, that takes care of the doctor fixation. But then we have what I call the world-view fixation:
“I don’t want to live in a world where there are no viruses. I would feel lonely and afraid.”
“I need the assurance that this world of ours is filled with tiny invisible killers. When I accept that, I can maintain equilibrium. You know, their threat and our response. It makes sense.”
“I love the idea of tiny killers. It comforts me.”
“I know precisely what to be afraid of in this world. Otherwise, I would start to see ghosts in closets at night again. I remember them from childhood. Those bastards were PERSONAL. They were coming for ME. Viruses are neutral. They don’t know me. To them, I’m just cells. They don’t PREFER me. They’ll take anyone. I like that.”
“Even if viruses are bullshit, they’re sophisticated bullshit. I favor that over some sort of primitive bullshit.”
“Rejecting viruses would equal rejecting my college education. I need that education to assert my superior position against the Lower Ignorant Ones.”
“The ecological chain of life includes viruses. If we remove them from the chain, Nature makes no sense. That’s what I hear.”
“The world is a dangerous place. This is good, because it helps me to explain my problems and lack of determination. Without viruses, the danger factor would be reduced, and I can’t have that.”
“The nature of reality dictates that when you’re right, you should be psychotically nasty about being right. If I’m not right about the existence of viruses, I can’t be as nasty as I want to be. And that would be a tragedy.”
“My father is a doctor, and he is a great man. At least as great as Al Capone.”
During crises, people ask questions, and the Covid crisis is no exception. People are asking, “Is there any real or new illness called Covid-19—apart from vaccinations and the treatments themselves?” We are not alone in proposing that we must take a cold look at the viral theory touted as the cause of this alleged disease.
Journalist Jeremy Hammond has been the most outspoken critic of our contention that the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” does not exist and therefore does not cause Covid. In a video posted in March 2021,1 he outlines the following arguments for the existence of the “virus.” We answer his arguments, point by point.
Definition of Isolation
Hammond states that people in our camp have changed the definition of isolation, but we use the actual definition of the word “isolation” in the English language. It’s the virologists who have changed the meaning of the word from “separated from other things” to meaning “combined with other things in a foreign cell culture.”
Isolation Technology
Hammond claims that scientists do not yet have the technology to purify viral particles. Actually, scientists have been able to purify particles equivalent in size to so-called viruses for decades. The traditional method, in use since at least the 1940s, involves what is called density gradient ultracentrifugation. It uses different densities of a sucrose solution spun into layers at high speeds with an ultracentrifuge, so that the densest layer ends up on the bottom. The sample will separate into bands based on different densities, and one of those bands could contain the so-called viral particles if they existed.
For example, a 2015 article published in Methods in Molecular Biology,2 provides electron microscopy photographs of purified exosomes (see Figure 1). Exosomes are roughly the same size as that of claimed viral particles, around fifty to one hundred nanometers, and they have the same morphology and characteristics of alleged virus particles.
If you can purify exosomes, you can purify viruses using the same techniques. Scientists take exosomes directly from a body fluid; they don’t take the exosomes and put them in a cell culture. One of the challenges the authors discuss is the fact that the exosomes are present in low numbers; also, there are many different types of extracellular particles in the bodily fluid from which to separate the exosomes. These are some of the problems that have been put forth as a reason why it’s difficult to purify virus particles, but the researchers have overcome these problems with exosomes.
Bacteriophages, known as “the viruses of bacteria,” can also be purified, as shown in a 2018 article (again published in Methods in Molecular Biology)33 (see Figure 1). Bacteriophages are particles of similar size to viruses, and they also can be purified by chromatography and other methods. Mr. Hammond alleges that you can’t get a pure sample—a sample where you see only one thing in a vacuum. However, as you can see in the photos of exosomes and bacteriophages, all the objects are the same—they are the only thing in the microscope field because these have been isolated and purified, and there is nothing else in the sample, just exosomes or bacteriophages.
FIGURE 1. Isolated exosomes, isolated bacteriophages and “isolated” viruses
Isolated, purified exosomes
Isolated, purified bacteriophages
Sample taken from human fluids and grown in a tissue culture, said to be “purified” and “isolated” virus.So, biologists clearly have this technology, and it’s been around for quite a long time. It’s just that when they tried to do isolate viral particles, back in the 1940s and 1950s, after they had electron microscopes, they were actually unable to find any particle in the tissues or fluids of anyone who was ill. The problem is that they are unable to find the viral particles, not that they don’t have the technology to isolate and purify.
Cell Culture is the Gold Standard
Hammond admits that you need a cell culture to “isolate” a virus, because the virus needs cells in which to replicate in order to have enough virus to detect. According to the viral theory, the virus causes an infection in the lung, for example, when it invades the lung cells and then reproduces in the lung tissue, right in those cells, and then produces more viral particles. So, all we would need to do is go right to that tissue culture in the sick person, not one that we create in a laboratory with other conditions that are not natural.
In other words, why would we do this kind of indirect experiment when we have a cell culture right in the host—namely, virus-invaded lung tissue—from which we could extract the virus? Why can’t we do a proper isolation, where you go to the host, the natural source of the virus, which is a sick person with an infection, and purify the viral particles right out of that person’s bodily tissues or fluids?
Cytopathic Effects
Virologists claim that the pathogenic nature of viruses is evident in light microscope images of tissue cultures showing cytopathic effects (meaning cell breakdown). But what the images of “viruses” from an electron microscope show is a mixture of cellular material from the cell culture and a variety of different types of particles (see Figure 1, third image). How can we know what any of those particles actually are? And how do we know the particle didn’t come from the foreign cell culture, such as the kidney cells it was cultured in? How do we know it’s not an exosome, a particle produced inside the cell? How do we know it’s not an apoptotic body (from cellular breakdown)? How do we know it’s not another type of extracellular vesicle? How do we know it’s a virus (since it doesn’t have a label and has not been isolated and purified)? While virologists can show images of small particles, they have no way of identifying the nature or identity of any of those particles.
Genetic Sequencing
Hammond claims that scientists can do genetic sequencing of the particles found in tissue cultures. There are actually two ways of doing genetic sequencing. One way is to extract genetic material from only one organism, and then sequence the genome in its entirety. That’s how you can discover the genome sequence of a new organism.
But for viruses, scientists use a different technique, variously termed “genomic” sequencing, “next generation” sequencing or “in silico” sequencing (meaning carried out in a computer). Whatever they call it, this kind of sequencing is just piecemeal.
Hammond describes the method accurately, in that they start with lots of pieces of genetic material, and then a computer does sophisticated calculations and simulations to put them together. The problem—which Hammond does not describe—is that the starting material for these experiments is not a pure organism; it’s not just a virus. What they’re starting with is, in most cases, the lung fluid from a patient diagnosed with Covid by a PCR test. (And we know the PCR test is invalid. See sidebar page 20.)
The fluid they start with has genetic material from many different organisms—from a variety of bacteria species, probably some fungal and yeast species, as well as all of the human genetic material from the host and then anything that happened to be in the air that this person inhaled for the few breaths before they took the sample. In other words, there are many sources of genetic material. When they put those little bits of genetic material into the computer, the computer doesn’t know which organism they’re from—since they are not starting with a pure virus, there’s no way to tell.
When the computer runs the simulation and tries to fit these little strands of sequences together by overlapping ends, they don’t know whether the computer is making a real sequence of an organism, or if it’s putting little bits from different organisms together into some kind of mishmash or chimera. They have no way to check it against a reference standard, because there’s never been any true sequence of these viruses. What we end up with is just a simulation.
To give an idea of the problem, in the first sequence that they did this way with SARS-CoV-2, they actually had over fifty-six million little pieces or sequences, and they had not one but two different software programs independently take those pieces and try to construct them into a longer strand that they said was the size of a typical coronavirus genome. With one of the software programs, they just threw out the data because it didn’t give them what they wanted. So, they’re picking and choosing at each stage: “We think this is good. . . we want to use this.”
The other software program came up with over a million different possible sequences, but they just picked one. And there was no rhyme or reason to how they picked it. It was just an arbitrary selection. With all of the uncertainty about the origin of each individual piece of DNA, they just randomly select one of millions of possible combinations spit out by a computer. How could anyone believe these results represent the real genome of an actual organism? It would be impossible.
Lack of Proper Controls
Hammond states that virologists do a control experiment when they do the tissue cultures. That statement is not quite accurate. In a proper control, you have only one variable different, and as far as we know, virologists have never actually done this. The proper way to do it would be to take lung fluid from someone who is sick, but does not have Covid—sick with influenza or pneumonia, for example—or even lung fluid from someone who is healthy. Then, they would continue the experiment using the exact same methods, the same cell cultures, the same concentrations of antibiotics, the exact same nutrients, and any other additives or environmental conditions such as the same temperature, the same amount of agitation, the same protocols all around—that would be a proper control. No one is doing this type of proper control for virus identification.
Some of the papers about SARS-CoV-2 have mentioned what’s called a “mock infected culture,” but this is not the same as a control. In fact, we don’t know exactly what they do with these mock infected cultures. They’re not reported on in every paper, but in a couple they are. And curiously, they don’t describe these mock infected cultures at all. If you go to the methods sections, you don’t see any explanation of what a mock infected culture is. And they don’t mention the word “control.”
If they’re doing a true control experiment, why wouldn’t they call it a control culture? They have to use different words because they’re not really doing a proper control, but they’re trying to pass it off as one, which is why they change the words. We have read hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers on other subjects, and they always refer to the control group; they don’t say the “mock treatment group.” So, the mock infected culture is some kind of trick. We even tried to communicate with a couple of the corresponding authors on these publications. We asked an open-ended question: “Can you tell us the procedure for the mock infected cells listed in this figure?” In most cases, they didn’t reply at all.
In one case, we were unable to get a clear answer. The reply we received was, “They’re treated the same.” But what does that mean? “Can you tell us the exact conditions?” We even put our queries into a yes or no question like, “Did you use the same antibiotics at the same concentration? Did you use the same nutrition at the same concentration?” But we could not get a clear response, which suggests that they are probably hiding something.
We do have two examples of studies that included a control sample. The first comes from a 1954 article published in Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine by Enders and Peebles.4 This was the first published paper to use the cell culture technique, which later became known as “virus isolation.”
In this study on measles, the authors put the patient specimen in a foreign culture of monkey kidney cells and then they got cytopathic effects—meaning they were able to show some damage to the cell culture.
An interesting quote in this paper describes the results of the control experiment. “Monkey kidney cultures may therefore be applied for the study of these agents [referring to measles] in the same manner as cultures of human kidney. In doing so, however, it must be borne in mind that cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in a monkey kidney tissue or by unknown factors.”
In other words, they saw a cytopathic effect in the cell culture that was alleged to be a result of damage from the measles virus itself—but it might not necessarily have come from the measles virus; it could have been caused by something in the kidney cells themselves, which they call viruses, or from unknown factors.
Continuing, the two authors said, “A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells.” Now, that means they did not put any sample from a measles patient in the culture; they ran the cell culture without a source of virus—just the cell culture with no patient sample in it. According to the authors, “The cytopathic changes induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles [emphasis added].” In other words, the sample with nothing added to it produced the same results as the sample containing fluid from the measles patient.
Since the control was positive, that means that the experimental procedure itself, and not the measles virus, caused the cytopathic changes.
An important recent control experiment was carried out by Dr. Stefan Lanka, who is the only virologist we are aware of who has recognized the truth about the nonexistence of a virus—and who left the field. What he did was carry out just the control experiment. There is no possible source of virus anywhere in this experiment. As you can see in Figure 2, the top row of panels is Day One and the second row is Day Five of the experiment.
FIGURE 2. Control experiment by Dr. Stefan LankaDay One is when they changed the cell culture conditions. Previous to Day One, all of these cell cultures were kept healthy with normal cell culture procedures; then, on Day One, they changed the condition. In the first column, they used the full nutrition (GlutaMAX plus 10 percent fetal calf serum) and antibiotics at the normal concentration. In the second column, they reduced the nutrition and kept the same concentration of antibiotics. There was no change on Day Five for either of these two procedures, no cytopathic effects.
The third column simulates what they do in virus cell culture isolation experiments, using reduced nutrition while increasing the antibiotic to three times the normal concentration. (The protocols use either two times or three times the normal concentration.) You can see that on Day Five, there were cytopathic effects—the cells developed vacuoles and started to break down. Normally, virologists would give this as proof of the existence of a virus, except that there’s no virus in this experiment.
In the fourth column, Lanka added yeast RNA, which doesn’t contain any viruses—it’s a pure yeast RNA specimen bought from a laboratory supply company with good quality control. You can see even more cytopathic effects on Day Five in that culture.
So, both these control experiments show that the experimental procedure itself produces the cytopathic effects. If you took the culture materials from the two dishes with cytopathic effects and looked at them under an electron microscope, you would see particles in there that you could call a virus.
Coronavirus Fringe Pattern
According to Hammond, virologists can see the characteristic coronavirus spikes on the particles they are calling viruses. Let’s review a couple of studies to see what is going on. The first was published in 2020 in Kidney360.5 In this study, researchers were looking at biopsies of people with kidney disease, mostly from before the Covid era. In the electron microscope photographs, they saw particles with the characteristic coronavirus spikes (see Figure 3). The researchers said that these were indistinguishable from coronavirus particles, which was a source of confusion for virologists. The authors pointed this out, and they even referenced a previous paper from the CDC that found the same thing.
FIGURE 3. “Viral-like particles in non-COVID19 patients’ biopsies. Electron microscopy images of viral-like particles within podocytes in a case of thrombotic microangiopathy in a (A) native kidney biopsy specimen and (B) acute cellular rejection in an allograft. Note the presence in both cases of single vesicles with an electrondense rim likely representing endocytic coated vesicles, as well as larger multivesicular bodies (arrows), which could be confounded with vesicle packets containing virions. Inset in (A): the individual small coated pits in the exterior of the vesicle bear resemblance to a viral corona. (C) Similar intracytoplasmic vesicles within tubules in an allograft with changes suspicious for acute cellular rejection.”They also said that they identified the protein that made up the spikes, and it was not the spike protein, but a protein called clathrin. So, seeing the characteristic spikes is completely meaningless; it doesn’t identify something as a coronavirus. Remember that these kidney biopsies were from people who had no disease that anyone thought was related to a virus, and it was before even the “discovery” of so-called SARS-CoV-2.
The second example comes from a “virus isolation” paper published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2020.6 A very interesting quote occurs in this paper: “Electron micrographs. . . showed cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles. Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin into the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.” In other words, they didn’t see any spikes so they added the digestive enzyme trypsin, which breaks or cleaves proteins at a certain sequence, and then looked at it again under the microscope—and then saw the spikes! (See Figure 4.)
FIGURE 4: “Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin into the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.”Now, isn’t that convenient? In other words, they put a spike suit on the particles so they could look like they’re supposed to look, instead of saying, “Hey, maybe there is no coronavirus in the sample.” If we have to digest a protein to make it look a certain way, then how could we say that’s what it is? It’s like having a cat but really wanting a dog, so you put a little microphone around the cat’s neck that makes a barking sound and then call it a dog. We would call this cheating.
Genome Sequencing
As Hammond and other adherents of viral theory have often stated, genome sequencing has been repeated thousands of times, and the results are published in international databases, so they can’t be a hoax. Actually, the in silico genome-sequencing procedure that we have described has been repeated over two million times—far more than Hammond claims. And of course, each time they get different results, because they can’t repeat results in an invalid experiment, so the different results are all published.
As described earlier, the way they do this is to take a bunch of pieces of unknown origin, which they run through different software simulations, and then pick out the one they like. And then they do some further magic on it by just popping things in or taking things out somewhat arbitrarily to make it look more like what they think a coronavirus genome should look like. Then they claim that this sequence is a “reference sequence” and against all of those couple of million experiments that they have repeated, they can template a reference genome. So, of course, the computer is able to put things together in such a way that it matches the so-called reference sequence somewhat closely, because the sequences that make this up are probably mostly just human sequences of non-coding RNA. (A recent analysis shows this and will soon be published.) Thus, you should be able to have similar enough sequences that you can put something together that’s close, but not exactly identical—which they then call “variants.”
Now Hammond claims that if the procedures were fraudulent, then tens of thousands of scientists all over the world would be participating together in a conspiracy; but that’s not the case at all because almost none of these scientists realizes that what they’re doing is not good science—they never question it. Doctors rarely question the things they’re taught; they just learn them and accept them as true. That’s why I (Andrew Kaufman) was recommending vaccines and using antibiotics earlier in my career, because I also just accepted those things and did them without question. Now I realize that they’re quite lethal, so I don’t do them anymore. There was a kind of individual process that I went through for that.
But the scientists involved in “virus isolation” don’t realize that they’re doing fraudulent science because they’ve never looked at it carefully. And one of the ways that science allows this kind of thing to happen is by a high degree of compartmentalization, where they don’t collaborate or talk with other people in different fields. They don’t learn how other scientists do their experiments and also how they do control experiments. And they don’t seem to talk to exosome scientists, often because they would then see that exosome scientists are able to extract and purify exosomes right from the source. And then they would try to do that and fail, because there aren’t any viruses, and then they would have to have a different conclusion and change their opinion.
But the truth is, it doesn’t matter whether all of the thousands of scientists doing “virus isolation” are in a conspiracy, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re completely ignorant, because the only thing that’s important is to look at the actual science itself—the experiments—and ask the question, can you learn something from this? Can you conclude anything from this experiment? And if the answer is no, it doesn’t matter how many people think you’re wrong, it only matters that the answer is no. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that the virologists have gotten this wrong, because in medicine this happens frequently. Take the example of beta blockers and heart failure. For many decades, it was an absolute contraindication to prescribe a beta blocker to someone with heart failure, because beta blockers make your heart beat less strongly and less rapidly. So, that was seen to make your heart weaker. But then research showed that actually, adding a beta blocker slows the progression of heart failure and allows people to live longer. It took some time for that scientific finding to be integrated into medicine, but there was no truth to the notion that doctors everywhere were in a conspiracy to hasten the death of heart failure patients. They were just ignorant to the truth of the scientific relationship between that drug in that condition. We could interpret “virus isolation” as a similar phenomenon; virologists who are doing these experiments are not able to actually show the results or provide the conclusive evidence because they are just ignorant of that fact, because they haven’t looked at it. It’s quite as simple as that.
Response to Mercola
Entering the virus debate on January 17, 2022, Dr. Joseph Mercola published a “fact-checked” article entitled, “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 is a Real Virus,”1 in which he insisted that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, photographed, genetically sequenced, and exists as a pathogenic entity.
Mercola cites studies from Italy, Germany, India, Columbia, Canada, Australia, Korea and the U.S., which claim to have isolated SARS-CoV-2 and characterized it by genome sequencing. However, none of these studies isolated any virus from the fluids of the patient; all of these studies used culturing techniques that can lead to tissue breakdown and the creation of exosomes (identical in form to “viruses”); none of these studies had a meaningful control; and all used questionable computer techniques to generate a genome in silico. Remember that these tissue cultures would also contain genetic material from the kidney cells of the culture and the bovine serum used as a nutrient medium. Even if the tissue cultures did contain viral particles, how can anyone know that the DNA the computer is analyzing comes from the virus?
As Mercola states, “Another sticking point for some is whether or not SARS-CoV-2 has ever been isolated from a human subject without passing it through animal cells, as such media could be contaminated and therefore the source of the virus.”
Indeed, this is the “sticking point!” All of the studies that Mercola cites as proof passed the sample through animal cells—cultures contaminated with fetal bovine serum and toxic antibiotics, and starved with a minimal nutrient medium.
Furthermore, no paper has proven that an isolated or pure virus obtained from a cell culture has ever made an animal or human sick in any way. Therefore, it is illogical, irrational and anti-scientific to claim that the “virus” is a pathogen.
According to Mercola, “At least part of the confusion appears to be rooted in how the term ‘isolated’ is defined. Some insist a virus is not isolated unless it’s also purified, while others say a virus doesn’t have to be purified in order to be ‘isolated.’” Actually, as we have pointed out, the confusion—deliberate confusion—results from virologists using the word “isolated” to mean “not isolated,” and insisting that “purified” and “isolated” do not mean the same thing.
More Genome Sequencing
One study Mercola highlights is a “genome sequencing” study published in January 2021 in Gut Pathology.7 In this study, the genetic material (RNA) was extracted directly from stool samples of a patient identified as having Covid-19 using the meaningless PCR test.
This paper relies on an in silico genome-sequencing procedure whereby they extract all of the RNA that is present in a body fluid or tissue sample, which would include a number of different sources of genetic material, including the person’s own. The material would include non-coding DNA that has been transcribed, spliced and recombined to make all sorts of novel sequences.
They then throw out the long fragments and just look at the short ones. This is a really important point, because the longer the sequence, the more you can be sure that it came from one source; whereas if you have short sequences, when they put them together in a longer sequence, parts of it could have come from different sources. It’s more reliable to have longer sequences, but then they can’t do the sequencing as fast. So, they put all those short sequences into the computer and let various computer software programs put them together, mapping them to the “reference” standard genome—which has been done in the same way—and then give you a result. The result is a little bit different each time, which is why they have over two million “variants.”
In this 2021 paper, they used fecal material, which they said contained the same genetic material as that extracted from the nose using a nasal swab. And interestingly, in this case, they did use a control group, which is very unusual—they actually used a purchased heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 toxic cell culture that served as a negative control.
The other unusual procedure was that they used shorter strands of RNA than normal. Usually, they look at strands of up to one hundred fifty base pairs, but in this study, they limited the length to seventy-six base pairs. This would result in even more error in terms of the source of each particular little strand.
They also skipped an important step, which they call making “contigs” (from the word contiguous). Usually, what they do is take all those little sequences of short strands—there are often over fifty million of them—and put them into software number-crunching programs that try to pair up overlapping sequences on the ends to make longer and longer strands—this is what they call “contig.” Then they pick one of the longest strands and use that as the base genome.
In this case, they didn’t do that. They just took the sequence strands and templated them right away against the reference standard from the database. In other words, they chose the pieces that would fit into the puzzle and entered them into the program, and then the software filled in the gaps and rearranged things as necessary. In this way, they made sure that the genome looked the way they wanted it to look.
All of the studies Mercola lists as proving the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are done in similar fashion to come up with a computer simulation, not a real genome taken intact from a real organism.
When Hammond talks about finding a genome of twenty-eight to twenty-nine thousand base pairs, it’s important to understand that they have never found this genome in any bodily fluid, just like they have never found anything they could call a virus. They have never found a strand of twenty-nine thousand base pairs; instead, they have created it in the computer by matching pieces together based on a template. In other words, they find the sequence only because that’s the sequence they’re telling it to find. This is not science!
More Covid-19 Virus Studies
Another paper cited by Mercola comes from Italy, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in August 2020.8 The researchers took a sputum sample from a sixty-five-year-old woman and diagnosed her with Covid-19 using a PCR test. Then they cultured the sample in kidney cells, followed by genome sequencing as described above. It’s the same in all the studies that Mercola cites. Nobody isolates the virus from the patient directly; nobody takes that virus and determines the genetic material in that virus; nobody takes that virus and exposes somebody else to it and shows that it causes disease.
Mercola cites a study from Colombia that is the same exact experiment—a nose swab cultured in a toxic cell culture, followed by genetic sequencing and electron microscopy.9 According to the researchers, “Electron microscopy images obtained from infected cells showed the presence of structures compatible with SARS-CoV-2”—not structures that are, but that are compatible.
These structures are also “compatible” with kidney failure and probably many other things. The authors state that the genetic composition of their isolates was consistent with the predominant variant—not saying it was the predominant variant. In other words, they are hedging at every turn.
At the end of his article, Mercola mentions “antibody dependent enhancement (ADE),” but there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support something called ADE. Virus theory posits that we make antibodies against viral diseases. In July 2020, the head of the Bulgarian Pathology Association stated that they had found no monoclonal (coming from the same cell) antibodies in any of the people said to have died of Covid.10
This is like saying that no one has died of Covid, because since they haven’t found antibodies, they must conclude that the patients didn’t have Covid.
Does It Matter?
Hammond dismisses those who question the viral theory of disease as his “pet peeve” and “divisive” of the health freedom movement. According to Mercola, “Getting too far into the weeds of theories that refute the existence of viruses altogether will only slow down and hamper the truth movement rather than aid it along, and I would strongly discourage anyone from engaging in this highly unproductive narrative.” In other words, if you question the viral theory, you are the bad guy, hindering the movement for health freedom. One virus advocate has referred to “virus-deniers” as domestic terrorists!
And yet the virus debate has immense importance to the health freedom movement. All the objectionable “public health” measures— masks, social distancing, isolation, testing and above all toxic vaccines—are predicated on the belief that we are threatened by a virulent, contagious virus. If there is no virus—not for Covid-19, not for any disease—then the justification for forcing these measures on the public disappears.
SIDEBARS
Electron Microscopy
Scientists use an electron microscope in order to see the structures inside a cell. To view a sample under the electron microscope, they must prepare it using special procedures. One reason is that the beams of the electron microscope are extremely powerful and can heat the sample up to 150 degrees C. The preparation method requires the following steps:
FIXATION: The sample is placed in some kind of chemical fixative, such as formalin, glutaraldehyde or osmium tetroxide. This preserves the structure of the tissue.
DEHYDRATION: This step requires bathing the tissue many times in alcohol (ethanol or acetone) to remove all water from the tissue.
EMBEDDING: The tissue is put inside a small mold that is filled with paraffin wax or epoxy resin, which is then cooled to harden.
SLICING: The hardened resin is sliced into extremely thin pieces.
STAINING: The tissue is stained with some type of heavy metal, such as uranyl acetate, another name for uranium, or lead acetate, so you can have more contrast when you’re viewing the tissue through the electron microscope.
These methods will obviously have effects on biological samples. For example, formalin in the staining process is formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen and neurotoxin; glutaraldehyde is specifically dangerous for the gastrointestinal tract and the lungs, and osmium tetroxide causes pulmonary edema. Ethanol used in the alcohol baths can cause severe liver damage, and acetone damages the kidneys, the lungs and the brain. Paraffin wax and epoxy resin used for embedding can also affect biological tissues.
Most toxic are the heavy metals uranium and lead used for staining; they are bound to have toxic effects on biological samples. The result is that what you see using the electron microscope has little resemblance to living tissue—it is an artifact and a distortion, from which no conclusions about cell structure can be made.
A Mouse Study
Recently, Dr. Robert Malone stated that the omicron variant is not as dangerous as the others and that we should rethink our vaccines. One of the papers he cited was “Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model,” published in December 2021 in Emerging Microbes and Infections.11
In the abstract of this paper we read, “Older individuals are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes, but the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. In addition, how age modulates SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infections remain largely unexplored. Here, we investigated age-associated SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune responses, and the occurrence of re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infection utilizing a wild-type C57BL/6N mouse model. We demonstrated that interferon and adaptive antibody response upon SARS-CoV-2 challenge are significantly impaired in aged mice compared to young mice, which results in more effective virus replications and severe disease manifestations in the respiratory tract. Aged mice also showed increased susceptibility to re-infection due to insufficient immune protection acquired during the primary infection.”
Now, when well-known spokesmen such as Dr. Robert Malone comment on the importance of a study like this, it works to convince the public that SARS-CoV-2 is real and the omicron variant is real. Maybe omicron is not so bad, maybe it is worse in the elderly, but in any event, the new “variant” is real.
According to Malone, the reason this study is important is that it explains the significant adverse event profile of the vaccines. We would agree that these adverse events combined with a milder disease profile of omicron raise the possibility that boosters may not be good medicine, even for the elderly, but the suggestion that viruses have anything to do with this only perpetuates the kind of misinformation that justifies everything that is wrong with how the health authorities have handled the pandemic—masks, social distancing, isolation, hand sanitizing and vaccinations.
According to the authors, the antibody response was severely impaired in aged mice leading to more severe disease. In the Materials and Methods section, we see that the SARS-CoV-2 variant was “isolated” from a confirmed Covid-19 patient in Hong Kong and that the virus was cultured in Vero (kidney) cells and stored at negative 80 degrees C.
Now, the important part: they expose the mice to a “variant” of the “virus”—to what they think is the omicron variant. One would expect that what scientists would do is take purified virus and expose the mice in the way that humans are exposed, by breathing it in the air. But what did these scientists do? They did a standard viral culture, meaning they inoculated monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) with fetal calf serum and an unpurified sample from a person with alleged “Covid.” (Fetal bovine serum, by the way, is taken from live aborted slaughterhouse calves whose blood is sucked directly from their hearts.) So, they didn’t, in fact, use a virus—that is a flat-out lie. Instead of a virus, they used a culture of kidney cells that contained some of the primers allegedly from a variant strain, a variant that has never been isolated.
Now, you would think that they must have sprayed this culture onto the mice, or gently into their noses, but that’s not what they did. Instead, they anesthetized the mice with toxic drugs—essentially poisoning them—and then squirted a mixture of phosphate-buffered saline and the toxic kidney culture under high pressure down their noses through an intranasal cannula directly into their lungs. No rational person would say that this type of experiment has any relation to what happens in old or young people or to anybody exposed to a “virus.” It’s ridiculous to call this science.
And then they found out whether the young mice did better than the old mice. Upon intranasal inoculation, the young mice transiently lost a maximum of 5 percent body weight for a short period. In contrast, the older mice lost 12 percent of body weight, and they didn’t recover. Moreover, the young mice did not show any sign of disease. The older mice showed hunched postures and labored breathing, which was more severe at higher doses of toxic cell culture injection into their lungs.
If you wanted to be precise in your language, you would say that young mice—injected, anesthetized and subjected to high-pressure squirts of toxins directly into their lungs—seemed to be okay; they just lost a little weight. That’s probably the definition of a bad day for a mouse. But they seemed to recover, whereas the older mice didn’t do as well. That’s what they found.
And then they did all kinds of biochemical histological genetic studies, analyzing the tissue after they ground up the nasal turbinates, the lungs and so forth. They then concluded, “Yep,” these mice have a lot more antibodies than they should—which means they are trying to protect themselves against being poisoned with toxic cell cultures injected right into their lungs.
The authors found that the staining of the nucleocapsid protein was more intense at higher doses of the stuff squirted up the mice’s lungs. Later, they say these findings indicate that SARS-CoV-2 “replicates more effectively in the respiratory tract of aged mice than young mice upon virus exposure.” We would submit that they never actually took out any virus and never saw any replication of any virus in any lung of any mouse.
In other words, the researchers essentially said, “This study does not prove what we thought it was proving, but is just another way to convince us that there is a virus and that the virus is the cause of disease.” When in fact, all this study really tells us is that older, poorly-fed mice do worse when exposed to poisons than younger ones.
Does it matter whether this disease is caused by a virus or not? When the Chief Medical Officer of the World Health Organization predicts that half of the United States is going to get sick in the next six to eight weeks, yes, it does matter. The problem with all this talk about viruses is that it completely obscures the reasons why people are getting sick. We know that a lot of people are getting sick from the injections, but they are not the only people getting sick. Unfortunately, as long as we stick to this nonsense called the viral narrative, we will never ask the right questions, and we will never get any answers as to what otherwise is making people sick.
Rapid Tests for Covid-19 Virus
Recently, the CDC announced—quietly and without explanation—that as of January 1, 2022, they were no longer going to use PCR tests for “diagnosing Covid.” Many people saw this as a kind of capitulation by the CDC, as if to say they had finally seen the light; or perhaps there was enough pressure on CDC that they realized they had to back down quietly from the PCR test. Many people interpreted the CDC’s move as an end to testing, and since this pandemic is really a pandemic of testing, they believed this would go a long way toward ending the pandemic. After all, if they stopped doing the test, nobody would test positive. However, the CDC didn’t say they were going to end testing.
The problem is that these people are playing chess, while the rest of us are playing checkers—if they’re playing chess, we need to play chess, too, and understand the motivations and the rationale behind some of the moves we’re hearing about. And this is particularly true in the case of things that seem to be small victories—sometimes even fairly large victories—because upon closer examination, they don’t all turn out to be the victories that we imagined.
The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) is not a diagnostic test, it’s a manufacturing tool, and it does not test whether or not anybody has any virus. Rather, the PCR is a method to rapidly make millions to billions of copies (complete copies or partial copies) of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it (or a part of it) to a large enough amount to study in detail. The inventor, Kary Mullis, was emphatic that his test could not be used to diagnose or determine disease.
The PCR amplifies the DNA sample anywhere from twenty to forty cycles in order to get enough genetic material to detect—the test does this by showing a color change. To use the PCR as a diagnostic test requires two assumptions. The first is that you know that the genetic sequence you are amplifying comes from the virus you are looking for; the second is that there are no other biological organisms in the sample—no microbes, bacteria, fungi or human DNA. To repeat, the premise of using the PCR for diagnosis is that you already know the sequence of the virus, and you know that this primer sequence is one of the pieces of the entire virus genome, and that no other biological organism has that same sequence of DNA. We know that both these premises are not true with PCR Covid tests. Actually, one of the people who came up with the original primer sequences was Christian Drosten, who admitted in a paper that they never had a copy of any virus.12
Now, just think about that for a minute. If you never had a copy of the virus, how can you possibly know that this piece of the genome is a piece of the virus, that it actually came from a virus? If we gave you a sentence and asked you whether this sentence came from a certain book, the obvious common-sense question that any rational human being would ask is, can you show me the book? How can you know whether a sentence comes from a certain book if you don’t have the book?
Furthermore, how can you prove that no other living being has this same sequence? You can determine this by doing what is called a BLAST search, which searches the database of all the genome sequences of all the organisms that have ever been sequenced. Scientists have done this and found out that the same sequence used in the PCR test primers for SARS-CoV-2 is found in at least ninety human sequences and ninety microbial sequences (meaning bacterial or fungal sequences).
Thus, the second premise, that a sequence is unique to a specific virus, is also not true. The sequence is found in humans and in bacteria. If you start with a sample that has sequences that come from humans and that has bacteria and fungus in it, there is no way of knowing whether the positive match—the sticking of the primer to a sequence in the sample that will then be amplified—comes from a virus, the person, bacteria, fungus or maybe from something else.
So, the PCR test is invalid—there are no “false positives,” there are no “false negatives,” there are just false results. So, shouldn’t we applaud when the CDC finally acknowledges that they are not going to do a PCR test anymore?
The question is, what are they going to replace it with? According to government announcements, they are going to use a “higher throughput and multiplexed assay with biotinylated primers.” To explain further: “This developed invention is multiplex and uses the Luminex bead-based liquid assay, which contains one hundred different unique bead oligonucleotide probes with sequences complementary to the target sequences covalently coupled to these unique beads. These capture beads are mixed with viral samples obtained from the patient via cheek swabbing or throat wash and subjected to PCR in a conventional thermocycler. The amplified target sequences then hybridize to complementary capture oligonucleotide probes via forward biotinylated primers; if this bead probe amplicon unit contains the target nucleic acid, it will be bound by the reporter molecule and fluorescence will be detected by flow site cytometer. This multiplex assay would thus be able to detect and identify respiratory pathogens present in hospital and clinical settings.”
English translation: Instead of the old PCR test, they are going to use one hundred different unique beads. These beads contain the primer sequences, and they’re all attached to the other beads. These beads are mixed with viral samples from the patient, and then they are put into PCR amplification cycles.
Now, the only real difference between this and the normal PCR test is that there are more of the primer sequences—like one hundred more—attached to a compound called biotin. These biotinylated primers stick easily to the sequences in the sample, which then get put into the old-fashioned PCR thermocycler, so that they can be amplified. And then you get a result. Now, instead of a PCR test for Covid, one test will test for all the “viruses.”
The upshot of this is that now they will be able to say that you have many different viruses, all at the same time. Since all these viruses can make you sick (so they will argue), you may need a vaccine for each one of them.
This is a checkmate: They now are able to find the code for the original “virus” as well as the delta variant and the lambda variant, right on through the Greek alphabet, because they can make it look like you have multiple different sequences. These sequences amplify more easily because they figured out a way to make the primer sequences stick more readily to whatever is in your sample. And this is not a single-plex test. This is a multiplex assay, which means they can find any number they want, just by increasing the amplifications. And checkmate, they got us.
So, they replaced the old-fashioned PCR with something that will make the whole thing even worse. The lesson is that we should not be fooled by false minor victories, because they are not necessarily good news.
The Seven U.S. Government Payoffs to Kill You in Hospitals
by Dr. Peterson Pierre13
If you have Covid, and you end up in the hospital, you’re put on a rigid protocol. There’s a high mortality rate in the hospital, and your family is kept in the dark about what is happening. So, what’s going on here?
The CARES Act is providing bonus payments to hospitals whenever they have a diagnosis of Covid, while the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is waiving patient rights. This is a deadly combination.
The hospital gets the first payment when they offer a free Covid test in the emergency room, and they get another payment if they can come up with a diagnosis of Covid. Number three, they get another bonus payment if they admit a patient with Covid. Number four, they get another bonus payment if the patient is put on remdesivir. Number five, another bonus payment if the patient is put on a mechanical ventilator. Number six, another 20 percent bonus if the diagnosis on your death certificate says Covid, even though you may not have died from Covid. And then number seven, there are bonus payments for the coroners.
Does the public understand the gravity of what’s happening right now? The government is literally paying hospitals to kill you. That’s what’s happening. These are real human lives we’re talking about, priceless human lives. It’s estimated that about one hundred thousand dollars per patient is what the hospital is getting. Think about that.
Rai A, Fang H, Fatmous M, et al. A protocol for isolation, purification, characterization, and functional dissection of exosomes. Methods Mol Biol. 2021;2261:105-149.
Vanderheuvel D, Rombouts S, Adriaenssens EM. Purification of bacteriophages using anion-exchange chromatography. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1681;59-69.
Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954;86(2):277-286.
Cassol CA, Gokden N, Larsen CP, et al. Appearances can be deceiving – Viral-like inclusions in COVID-19 negative renal biopsies by electron microscopy. Kidney360. 2020;1(8):824-828.
Caly L, Druce J, Roberts J, et al. Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia. Med J Aust. 2020;212(10):459-462.
Papoutsis A, Borody T, Dolai S, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing. Gut Pathog. 2021;13(1):7.
Colavita F, Lapa D, Carletti F, et al. SARS-CoV-2 isolation from ocular secretions of a patient with COVID-19 in Italy with prolonged viral RNA detection. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(3):242-243.
Díaz FJ, Aguilar-Jiménez W, Flórez-Álvarez L, et al. Isolation and characterization of an early SARS-Cov-2 isolate from the 2020 epidemic in Medillin, Colombia. Biomedica. 2020;40(Supl. 2):148-158.
Chen Y, Li C, Liu F, et al. Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11(1):368-383.
Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):2000045.
One of the most extraordinary achievements of the so-called Great Reset has been to create a massive new wave of worldwide resistance to its overall programme!
While Schwab et al may well have hoped that this movement would be halted by the sudden switch of emphasis from “pandemic” to war, the long-term effect looks more like broadening and solidifying resistance to a monstrous system whose many heads are now very obviously all connected to the same slimey body.
Italy, for instance, is witnessing a certain convergence, under the Great Resist banner, of opposition to vaccine passports, the EU and NATO.
Lazio councillor Davide Barillari is well known for his opposition to the “Green Pass” and associated injections.
He is also a leading opponent of the American military presence in Italy – there are dozens of US bases there, some secret, hosting 13,000 troops.
The Ukraine conflict has stoked opposition to this de facto post-WW2 occupation of Italy, with various campaigns and protests springing up.
At the end of April, Barillari published on his website an incendiary third-party text entitled “Enough lies! Italy must get out of NATO!”.
The anti-system convergence has also been noticeable at protests like that in Genoa, where people marched for “peace and freedom”.
The same phenomenon is apparent in Germany, another place with a heavy US military presence.
In France, just a week after Emmanuel Macron managed to win the presidential election, there was a massive Mayday anti-government protest in Paris which saw the police pick up on the levels of militarised brutality used against the Gilets Jaunes since 2018.
And in Ireland, photo-journalist Robert Pierzynski has been recording a series of freedom demonstrations, such as this one in Galway on May 22.
As our recent online poll unsurprisingly revealed, the vast majority of human beings have no desire to become slaves of the ruling mafia in a technocratic transhumanist world state!
Since a new wave of ‘domestic terror attacks’ have erupted over the past two weeks both in Buffalo and now more recently in Texas, the citizens of the USA and trans-Atlantic community more broadly are being whipped up into a frenzy of fear and confusion over the causes of ‘domestic terror’ which can only be remedied by increased dictatorial powers of the population.
As has often been the trend in our post-9/11 age, such highly publicized atrocities have tended to carry in their wake ever expanded state powers to surveille, censor and manipulate the confused and fearful population who lacks an ability to discern the true causes of the horrifying events framed for their consumption on mainstream media.
Before acquiescing to greater tyrannical powers to those agencies controlling western governments in exchange for promised security, it were wise to evaluate how and why terrorism – domestic or otherwise – has tended to arise over the past century.
If, in the course of conducting this evaluation, we find that terrorism is truly a “naturally occurring phenomenon”, then perhaps we might conclude alongside many eminent figures of the intelligence community and Big Tech, that new pre-emptive legislation targeting the rise of a new conservative-minded domestic terrorist movement is somehow necessary. Maybe the censoring of free speech, and the surveillance of millions of Americans by the Five Eyes is a necessary evil for the sake of the greater good.
However, if it is revealed that the thing we call “terrorism”, is something other than a naturally occurring, self-organized phenomenon, but rather something which only exists due to vast support from western political agencies, then a very different conclusion must be arrived at which may be disturbing for some.
But how to proceed?
Before it was revealed that ISIS was being supported by a network of Anglo-American intelligence agencies and their allies in a failed effort to overthrow Bashar al Assad, an exhaustive 2012 study was conducted by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. This study provides a convenient entry point to our inquiry.
In this course of its investigation, researchers at Fordham discovered that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 138 terrorist incidents recorded in the USA between 2001-2012 involved FBI informants who played leading roles in planning out, supplying weapons, instructions and even recruiting Islamic terrorists to carry out terrorist acts on U.S. soil. Reporting on the Fordham study, The Nation stated:
“Nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. In these cases, the informants—who work for money or are seeking leniency on criminal charges of their own—have crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism.”
Of course, this trend preceded 9/11 itself as we see in the case of FBI informant Emad Salem (formerly associated with the Egyptian Military) who recorded hundreds of hours of conversation between himself and his FBI handlers which were reported publicly by the New York times on October 28, 1993. Why is this important? Because Emad Salem was the figure who rented the van, hotel rooms, provided bomb-making instruction, tested out explosives on behalf of Mohammed Salamah and 15 other terrorists who carried out the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing which injured 1000 and killed 6 people.
Even though several large-scale military war game scenarios were conducted between October 2000 and July 2001 featuring planes flying into both the World Trade Center buildings and Pentagon, the incoming Neocon administration were somehow caught with their pants down when the events of 9/11 finally took place (conveniently at a moment that NORAD had suffered a total breakdown of their continental warning and response systems). When all flights were grounded over the coming several days, Cheney and his PNAC cohorts ensured that the only flights permitted to leave the USA was crammed with high level Saudi royals- including the Bin Laden family.
Why was this done?
As the declassified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission report went far to demonstrate, the Saudis- largely coordinated by Prince Bandar Bin Sultan (Saudi Ambassador to the USA from 1983-2005 and Bush family insider) had provided the foundation for a cover story that was carefully scripted to justify the 9/11 incident.
Whether the plot was hatched by CIA-Saudi sponsored terrorists as some assume, or whether it was a controlled demolition as hundreds of architects and engineers have testified to (or whether it was a combination of both stories), one thing is certain: The official narrative is a lie and no matter how you try to explain it, two airplanes cannot cause the collapse of three WTC buildings.
Another thing is certain: Biden was happy.
Not only did Joe Biden act as one of the most aggressive voices for the invasion of Iraq in the days following 9/11, but he even bragged publicly that John Ashcroft’s 2001 Patriot Act was modelled nearly verbatim on his own failed 1994 Omnibus domestic surveillance legislation drafted in response to the first 9/11 attack and 1994 Oklahoma City bombing.
Another important outcome of 9/11 involved the re-organization of the FBI with a focus on domestic terrorist surveillance, prevention, disruption and entrapment.
In 2001, MI5’s Chief came to the USA where then-FBI director Robert Mueller was assigned the task of carrying out this new remix of U.S. intelligence that involved re-activating many of the worst characteristics of the FBI’s earlier COINTEL PRO operations that were made public during the 1974 Church Committee hearings.
“They have done a number of things to move them in the direction of an MI5,” says a person close to the changes. “They’ve created agents who are trained to have an intelligence function. They’re monitoring organizations within the U.S. that pose threats to national security … not with an eye toward prosecuting, but toward collecting and analyzing that information.”
An incredible report by investigative Journalist Edward Spannaus listed a short list of some of the most extreme cases of FBI entrapment between 2001-2013 in the USA:
“One of the most egregious of these cases is the so-called “Newburgh Four” in New York State, in which an informant in 2008-09 offered the defendants $250,000, as well as weapons, to carry out a terrorist plot. The New York University Center for Human Rights and Justice reviewed this case and two others, and concluded: “The government’s informants introduced and aggressively pushed ideas about violent jihad and, moreover, actually encouraged the defendants to believe it was their duty to take action against the United States.”
The Federal judge presiding over the Newburgh case, Colleen McMahon, declared that it was “beyond question that the government created the crime here,” and criticized the Bureau for sending informants “trolling among the citizens of a troubled community, offering very poor people money if they will play some role—any role—in criminal activity.”
In Portland, Ore., it was disclosed during the trial of the “Christmas Tree bomber” earlier this year, that the FBI had actually produced its own terrorist training video, which was shown to the defendant, depicting men with covered faces shooting guns and setting off bombs using a cell phone as a detonator. The FBI operative also traveled with the target to a remote location where they detonated an actual bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the planned attack.
In Brooklyn, N.Y., in 2012, an FBI agent posing as an al-Qaeda operative supplied a target with fake explosives for a 1,000-pound bomb, which the FBI’s victim then attempted to detonate outside the Federal Reserve building in Manhattan.
In Irvine, Calif., in 2007, an FBI informant was so blatant in attempting to entrap members of the local Islamic Center into violent jihadi actions, that the mosque went to court and got a restraining order against the informant.
In Pittsburgh, Khalifa Ali al-Akili became so suspicious of two “jihadi” FBI informants who were trying to recruit him to buy a gun and to go to Pakistan for training, that he contacted both the London Guardian and the Washington-based National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, and told them that he feared the FBI was trying to entrap him. The National Coalition scheduled a press conference for March 16, 2012, at which al-Akili was to speak and identify the informants, but the day before the scheduled press conference, the FBI arrested al-Akili, charging him not with terrorism, but with illegal possession of a firearm.
The chief informant trying to entrap al-Akili turned out to be Shaden Hussain, a longtime FBI informant who had set up two earlier terrorism cases: the above-cited Newburgh, N.Y., case for which he was paid $100,000, and another in Albany, N.Y., for which his payments are not known.”
In the months since the events on January 6, 2021 we have only seen that this practice continued in full swing within the United States, as reports of FBI agents provocateurs began to circulate widely even being covered extensively by Tucker Carlson on June 15. Recent revelations that the “domestic terrorist” cell which recently plotted the kidnaping of Michigan’s Governor Whitmer were composed primarily of FBI informants and even the Proud Boys Enrique Tarrio was proven to be an FBI informant earlier this year along with leading strata of the Oath Keepers. The fact that Steve D’Antuono (FBI bureau chief in Michigan overseeing Whitmer operation) was promptly promoted to FBI bureau chief of Washington D.C. where his skills were put to good use on January 6 should not be lost on anyone.
Just to add a cherry atop this poisoned Sundae, during this same period of time, it was revealed by leaked FBI documents that Joshua Caleb Sutter- controller of the white supremacist group Atomwaffen and also the satanic Temple of Blood cult was paid over $180,000 by the FBI since 2003 ($80,000 of which was paid out after 2018).
Not Only the USA
This post 9/11 practice was not isolated to the USA, as a Canadian appeals court overruled guilty sentences handed down to an idiotic couple who were caught by the RCMP before their July 2016 jihadi plot to bomb a public venue on Canada Day could occur. Why did the appeals judge overrule their sentence? Because it became clear that every single member of the operation which radicalized the young couple, trained them to make bombs and even scripted their attack were RCMP informants!
Earlier cases of controlled domestic terrorist movements in Canada saw CSIS (Canada’s Security and Intelligence Service) erase thousands of hours of wiretaps of Sikh terrorists that detonated bombs in 1984 which lead to 329 dead in the worst act of aviation terrorism until 9/11. Despite this destruction of evidence, CSIS was absolved of its sins in 2005 by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). It was also this same organization that was revealed to have co-founded the white supremacist Heritage Front in 1988, and continued to finance it with tax payer funds using CSIS agent Grant Bristol as the conduit and Heritage Front controller until at least 1994.
Anglo-Canadian intelligence controls of domestic terrorism actually go as far back as the bomb-loving Front de Liberation Quebec (FLQ) of the 1960s that set dozens of mailbox bombs across the province. Not only did the RCMP Security Services get caught red handed managing FLQ cells, spreading FLQ graffiti on buildings and even supplying explosives to the group itself, but the FLQ’s “intellectual leader” (Pierre Vallieres) was also the Editor-in-Chief of the very same magazine (Cite Libre) which was run for a decade by none other than Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau!
When major press agencies blew the whistle on the federal intelligence agencies behind the FLQ which justified months of Martial Law in Quebec in 1970, Trudeau’s right hand man (and fellow Cite Libre writer) Michael Pitfield created a new organization called the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in 1983 as a branch of the Privy Council Office in order to continue psychological operations going under a new name.
If anyone wishes to look through the voluminous RCMP/CSIS files accumulated on Pierre Trudeau’s strange connections with the FLQ and broader Fabian Society networks during the Cold War, they would be out of luck as historians were informed in 2019 that the entire Trudeau record archive were secretly destroyed by CSIS in 1989 simply because they “weren’t interesting”.
It is important to keep in mind that the RCMP’s techniques were not specifically Canadian, but were innovated by the FBI’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTEL PRO) which J. Edgar Hoover launched in 1956 in order to subvert “dangerous civil rights groups” then emerging under the leadership of Paul Robeson and Martin Luther King Jr. From the program’s inception until its nominal death in 1975, not only did the FBI infiltrate every anti-establishment grouping from the U.S. Communist Party (CPUSA), to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), NAACP to the Black nationalist movements throughout the 1960s, but ensured that its informants played leading roles in instilling internal conflict, radicalized groups towards violence and even set up leaders like Fred Hampton for assassination.
The strange case of Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers who enjoyed vast institutional support and protection after their time running domestic terrorism as leaders of the Weather Underground is something that should also be investigated. The fact that both domestic terrorists not only became affluent Soros-tied education reformers, and early sponsors of Barack Obama’s political career is more than just a tiny anomaly which can simply be dismissed. (1)
Where did Hoover’s FBI generate COINTEL PRO tactics?
To answer this question, we need to look further back to British Intelligence’s Camp X, established in December 1941 in Canada with the mandate to train American and Canadian spies under the control of spymaster William Stephenson (station chief for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in New York).
The motive for Camp X had two interconnected components:
1) Prepare the groundwork for a deeper integration of U.S.-British Intelligence in preparation for the purge of patriotic U.S. intelligence officers allied to FDR’s vision of the post-war age, and
2) Train U.S. spies in the art of “secret warfare” which included counterfeiting, psychological warfare, propaganda, counter insurgency, assassination, and infiltration of target groups.
Under Stephenson’s direction and staffed with Canadian RCMP operatives, the first generation of OSS spymasters were trained; including leading figures of the FBI’s Division 5 who went onto reformulate their WWII Camp X training in the form of assassination operations such as Permindex (operated by Camp X’s Major General Louis Mortimer Bloomfield).
In Conclusion
While I could have said more about the origins of America’s Secret Police which arose under Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, or the earlier deployment of domestic terrorism by Freemasonic lodges affiliated with Albert Pike (founder of the Ku Klux Klan) in an effort to undo Lincoln’s vision for industrial restoration of the South, these stories will have to be left for another time.
For now, it is enough to state that the “war on terror” set into motion by the World Trade Center attacks of 1993 and 2001, is now expanding to target a broad spectrum of the American population who would be morally resistant to the sorts of anti-human policies demanded by Great Reset Technocrats. This dishonest effort must be exposed and rejected before those actual controllers of terrorism attain their objectives: The destruction of nation states, the imposition of a new ethical paradigm premised on depopulation and entropy.
Footnote
(1) By the late 1970s, the creation of controlled terrorist movements was applied vigorously to the Middle East in the form of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s great idea of channeling money, weapons and other support to radical madrasas across Afghanistan as part of an asymmetrical warfare against the Soviet Union. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, these operations vastly expanded with the help of Saudi intelligence and Mossad involvement on the ground- always coordinated by Anglo American intelligence handlers. Islamic terrorism, just like “domestic American terrorism” always had much less to do with Islam and more to do with political agendas wishing to destroy national governments.
One thing I’ve learned from giving lectures to audiences over the years: never meet expectations.
“Expectations” is a large container waiting to be filled up. People have these containers. They lug them around with them. They want them to be filled up.
For example, if they expect shocking information from the speaker, and they get it, their expectations are met.
Audiences train themselves to be audiences, and their expectation-containers are ready when they sit down to listen.
There is something missing. Something monumental.
The present moment. The present now. The alive moment. Because, for all its fanfare and interest, the event is not really in the present.
This is by design. No one wants the moment. People’s whole lives are devoted to avoiding the moment, because it is spontaneous. That’s what a moment is. Spontaneous.
“Everyone can act. Everyone can improvise. Anyone who wishes to can play in the theater and learn to become ‘stage-worthy.’” (Viola Spolin)
No one is used to spontaneity. No one is prepared for it.
No one knows what they would do or how they would react in the spontaneous moment. That’s why it is avoided.
“Through spontaneity we are re-formed into ourselves.” (Viola Spolin)
Yet, the paradox is: people yearn for the spontaneous moment. They yearn for that freedom. It’s not freedom as an idea or concept, but freedom as a living thing.
I bring all this up because passivity is the universal effect of living for most people. In that state, they still have expectations and those big containers, but the way they receive information—they certainly don’t intend to climb up out of their own passivity. That’s the last thing they would do.
“It [spontaneity] creates an explosion that for the moment frees us from handed-down frames of reference, memory choked with old facts and information and undigested theories and techniques of other people’s findings. Spontaneity is the moment of personal freedom when we are faced with reality, and see it, explore it and act accordingly. In this reality the bits and pieces of ourselves function as an organic whole. It is the time of discovery, of experiencing, of creative expression.” (Viola Spolin)
So when I speak to audiences at live events, I find a way to remind them that we’re in a kind of false relationship. It’s interesting and false at the same time. There we are in a room, and I’m the speaker and they’re the audience. I’m active and they’re passive.
Those are our roles. Those are our functions. It’s accepted, but it’s unworkable. It’s self-defeating, unless we all want to be existing in a dead space outside the living present moment. And I don’t.
This means I have to readjust things. I have to let people know that I know they’re there. Right now. I know they’re listening, and I know they’re absorbing, and I know that beyond a certain point (10-15 minutes), they’re going to shift down into passive mode.
Finding a way, an interesting way to let them know is a challenge.
It’s really a challenge that extends to the whole world.
Are we alive or are we doing it by the numbers?
Look at any set-up, which is “the way things are supposed to be,” and “the parts that people are supposed to play,” and you can see light. The light is what could happen to upset that situation and turn it into something else. Something that would bring people in from the cold, into the moment itself.
Here’s something I can guarantee anywhere in the universe where beings populate planets, where they think, plan, strategize. They’re not living in the moment, but they claim they are. They’ll say, “How could I be anywhere else? We’re all in the present. That’s all there is.”
But they’re wrong. Their big containers are in the moment, and they’re waiting outside to accept the flow of information from the containers.
If a person (usually a hard-headed realist) thinks he’s already in the moment, have him go up on a stage with another person and take on the role of a galactic cop on patrol, questioning a suspect who is accused of stealing a planet. If the realist can eventually improvise and do it, he’ll experience being in the moment in a way he never has before.
Likewise, if he painted 200 paintings, something different would happen to him. He would come to the edge of what he already knows (which he’s expressing in the paintings), and then he would step off. He would do something on the paper or canvas which is not what he knows. It would arise spontaneously, and he would feel a new space, a new energy, a new now.
Imagination. Alive imagination. That’s the key. The key to the door that leads out of the Matrix.
What’s wrong with Zen?
Nothing is wrong with Zen, except the people who practice it.
That’s a joke. Sort of.
In the modern style, especially in America, Zen is mostly meditation, and more meditation, and more meditation, and the point of it seems to be to get to a zero point, where you can watch your own mind, your own thoughts, and finally, without effort, stay separate from them, separate from all that radio static, and separate also from your own unbidden parade of emotions that swing by with tooting horns and crashing cymbals and clacking drums and gawking dancing clowns.
A laudable goal.
But on the whole, how many people who do this wind up becoming passive? That’s the thing. People tend to opt for quietness.
Whereas, the whole idea ought to be: launch a tremendous amount of dynamic action from the platform of zero-stillness.
Because stillness as a way of life sooner or later begins to disintegrate.
In original Zen, there were ordeals. The teacher gave the student things to do, tasks which eventually became absurd, without discernible purpose. The teacher spoke to the student in riddles and wisecracks. The teacher drove the student into a state of desperation, because the student’s rational faculties, which were obsessively involved in systems, couldn’t supply answers to questions which defied logic.
The teacher did whatever he had to do to bring the student out over the edge of the cliff, where in mid-air, there were no foundations…and the student felt terror. But the teacher persisted.
And then, in one explosive moment, the student found himself floating in the air. He saw there was no need to explain his existence. There was no need to place a veil between himself and the present moment. He didn’t die. He was, finally, alive.
Who knows how this radical approach actually worked out in the many cloisters and huts and cottages where it was practiced, where the stories grew and expanded in their retelling.
Those old teachers were tough characters. They weren’t merely meditation instructors.
There was another aspect of Zen, which survives to this day. It could be summarized as: “become the other.” The archer becomes the target. He becomes the bow, the arrow, and the target.
The runner becomes the road and the air and the sky and the clouds. The artist becomes the canvas.
The theater of merging with the other.
And as in any theatrical setting, the actor can, by choice, merge with, and un-merge from, his role.
But again, in these times, the main thrust of Zen teaching seems to be meditation, and the culture of stillness, quietude, and passive acceptance.
I’m not saying the meditation is easy to do. It isn’t. But somehow, its environment has become circumscribed.
This is unsurprising in America, where every philosophic and spiritual import from Asia has been distorted and watered down for the seeker-consumer. The overriding intent has been to create The Quiet Person.
The world of action has been painted as too disturbing to the “student seeking inner peace.” Therefore, retreat. Therefore, set up a buffer zone within which all is harmonized and balanced.
Where is the Zen now that sends people out into the world to revolutionize it down to its core, that stimulates the desire to find and invent a Voice that will shatter delusions and create new realities that have never been seen before?
If the moment of insight, satori, doesn’t instigate this, what good is it?
How can satori be “seeing into one’s true nature,” if the result is a wan gaze out on a uniform landscape of soft-boiled bupkis?
The answer is obvious. Breaking apart, exploding the primary illusions and fears that hold an individual in check is not the goal of most Zen as it is now practiced. That objective has been replaced with the false promise that some ultimate “consciousness” will reconcile the soul with itself.
The way this promise is offered and the way it is taught and the way its surrounding social culture is embroidered is a dud. Dead on arrival.
It’s time for a few new koans.
What is the real sound of David Rockefeller? What does Henry Kissinger say when somebody finally puts him in a small bottle with a cork on it? How does an android disguise himself as a human?
If I need a Zen teacher, I’ll go to Henny Youngman: “A doctor gave a man six months to live. The man couldn’t pay his bill, so he gave him another six months.”
In the beginning, the whole point of Zen was to shake things up, not calm them down.
The master assumed a new student was an annoying clod. But that doesn’t comfortably mesh with today’s “tolerant culture.” Today, annoying clods are a special interest group.
Silence, as a key Zen feature, isn’t only about a desired inner condition now. It’s about a synthetic attitude. So show me a temple where the meditation room is outfitted with a few dozen giant TV screens. The students do their meditation while CNN, Christingle Matthews, Sean Hannity, Oprah, news-boy-on-a bike Brian Williams, Hawaii Five-O, the Shopping Channel, Pawn Stars, Jimmy Fallon and his screaming pubescent audience, and four or five Spanish soaps are going full blast.
That would be a start.
Or throw on 20 or 30 TED lectures simultaneously—prancing grasshoppers extolling the future of technology.
I submit that if the one of the ancient Zen teachers walked into a modern American Zen cloister today, that’s exactly what he’d do. Turn on a few hundred TV sets, computers, and mobile devices and say, “Okay, try being quiet in the middle of this!”
Zen is sacred? What? When was it ever sacred? Soft bells, empty halls?
No, you must have Zen confused with a funeral home.
Every age has its massive collection of heavily loaded apple carts, and the job of Zen is to overturn them. When up is down, and insanity is called normal, that’s where you begin…
World Wide Rally for Freedom movement stands for human freedoms and sovereignty as the corporate-sponsored WHO moves to take charge of every nation’s health policy
CITIES AROUND THE GLOBE MAY 21 / 22 — On the weekend of May 21-22, 2022, people organizing with World Wide Demonstration, a grassroots international freedom movement, hold their eighth weekend of global rallies to support fundamental human rights and sovereignty even as the World Health Organization (WHO) begins their World Health Assembly meeting May 22 in Geneva, Switzerland to amend the International HealthRegulations of 2005 (IHR) and continue negotiations for a new global Pandemic Treaty. The proposed amendments and treaty hearings to-date indicate thecorporate-sponsoredWHOisusing these maneuvers to attempt to gain powers that supersede rightsprotected by national constitutions. By amending existing health regulations, the WHO believes they will be able to bypass the need for direct approval from national government bodies and to avoid public debate or media coverage.
WWD stands for the sovereign right of humans to make their own individual health decisions, free from any corporate or governmental coercion or threats, affirming hard-won human rights accords.
Currently 80% of WHO funding comes from privatecorporations, including pharmaceutical companies, which demonstrates the glaring conflicts of interest the WHO has in devising health recommendations. We recognize their move to amend the IHR and push a new treaty as a straightforward corporate power grab under the guise of “health.” When corporations can use proxy organizations to order everyone in the world to take a product they make, the billions raked in create a powerful incentive to conjure the next crisis. It’s approaching common knowledge that the WHO’s draconian recommendations over the past two years were put in place not to improve human health, but to create windfall Pharma profits, to fuel fears, and to groom the population to accept tyrannical control levers over each person’s individual decisions that can be wielded by a few unelected billionaires.
World Wide Rally for Freedom events will take place in many cities in many countries all over the world. Check the official WWD telegram channel for an updated list.
One Day. Everyone Together. We Will All Be There.
We stand for 5 important Freedoms:
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Movement
Freedom of Choice.
Freedom of Assembly.
Freedom of Health.
Many of our 5 important Objectives are being realized one by one. We continue to rally to ensure these damaging infringements of rights are ended foralltime:
End Lockdowns
End Mask Mandates
Prevent Vaccine Mandates and Coercion
Return to Standard International and Domestic Travel
End all State of Emergency Declarations
We have built our Movement upon 5 important Principles:
Decentralization
Collaboration
Community
Stability
Peace
We advocate for 5 Solutions:
Non-Compliance
Empowerment
Freedom Preserving Institutions
Freedom Culture
Shift The Narrative
We will not allow our inalienable Human Rights to be re-packaged as Human Privileges, to be conditioned upon compliance with authoritarianism.
Throughout history, humanity has been tried and tested in difficult times, but in the end, freedom always wins.
We can overcome any fears by building new social relationships and new systems that do function in respect of human rights.
###
World Wide Demonstration: In the spring of 2020, the idea of a world wide demonstration to stand up for our human freedoms in the face of never-ending lockdowns was born. The idea spread virally — the idea resonated around the world — and resulted in millions of everyday people taking to the street in peaceful rallies in hundreds of cities beginning March 2021. We believe that fundamental rights are not privileges, and we stand for peace, freedom, democracy and solidarity. We are mothers and fathers, children and grandchildren, grandmothers and grandfathers, brothers and sisters, young and old. We are the People. We are the Society.
I came across this Facebook post recently by Dr Tom Cowan. He is yet another qualified and intelligent voice of reason steadfastly and dedicatedly censored by the corporate media in an ongoing and increasingly desperate effort to prevent the People getting wise to things they don’t want you to know.
The truth of the matter is these highly qualified a voices of reason are growing in number and ubiquity at an accelerating rate and the enemies of Humanity are having dickens of a job keeping lid on the volcano.
The entire biochemical paradigm of the pharmaceutical-industrial complex that results in the systemic poisoning of Man, which itself is intended to render human beings tired, sick and introverted on their health – and thus neutralised as potential sources of trouble (ie liberty) -is now in jeopardy.
All we have to do is keep going, keep speaking out, keep right on advocating Reason and common sense and keep on bringing to the attention of the People the huge reservoir of wisdom and more workable paradigms that are being kept from them by those with a vested interest in prolonging the Dark Age 0f their barbarism.
In other words, simply REFUSE to shut up.
And the more we can unite and work together, the sooner the Dark Age will be over and the Age of Reason begun.
Dr Tom Cowan is a highly recommended voice of reason.
And here by way of a taster is his post from Facebook
As you can see from this blockbuster article published on Aug. 9, 2016, in the prestigious journal Nature, researchers conclusively demonstrated that whenever fetal calf serum is added to any cell culture (as is done in virtually all modern virology studies, including those used during the past two years), it is simply impossible to use the results of this culture to determine the RNA sequence of any new vîru$. As they demonstrate, fetal calf serum itself is a rich source of many types of RNA sequences. Once this is introduced into the cell culture, from then on, there is no way to determine the origin of the RNA that researchers find.
The significance of this study cannot be overstated and validates what we’ve been saying for many months. Virologists use cell cultures to prove the existence of a new vîru$ and its cytopathic effect. If the culture is contaminated, as this study demonstrates, any claims about a new vîru$ and its genetic makeup are meaningless.
To a physicist this is possible since all receivers are also transmitters—a radio antenna can send or receive the same signal. The rhodopsin molecules in the retinal cells absorb and emit the same visible light.
Michael Clarage, PhD, Astrophysicist and Lead Scientist of SAFIRE, explains how we could not have organic life without cells, chemicals, light, electricity, or the ecosystems of the Earth and Sun—all levels of the hierarchy communicate and exchange energy.
Cover art illustration by Bob Moran (bobmoran.co.uk)
“Fight For You” Lyrics:
Through the madness and the lies As they’re holding back the truth No matter what they try I will always fight for you
I will save your innocence They are trying to remove I am here at your defense And I will always fight for you
Yes I will always fight for you I will stand here in the way And I will not give up on you I will shield you from the pain
In the battle on the field There is evil on the move But I hope that you can feel That I will always fight for you
In the darkness of the times There’s a light that shines the proof It’ll soon reveal the crimes So I won’t stop this fight for you
Yes I will always fight for you I will brave every attack And I will not give up on you I will always have your back
So to every single mother, father Stand up for your sons and daughters Do not back down, don’t let up You are all they have for armor So make this a war to win Look in their eyes and tell them
That I will always fight for you I will stand guard at the gate And I will not give up on you I will stop each shot they take
Yes, I will always fight for you I will always fight for you
“While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.” ~ Matthew Ehret
While the world’s attention is absorbed by tectonic shifts unfolding in Ukraine and the danger of military confrontation between NATO and Eurasia, something very ominous has appeared “off of the radar” of most onlookers. This something is a financial collapse of the trans-Atlantic banks that threatens to unleash chaos upon the world. It is this collapse that underlies the desperate efforts being made by the neo-con drive for total war with Russia, China and other members of the growing Mutlipolar Alliance today.
In recent articles, I have mentioned that the Bank of England-led “solution” to this oncoming financial blowout of the $1.5 quadrillion derivatives bubble is being pushed under the cover of a “Great Global Reset” which is an ugly and desperate effort to use COVID-19 as a cover for the imposition of a new post-covid world order operating system. Since the new “rules” of this new system are very similar to the 1923 Bank of England “solution” to Germany’s economic chaos which eventually required a fascist governance mechanism to impose it onto the masses, I wish to take a deeper look at the causes and effects of Weimar Germany’s completely un-necessary collapse into hyperinflation and chaos during the period of 1919-1923.
In this essay, I will go further to examine how those same architects of hyperfinflation came close to establishing a global bankers’ dictatorship in 1933 and how that early attempt at a New World Order was fortunately derailed through a bold fight which has been written out of popular history books.
We will investigate in depth how a major war broke out within America led by anti-imperial patriots in opposition to the forces of Wall Street and London’s Deep State and we will examine how this clash of paradigms came to a head in 1943-1945.
This historical study is not being conducted for entertainment, nor should this be seen as a purely academic exercise, but is being created for the simple fact that the world is coming to a total systemic meltdown and unless certain suppressed facts of 20th century history are brought to light, then those forces who have destroyed our collective memory of what we once were will remain in the drivers seat as society is carried into a new age of fascism and world war.
Versailles and the Destruction of Germany
Britain had been the leading hand behind the orchestration of WWI and the destruction of the potential German-Russian-American-Ottoman alliance that had begun to take form by the late 19th century as foolish Kaiser Wilhelm discovered (though sadly too late) when he said: “the world will be engulfed in the most terrible of wars, the ultimate aim of which is the ruin of Germany. England, France and Russia have conspired for our annihilation… that is the naked truth of the situation which was slowly but surely created by Edward VII”.
Just as the British oligarchy managed the war, so too did they organize the reparations conference in France which, among other things, imposed impossible debt repayments upon a defeated Germany and created the League of Nations which was meant to become the instrument for a “post-nation state world order”. Lloyd George led the British delegation alongside his assistant Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), Leo Amery, Lord Robert Cecil and Lord John Maynard Keynes who have a long term agenda to bring about a global dictatorship. All of these figures were members of the newly emerging Round Table Movement, that had taken full control of Britain by ousting Asquith in 1916, and which is at the heart of today’s “deep state”.
After the 1918 Armistice dismantled Germany’s army and navy, the once powerful nation was now forced to pay the impossible sum of 132 billion gold marks to the victors and had to give up territories representing 10% of its population (Alsace-Loraine, Ruhr, and North Silesia) which made up 15% of its arable land, 12% of its livestock, 74% of its iron ore, 63% of its zinc production, and 26% of its coal. Germany also had to give up 8000 locomotives, 225 000 railcars and all of its colonies. It was a field day of modern pillage.
Germany was left with very few options. Taxes were increased and imports were cut entirely while exports were increased. This policy (reminiscent of the IMF austerity techniques in use today) failed entirely as both fell 60%. Germany gave up half of its gold supply and still barely a dent was made in the debt payments. By June 1920 the decision was made to begin a new strategy: increase the printing press. Rather than the “miracle cure” which desperate monetarists foolishly believed it would be, this solution resulted in an asymptotic devaluation of the currency into hyperinflation. From June 1920 to October 1923 the money supply in circulation skyrocketed from 68.1 gold marks to 496.6 quintillion gold marks. In June 1922, 300 marks exchanged $1 US and in November 1923, it took 42 trillion marks to get $1 US! Images are still available of Germans pushing wheelbarrows of cash down the street, just to buy a stick of butter and bread (1Kg of Bread sold for $428 billion marks in 1923).
With the currency’s loss of value, industrial output fell by 50%, unemployment rose to over 30% and food intake collapsed by over half of pre-war levels. German director Fritz Lang’s 1922 film Dr. Mabuse (The Gambler) exposed the insanity of German population’s collapse into speculative insanity as those who had the means began betting against the German mark in order to protect themselves thus only helping to collapse the mark from within. This is very reminiscent of those Americans today short selling the US dollar rather than fighting for a systemic solution.
There was resistance.
The dark effects of Versailles were not unknown and Germany’s Nazi-stained destiny was anything but pre-determined. It is a provable fact often left out of history books that patriotic forces from Russia, America and Germany attempted courageously to change the tragic trajectory of hyperinflation and fascism which WOULD HAVE prevented the rise of Hitler and WWII had their efforts not been sabotaged.
From America itself, a new Presidential team under the leadership of William Harding quickly reversed the pro-League of Nations agenda of the rabidly anglophile President Woodrow Wilson. A leading US industrialist named Washington Baker Vanderclip who had led in the world’s largest trade agreement in history with Russia to the tune of $3 billion in 1920 had called Wilson “an autocrat at the inspiration of the British government.” Unlike Wilson, President Harding both supported the US-Russia trade deal and undermined the League of Nations by re-enforcing America’s sovereignty, declaring bi-lateral treaties with Russia, Hungary and Austria outside of the league’s control in 1921. The newly-formed British Roundtable Movement in America (set up as the Council on Foreign Relations) were not pleased.
Just as Harding was maneuvering to recognize the Soviet Union and establish an entente with Lenin, the great president ate some “bad oysters” and died on August 2, 1923. While no autopsy was ever conducted, his death brought a decade of Anglophile Wall Street control into America and ended all opposition to World Government from the Presidency. This period of deregulation led by Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon (controller of the dimwitted and corrupt President Coolidge) resulted in the speculation-driven bubble of the roaring 20s whose crash on black Friday in 1929 nearly unleashed a fascist hell in America.
The Russia-Germany Rapallo Treaty is De-Railed
After months of organizing, leading representatives of Russia and Germany agreed to an alternative solution to the Versailles Treaty which would have given new life to Germany’s patriots and established a powerful Russia-German friendship in Europe that would have upset other nefarious agendas.
Under the leadership of German Industrialist and Foreign Minster Walter Rathenau, and his counterpart Russian Foreign Minister Georgi Chicherin, the treaty was signed in Rapallo, Italy on April 16, 1922 premised upon the forgiveness of all war debts and a renouncement of all territorial claims from either side. The treaty said Russia and Germany would “co-operate in a spirit of mutual goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries.”
When Rathenau was assassinated by a terrorist cell called the Organization Consul on June 24, 1922 the success of the Rapallo Treaty lost its steam and the nation fell into a deeper wave of chaos and money printing. The Organization Consul had taken the lead in the murder of over 354 German political figures between 1919-1923, and when they were banned in 1922, the group merely changed its name and morphed into other German paramilitary groups (such as the Freikorps) becoming the military arm of the new National Socialist Party.
1923: City of London’s Solution is imposed
When the hyperinflationary blowout of Germany resulted in total un-governability of the state, a solution took the form of the Wall Street authored “Dawes Plan” which necessitated the use of a London-trained golem by the name of Hjalmar Schacht. First introduced as Currency Commissioner in November 1923 and soon President of the Reichsbank, Schacht’s first act was to visit Bank of England’s governor Montagu Norman in London who provided Schacht a blueprint for proceeding with Germany’s restructuring. Schacht returned to “solve” the crisis with the very same poison that caused it.
First announcing a new currency called the “rentenmark” set on a fixed value exchanging 1 trillion reichsmarks for 1 new rentenmark, Germans were robbed yet again. This new currency would operate under “new rules” never before seen in Germany’s history: Mass privatizations resulted in Anglo-American conglomerates purchasing state enterprises. IG Farben, Thyssen, Union Banking, Brown Brothers Harriman, Standard Oil, JP Morgan and Union Banking took control Germany’s finances, mining and industrial interests under the supervision of John Foster Dulles, Montagu Norman, Averill Harriman and other deep state actors. This was famously exposed in the 1961 film Judgement at Nuremburg by Stanley Kramer.
Schacht next cut credit to industries, raised taxes and imposed mass austerity on “useless spending”. 390 000 civil servants were fired, unions and collective bargaining was destroyed and wages were slashed by 15%.
As one can imagine, this destruction of life after the hell of Versailles was intolerable and civil unrest began to boil over in ways that even the powerful London-Wall Street bankers (and their mercenaries) couldn’t control. An enforcer was needed unhindered by the republic’s democratic institutions to force Schacht’s economics onto the people. An up-and-coming rabble rousing failed painter who had made waves in a Beerhall Putsch on November 8, 1923 was perfect.
One Last Attempt to Save Germany
Though Hitler grew in power over the coming decade of Schachtian economics, one last republican effort was made to prevent Germany from plunging into a fascist hell in the form of the November 1932 election victory of General Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor of Germany. Schleicher had been a co-architect of Rapallo alongside Rathenau a decade earlier and was a strong proponent of the Friedrich List Society’s program of public works and internal improvements promoted by industrialist Wilhelm Lautenbach. The Nazi party’s public support collapsed and it found itself bankrupt. Hitler had fallen into depression and was even contemplating suicide when “a legal coup” was unleashed by the Anglo-American elite resulting in Wall Street funds pouring into Nazi coffers.
By January 30, 1933 Hitler gained Chancellorship where he quickly took dictatorial powers under the “state of emergency” caused by the burning of the Reichstag in March 1933. By 1934 the Night of the Long Knives saw General Schleicher and hundreds of other German patriots assassinated and it was only a few years until the City of London-Wall Street Frankenstein monster stormed across the world.
How the 1929 Crash was Manufactured
While everyone knows that the 1929 market crash unleashed four years of hell in America which quickly spread across Europe under the great depression, not many people have realized that this was not inevitable, but rather a controlled blowout.
The bubbles of the 1920s were unleashed with the early death of President William Harding in 1923 and grew under the careful guidance of JP Morgan’s President Coolidge and financier Andrew Mellon (Treasury Secretary) who de-regulated the banks, imposed austerity onto the country, and cooked up a scheme for Broker loans allowing speculators to borrow 90% on their stock. Wall Street was deregulated, investments into the real economy were halted during the 1920s and insanity became the norm. In 1925 broker loans totalled $1.5 billion and grew to $2.6 billion in 1926 and hit $5.7 billion by the end of 1927. By 1928, the stock market was overvalued fourfold!
When the bubble was sufficiently inflated, a moment was decided upon to coordinate a mass “calling in” of the broker loans. Predictably, no one could pay them resulting in a collapse of the markets. Those “in the know” cleaned up with JP Morgan’s “preferred clients”, and other financial behemoths selling before the crash and then buying up the physical assets of America for pennies on the dollar. One notable person who made his fortune in this manner was Prescott Bush of Brown Brothers Harriman, who went onto bailout a bankrupt Nazi party in 1932. These financiers had a tight allegiance with the City of London and coordinated their operations through the private central banking system of America’s Federal Reserve and Bank of International Settlements.
The Living Hell that was the Great Depression
Throughout the Great depression, the population was pushed to its limits making America highly susceptible to fascism as unemployment skyrocketed to 25%, industrial capacity collapsed by 70%, and agricultural prices collapsed far below the cost of production accelerating foreclosures and suicide. Life savings were lost as 4000 banks failed.
This despair was replicated across Europe and Canada with eugenics-loving fascists gaining popularity across the board. England saw the rise of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in 1932, English Canada had its own fascist solution with the Rhodes Scholar “Fabian Society” League of Social Reconstruction (which later took over the Liberal Party) calling for the “scientific management of society”. Time magazine had featured Il Duce over 6 times by 1932 and people were being told by that corporate fascism was the economic solution to all of America’s economic woes.
In the midst of the crisis, the City of London removed itself from the gold standard in 1931 which was a crippling blow to the USA, as it resulted in a flight of gold from America causing a deeper contraction of the money supply and thus inability to respond to the depression. British goods simultaneously swamped the USA crushing what little production was left.
It was in this atmosphere that one of the least understood battles unfolded in 1933.
1932: A Bankers’ Dictatorship is Attempted
In Germany, a surprise victory of Gen. Kurt Schleicher caused the defeat of the London-directed Nazi party in December 1932 threatening to break Germany free of Central Bank tyranny. A few weeks before Schleicher’s victory, Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency in America threatening to regulate the private banks and assert national sovereignty over finance.
Seeing their plans for global fascism slipping away, the City of London announced that a new global system controlled by Central Banks had to be created post haste. Their objective was to use the economic crisis as an excuse to remove from nation states any power over monetary policy, while enhancing the power of Independent Central Banks as enforcers of “balanced global budgets”. elaborate
In December 1932, an economic conference “to stabilize the world economy” was organized by the League of Nations under the guidance of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and Bank of England. The BIS was set up as “the Central Bank of Central Banks” in 1930 in order to facilitate WWI debt repayments and was a vital instrument for funding Nazi Germany- long after WWII began. The London Economic Conference brought together 64 nations of the world under a controlled environment chaired by the British Prime Minister and opened by the King himself.
“The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent Central Banks, with requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution” and that “the conference wish to reaffirm the great utility of close and continuous cooperation between Central Banks. The Bank of International Settlements should play an increasingly important part not only by improving contact, but also as an instrument for common action.”
Echoing the Bank of England’s modern fixation with “mathematical equilibrium”, the resolutions stated that the new global gold standard controlled by central banks was needed “to maintain a fundamental equilibrium in the balance of payments” of countries. The idea was to deprive nation states of their power to generate and direct credit for their own development.
FDR Torpedoes the London Conference
Chancellor Schleicher’s resistance to a bankers’ dictatorship was resolved by a “soft coup” ousting the patriotic leader in favor of Adolph Hitler (under the control of a Bank of England toy named Hjalmar Schacht) in January 1933 with Schleicher assassinated the following year. In America, an assassination attempt on Roosevelt was thwarted on February 15, 1933 when a woman knocked the gun out of the hand of an anarchist-freemason in Miami resulting in the death of Chicago’s Mayor Cermak.
Without FDR’s dead body, the London conference met an insurmountable barrier, as FDR refused to permit any American cooperation. Roosevelt recognized the necessity for a new international system, but he also knew that it had to be organized by sovereign nation states subservient to the general welfare of the people and not central banks dedicated to the welfare of the oligarchy. Before any international changes could occur, nation states castrated from the effects of the depression had to first recover economically in order to stay above the power of the financiers.
By May 1933, the London Conference crumbled when FDR complained that the conference’s inability to address the real issues of the crisis is “a catastrophe amounting to a world tragedy” and that fixation with short term stability were “old fetishes of so-called international bankers”. FDR continued “The United States seeks the kind of dollar which a generation hence will have the same purchasing and debt paying power as the dollar value we hope to attain in the near future. That objective means more to the good of other nations than a fixed ratio for a month or two. Exchange rate fixing is not the true answer.”
The British drafted an official statement saying “the American statement on stabilization rendered it entirely useless to continue the conference.”
FDR’s War on Wall Street
The new president laid down the gauntlet in his inaugural speech on March 4th saying: “The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit”.
FDR declared a war on Wall Street on several levels, beginning with his support of the Pecorra Commission which sent thousands of bankers to prison, and exposed the criminal activities of the top tier of Wall Street’s power structure who manipulated the depression, buying political offices and pushing fascism. Ferdinand Pecorra who ran the commission called out the deep state when he said “this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States.”
Pecorra’s highly publicized success empowered FDR to impose sweeping regulation in the form of 1) Glass-Steagall bank separation, 2) bankruptcy re-organization and 3) the creation of the Security Exchange Commission to oversee Wall Street. Most importantly, FDR disempowered the London-controlled Federal Reserve by installing his own man as Chair (Industrialist Mariner Eccles) who forced it to obey national commands for the first time since 1913, while creating an “alternative” lending mechanism outside of Fed control called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which became the number one lender to infrastructure in America throughout the 1930s.
One of the most controversial policies for which FDR is demonized today was his abolishment of the gold standard. The gold standard itself constricted the money supply to a strict exchange of gold per paper dollar, thus preventing the construction of internal improvements needed to revive industrial capacity and put the millions of unemployed back to work for which no financial resources existed. It’s manipulation by international financiers made it a weapon of destruction rather than creation at this time. Since commodity prices had fallen lower than the costs of production, it was vital to increase the price of goods under a form of “controlled inflation” so that factories and farms could become solvent and unfortunately the gold standard held that back. FDR imposed protective tariffs to favor agro-industrial recovery on all fronts ending years of rapacious free trade.
FDR stated his political-economic philosophy in 1934: “the old fallacious notion of the bankers on the one side and the government on the other side, as being more or less equal and independent units, has passed away. Government by the necessity of things must be the leader, must be the judge, of the conflicting interests of all groups in the community, including bankers.”
The Real New Deal
Once liberated from the shackles of the central banks, FDR and his allies were able to start a genuine recovery by restoring confidence in banking. Within 31 days of his bank holiday, 75% of banks were operational and the FDIC was created to insure deposits. Four million people were given immediate work, and hundreds of libraries, schools and hospitals were built and staffed- All funded through the RFC. FDR’s first fireside chat was vital in rebuilding confidence in the government and banks, serving even today as a strong lesson in banking which central bankers don’t want you to learn about.
From 1933-1939, 45 000 infrastructure projects were built. The many “local” projects were governed, like China’s Belt and Road Initiative today, under a “grand design” which FDR termed the “Four Quarters” featuring zones of megaprojects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority area in the south east, the Columbia River Treaty zone on the northwest, the St Laurence Seaway zone on the North east, and Hoover Dam/Colorado zone on the Southwest. These projects were transformative in ways money could never measure as the Tennessee area’s literacy rose from 20% in 1932 to 80% in 1950, and racist backwater holes of the south became the bedrock for America’s aerospace industry due to the abundant and cheap hydropower. As I had already reported on the Saker, FDR was not a Keynesian (although it cannot be argued that hives of Rhodes Scholars and Fabians penetrating his administration certainly were).
Wall Street Sabotages the New Deal
Those who criticize the New Deal today ignore the fact that its failures have more to do with Wall Street sabotage than anything intrinsic to the program. For example, JP Morgan tool Lewis Douglass (U.S. Budget Director) forced the closure of the Civil Works Administration in 1934 resulting in the firing of all 4 million workers.
Wall Street did everything it could to choke the economy at every turn. In 1931, NY banks loans to the real economy amounted to $38.1 billion which dropped to only $20.3 billion by 1935. Where NY banks had 29% of their funds in US bonds and securities in 1929, this had risen to 58% which cut off the government from being able to issue productive credit to the real economy.
When, in 1937, FDR’s Treasury Secretary persuaded him to cancel public works to see if the economy “could stand on its own two feet”, Wall Street pulled credit out of the economy collapsing the Industrial production index from 110 to 85 erasing seven years’ worth of gain, while steel fell from 80% capacity back to depression levels of 19%. Two million jobs were lost and the Dow Jones lost 39% of its value. This was no different from kicking the crutches out from a patient in rehabilitation and it was not lost on anyone that those doing the kicking were openly supporting Fascism in Europe. Bush patriarch Prescott Bush, then representing Brown Brothers Harriman was found guilty for trading with the enemy in 1942!
Coup Attempt in America Thwarted
The bankers didn’t limit themselves to financial sabotage during this time, but also attempted a fascist military coup which was exposed by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler in his congressional testimony of November 20, 1934. Butler had testified that the plan was begun in the Summer of 1933 and organized by Wall Street financiers who tried to use him as a puppet dictator leading 500 000 American Legion members to storm the White House. As Butler spoke, those same financiers had just set up an anti-New Deal organization called the American Liberty League which fought to keep America out of the war in defense of an Anglo-Nazi fascist global government which they wished to partner with.
The American Liberty league only changed tune when it became evident that Hitler had become a disobedient Frankenstein monster who wasn’t content in a subservient position to Britain’s idea of a New World Order. In response to the Liberty League’s agenda, FDR said “some speak of a New World Order, but it is not new and it is not order”.
FDR’s Anti-Colonial Post-War Vision
One of the greatest living testimonies to FDR’s anti-colonial vision is contained in a little known 1946 book authored by his son Elliot Roosevelt who, as his father’s confidante and aide, was privy to some of the most sensitive meetings his father participated in throughout the war. Seeing the collapse of the post-war vision upon FDR’s April 12, 1945 death and the emergence of a pro-Churchill presidency under Harry Truman, who lost no time in dropping nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan, ushering in a Soviet witch hunt at home and launching a Cold War abroad, Elliot authored ‘As He Saw It’ (1946) in order to create a living testimony to the potential that was lost upon his father’s passing.
As Elliot said of his motive to write his book:
“The decision to write this book was taken more recently and impelled by urgent events. Winston Churchill’s speech at Fulton, Missouri, had a hand in this decision,… the growing stockpile of American atom bombs is a compelling factor; all the signs of growing disunity among the leading nations of the world, all the broken promises, all the renascent power politics of greedy and desperate imperialism were my spurs in this undertaking… And I have seen the promises violated, and the conditions summarily and cynically disregarded, and the structure of peace disavowed… I am writing this, then, to you who agree with me that… the path he charted has been most grievously—and deliberately—forsaken.”
The Four Freedoms
Even before America had entered the war, the principles of international harmony which FDR enunciated in his January 6, 1941 Four Freedoms speech to the U.S. Congress served as the guiding light through every battle for the next 4.5 years. In this speech FDR said:
“In future days, which we seek to secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
“The first is the freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.
“The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.
“The third is the freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.
“The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.
“That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.
“To that new order, we oppose the greater conception–the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.
“Since the beginning of American history, we have been engaged in change–in a perpetual peaceful revolution–a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions–without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.
“This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or to keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.”
Upon hearing these Freedoms outlined, American painter Norman Rockwell was inspired to paint four masterpieces that were displayed across America and conveyed the beauty of FDR’s spirit to all citizens.
FDR’s patriotic Vice President (and the man who SHOULD have been president in 1948) Henry Wallace outlined FDR’s vision in a passionate video address to the people in 1942 which should also be watched by all world citizens today:
Churchill vs FDR: The Clash of Two Paradigms
Elliot’s account of the 1941-1945 clash of paradigms between his father and Churchill are invaluable both for their ability to shed light into the true noble constitutional character of America personified in the person of Roosevelt but also in demonstrating the beautiful potential of a world that SHOULD HAVE BEEN had certain unnatural events not intervened to derail the evolution of our species into an age of win-win cooperation, creative reason and harmony.
In As He Saw It, Elliot documents a conversation he had with his father at the beginning of America’s entry into WWII, who made his anti-colonial intentions clear as day saying:
“I’m talking about another war, Elliott. I’m talking about what will happen to our world, if after this war we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery!
“Don’t think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn’t been for the shortsighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now.
“One sentence, Elliott. Then I’m going to kick you out of here. I’m tired. This is the sentence: When we’ve won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France’s imperialistic ambitions, or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its imperial ambitions.”
This clash came to a head during a major confrontation between FDR and Churchill during the January 24, 1943 Casablanca Conference in Morocco. At this event, Elliot documents how his father first confronted Churchill’s belief in the maintenance of the British Empire’s preferential trade agreements upon which it’s looting system was founded:
“Of course,” he [FDR] remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, “of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.”
He paused. The P.M.’s head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.
“No artificial barriers,” Father pursued. “As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.” His eye wandered innocently around the room.
Churchill shifted in his armchair. “The British Empire trade agreements” he began heavily, “are—”
Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”
Churchill’s neck reddened and he crouched forward. “Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England’s ministers.”
“You see,” said Father slowly, “it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.
“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now—”
“Who’s talking eighteenth-century methods?”
“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation—by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”
Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander Thompson, Churchill’s aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.
“You mentioned India,” he growled.
“Yes. I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.”
“What about the Philippines?”
“I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they’ve gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down…”
“There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.”
“They’re artificial…”
“They’re the foundation of our greatness.”
“The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?”
It was an argument that could have no resolution between these two men…
The following day, Elliot describes how the conversation continued between the two men with Churchill stating:
“Mr. President,” he cried, “I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it. But in spite of that”—and his forefinger waved—”in spite of that, we know that you constitute our only hope. And”—his voice sank dramatically—”you know that we know it. You know that we know that without America, the Empire won’t stand.”
Churchill admitted, in that moment, that he knew the peace could only be won according to precepts which the United States of America would lay down. And in saying what he did, he was acknowledging that British colonial policy would be a dead duck, and British attempts to dominate world trade would be a dead duck, and British ambitions to play off the U.S.S.R. against the U.S.A. would be a dead duck. Or would have been, if Father had lived.”
This story was delivered in full during an August 15 lecture by the author:
FDR’s Post-War Vision Destroyed
While FDR’s struggle did change the course of history, his early death during the first months of his fourth term resulted in a fascist perversion of his post-war vision.
Rather than see the IMF, World Bank or UN used as instruments for the internationalization of the New Deal principles to promote long term, low interest loans for the industrial development of former colonies, FDR’s allies were ousted from power over his dead body, and they were recaptured by the same forces who attempted to steer the world towards a Central Banking Dictatorship in 1933.
The American Liberty League spawned into various “patriotic” anti-communist organizations which took power with the FBI and McCarthyism under the fog of the Cold War. This is the structure that Eisenhower warned about when he called out “the Military Industrial Complex” in 1960 and which John Kennedy did battle with during his 900 days as president.
This is the structure which is ran a coup in the USA in November 2020, and is intent on ripping the republic apart under an oncoming Civil War. This British-run deep state has been petrified that a new FDR impulse would be revived in America which may align with the 21st Century international New Deal emerging from China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Eurasian alliance. French Finance Minister Bruno LeMaire and Marc Carney have stated their fear that if the Green New Deal isn’t imposed by the west, then the New Silk Road and yuan will become the basis for the new world system.
The Bank of England-authored Green New Deal being pushed under the fog of COVID-19’s Great Green Global Reset which promise to impose draconian constraints on humanity’s carrying capacity in defense of saving nature from humanity have nothing to do with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and they have less to do with the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. These are merely central bankers’ wet dreams for depopulation and fascism “with a democratic face” which their 1923 and 1933 efforts failed to achieve and can only be imposed if people remain blind to their own recent history.
This week, I took the time to watch a new documentary produced by Dinesh D’Souza titled ‘2000 Mules’ which utilizes voluminous geotracking and video evidence to demonstrate conclusively the scope of the fraud which occured in November 2020 which saw the elections stolen from US President Trump. The documentary focuses on a quantitative analysis of the data, but avoids speculating on those causal agencies that would have the means, intent and power to put such a coup d’etat into effect. This was the right decision, as D’Souza’s purpose was to conclusively demonstrate the scope of the fraud, not venture into ‘why’ it happened, or who dunnit.
Since 2000 Mules is going viral, I thought it prudent to re-publish an article that I had written in December 2020 in order to present the evidence of the British hand which managed the coup that saw a cultish technocratic takeover of the White House. The star performers in this drama will be a Don Quixote/Sancho Panza team of George Soros and Lord Mark Malloch Brown.
The British Hand Behind the Coup
Throughout the four-year drama of Russiagate, the hand of British intelligence has revealed itself continuously.
From the obvious role of Sir Richard Dearlove and his former MI6 underlying Christopher Steele who together played a driving role in shaping the dodgy dossier, to their involvement with Oxford Rhodes Scholar Strobe Talbott in composing, promoting and marketing the fraudulent dossier to targeted members of Congress and media, to British Ambassador Sir Darroch caught “flooding the zone” with British intelligence assets to shape Trump’s perception of the world, to the array of British entrapment operations that targeted Michael Flynn as early as 2014 in London… wherever one looks, the hand of British intelligence seems to be everywhere.
While vast effort is made to downplay the British roots of the deep state by the media which tends to portray this problem from a partisan narrative of “democratic party corruption”, this sleight of hand misses the causal nexus and demands we believe that the tail truly wags the dog.
The uncomfortable truth which many are either too afraid, lazy or corrupt to admit is that since the moment John F Kennedy died on November 22, 1963, both the Democratic and Republican Parties have undergone an slow take-over by this foreign parasite. The thing that has come to be known as the “deep state” was never based on one party or another, and never emanated from anything native to the Constitutional traditions of the US government itself as I outlined in my previous article “Understanding the Trifold Nature of the Deep State”.
While the Republican party of George Bush was in power, this deep state had used its controls of computerized vote counting to rig elections in 2000 and 2004 in its favor as showcased brilliantly in the 2006 documentary Hacking Democracy. Later, when it was time for a controlled opposition to take power in 2008, it did the same thing under a different cast of characters.
While one side of the unipolar world government agenda was driven by a view that the USA should forever be the primary global police force governing a zero sum system of perpetual war, with an unelected elite managing the system from above, the other side believed that the USA should surrender its claims to sovereignty to an international global body with unelected technocrats and financiers at the top managing the zero sum system of perpetual war from above.
Notice the common denominator?
Election Theft as Russiagate 5.0
Now that it has become increasingly clear that mass election fraud has swept across the USA in an effort to accomplish what four years of Russiagate failed to achieve, yet another light has fallen upon the British hand behind Biden which aims to dissolve any nationalist spirit remaining in the embattled republic.
As I outlined in my last report, the largest private computer voting system in the USA which services 30 states and 70 million voters was shown to be at the heart of the current election theft. In that article, it was made clear that Dominion Voting Systems is a Canadian company which dominates the USA’s private computerized voting systems and is closely tied to another larger company called Smartmatic whose operating systems, and even software it absorbed during Obama’s administration.
For those still out of the loop, Smartmatic furnishes voting machines and its software (backdoor codes and all) to governments all around the world and is highly enmeshed with the Clinton Foundation, Soros’ Open Society and Nancy Pelosi’s very own Chief of Staff.
Not only that, but the key figure controlling Smartmatic is none other than Lord Mark Malloch Brown, a former vice chairman of George Soros’ Investment Funds (2007), as well as Soros’ Open Society Institute and World Economic Forum, former Vice President at the World Bank (1995-1999), UN Administrator for Development (1999-2005), UN Deputy Secretary General and UK Minister of State for Africa, Asia and the UN (2007-2009). These are just a few hats he has worn in recent years which we will explore in greater detail.
Lord Malloch Brown: Not Your Typical British Agent
Through his lifelong affiliation with Soros, Lord Malloch Brown (Knight of the Order of St George and St Michael) played the role of color revolutionary godfather and key controller of such “technocrat friendly puppet leaders” as Corazon Aquino as well as her son Benigno Aquino III of the Philippines, Georgia’s George Saakashvili and even the hapless talking ego Barack Obama.
After working through an extended “apprenticeship” under the cover of UN aid worker, and marauding journalist for the London Economist, Malloch Brown found himself working for a Washington consulting firm named Sawyer Miller in 1985. It was at this time Malloch Brown was deployed to become the advisor and speech writer to Philippine opposition leader Corazon (Cory) Aquino under the supervision of then Secretary of State George Shultz. Corazon was a darling of the western establishment but had the nearly impossible task of challenging the popular nationalist President Ferdinand Marcos who had steered his country into economic sovereignty in opposition to international financiers for since his inauguration in 1965.
Applying all of the arts of perception management and marketing, Malloch Brown took control of Aquino’s campaign transforming it into the “People Power Revolution” that was in many ways the first successful color revolution of our modern times. Knowing that votes would likely favor the incumbent Markos, Malloch Brown wrote that he drafted Aquino’s victory speech before the elections and had her deliver it before votes were even finalized- and which accomplices in the media were all too happy to project publicly fueling the mythology that Corazon had won.
Describing these events years later, Malloch Brown said: “An outstanding accomplishment during the Cory campaign was to produce an exit poll that indicated that she had won. It landed on the front page of the Inquirer and had a profound impact as it planted the idea that Aquino had won over Marcos… Marcos did not really recover after that. It was a very exciting experience to watch.”
Malloch Brown failed to mention that the “polling station results” which produced the false perception that Corazon had won were manipulated by George Shultz’s local agents survey firms Social Weather Station, and Pulse Asia which have never been held accountable for their role in the anti-Marcos coup.
Shock Therapy
Soon after this “accomplishment”, Malloch Brown began working closely with George Soros on a number of projects that radically altered the world during the intense period of transition from a bi-polar to unipolar age.
In 1993, Soros had only recently carried out a speculative attack on the British pound sterling which resulted in $1 billion profit to the Hungarian speculator while providing the UK with a convenient excuse to avoid walking into the Euro trap which it had set for other European targets entering into the “post-nation state epoch”. In 1994, Soros announced a $50 million grant for “democracy building” operations in Macedonia and Bosnia which Malloch Brown was hired to administer as part of the Shatalin Shock therapy agenda.
From 1993-1994, Malloch Brown was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia where advanced the Balkanization projects of the 1990s. In 1998, Malloch Brown also co-founded Soros’s International Criminal Court (ICC) after the duo had created the International Crisis Group (ICG) in 1994. These institutions served to 1) shape “international perception” of the causes and solutions to “crises”, real or fabricated and 2) advocate solutions that removed sovereignty in military and judicial affairs from sovereign nation states where they had been enshrined in the UN Charter, Nuremburg laws and UN Declaration of Human Rights, to supranational unelected organizations under the control of “experts”.
As Vice President of the World Bank from 1995-1999 he took credit for transforming its image to a more democratic organization, and from 1999-2005 led in the creation of the Millennium Development Goals which increasingly tied UN funding to George Soros’ Open Society operations internationally (during his time in New York, Malloch Brown lived on an estate owned by Soros).
R2P and More Color Revolution
During this period, Malloch Brown was among the earliest advocates of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and did more than anyone else to incorporate the doctrine into United Nations “post-Westphalian” governance outlook in 2005 as UN Deputy Secretary General (2005-2006).
Demonstrating his imperial outlook on March 2011, the self-proclaimed “pacifist” grew impatient of nations who were reticent to blow up Libya and wrote in the Financial Times: “declare victory and get on with ousting Gadhafi”.
As co-chair of the International Crisis Group (which was born of seed money from Soros and on whose board of trustees sit Larry Summers, Joe Biden’s advisor Jake Sullivan and both George and Alexander Soros) Malloch Brown supported the narco-terrorist linked Kosovo Liberation Army which was also propped up by both the CIA and NATO during the Bosnia crisis coordinating closely with his Rhodes Scholar colleague Strobe Talbott who referred to Soros in 1995 as“a national resource—indeed, a national treasure.”
Describing Talbott, Malloch Brown recently wrote: “Strobe Talbott, is a very old friend of mine and in some ways a similar sort of practitioner and theoretician of globalisation… As such he really understood the hidden back-story of modern politics, which always gets shoved out of view by the more familiar story of nation-states.”
After bankrolling Georgia’s Rose Revolution in 2003 that put Soros’ Saakashvili in power, the Georgian state was rendered ungovernable due to a mix of vast incompetence and corruption. Here, Soros and Malloch Brown again came to the rescue by organizing a January 2004 event in New York that garnered $1.5 million for Georgian government reform programs (75% from Soros’ Open Society and 25% from the UN Development Program headed by Brown). The UNDP report justified the expense that was to pay Saakashvili’s salary as well as top government officials, and security forces when it said: “Georgia lacked the skilled professionals needed to design and execute sweeping reforms”.
The fact that these actions led to the murder of 1,600 in South Ossetia (mostly Russians) in 2008 and nearly triggered WWIII should not be forgotten, nor should Saakashvili’s nefarious role as Governor of Odessa (2015-16) where the convicted felon protected neo Nazis of the Azov Battalion. Similarly, the strange rise in popularity of Saakashvili underway in Georgia should make anyone with half a brain more than a little concerned.
Handler of Team Obama
On February 24, 2008, Samantha Power, husband to Harvard behaviorist Cass Sunstein and soon-to-be Ambassador to the UN under Obama gave an interview to the London Times describing the Malloch Brown-Obama connection in glaring detail. In this interview, Power said: “The principal conduit between Britain and the Candidate [Obama] has been Lord Malloch Brown, the Junior Foreign Minister, whom Obama came to admire when he [Malloch Brown] was Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations, Obama was really taken with him. It’s a relationship that has persisted and they have talked a number of times since.”
Indeed, Obama’s political career, like Saakashvili’s and Aquino’s, was always a creation of higher powers with Soros even providing the first $60,000 for Obama’s 2004 Senate run and then organizing the earliest fundraising parties for Obama’s Presidential run in 2007.
Samantha Power herself attributed her career to Soros and Lord Brown saying in 2004: “My book and my research was utterly unsustainable on the free market. If I hadn’t been able to get a grant from George Soros and the Open Society Institute, there is no way I could have done the kind of investigative reporting I needed to do”.
The Case of Cass Sunstein
While Power spent her time in the UN fighting viciously to push a pre-emptive P2P humanitarian regime change on Libya and later Syria, her husband Cass Sunstein worked as an advisor to Obama from 2009-2012 and authored a paper addressing the dangerous rise of “conspiracy theories” which threaten his idea of good government. Sunstein wrote “the existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks” and recommended “a series of possible responses” which include cognitive infiltration of conspiracy groups by government agents.
Additionally five options are developed by Sunstein:
“(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counter speech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counter speech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help”
On August 24, 2020 Sunstein was tapped to chair the World Health Organization’s Technical Advisory Group mandated with modifying global behaviour in compliance with the new norms of the pandemic world order. The WHO chief stated “In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are using a range of tools to influence behavior: Information campaigns are one tool, but so are laws, regulations, guidelines and even fines…That’s why behavioral science is so important.”
It is very apparent to anyone looking into the origins of antibodies that the idea of what these entities are in terms of how they look and how they function came well before any attempts to actually purify, isolate, and characterize the assumed particles. Antibodies were (and still are) nothing more than unseen theoretical constructs used to explain chemical reactions created in a lab. These fictional creations reside in the “domain of the invisible spectrum” conjured up by the “lively imagination” of a man named Paul Ehrlich. While there was no direct proof for the existence of these entities, the antibody concept was far too important to the immunological narratives forming around the growing practice of vaccination and the increased acceptance of other unseen entities known as “viruses” to just give it up. As the purification and isolation of antibodies in order to see and study them was an impossible task, researchers sought other methods to attempt to provide indirect evidence for the existence of these theoretical creations.
One man who is credited with providing such evidece is Michael Heidelberger, considered the “Founder of Immunochemistry.” He was the first to apply mathematics to the reaction of antibodies and their antigens. He is also known for “proving” that antibodies are proteins by showing that the antigens of pneumococcus bacteria are polysaccharides (or carbohydrates). Here is a brief overview of his work:
“Avery and Dochez’s initial characterization of this pneumococcal substance showed that it was resistant to both heat and trypsin—features unbefitting most proteins—but that it did contain nitrogen, a component of proteins. But its true nature was not revealed until 1923, when Michael Heidelberger—then in the chemistry department synthesizing drugs against poliomyelitis and African sleeping sickness—teamed up with Avery.
The more they purified the reactive substance the less nitrogen it contained. When it was virtually nitrogen-free, recalled Heidelberger in a 1979 article, Avery ventured a guess: “Could it be a carbohydrate?” (2). Chemical analysis confirmed its sugary character, and subsequent studies of other pneumococcal serotypes revealed that each bacterial capsule had a distinct polysaccharide signature. It was this signature that dictated the serological specificity of the organism. The duo published these findings in two articles in the Journal of Experimental Medicine (3, 4).
Their results were met with considerable skepticism, as it was then thought that only proteins could incite a specific immune response. “Nobody believed it,” says Emil Gotschlich (Rockefeller University), whose later work on polysaccharide-based vaccines stemmed in large part from Heidelberger and Avery’s discoveries. “It took them a lot of effort to convince people that the polysaccharide was the immunoreactive component.”
Antibodies solidified
Heidelberger and Avery’s discovery came at a time when antibodies were regarded—by those who believed they existed at all—as mysterious substances that floated around in serum. “It appeared to me that there was a crying need to determine the true nature of antibodies,” wrote Heidelberger in 1979, “and that until this was done there could be no end to the polemics and uncertainties that were plaguing immunology” (2). Heidelberger later purified the antibodies from his precipitin reactions and showed that they themselves were proteins. As a result, says friend and colleague Victor Nussenzweig (New York University), “there were no more mystical ideas about what antibodies were.”
Heidelberger and his postdoctoral fellow Forrest Kendall later quantitated the precipitin reaction (5), bringing much-needed mathematics to the study of antibody–antigen interactions and lifting antibodies even further out of the realm of the mysterious (see the next “From the Archive”).”
Heidelberger hard at work using his microscopic vision.
Two of Heidelberger’s papers are most often cited as the proof that antibodies are proteins. The first is a paper he did with Oswald Avery in 1923. It is used as proof that the pneumococcus antigens are carbohydrates. However, was this paper successful in drawing this conclusion? Presented here are some highlights from their collaboration:
“In 1917 Dochez and Avery (1) showed that whenever pneumococci are grown in fluid media, there is present in the cultural fluid a substance which precipitates specifically in antipneumococcus serum of the homologous type. This soluble substance is demonstrable in culture filtrates during the initial growth phase of the organisms; that is, during the period of their maximum rate of multiplication when little or no cell death or disintegration is occurring. The formation of this soluble specific material by pneumococci on growth in vitro suggested the probability of an analogous substance being formed on growth of the organism in the animal body.
Examination of the blood and urine of experimentally infected animals gave proof of the presence of this substance in considerable quantities in the body fluids following intraperitoneal infection with pneumococcus. In other words, this soluble material elaborated at the focus of the disease readily diffuses throughout the body, is taken up in the blood, passes the kidney, and appears in the urine unchanged in specificity. Similarly, a study of the serum of patients suffering from lobar pneumonia has revealed a substance of like nature in the circulating blood during the course of the disease in man. Furthermore, examination of the urine of patients having pneumonia due to pneumococci of Types I, II, and III has shown the presence of this substance in some stage of the disease in approximately two-thirds of the cases.
Recently from filtered alkaline extracts of pulverized bacteria of several varieties, including pneumococci, Zinsser and Parker have prepared substances which appear free from coagulable protein. These substances, called “residue antigens,” are specifically predpitable by homologous antisera. These observers consider these acid- and heat-resistant antigenic materials analogous to the soluble specific substance of pneumococcus described by Dochez and Avery. In spite of the fact that these “residue antigens” are precipitable by homologous sera produced by immunization with the whole bacteria, Zinsser and Parker have so far failed to produce antibodies in animals by injecting the residues.
In the earlier studies by Dochez and Avery certain facts were ascertained concerning the chemical characteristics of this substance. It was found that the specific substance is not destroyed by boiling; that it is readily soluble in water, and precipitable by acetone, alcohol, and ether; that it is precipitated by colloidal iron, and does not dialyze through parchment; and that the serological reactions of the substance are not affected by proteolytic digestion by trypsin. Since the substance is easily soluble, thermostable, and type-specific in the highest degree, it seemed an ideal basis for the beginning of a study of the relation between bacterial specificity and chemical constitution. The present report deals with the work done in this direction.
Experimental
The organism used in the present work was Pneumococcus Type II. The most abundant source of the soluble specific substance appeared to be an 8 day autolyzed broth culture; hence this material was used as the principal source of supply. For comparison dissolved pneumococci and lots of urine containing the specific substance were also worked up, with essentially the same results, as will be seen from Table I.
The process for the isolation of the soluble specific substance consisted in concentration of the broth, precipitation with alcohol, repeated re-solution and reprecipitation, followed by a careful series of fractional precipitations with alcohol or acetone after acidification of the solution with acetic acid, and, finally, repeated fractional precipitation with ammonium sulfate and dialysis of the aqueous solution of the active fractions.
Five lots of 15 liters each of 8 day cultures of Pneumococcus Type II in meat infusion phosphate broth are each concentrated on the water bath in large evaporating dishes to 1,000 to 1,200 cc. and precipitated in a separatory funnel by the gradual addition, with vigorous rotation, of 1.2 volumes of 95 per cent alcohol.The mixture separates into two layers, and is allowed to stand over night, or for several hours.
The upper layer, which is almost black and comprises the largest part of the mixture, contains only traces of the soluble specific substance, and is siphoned off and discarded. The lower, more viscous layer is run into a 250 cc. centrifuge bottle (occasionally a second will be required), capped, and rotated at high speed for ½ hour. Three layers are formed, of which the uppermost is merely a further amount of the liquid previously discarded. The middle layer consists of a compact, greenish cake of insoluble matter and gummy material, and contains most of the soluble specific substance. The bottom layer, from which salts often separate, is a brownish syrup rich in salts and nitrogenous matter and relatively poor in specific substance, and can, by careful manipulation, be poured off to a large extent.
Although a small proportion of the specific substance is lost if this syrup is discarded, its elimination represents so considerable a purification as to warrant the sacrifice of the active material contained. The gummy cake remaining in the centrifuge bottle, together with adhering salts and syrup, is now rinsed out and ultimately combined with similar material from the other lots, All of this is then dissolved as completely as possible in water, care being taken to break up the many lumps of gummy material, diluted to 1 liter, and again precipitated with alcohol. In this case about 1.3 liters are required to precipitate all but the last traces of active material from the upper layer. This is again discarded and the lower layer treated as before. At this stage there is relatively less of the bottom layer, and it is more difficult to separate it from the cake containing the specific substance, but as much as possible is removed. The remaining material is smoothed out with water, diluted to about 500 cc., and centrifuged. The precipitate is washed twice with water, and the washings are combined with the main solution. The still turbid liquid, the volume of which should be about 750 cc., is put through the alcohol purification process a third time, about 1.1 liters of alcohol being required. After having been centrifuged, the active material is again dissolved in water, made definitely acid to litmus with acetic acid, and again centrifuged. The precipitate is washed three times with water acidulated with acetic acid, and the filtrate and washings are combined in a separatory funnel and diluted again if necessary to 750 cc. Acetone (redistilled) is now added until a permanent precipitate forms, about 250 c¢. being necessary. The precipitate is allowed to settle, whereupon the lower part of the mixture containing the precipitate is drawn off and centrifuged. The clear superuatant fluid is restored to the main solution, while the precipitate, which consists largely of insoluble material and gives an aqueous solution almost devoid of activity, is discarded.
Fractional precipitation is continued, and even when the specific substance appears in quantity in the precipitate, it is occasionally possible to separate a lower, inactive, syrupy layer, as in the previous purifications by alcohol. Addition of acetone is continued until a test portion, heated on the water bath to remove acetone, diluted with saline, and neutralized, no longer gives a precipitate with immune serum, after which the upper layer may be discarded. The active precipitates are then redissolved in water, centrifuged again, and the supernatant liquid is diluted to 375 cc., reacidified with acetic acid, and again fractionated with acetone. If inactive fractions are obtained, the process is again repeated until no further purification results. Alcohol may be used for these fracfionations instead of acetone, the only difference being that a somewhat larger proportion is required. The active material is then dissolved in about 150 cc. of water and again made definitely acid with acetic acid. The solution is treated with solid ammonium sulfate until the first slight precipitate forms. This is generally inactive, and if so, may be discarded.
Finally, ammonium sulfate is added to saturation, completely precipitating the specific substance if the volume of the solution is not too great. The mixture is allowed to stand for several hours and is then centrifuged and the precipitate washed with a little saturated ammonium sulfate solution. It is redissolved in about 75 cc. of water acidified with acetic acid, centrifuged if necessary, and again precipitated by saturation with ammonium sulfate. Finally, the specific substance so obtained is dissolved in water and dialyzed first against running tap water in the presence of chloroform and toluene, and finally against distilled water until tests for sulfate and phosphate ion are negative. Addition of acetic acid during the early stages of the dialysis assists in the removal of calcium, which otherwise forms a large part of the ash.
The dialyzed solution is concentrated to dryness on the water bath and the residue redissolved in hot water. If the solution is not perfectly clear, it is centrifuged again before being evaporated to dryness, and the whole process is repeated as long as insoluble material separates. Toward the end of the final concentration absolute alcohol may be added to assist in the precipitation of the substance.
Variations in the exact volumes given are often necessary with different lots of broth, but this will occasion little difficulty if all fractionations are controlled by the specific precipitin test.
As so obtained the soluble specific substance forms an almost colorless varnish-like mass which may be broken up and dried to constant weight at 100°C. in vacuo. The yield from 75 liters of broth averages about 1 gin., although it varies within rather wide limits in individual lots.
By the method outlined above all substances precipitable with hosphotungstic acid or capable of giving the biuret reaction were eliminated. The residual material (Preparation 17, in Table I), for which no claim of purity is made, as efforts at its further purification are still under way, contained, on the ash-free basis, 1.2 percent of nitrogen. It was essentially a polysaccharide, as shown by the formation of 79 percent of reducing sugars on hydrolysis, and by the isolation and identification of glucosazone from the products of hydrolysis.”
“Table I represents a summary of the reactions of some of the earlier preparations worked with, as well as the later ones. Preparation 4 was obtained from the urine of a patient with a Type II pneumococcus infection, while No. 8 was obtained from an antiforrain solution of the pnemnococci. In both of these cases, as well as in Nos. 9, 11, and 15, the method of purification given above had not been fully worked out.
Attempts to stimulate antibody production by the immunization of animals with the purified substance yielded negative results.
Discussion.
While it has long been known that the capsular material of many microorganisms consists, at least in part, of carbohydrates, any connection between this carbohydrate material and the specificity relationships of bacteria appears to have remained unsuspected. While it cannot be said that the present work establishes this relationship, it certainly points in this direction. Evidence in favor of the probable carbohydrate nature of the soluble specific substance is the increase in specific activity with reduction of the nitrogen content, the increase in optical rotation with increase in specific activity, the parallelism between the Molisch reaction and specific activity, the high yield of reducing sugars on hydrolysis, and the actual isolation of glucosazone from a small quantity of the material. The small amounts of substance available up to the present have hindered the solution of the problem, and it is hoped that efforts at further purification of the soluble specific substance, now in progress with larger amounts of material, will definitely settle the question.
Summary.
A method is given for the concentration and purification of the soluble specific substance of the pneumococcus.
The material obtained by this method is shown to consist mainly of a carbohydrate which appears to be a polysaccharide built up of glucose molecules.
Whether the soluble specific substance is actually the polysaccharide, or occurs merely associated with it, is still undecided, although the evidence points in the direction of the former possibility.”
A beautiful mind?
Heidelberger’s original 1923 paper can hardly be claimed to be the slam-dunk proof that bacteria antigens are carbohydrates. For starters, Heidelberger admitted that he was unsure if the presumed “antigen” substance was a carbohydrate or if it was merely associated with it. Even more importantly, he could not produce any antibody response upon injecting his presumed antigen into animals. This would indicate that the substance was not an antigen whatsoever as antigens are specifically defined as “a toxin or other foreign substance which induces an immune response in the body, especially the production of antibodies.” Thus, it seems rather odd to assume antibodies are proteins based off of this work, but assume they did:
“Since the pneumococcal capsular antigen was a polysaccharide, and antibodies were thought to be proteins, Heidelberger realized that by measuring the amount of protein in specific precipitates made with the capsular antigen he could determine their antibody content. Together with Forrest Kendall, who had joined the Heidelberger lab, the protein content of immune precipitates was determined by measuring total nitrogen, using the Kjeldahl procedure that came to be the hallmark of laboratories carrying out Heidelberger-type quantitative immunochemistry.”
Since they assumed the pneumococci bacteria was a polysaccharide, that meant any nitrogen left over was the antibody content. Based on the 1923 paper, this seems to be a rather falicious premise to build from. In any case, Heidelberger carried on with his assumption and it can be seen by this second paper from 1929 how Heidelberger came to his conclusion using the precipitin test and mathematics as proof that antibodies exist. I edited out the long mathematical sections with his equations so if you are interested in Heidelberger showing his work, I recommend reading the full paper. Highlights below:
A Quantitative Study of the Precipitin Reaction Between Type III Pneumococcus Polysaccharide and Purified Homologous Antibody*
“Of all the reactions of immunity the precipitin test is perhaps the most dramatic and striking. While other immune reactions are more delicate, the precipitin test is among the most specific and least subject to errors and technical difficulties. Attempts at its quantitative interpretation and explanation have been hampered either by the difficulty of finding suitable analytical methods or by the failure to separate the reacting substances from closely related, non-specific materials with which they are normally associated.
With the aid of recent work it has been found possible to avoid these difficulties to some extent. The isolation of bacterial polysaccharides which precipitate antisera specifically and possess the properties of haptens has not only afforded one of the components of a precipitin reaction in a state of comparative purity, but has greatly simplified the analytical problem. Since many of these polysaccharides contain no nitrogen, and antibodies presumably are nitrogenous, the latter may be determined in the presence of any amount of the specific carbohydrate. Moreover, Felton’s method for the separation of pneumococcus antibodies from horse serum not only permits the isolation of a high proportion of the precipitin, freed from at least 90 percent of the serum proteins and much of the serum lipoid, but is also applicable on a sufficiently large scale to furnish the amounts of antibody solution needed to make quantitative work possible. It is realized that antibody solutions of this type do not contain pure antibodies–indeed, only 40 to 50 percent of the nitrogen is specifically precipitable–but since so small a proportion of the original serum protein remains with the antibody a far-reaching purification actually has been effected. It should thus be possible with the aid of antibodies purified by Felton’s method to obtain data of a preliminary character which should point toward the mechanism of the reaction. The present paper is concerned with such data obtained in a quantitative study of the precipitin reaction between the soluble specific substance of Type III pneumococcus and Type III pneumococcus antibody solution.
Experimental
1. Materials and Methods.–a. Solutions of Soluble Specific Substance, Type Ill Pneumococcus.–The soluble specific substance of Type III pneumococcus used was kindly supplied by Drs. O. T. Avery and W. F. Goebel of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. It was ash-free, contained 0.04 percent of nitrogen, and showed a/d = -32 °. A weighed amount of anhydrous substance was suspended in 0.9 percent saline, dissolved with the aid of 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide, and the solution was diluted with saline, adjusted to pH 7.6 and made up to volume with saline to yield a 1 percent solution. This was sterilized in the autoclave and used as a stock solution for making up other dilutions. These were prepared with sterile saline under aseptic precautions, and were kept in the ice-box.
b. Type III Pneumococcus Antibody Solution.–The antibody solutions used were prepared essentially according to Felton’s procedure (loc. cit.) from Type III antipneumococcus horse serum containing no preservative and supplied by the New York State Department of Health through the courtesy of Dr. A. B. Wadsworth and Dr. Mary B. Kirkbride. 100 to 200 cc. of serum were stirred slowly into 20 volumes of ice-cold water containing 9.5 cc. of molar potassium dihydrogen phosphate and 0.5 cc. of molar dipotassium hydrogen phosPhate per liter. The final pH varied from 5.6 to 6.3. After standing over night in the cold the supernatant was decanted and the precipitate was centrifuged off in the cold and dissolved in a volume of chilled 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken. 0.1 normal hydrochloric acid was then added until a precipitate no longer formed on dilution of a test portion with two volumes of water, after which 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide solution was added until a slight precipitate again formed on dilution. In general, 5 cc. of acid and 1.5 cc. of alkali per 100 cc. of serum were satisfactory, although as Felton emphasizes, different lots vary and no absolutely definite procedure can be given. In the present work the process of purification was followed either by testing the agglutinating power of the fractions against a heat-killed Type III pneumococcus vaccine, or by the precipitin reaction, or by both methods. After addition of the alkali the opalescent solution was diluted with 2 volumes of water and centrifuged in the cold. The almost inactive precipitate was discarded and the supernatant poured into 6.7 volumes of the chilled buffer solution previously used, (equivalent to 20 times the volume of saline employed), also adding enough 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide to neutralize the remaining acid. The resulting precipitate was collected and dissolved in a volume of 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken, and the pH was adjusted to 7.6. The solution was sterilized by passage through a Berkefeld N grade filter which previously had been washed with saline containing a drop of normal sodium hydroxide, followed by saline alone.
Antibody solutions prepared in this way were found to be rather unstable under the usual conditions of the precipitin test, and it therefore was necessary to subject them to a preliminary “ageing” treatment in order that control solutions might be relied upon to remain clear. This consisted in immersing the solution in a water bath at 37 ° for 2 hours, letting stand in the ice-box over night, centrifuging off the precipitate which usually formed, readjusting the pH if necessary, and filtering through a Berkefeld candle prepared as above. This treatment was repeated as many times as necessary, but the solutions usually remained clear after the second incubation at 37 °. Much time was lost and very inconstant results were obtained until “ageing” was resorted to.
The relative antibody content of the resulting solutions was estimated by determining the agglutination titer against a single heat-killed Type III pneumococcus suspension.
It will be seen from Table I that the agglutination titer and the maximum amount of protein precipitable by the type III polysaccharide ([total N–N in supernatant] X 6.25) are approximately proportional. The latter may therefore be taken as a more definite, though not necessarily more accurate, measure of the actual antibody content of the solutions.
It is also evident that the antibody in all of these solutions has been purified to approximately the same extent, since the ratios of protein precipitable by SSS III to total protein are not very different.”
Discussion
“For purposes of discussion it will be assumed with Felton (lot. cir.) that antibody is ,modified protein, and that, in order to provide a uniform method of measurement, it may be expressed as nitrogen precipitable by specific polysaccharide, multiplied by 6.25. Since only relative values are under consideration, the actual magnitude of the factor used is of little significance so long as it be used throughout. Moreover, Table I shows a correspondence between this measure of antibody content and the agglutination titer, so that its use as a relative measure is independent of the nature of Type III pneumococcus antibodies.
doi: 10.1084/jem.50.6.809.
The Precipitin Reaction
In Summary:
Michael Heidelberger teamed up with Oswald Avery to characterize a “soluble specific substance” found in pneumococcal bacteria that fell out of solution when incubated with type-specific antisera
When it was virtually nitrogen-free, recalled Heidelberger in a 1979 article, Avery ventured a guess: “Could it be a carbohydrate?”
Chemical analysis confirmed its sugary character, and subsequent studies of other pneumococcal serotypes revealed that each bacterial capsule had a distinct polysaccharide signature
It was this signature that dictated the serological specificity of the organism
Their results were met with considerable skepticism, as it was then thought that only proteins could incite a specific immune response
According to polysaccharide-based vaccine specialist Emil Gotschlich: “Nobody believed it. It took them a lot of effort to convince people that the polysaccharide was the immunoreactive component.”
Heidelberger and Avery’s discovery came at a time when antibodies were regarded—by those who believed they existed at all—as mysterious substances that floated around in serum
“It appeared to me that there was a crying need to determine the true nature of antibodies,” wrote Heidelberger in 1979, “and that until this was done there could be no end to the polemics and uncertainties that were plaguing immunology”
Heidelberger and his postdoctoral fellow Forrest Kendall later quantitated the precipitin reaction, bringing much-needed mathematics to the study of antibody–antigen interactions and lifting antibodies even further out of the realm of the mysterious
In 1917 Dochez and Avery showed that whenever pneumococci are grown in fluid media, there is present in the cultural fluid a substance which precipitates specifically in antipneumococcus serum of the homologous type
It was assumed that the formation of this soluble specific material by pneumococci on growth in vitro suggested the probability of an analogous substance being formed on growth of the organism in the animal body
Examination of the urine of patients with pneumococci showed the substance in only approximately 2/3rds of the samples
Zinsser and Parker found similar substances with other bacteria and believe that the substances are the same as that of the pneumococci
In spite of the fact that these “residue antigens” are precipitable by homologous sera produced by immunization with the whole bacteria, Zinsser and Parker failed to produce antibodies in animals by injecting the residues.
The process for the isolation of the soluble specific substance consisted in:
Concentration of the broth
Precipitation with alcohol
Repeated re-solution and reprecipitation
A careful series of fractional precipitations with alcohol or acetone after acidification of the solution with acetic acid
Repeated fractional precipitation with ammonium sulfate and dialysis of the aqueous solution of the active fraction
For a complete step-by-step breakdown of the numerous chemical-altering procedures done to the sample, see the highlighted tan section of the paper provided above
Even with the numerous “purification” steps, the obtained soluble specific substance formed an almost colorless varnish-like mass
The residual material for which no claim of purity was made, as efforts at its further purification were still under way, contained, on the ash-free basis, 1.2 percent of nitrogen.
It was considered essentially a polysaccharide
The method of purification given had not been fully worked out for many of the preparations
Attempts to stimulate antibody production by the immunization of animals with the purified substance yielded negative results
While it had long been known that the capsular material of many microorganisms consists, at least in part, of carbohydrates, any connection between this carbohydrate material and the specificity relationships of bacteria remained unsuspected
While it could not be said that their work established this relationship, they felt it certainly pointed in that direction
The small amounts of substance available hindered the solution of the problem, and it was hoped that efforts at further purification of the soluble specific substance with larger amounts of material would definitely settle the question
Whether the soluble specific substance is actually the polysaccharide, or occurs merely associated with it, was left undecided
Heidelberger acknowledged that the precipitin test he used during this experiment has 2 drawbacks:
Quantitative interpretation/explanation is difficult due to lack of a suitable analytical method
Failure to separate out the reacting substances from non-specific material which these substances are closely related to and associated with
He stated that it was possible to avoid these failures to some extent
It is presumed that antibodies are nitrogenous
Only 90% of the precipitin can be freed from serum proteins and “much” of the lipoid
Heidelberger admitted that these are not pure antibodies and that only 40-50% of nitrogen is precipitable while small amounts of serum remain
The antibody solutions used were prepared essentially according to Felton’s procedure from Type III antipneumococcus horse serum containing no preservative and supplied by the New York State Department of Health through the courtesy of Dr. A. B. Wadsworth and Dr. Mary B. Kirkbride
100 to 200 cc. of serum were stirred slowly into 20 volumes of ice-cold water containing 9.5 cc. of molar potassium dihydrogen phosphate and 0.5 cc. of molar dipotassium hydrogen phosphate per liter
The final pH varied from 5.6 to 6.3
After standing over night in the cold the supernatant was decanted and the precipitate was centrifuged off in the cold and dissolved in a volume of chilled 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken
0.1 normal hydrochloric acid was then added until a precipitate no longer formed on dilution of a test portion with two volumes of water, after which 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide solution was added until a slight precipitate again formed on dilution
In general, 5 cc. of acid and 1.5 cc. of alkali per 100 cc. of serum were satisfactory, although as Felton emphasized, different lots vary and no absolutely definite procedure can be given
After addition of the alkali the opalescent solution was diluted with 2 volumes of water and centrifuged in the cold
The almost inactive precipitate was discarded and the supernatant poured into 6.7 volumes of the chilled buffer solution previously used, (equivalent to 20 times the volume of saline employed), also adding enough 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide to neutralize the remaining acid
The resulting precipitate was collected and dissolved in a volume of 0.9 percent saline equal to that of the serum taken, and the pH was adjusted to 7.6
The solution was sterilized by passage through a Berkefeld N grade filter which previously had been washed with saline containing a drop of normal sodium hydroxide, followed by saline alone
Antibodies were found to be unstable during testing so they were put through preliminary “ageing” processes as many times as needed until they got the result they wanted
Much time was lost and very inconstant results were obtained until “ageing” was resorted to.
The relative antibody content of the resulting solutions was estimated by determining the agglutination titer against a single heat-killed Type III pneumococcus suspension
For purposes of discussion it was assumed with Felton that antibody is modified protein, and that, in order to provide a uniform method of measurement, it may be expressed as nitrogen precipitable by specific polysaccharide, multiplied by 6.25
There is no need to spend any more time on the rest of Heidelberger’s paper as he admitted he assumed antibodies were protein and could be expressed as nitrogen thus he did not prove anything
Why would monoclonal antibodies not form a precipitate?
It is rather obvious that many assumptions were made about a substance (antibodies) for which the researchers could not see. Michael Heidelberger assumed that antibodies are modified proteins and nitrogenous. He assumed that it may be expressed as nitrogen precipitable by specific polysaccharide, multiplied by 6.25. He assumed that the failure of the precipitin test to separate out the reacting substances from non-specific material which these substances are closely related to and associated with could be somewhat avoided to some extent. He assumed that his earlier work with the pneumococcus bacteria was accurate and that he had proved the antigen component was a carbohydrate even though he was unable to produce any antibody response upon immunizing animals using his supposed antigen. Maybe this lack of any antibody response to his “antigen” has to do with the fact that, according to the WHO, the pneumococcus bacteria is regularly found in healthy people?
“Infection is acquired mainly through pneumococci contained in respiratory droplets. There are many healthy, asymptomatic carriers of the bacteria but no animal reservoir or insect vector.”
If an antigen is a toxin or foreign substance which produces an immune response creating antibodies, the pneumococci bacteria doesn’t meet that definition at all. If it isn’t an antigen, then the pneumococcus “antigen” would not be carbohydrates as described in Heidelberger’s 1923 paper. This would mean that Heidelberger’s 1929 paper measuring any of the remaining protein content, calculating the amount, and claiming the resulting protein mass as antibodies is essentially meaningless. Can you see the problem with assuming things to be true without ever proving this to be the case?
The conclusions drawn by Heidelberger were born out of chemistry experiments and reactions using the precipitin test which have no bearing on reality while using mathematical equations attempting to quantify the unquantifiable. Whether or not these indirect experiments and assumptions provide proof that antibodies exist and are proteins, I leave up to the reader. However, keep in mind that no antibodies had ever been seen nor proven to exist by proper purification and isolation up to that time and that still holds true to date. This work is based off of theoretical explanations of immunity for which nothing could be observed. Heidelberger’s indirect chemical reactions and equations provided no direct evidence for the existence of anything other than non-specific precipitate.
Dr. Tom Cowan has recently created a series of videos where he takes a close look at what some leaders in the anti-covid-vax arena are presenting as science. Dr. Cowan’s videos can be found at his Rumble and BitChute channels.
For those of you who listen to a lot of alternative “anti-vax” presentations about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and end up feeling that you’ve just listened to a lot of faux-science gobbledygook, you’re not alone.
Below, Truth Comes to Light has clipped two key segments from the longer video where Dr. Cowan looks into Dr. Judy Mikovits’ presentations and papers related to SARS-C0V-2. Dr. Tom Cowan’s full video is also found below.
“Science has become the enterprise of people using words and concepts to make things, that everybody otherwise would understand, basically incomprehensible.”
“There are some basic ways that all of us — men, women, human beings — understand the world. It’s very clear and simple to us. And if we applied that same thinking to subjects in science and biology and medicine I think it would be fairly easy for us to find our way and to see what’s true and what isn’t true.
The problem has become that so-called scientists, especially virologists and medical doctors, have made the whole thing so confusing that most people seem to lose their bearings as far as understanding just the usual, common sense, logical, rational way of thinking and end up believing something that they wouldn’t possibly believe if they really understood the issues.”
“I’m not anti-vaccine. I just want them to be safer and more effective.”
I love that statement. It’s a lullaby. When I can’t go to sleep at night, I just repeat it to myself a few times, and I’m out cold.
It’s typical of half a revolution, which never wins.
For the past 32 years, I’ve presented overwhelming evidence that no vaccine was ever safe or effective. The whole “science” of vaccination is a rank fraud.
But stuffed-shirt journalists, who sort of go against the grain while maintaining a front of respectability, don’t want to venture that far. They know the price they’ll have to pay. They’re hedging their bets.
Occasionally, one of them will take a swipe at me. It cements their position as middle of the road. Which is where they want to be.
Except, liberty and freedom, which is what we’re fighting for, against a global coup by mass medical murders, isn’t something you win in the middle of the road.
You don’t win by trying to come off like a Washington Post reporter who just happens to have different and dissenting ideas. That’s what half-ass looks like.
That sort of person is basically saying, “I have a machine mind like other machine minds. The difference is, I’m inputting different data and therefore drawing different conclusions. If you, too, have a machine mind, read what I write and let’s establish truth and justice…”
The long-term effect of that is like pissing through a fire hose to put out a conflagration taking down a city.
This is simple. If one group of “superior” machine minds wins against another group of machine minds—regardless of which issues come out on top—there is no revolution. LIFE AND FREEDOM have been excised out of the equation.
A considerable amount of money and effort have gone into building a modern culture composed of what looks like science and rationality, but isn’t. It’s a cartoon. A fucking cartoon.
There’s no JUICE in it.
That’s why I use the phrase machine-minds. Minds that calculate and process and collate and compare and then exude “better answers.” This is your educated class. Careful, cautious. Circumspect.
“Delivery, sir. Here are flowers you ordered. I’m sorry they’re dead.”
“I don’t mind dead. But I ordered roses and you brought me tulips. I can prove it. Let me just find the receipt here on my cell phone. And then I can show you these withered blossoms are actually tulips. There are 32 differences between the two types of flowers…”
That’s your educated class.
See, I’ve been at this for 38 years. Reporting. Writing. Actually, I’ve been writing for 66 years. I’ve made the cases I wanted to make. I’ve shoved the evidence in people’s faces. The overall medical cartel is waging a VERY successful war against the people.
You have to turn that evidence with torque, with leverage, into a flamethrower. You’re not just trying to set the record straight and bring in truth, you’re using the truth to crash the gold-plated systems of machine minds.
Those minds are remote. Distant. Distant is where Big Tech domeheads operate from. They profile, they plan, they crunch trillions of pieces of data, and they develop strategies to build a civilization that looks like their minds and their computers.
When one of these high-IQ blown dry characters develops his version of a conscience, and turns whistleblower, he’s a hero to his ilk. He speaks their language. He thinks the way they do. He geeks like they geek.
If I have to guess which guy has more freedom in his belly and his brain, I’m going with the man who lives up in the hills of Tennessee with a shotgun and a dog. If he doesn’t like what I’m writing, I might think about his reasons for a half-hour. Whereas, when an “alt. journalist” claims I’m “going too far,” I know exactly what his game is. He’s spraying his usual brand of sanitizing respectable room-deodorant.
I’ll put this another way. Two men are discussing how to choose a wife. They’re looking at two different lists of characteristics a man should consider and check. But neither man mentions LOVE, so it doesn’t matter which list they decide is superior. They don’t know what love is. What they’re really discussing are machine-thoughts.
If the COVID narrative had never been launched, if we were living now as we did in 2018, we would still have a medical cartel taking away our freedom and killing and maiming an extraordinary number of people. And that will still be the case, even if all COVID mandates and restrictions are defeated.
Plus, the Brave New World on the drawing boards is fronted by medical people. Three of its main features are genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and human-computer interfaces and hybrids. If you think all possible freedom is now under fire, you haven’t seen anything yet.
Way back when, I was briefly trained in two schools. The first was formal logic, taught by a beloved college professor with an extraordinarily sophisticated mind and a huge heart. The second school consisted of two or three encounters with Ida Honorof, activist and author. She was barely five feet tall, and she had the energy, in her 70s, of ten tigers. She explained to me one afternoon, on a street corner, that officials in Los Angeles were spraying a version of deadly Agent Orange in the Angeles National Forest. She handed me a few pounds of corporate and government documents detailing the massive toxicity of a variety of pesticides. She kick-started my life as a reporter.
Neither one of these people engaged in coddling. They didn’t sit around planning their fronts and poses of respectability. They didn’t want half a revolution. They didn’t equivocate.
I’ve never been a big fan of equivocation. I’m over at the I-don’t-give-a-shit end of the spectrum.
Find answers—then shove in all your chips. At the end of the night, don’t leave anything on the table.
Fortunately for all of us, there is a life after this one. But we’re here now, so we’re fighting.
Make it COUNT.
In the wind and the rain and the storm, issue no apologies.
Good day, South Africa. My name is Ricardo Maarman and I’m from the Show Us the Virus movement.
Today is the 28th of April, 2022. It is the very day that our Leave to Appeal to High Court to challenge the negative judgment we had, with the cost order against me, was due. And so this is why I am giving you this update today.
Now before we proceed I just want to give you a background on the case and what has been happening so far.
You see, for the past two years (or more than two years) the president of South Africa, and many other presidents around the world as well — but in particular president of South Africa — came forward and made a claim.
He claimed that there was a virus called SARS-CoV-2 and this virus is causing a pandemic. And because of this, he has to take away all of the rights, or a lot of the rights, of the people of South Africa. And he has to impose these draconian lockdown, tyrannical regulations on the people.
And for the past two years, while he has been doing this, people have said many things.
You know, people have said this and that and the other in the showing their disapproval of what is going on and they’re opposition of what is going.
We at the Show Us the Virus movement have said one thing — can be summed up in one question that we have asked throughout this whole period. And that question is: Show us the virus. Show us the virus!
You make a claim that there is a virus, so show it to us.
And what we are faced with is controlled opposition who are trying to distract people from this question.
The president decided to fight the legal battle against me — a long protracted legal battle — and seemingly using all of his influence in the judiciary and his power to win this battle against me, to prevent me from ever being able to have this question answered.
But I think his silence has answered it already. And his actions. His dismissal.
He’s maneuvering has shown to us what the answer to the question is. There is no virus here.
The media has chosen to ignore what we’re doing, sort of an unofficial ban on this — never covering this court case. Showing anything else but this.
And the controlled opposition has been trying to distract people’s attention away from this. ‘No, that’s not an important question. THIS is more important than that.’ This is what has been happening.
And we have stayed consistent. We have said the same thing. Because when you speak the truth, and when you are focused on the truth, you do not have to change your tune every now and again. And that’s why you’ve heard the very same thing from us time and again. Show us the virus.
And that won’t change. We won’t be deterred. We will grasp onto the truth and we will pursue it no matter what, hell or highwater.
Now, what has happened as far as the case is concerned as I say that on the 28th of April, which is today, 2022, this is when our would Leave to Appeal is due. And we have successfully launched an application to the judge for Leave to Appeal.
But a strange thing has happening again. One week before this, on the 22nd of April 2022, the Constitutional Court dismissed our Rescission Application. Rescission Application is a sort of appeal to the Constitutional Court. And they have dismissed it.
Now, this is very important because the judge has dismissed our Interdict Application in the High Court because she says there was no case in front of the Constitutional Court, there was no appeal, there was no decision and, therefore, she has dismissed the case. And, therefore, she has ordered that I pay punitive cost of the billionaire president and also the pretty wealthy and rich Minister of CoGTA [Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs]. I must pay their legal cost, based on the fact that there is actually no case in front of the Constitutional Court pending.
The fact that the Constitutional Court — one week before the time — has dismissed my decision application without a hearing, is proof that the judge was wrong in her judgment. There was a case pending. There was an appeal pending in the Constitutional Court.
The fact that the Constitutional Court now has dismissed it a week before, it is supposed to have helped their cause but it doesn’t really. I think that is a little bit of miscommunication or there’s a miscoordination because it doesn’t really help their case. It advances ours. It proves, without a doubt, that when the judge made her decision she was factually mistaken. She was legally mistaken.
And that is why we are — we have launched this Leave to Appeal and we are successful with the merits of our case.
You must remember, at the end of the day, we have gone to the courts and we have said to the courts: The president made a claim. He said there’s a virus. We ask him to show the virus.
And the just and legal thing to do would be that he must prove his claim. He who claims must prove it.
The courts have, thus far, been dismissive of this basic and fundamental legal issue. And, as I’ve said, the media has tried to basically ban this, hide this very important, very fundamental, issue from the people of South Africa.
The controlled opposition. Now, who are the controlled opposition?
Controlled opposition are all those who say they oppose the government in this tyranny that the government is perpetrating against the people of South Africa, based on the SARS CoV-2 virus, but they agree with the claim of the government. They also promote the idea that there is a virus. And they feel that any lawsuit, or any case, that has to do with the Show Us the Virus question is not important. Other cases are important that focus on other things.
And I say to you, quite frankly Show Us the Virus is the fundamental issue here. Nothing is more fundamental than that.
Without the virus claimed there would be no pandemic and no other thing that anybody has a problem with.
And so anyone who is trying to say that they oppose the government but they agree with this basic premise is, quite frankly, controlled opposition. And the purpose of what they are trying to do is to distract you from what is really important. You’ll see this controlled opposition sellouts in politics and everywhere else, trying to distract the South African people, divide the South African people. It’s no different here.
And you see it — these kinds of thing pop up every time we release a message or every time that we are in the middle of a case of, there’s efforts to try and distract. Go look at the background and history and you will see the same.
As I’ve told you already, for this simple question Show Us the Virus, the president has chose to fight a legal battle with me for the past two years. The judiciaries tried to dismiss it. A basic premise of justice, they’ve tried to dismiss it.
Now, the fact that we have lodged our Leave to Appeal should show you — and the fact that we are still asking the same question for two years — should show you that we don’t give up easily and that we will not be easily distracted. And that we will not be easily deterred. And the fight is far, far from over.
Now, unfortunately, this is not the first time that this situation is happening in South Africa. It’s not the first time. Previously it was the HIV virus, that supposedly caused the AIDS pandemic. And the media did the same.
Anyone that opposes this is called an AIDS denialist. Anyone who raises any questions is ridiculed and attacked in the media quite viciously.
There was also protected court cases going on. And I’ll explain to you those court cases that went on. And, unfortunately, the result is very similar to what we are seeing today.
But first, there was also controlled opposition then. There was the Treatment Action Campaign that was pushing for pregnant women to receive toxic drugs (nevirapine). They were pretending to be on the side of the people and demanding that the people be given this toxic drug, sort of as a mandatory drug from the pharmaceutical industry that were the beneficiaries of this poisonous drug.
We have the same. Those people today who are controlled opposition for the government and for these people pushing this tyranny on us, they’re doing the same. They say it’s a bioweapon. They say it’s not so bad, but the virus is there. They are advocating people use ivermectin which is a toxic drug. They saying people should use other toxins, many other toxins.
I’m not a doctor. I will not be able to specify all of them. But many, many, many toxins. You can go check it yourself. All of those who claim to be opposing the government but they believe there is a virus or they advocate there’s a virus without providing any proof, they are also advocating toxic drugs.
The same that was happening during the time of the HIV issue as the Treatment Action Campaign did then. There was a … big court case happening then where the government then was challenging and saying no we shouldn’t be giving people nevirapine, it’s a dangerous, toxic drug. Eventually this matter ended up in the Constitutional Court then. And in the Constitutional Court Dr. Sam Mhlongo, he raised the issue to the court that the HIV virus has never been isolated and purified. Basically, the HIV virus was never shown to exist. So, you know, they were basically in their way asking the same question then: Show us the HIV virus.
And the court decided to dismiss Dr. Sam Mhlongo and say no that will not be entertained. The court will not answer such a question. Again, basic premise of justice. They claim there’s an HIV virus. Dr. Sam Mhlongo is asking them — is saying to the court they’ve never proven it. And therefore they should not be giving people toxic drugs like nevirapine if they haven’t proven the virus to exist. And the Constitutional Court dismissed Dr. Sam Mhlongo, as they are now trying to dismiss me again. It’s a repeat of history.
Sadly, soon after this whole debacle, Dr. Sam Mhlongo lost his life in mysterious circumstances — car accident and he lost his life. And this is how dangerous it can be to just ask a simple question.
To demand justice can be deadly when you are facing with such force of tyranny and injustice. And sadly, this is the case with Dr. Sam Mhlongo.
Now, as I’ve explained to you here — now this is twice in a row — that there has been, every time we go to the High Court, where we are supposed to go to the High Court, we are supposed to appeal, then the Constitutional Court issues orders. issues orders that will seemingly be very convenient for the president’s legal team and for the High Court then to to use together to judge against me.
There seems to be … I can’t say very clear. I was not in meetings where I see them discuss, but what I see is that within a week — every time we are going to the High Court, within a week the Constitutional Court comes back with a decision supposedly against us and supposedly in favor of the president. And that can then be used to help the High Court make its decision.
So this is a determined effort to see that the question of Show Us the Virus is never the answered and that I must be, you know, saddled with this legal cost. Because the financial cost would be quite substantial. They haven’t issued the bill yet and so this is hanging over my head. But what can happen here quite easily, if my Leave to Appeal is dismissed, my appeal is dismissed, and then I’m saddled with this cost. And then this could mean that they could see sequestrate me. It could render me to lose all of my assets and to be impoverished. So this is the threat that is hanging here — all because of asking a question. Show us the virus.
So, they are very dangerous, you know, in terms of their power that they wield and the threats that they have. As I’ve said here, Dr. Sam Mhlongo has lost his life… I have the knowledge that he lost his life for asking that question. And I’m asking that question. I’m asking the question for them to show the proof of these virus claims of theirs, including the one that Dr. Sam Mhlongo asked about HIV. And I’m asking in addition to that.
So I’m sure for me asking his question and redoubling that question with another one, with another virus, then I should be very careful about car accidents as well.
And, of course, in addition to this financial threat that they now directing towards me. But I am not deterred. And as I’m sure Dr. Sam Mhlongo was not deterred. That his death, and that if any such similar thing happens to me or loss of property, then my debt, my loss of property — or my death in the event that they do the same kind or try the same kind of thing against me — will be a witness against them, a witness against the tyranny, a witness against their falsehood. It will be a witness against their injustice. Because why should this man lose property? Why should this man lose his life for asking you to show us the virus when you have made this claim. This is the height of injustice.
They are determined to see that I lose these cases.
They are determined to see that I am silenced.
They are determined to ensure, with the help of their controlled opposition, that people’s attentions are directed elsewhere.
I’m saying to South Africa, we have been fooled once by these people and their tactics, their intimidation, they’re controlled opposition, sellouts, etcetera.
They fooled us in the past. We should not allow them to fool us again.
For them, having fooled us in the past, shame on them. But if we allow them to fool us and divide us again, then shame on us.
It is time for us to redouble our efforts. Here at the Show Us the Virus movement we have no intention to submit ourselves to evil or to falsehood. No intention whatsoever.
We will redouble our efforts as this lodging of this Leave of Appeal application has shown you. There has been many attempts to distract you in the meantime.
From my request, I asked you and I said South Africa please support me, please help me. I am facing these kind of threats, financial threats. And there has come a whirlwind, a whirlwind to try and distract you away from helping me away, from supporting this cause and standing for truth and justice.
I ask you not to allow yourself to be distracted like this I ask you to stand with me as I redouble my efforts to fight against this tyranny and oppression.
I will not surrender. And I want to implore you that, don’t think others will come and save you. Our situation will not change unless we change it ourselves.
We have to redouble our efforts. We have to pray and turn to God to help us to defeat this evil. And we have to stand together. And we must ensure that we focus. We stand as one. And we never relented evil. We stop it. We fight it. Whatever stumbling blocks there are, we jump over it. Whatever walls there are, we go through it if we have to.
So please let’s stand together. Support me as much as you can. Support our cause. We still have an uphill battle to fight.
We will let you know how the Leave of Appeal application goes. And after, that we’ll follow the appeal itself in our efforts to see that justice is done and that an unjust court order be overturned.
‘World Localization Day’ will be celebrated on 20 June. Organised by the non-profit Local Futures, this annual coming together of people from across the world began in 2020 and focuses on the need to localise supply-chains and recover our connection with nature and community. The stated aim is to “galvanize the worldwide localization movement into a force for systemic change”.
Local Futures, founded by Helena Norberg-Hodge, urges us to imagine a very different world, one in which most of our food comes from nearby farmers who ensure food security year round and where the money we spend on everyday goods continues to recirculate in the local economy.
We are asked to imagine local businesses providing ample, meaningful employment opportunities, instead of our hard-earned cash being immediately siphoned off to some distant corporate headquarters.
Small farms would be key in this respect. They are integral to local markets and networks, short supply chains, food sovereignty, more diverse cropping systems and healthier diets. And they tend to serve the food requirements of communities rather than the interests of big business, institutional investors and shareholders half a world away.
If the COVID lockdowns and war in Ukraine tell us anything about our food system, it is that decentralised, regional and local community-owned food systems based on short(er) supply chains that can cope with future shocks are now needed more than ever.
Localization involves strengthening and rebuilding local economies and communities and restoring cultural and biological diversity. The ‘economics of happiness’ is central to this vision, rather than an endless quest for GDP growth and the alienation, conflict and misery this brings.
It is something we need to work towards because multi-billionaire globalists have a dystopian future mapped out for humanity which they want to impose on us all – and it is diametrically opposed to what is stated above.
The much-publicised ‘great reset’ is integral to this dystopia. It marks a shift away from ‘liberal democracy’ towards authoritarianism. At the same time, there is the relentless drive towards a distorted notion of a ‘green economy’, underpinned by the rhetoric of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.
The great reset is really about capitalism’s end-game. Those promoting it realise the economic and social system must undergo a reset to a ‘new normal’, something that might no longer resemble ‘capitalism’.
End-game capitalism
Capital can no longer maintain its profitability by exploiting labour alone. This much has been clear for some time. There is only so much surplus value to be extracted before the surplus is insufficient.
Historian Luciana Bohne notes that the shutting down of parts of the economy was already happening pre-COVID as there was insufficient growth, well below the minimum tolerable 3% level to maintain the viability of capitalism. This, despite a decades-long attack on workers and corporate tax cuts.
The system had been on life support for some time. Credit markets had been expanded and personal debt facilitated to maintain consumer demand as workers’ wages were squeezed. Financial products (derivatives, equities, debt, etc) and speculative capitalism were boosted, affording the rich a place to park their profits and make money off money. We have also seen the growth of unproductive rentier capitalism and stock buy backs and massive bail outs courtesy of taxpayers.
Moreover, in capitalism, there is also a tendency for the general rate of profit to fall over time. And this has certainly been the case according to writer Ted Reese, who notes it has trended downwards from an estimated 43% in the 1870s to 17% in the 2000s.
The 2008 financial crash was huge. But by late 2019, an even bigger meltdown was imminent. Many companies could not generate enough profit and falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflows and highly leveraged balance sheets were prevalent. In effect, economic growth was already grinding to a halt prior to the massive stock market crash in February 2020.
Fabio Vighi, professor of critical theory, describes how, in late 2019, the Swiss Bank of International Settlements, BlackRock (the world’s most powerful investment fund), G7 central bankers, leading politicians and others worked behind closed doors to avert a massive impending financial meltdown.
The Fed soon began an emergency monetary programme, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars per week into financial markets. Not long after, COVID hit and lockdowns were imposed. The stock market did not collapse because lockdowns occurred. Vighi argues lockdowns were rolled out because financial markets were collapsing.
Closing down the global economy under the guise of fighting a pathogen that mainly posed a risk to the over 80s and the chronically ill seemed illogical to many, but lockdowns allowed the Fed to flood financial markets (COVID relief) with freshly printed money without causing hyperinflation. Vighi says that lockdowns curtailed economic activity, thereby removing demand for the newly printed money (credit) in the physical economy and preventing ‘contagion’.
Using lockdowns and restrictions, smaller enterprises were driven out of business and large sections of the pre-COVID economy were shut down. This amounted to a controlled demolition of parts of the economy while the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, Meta (Facebook) and the online payment sector – platforms which are dictating what the ‘new normal’ will look like – were clear winners in all of this.
The rising inflation that we currently witness is being blamed on the wholly avoidable conflict in Ukraine. Although this tells only part of the story, the conflict and sanctions seem to be hitting Europe severely: if you wanted to demolish your own economy or impoverish large sections of the population, this might be a good way to go about it.
However, the massive ‘going direct’ helicopter money given to the financial sector and global conglomerates under the guise of COVID relief was always going to have an impact once the global economy reopened.
Similar extraordinary monetary policy (lockdowns) cannot be ruled out in the future: perhaps on the pretext of another ‘virus’ but possibly based on the notion of curtailing human activity due to ‘climate emergency’. This is because raising interests rates to manage inflation could rapidly disrupt the debt-bloated financial system (an inflated Ponzi scheme) and implode the entire economy.
Permanent austerity
But lockdowns, restrictions or creating mass unemployment and placing people on programmable digital currencies to micromanage spending and decrease inflationary pressures could help to manage the crisis. ‘Programmable’ means the government determining how much you can spend and what you can spend on.
How could governments legitimise such levels of control? By preaching about reduced consumption according to the creed of ‘sustainability’. This is how you would ‘own nothing and be happy’ if we are to believe this well-publicised slogan of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
But like neoliberal globalization in the 1980s – the great reset is being given a positive spin, something which supposedly symbolises a brave new techno-utopian future.
In the 1980s, to help legitimise the deregulated neoliberal globalisation agenda, government and media instigated an ideological onslaught, driving home the primacy of ‘free enterprise’, individual rights and responsibility and emphasising a shift away from the role of state, trade unions and the collective in society.
Today, we are seeing another ideological shift: individual rights (freedom to choose what is injected into your own body, for instance) are said to undermine the wider needs of society and – in a stark turnaround – individual freedom is now said to pose a threat to ‘national security’, ‘public health’ or ‘safety’.
A near-permanent state of ‘emergency’ due to public health threats, climate catastrophe or conflict (as with the situation in Ukraine) would conveniently place populations on an ongoing ‘war footing’. Notions of individual liberty and democratic principles would be usurped by placing the emphasis on the ‘public interest’ and protecting the population from ‘harm’. This would facilitate the march towards authoritarianism.
As in the 1980s, this messaging is being driven by economic impulses. Neoliberalism privatised, deregulated, exploited workers and optimised debt to the point whereby markets are now kept afloat by endless financial injections.
The WEF says the public will ‘rent’ everything they require: stripping the right of personal ownership under the guise of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘saving the planet’. Where the WEF is concerned, this is little more than code for permanent austerity to be imposed on the mass of the population.
Metaverse future
At the start of this article, readers were asked to imagine a future based on a certain set of principles associated with localization. For one moment, imagine another. The one being promoted by the WEF, the high-level talking shop and lobby group for elite interests headed by that avowed globalist and transhumanist Klaus Schwab.
As you sit all day unemployed in your high-rise, your ‘food’ will be delivered via an online platform bought courtesy of your programmable universal basic income digital money. Food courtesy of Gates-promoted farms manned by driverless machines, monitored by drones and doused with chemicals to produce crops from patented GM seeds for industrial ‘biomatter’ to be engineered, processed and constituted into something resembling food.
Enjoy and be happy eating your fake food, stripped of satisfying productive endeavour and genuine self-fulfilment. But really, it will not be a problem. You can sit all day and exist virtually in Zuckerberg’s fantasy metaverse. Property-less and happy in your open prison of mass unemployment, state dependency, track and chip health passports and financial exclusion via programmable currency.
A world also in which bodily integrity no longer exists courtesy of a mandatory vaccination agenda linked to emerging digital-biopharmaceutical technologies. The proposed World Health Organization pandemic treaty marks a worrying step in this direction.
This ‘new normal’ would be tyrannical, but the ‘old normal’ – which still thrives – was not something to be celebrated. Global inequality is severe and environmental devastation and human dislocation has been increasing. Dependency and dispossession remain at the core of the system, both on an individual level and at local, regional and national levels. New normal or old normal, these problems will persist and become worse.
Green imperialism
The ‘green economy’ being heavily promoted is based on the commodification of nature, through privatization, marketization and monetary valuation. Banks and corporations will set the agenda – dressed in the garb of ‘stakeholder capitalism’, a euphemism for governments facilitating the needs of powerful global interests. The fear is that the proposed system will weaken environmental protection laws and regulations to facilitate private capital.
The banking sector will engage in ‘green profiling’ and issue ‘green bonds’ and global corporations will be able to ‘offset’ (greenwash) their environment-degrading activities by, for example, protecting or planting a forest elsewhere (on indigenous people’s land) or perhaps even investing in (imposing) industrial agriculture which grows herbicide-resistant GMO commodity crop monocultures that are misleadingly portrayed as ‘climate friendly’. Imperialism wrapped in green.
Relying on the same thinking and the same interests that led the world to where it is now does not seem like a great idea. This type of ‘green’ is first and foremost a multi-trillion market opportunity for lining pockets and part of a strategy that may well be used to secure compliance required for the ‘new normal’.
The future needs to be rooted in the principles of localization. For this, we need look no further than the economics and the social relations that underpin tribal societies (for example, India’s indigenous peoples). The knowledge and value systems of indigenous peoples promote long-term genuine sustainability by living within the boundaries of nature and emphasise equality, communality and sharing rather than separation, domination and competition.
Self-sufficiency, solidarity, localization and cooperation is the antidote to globalism and the top-down tyranny of programmable digital currencies and unaccountable, monopolistic AI-driven platforms which aim to monitor and dictate every aspect of life.
*
Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.
The author receives no payment from any media outlet or organization for his work. If you appreciated this article, consider sending a few coins his way: colintodhunter@outlook.com
In this webinar, my friend and colleague Mike Donio analyzed the main points of Dr. Ardis’ recent snake venom warning. Tune in to find out what we think of these claims.
Terra Madre, Gaia, Pachamama, Vasundhara… The Living Earth is a self-organised, self-regulating living system. She is autopoeitic, writing the poetry of life, creating the symphony of life, through the harmony of every participating living organism, from the microbes to the mammals.
From the molecule, to the cell, to the organism, to ecosystems, and the planet, life is based on non-separation, harmony and quantum coherence. Self-organised resonance with other beings who are self-organised.
“Life, in the ideal, is a domain that captures and stores energy and mobilises its quantum coherently in perfectly coupled cycles that generate no entropy… In a quantum coherent universe, all beings are both localised as particle/solid objects and delocalised as quantum wave functions spread ultimately throughout the universe. Hence all beings are mutually entangled and mutually constitutive. Thus harming others effectively harms ourselves, and the best way to benefit oneself may be to benefit others”. – Mae Wan Ho[1]
The Living Earth has evolved the biodiversity of our living planet, from viruses and biomes, to ecosystems, and species for over 4 billion years. Gaia weaves the web of life, the threads and relationships that connect the biodiversity of her Earth Family– Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam. Through her biodiversity and biosphere the Living Earth has self regulated her climate, cooling temperatures down from the 290 degree hot planet without life, to 13 degrees. Through the processes of life, the Earth reduced the 98% carbon dioxide rich atmosphere with 4000 ppm carbon dioxide, to 0. 03% at 270 ppm.[2]
Mother Earth evolved her sophisticated “carbon capture and sequestration” technology of photosynthesis which allows plants and microbes to capture the sunlight and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and transform it into oxygen, our breath. Oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere and the earth was transformed from the original heat-trapping CO2 rich atmosphere to the reduced CO2 atmosphere through the oxidising process of plants and living organisms. This allowed temperatures to be regulated at levels that support human and other biological life on earth.
Through her biodiversity and biosphere she creates, maintains and sustains, regenerates and renews her Infrastructure of Life including the Climate System. Mother Earth is inviting us to participate in her biosphere of microbes and plants, animals in co-creating the harmony that is the symphony of life.
We are a strand in the Web of Life.
We are Children of the Earth, Not her Masters and Owners.
We are members of One Earth Family.
200,000 years ago, the living Earth created the conditions for our species to evolve, sustain ourselves and provide for our basic needs of food, clothing and shelter as members of the biosphere.
We are alive because the Earth is Alive. Learning to live as part of the biosphere as indigenous people, women, small peasants have done is our work for the Earth, for the human future.
Mother Earth is Living and Has Rights.
“Mother Earth is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom we share a common destiny and to whom we must relate in ways that benefit Mother Earth”.[3]
Diversity is nature’s organising principle, the basis of emergence, evolution, and resilience. Diversity in forms and expressions, flows and relations are how nature creates value and strength. Nature does not create monocultures and uniformity. Nature does not create fences and walls of division and separation, of ownership and private property.
We are a living, conscious strand in the pulsating web of life. We are all members of One Earth Family, interconnected through life. We are part of the Earth, and not separate from her. We are children of Mother Earth, not her masters and owners. We are among the youngest siblings in the Earth family and have much to learn from our elders, the microbes, and plants.
Nature’s gifts are for the sustenance of all beings in the Earth Family, not just for humans. All beings have a right to the Earth’s Gifts of sustenance. We are not a privileged species who can take others’ share and drive other species to extinction, or deprive our fellow human beings of food and water.
Nature’s Economy and the ecological processes of Regeneration that sustain life, is a Commons of Life.
The Earth’s biodiversity and soil, land, and water are not “human inventions”, they are not the “private property” of a few billionaires and their corporations. They are the commons, the infrastructure of life, not industrial “raw material” to be extracted for profits, or financial assets to be traded.
Every organism, from the smallest microbe to the largest mammal is part of the web of life. All living beings are sentient beings and have intrinsic value and worth. They are not objects to be owned and manipulated. Their value does not come from the market and cannot be reduced to money.
Earth-centred paradigms and worldviews do not put humans at the centre. They do not put the dis-economy of extractivism at the centre. They put life and the living processes that support life at the centre. They put the currencies of life at the centre.
Giving back to the Earth for regeneration, and sharing her gifts among others is at the heart of being members of one Earth family.
Life is a Circular Regenerative Flow. Living is participating in the cycles of life. Caring and Sharing is the Regenerative Economy – Oikonomia, or the Art of Living
Nature’s Economy is the economy of life, nourishing all in permanent renewal and regeneration.
Participating in nature’s Cycles of Renewal and Regeneration based on the living currencies and flows of energy, food, water, air, life is Oikonomia, the Art of Living.
Nature does not work in linear extractive flows of one way taking. Mother Earth works in complex, multiple Living Circular Economies based on ecological cycles of renewal, recycling and the law of return, the law of giving. Living circular economies create economies of permanence through regeneration and renewal. The Earth’s gifts do not get exhausted. Seed becomes plants, plants give seeds. Food is the currency of the nutrition cycle, nourishing all beings in the web of life. Water is the currency in the hydrological cycle, quenching the thirst of the soil, the plants, the animals, the atmosphere.
Nature’s Economy is an autopoietic, negative entropy economy, unlike mechanical, industrial systems which are allopoetic, based on external inputs of energy and resources and create wasted energy as entropy.
Nature’s cycles are zero waste and zero pollution systems, unlike the waste and pollution creating industrial systems driven by external energy.
Care for the Earth and her biodiversity is the Real Economy in which we participate, providing for the needs of others in our Earth Family who provide for us.
Cooperation, Mutuality, Synergy are the principles of Nature’s Economy, not competition and extractivism. Scarcity is a construct that is used to grab people’s lands and resources. The construct of scarcity and greed are the basis of conflicts and wars. Peace flows when all beings cooperate in mutuality and Gift Giving to create abundance and sustenance for all, making conservation and regeneration the basis of living economies and livelihoods.
That is why we pray, “May the peace of the earth, the air, the atmosphere, the waters, the plants, the trees … May that peace be with you”.
Cocreating nonviolently with Mother Earth is weaving peace, and providing for the basic needs of food and water, life and livelihoods of the last person. As Gandhi said: “The Earth has enough for everyone’s needs, not for a few people’s greed.”
We have a duty to protect the Earth‘s living systems and the infrastructure of life that provides us clean air, clean water and clean food. All beings have the right to the gifts of the Earth. All beings have a right to be alive, and to their share of ecological space. No person, no matter how rich they have become through extractivism, has the right to appropriate the share of others in participation in Nature’s Economy, the Economy of Life.
Living is participating in the processes of life.
Living is Commoning. Living is Reclaiming the commons of life and resisting the new enclosures through the financialisation of nature.
“The Currency of Life is Life, not Money”
Mother Earth connects us to her life and the Earth Family through flows of living currencies of energy and breath, water and nourishment.
Currency means flow. It is the flow of life and love through the web of life in nature and society which sustains us as one. As I have often repeated: “The currency of life is life, not money”. Food is the currency of life. Water is the currency of life. Breath is the currency of life. Living energy is the currency of life. Care is the currency of life. The diverse currencies of life grow the infrastructure of life so all lives thrive.
The ecological emergency is a consequence of the economy of Greed, of extractivism to make money, and making money the measure of value, and even the measure of being human. It is the basis of inhumanity, of violence and wars against the Earth and against people, in the name of grabbing resources for the market.
Colonial commerce was based on commodification and commercialisation of nature, leaving nothing for nature and local communities. Colonisers grew richer. Nature and colonised people became poorer.
The disease is now being offered as the cure. Markets and money are being offered as the solution to the ecological catastrophes they have caused. Economic growth, which is merely a measure of how much was extracted from nature and society to convert into money, capital, finances, is being offered as a solution to the ecological crises money-making and extractivism has led to.
The laws of Gaia are the basis of life on earth. They precede production, they precede trade, and they precede the market. The market depends on Gaia. Gaia does not depend on the market. Both the earth and society come first. They are sovereign and autonomous. They cannot be commoditised, and reduced to the market.
In a short 500 years of colonialism, the Robber Barons reduced Terra Madre, Mother Earth to Terra Nullius, dead, Empty Earth, property to be owned, raw material to be exploited. Earth centred communities living in peace with the Earth as part of the Earth were declared “primitive”. Oikonomia, the Art of Living was violently transformed into Chrematistics, the Art of Money Making.
They made the currencies of life disappear and replaced it with money and finance.
In 100 years of the Age of Oil, the Robber Barons displaced the living carbon of biodiversity with the counterfeit energy from fossilised dead carbon, disrupting the self regulation of Earth Systems, giving us pollution, wars and climate catastrophe.
Climate Change, the Extinction Emergency, the economic catastrophes and wars are rooted in greed and wars against the Earth and her Peoples. They are rooted in control of life by controlling the flow of seed going from farmer to farmer, the flow of water in a river, the flow of food to nourish all beings in the food web, the flow of money reflecting embodiment of real goods and resources, the flow of freedom and democracy, of knowledge and information. Controlling the flow is controlling life and freedom. This is how money is made, and power accumulated in the hands of a few.
Now the Robber Barons who gave us oil want to create new markets of carbon, new property in nature’s ecological services, by reducing Biodiversity and Nature into financial assets to be owned and traded[4].
In 2021, Rockefeller and the New York Stock Exchange launched Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG)[5] whose mission focuses on “pioneering a new asset class based on natural assets and the mechanism to convert them to financial capital”[6]. A new colonialism, a new ownership, a new enclosure of the commons is being worked out by the Robber Barons who do not merely want to own nature, but also her ecological services. The assets include “Biological systems that provide clean air, water, foods, medicines, a stable climate, human health and societal potential”[7].
The Robber Barons of today, the philanthrocapitalists, the Blackrocks and Vanguards, are trying to own and privatise all of nature and our lives. They are mutating into life lords to whom we will have to pay rents to breathe, eat, drink. What nature provides for free as a Gift will now be a commodity we “buy” at high cost and through digital social credits in the new economy which builds on the old colonisation.
The money machine is trying to own the last seed, the last drop of water, the last river, extinguish the last forest and last farm, the last insect and blade of grass. Creating fictitious currencies, and fictitious finance, nature is being reduced to a “financial asset”, to be miraculously multiplied to $4000 trillion.
The 2008 financial crisis was the result of the financial Robber Barons magically expanding the $90 trillion economy of real goods and services like homes and food into a fictitious $512 trillion financial economy. The financial economy grew at the cost of millions who were unhoused and unfed as a result. The more the real world is turned into a financial asset, the more homelessness and hunger grows.
Wall Street and the financial asset companies are now seeing a $4000 trillion fictitious economy of finance by extracting profits from “Nature’s assets”, or the goods and services that the Earth produces. This commodification is an enclosure of the commons of life. It is an attempt to own the last river, the last forest and the last acre of land. It is a recipe to displace and dispossess the real custodians of nature, the indigenous people and small farmers leaving them without access to land, forests and water and their Earth-centred cultures and livelihoods. Hunger, poverty, disposability, and dispossession will grow. This is a violation of Nature’s Economy, Rights of Mother Earth, Rights of all beings and Human Rights.
Creating new algorithms to multiply finances and increase financial resources cannot regenerate the life lost in nature through ecological destruction. You can convert nature into cash through extractivism. But you cannot turn cash into nature.
An African peasant captured the ontological and ecological difference between money and life with a simple metaphor:
“You cannot turn a calf into a cow by plastering it with mud”[8]
Financialisation of Mother Nature, reducing her to an “asset” and commodity for sale continues the ontological blindness to how Mother Earth creates and sustains life through her auto-poetic currencies and life flows.
Money is a mere means of exchange of real goods and services produced through real work. Money mutated into the mysterious construct of “capital”, which could create wealth by denying the creativity of nature, women, farmers, workers, could enclose the commons and own the commons as private property. “Capital” then mutated into “investment”. Investment mutated, through multiple constructions into “returns on investment”, where those who do no real work but control wealth created by exploitation of nature and people accumulate more wealth, and use the wealth to further exploit nature and society. The ecological crisis grows. Poverty, misery, exclusion grows.
Financialisation of Nature is the latest step in the mutation of “invest” from giving care to profits and money making.
The original meaning of “invest” was to make something beautiful, to clothe. A mere ten years after the creation of the East India Company by 1610 the meaning of investment changed from being diverse ways of “clothing “ and “surrounding” to “use money to produce profit” in connection with corporate colonial trade.
It was John Locke who extended it to “circulation of money” to suit the needs of private property, money-centred structures being built by colonial commerce. And the delusion that money is the currency of life has allowed money-making and money-makers to be rewarded and even worshipped, while our sense of interconnectedness is extinguished, and with it our potential for compassion.
For them ‘Invest in the planet” means extract the last drop of life from the Earth Systems, extract the last freedom from humans and other species to be sustained by the earth, her flows, her currencies.
We need to return to the original meaning of “invest”, as clothing, and making beauty. We need to clothe the Earth with biodiversity of trees on our farms and forests, biodiversity of crops in our fields and gardens. We need to intensify biodiversity, to intensify photosynthesis, to intensify nature’s flows of life. We need to plant seeds and care for the living soil so the seed, soil and sun can intensify the flow of their living energies, healing broken cycles. We need to invest Love, Care and Compassion to Regenerate the Earth and stop the wars against the Earth and her peoples.
Peace, sustainability and justice call for an end to wars against the Earth in our minds, our lives.
The Colonial Age has enslaved our minds and broken our relationship with the Earth. The Fossil Fuel Age has fossilised our minds and hearts, making us helpless cogs in the oil machine, the money machine, cogs the machine is ready to substitute with robots and AI.
Mother Earth is waking us up to break free of the anthropocentric arrogance that makes rich and powerful humans blind to nature’s life, creativity, technologies, economy and allows them to deny us our rightful share and place as Earth Beings in Mother Earth’s Economy of Life to ensure life and well being, food and water for all.
As money and finance becomes more removed from nature’s economy and the real economies of sustenance that people create, as finance multiplies mysteriously, gets concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires, their Asset Management Funds, and the corporations they own, it is time to remember the prophecy of the Cree Native Americans.
“When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realise that you cannot eat money. ”
Seeding Our Common Future with Mother Earth
We are biological beings, ecological beings, earth beings, inter beings, spiritual beings. We are one Earth Family. Seeds are not machines. Plants are not machines. Animals are not machines. We are not machines. Our minds are not machines. We are conscious, intelligent caring beings with a potential to imagine and cultivate a future of peace and non violence, of abundance and well being.
Life is self-organised complexity and intelligence in constant evolution, interaction, change and emergence. From the seed I have learnt the power of autopoiesis, organised from within. Biodiversity of Seeds and Plants have been my teacher of abundance and freedom, of cooperation and mutual giving.
Seed, uncontaminated seed, Bija, Seme, Semilla- is the source of life, of regeneration and abundance. Seed renews and multiples. Seed Regenerates. On its own. Forever and ever and ever… Seed embodies the continuity of evolution.
From the Seed we can learn self-organisation, co-creation, regeneration. We can return to Earth to grow life in diversity and participate in the flow of life to provide for our needs. At a time when the Robber Barons have plans to own all of nature, all of the Earth, and force us to buy our needs, we need to follow the example of my sisters in Chipko who reminded us that the forests were not timber mines, they were sources of soil, water, and oxygen. They declared they would hug the trees to protect them and not let them be cut.
On Mother Earth Day and every day we live and breathe, whoever we are, where we are, let us hug Mother Earth in gratitude for the breath, food, water, life she gives and declare our deep love for life.
Mother Earth is Not for Sale
When I started the movement for Seed Freedom for saving seeds I travelled the country to create awareness about the Intellectual Property laws of Gatt/WTO through which corporations wanted to own seed as property. The tribals of Chattisgarh who evolved 200,000 varieties of rice told me how seed is a commons which has to be regenerated through sharing. Rice is called Akshat, the unbroken, the timeless, the breath of life. They asked me to return and join them for the festival of Akti, Akshaya Tritiya, a festival for celebrating the unbroken cycle of life, not as observers, but as participants in the cycle of regeneration and care. In a prayer that is said at Akshaya Tritiya, Mother Earth gives us instruction that the purpose of our lives is love and compassion for all beings.
“Relating to all living beings through love and compassion is the purpose of life”
सभी जीवों ( विविध जीवों) के प्रति सहृदयता का परिचय देना ही जीवन का लक्षण है।
David Korten awakens us to the potential we have to participate in the, “joyful exhilaration that comes from fulfilling our responsibility to share in the care of life”[9]
References
[1] A late and dear friend and a geneticist who worked on a quantum theory of biology.
Hunt, Tam. (2013). The rainbow and the worm: Establishing a new physics of life. Communicative & integrative biology. 6. e23149. 10.4161/cib.23149.
[2] Prentice, IC, Farquhar, GD, Fasham, MJR, Goulden, ML, Heimann, M, Jaramillo, VJ, Kheshgi, HS, Le Quere, C, Scholes, RJ & Wallace, DWR 2001, The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide. in JT Houghton, Y Ding, DJ Griggs, M Noguer, PJ van der Linden, X Dai, K Maskell & CA Johnson (eds), Climate change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
This video looks at the paper cited by Dr Bryan Ardis as the main evidence that snake venom plays a role in the current plandemic. The paper purports to have found a potential association between venom-like peptides found from various animals and Covid-19. Dr. Kaufman gives an overview of the relevant issues related to the snake venom controversy and gives a critical appraisal of the experiment and conclusions.
Thanks to the arrival of the fake pandemic, I have spent the last two years trying to piece together various puzzles and, while some of the smaller pieces sometimes don’t fit correctly, most of the larger pieces fit fairly tightly.
The piecing-together is largely thanks to the hundreds of incredible podcast guests to whom I’ve had the pleasure of speaking. The more great minds to whom I speak, the less I know. It’s indeed humbling, especially because, as a political cartoonist of 17 years, I can confirm that humility is not a characteristic for which a satirist strives. After all, ridicule means positioning myself as excellent against those whom I consider mediocre.
Over the last two years I’ve noticed how, like me, others have gradually begun piecing together the various puzzles. But not many. As Belgian professor Mattias Desmet said, around 30% of all people will, sadly, remain asleep and blissfully continue their daily lives, believing the propaganda they’ve been fed by, what philosopher Curtis Yarvin refers to as, The Cathedral.
“The cathedral” is just a short way to say “journalism plus academia”—in other words, the intellectual institutions at the center of modern society, just as the Church was the intellectual institution at the center of medieval society.
But just as the sun began setting over the fake pandemic, a new sun rose over Ukraine, and the propaganda started from scratch.
We are in an information war, probably the most severe in history.
For example, before 2020, the research around masks was so clear that a discussion wasn’t even warranted. Here are over 150 comparative studies concluding that (different kinds of) masks do not prevent viral transmission. Today, however, that’s all changed. The Cathedral has done a sterling job at sowing confusion through deliberate misinformation; everybody just makes it up as they go along, these days.
The reason is because it’s not about a virus. It was never about virus.
It has always been about compliance and the ushering in of a new world order.
Why are they using the same terminology, and what is the “new world order”?
Firstly, it’s because the global elites – the Davos club – are in the same WhatsApp group. Secondly, it is precisely what the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab refers to as The Fourth Industrial Revolution, a new paradigm in which the world is centrally governed by a few technocratic elites through the use of science and technology.
The more I try to piece together the puzzle, the more I realise that we’re in an information war.
We are told, daily, that SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus, but the all-cause mortality does not show that. Still, that doesn’t stop the propagandised types from punching blind.
Numerous times I’ve been shouted at with something along the lines of
“I have a friend who died from it!”
and when I ask
“how do you know?”
I get neither a coherent nor scientific answer. And that’s likely because he was programmed to believe that SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus and, as a result, no critical thought is required.
Same story with Ukraine.
All that matters is that we must believe what The Cathedral feeds us. Something something Putin is an evil dictator something something.
For example, the outrage over the Bucha massacre is unavoidable, and it’s all Russia’s fault.
Let’s not even get started on Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on.
All that matters is that you “stand with Ukraine”.
But the puzzle piece that constantly fascinates me is
“how do you know?”
SARS-CoV-2 is a deadly virus, yes? Vladimir Putin’s troops massacred the people of Bucha, yes? Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, yes? Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, yes? World Trade Centre Building 7 collapsed because of office fires, yes?
Today, the world finds itself moving through a turbulent transformation between two systems. Collapsing at a faster rate every day are the foundations of a failed imperial world order defined by zero-sum thinking, consumerism and materialism which has defined our existence for decades. The question is now: will the new world system take the form of a new era of global empire, unmitigated war between faiths and a prolonged dark age OR might it take the form of the beautiful multi-polar world order defined by win-win cooperation between all of the nations, faiths and cultures of the world?
Throughout his life, Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669) continuously returned to the axiom-breaking theme of the famous biblical story of the ‘Supper at Emmaus’ in order to convey the powerful transformative “moment” of discovery in between the two states of mind of 1) the belief in the death of Christ and the end to his life’s mission and 2) the state of renewed faith in the immortal hope represented by the image of the resurrection. While this lesson is taken from the Christian matrix, it’s universal characteristic provides a lesson for people of all cultures who seek to bring a better world into being.
Before jumping to an analysis of some beautiful paintings, it would be necessary to summarize ever so briefly the story of the Dinner at Emmaus.
The Dinner at Emmaus and The Importance of Christianity in World History
Featured in the New Testament Gospels of Luke and Mark, Jesus is invited to eat with two of his disciples (Luke and Cleopas) in the town of Emmaus. This wouldn’t be anything exceptional, except for the fact that Jesus had been violently crucified on the cross and entombed days earlier. Neither Luke nor Cleopas recognize their mentor who has been resurrected after being entombed for three days and it is only upon breaking bread with this stranger that they make their discovery just as Christ vanishes miraculously into light.
Whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Confucian, Hindu, Buddhist or other, the lesson conveyed by this biblical story and especially Rembrandt’s artistic treatment has a universal value for the simple reason that Christ’s life and mission represented a moral power of change which had the unique capacity to undo the foundations of the Roman Empire. This movement accomplished this miraculous feat not through military force, money or any other Hobbesian notion of power, but merely by tuning the hearts and minds of a suppressed people to the power of forgiveness, loving all including one’s enemies, and adhering to one’s conscience before all “political norms of acceptable behaviour” demanded by the Roman oligarchy.
One can imagine how disheartened Christ’s followers were to see that light of hope snuffed out under the suffocating weight of the world’s largest and most evil of empires whose unchallenged power had extended to Asia, Africa and all Europe. One can easily imagine what an existential crisis overwhelmed the hearts of these early followers of Jesus’ Gospel. Were they just naive fools to believe in a better world and a loving Creator when such evil could dominate the world? How powerful and electrifying was the idea that the sacrificed leader of this movement actually succeeded in defeating the one thing which even the most powerful of emperors and kings could not escape? If this were possible, then perhaps the material power of the Empire could be defeated after all and perhaps the ideals of Christ’s life and mission were worth having faith in too.
Over the coming centuries, the Roman oligarchy slowly learned that regardless of how many Christians it burned alive, or threw into the mouths of wild animals for the entertainment of the mob, the movement only grew in numbers. This continued to the point that the Empire was forced to attempt to co-opt the movement by Romanizing it and infusing imperial, pagan practices into its governing structures slowly suffocating the spirit of Christ’s message in favour of the formal structures of the “word” of the book as interpreted by an approved “priesthood” beholden to an oligarchical class.
Amidst this tendency to corruption and decay, Christ’s spirit was periodically re-awakened from time to time in the form of honest souls who broke from formalization to “walk the walk” and live according to their consciences. These courageous souls who “broke from the mould” include such names as St. Augustine of Hippo, Alcuin, Charlemagne, Dante Alighieri, Nicholas of Cusa, Erasmus, Thomas More, and even Rembrandt van Rijn. Were it not for their efforts to renew the spirit of Christianity by enflaming the kindling for new Renaissances, Europe would likely still be living under the conditions of the medieval dark age, or worse.
One can also argue that were it not for this transformative and miraculous story of reincarnation, then Christianity would have merely been just another one of many Jewish sects that tried nobly to bring substance to the darkness of a war-ridden world… but ultimately failed.
Rembrandt’s Renaissance Challenge
It is no coincidence that Rembrandt’s famous 1648 rendition of the theme of the ‘Dinner at Emmaus’ was painted during the year that the great Peace of Westphalia was finalised in Europe. This Treaty not only ended the 30 Years War that destroyed generations of Europeans in an endless revengist bloodbath of Protestantism vs Catholicism, but also created a new basis of international law by establishing the system of modern nation states premised around the principles of forgiveness, and the agapic principle of the “Benefit of the Other”. In the modern age, a correlate to this principle is found beautifully in the policy of “win-win cooperation” expressed in China’s New Silk Road which itself emanates from Confucian principles of “Tianxia”.
1648 rendition of Rembrandt’s ‘Supper at Emmaus;
Rembrandt’s 1628 rendition of ‘Supper at Emmaus’ is featured below with an incredible use of chiaroscuro to convey the divinity of Christ and also the motion from the darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge. Rembrandt’s choice to place the central focus on the un-named disciple rather than on Christ whom he places in a foreground silhouette is not an accident and neither is the choice to place the maid working in the kitchen covered in shadow and oblivious to the miracle behind her. This central focus on the discovery process occurring in the mind of the disciple creates an opportunity for a cathartic experience with the viewer who is invited to share in the co-discovery occurring before their eyes.
The ethereal divine light emanating from Christ’s figure just before he disappears casts a divine glow upon his surprised associate which is very different from the candle casting artificial light upon the maid in the kitchen. This metaphorical use of light is another device used by all great Platonic humanists to convey the image of different grades of knowledge as outlined in the famous Allegory of the Cave in Plato’s Republic.
Rembrandt’s 1628 rendition of “Supper at Emmaus”
Another rendition of Rembrandt’s ‘Supper at Emmaus’ was painted in 1648 featuring the artist’s struggle to convey the transformative change. In the version below, Rembrandt placed the light source not in Christ but rather hidden from view covered by one of his disciples. In this rendition, Rembrandt chose to place the event on a theatrical stage (a device he used in several biblical themes). The great master understood painting as a performative principle akin to acting and not as some mere presentation of pretty objects on canvas and as such he wished the audience to imagine reliving the experience fully as good actors should rather than merely admire a show as voyeurs.
Looking through his surviving thumbnail sketches, we see that Rembrandt considered rendering the scene in a very different manner wherein Christ would be depicted a split second later as pure light. It is worth taking the opportunity to think to yourself: Why did the painter decide not to take this route? Why was the path he chose deemed wiser to the master? What idea is missing from the sketch?
Velasquez Tackles the Paradox of Spirit and Matter
A contemporary painter and kindred spirit to Rembrandt was the Spanish painter Diego Velasquez (1599-1660) who also took on the challenge of capturing the important “in between” moment conveyed in the biblical story. Many contemporary art critics who lack the sensitivity to art’s higher power to convey transformative discoveries often miss the principled intention of both Rembrandt and Velasquez’s moral choice to convey this subject matter (and all their works) as they do. Below we can see Velasquez’s 1623 rendition of the “eureka moment” forever unfolding before the eyes of all future generations.
The hand of one disciple strikes back towards the viewer which also has the brilliant technical effect of immersing the audience into the living experience of discovery and further abolishing the false “wall” separating the “subjective” viewer from the “objective” art being viewed.
A few years before this painting, Velasquez tackled the same theme from the unique standpoint of the servant girl fixing a meal in the kitchen and placing the divine transformative scene in the background… not to downplay the importance of the event but to give the viewer a chance to breath, and ponder the co-existence of the divine and the ordinary world in which we all exist which are too often fragmented and divided by an unbridgeable gulf between “abstract” spiritual concepts and “real” material facts.
We hope that during this Easter Sunday and all of the days to follow, you dear reader, take the time to seek the power of creative love and faith in a better world within yourself while sharing the fruits of that search with others. Perhaps, in so doing the lives of such great souls as Velasquez, Rembrandt, Confucius, Socrates, and Christ may come alive once more.
Dr. Naomi Wolf at Defeat the Mandates Rally: “You Hurt Our Kids & Watch Out. Because You Have Never Faced the Rage of Thousands of Mothers & Stepmothers”
