Anthony Brink is an advocate of the High Court of South Africa and argues that former South African president Thabo Mbeki was right about HIV not causing AIDS. In fact, to be accurate, he did not say that HIV does not cause AIDS (as is often stated in the mainstream press); he said that HIV does not exist.
It’s an important distinction.
Attacking the foundation
For example, if I said that fire-breathing fairies don’t cause tornados, then I would be correct, but it leaves open the possibility that fire-breathing fairies cause snowfall. Obviously, both scenarios are absurd because fire-breathing fairies do not exist.
What does HIV-positive mean anyway?
As Anthony noted in our conversation below, the former president rejected the foundational premise and was scientifically correct. David Rasnick is a biochemist and explained why on my podcast.
The alleged virus associated with the syndrome called AIDS was never isolated.
I strongly recommend watching the award-winning documentary House Of Numbers which includes interviews with top scientists including Luc Montagnier (who won the Nobel Prize for “discovering” HIV).
And if you’re so inclined, then read through Thabo Mbeki’s 2001 AIDS Report. (Go to page 18 and stop yourself from feeling déjà vu after reading the critique of PCR tests.)
Our conversation
Anthony is also the national chairman of the Treatment Information Group, a voluntary association he founded in 2002 to promote research-based public debate of antiretroviral (ARV) drug policy, non-toxic treatment approaches to AIDS and HIV testing issues in South Africa.
Marxist-tied WHO boss announced this week that WHO member states have agreed on the development of a legally binding pandemic treaty that will allow them to take over governmental power in the event of a pandemic.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation simulated another deadly pandemic, this time in Brussels, Belgium, on October 23, 2022. Catastrophic Contagion is the ominous title of the project, reports Nine For News.
The guest list included ten current and former health ministers and officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola, Liberia, Singapore, India, and Germany. Billionaire and self-proclaimed ‘pandemic expert’ Bill Gates participated in the simulation of a ‘fictitious’ pandemic that would break out in the near future. One which, in the simulation, would be much more deadly than Covid, especially for children.
Participants discussed how to deal with an epidemic that emerges in a certain part of the world and then quickly spreads to become a pandemic, with a higher mortality rate than Covid. In this case, children and young people were particularly affected.
The Globalists completed a desktop simulation for a new enterovirus originating near Brazil. Every choice the participants made had far-reaching consequences.
Pandemic treaty
The WHO boss, Marxist revolutionary Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu, announced this week that WHO member states have agreed to develop a legally binding pandemic treaty. This treaty is supposed to ‘protect’ the world against future pandemics.
There is a lot of resistance to this pandemic treaty. MEP Christine Anderson (AfD) warned the treaty aims to give WHO de facto governing power over its member states in the event of a pandemic without involvement or consultation with national governments or national parliaments. The WHO can then restrict fundamental rights as it sees fit “almost like a world government,” explained the MEP.
According to WHO whistleblower Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, it is extremely dangerous. It will be a kind of global constitution, she said in the podcast Jerm Warfare. Individual countries can no longer determine how they fight the next ‘pandemic.’ She spoke of a centralization of power. “This is terrible.”
World Governance
The whistleblower pointed out that billionaire Bill Gates has been working on a global vaccination plan since 2012. The WHO has handed over leadership to GAVI (an international vaccine alliance), says Stuckelberger, who himself worked for the World Health Organization for many years. She pointed out that GAVI, is the second largest donor to WHO.
And now there is talk of global governance. “It’s organized tyranny in a golden cage,” she said. “We didn’t know how they were going to do it. They use health policies to create this global governance.”
These are not the first pandemic simulation games. They have already been carried out regularly over the past few years by various groups ranging from politicians, scientists, financiers, and oligarchs. However, until recently, they have gone relatively unnoticed by the public.
Below are some of the previous “games” that have taken place (listed from oldest to most recent):
DarkWinter (2001) – The Dark Winter exercise, held at Andrews AFB, Washington, DC, June 22-23, 2001, portrayed a fictional scenario depicting a covert smallpox attack on U.S. citizens.
Global Mercury (2003) – The Department of State participated with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Health Ministries of seven other member nations of the Global Health Security Action Group in a tabletop Bioterrorism Exercise from September 8 – 10, 2003. The exercise, known as Global Mercury, simulated a smallpox bioterrorism attack on member countries.
Atlantic Storm (2005) – was a ministerial exercise simulating the top-level response to a bioterror incident. The simulation operated on January 14, 2005, in Washington, D.C. It was created to reveal the current international state of preparedness and possible political and public health issues that might evolve from such a crisis.
Clade X (2018) – The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted the Clade X pandemic tabletop exercise on May 15, 2018, in Washington, DC. The exercise aimed to illustrate high-level strategic decisions and policies that the United States and the world will need to pursue to prevent a pandemic or diminish its consequences should prevention fail.
Monkeypox: March 2021: The World Health Organization and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation simulated the outbreak of a monkeypox pandemic. Also taking part in the exercise was the American, and Chinese RIVM, along with pharmaceutical giants Janssen and Merck
Leopard Pox – (May 2022) The World Health Organization and the health ministers of the G7 countries held pandemic simulation games based on a smallpox outbreak in 2023. The meeting featured a pandemic simulation, with the concept being that a new smallpox-like epidemic had suddenly emerged after someone was infected with the disease via a leopard bite.
Recently, the CSO of Medicinal Genomics, Kevin McKernan spoke to the Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International group. He was challenged by journalist, Eric Coppolino, about the lack of evidence for SARS-CoV-2 and pathogenic viruses. McKernan made various claims that we believed needed to be addressed.
Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Mark Bailey join me to demystify the virological and biotechnological nonsense.
Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, Stefano Scoglio
Excerpts from video transcript (prepared by Truth Comes to Light):
Introduction by Sam Bailey:
In this video. Mark and I are joined by Dr. Tom Cowan to analyze the claims about “viruses” made by Kevin McKernan. Kevin is the CSO and founder of Medicinal Genomics and is a specialist in the areas of genetic sequencing and PCR technology.
He made the claims in a recent talk he gave to the Doctors for COVID Ethics International Organization.
This is the group headed by Dr. Stephen Frost and Charles Kovess, and I’d like to give credit to them for allowing all sides to the arguments to be presented through this forum. In fact, Mark spoke on their platform about the virus existence issue in October, as did Kevin Corbett a few weeks earlier.
Kevin McKernan has been promoted by Steve Kirsch as one of his proof of virus knights. So let’s find out if he is riding a horse or an imaginary unicorn.
The no-virus group has previously dismantled the claims of Sabine Hazan and Dr. Sin Lee, Kirsch’s other virus champions.
Kirsch has admitted that he doesn’t know the intricacies of virology and relies on “expert opinions” about where the viruses have been shown to exist. That’s not a wise move in my experience, because if you don’t understand what the so-called expert claims to understand, you are still in the dark.
Those promoting the virus narrative may want to reconsider where their plotlines are coming from.
Tom Cowan:
So the problem with all of this is, in a sense, it’s a philosophical problem. A sequence is a part of a whole, right? There’s this whole particle, which is a replication competent DNA or RNA encased in a protein which replicates in a cell and that causes lysis of the cell or cytopathic effect and therefore causes disease.
So they never found that whole, right?
They never referenced they find the whole. In fact, this guy actually says you cannot find that whole particle. So we’re going to skip that and we’re just going to take a piece of it and we’re going to say that represents this entity called a virus.
But as I said, you can’t say a piece of something belongs to a whole unless you had the whole first. You can’t say a paw is part of a cat unless you’ve had a cat first. They don’t have the cat first. So they say this sequence matches up to the sequence that has been published before that says it’s a coronavirus.
Well, where did that one come from?
That one came from the sequence that was published before that was said to be a coronavirus.
So where did that one come from?
That came from the sequence before. And that guy made it up.
Mark Bailey:
And once again, we’ve followed the trails back. So for coronavirus, specifically “coronavirus”, we followed the trail back to the 1980s when they claimed to have sequenced the very first “coronavirus genome”.
And I looked at all of those experiments, which were done with chicken embryos, and at no point did they demonstrate that they had anything that fulfilled the description of a virus.
They just started sequencing what they found in these experiments and then said, ‘well, we think there’s a virus in there’.
One of the experiments was fraudulent and said that they had purified the sample of variants and there was absolutely no evidence.
But unfortunately, since the 1980s, these genomes have just been put onto databases, And now we have people like Kevin McKernan saying it’s valid because we can check the sequences against what we find on a database.
And if we find them again, that means that we’re finding “viruses”, when absolutely no evidence that that’s what they’ve got.
Tom Cowan:
In some ways, after this two and a half, three year odyssey we’ve all been on, I almost wish we had never got into the thing about exosomes because the reality is, what they claim to be the proof of the existence of a virus is they take unpurified samples and inoculate those onto mostly vero cells, which are monkey kidney cells. And if it breaks down, they claim that is the proof of the virus.
Now, I was going to show you, and I think Sam will put up there’s the study of Enders, there’s three more studies from the 50s showing that vero cells break down without having any virus in the sample, any sample that could possibly have a virus.
So that’s a total of four from the 50s. Then Stefan [Lanka] did a study showing the same thing. You don’t need any sample with the virus to have the cells break down.
…Now, what, what happens when the cells break down, whether in a culture or in us, is it makes basically breakdown products, which is like garbage. And unfortunately, we started calling those exosomes as if they had some special importance, like messengers around the body or something. But the fact of the matter is, as far as I can see, while there may be something called an exosome, it’s just garbage. The cells break down, they make little things that you could see on an electron microscope, which are just typical normal cellular breakdown products.
So there are no exosomes circulating around the world. That’s nonsense. There are no viruses.
Now, the other thing that he doesn’t seem to understand, which is mind boggling, is the reason you get the same sequence all over the world is because you put this library of RNA into a computer and you give it a template which says ‘make SARS-CoV-2’. So, by God, it does!
It’s like ‘make a Volkswagen all over the world’. So they have Volkswagen plants all over the world. And oh, my God, the Volkswagens are traveling all over the world. No, they’re not. You’re telling each factory to make a Volkswagen. That’s the template. Each virology sequencing lab, it puts in the template to take these letters and make it into SARS-CoV-2 sequence. So it does. That’s not traveling all over the world. That’s just making Volkswagens at different factories all over the world. Nobody’s traveling anywhere.
Mark Bailey:
Well, exactly, Tom with his claim that something is traveling around the world. I mean, we were trying to point this out in 2020, and Sam’s co-author Claus Köhnlein was one of the first in the world to point this out. He said there’s nothing passing around apart from a PCR protocol. And he pointed out, he said, wherever you take the PCR protocol, you’ll find this “COVID-19” or the “virus”. It’s not something that’s necessarily passing around. It’s just — it’s literally a PCR pandemic. And if you set the protocols to find a certain sequence, you end up finding them.
Now, the other thing is that we’re not always saying that these sequences don’t change over time. So they might say, well, we got some samples from ten years ago and we couldn’t find these sequences. But that’s not how nature works. We know that genetic sequences have variations over time. I mean, our own genomes are not fixed, as we know if we take it from different parts of our bodies at different points in time, we’ll find different sequences. But the problem is, with this form of indirect evidence, they’re trying to say that if we find these sequences and at some stage someone declared that they’re viral, and if we find them again, that’s our evidence that we’re finding a virus that’s spreading around.
The other aspect that Kevin introduced there was the cycle threshold. Now, what he’s saying there is, he’s saying that if the cycle threshold is set too high, then it’s invalid. But if the cycle thresholds set at an appropriate low level, then it is valid. This is problematic because it comes back to our first point that these particular sequences that the PCR is amplifying have not been shown to be viral. So the cycle threshold is not an issue. I mean, that’s a technical issue and it relates to good laboratory practice. And we know that once you get to thresholds at about 35, it’s basically an artifact result. And we know they’re doing that a lot. But I think he misses our point. We’re not saying it’s a cycle threshold issue, we’re saying it’s a provenance issue and it’s a proof of these sequences actually belonging to a virus.
And it is difficult because for a lot of lay people, when they get presented with epidemiology or a news story and they get a headline that this thing is spreading around the world, they don’t understand that simply all that spreading is a PCR protocol.
And I think the other issue is that someone like Kevin would say, well, everyone in the household, we detected the same sequence. And again, that’s evidence of nothing in particular.
I mean, it would be like saying that you isolated strep pneumonia from someone in the family and then a week later you’ve found that you could isolate it from every member of the family. But it doesn’t mean anything. That’s just particles. In this case, that would be bacteria, something that we can actually see passing around between people, but it’s not a pathogenic process.
So again, to claim that we can use the protection of sequences to claim that there’s a virus spreading, it’s simply that’s a logical fallacy, pure and simple.
Psychiatry has been the enforcer of choice used by strong-arm governments for as long as it has existed. After all, psychiatry is the perfect cover to make targeted individuals do what government wants. If psychiatry is targeting a person, it can be considered a private medical matter and not a matter of the State or a police action.
As a bonus for the authoritarians, psychiatry diagnoses the targeted person and the diagnosis says it is this person who is sick, wrong, or out of step. Nothing to see here, just a sick person, move right along.
As a double bonus for the oppressors, psychiatry is able to administer powerful drugs and even electroshock that prevent clear thinking and, in fact, can cause a chemical lobotomy and other brain damage in the case of antipsychotic drugs, and brain damage in the case of electroshock. This tactic of drugging or shocking the targeted critic neutralises that individual.
The above was the subject of Children’s Health Defense Canada’s Sherry Strong’s interview with Dr. Peter Breggin, see the video below. They discussed how psychiatry has been used in the past and how it is now being used to target Covid critics and resisters.
Children’s Health Defense Canada: Dr. Peter Breggin on The Weaponization of Mental Health Edicts,
29 November 2022 (51 mins)
As a way of showing how important and relevant this topic is in the Covid era, Strong began by briefly describing some examples in Canada where psychiatry has been weaponised to silence those who speak out against the official false Covid narrative:
A Canadian firefighter was committed to a mental hospital by his wife, who had a senior position at Alberta Health Services. The wife told her husband she would leave him if he didn’t get vaccinated. When he refused to get vaccinated and was under threat of losing his job, she decided to have him committed saying he was mentally unstable.
Dr. Mel Bruchet was imprisoned in a mental facility and drugged against his will for revealing that there was an excessive number of stillbirths occurring in Vancouver hospitals. (Further reading: Doctors Claim Stillbirths Exploding Across Canada, The European Union Times, 6 December 2021)
Chris Vaughan, a freedom fighter, has been imprisoned in the Langley Mental Facility and drugged against his will with the doctor having total control over his life.
Dr. Francis Christian from Saskatchewan was threatened by the Health Minister, whilst in the act of firing him, with accusations of a mental health issue because Dr. Christian was questioning the safety of Covid injections for children. (Further reading: Surgeon fired by College of Medicine for voicing safety concerns about Covid shots for children, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, 23 June 2021)
Dr. Breggin began with a history of the weaponisation of psychiatry. Probably the greatest example of psychiatry being used as a tool of oppression is the use of organised psychiatry during the holocaust in Germany, Dr. Breggin explained, “and it was defended by the European and American psychiatric establishment.”
In 1920 they started debating and discussing how to do mass murder of lives not worth living. By the time Hitler came to power, psychiatry was prepared to step in and, on its own, create a so-called euthanasia program for its entire state mental hospital population and, working with paediatricians, many children in paediatric units.
“They probably murdered somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 Germans,” Dr. Breggin said. Then Hitler cancelled the program because it was unpopular with the German public. “It was probably the only time he got booed in public, was around this issue.” So, Hitler cancelled the euthanasia program. However, he then incorporated it into the start of the Holocaust – the first head of the Nazi extermination camp was the former head of a psychiatric extermination camp.
Many people who were witnesses to the Nuremberg trials wrote that the holocaust may not have happened if psychiatry’s euthanasia program had not been allowed to go ahead so flawlessly, Dr. Breggin said.
A number of historians have pointed out that the scientific bureaucratisation of murder was a unique quality of the holocaust; but none seem to have given credit to the source. Bureaucratic, scientific killing ·was invented and first implemented by organised psychiatry. This is one reason why physicians Mitscherlich, Alexander and Ivy each separately declared that psychiatry was key to the holocaust and that the tragedy might not have happened without the initial euthanasia program.
In the US today, Dr Breggin said, “I’m not hearing as many reports as you’re hearing [in Canada], but we’re deeply concerned about it. We’re deeply concerned about concepts that are being pushed around like mass psychosis [or] mass formation psychosis. The problem is empowering psychiatry to address masses with psychosis. This is terrifying … It will be used, eventually, by someone, as a great tool to do these mass diagnoses. Even Russia and China do these individual diagnoses – people end up in mental hospitals when they go against the going narrative.”
At the end of the interview (timestamp 40:08), Dr. Breggin explained the difference between “mass formation” and “mass formation psychosis.” Prof. Matthias Desmet talks about mass formation, while Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Mark McDonald talk about mass formation psychosis. What Dr. McDonald means by mass formation psychosis is different, according to Dr. Breggin, from what Dr. Malone means when he uses the term.
“In [the guidance] was built the idea that any resistance, not just the jabs but any resistance, was a mental problem,” said Dr. Breggin. According to the latest that Dr., Breggin has heard, due to the backlash the guidance has received, it has been withdrawn. “But remember, they’ll just withdraw it temporarily and then they’ll nudge us along, again.”
Dr. Breggin mentioned a school teacher in New York who refused to cooperate with wearing a face mask and didn’t believe in having the “vaccine.” So, she was sent for psychiatric evaluation. Her diagnosis was that she was psychotic based on her belief that there are evil forces behind the Covid agenda.
But “the big picture that people need to get,” Dr. Breggin said, is “the highest priority of people who run things – the bankers, the big technology companies, all the US large corporations – they all work with the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party.”
“And they’re all using Klaus Schwab’s concepts of equality and justice … and the Great Reset to justify what is, ultimately, for the greatest empire in the world that has ever been created … They all have a vision of a global governance where they don’t have to bother about who runs Canada, or the democracy in Canada, or the freedom loving patriotic Americans.”
Currently in Canada, the sixth cause of death, by numbers, is medically assisted death and there are plans to increase that. Horrifically, there is a proposal to allow children to choose a medically assisted death and parents would only be notified after the child has been killed.
“Whenever they do these things they include suicide,” Dr, Breggin said.
“It becomes [called] an ‘assisted suicide’ because they go to the young people who are very depressed and suicidal. So, what do they do? They give ‘assisted suicide’ to them. It’s really egregious. It’s the kind of thinking that allowed for, [as described above], the mass murder of mental patients and then for the holocaust.”
They’re creating the ideal breeding ground for “assisted suicide” through food, for example. Strong, who is a nutritionist, said that Canadian parents give their children food that is highly processed and chemically augmented and that will lead to depression and other mental issues. Then the children are given anti-depressants and anti-psychotics.
One of the most effective ways of controlling the world is the mass use of medication, including for children. At first, Dr. Breggin dismissed it as a “conspiracy theory” that there were forces that were using this method. It was his wife Ginger who first suspected that mass medication of populations was being used in this way. With some medication, with one shot you can subdue someone to the same extent that would have taken a week in a brainwashing prison camp or the first few days in a Nazi extermination camp, Dr. Breggin said.
“I do believe, now, looking at the sum total of it all, that a lot of the money and a lot of the force and influence behind the widespread medicating, shocking and lobotomising of people has been government money, government influence. And much deeper, I believe [rather] than anything I know, the Defence Department gets into these types of psychiatric issues a lot.”
“… Anti-psychotic drugs and they’re used widely now, … suppress the frontal lobes and so instantly reduce you into a state of less self-awareness … just like a lobotomy except you start recovering from it – but [after] repetition, repetition, repetition people don’t necessarily recover from it.”
Although it is not mentioned by Dr. Breggin, a recent article in The Epoch Times confirms Dr. Breggin’s assessment. It describes a study in Alaska which found that patients’ rights and safety were systematically violated by their psychiatrists and the judges who sided with their doctors.
Psychotropic drugs are not necessarily effective, according to psychiatrist Dr. Kelly Brogan, and in many instances, they can do more harm than good. And the Alaskan study authors, Gail Tasch and Peter Gøtzsche. were categorical in their criticism of these medications. “Antipsychotics,” as these psychosis drugs are usually called, “do not have any specific effects against psychosis,” the authors insisted. It is highly “misleading to call them antipsychotics.” Instead, they wrote, drugs against psychosis work as “major tranquilisers,” which is how they were originally known. This is one important reason why many mentally ill patients resist taking them. As one patient explained in court, the medication “takes my feelings away.”
Dr. Breggin gave a strong warning to people who are on these drugs to not simply stop taking them because there can be withdrawal symptoms with severe consequences. “You can’t just stop them,” he said.
Dr. Breggin also gave some advice for people who are having a natural negative reaction to the current toxic environment but are being gaslighted by mental health professionals (timestamp 29:00).
Judith Curry is the president of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) and previously the professor and chair of the School Of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute Of Technology. Judith also has a really informative website, Climate Etc.
There’s no climate emergency
When it comes to mega-trends (a great term coined by Thierry Baudet), pretty much everything I see in the establishment media is nonsense.
Global warmingclimate change the “climate emergency” is the big bogeyman perpetuated by everybody who has been propagandised by governments, big corporations and Hollywood. Whether or not they actually believe the garbage with which they pollute society, their alarmism is nevertheless complete nonsense, as Tony Heller explained.
And as Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore explained.
Earth’s climate is complex
The demonisation of CO2 as the single vector towards a global catastrophe is absurd, as Judith notes in our conversation below. There are lots of things going on and there is no “control knob” that anybody can turn to adjust Earth’s changing climate.
Valentina Zharkova is one of the world’s leading solar physicists and gave a great presentation on why humans are simply not powerful enough to compete with the sun.
Another interesting variable is geoengineering which, Judith warns, is a bad idea because playing God can and will lead to serious problems down the line.
Our conversation
Basically, stop worrying about climate change and get on with living a good life. Fossil fuels are a great way to build economies and push poor people out of poverty.
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
~ Ayn Rand
While the masses continue to happily accept any and every tiny bit of ‘permission’ to have a miniscule amount of ‘freedom,’ all at the whim of the rulers, the drive toward more ‘climate change’ lockdown policy and societal regulation and total control are going forward quickly and without restriction. The candy offered to the herd in the form of temporary lifting of draconian mandates is meant only to satisfy the short-term longing of the proletariat so as to gain future compliance and obedience from the sheep in order for the state to create a true slave society. One of the linchpins of this plot is to concentrate the population into so-called ‘smart’ cities, with 15 minute zones, where no travel outside this time frame is allowed without very restrictive monitoring. This is true insanity sold in the form of convenience, safety, and the bogus claim of protecting the earth.
Preparation, trials, and implementation of these atrocious prison-system cities are fully underway, and are being planned and sold as a public ‘good,’ an atrocious and deceptive lie. As I write this, 15-minute cities are being actively planned in Saudi, Arabia called “The Line,” Dubai, UAE, Oxford, U.K., Australia in Melbourne and Brisbane, in Spain in Barcelona, Buenos Aries, and even in Portland, Oregon in the Fascist U.S. While most have been asleep and basking in ignorance believing that totalitarianism has lessened, the master technocratic plot has never slowed. For those who are feeling left out, worry not, as a 15 minute prison system will soon be in a city or town near you.
Oxfordshire County in the U.K. is moving very fast to set up the first complete 15-minute city scam, and has announced a full “TRIAL” for January 2024. This is simply a climate lockdown trial meant to prepare the citizenry for continuous lockdowns, or more accurately, a minor existence in incarceration centers. Keep in mind that the plot to control the world depends on concentrating populations into smaller centers, with exhaustive technological measures of government regulation and authority that will require complete and total surveillance of all. This will be based on the ‘climate change’ lie, and world domination depends on a controlled, digital monetary system, that is also being structured by the central banking systems worldwide, and privately run by the ruling class. This is the same deep state that controls all government. Once the centralized bank digital currencies become reality, all freedom will end. The idea and implementation of controlled digital currencies is anathema to all liberty, and is mandatory for state control.
Once again I must mention the “big picture,” as everything going on from ‘virus lies,’ ‘variants,’ staged wars, ‘climate change,’ CBDCs, 15-minute cities, transgender nonsense, fake racism, bioweapon injections, and a myriad of current and future control scenarios, are all meant to accomplish but one thing, and therefore, they are all linked, and all part of the singular agenda of total technocratic control of all people on earth. This is exactly what the ‘great reset,’ the new one world government, and the monetary takeover are all about. Regardless of which particular plot is the news item of the day, it is simply all meant to achieve but one end. Do not disregard all of the minor plots, but recognize that the single plot desired is to control you and all on earth, and nothing less.
The case addressed here can be summed up with one statement coming from the World Economic Forum (WEF) weforum.org on March 15, 2022.
“As climate change and global conflict cause shocks and stresses at faster intervals and increased severity, the 15-minute city will become even more critical.”
This single statement connects the entire fake ‘climate change’, and Ukraine (all war) scenarios and agendas as reasoning to lockdown the world. Make no mistake, this is the plan that is and has been in high gear for decades, but especially so since the bogus ‘covid’ lockdown terror levied at the hands of the state in 2020.
Without mass resistance to this totalitarian push, be prepared for more and more restrictions on every aspect of life; including movement, travel, thought, communication, health decisions,’ medical care,’ money and spending, carbon tracking, total and complete surveillance, social credit systems, and renewed climate lockdowns.
Considering the U.S. government and American citizens, remember that this government and all its controlling rule system is nothing more than an organized crime syndicate; an operation based on the mass cooperation and acceptance of a nearly universal, compliant, and submissive population, intent only on getting by and being able to survive with their smart phones, TVs, games, bread and circuses, and dependence on rule. This general attitude will be the death knell of this society, but it does not have to remain as such given the huge numbers of us, and the few who claim ownership of the bulk of the pathetic inhabitants that make up the vast majority in this country.
Remember that the term ‘climate change’ is the basis of all future plans to take total control over everything, and that is and will be the weapon of fear used to round up the masses. Every time you hear the word “sustainable” and accept it as legitimate, every time the state claims to be protecting the earth to ‘save it,’ every time ‘sustainable development’ is the term used to create and enforce government policy, you have lost all, while the state has gained more power and control over you. The final agenda of fear called ‘climate change,’ is the hammer, while each of you are only a nail, but acting as one, you can hold everything together.
As I stated in an article earlier this year:
“The intentional manmade ‘climate change’ fraud is continually gaining steam, as it will always be the linchpin to future abuses and control by the rulers and their pawns in politics and mainstream media. While the controllers are destroying economies, decimating all quality food sources and production, eliminating vast amounts of life-sustaining energy, greatly harming the environment and its vital resources necessary for life, pursuing eugenics agendas, and advancing depopulation efforts, the majority of people continue to acquiesce to all orders and propaganda, while completely attached and addicted to their cell phones and their apathetic and pitiful pretend lives. All this is indicative of the downfall of humanity, and the rise of the technocratic oligarchs.”
The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner, October 1917 lectures
The truth about The Transhumanist Agenda has been bubbling to the surface in rashes, heart ailments, mental disorders, miscarriages, and infertility, along with increased deaths in certain groups. There are no signs of healing on the horizon because the symptoms mirror a deeper truth that touches the sanctum of human divinity, itself.
Spiritual PSYOP
The Psychological Operation, or PSYOP, appears to be spiritual, fought on two fronts, directed by two groups of authorities: 1) earthly human/androids/humanoids (top politicians, scientists, Hollywood), and 2) non-earthly, non-human, Inter-dimensionals (spirits) who direct their earthly underlings from behind the scenes.
As the Transhumanist Reset plays out against the backdrop of a pandemic PSYOP, the tools wielded are both material and energetic (mind control): from media and entertainment, to controlled opposition and the rituals of social distancing, lockdowns, and masking.
The people will believe what the media tells them they believe. ~ George Orwell
The PSYOP uses inverted ideology and language. Thus, pandemic injections, promoted as cure-alls, do the opposite. Ultimately, they end human procreation through infertility and ‘fetal demise.’ They take out the human defense system, known as the innate immune system, through the Trojan Horse of inoculations. And they leave a shell. An October 2021 COVID vaccine efficacy study confirms the results on the immune system:
Questions remain regarding a booster dose and waning immunity, the duration of immunity, and heterologous vaccination.
Before most humans can wake up to see through the multidimensional layers, the damage is done. The known dangers of mRNA inoculations and the PCR test, a delivery system, are disclosed after ‘deployment’ (a military word). Only now do reports show actual casualty reports, published in medical journals and in obituaries. Thanks to medical databases, and search engines, anyone can search physical adverse events and symptoms associated with the PSYOP products:
The technology of these authorities remains without FDA-approval, and with more boosters coming down the pipeline. The inoculations continue to be rated Emergency Use Only (EUA), or experimental, because authorities are still testing the population. The companies contracted to manufacture this technology by these authorities have not provided a complete list of ingredients but they have disclosed that the ingredients incorporate into the recipient DNA.
A new Swedish study published in MDPI found that the Pfizer vaccine goes into liver cells and converts to DNA, challenging claims so far that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way.
At least two questions should arise in everyone’s mind:
Does DNA tampering affect human consciousness? The soul? The spirit?
Are warnings from prophets meant as disclosures?
“I have told you that the spirits of darkness are going to inspire their human hosts, in whom they will be dwelling, to find a vaccine that will drive all inclination toward spirituality out of people’s souls when they are still very young, and this will happen in a roundabout way through the living body. Today, bodies are vaccinated against one thing and another; in future, children will be vaccinated with a substance which it will certainly be possible to produce, and this will make them immune, so that they do not develop foolish inclinations connected with spiritual life – ‘foolish’ here, or course, in the eyes of materialists. . . .
“. . . a way will finally be found to vaccinate bodies so that these bodies will not allow the inclination toward spiritual ideas to develop and all their lives people will believe only in the physical world they perceive with the senses. ~ Rudolf Steiner, October 1917 lectures
Medical science has made such tremendous progress that there is hardly a healthy human left. ~ Aldous Huxley
Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. ~ George Orwell
Elites Playing God
The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. ~ Aldous Huxley
The Elite authorities, from politicians to scientists to authors, and billionaire engineers, like to ignore and deny that human beings have a soul essence because they, themselves, lack a soul. While the Elite did not always push their agenda, they have waited patiently, and their time has come.
In the Roman Empire, Galen of Pergamon, was a Greek polymath: physician, surgeon and philosopher who believed that the body was the physical vehicle for the indwelling soul. Considered to be one of the most accomplished of all medical researchers of his time, Galen influenced the development of various scientific disciplines, including anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, and neurology, as well as philosophy, logic, and herbalism. Galen developed the Four Humors System that Hippocrates had created by adding the ideas of Physis and Pneuma. Galen’s most famous medicinal formula was Theriac, an herbal tonic with 64 different ingredients that was a cure-all for many diseases, and an antidote to many poisons and viper venoms. His ideas encompassed the life force, spirit, and breath that is infused in all living beings that was slowly written out of western medicine.
Yet, as times change, so does acceptance of long suppressed concepts. Slowly, the concept of the soul is bleeding through the mire of medical science. The medical journal Psychology Today features a 2011 article: Biocentrism: Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’. Author Robert Lanza writes:
The results not only defy our classical intuition but suggest that a part of the mind — the soul — is immortal and exists outside of space and time. ~ Robert Lanza M.D
What is known, despite a lack of acknowledgment by authorities, is that human beings are a body, a mind, a soul, and a spirit rolled into one. Human beings are the seen and the unseen. They are electric and magnetic, made up of matter and energy. How does magnetic resonance imagery (MRI) technology work without a human energy biofield? When looking into a mirror, humans are more than meets the eye: Spiritual beings having a human experience.
While adding synthetic foreign matter to the human body produces known negative physical consequences, less is disclosed about changes of the human bioenergetic field. Will an altered human vibrate at a frequency different from the vibration of the soul essence? Does the synthetic inoculation create incoherence? Do humans remain divine, sovereign, and free?
Only the authorities know for sure. And they are not telling because they have reached their goal of attacking human energy using advanced technology through a needle. In October 2019, Microsoft promoted an initiative called ID2020, a platform for an” implantable digital ID vaccine system, whose goal was “giving every human on the planet a digital ID.” This ID is in the form of a DNA vaccine tattoo. Today, the technology is called The Good Health Pass to restrict travel among the masses.
Does this sound like the dystopian, futuristic Netflix series, 3%, labelled as a post apocalyptic thriller where only 3% are allowed to transition to a “better” life after being tested in a game of wits? However, once they get to the “better life”…. spoiler alert….. they are vaccinated and told they can never have children.
Human divinity is a birthright because humans give birth. Is there anything more valuable than human divinity to those who lack it? What happens when the divinity supply line is cut off? Do humans become mere vessels for Inter-dimensionals?
Ironically, these answers have been prophesied as warnings by Rudolf Steiner, and Aldous Huxley, and George Orwell, well known elites themselves.
By now it is widely known that the mRNA patented injections do not live up to their marketed promises because they were never meant to benefit humans at all, but rather benefit another group of beings that stays hidden.
The Borg Culture
In 1961, Aldous Huxley warned of a sinister agenda, stating that “there will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude.” He did not say there could be. He said there will be.
Were Rudolf Steiner and Aldous Huxley prophets who offered a warning to individuals of a coming soul-less world? Or were they programmers who carried out a ritual by planting a seed in the minds of men? Predictive programming.
In Klaus Schwab’s Global reset to Transhumanism, the message is clear. Klaus is a programmer who seeks to cut off the soul connection present in each individual (something he lacks), and replace it with a materialist hive-mind. Through rituals that work like an alchemical transformation of consciousness, the “I” of individual disappears. Why create a a society of automatons?
Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant. You must comply. ~ The Borg
Hollywood, a branch of the political system, is complicit in the PSYOP, providing disclosure through fiction. Star Trek’s The Borg shed light, early on, on planned human transformation. The Borg are cybernetic organisms (cyborgs) linked in a hive mind called “the Collective.” The Borg’s purpose is to co-opt the technology and knowledge of other species through the process of “assimilation”: forcibly transforming individual beings into “drones” by injecting nanoprobes into their bodies and surgically augmenting them with cybernetic components.
The Borg, The Stepford Wives, The Sentenels-X-Men, Terminator, Ultron, The Avengers, are all forms of disclosureby those who seek to sever the human soul from the body. What better way to offer humanity implied consent than through entertainment on the big screen where people pay to participate in the story of their soul’s demise? What more efficient way to wage a war on the mind of humanity than from the inside out?
Cornell engineers constructed a DNA material with capabilities of metabolism, in addition to self-assembly and organization – three key traits of life.
Natural human DNA acts like a biological antenna, a receiver, transmitter, and retainer of information past, present, and future. Through natural evolution, DNA expands abilities in individuals, including psychic ability and telepathy. DNA is of Nature and functions under Natural law. DNA is also highly sensitive to harmful frequencies (3G, 4G, 5G, nanobots). Add patented mRNA injectables to the bloodstream and DNA is now targeted by ionizing frequencies that cause humans to veer off course, from a natural organic evolution to a divergent devolution. 5G frequencies play a pivotal role as a directed energy weapon.
If people are unaware of how their energy feels in their own bodies, if they do not know of their divine right to be sovereign and free, then how do they notice any changes once the soul is severed? What will divinity look like then?
The disconnection of human consciousness, alluded to by Rudolf Steiner, Hollywood, and others, suggest a bifurcation or split into two different consciousness streams for humans, one organic of Nature and regeneration, and one inorganic of Synthetics and degeneration.
The compression of human consciousness is happening now, like the splitting of a cell under pressure. However, in this universe, there is also The Light to balance The Darkness. That Light is inside each of us. We come to Earth equipped with everything we need. We only have to remember and choose it. The only way to know which direction to go is to be aware of all directions and choose one.
Former Assistant HUD Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts returns for a deep discussion with Dark Journalist Daniel Liszt and reveals how the Central Bankers have implemented a Worldwide surveillance and financial transaction infrastructure to harvest humanity physically, economically and spiritually.
Catherine has been warning on the development of the Central Bank Digital Currency and its implications for loss of freedom.
Today she’ll go deep on how the crash of FTX is an op designed at the top of the money pyramid to bring in the new system.
As those who have been following the How BlackRock Conquered the World series know by now, BlackRock, Inc. started out as an asset management subsidiary of investment giant The Blackstone Group, but quickly spun off into its own entity. It made its mark by emphasizing risk management for its clients, and by the time the Global Financial Crisis hit in 2008, BlackRock was perfectly positioned to take over Wall Street, helping to sort through the mess of toxic subprime mortgages that BlackRock CEO had helped pioneer decades before.
And, as we saw last week, BlackRock leveraged this power to begin shaping the course of events. They proposed a radical new form of market intervention that central banks could use to pump money directly into the retail economy, and just weeks later the Federal Reserve was employing that “Going Direct” plan in their repo market intervention. The scamdemic, it turns out, was largely an excuse for the Fed to cover their multi-trillion dollar market intervention and for BlackRock to consolidate their mammoth economic and political power, engineering yet another bailout for the benefit of their own investments.
At this point in our exploration, we find ourselves confronting the most important question of all: now that BlackRock has scaled the summit of Mount Olympus and are in control of a mind-boggling amount of wealth, what is Larry Fink and his gang planning to do with their newfound powers? As we shall see, this is not a trivial question. As it turns out, BlackRock’s ambition is nothing less than to shape the course of civilization for the benefit of themselves and their Wall Street cronies.
In Part 1 of this series, A Brief History of Blackrock, I described how BlackRock came to be the economic and political juggernaut it is today.
In Part 2 of this series, I examined how BlackRock’s Going Direct reset paved the way for the massive economic and monetary transition that we have just lived through under the cover of the scamdemic.
This week, we will examine the Aladdin system and the other creepy ways BlackRock is planning to use its power to mould society in its own interest.
Part 3: Aladdin’s Genie and the Future of the World
As we saw in Part 1 of this series, BlackRock started out life as “Blackstone Financial Management” in the offices of The Blackstone Group in 1988. By 1992, it was already so successful that founder Larry Fink and Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman spun the company off as its own entity, christening it BlackRock in a deliberate attempt to sow confusion.
But it was in 1993 (or so the story goes) that arguably the most important of BlackRock’s market-controlling tools was forged. It was that year that Jody Kochansky, a fixed-income portfolio manager hired the year before who began to tire of his daily 6:30 AM task of comparing his entire portfolio to yesterday’s numbers.
The task, hitherto done by hand from paper printouts, was long and arduous. Kochansky had a better idea: “We said, let’s take this data, and rather than print it out, let’s sort it into a database, and have the computer compare the report today versus the report yesterday, across every position.”
It may seem obvious to us today, but in 1993 the idea of automating a task like this was a radical one. But, as radical as it may have seemed at the time, the idea paid off. After seeing the utility of having an automated, daily, computer-generated report calculating the risk on every asset in a portfolio, Kochansky and his team hunkered down for a 72-hour code-writing exercise that resulted in Aladdin (short for “asset, liability, debt and derivative investment network”), a proprietary investment analysis technology touted as “the operating system for BlackRock.”
Sold as a “central processing system for investment management,” the software is now the core of BlackRock Solutions, a BlackRock subsidiary that licenses Aladdin to corporate clients and institutional investors. Aladdin combines portfolio management and trading, compliance, operations, and risk oversight in a single platform, and is now used by over 200 institutions, including fund manager rivals Vanguard and State Street; half of the top ten insurers in the world; Big Tech giants like Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet; and numerous pension funds, including the world’s largest, the $1.5 trillion Japanese Government Pension Insurance Fund.
The numbers themselves tell the story of Aladdin.
It is used by 13,000 BlackRock employees and thousands of BlackRock customers.
It occupies three datacentres in the US with plans to open two more in Europe.
It runs thousands of Monte Carlo simulations—computational algorithms that model the probability of various outcomes in chaotic systems—every day on each one of the tens of millions of securities under its purview.
And by February 2017, it was managing risk for $20 trillion worth of assets. That’s when BlackRock stopped reporting the number because—as the company told The Financial Times—”total assets do not reflect how clients use the system.” An anonymous source in the company had a different take: “the figure is no longer disclosed because of the negative attention the enormous sums attracted.”
In this case, the phrase “enormous sums” almost fails to do justice to the truly mind-boggling wealth under the watchful eye of this computer system. As The Financial Times went on to report, the combination of the scores of new clients using Aladdin in recent years and the growth in the stock and bond markets in that time has meant that the total value of assets under the system’s management is much larger than the $20 trillion reported in 2017: “Today, $21.6tn sits on the platform from just a third of its 240 clients, according to public documents verified with the companies and first-hand accounts.”
For context, that figure—representing the assets of just one-third of BlackRock’s clientele—itself accounts for 10% of the value of all the stocks and bonds in the world.
But if the idea of this amount of the world’s assets being under the management of a single company’s proprietary computer software concerns you, BlackRock has a message for you: Relax! The official line is that Aladdin only calculates risk, it doesn’t tell asset managers what to buy or sell. Thus, even if there was a stray line of code or a wonky algorithm somewhere deep inside Aladdin’s programming getting its investment analysis catastrophically wrong, the final decision on any given investment would still come down to human judgment.
. . . Needless to say, that’s a lie. In 2017, BlackRock unveiled a project to replace underperforming humans in their stockpicking business with computer algorithms. Dubbed “Monarch,” the scheme saw billions of dollars of assets snatched from human control and given to an obscure arm of the BlackRock empire called Systematic Active Equities (SAE). SAE was acquired in the same 2009 deal that saw BlackRock acquire iShares from Barclays Global Investor (BGI).
As we saw last week, the BGI deal was unbelievably lucrative for BlackRock, with iShares being acquired for $13.5 billion in 2009 and rising to a $1.9 trillion valuation in 2020. It’s a testament to BlackRock’s commitment to the machine-over-man Monarch project, then, that Mark Wiseman, global head of active equities at BlackRock, could tell The Financial Times in 2018, “I firmly believe that, if we look back in five to 10 years from now, the thing that we most benefited from in the BGI acquisition is actually SAE.”
Even The New York Timeswas reporting at the time of the launch of the Monarch operation that Larry Fink had “cast his lot with the machines” and that BlackRock had “laid out an ambitious plan to consolidate a large number of actively managed mutual funds with peers that rely more on algorithms and models to pick stocks.”
“The democratization of information has made it much harder for active management,” Fink told The NY Times. “We have to change the ecosystem — that means relying more on big data, artificial intelligence, factors and models within quant and traditional investment strategies.”
Lest there be any doubt about BlackRock’s commitment to this anti-human agenda, the company doubled down in 2018 with the creation of AI Labs, which is “composed of researchers, data scientists, and engineers” and works to “develop methods to solve their hardest technical problems and advance the fields of finance and AI.”
The actual models that SAE uses to pick stocks is hidden behind walls of corporate secrecy, but we do know some details. We know, for instance, that SAE collects over 1,000 market signals on each stock under evaluation, including everything from the obvious statistics you would expect in any quantitative analysis of the equities markets—trading price, volume, price-earnings ratio, etc.—to the more exotic forms of data harvesting that is possible when complex learning algorithms are connected to the mind-boggling amounts of data that are now available on seemingly everyone and everything.
A Harvard MBA student catalogued some of these novel approaches to stock valuation undertaken by the SAE algorithms in a 2018 post on the subject.
One of the ways BlackRock is including machine learning in its investment process is by ‘signal combination’, in which a model mines data attempting to learn the relationships between stock returns and various quantitative data. For example, it would analyze web traffic through corporate’s websites as an indicator of future growth of the company or would look at geolocation data from smartphones to predict which retailers are more popular. In doing so, researchers must recalibrate and refine the model, to make sure it was adding value and not just rediscovering well known market behaviors already know by ‘fundamental’ fund managers.
Another important machine learning application came when it was combined with natural language processing. In this model, the technology learns in an adaptive way what are the words that can predict future performance of stocks. This model was used on analysis of broker reports and corporate filings, and the technology discovered that CEO’s remarks tend to be generally more positive, so then it started giving more importance to the comments of the CFO, or the Q&A portion of conference calls.
So, let’s recap. We know that BlackRock now manages well in excess of $21 trillion of assets with its Aladdin software, making a significant portion of the world’s wealth dependent on the calculations of an opaque, proprietary BlackRock “operating system.” And we know that Fink has “cast his lot in with the machines” and is increasingly devoted to finding ways to leverage so-called artificial intelligence, learning algorithms, and other state-of-the-art technologies to further remove humans from the investment loop.
But here’s the real question: what is BlackRock actually doing with its all-seeing eye of Aladdin and its SEA robo-stockpickers and its AI Labs? Where are Fink and the gang actually trying to take us with the latest and greatest in cutting edge fintech wizardry?
Luckily, we don’t exactly need to scry the tea leaves to find our answer to that question. Larry Fink has been kind enough to write it down for us in black and white.
You see, every year since 2012, Fink has taken it upon himself as de facto world’s wealth to pen an annual “letter to CEOs” laying out the next steps in his scheme for world domination.
. . . Errr, I mean, he writes the letter “as a fiduciary for our clients who entrust us to manage their assets – to highlight the themes that I believe are vital to driving durable long-term returns and to helping them reach their goals.”
Sometimes referred to as a “call to action” to corporate leaders, these letters from the man stewarding over a significant chunk of the world’s investmentable assets actually do change corporate behaviour. That this is so should be self-evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, which is precisely why it took a team of researchers months of painstaking study to publish a peer-reviewed paper concluding this blindingly obvious fact: “portfolio firms are responsive to BlackRock’s public engagement efforts.”
So, what is Larry Fink’s latest hobby horse, you ask? Why, the ESG scam, of course!
That’s right, Fink used his 2022 letter to harangue his captive audience of corporate chieftains about “The Power of Capitalism,” by which he means the power of capitalism to more perfectly control human behaviour in the name of “sustainability.”
Specifically:
It’s been two years since I wrote that climate risk is investment risk. And in that short period, we have seen a tectonic shift of capital. Sustainable investments have now reached $4 trillion. Actions and ambitions towards decarbonization have also increased. This is just the beginning – the tectonic shift towards sustainable investing is still accelerating. Whether it is capital being deployed into new ventures focused on energy innovation, or capital transferring from traditional indexes into more customized portfolios and products, we will see more money in motion.
Every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net zero world. The question is, will you lead, or will you be led?
Oooh, oooh, I want to lead, Larry! Pick me, pick me! . . . but please, tell me how I can lead my company into this Brave New Net Zero World Order.
Stakeholder capitalism is all about delivering long-term, durable returns for shareholders. And transparency around your company’s planning for a net zero world is an important element of that. But it’s just one of many disclosures we and other investors ask companies to make. As stewards of our clients’ capital, we ask businesses to demonstrate how they’re going to deliver on their responsibility to shareholders, including through sound environmental, social, and governance practices and policies.
Yes, to the surprise of absolutely no one, Larry Fink has signed BlackRock on to the multi-trillion dollar scam that is “environmental, social, and governance practices and policies,” better known as ESG. For those who don’t know about ESG yet, they might want to get up to speed on the topic with my presentation earlier this year on “ESG and the Big Oil Conspiracy,” but—as the always well-researched Iain Davis summarizes in his article on the globalization of the commons (aka the financialization of nature through so-called “natural asset corporations”):
A low ESG rating will deter investors, preventing a project or business venture from getting off the ground. A high ESG rating will see investors rush to put their money in projects that are backed by international agreements. In combination, financial initiatives like NACs and ESGs are converting SDGs into market regulations.
In other words, ESG is a set of phoney-baloney metrics that are being cooked up by globalist think tanks and would-be ruling councils (like the World Economic Forum) to serve as a type of social credit system for corporations. If corporations fail to toe the line when it comes to globalist policies of the moment—whether that’s committing to industry-destroying net zero (or even Absolute Zero) commitments or de-banking thought criminals or anything else that may be on the globalist checklist—their ESG rating will take a hit.
“So what?” you may ask. “What does an ESG rating have to do with the price of tea in China and why would any CEO care?”
The “so what” here is that—as Fink signals in his latest letter—BlackRock will be putting ESG reporting and compliance in its basket of considerations when choosing which stocks and bonds to invest in and which ones to pass over.
And Fink is not alone. There are now 291 signatories to the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, an “international group of asset managers committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner” that includes BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and a slew of other companies collectively managing $66 trillion of assets.
In plain English, BlackRock and its fellow globalist investment firms are leveraging their power as asset managers to begin shaping the corporate world in their image and bending corporations to their will.
And, in case you were wondering, yes, this is tied into the AI agenda as well.
In 2020, BlackRock announced the launch of a new module to its automated Aladdin system: Aladdin Climate.
Aladdin Climate is the first software application to offer investors measures of both the physical risk of climate change and the transition risk to a low-carbon economy on portfolios with climate-adjusted security valuations and risk metrics. Using Aladdin Climate, investors can now analyze climate risk and opportunities at the security level and measure the impact of policy changes, technology, and energy supply on specific investments.
To get a sense of what a world directed by digital overlords at the behest of this ESG agenda might look like, we need turn no further than to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. As Fink wrote in his letter to shareholders earlier this year:
Finally, a less discussed aspect of the war is its potential impact on accelerating digital currencies. The war will prompt countries to re-evaluate their currency dependencies. Even before the war, several governments were looking to play a more active role in digital currencies and define the regulatory frameworks under which they operate. The US central bank, for example, recently launched a study to examine the potential implications of a US digital dollar. A global digital payment system, thoughtfully designed, can enhance the settlement of international transactions while reducing the risk of money laundering and corruption. Digital currencies can also help bring down costs of cross-border payments, for example when expatriate workers send earnings back to their families. As we see increasing interest from our clients, BlackRock is studying digital currencies, stablecoins and the underlying technologies to understand how they can help us serve our clients.
The future of the world according to BlackRock is now coming fully into view. It is a world in which unaccountable computer learning algorithms automatically direct investments of the world’s largest institutions into the coffers of those who play ball with the demands of Fink and his fellow travellers. It is a world in which transactions will be increasingly digital, with every transaction being data mined for the financial benefit of the algorithmic overlords at BlackRock. And it is a world in which corporations that refuse to go along with the agenda will be ESG de-ranked into oblivion and individuals who present resistance will have their CBDC wallets shut off.
The transition of BlackRock from a mere investment firm into a financial, political and technological colossus that has the power to direct the course of human civilization is almost complete.
Conclusion
As bleak as this exploration of this world-conquering juggernaut is, there is a ray of hope on the horizon: the public is at least finally becoming aware of the existence of BlackRock and its relative importance on the global financial stage. This is reflected in an increasing number of protests targeting BlackRock and its activities. For example:
Keen-eyed observers may note, however, that these protests are not against the BlackRock agenda I have laid out in this series. On the contrary. They are for that agenda. These protesters’ main gripe seems to be that Fink and BlackRock are engaged in greenwashing and that the mega-corporation is actually more interested in its bottom line than in saving Mother Earth.
Well, duh. Even BlackRock’s former Chief Investment Officer for Sustainable Investing wrote an extensive, four-part whistleblowing exposé after leaving the firm documenting how the “sustainable investing” push being touted by Fink is a scam from top-to-bottom.
My only gripe with this limited hangout critique of BlackRock is that it implies that Fink and his cohorts are merely interested in accumulating dollars. They’re not. They’re interested in turning their financial wealth into real-world power. Power that they will wield in service of their own agenda and that they will cloak with a phony green mantle because they believe—and not without reason—that that’s what the public wants.
Slightly closer to the point, you get nonprofit groups like Consumers’ Research “slamming” BlackRock for impoverishing the real economy for the benefit of themselves and their colleagues. “You’d think a company that has made it their mission to enforce ESG (environmental, social and governance) standards on American businesses would apply those same standards to foreign investments, but BlackRock isn’t pushing its woke agenda on China or Russia,” Consumers’ Research Executive Director Will Hild explained earlier this year after the launch of an ad campaign targeting the investment giant.
But that critique, too, seems to miss the underlying point. Is Hild trying to say that if only Fink applied his economy-destroying standards equally across the board then he would be beyond reproach?
More hopefully, there are signs that the political class—always willing to jump out in front of a parade and pretend they’re leading it—are picking up on the growing public discontent with BlackRock and are beginning to cut ties with the firm.
In recent months, multiple US state governments have announced their intention to divest state funds from BlackRock, with 19 state’s attorneys general even signing a letter to Larry Fink in August calling him out on his agenda of social control:
BlackRock’s actions on a variety of governance objectives may violate multiple state laws. Mr. McCombe’s letter asserts compliance with our fiduciary laws because BlackRock has a private motivation that differs from its public commitments and statements. This is likely insufficient to satisfy state laws requiring a sole focus on financial return. Our states will not idly stand for our pensioners’ retirements to be sacrificed for BlackRock’s climate agenda. The time has come for BlackRock to come clean on whether it actually values our states’ most valuable stakeholders, our current and future retirees.
As part of this divestment push, the Louisiana state treasurer announced in October that the state was withdrawing $794 million in state funds from BlackRock, South Carolina’s state treasurer announced plans to divest $200 million from the company’s control by the end of the year and Arkansas has already taken $125 million out of money market accounts under BlackRock’s management.
As I noted in my recent appearance on The Hrvoje Morić Show, regardless of the real motivations of these state governments, the fact that they feel compelled to take action against BlackRock is itself a hopeful sign. It means that the political class understands that an increasing portion of the public is aware of the BlackRock/ESG/corporate governance agenda and is opposed to it.
Once again, we arrive at the bottom line: the only thing that truly matters is public awareness of the issues involved in the rise of a financial (and political and technological) giant like BlackRock, and it is only general public opinion that can move the needle when it comes to removing the wealth (and thus the power) from a behemoth like the one that Fink has created.
But before we wrap up here, there’s one last point to be made.
You might remember that we opened this exploration by highlighting BlackRock’s position as one of the the top institutional shareholders in Walmart:
And Coca-Cola:
And Moderna:
And Exxon:
And Amazon:
…and seemingly every other company of significance on the global stage. Now, the fact checkers will tell you that this doesn’t actually matter because it’s the shareholders who actually own the stock, not BlackRock itself. But that raises a further question: who owns BlackRock?
Oh, of course.
Now, I realize this is a lot of information to take in at once. Go ahead and re-read this series once or twice. Follow some of the many links contained herein to better familiarize yourself with the material. Share these reports (or the info itself) with others.
But if, after reading all of this you find yourself looking back over these “Top Institutional Holders” lists and saying: “Hey wait! Who’s The Vanguard Group?” . . .
. . . Well then, I’d say you’re starting to get it! Good job! And don’t worry, friends, that is a question that we will be exploring in these pages in the not-too-distant future. Stay tuned . . .
Here it is … Part Three of We Need to Talk About Mr. Global, the four-part series of dialogues I had with Catherine Austin Fitts about what I call “GloboCap” and she calls “Mr. Global,” and the rollout of the New Normal, and the Going Direct Reset, and official propaganda, and totalitarianism, and God, and other things like that.
Part One was released in late August, and was kind of an introduction to the series, exploring the question of how we got here (i.e., all of us, collectively, to this point in history, and Catherine and I, personally, to the little Dutch fishing village where our dialogues were filmed in 2021, just as the New Normal was getting extremely ugly).
Part Two was about the financial coup that GloboCap (a/k/a Mr. Global) has been carrying out for the last thirty years (and arguably since the end of World War II), central banks, the Secrecy Machine, and other nefarious Mr. Global activities.
Part Three is about official propaganda, and the official New Normal propaganda campaign that we’ve all been subjected to for nearly three years, and how and why such propaganda works. I don’t want to say too much about it. So, without further ado, here it is. Click the image to watch it on OVALmedia’s website.
When I think of a mental hospital or mental asylum, the first image that pops into my head is the one in Gotham City. I picture crazy people in dark and dingy hospitals, with wide eyes, straitjackets, creepy laughter and imaginary friends.
Of course, reality is different.
Is mental illness real?
So much so, in fact, that I have begun to wonder whether or not mental illness is even real in any meaningful sense. I mean, sure, it’s a thing here and there, but its prevalence and diagnosis are what I’m finding myself questioning.
For example, how is it diagnosed and how what are the clinical criteria?
Allen Francis is a psychiatrist and lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV). He is the guy who wrote the book on mental illness.
There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it. These concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.
We’re taking every day experiences that are part of the human condition and we’re over-diagnosing them as mental disorders, and way too often providing a pill when there’s not really a pill solution for every problem in life
Allen Francis
Peter Breggin is also a psychiatrist and has suggested that over-diagnosis is a moneymaking machine for the pharmaceutical industry.
All these antidepressants, the SSRI antidepressants, and the serotonin-norepinephrine uptake inhibitors, SNRI antidepressants, are all knock-offs of a drug that’s very common on the street, and it’s called cocaine.
Peter Breggin
I’m quickly getting the impression that, not unlike fake diseases (like Covid) that are invented for the purpose of profit via “new” medicines, fake mental issues are invented for the purpose of profit via “new” treatments”.
In other words, yes, it’s probably real but needs to be correctly defined and it’s not nearly as common (or comical) as what the establishment media and Hollywood would have us believe.
Our conversation
Kevin Corbett is a nurse who grew up in a mental hospital. His biography and website are fascinating.
He chatted to me about mental health as well as the HIV swindle (which David Rasnick has also spoken about). Kevin also touched on why it matters that we challenge our paradigms about what we think we know.
The emergence of COVID-19 has led to numerous controversies over COVID-related knowledge and policy. To counter the perceived threat from doctors and scientists who challenge the official position of governmental and intergovernmental health authorities, some supporters of this orthodoxy have moved to censor those who promote dissenting views. The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences and responses of highly accomplished doctors and research scientists from different countries who have been targets of suppression and/or censorship following their publications and statements in relation to COVID-19 that challenge official views. Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures. In the effort to silence alternative voices, widespread use was made not only of censorship, but of tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position. In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health.
Introduction
The emergence of COVID-19 has led to a proliferation of disputes and disagreements over COVID-related knowledge and policy (Liester 2022), including the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (van Helden et al. 2021), restrictive measures taken by most governments such as social-distancing, lockdowns, contact-tracing and mask requirements (Biana and Joaquin 2020), the use of certain treatments of the disease and the exclusion of others (Mucchielli 2020), the safety and efficacy of vaccines against COVID-19, and the implementation of “vaccine passes” in many countries (Palmer 2021). Harambam (2020) has referred to these disputes as the “Corona Truth Wars.”
Since the beginning of the pandemic, while governments and health authorities argued that restrictive lockdown policies were necessary to deal with the pandemic and prevent deaths, many scientists and medical practitioners questioned the ethics and morality of such tactics, including Nobel laureates and leading physicians and scholars (e.g., AIER 2020; Abbasi 2020; Bavli et al. 2020; Brown 2020; Ioannidis 2020a; Lenzer 2020; Levitt 2020). Furthermore, from early 2020, increasing numbers of scientists and doctors argued that the pandemic, as well as morbidity and mortality figures, were being inflated and exaggerated (Ioannidis 2020; Brown 2020); that the extreme policies and restrictions violated fundamental rights (Biana and Joaquin 2020; Stolow et al. 2020); and that governments were using fear campaigns based on speculative assumptions and unreliable predictive models (Brown 2020; Dodsworth 2021). Some scholars, medical practitioners and lawyers have pointed to biases, concealment and distortions of vital information regarding COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates that misled policymakers and the public (AAPS 2021; Abbasi 2020; AIER, 2020; Fuellmich 2020; King 2020).
It has been argued that much of the discussion around the COVID-19 pandemic has been politicized (Bavli et al. 2020), and that science and scientists are being suppressed due to political and economic interests (Bavli et al. 2020; King 2020; Mucchielli 2020). This criticism has grown, especially following the start of the COVID-19 vaccine campaign. Criticism was made regarding the hastiness with which the mRNA vaccines were granted Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA even for children; the quality of the clinical trials that led to the authorization of the vaccines (including violations of research protocols and evidence of fraud); the lack of transparency regarding the process and data that led to the authorization; the inflation of efficacy estimates; and the minimization or ignoring of adverse events (Doshi 2020, 2021; Fraiman et al. 2022; Thacker 2021).
Critics have argued that the scientific and policy discourse surrounding COVID-19 has not been carried out on a level playing field due to censorship and suppression of views contrary to those supported by medical and government authorities (Cáceres 2022; Cadegiani 2022; Liester, 2022; Mucchielli 2020). Some governments and tech corporations, such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and LinkedIn, have taken measures to censor contrary viewpoints, arguing that views challenging government policies are dangerous misinformation, and therefore censorship is justified to protect public health (Martin 2021).
The present study explores the phenomenon of censorship of dissent from the point of view of well-known scientists and doctors who were censored for their heterodox views on COVID-19, in order to learn about the range of tactics that have been used to censor and silence them, as well as the counter-tactics they have used to resist these attempts.
Censorship of COVID-19 Heterodoxy
To describe a view or position on COVID-19 as heterodox implies the existence of an orthodox position, which here refers to the dominant position supported by most major governmental and intergovernmental health agencies. Liester (2022) provides a list comparing what he refers to as the dominant versus dissenting views with respect to COVID-19, which includes the origin of SARS CoV-2 (zoonotic vs. laboratory), mask mandates (will prevent spread vs. will not prevent spread), early treatment with drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin (ineffective and dangerous vs. effective and safe), the usefulness of lockdown measures and other restrictions (effective and beneficial vs. ineffective and harmful), COVID-19 vaccines (safe and effective vs. unsafe and dangerous), and COVID-19 vaccine mandates and passports (necessary and ethical vs. harmful and unethical). While it may be true that none of these dominant positions have been universally adopted by all governments worldwide to the same degree or down to every last detail, nevertheless a dominant or orthodox position on all of these issues can be identified on a country-by-country basis with strong similarities across national borders.
It is worth noting that orthodox positions can change. For example, by mid-Spring 2020, discussion of the laboratory origins of SARS-CoV-2 was forbidden on certain social media sites, like Twitter and Facebook (Jacobs 2021). More recently the lab-leak theory has since gained more legitimacy, especially following articles in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Harrison and Sachs 2022), Frontiers in Virology (Ambati 2022) and Vanity Fair (Eban 2022) as well as a statement by WHO director-general Ghebreyesus, who commented on an interim report by the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens, saying that all hypotheses need to be considered and criticizing the report for inadequate assessment of the lab-leak hypothesis (WHO 2022). Another example relates to the necessity of mask wearing: US officials such as the director of the National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Anthony Fauci, are on record recommending against universal mask wearing in March 2020, only to change their position in April to recommend universal mask wearing and mandates (Roche 2021).
Since early 2020, there has been an upsurge of complaints about censorship by individuals and groups presenting heterodox COVID-related viewpoints and information, with even more complaints in 2021 following COVID-19 vaccine rollouts. Many instances involve social media censorship, including the removal of accounts (“deplatforming”) or blocking the visibility of a user’s content without informing them (“shadow banning”) (Martin 2021).
While complaints regarding scientific censorship and suppression preceded the pandemic (Elisha et al. 2021, 2022; Martin 2015), a new feature of the COVID era is the prominent role played by information technology companies such as Facebook and Google (Martin 2021). One prominent example was the down ranking of the Great Barrington Declaration’s website by Google (Myers 2020). The Declaration, spearheaded by three epidemiologists at Harvard, Stanford and Oxford universities, was released in October 2020 (Kulldorff et al. 2020) and signed by many notable scientists and doctors, including the Nobel Prize laureate Michael Levitt. It argued against universal lockdowns in favor of focusing on protecting vulnerable groups. However, to reduce exposure, Google altered its search algorithm (Myers 2020). In February 2021, Facebook deleted a page set up by a group of scientists involved with the declaration (Rankovic 2021). In April 2021, YouTube removed a recording of an official public hearing on the pandemic that featured Florida governor Ron DeSantis and the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. One of them, Prof. Kulldorff, who is one of the most cited epidemiologists and infectious disease experts in the world, was himself censored by Twitter in March 2021 (Sarkissian 2021). Though his tweet saying that not everyone needs the COVID-19 vaccine was not taken down, he was warned, and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post (Tucker 2021).
Similar cases abound. For example, the research-networking site ResearchGate removed physicist Denis Rancourt’s article about masks (Rancourt 2020), and in 2021, it banned him entirely (Jones 2021). In July 2021, LinkedIn suspended the account operated by Dr. Robert Malone, an internationally recognized virologist and immunologist, an action repeated by Twitter in December 2021 (Pandolfo 2021).
These are just some of the many examples of censorship related to COVID-19. Beyond the large scale of the censorship phenomenon, and the wide involvement of tech companies in it, another unique characteristic of COVID-related censorship is its targets. Many of the doctors and researchers being censored by the world’s biggest technology companies are not fringe figures. As in the examples above, these are mainstream scientists, many of them leading experts working in prestigious universities and/or hospitals, some of whom have authored books and published dozens or even hundreds of papers and whose studies have been widely cited. Some of them are editors of scientific/medical journals and some are heads of medical wards or clinics.
This heavy censorship was done with the encouragement of governments (Bose 2021; O’Neill 2021), which cooperated with tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. For example, on March 7, 2022, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on tech companies to report “health misinformation” to the federal government and to step up their efforts to remove it (Pavlich 2022). Subsequently, e-mails released from legal proceedings have documented the ways in which government officials directly coordinated with tech companies like Twitter and Facebook to censor doctors, scientists and journalists (Lungariello and Chamberlain 2022; Ramaswamy and Rubenfeld 2022). In December 2021, an e-mail from the fall of 2020 was released via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. It revealed a behind-the-scenes effort by Francis Collins, then head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to his colleague, Anthony Fauci, head of NIAID, to discredit the Great Barrington Declaration and disparage its authors. In the email, Collins told Fauci that “this proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists … seems to be getting a lot of attention,” adding that “there needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don’t see anything like that online yet—is it underway?” (Wall Street Journal 2021).
Practices of censorship have also been used by the Israeli Ministry of Health (IMOH) and media against doctors and researchers whose views run counter to institutional orthodoxy. One such example is the Israeli Public Emergency Council for the Covid19 Crisis. The organization, which consists of leading doctors and scientists, was targeted by the IMOH and the media numerous times, including attacks on individual members of the organization (Reisfeld 2021).
Censorship, the Backfire Effect and Public Outrage
COVID-19 censorship is, in part, an exclusion of the views of dissident experts as well as citizens who question the standard position. This type of censorship has been a feature of many other controversial areas in science and medicine, such as AIDS, environmental studies, fluoridation, and vaccination (Delborne 2016; Elisha et al. 2021, 2022; Kuehn 2004; Martin 1991, 1999; Vernon 2017). In fact, censorship has a long history, and its purpose is to suppress free speech, publications and other forms of expression of unwanted ideas and positions that may be perceived as a threat to powerful bodies such as governments and corporations.
Censorship of opposing or alternative opinions and views can be harmful to the public (Elisha et al. 2022), especially during crisis situations such as epidemics, which are characterized by great uncertainties, since it may lead to important views, information and scientific evidence being disregarded. Furthermore, the denial or silencing of contrary views can elicit public mistrust (Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz 2016; Wynne 2001). Studies have indicated that in situations of risk, especially risk that involves uncertainty, the public prefers full transparency of information, including different views, and that providing it does not raise negative reactions in terms of behaviour, but rather, helps reduce negative feelings and increases the public’s respect for the risk-assessing agency (De Vocht et al. 2014; Lofstedt 2006; Slovic 1994). As Wynne (2001) warns, institutional science’s attempts to exaggerate its intellectual control and use knowledge as justification for policy commitments, while ignoring its limits, only alienates the public and increases mistrust.
Moreover, censorship can be counterproductive, in essence backfiring, because it can lead to greater attention being paid to the censored information, foster sympathy for those being censored and promote public distrust of the actors and agencies engaged in censorship (Jansen and Martin 2003, 2004, 2015). This is especially evident in the internet age. While information technology companies such as Google and Facebook play a prominent role in the attempts of governments and authorities to censor dissenting positions on COVID-19 (Martin 2021), it is a serious challenge to achieve this completely. Their visibility in the mainstream media and in web search results can be curtailed, but there are too many alternative communication options to prevent dissenters from communicating their positions (Cialdini 2016). Therefore, attempts to silence and censor critics can sometimes backfire.
Considering the extent of censorship reported during the COVID-19 era, and in particular the number of accomplished doctors and scientists censored and silenced, as well as the extensive involvement of tech companies, on the one hand, and governments, on the other, it is worthwhile investigating this phenomenon. The present study is designed to explore the subjective perceptions of well-credentialed, highly accomplished mainstream doctors and scientists who have experienced censorship and/or suppression after expressing non-orthodox positions regarding the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how they dealt with it. Through interviews, we examine censorship tactics used by the medical establishment and the media (both mainstream and social media), and the counter-tactics employed by their targets.
Method
The study is a qualitative one (Aspers 2004), which aims to identify internal perceptions from the point of view of those who have experienced the phenomenon under question.
Participants
Study participants include 13 established doctors and scientists (12 men and 1 woman), from different countries around the world (viz., Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, UK and US). Of these, 11 have formal medical training from a variety of fields (e.g., epidemiology, radiology, oncology, cardiology, paediatrics, gynecology, emergency room management) and two are research scientists without medical degrees (in the areas of risk management and psychology). All participants hold either an MD or PhD degree, and four hold both. Most of them are well known in their fields, with a proven research background that includes many academic publications. We used a purposeful sampling method, i.e., a non-probabilistic sampling according to which a deliberate selection is made of individuals who could teach us about the phenomenon under study (Creswell 2012). To preserve the respondents’ anonymity, details that might lead to their identification are omitted.
Research Tool and Procedure
The study is based on in-depth interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. The questions focused on the respondents’ stance towards COVID-19 that was seen as controversial, events they experienced due to their stance, the implications of these events for their professional and personal lives, and their responses to these events.
Recruitment was done in several ways. First, through a Google search we located the contact details of doctors and researchers known for their critical stances toward COVID-19 pandemic measures and policies. Second, we used the “snowball” method to reach other respondents. The initial contact with the respondents was by email, in which we explained the purpose of the study and asked for their consent to be interviewed anonymously. The interviews were conducted via Skype, Zoom or telephone, and lasted about an hour and a half on average. Each respondent was asked to sign an informed consent form. The interviews were recorded and transcribed.
Data analysis and coding were based on identifying the key issues that emerged from the interviews, while classifying and grouping them into meaningful categories. We assured the reliability and validity of the study by applying different methods. The analysis of the data was discussed by all of us as an expert peer group, and different sources of data served as triangulation of the data (e.g., documents and correspondence provided to us by the interviewees). Quotes in the text are provided for illustrative purposes (Creswell 2012).
Findings
Study participants reported being subject to a wide variety of censorship and suppression tactics used against them by both the medical establishment and the media, due to their critical and unorthodox positions on COVID-19. They also described the counter-tactics they used to resist. We divide the findings into two sections, the first describing censorship and suppression tactics and the second describing the counter-tactics used by our participants.
Silencing Dissent: Censoring and Suppressing Tactics
Tactics of censorship and suppression described by our respondents include exclusion, derogatory labelling, hostile comments and threatening statements by the media, both mainstream and social; dismissal by the respondents’ employers; official inquiries; revocation of medical licenses; lawsuits; and retraction of scientific papers after publication.
Exclusion
Respondents reported how, at a very early stage of the epidemic, when they just began to express criticism or their different position, they were surprised to discover that the mainstream media, which until then had seen them as desirable interviewees, stopped interviewing them and accepting opinion pieces from them:
Neither X nor Y [two central newspapers in the respondent’s country] wanted to publish my articles. Without a proper explanation. Just stopped receiving articles. It was quite blatant, that they stopped accepting articles expressing a different opinion from that of the ministry of health (MOH). The number of journalists who can really be talked to, who are willing to listen to another opinion, to publish, has been greatly reduced, and most health reporters today are very biased towards the MOH (#10).
Denigration
Respondents reported that exclusion was only the first step: shortly after that they started being subjected to defamation by the media, and disparaged as “anti-vaxxers,” “Covid deniers,” “dis/misinformation spreaders” and/or “conspiracy theorists”:
After that report came out…, I was front page of the Sunday Times… it said… X [the respondent name], a professor in A [the institution this respondent works in] is co-author of anti vax report… I was now, yeah…, I was told I was anti-vaccine (#9).
I have been vilified.… I’ve been called a quack…, an anti-vaxxer and a COVID denier, a conspiracy theorist (#13).
Recruiting “Third Parties” to Assist in Discrediting
One prominent tactic our respondents claim was used by the media to discredit them was the use of seemingly independent “third party sources,” such as other doctors, to undermine them, for example by writing defamatory articles:
I was shocked at what came out the next day in The Wall Street Journal… So here we had three of the most senior doctors with hundreds and hundreds of publications and scientific credibility to our resumes and …a major media outlet allowed a junior doctor to publish who has no academic standing or track record…[and] have him publish a defamatory piece (#6).
Another “third party” source used by the media, according to our respondents, was “fact-checking” organizations, a practice that is ostensibly meant to verify published information to promote the veracity of reporting. However, some respondents alleged that the fact-checking groups were recruited and operated by corporate or other stakeholders to discredit them and try to discredit the information they presented:
…the fact checkers are a source of misinformation, so though it may review something and say, Dr. X said something, but… they make a counterclaim. The counter claims are never cited in the data… they all trace back to the vaccine manufacturers or the vaccine stakeholders (#6).
you get the fact checkers… They tried to discredit S, but also, because I was a co-author, they were picking on me…, and all this sort of stuff and… discredit by association… (#4).
As seen in the second example above, some of the participants said that those “fact-checking” groups were used to discredit and defame not only the researcher or doctor who presented a contrarian opinion or information, but also others who were associated with them.
Some respondents said that the media persecuted them to the point of blackening their name at their workplace, resulting in their dismissal, or that they were forced to resign:
I lost my job…, I was working for the last 20 years in X [the institution’s name]… And so, the media started coming to X… there was a concerted effort to… ruin my reputation, even though, this is unbelievable, they had the lowest death rate basically in the world, and the doctor who brought it to them, gets vilified and slandered. So, I left on my own… My reputation was slandered. I mean the level of treatment that I didn’t expect and abuse I would say (#1).
Online Censorship
Some respondents reported being censored on social media networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, Google, LinkedIn), and said some of their posts, tweets, videos or even accounts were taken down by the networks.
My YouTube videos were being taken down. Facebook put me in jail, “Facebook Jail.” And I found that I was being de-platformed everywhere (#1).
I’ve always had videos, just my teaching material I’ve been putting up on YouTube…, but I also started to put up materials around this just sort of talking through some of the research… looking at the vaccine efficacy data… YouTube started taking it down. And so now …, I cannot post, I can’t even mention vaccines, because within seconds, as soon as I’m actually trying to upload the video, YouTube will say this video goes against our guidelines… (#3).
I got terminated from TikTok… All of a sudden, I was permanently banned because presumably I had a community violation (#2).
I’m currently on my sixth twitter account…the last one was shut down supposedly for a tweet about X’s lab [the name of the lab], but it was coming. I ruffled too many feathers (#2).
As can be seen in the above examples, respondents noted that the removal of their materials from social networks was accompanied by a notice claiming they had violated the “community rules.” They emphasized that these were academic materials, backed up scientifically:
I became aware that an academic YouTube video that I had put together regarding the paper in the XXX journal … was pulled down by YouTube, and I received a notice that it had violated terms of the YouTube community… without ever having any terms of use from YouTube that would explain what types of terms would be applied to a four PowerPoint slide scientific video…(#6).
One of the respondents reported on censorship even in Google Docs, which means that even private communications are being censored:
Google Docs started restricting and censoring my ability to share documents… This is not Twitter throwing me off like they did. This is an organization telling me that I cannot send a private communication to a colleague or to a friend, or to a family member… (#1).
Censorship and Suppression by the Medical and Academic Establishment
Some of the respondents reported that they were subjected to defamation by their own institution, with the apparent intention to harm their reputation and careers. For example:
…in [my country], we have approximately 55,000 physicians. My name appeared on the official website of the Ministry of Health, that I’m the only person, one medical doctor who is… distributing disinformation… (#12).
There was a concerted effort to… ruin my reputation even though, this is unbelievable, they [the hospital where I work] had the lowest death rate basically in the world (#1).
Some participants also said that they had received a clear message from the institution where they worked that they were not allowed to identify themselves with the institution when giving an interview or a testimony or expressing their views—in some cases as a condition of renewing their contract.
I gave X (a certain treatment) testimony, and that kind of went viral. And the hospital was not happy because my affiliation had shown up… They offered me a new contract. They said …, we got some new terms for you, because my old contract was not restricted. The new one basically had like seven or eight restrictions of my first amendment rights… basically I couldn’t talk to the press, I couldn’t speak in public…, unless I said, these are my opinions not that of my employer… It was a relatively short conversation. I said that’s never going to happen, I’m never going to sign that thing, and we said goodbye (#9).
In some cases, respondents reported that following a position or criticism they expressed, they were dismissed from their institution, or were notified that their contract would not be renewed.
I was told that my contract [at the medical clinic] wasn’t going to be renewed… There’s a whole variety of checklists for the contract not to be renewed, there must be a due process, and the first red flag is that there was no due process. I asked specifically was there a board vote…, and the answer was no, and I said… why is this action being taken, and their response was “no reason”… [Later] I received a letter from [X] University saying that I was stripped of my professorship, with no due process, with no faculty senate, nothing…. Then, I received a…letter from [Y] University, again no due process, no faculty senate, no explanation (#6).
Similarly, respondents said they were summarily dismissed or disqualified from prestigious positions, such as serving on leading health or scientific committees, or editing medical journals, without due process or transparency:
… the director general of the Ministry of [X] approached me … and said that the Minister had reached an agreement with the Ministry of Health, that he was putting a representative on the [prescription drug] basket committee …, and she said all fingers had pointed to me… Then comes a phone call after a week, and she says, “listen, your name was already passed on as a request of the Minister to the Basket Committee, and has been disqualified unequivocally because you oppose [COVID] vaccinations in children”… I was shocked… Until then the responses I received were from the bottom. This is a response from the top (#11).
…there was a whole series of actions taken again with no due process and no explanation so… I received a notice from the [medical association] that I was being stripped from a committee position… I received a letter from a journal…where I was the editor in chief, being stripped of the editorship, again with no due process, no phone calls no, tractable explanation… I received a letter from the National Institutes of Health being stripped from a longstanding committee position, I was on the committee for several decades and was stripped off of that, again no phone call, no due process, no explanation (#6).
In one case, the respondent had learned that his country’s parallel to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) intervened and asked the university to “examine” his “case”:
…my university president invited me to talk about “corona”. In that meeting, I was informed… that the [The equivalent health authority to the CDC in the interviewees’ country] had written a letter to the president, asking him to examine my case because, according to the ministerial letter, I was going public with methodologically questionable things. According to the president, the university has never received similar requests before… (#12).
Some of the interviewees said that the health establishment had not only blackened their reputation and taken serious measures against them but also cooperated with the media and made sure to spread the information about those measures through them:
You know the news release came out, I’m a prominent physician in the United States, so, in fact, I believe the health system drafted a press release that went out, that they were suing me, and so the topic came up [during the press interview], “so are you being sued, and… what’s your reaction?” (#6).
Official Inquiries
Some doctors reported on official inquiries launched against them, such as investigating or threatening to withdraw their medical license:
…my license was investigated… At that point in time, I felt that the medical board was being weaponized… My license ended up getting investigated… three times now, each time… without any punishment or reprimand or anything… But it merely points to the fact that it’s very easy to get censored or cancelled (#2).
Following a post I wrote about the adverse events … I received a letter from the Committee of X [the name of the committee]. Allegedly they asked me for the details of these patients (the patients the interviewee reported in his post had adverse events), but if it was genuinely a real wish on their part, then it was not this committee, which in fact deals with Y [the definition of the committee’s activities] that would have asked me for the details, but a real official from the Ministry of Health. I answered them through A [my lawyer], a more legal and less medical reply. This is basically a committee without powers. I do not think I am even allowed to pass on the names of patients to them. It can be given to a relevant party, a district doctor… I will be happy to talk to them (#2).
One of the respondents reports that a million-dollar lawsuit was filed against him:
And then my wife calls me and says that the health system is suing us for over a million dollars, so I have just put together teams of attorneys and scrambled them into court… And … the charge is that is that I’m violating terms of my separation agreement, specifically that the health system is being brought into my media presentations, and I’ve never made any [such] statements (#6).
Another respondent reports on a police search conducted at his private clinic in his home:
The [medical board] showed up unexpectedly one day without a warrant to search my house, which was listed in their records as my office, to do a medical office inspection, which doesn’t require a warrant [in my country]. I told them it’s my business office and I don’t see patients there and they have no business coming in there (#7).
Retraction of Scientific Papers
Some researchers and doctors recounted how their research had been retracted by the journal after publication:
And then, five days before the FDA pediatric meeting on vaccination, [the publishing company] pulls the paper out of the National Library of Medicine and says that they are retracting it. And the explanation, they tell us a few days later, is that they think they didn’t invite the paper to begin with. And I can tell you as an editor, the paper was clearly welcomed, and it went through the standard peer review process. The only way they can legally pull a paper out of the National Library of Medicine is if it’s scientifically invalid, and that wasn’t the claim (#6).
So I submitted it to X [the name of the journal] … and well, this was a desk rejection … Actually, at least for me the arguments were kind of, say, from my perspective, there were no solid arguments… I don’t know why this was rejected, and then I submitted it to several other channels… and then I stopped to trying to publish it in the scientific literature. It’s published as a pre-print (#8).
Another theme that arose repeatedly during the interviews was that research critical of COVID-19 policies and orthodoxy were treated in ways the interviewees had never encountered before in their careers. This included having papers rejected from journals (often multiple times) without peer review, the journal review and publication process taking many months longer than typical for the journal, and even having papers rejected from pre-print servers such as MedRXiv:
At the beginning of the pandemic, we were getting a lot of stuff published. It wasn’t in any way challenging the orthodox narrative… and then we did this analysis on [X] and then when that happened, oh my God they went ballistic, we got attacked. That work never got published. This is where the censorship—we’d already had some problems because we were publishing other work on the case data, and it was being automatically rejected from any of the medical journals, anything like that. And that was when our stuff started to get rejected from arXiv and medRxiv…the only place we could get any of this stuff published, was we just put it on ResearchGate (#4).
In one case, an interviewee said he felt so threatened by the medical establishment that he refrained from putting his name on papers he co-authored with other researchers, and that those whose names do appear on the papers were trying to hide or stay under the radar until the paper was published:
We’ve got a paper that’s ready to come out in [an important journal], and the group that published it has been hiding for a year… Now, I can’t be on the paper you know (#5).
Counter-reaction: Fighting Back
The respondents noted that their initial reaction to the attacks and censorship was shock and surprise, since for the first time in their lives they felt excluded from the scientific/medical community, attacked by the media and sometimes by their employers, and/or disparaged as “conspiracy theorists” who endanger the public health. Yet, despite the censorship, the personal attacks and defamation, the dismissals, the damage to reputations and the economic price, all respondents nevertheless stated that none of it deterred them, and they decided to fight back, using various counter-tactics.
First Reactions: Shock and Surprise
Most respondents describe their initial reaction to the persecution and censorship they experienced as shock. Some said that they felt threatened, and for the first time, excluded from the scientific/medical community:
I was speechless. It does not happen to me. I did not imagine. It was terribly threatening to me all those attacks … it took me a month to recover from the understanding that this is the country we live in… I was in shock… I was surprised… My heartbeat I think was 200 per minute (#11).
As someone who has been an integral part of the [health] system, and knows the role holders personally – the rift I feel is very heavy (#1).
Respondents said that they felt that the threats, dismissals and attacks against them were in fact an attempt to silence them, just because their opinions were not aligned with those dictated by the authorities:
…everything was done initially to suppress my voice, because I was the only one screaming (#1).
Some respondents said they felt that the censorship and unprecedented attacks they experienced were especially vicious because those who did it knew they were valued and influential:
…they were actually trying to silence me in the media… it appears on the surface, that lawsuit basically was an attempt to censor me… I’m a frequent contributor on Fox News, I just testified in the US Senate…, my advice is valued all over the world, and I think it was a parochial attempt… to censor me…(#6).
Determined to Fight
Our respondents stated that the censorship and suppression they experienced made them want to fight back and make their voices heard more, on the grounds of freedom of speech and their concern for public health.
It’s an interesting question what I feel I’m paying. Because I feel there are [costs]. The fact is that I almost left. Why did I stay? Because I realized that there was a price that I was not willing to pay – that they would shut me up. (…) (#11).
To me the most important question is why do I (keep) doing this? Because if I do not live according to my values and freedom of speech, then I will not live. That’s why I am doing it (#9).
Some of them even noted that the attacks on their reputation made them even more determined and eager to expose the information that was being censored.
Actually, it makes me more determined. I’m a little bit of a pit bull. So, we’re going to keep getting the word out (#2).
Some of the respondents said they decided to take official or legal actions against the organizations that censored them:
I will file suit for breach of contract, since we had a publication contract and they signed it and they accepted… they’re going to be sued for tortious interference that they’ve actually interfered with the business of publishing valid scientific information… I imagine this is going to be quite injurious and high profile to [the publisher] (#6).
I do have a Freedom of Information request into all the entities that stripped me of various credentials and positions in order to start to uncover what is stimulating all of this… (#2).
The respondents’ counter-reactions were expressed in several ways: a desire to disclose the act of censorship and the information that was censored, which they claim is evidence-based; use of alternative channels in order to spread their positions and views in relation to COVID-19 publicly; establishment of support networks with colleagues; and development of alternative medical and health information systems. That is, they created a kind of a parallel world to the mainstream establishment.
Exposing the Censorship
Some respondents stressed that they wanted to expose the censorship act itself. For instance:
I got in contact with a few powerful people, and they referred me to the Media Resource Centre in Washington, which is a non-profit to fight censorship. I told them what had happened. And they already wrote up an article about it. That article is now being put up on different sites. I did an interview on One American News Network. I kind of brought that to the world (#1).
Using Alternative Channels
Respondents noted that when they understood that they were censored by the mainstream media, they decided to use alternative channels, such as social media platforms, to spread their position and contrary information and voice their opinions in public:
Fortunately, I built up a little bit of a Twitter Following… 34,000 or something like that…, so you can get the message out (#4).
Some of the respondents said that to protect themselves, they were forced to open “secret” telegram or anonymous Twitter accounts. Although they express frustration, they are still doing it in order to spread information. For example, one participant noted it is absurd that scientists should keep secret telegram accounts so that the government does not revoke their licenses or damage their reputations:
…my credentials from that aspect [are] really unusual… A working doctor that has that combination… That’s why I have to be careful when I’m on Twitter… because if you’re smart enough to realize there is only a small group of doctors in the world that have got that [combination]… I put a tweet and I put it on my secret telegram channel as well… Ridiculous! We’ve got secret telegram accounts, I mean, we’re scientists running secret telegram accounts, so we don’t get taken out by the government. What is going on? (#5).
Creating Social Support Networks
Some of the respondents revealed that they created support networks of fellow scientists, physicians, lawyers and politicians with similar views and opinions. These networks were used not only to exchange information, but also to receive support and empathy from “outsiders” like them, to make new friends and create a new community:
…it’s been really nice to make a whole and growing network of friends in life, who know those truths as well. I feel like I’m making a new community with new friends that I can talk to that understand the world, understand the corruption, and really can navigate this stuff. So, at the same time that I woke up with a whole new collection of colleagues and friends, but a lot of us are outside of science… (#9).
And then there were a few colleagues that came on board… And all of a sudden, I had some big heavyweights, academic leaders advocating for my work (#1).
Developing Alternative Medical and Health Information Systems
Beyond their activities in disseminating information and data, some of the respondents noted that they are working to establish new alternative platforms and organizations dedicated to developing and providing health information and medical treatments—including new journals and non-profits, instead of the existing ones, which they claim have failed and disappointed. They explain this as a means of coping with the censorship and suppression they experienced due to their opposing positions, which grant them a sense of hope and a feeling that they are building “a new world”:
I have a new thing in life. N and I, we started the X organization…, whose sole mission is to try to figure out and help people to treat COVID. And I think we’ve done a real service to the world (#9).
…there’s a lot of talk about starting a journal… Tess Lawrie started The World Council for Health. There is increasing amount of talk about starting a new health system. Like, people want to go to hospitals where the doctors can be doctors and not the other role of all these regulations and corrupt agencies, so you know, there is maybe a new world that will form…(#4).
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to explore the subjective perceptions of accomplished and well-credentialed mainstream doctors and scientists who have experienced censorship and suppression after expressing heterodox COVID-related views, to examine tactics used by the medical establishment and the media and the counter-tactics employed by their targets.
The respondents in our study reported on a wide variety of censorship and suppressive tactics used against them by the media (including the mainstream media and social media companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and TikTok) and the medical establishment. Tactics used by the media include derogatory comments and labels, often using ostensibly independent “third-party” sources such as anonymous “fact-checkers” or other doctors, and online censorship involving the removal of their social media and internet contents and accounts, in some cases repeatedly after they opened new accounts. Some of the respondents reported that the media have been persecuting them to the point of blackening their names in their workplaces.
The tactics used by the medical establishment also include defamation and intimidation; retraction of scientific papers after publication; dismissal or adverse changes to employment contracts; aggressive actions aimed at sabotaging other significant roles of the individual, such as participating in important committees or serving as editors of scientific journals. Some respondents reported a targeted thwarting of their careers and harming of the reputations they had built over the years, while consistently stripping them of all the positions they held. Some reported being subject to abusive formal proceedings, such as investigations and attempts to revoke their medical licenses, and in one case even being sued for a large sum of money.
As for the reactions of the respondents to these censorship tactics, contrary to what has been found in previous studies, in which, out of fear of being marked as “anti-science” or “anti-vaxxers,” some of the doctors and scientists said that they refrain from expressing their critical position on controversial issues such as vaccines (e.g., Elisha et al. 2022; Kempner 2008; Martin 2015), the scientists and doctors in our study did not self-censor themselves, despite the heavy price many of them paid professionally and financially. According to the respondents, after the initial shock, they decided to fight back using a range of methods, from framing the actions taken against them as censorship and trying to expose the censored information and the censorship act itself, to mobilizing support and building supportive networks of friends, colleagues, and followers, which, they reported, were constantly growing. Moreover, the respondents announced that they were developing alternative health systems as well as alternative channels that would allow free dissemination of information and professional positions. The sampling method was unlikely to pick up doctors and scientists who kept a low profile or who quickly became silent at the first sign of danger, which may partly explain why all the interviewees resisted attacks. It will also not capture doctors and scientists who disagree with aspects of the official orthodoxy but are too afraid to speak out.
Despite the power held by governments and corporations, the ability to censor is limited, especially in the digital age, since even if the traditional “gatekeepers”—journalists in the popular media and editors of scientific journals—censor opposing opinions and information, opponents will still be able to spread them through alternative outlets. As Jansen and Martin (2003, 2004, 2015) have shown, exposing censorship can sometimes lead to public outrage, and powerful interests who undertake it often try to prevent or reduce this outrage using various methods, mainly by defaming and delegitimizing the targets of censorship.
Indeed, the censorship tactics reported by our respondents are consistent with those identified in Jansen and Martin’s (2015) framework on the dynamics of censorship, including:
Cover-Up—Our findings show that this tactic was very prominent, which is not surprising, since, as Jansen and Martin noted, if people aren’t aware of censorship, they are not upset about it. The cover-up tactics included various methods. For example, using third-party sources such as other doctors or “fact-checkers” to discredit dissident scientists and doctors. Since these sources are portrayed as independent, they help mask the real sources behind the censorship.
Devaluation—This tactic was described by our study respondents and included various aspects, such as publishing false and disparaging claims about them, dismissing them from work in academia or medical institutions, and stripping them of various senior positions—all actions that were felt by our respondents to be intended to undermine their credibility and legitimacy. The tactic of devaluation, also known as a “negative campaign” or a “smear campaign,” is often used by corporations, and its aim is to harm the reputation of an individual or a group (Griffin 2012; Lau and Rovner 2009). Smear campaigns help distract public attention from the content of the targets’ message and deflect the discussion from the criticism or allegations raised and instead focus the attention on those raising these allegations.
Reinterpretation—This tactic involves framing censorship as a means of “protecting the public” from the dissenting doctors and scientists, portraying them as “misinformation spreaders” endangering public health in a time of crisis. This framing echoes attempts by policymakers in other areas to justify censorship by arguing that contradictory information might confuse the public and cause panic (Clarke 2002; Frewer et al. 2003; Sandman 2007; Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz 2016).
Official Channels—As our respondents described the censorship actions taken against them were only part of a wider range of silencing and repressive actions, which also included formal proceedings, such as investigating or withdrawing their medical licenses, suing them or ordering a police search of their homes.
Intimidation—The respondents interpreted all the above tactics as being intended to intimidate and deter them from continuing to publish their views and criticism, and also single them out in a way that implicitly invites harassment by others and serves as an example to other doctors and scientists. Some of our respondents noted they were intimidated to the point they felt it necessary to use an assumed name to continue operating on social media and/or avoid putting their names on papers they co-authored.
Our findings regarding how the study participants responded to censorship tactics are also consistent with the counter-tactics described by Jansen and Martin (2015).
Exposure—The respondents sought exposure of both the censored information and the censorship itself, for example by raising an alarm about the attacks on them through their social media accounts or other platforms. They noted that even if their accounts were repeatedly removed, they opened new ones or moved to other channels or platforms. In addition, they insisted on continuing to try to publish papers in the scientific literature, regardless of the rejections and retractions, and even if the publication involved working on studies without getting credit for the publication.
Validation—Our respondents repeatedly stressed their use of evidence-based information and reliable data, as well as their credentials, thus associating themselves with science. They portray themselves as warriors whose mission is to fight against misinformation and censorship by the medical and public health establishment.
Interpretation—Our respondents framed the media and the establishment’s efforts as censorship and referred to their own efforts as attempts to present valid information for interested readers.
Redirection—Following the personal and professional attacks they experienced, some of our respondents coordinated a public response, seeking to mobilize their supporters, turning to fellow scientists and doctors, and creating alliances and cooperation networks.
Resistance—Despite the initial shock, all the respondents said they decided not to succumb, but rather to resist and fight back.
Our findings echo arguments made in previous studies on the suppression of dissent in controversial areas, such as vaccination (Elisha et al. 2021, 2022; Cernic 2018; DeLong 2012; Gatto et al. 2013; Martin 2015; Vernon 2017), AIDS, environmental studies, and fluoridation (e.g., Delborne 2016; Kuehn 2004; Martin 1981, 1991, 1999). Similar to those studies, our research findings indicate significant involvement of the media and the medical establishment in censorship and suppression of dissenters.
Yet, there are three main differences. First, when it comes to COVID-related knowledge, the censorship tactics used against dissenters are extreme and unprecedented in their intensiveness and extensiveness, with scientific journals, and academic and medical institutions taking an active and involved part in censoring critical voices. In fact, as one of our respondents indicates, even pre-print servers and academic social networking sites censor scientific papers that do not align with the mainstream narrative, and this seems to be a growing trend. One recent example is a study report by Verkerk et al. (2022), which analyzed a survey of over 300,000 people in 175 countries who had elected to not receive COVID-19 vaccines, which was removed from ResearchGate.net after 9 days citing a breach of their terms and conditions (World Council for Health 2022). Furthermore, what our respondents describe goes way beyond censorship, and includes a wide range of suppression methods intended to destroy their reputations and careers, solely because they dared to take a different position from that dictated by the medical establishment.
Second, while previous studies have also indicated isolated cases where researchers and doctors with flawless résumés and even senior academic or medical status were censored if they dared express dissenting opinions, the current study shows that in the case of COVID, censoring doctors and researchers of this stature has become a regular phenomenon. The participants in our study, as well as those mentioned in the introduction and many others not included in our sample, are not fringe scientists. Most of them are leading figures: researchers and doctors who prior to the COVID-19 era had a respectable status, with many publications in the scientific literature, some of them with books and hundreds of publications, some headed academic or medical departments, some of them were editors of medical journals, and some had won significant awards. Nevertheless, as our findings show, they were not protected from censorship, nor from the suppression and defamation campaign launched against them. This fact indicates that the message is that no one is exempt from censorship and no academic or medical status, senior as it may be, is a guaranteed shield against it.
The third prominent difference found in our study is the significant role played by media organizations during the COVID pandemic, and especially tech information companies, in censoring contrary positions. On a practical level, those who hold the power have greater ability and opportunities to control knowledge and information dissemination, and through this, to set and control the agenda. While our findings do not show the direction of the relationship between these interest holders, they may indicate collaborations between the medical establishment and these companies. Recently released documents from court cases indicate that at least some of this censorship is orchestrated by government officials (Lungariello and Chamberlain 2022; Ramaswamy and Rubenfeld 2022). Our findings also indirectly point to other stakeholders involved in the censorship phenomenon evident in the current crisis, especially pharmaceutical companies. While our study examined the subjective perceptions of those targeted by censorship rather than the involvement of stakeholders and other interested parties, our respondents’ reports echo findings from other studies, conducted both prior to the COVID-19 era (Ravelli 2015), and more recently (Mucchielli 2020), which indicate the extensive involvement of pharmaceutical and information tech corporations in silencing information and studies that may be unfavourable to them. Given the central role of these corporations alongside policymakers in health authorities and governments globally, a major concern is that substantial interests, including financial and political ones, as well as interests related to reputation and career, may lay behind the suppression efforts. The interest of the pharmaceutical corporations in controlling the discourse regarding COVID-19 is self-evident. For example, as some of our participants indicated, one of the main unresolved COVID-19 controversies is related to early treatment with repurposed drugs, and it has been claimed that highly unusual measures were taken to prevent physicians from using them (Physicians’ Declaration 2021). As Cáceres (2022) notes, this alleged unwarranted termination of that initial debate may have had enormous economic (e.g. green light for vaccines and new drugs under emergency use authorization), financial (e.g. huge gains for the largest corporations) and political consequences (e.g. global restrictions of individual freedoms).
The tech information companies also have strong interests in controlling the discourse regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, in June 2021, it was revealed that Google, which was accused of silencing the theory the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, has funded virus research carried out by a Wuhan-linked scientist, Peter Daszak, through its charity arm, Google.org, for over a decade. Google has also invested one million dollars in a company that uses epidemiologists and big-data analytics to forecast and track disease outbreaks. The British Medical Journal has revealed that Facebook and YouTube’s “fact-checking” process relies on partnerships with third-party fact-checkers, convened under the umbrella of the International Fact-Checking Network (Clarke 2021). This organization is run by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a non-profit journalism school whose main financial supporters include Google and Facebook.
As for policymakers’ personal interests, a US government watchdog group has been demanding key data on Dr. Anthony Fauci’s financial and professional history, claiming that “During the pandemic, Dr. Fauci has handsomely profited from his federal employment, royalties, travel perks, and investment gains,” yet it is not public what his salary was during these two years, nor what stocks and bonds he bought and sold in 2020 or 2021, as he influenced COVID policies, or what he received—or didn’t receive—in royalties. As noted earlier, a FOIA request in the US revealed that Fauci was told by Francis Collins, then head of the NIH, to discredit the Great Barrington Declaration and disparage its authors (Wilson 2021). Roussel and Raoult (2020) found similar conflicts of interest among French doctors who took a public stand against the use of hydroxychloroquine.
Censorship undermines public trust in authorities, especially if the information hidden and later on revealed might have cost human lives, such as during pandemics, which involve diseases, treatments and vaccines (Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz 2018). In addition, censorship and manipulation of information are inconsistent with the essence of science, since scientific inquiry requires discourse and vigorous debate. Indeed, researchers have warned that instead of being debated, COVID controversies are being used to fuel polarization, often leading to the demonization and censorship of alternative perspectives and the imposition of mainstream views as if they were absolute truth (Cáceres 2022; Marcon and Caulfield 2021).
Cáceres (2022) has argued that the fact that the debate was silenced and alternative positions were censored is in fact a diversion from “normal science” (Kuhn 1962), which assumes that different explanations and answers to facts of scientific interest normally emerge, and have the opportunity to be resolved in conventional scientific debate. Such diversion from “normal” scientific praxis, Cáceres maintains, suggests that “non-scientific” influences are at work. This diversion is especially concerning when the voices silenced are those of a mounting number of leading and renowned scientists and doctors. The drive to censor and dismiss dissenting opinions by labeling them as “misinformation” shares close similarities with scientific “boundary work,” wherein scientific power and authority is maintained by demarcating certain fields of scientific inquiry as out of bounds and discrediting them as essentially unscientific (Gieryn 1999; also see Harambam 2014). Creating a false consensus by censoring information and preventing scientific debates might lead scientists, and thus also policymakers, to sink into the ruling paradigm, causing them to ignore other, more effective options to cope with the crisis or perhaps even prevent it. Such a “consensus” leads to a narrow worldview, which impairs the public’s ability to make informed decisions and erodes public trust in medical science and in public health (Cernic 2018; Delborne 2016; Martin 2014, 2015; Vernon 2017).
The main limitation of the study is that the findings are based on the subjective perspectives of interviewees. It is possible that if we included more heterogeneous groups, we would come to somewhat different interpretations. Therefore, we recommend conducting further studies among larger groups of professionals who suffered censorship, to expand our knowledge and perhaps suggest effective ways to mediate the struggle over freedom of information in general and especially in times of crisis.
One main contribution of this study is in giving voice to scientists and doctors who raise questions, doubts or criticism in controversial areas in public health and science, especially during times of crisis. At the same time, we seek to raise awareness of the increasing use of censorship practices and aggressive tactics of suppression, targeting even leading figures who dare to criticize or doubt the dictated “consensus.” Censorship and silencing practices can have far-reaching consequences, manifested in the violation of freedom of speech and of ethical principles, harming science, and potentially risking public health and safety (Elisha et al. 2022). Researchers have already warned that the COVID-19 crisis confirms previous concerns about the deleterious implications of censorship (Cáceres 2022; Mucchielli 2020). We concur with Cáceres’ assertion that censorship and dogma are foreign to true science and must be abandoned and replaced by open and fair discussion.
Ambati, Balamurali K., Akhil Varshney, Kenneth Lundstrom, Giorgio Palú, Bruce D. Uhal, Vladimir N. Uversky, and Adam M. Brufsky. 2022. MSH3 homology and potential recombination link to SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site. Frontiers in Virology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fviro.2022.834808/full. Article
Aspers, Patrik. 2004. Empirical phenomenology: An approach for qualitative research. London School of Economics and Political Science, Papers in Social Research Methods, Qualitative Series no 9.
Bavli, Itai, Brent Sutton, and Sandro Galea. 2020. Harms of public health interventions against covid-19 must not be ignored. British Medical Journal 371: m4074. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4074. Article
Brown, Ronald B. 2020. Public health lessons learned from biases in Coronavirus mortality overestimation. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 14(3):364-371. Article
Cadegiani, Flávio A. 2022. Active actions against competitive anti-COVID drugs? The case of the anti-androgens demonstrated through a highly biased randomized clinical trial with virtually undisputed directed objectives, followed by compromised editorial integrity providing overprotection for the authors of the trial to avoid exposure of its critical issues. ResearchGate, 22 June. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13732.76160.
Cernic, Mateja. 2018. Ideological constructs of vaccination. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Vega Press.
Cialdini, Robert. 2016. Pre-suasion: A revolutionary way to influence and persuade. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Clarke, Lee. 2002. Panic: Myth or reality? Contexts 1(3):21–26. Article
Creswell, John W. 2012. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Delborne, Jason A. 2016. Suppression and dissent in science. In Handbook of Academic Integrity, ed. Tracey A. Bretag, 943–956. Singapore: Springer. Chapter
DeLong, Gale. 2012. Conflicts of interest in vaccine safety research. Accountability in Research 19(2):65–88. Article
De Vocht, Melanie, An-Sofie, Claeys, Verolien, Cauberghe, Mieke, Uyttendaele, and Benedikt, Sas. 2014. Won’t we scare them? The impact of communicating uncontrollable risks on the public’s perception. Journal of Risk Research 19(3):316–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.971336. Article
Dodsworth, Laura. 2021. A state of fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic. London: Pinter & Martin.
Elisha, Ety, Josh Guetzkow, Yaffa Shir-Raz, and Natti Ronel. 2021. Retraction of scientific papers: The case of vaccine research. Critical Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2021.1878109. Article
Elisha, Ety, Josh Guetzkow, Yaffa Shir-Raz, and Natti Ronel. 2022. Suppressing scientific discourse on vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners. HEC Forum. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-022-09479-7. Article
Fraiman, Joseph, Juan Erviti, Mark Jones, Sander Greenland, Patrick Whelan, Robert M. Kaplan, and Peter Doshi. 2022. Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA vaccination in randomized trials. Vaccine 40(40):5798–5805.
Frewer, Lynn, Steve Hunt, Mary Brennan, Sharron Kuznesof, Mitchell Ness, and Chris Ritson. 2003. The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research 6(1):75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987032000047815. Article
Gatto, Mariele, Nancy Agmon-Levin, Alessandra Soriano, Raffaele Manna, Ramit Maoz-Segal, Shaye Kivity, Andrea Doria, and Yehuda Shoenfeld. 2013. Human papillomavirus vaccine and systemic lupus erythematosus. Clinical Rheumatology 32(9):1301–1307. Article
Gesser-Edelsburg, Anat, and Yaffa Shir-Raz. 2016. Risk communication and infectious diseases in an age of digital media. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Book
Gesser-Edelsburg, Anat, and Yaffa Shir-Raz. 2018. Communicating risk for issues that involve “uncertainty bias”: What can the Israeli case of water fluoridation teach us? Journal of Risk Research 21(4):395–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1215343. Article
Gieryn, Thomas F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Griffin, Hannah. 2012. Keep it clean? How negative campaigns affect voter turnout. Res Publica—Journal of Undergraduate Research 17:6.
Harambam, Jaron. 2014. Contesting epistemic authority: Conspiracy theories on the boundaries of science. Public Understanding of Science 24(4):466–480.
Harambam, Jaron. 2020. The corona truth wars: Where have all the STS’ers gone when we need them most? Science and Technology Studies 33(4):60–67.
Harrison, Neil L. and Jeffrey D. Sachs. 2022. A call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(22): e2202769119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202769119.
Ioannidis, John P. A. 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019: The harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence-based measures. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 50(4):e13222. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13222. ArticleGoogle Scholar
Jansen, Sue Curry, and Brian Martin. 2003. Making censorship backfire. Counterpoise 7(3):5–15.
Jansen, Sue Curry, and Brian Martin. 2004. Exposing and opposing censorship: Backfire dynamics in freedom-of-speech struggles. Pacific Journalism Review 10(1):29–45. Article
Jansen, Sue Curry, and Brian Martin. 2015. The Streisand effect and censorship backfire. International Journal of Communication 9:656–671.
King, Eshani M. 2020. Covid-19: Science, conflicts and the elephant in the room. BMJ 371:m4425.
Kuehn, Robert R. 2004. Suppression of environmental science. American Journal of Law & Medicine 30:333–369. Article
Kulldorff, Martin, Sunetra Gupta, and Jay Bhattacharya. 2020. Great Barrington Declaration.https://gbdeclaration.org.
Lau, Richard R., and Ivy Brown Rovner. 2009. Negative campaigning. Annual Review of Political Science 12:285–306. Article
Lenzer, Jeanne. 2020. Covid-19: Group of UK and US experts argues for “focused protection” instead of lockdowns. BMJ 371:m3908. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3908.Article
Liester, Mitchell B. 2022. The suppression of dissent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 11(4):53–76.
Lofstedt, Ragnar E. 2006. How can we make food risk communication better: Where are we and where are we going? Journal of Risk Research 9(8):869–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870601065585. Article
Marcon, Alessandro R., and Timothy Caulfield. 2021. The hydroxychloroquine Twitter war: A case study examining polarization in science communication. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i10.11707. Article
Martin, Brian. 1981. The scientific straightjacket: The power structure of science and the suppression of environmental scholarship. The Ecologist 11(1):33–43.
Martin, Brian. 1991. Scientific knowledge in controversy: The social dynamics of the fluoridation debate. New York: State University of New York Press.
Martin, Brian. 1999. Suppression of dissent in science. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 7:105–135.
Martin, Brian. 2014. Censorship and free speech in scientific controversies. Science and Public Policy 42(3):377–386. Article
Martin, Brian. 2015. On the suppression of vaccination dissent. Science and Engineering Ethics 21(1):143–157. Article
Martin, Brian. 2021. Covid information struggles. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 10(7):16–26.
Mucchielli, Laurent. 2020. Behind the French controversy over the medical treatment of Covid-19: The role of the drug industry. Journal of Sociology 56(4):736–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783320936740. Article
Sandman, Peter. 2003. Four kinds of risk communication. The Synergist—Journal of the American Industrial Hygiene Association April: 26–27. https://www.psandman.com/col/4kind-1.htm.
Slovic, Paul. 1994. Beyond numbers: A broader perspective on risk perception and risk communication. In Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management, eds. Deborah G. Mayo and Rachelle D. Hollander, 54–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stolow, Jeni A., Lina M. Moses, Alyssa M. Lederer, and Rebecca Carter. 2020. How fear appeal approaches in COVID-19 health communication may be harming the global community. Health Education & Behavior 47(4):531–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120935073.Article
Thacker, Paul D. 2021. Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial. BMJ 375:n2635. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2635. Article
van Helden, Jacques, Colin D. Butler, Gulliaume Achaz, Bruno Canard, Didier Casane, Jean-Michel. Claverie, et al. 2021. An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The Lancet 398:P1402–P1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02019-5. Article
Verkerk, Robert, Christof Plothe, Naseeba Kathrada, and Katarina Lindley. 2022. Self-reported outcomes, choices and discrimination among a global COVID-19 unvaccinated cohort. Authorea. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.165556998.84120061/v1. Article
Vernon, Leonard F. 2017. How silencing of dissent in science impacts women: The Gardasil story. Advances in Sexual Medicine 7:179–204. https://doi.org/10.4236/asm.2017.74015. Article
“A wise man makes his own decisions, but an ignorant man mindlessly follows the crowd.”
~ Chinese Proverb
We live in a world of lies, deceit, propaganda, staged narratives, and because this deceit has been widely accepted by the crowd, mass ignorance has been the result. This universal ignorance cannot be blamed solely on government, indoctrination centers called ‘public’ schools, politicians, or the media, except that these entities do advance every form of lie possible in order to fool the people into accepting storied fables leading them toward slavery. And as should be obvious at this stage of the game, the people have been thoroughly fooled, and have swallowed hook, line, and sinker, every bald-faced lie imaginable. The result sought and gained by the state, can be evidenced by the total submission and gross obedience to this heinous and politicized ruling class of psychopathic monsters.
This disease called ignorance, now consumes the minds of most all of this population, and is eating away entirely the ability to consider fact, to realize truth, to practice logic, to reason, and to muster any ability whatsoever to think critically as an individual. This state of being has been the common thread of this and other populations for a long time, but the complete lie of a fake disease called ‘covid,’ has exposed that mass ignorance is not only alive and well, but has infected almost to a man, this entire society and the world. There is no proven disease called ‘covid,’ there is no real scientific proof of ‘covid’ or any ‘virus’ whatsoever, but regardless of this truth, the whole world has fallen to its knees in a display of mass and pathetic gullibility so outrageous as to be insulting to any thinking individual.
This all comes down to the very unscientific false belief in germ theory, and the complete negation of terrain theory; a mistake of epoch proportion. There is no reason for one versus the other, but only the honest assessment of reality that is the human body. Even Louis Pasteur, the so-called father of germ theory idiocy, is said to have admitted on his death bed that the “pathogen is nothing, the terrain is everything.” But to this day, real medicine is ignored in favor of very harmful prescription drugs sold by huge pharmaceutical companies, and surgery, as the only ‘legitimate’ treatment for any illness. Not prevention or cure mind you, but constant and forever treatment and death; treatment that brings hundreds of billions of dollars each year to what is now mistakenly called modern medicine and ‘health care’ administered by state whores.
Considering just the past three years, the fundamental issue should focus on whether or not this so-called ‘covid’ virus even exists, and once it is established that no valid scientific procedures have been accomplished to prove without a doubt that this virus actually exists, then it is imperative to discuss the claim that any virus exists, as none have ever been properly isolated or identified. It is also important to scrutinize all those who profit at extreme levels due to the lie of ‘covid.’ Some of those would include the entirety of the medical field, the pharmaceutical companies, the politicians and all the ruling class who desire control, the large corporations who gain more monopoly due to the purposeful destruction of the lower and middle class economic capabilities, and the owners of everything by the big banks and investment houses that gain trillions due to the massive money printing based on this ‘covid’ lie.
There are still many who claim both sides of this argument, and that has helped greatly the expansion of the lies, because what might be people who would normally question the state narrative, have become supporters of that same narrative. This is very confusing to those people who have placed their trust in these hypocrites who are either acting as controlled opposition purposely, or actually are ignorant of the obvious truth. These people are certainly contradicting themselves, whether they are doing so intentionally or not. Many of those taking what is considered a ‘libertarian’ approach, are simply agreeing to both sides of the argument by claiming that ‘SARS-CoV-2 (‘covid-19’) is real and is a virus, and a massive threat to humanity. They are agreeing with the state’s false narrative, and at the same time, claiming to be against the bio-weapon ‘vaccine’ injection. You know who these people are, but do you doubt their pretended sincerity? I think, at least in most cases, you do not. This is just a recipe for more confusion, and confusion leads right back to ignorance.
The so-called ‘science’ that advocates perpetual treatment, perpetual ‘vaccines,’ and perpetual wealth building for its drug pushers, is the quackery labeled virology. Of course, as one might expect, this is the ‘science’ of viruses, but since no virus in history has ever once been separated, fully isolated, or identified, how can such a ‘science’ exist? If there are no viruses, how can there be virology? One might also ask; if there is no direct threat, how can there be legitimate medical war against the people? In both cases, there is no legitimacy in virology or a ‘health war,’ but there is a valid and justifiable argument that virology is also a war against us; a war on humanity, because it is used to simply enrich the perpetrators of this fraud, to poison the masses, and to gain power and control over all.
The ‘covid’ and ‘vaccine’ frauds have been largely exposed, although the mainstream, and those in the alternative media as well, who continue to push the lie that ‘covid’ is real, was produced in a lab, and accidentally or purposely released on the world, are losing ground. Their next obvious move was to create the lie of variants; variants that came from a non-existent virus, and would be the next killer. This required even more poisonous injections, and ‘vaccine’ boosters. But these threats never panned out of course, so other threats were invented, such as the staged war in Ukraine, the lie of manmade ‘climate change,’ and then the threat of nuclear annihilation. Now, the tide has turned back to yet another falsely claimed dangerous ‘viral disease’ called respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV; a so-called sickness that is similar to a mild cold, but according to the drug-dealing medical establishment, it requires yet another killer ‘vaccine.’ The first toxic ‘vaccine’ used to ‘combat’ this same claimed affliction, was actually used and sickened and killed children in the 1960s who were said to have the very same RSV ‘sickness.’ You just can’t make up this degree of lunacy.
There is a massive amount of evidence available to discount virology and to completely expose the ridiculous notion of germ theory, but changing the minds of the entire population after many generations of lies and brainwashing, is a difficult task to accomplish. It requires individual thinking and scrutiny of the atrocious state ‘medical’ policy that has consumed the public. One only has to understand who gains from the fraud, and which corporations and individuals control the medical field, in order to awaken to the fact that powerful criminal elements are involved.
As the never-ending idiocy of virology continues to rule the day, the Pfizer chief crows and brags to investors that the ‘covid’ fraud will continue to be a multi-billion dollar franchise for many years to come; and expects massive profits to continue. This is the thought process of those who profit from the false flag ‘virus’ fearmongering who desire to destroy humanity for money, power, and control; this as they increase the price of this poisonous bio-weapon injection by astronomical amounts, all the while knowing of the deadly harm caused by this toxic killer.
Open your minds, do your own research, understand the horror of the U.S. medical establishment and its pharmaceutical masters, and take proper care of your health instead of allowing the criminal system to harm you. Turn away from Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and all the other drug-dealing pharmaceutical companies, take responsibility for yourselves and your own health instead of relying on the evil state narratives that are only lies. Do not accept ignorance as the fall-back position; and instead inform yourselves about the terror of the state. The worthless election is over, nothing will change, except things will likely worsen, so abandon and negate this wicked state instead of hiding from the truth.
“The ignorance of the oppressed is strength for the oppressor.”
I recently read an excellent book called The Most Dangerous Superstition, by Larken Rose, in which he argues that the government – any government – is completely illegitimate, immoral and no different to a cult. In other words, the government’s existence should be rejected for the fake superstitious authority that it is.
“The root cause of most of society’s ills – the main source of man’s inhumanity to man – is neither malice nor negligence, but a mere superstition – an unquestioned assumption which has been accepted on faith by nearly everyone, of all ages, races, religions, education and income levels. If people were to recognize that one belief for what it is – an utterly irrational, self-contradictory, and horribly destructive myth – most of the violence, oppression and injustice in the world would cease.”
~ Larken Rose
Etienne de la Boetie (which is not his real name) is the author of a similar book called Government – The Biggest Scam in History, in which he makes an overlapping argument with some excellent additions.
[The book] “exposes the hidden control system and pseudo-religion of Statism used by an inter-generational organized crime system centered around banking and central banking to rob and control the population.”
Although one can technically debate subtle differences between “the state” and “the government”, I am keeping things simple by using the terms interchangeably (since that is how most people understand the terms anyway).
What is anarchism?
For clarity, anarchism is a collection of ideas that lead to anarchy, although it’s probably acceptable to use both words to describe the same idea.
Rejection of the state equates to anarchism. But the problem that I have found is that anarchism is misunderstood, whether by design or not. Anarchism (or anarchy) does not mean chaos. Anarchism, in the words of Benjamin Tucker, could be described as
“the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the state should be abolished.”
He goes on to say that
“the state is the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area.”
Basically, the government is the subjection of the noninvasive individual to an external will. Anarchy is a synonym for liberty, freedom, independence, self-government, non-interference and you-don’t-speak-for-me.
Our conversation
Etienne joined me for a conversation about all of the above and explained how society would benefit from abolishing the state and why the free market can do anything and everything the government does, but better.
The Chief Climate Loonies (all 20,000 of them if COP26 is anything to go by) are meeting in a lovely holiday resort town in Egypt for COP27. My guess is that around 19,900 of them will have got there by aeroplane. I wonder how much electricity they will use for their laptops, iPads and magic telephones. (They never meet in Wolverhampton or Milton Keynes, do they? Maybe next time.)
It is the global warming hoax which is going to destroy us. It’s the mad green, fake environmentalists, sanctimonious and self-important, who are going to kill us by forcing us to cold turkey off fossil fuels and live in a cold, cruel world where the poorest will starve or freeze to death and where the chosen few, the self-appointed elite, will ignore reality, worship electricity (made from the diminishing fossil fuels) and create a pseudoscientific crisis out of thin air in order to oppress, suppress and banish humanity, decency, dignity and respect from our lives.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that a global warming of 2.5 degrees centigrade to 4.0 degrees centigrade would reduce global GDP by 2% to 5% by the year 2100 but that the global economy will, by 2100, be between 300% and 500% larger than it is at the moment. This destroys the argument that climate change will have a noticeable impact on the global economy.
The International Energy Agency has stated that by the year 2040 our planet will still obtain only around 5% of its energy needs from renewable sources (including burning trees or `biomass’). If the mad greens have their way and stop us using fossil fuels there is just one certainty: billions will die of cold and starvation.
Of course, the majority of the preening, self-satisfied, ignorant global warming cultists actually believe that the world is coming to an end. These middle class cultists are too stupid to realise that they are working for conspirators determined to take away our freedom and our humanity and to control us with social credit and digital money. The latest dire nonsense is that everything in central London will be under water before we’ve had time to pick up our wellington boots, head for the nearest mountain and pitch camp where we can choose between freezing to death and starving to death. The mad cultists have been told that the planet won’t survive and that billions will die as the waters rise inexorably towards the heavens. There is, of course, no evidence for any of this. They started off by calling the plot `global warming’ but had to change the name of the scam when it became clear that the planet seemed to be getting cooler more often than it got warmer and they realised that calling it climate change would give them more scope to include more varieties of natural disaster in their propaganda. And the whole scam was created decades ago to prepare for the Great Reset.
A group of British psychologists have reported that children are suffering from anxiety caused by the frightening predictions made by those predicting that climate change will affect our future. All this stress has to be added to the massive anxiety caused by the covid-19 fraud.
Global warming nutters have forecast that ‘life on earth is dying, billions will die and the collapse of civilisation has already begun’. They have also compared global warming to the Holocaust but ‘on a far greater scale’. There is not one shred of evidence for any of this. Look at the facts: In the 1920s, half a million people were killed by weather disasters. In the last decade the total was 18,000. In 1900, nearly 5% of the world’s land area caught fire. Now the figure is close to 3%. The Great Barrier Reef and polar bears are booming.
The IPPC’s estimate is that sea levels could rise by two feet by the year 2100. How much of a crisis do you think this is, given that one third of the Netherlands has always been below sea level –some of it over 60 feet below sea level?
The nutters believe this nonsense because they’ve been repeatedly told that it’s true. The BBC says it’s true and doesn’t allow debate. The police allow the cultists to close down London because they’ve been told to let them do what they want to help destroy what’s left of the economy. Incidentally, I see that they erected a huge pink table in London. I wonder what it’s made of – and how much energy was consumed in its manufacture. Were any power tools used? Just curious.
The global warming loonies don’t seem to be aware that we’ve always had weather and there have always been loonies warning that the end of the world is nigh. In 1817, the President of the Royal Society in London warned that there had been a considerable change of climate that would lead to massive changes. In 1947, a Swedish geophysicist warned that the climate was warming up. In the 1970s, the BBC, that perennial source of misinformation, warned of an oncoming ice age – as big a threat to life as a nuclear war. In 2007 we were warned that we had five years to save the planet. In 2011, the International Energy Agency said we had five years left. In 2017, the United Nations said we had three years left. In2013, a Cambridge professor said all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2015. In 2009, Gordon Brown, then UK PM, took time off from buggering up the economy to tell us we had 50 days left. Back in 2004, the Observer newspaper told us that we’d be living in a Siberian climate by 2020. Eleven years ago, Prince Charles said we had eight years left to save the planet.
If there have been any strange weather phenomena in recent years they have been man-made – but deliberately not accidentally. I don’t believe that any rational scientist who has looked at the evidence believes in the myth of global warming.
Every time it rains the cultists blame global warming But the wettest day in Britain this summer was less than a third as wet as the wettest day in 1929 and just a quarter as wet as Dorset in 1955.
We’re told that hurricanes are more common now. But that’s a lie. They try to push up the figures by counting breezes as storms but the evidence is clear: there are no more hurricanes today than there used to be. The media just make more of a fuss because it helps the agenda. There are no more forest fires either. Climate change campaigners claim that forest fires are a result of global warming. But experts in both Australia and America have concluded that climate change has had little or no impact on the development of forest fires – which are, in any case, less frequent than they used to be. The average annual acreage of American forest burned is now around 6.6 million. Back in 1928, the average annual acreage of American forest lost to fires was 41.7 million. I am pretty confident that 41.7 is a bigger figure than 6.6.
Between 1931 (the peak) and 2020 there has been a 99.7% decline in the death toll from natural disasters around the globe.
The cultists who worship at the feet of the doomsters don’t realise that without coal you can’t make steel and that without steel you cannot make windmills or solar panels.
They believe we need more trees to keep us healthy but when they’re not chopping them down and turning them into pellets to create electricity they’re chopping them down because they interfere with the new 5G equipment that will help control our new digital future. Much of the so-called clean electricity being sold in the UK these days is created by burning wood. And the wood comes from America where trees are chopped down before being turned into wood pellets known as biomass and then carried across the Atlantic in large diesel powered vessels.
They are turning food into biofuel and condemning millions to death by starvation so that we can reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. The new petrol and biofuel mix won’t work in older cars so the poor will have to walk everywhere. The cultists have claimed that climate change will result in koala bears (among other animals) becoming extinct. There are currently 300,000 koala bears living in the wild and the main threat to their existence is the destruction of their habitat – as a result of farmers requiring more land upon which to grow biofuels.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation say that crop yields will rise by 30% by the year 2050. The planet’s poorest countries will see their yields rise by 80-90%. But the increase in yields will depend on the use of tractors and heavy machinery which will, of course, require oil. (Rural areas of poor countries will not be able to afford electricity and charging points until they are richer.) Global warming cultists will force poor countries to stay poor – and will be responsible for millions of early deaths.
And the nutters are now claiming to be able to produce `green steel’.
As I have previously pointed out, it is traditionally impossible to make steel without coal.
But according to the Bill Gates linked newspaper The Guardian, the newspaper for the empty headed and the addle-brained, there are plans afoot to manufacture steel without using coal.
So how can this be done?
Apparently the new green steel will be made using hydrogen as a fuel instead of coal.
And where does the hydrogen come from?
Well, since pure hydrogen is hard to come by 95% of is made with fossil fuels.
So, that’s how they’re going to make green coal without burning fossil fuels.
They’re going to make hydrogen by burning fossil fuels and then use the hydrogen to make the steel. Expert engineer Gordon Murray points out other problems with using hydrogen. It takes huge amounts of energy to produce and it is dangerous to store. Murray says that making a litre of hydrogen uses more oil than it takes to make a litre of petrol.
You have to laugh, don’t you?
And the UK Government wants us all to replace gas boilers with hydrogen boilers – knowing darned well, incidentally, that hydrogen boilers are less efficient.
The obsessive loonies who sort out all the rubbish in semi-religious earnestness don’t understand that all the evidence shows that recycling costs money and energy and time and has been proved to do far more harm than good. That’s why so much of the carefully sorted recycling is taken abroad to be dumped. The problem now is that few countries will accept Britain’s unwanted recycling because it just isn’t cost effective. The recycling scam was just to create obedience, compliance – and to prepare the dim-witted for mask wearing and experimental jabs.
The cultists don’t seem to care that a move away from fossil fuels will make no difference to the planet but will result in billions of deaths and a massive rise in taxes that will further impoverish the already impoverished.
The crazy, deluded greens and fake environmentalists want to stop us using fossil fuels and kill off the industries involved within a couple of years. Politicians, using the earnestness of the loonies as an excuse for their insane policies, and ignoring both the facts and public feeling, are introducing absurd new laws which will destroy everything any of us values. In Scotland the Greens and the SNP have joined together to create an unholy alliance of mad cultists.
The enthusiastic supporters of electric cars and wind turbines don’t realise that we’ll need massive new mines to dig out huge quantities of cobalt, lithium, nickel and other essentials. Try digging mines without fossil fuels. Electric vehicles have a higher carbon footprint than cars with combustion engines and to add to that the electricity they use is often created by burning fossil fuels. And those foolish souls who buy electric cars will soon find themselves struggling to find somewhere to drive them as roads everywhere are divided up to provide thousands of miles of ill-designed cycle lanes.
The carefully, deliberately and cruelly created myth of global warming has now become an integral part of the global economy.
A professional investment manager publicly announced the other day that ‘the world is undergoing rapid change amid the degradation of the natural environment and the looming breakdown of the global climate system’.
There is not one shred of evidence for any of this. And in the absence of evidence, the cultists at the top are deliberately creating changes to our climate using geoengineering – they have been manipulating the weather for a long time but it has accelerated in recent years. Also, they intend to send tons of calcium carbonate into the stratosphere to block the sun in the guise of combatting global warming. When in reality, this will only shorten the growing seasons causing mass starvation – there’s a surprise!
Company directors are so terrified of being criticised by the cultists and lunatics who promote the global warming myth that they have pretty well all rolled over and agreed to do whatever the noisy minority tells them to do. (The same virtue signalling cowards still pay themselves obscene bonuses, expenses and pensions.)
Some company bosses are taking their companies off the stock markets, taking them into private hands so that they can avoid the nutty shareholders and the regulators.
The UK Pensions Regulator has warned the managers of pension schemes that they will be in trouble if they do not make mandatory climate risk disclosures. They will have to report their investments in companies which don’t make satisfactory changes to fit in with the imaginary global warming fears. I suspect that pensions will fall dramatically as a result.
In America, the Federal Reserve the financial regulator and the Treasury are all looking into incorporating global warming policies into financial regulation. The same thing is happening in the European Union and in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the UK appears to be leading the world in introducing oppressive and dangerous new regulations.
The truth, of course, is that there is no scientific evidence to support the theory that global warming (or any variation) will pose a threat to our way of life in any way. There is certainly no evidence to suggest, let alone prove, that global warming will have any influence on financial institutions or the corporate world.
What is happening, of course, is that financial regulations are being used to force through aggressive global warming policies that are neither necessary nor popular but which are part of the Agenda 21 global reset and which are designed to lead us painfully into the world of the New Normal.
Moreover, activists everywhere are taking control of previously independent companies. In May 2021, a Dutch court ruled that Shell, the oil company, must cut its carbon emissions of 45% by 2030 compared with its 2019 levels.
An activist group with just 0.02% of the shares in Exxon, another oil company, somehow managed to win two seats on the company’s 12 person board.
Not to be outdone, the British Government has pledged that the UK will cut its emissions of greenhouse gases by 78% by 2035, compared to the levels in 1990. No one appears to have told the Government that the population has risen by many millions during that period and will doubtless continue to rise. The UK in the year 2035 is going to be a dark, cold, miserable place. The UK’s target is the most ambitious in the world and will cost taxpayers a collective £3 trillion. There will be higher taxes and higher costs for everything. Replacing existing heating and cooking systems with electricity (which both politicians and campaigners appear to think grows on trees) will cost households huge sums.
From the year 2025 it will be illegal to fit a home with a gas boiler. And existing boilers and systems will be illegal from the mid 2030s. (These dates could well be brought forward.) Homeowners will each have to spend tens of thousands of pounds on compulsory heat pumps, insulation and so on. If homes aren’t altered sufficiently then home owners will not be allowed to sell them after the year 2028. They won’t be able to rent them out either. The result, of course, will be that house prices will fall (because of the cost of the legally required improvements) and rental prices will soar. The poor will suffer again.
The United Nations was ecstatic with delight when it reported that its climate change goals for 2020 were almost achieved with the global covid-19 lockdowns.
There will have to be almost constant lockdowns to keep the global warming nutters happy.
Rich people in charge of rich governments are promising to end fossil fuel use by 2050. I wonder if they know how much pain will be involved. The poor will have to pay for this through carbon tariffs. The developing countries will be punished before they’ve even started to enjoy the delights of fossil fuels. It is an under-estimate to say that hundreds of millions will die of starvation and cold.
The sanctimonious, virtue signalling global warming nutters are so ill-informed that they’re unintentionally supporting plans for global genocide. If they knew anything and really cared about the environment they would campaign against pointless face masks – instead of wearing them. Billions of discarded face masks are now a major threat to all forms of wildlife.
Now that they have cornered the majority with the covid-19 hoax we have to redefine our beliefs, our perceptions and revaluate our enemies. For example, you should know that anyone who talks about sustainable development is a bad person. The philosophy known as sustainable development is a direct route to the end of democracy and humanity. It is never benign. The incompetent mathematical modellers and the social media snipers are spreading dread and suppressing truths with the same, practised skill that they employed when firing up the covid fear and demonising the truth-tellers.
And so the mad fools who terrified the world with a fake covid pandemic are now going to segue neatly, as I predicted, into scaring the world with the fake global warming pandemic which they devised back in the last century and which was designed to control and to kill and not to save or preserve. The Chinese style social credit system I have warned about is already here. Global warming will be used to tighten up the rules and oppress us still further. The loony pseudo-environmentalists are not benign or well-meaning. They are either ill-informed or stupid or malignant or all three. And they are our enemies.
I’m afraid that the covid-19 fraud was just the beginning.
The truth is that the idea of global warming has about as much solid fact behind it as the existence of the dear old tooth fairy. Actually, rather less, because when I was little I would leave a tooth under my pillow and wake to find it replaced with a sixpenny piece. We had sixpences in those days.
So there is more practical evidence to support the existence of the tooth fairy than there is to support the existence of global warming, global cooling or climate change or whatever the lunatics have decided to call it this week.
“I have never voted in my life… I have always known and understood that the idiots are in a majority so it’s certain they will win.”
~ Louis-Ferdinand Céline
Voting for masters to rule over you is the epitome of consensual enslavement. It is nothing more than a state coup pretending to allow you to choose which possessed and predetermined contestants will become the next enforcers of the totalitarian agenda of power and control over the people who voluntarily accept each and every surrogate master as legitimate. This is especially true of presidential elections, and those of the higher positions in government, but all elections of politicians fits this description. Nothing could be more asinine, more ignorant, or more pathetic, than such a display as this, and yet this deceitful trickery is not only fully sanctioned by the masses, but is held sacred, and considered a glorified right. How could such a state of unintelligent and unconscious lunacy capture the minds of so many for so long? Has voting improved this country, made it more free, stopped tyranny and war, or saved it from brutal rule? Of course not! Just the opposite has occurred.
The very idea of any ‘choosing’ of a ruler, one to control not only your life, but the life of others, runs completely contrary to any aspect of freedom or right. The entire process is antagonistic to liberty and free choice, and is the embodiment of voluntary servitude. I do realize that such a pronouncement as this is blasphemy to most of society; that in and of itself, this truth is disturbing beyond imagination to the herd, because to be blind to the reality of voluntary, universal, and collective slavery, is to be blind to the essence of life itself.
In the U.S., the midterm elections are upon us, and the mainstream, and even much, if not most, of the alternative and ‘libertarian’ coverage, will be all-consuming, and therefore an acknowledgment, acceptance, and justification of this horrendous process. Win or lose matters not, (we all lose) as the game must be played in order to forever fool the fools. Whether intended or not, this reporting on the importance of who won and who lost, who gained power and who did not, who will become the ruling majority and minority, simply will be used to legitimize the rule of government over all, regardless of the inherent tyranny that continues to embrace entirely this society. It grows and grows, and is everlasting; a tragedy to be sure.
If the Republicans win, the Democrats will claim that the Republicans will destroy the country, and if the Democrats win, the Republicans will claim that the Democrats will do the same, and both will be correct, because neither can function in any ruling capacity without destroying the country and its people. In fact, they work completely together as one, and the outcome is always that the people give up all, while the ruling class only takes. That is the nature of government, and it is also the nature of rulers and politicians involved in that government. There will be absolutely no difference in outcome regardless of the results of this ‘election,’ and regardless of who claims or gains power. If our long history of war and tyranny, loss of freedom, consuming surveillance of the citizenry, destruction of the economy, censorship, mandates, and total regulation and restriction of everything we do, cannot expose this clearly enough, the only conclusion to reach is that mass ignorance is at such a high level, that no hope of understanding our problems will ever be known or accepted by this dumbed-down society.
The first election held in the Americas was probably in 1607 in Jamestown, Virginia. That election happened almost immediately after what is referred to as “landing in the New World.” Interesting language to be sure, as we are still in the throes of the dastardly plot to build a ‘New World Order’ by those in the ruling class. The election to choose a president of Great Britain’s first permanent settlement in the Americas was held, and “although the nominees were ‘predetermined’ and only a select, privileged few—just 6% of the colonists—were allowed to vote, the stage had been set for the birth of democracy in what would become America. For the first time, leaders were chosen by those they would govern—or at least by some of them.”
Not much has changed since the birth of tyranny in this country, as even the first vote was a political scam, and should have been recognized as such at the time. I am aware that more are allowed to vote today than in that first selection of predetermined ‘nominees,’ but in reality, the structure today is as corrupt, criminal, and predetermined, if not more so, than it was in the beginning. It is just more hidden. Voting is and has always been, a way of deceit; claiming that one vote for each of the multitude of citizens, determines a say in the running of the country for each individual. How ridiculous, but it is even more absurd than is realized. Voting is not only meant to fool the people into believing they have a say when they do not, it is a way of guaranteeing the loyalty of the majority of commoners to the state, as they are tricked into believing that they can petition those who they elect to do their bidding. This usually results in extortion; state stealing by force the assets of some to benefit others, restrictive legislation, protectionist practices, monopoly, and mandates, and this was planned all along. This causes extreme division, and simply gives ammunition to the governing tyrants, so that they can more easily control the herd. It is just a heinous ruse and nothing more.
At this juncture, it is necessary to point out to those staunch constitutionalists, and believers in government, that there is little if any difference in a democracy, a republic, or a socialist, fascist, or communist state; as all are bent on achieving the exact same outcome. All of these claimed political structures, are based on a governing system ruling over the people. Any differences are only at the margin, as every political system of rule is meant only to lead to more and more power and control, which can then only conclude with a system of totalitarian domination. Voting propaganda has been used to fool the people into believing that they control the outcome, when they have never been in any position of complete control over their own lives when any governing system was present. When government exists, real freedom does not, and the concept of government is that of governing, not serving. This is not hidden from any who have the intellect to search for honest answers. The very meaning of the word govern, as the Latin root of our language undoubtedly reveals, is rule or control, and that is all that government, any government, desires.
It is thought by the majority, this due to brainwashing and indoctrination since birth, that voting is a sacred right. This is nonsense, and a very incorrect and imbecilic way of thinking. Because of this hypnotic state of confusion that consumes most in this country, and the completely irrational behavior and voting propaganda commonly accepted, most think those who choose not to vote do not have a say in their own lives. This is of course asinine and completely backward, as those who vote to choose masters to rule over them, condone and legitimize slavery at the hands of the state, and are therefore the problem. Those who choose not to vote on the other hand, are negating the government and its system of brutal rule, and are not complicit in placing the evil criminal rulers into power. Therefore, they are the only ones who do have a right to complain, and the only ones who attempt to minimize the system of rule.
Voting has occurred in this country for 415 years, and we now live in the least free era of this country’s entire history. Why do so many continue to participate, and therefore authorize, this abhorrent rule by continuing to support this election madness by voting? Once again, I must refer to a popular quote that is obviously true, but mostly ignored, and it is this: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.”
Supporting the state in any of its efforts to claim power is an act of cowardice in the face of tyranny, and voting for your political masters is the epitome of that state support. Shun the state at every opportunity, never comply with its mandates, never show or sing praise to it or its corrupt institutions, and never allow it to own and control you. If no one voted, no one would be elected, and that is a better way forward.
“Tear down that flaunting lie,
Half-mast the starry flag,
Insult no sunny sky
With hate’s polluted rag.”
As noted about the American Flag by Admiral Raphael Semmes–CSN, Captain of the ALABAMA: “Memoirs of Service Afloat” (p.90)
The “Gain of Function” narrative is reaching all new heights. Boston University claimed they engineered a “virus” with an 80% lethality rate. But what actually killed these poor mice?
Let’s have a look at some of the “fear-porn” promoters of these stories and why they are leading people astray with pseudoscience.
[Video available at Dr. Sam Bailey Odysee channel.]
Do leading members of secret societies managing many of the levers of influence throughout history wield genuine “knowledge known only to the inner elites”… or is something else at play?
In this Canadian Patriot Review documentary produced by Jason Dahl, narrated by myself and based on the work of Cynthia Chung, you will be introduced to the ancient origins of the occult societies that penetrated the heart of America’s intelligence agencies after the murder of William McKinley in 1901.
This journey will take you into the heart of ancient occult societies that managed wars, financial and cultural policies over two millenia ago. You will learn of the underlying methodology of manipulation used to induce foolish kings and generals into self destruction during the days of the Persian Empire which continue to be used to this very day.
With this overview, you will be introduced to 1) the British roots of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry founded in 1801 by British grand strategists in South Carolina, 2) a figure named Albert Pike who led in the largest expansion of this foreign agency within the USA after Lincoln’s victory in 1865 and 3) the “seat of government” which 33rd degree FBI director J. Edgar Hoover managed in the USA during the course of eight presidencies.
This dark history is contrasted to the courageous efforts of men who devoted their lives resisting the growth of this occult agency including President Franklin Roosevelt, Senator Thomas J Walsh, Congressman Hale Boggs, Attorney General of New Orleans Jim Garrison, Martin Luther King Jr, Bobby Kennedy and his brother John F Kennedy.
This documentary was based on the essay “The Origins of America’s Secret Police” by Cynthia Chung, whose new book on the growth of 20th century fascism can be purchased here.
Watch the full movie on Rumble, Youtube, Bitchute and don’t forget to share it far and wide.
Now, I share this, because “short-circuited” people seems to be on the rise, and some sort of hypothesis would seem to be in order. One has to be blind not to see that the alleged president is just not “all there.” We saw a similar thing in the final months and years of the second Reagan Administration, when clearly that president was clearly showing signs of senility. With Bai-den I think the explanation goes much deeper then mere senility, but we’ll get back to that.
If you are in the USSA, you recently also saw the spectacle of a “governors’ race debate” between the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, Fetterman, a Democrat, and Dr. Mehmet Oz, a Republican. The debate, which I have seen a little of, was honestly painful to watch, even for me who has no use for Mr. Fetterman, his party, or his policies. Let me repeat that: I have no use for him, his party, or his policies.
Yet the debate was painful to watch. Here was a man trying to recover from a stoke, who had and has obvious difficulty forming words into clear thoughts. He began the debate – his very first words – with a cheery “Hi!” immediately followed by “Goodnight everyone!” And it was downhill – no, a power dive – from there.
Frankly, I felt, and still feel, sorry for the man. to his credit, his opponent did not – as far as I am aware – once make reference to Mr. Fetterman’s difficulty and decrepit condition. But my problem was, why would any campaign allow a man in his difficulties to take a debate stage to begin with? Why, after such a stroke, allow the candidacy itself to go forward to begin with? For that matter, why allow Mr. Bai-den anywhere near power, when he too is in obvious decline?
As I said, we’ll get back to that.
The article itself raises other interesting questions, and yes, I’ve noticed it too: more and more people seem to be having some sort of difficulty:
Lately, celebrities and politicians have been exhibiting some strange behavior, and it isn’t just their usual weirdness on display. There’s clearly something else going on.
While on stage in Las Vegas, singer Katy Perry appears to have some sort of “malfunction” with her right eye where the eye appears to close on its own forcing her to prop open her eyelid more than once with her hand, only to have it close again.
Of course, there’s nothing unusual with winking one eye, but this was different. Perry appeared to have lost physical control of her eye as if it was suddenly operating on its own outside of her control while her other eye remained open appearing normal.
Then, with a flick of a switch, the wonky eye snapped out of its trance and the performer regained her composure while leaving fans (and 17 million TikTok viewers) questioning, is this chick even human?
It wasn’t just Katy Perry in a Las Vegas performance; as the article notes, we’ve been observing it in Bai-Den too:
We’ve been watching our multiple vax boosted Commander and Chief short circuit for the past year and a half, so in many ways, seeing celebrities, politicians, and even regular people rebooting in public is simply part of our New Normal. We’re told by the transhumanists that this is simply our new and improved future, and that it’s best for everyone to boldly welcome our forthcoming dystopian Brave New World where it’s acceptable for politicians to be only part human.
At this point, the article links the now-famous video clip of Mr. Bai-den Jo apparently falling asleep, or “zoning out”, only to be brought back to “reality” by the interviewer.
There are other examples; consider these:
Recently, pro vaccine and fully vaccinated incumbent Virginia democrat Jennifer Wexton (VA-10) appears to have some sort of episode during her congressional debate. As she struggles to speak and form complete and coherent sentences she stares vacantly into some far away place. Her mannerisms appearing almost robotic. WATCH THE FULL CLIP.
Then there is news anchor Julie Chin who had what she thought was a mini stroke on live television. She, too, suddenly had difficulty speaking and forming coherent sentences, and like other instances, the entire episode occurred as if a light switch was briefly switched off and then flipped back on.
As far as the article is concerned, there is a clear hypothetical cause for the behavior:
All of these anomalies have one thing in common— they started happening after a certain rollout of a certain Emergency Use Authorized vaccine treatment designed to end the Covid-19 pandemic. It’s the same treatment that ironically, never prevented “an individual from contracting or transmission Covid-19”, and whose contents to this day still remain a mystery. However, one thing we do know about the mRNA vaccines is that they are a form of “technology” that, according to the Chief Medical Officer of Moderna from his 2017 TED talk, has the potential to hack “the software of life”.
To its credit, the article notes the “change of language” now being pushed:
So, what’s going on? To be honest, I don’t know. What I do know is:
—They want you to get these shots at minimum every year and they may even require it.
—The language has changed. You are no longer vaccinated or boosted, you are considered “up-to-date” or updated. In order to comply with the latest vaccine mandate to work or attend school, you will now need to install the latest Microsoft Windows-like mRNA in order to be in compliance and fully “up-to-date”.
—The transhumanist movement exists. It is no longer conspiracy and we have no idea how “updated” vaccines will figure into this cybernetic future although the World Economic Forum has a few ideas.
Are these mRNA technology-driven “updates” that are currently being touted as the future of medicine and being sold as a cancer cure just the elites doing their thing to help save the world? Or might there be something more sinister going on?
Well, in answer to that last question, you can mark me down in the “something more sinister is going on” column, and my reasons why bring us to today’s two-for-one high octane speculations of the day. two-for-one, because you get two completely different but only somewhat separate high octane speculations for the price of one. “Buy one, get one free,” so to speak.
The first speculation is: do you remember Dr. Charles Lieber? he was the Harvard chemistry professor and nano-technology expert that was arrested by federal authorities shortly after the whole planscamdemic broke out. He was arrested, so we were told, for allegedly not disclosing his financial links to the Wuhan Laboratory of Virology in China, whence the whole planscamdemic allegedly originated. Dr. Lieber, you’ll notice, has fallen completely off the radar since then, while the Orange Man’s Operation Warp Speed zipped along to become the fraud-riddled adverse-reaction sudden death injection-induced statistical anomaly we see today. The last I heard, Dr. Lieber had managed to contract a fast-acting, virulent and terminal cancer, somewhat like Jack Ruby.
In any case, Lieber’s specialty, according to some speculations in the alternative media at the time, was to embed nanotechnologies in – get this – “vaccines” or injections, nano-technology that was designed to break the blood-brain barrier, enter the brain, and…well, at that point, no one knew exactly what it was supposed to do, but some speculated that Baal Gates’ patents on “downloadable” vaccine “updates” had something to do with it, and still others thought that this was a way of tying the 5G roll-out to injections that would significantly increase one’s emotional and mental suggestibility.
In short, the whole thing – 5g, nano-technology in the injections, and the injections themselves – were all part of a global mind-and-health manipulation event, and one reason Big Pharma was so anxious not to have to disclose the ingredients in its so-called “vaccines” was that the ingredients, or the ingredient amounts, or both, varied deliberately from batch to batch, and the responses to the different batches could be tracked through national and regional adverse reporting sites.
The scenario was like some Mengele-esque nightmare, on steroids.
I and others entertained its possibility at the time, and I still do. Now we’re in “phase two” as “they” are attempting to roll out a kind of “Soviet Psychiatry”, painting the “non-vaxed” as emotionally unstable, anti-science, and “unhealthy.”
In short, I discount none of this.
But at a deeper level, I think we are looking at something spiritual. I’ve mentioned this possibility in some of our recent members’ vidchats, and do so here publicly. Imagine being a self-proclaimed “good catholic” all your life, of average intelligence, but consuming ambition, willing to make the little compromises on the road to power. Once acquired, you then use that power to your and your family’s financial gain, and using your family members themselves to increase your power and wealth, and turning a bling eye to their “shortcomings.” You openly support abortion on demand and a woman’s right to choose, and continue to call yourself a good Catholic, a believing Christian. You achieve the highest and loftiest position of power… just as you’ve lost your mind, and are shaking hands with people who are no longer there. “C’mon, man, it’s ok for a little boy to have surgery to change into a girl, or vice versa.”
The world of hypocrisy and illusion and word games which you have spun for yourself has become your reality, and you are no longer capable of discerning reality. You are lost in an insane, drugged-up world, a world you’ve done everything within your rotting, debauched power, to force on others.
Jim West is a legendary researcher and author, although he tends to keep a low profile. You may have seen his work, but not known where it was from. He has uncovered a massive amount of evidence to support his hypothesis that persistent pesticides caused The Great Polio Epidemic, post-WWII.
Much of his research has led to the same conclusion that viruses are being used as a cover story for the real causes of disease. Jim ties together science, psychology and spirituality and I could listen to him all day.
With no political or career conflicts of interest, he is able to critique the professional medical establishment in areas of scientific truth that most people are too afraid to go near.
Here is what he said about:
His journey of discovery and greatest influences
The virology scam
The Polio/DDT charts
The corruption of the medical establishment
The health freedom movement – virus promoters vs no virus group
History of germ theory and the need to protect industry (going back to the Bible)
Yes, it’s true: the terrorists do hate you for your freedoms, and yes, the terrorists are out to get you. But here’s the real question: Who are the terrorists? Join James for today’s important edition of The Corbett Report podcast where he explores the nexus between mass media and modern-day terrorism.
Elon Musk is back in the headlines again (not that he ever really went away). He’s going to save free speech on Twitter (honest)! He’s going to end the war on Ukraine (that he supported with Starlink)! He’s going to give Taiwan to the Chinese (and not just because of Tesla’s Shanghai factory)! Yes, Elon Musk is a WEF Young Global Leader and a self-promoting charlatan who would have amounted to absolutely nothing without unrelenting support from government and his globalist pals, and he is the next white hat saviour that is being set up to mislead the masses with their next hopium fix. But as James peels back the layers of this technocratic huckster, you’ll find that it’s even worse than that . . .
In this interview conducted in January 2021 with Patrick Timpone on One News Network, I details the historical precedents of the Orwellian paradigm threatening to undermine the nation state system and broader multipolar alliance. Special focus is given to the often overlooked matter of cultural warfare and the new techniques in predictive programming in the field of science fiction innovated by HG Wells which shaped the zeitgeist for over 120 years and continues to shape popular culture and cinema to this day.
We all know that torture is bad, but are we really aware of how much of the narrative of the past two decades was constructed on torture testimony? Do we know the CIA contractors who developed the torture program or the steps that the intelligence agencies took to cover up their illegal activities? And, when we connect the dots, are we prepared to face the parallels between the torture regime and the biosecurity regime? If you haven’t followed the twists and turns in the torture story since my 2008 podcast on the subject, buckle up. It’s going to be a wild ride.
There’s a story about a man who wakes up one day and suddenly remembers he used to be a woman. He looks down at his dick and realizes it was INSTALLED at some point.
I don’t know how the story ends, but I can imagine a number of cards in that deck.
Anyway, when a woman wants to have a dick and balls, she needs surgery. Phalloplasty.
Johns Hopkins has an excellent article on the subject: “Phalloplasty for Gender Affirmation”
Here are excerpts, to give you the flavor of doctors at work, doing their duty for humanity in the New Normal:
Phalloplasty involves using skin flaps, which are areas of skin moved from one area of the body to another. The skin flap is then reshaped, contoured and reattached to the groin to create the penis. There are three approaches the surgeon may use to construct the penis, using skin from the arm (radial forearm free flap [RFFF]), leg (anterolateral thigh flap) or side (latissimus dorsi flap).
[I hope they’re good sculptors. You wouldn’t want a dick that looks like Pinocchio’s nose or a table lamp.]
The first stage of an RFFF approach is creating the penis using tissue from the forearm. The area where the forearm tissue is taken will require a skin graft. This may occur at the time of the initial phalloplasty surgery, or it may occur three to five weeks afterward. If it occurs later, patients will have a temporary skin covering over the forearm to help it heal.
[No doubt more tissue is better than less. Why not go for heroic?]
The second stage, scheduled about five to six months later, may include lengthening the urethra to allow for urination out of the tip of the penis, creating the scrotum and removing the vagina, and other procedures…
[From where else are you going to urinate? Your eyes? ‘Removing’ the vagina sounds like stage magic.]
The third stage of surgery involves putting in place testicle implants and an erectile device to help the patient achieve an erection. The third stage typically takes place 12 months after the second.
[An erectile device. It turns on and off? By pressing a button? It’s a small water wheel and a pulley?]
Penis size depends on patient preferences and the skin flap harvested from your body. Thinner patients with less fat on the skin flap will have a penis with less girth. Alternatively, patients with a greater amount of fat will have a thicker penis.
[Hold on. Fat women have an advantage. I’m not sure that’s socially acceptable. Thin women are an underserved disadvantaged community. Is the Girth Debate being censored on Twitter?]
The length of the penis depends on the patient’s donor site, but typically it is about 5–6 inches. After the first stage, the penis may decrease in size as postoperative swelling decreases and the tissue settles into its new location.
[Decrease from what to what? Don’t gloss this over.]
There are different ways to create the scrotum, including a procedure called V-Y scrotoplasty, a technique that creates a pouch to hold testicular implants. AART silicone round carving blocks have been approved by the FDA to be used as implants.
[Feel my pouch, baby. Feel my carving block.]
If it is important for you to urinate out of the tip of your penis, then urethral lengthening may be a good choice for you. If sensation is most important, your team will focus on a donor site with good nerve innervation. If penetrative sex is most important, and you would like to maintain an erection, then implanting an erectile prosthetic can be part of your surgery plan.
[My God, man, aren’t all these outcomes absolutely necessary, considering the extensive surgical rooting around and slicing and dicing that’s going on down there?]
…a urologist can place a prosthetic erectile device which will allow you to maintain an erection. As of September 2022, no implantable prosthetic devices have been FDA-approved for phalloplasty. Instead, the surgeon can use a device intended for patients with erectile dysfunction to allow transmasculine patients to achieve an erection. There is a risk of infection and implant rejection with an erectile implant. If this happens, it may take six months before another device can be placed into the penis.
[Rejection is an unpleasant term. Isn’t there a softer way to say this? And what woman turning into a man wouldn’t want an erection? Isn’t that the whole point of the lacerating and the construction crew? Are you saying there’s a good chance she’ll get infection and rejection instead of erection? (That sounds like Jesse Jackson.)]
Clitoral burying involves moving the clitoris into the base of the penis to increase sensation. This is typically done at stage 2.
[Moving? We need more detail. And burying? Is there a graveside service conducted by a pastor?]
Orgasm is possible after phalloplasty, especially if your surgery plan emphasizes preserving sensation. It is important to note that your penis will not ejaculate with semen at the time of orgasm.
[What WILL it ejaculate with? Windex?]
As mob boss Hyman Roth says to mob boss Michael Corleone in Godfather II, “This is the business we’ve chosen.”
Of course, a woman could just SAY she’s a man and save herself a great deal of complication. That would also earn her status as a lesbian who wants to have sex with other women. Just a thought.
Reading between the lines of the Hopkins article, I have the impression problems might arise. Wilting erection, unsatisfactory sex, etc. I don’t know whether reversing the reversal and going back to where it all started is possible, but since the surgeons are already doing the full phalloplasty, who knows what else they might try?
“He wants to be Sally again, Doctor.”
“I’ll give it a whack. She might wind up urinating out of her ear, though. We could run a tube down to a bag and have a UPS carrier pick it up every day.”
There are philosophic questions. If the sexual sensations of the surgically altered Sally who is now Harry are physically hooked up to the clitoris, then is the new Harry experiencing something male or female?
Tune in next week, when phalloplastic surgeon and NeoPlastic scholar, Sid Marcus, CEO of We Build It and You Might Come, Inc., offers his insights from the ADX Florence Supermax, where he is serving consecutive life sentences on an unrelated charge.
This subject is vitally important to understand, and few understand it. The talk of, and the incessant questions received by readers, all demanding to know the “single solution” to all of life’s ills, especially concerning the monstrous tyranny that has consumed this nation state and the world, are not only tiresome, but indicative of a total ignorance of what is actually going on today. The concentration by not only the mainstream, the alternative media, and the public herd, on every single false realty presented as fact, is exhaustive in nature, but telling of symptoms that belie any rational thought. This is troubling to be sure, but it is also extremely dangerous.
As I wrote in my previous article:
“As the “Great Reset” continues to roll forward, most of the media, including the alternative media, is very busy breaking down each and every part of the sub-plots, analyzing everything and every aspect of this plotted terror, and attempting to tackle each element in order to at some point in the far future, hopefully convince their masters to grant them some minor relief. “
“All this and more are meant only to allow the advancement of the “Great Reset,” without debate, or the proper scrutiny necessary to expose the lies that we are told every day. It is all a smoke screen used to hide, confuse, and divide the masses, so that each and every subplot takes enough energy away, and covers up the main agenda of global control enough, so that any honest assessment of the horrible plan to rule the world remains in the shadows. So long as this is the case, world domination by the few will continue to go forward, while the bulk of society fights among themselves, never understanding the scope of what is actually happening.”
What is actually going on here is purposeful, planned, and staged, in order to create as much confusion as possible to the general public, so that all concentration is guided to whatever new bogeyman of the day is the ‘new reality’ desired by the ruling class in order to fool the people into the proper compartments of hate and fear. These techniques are very useful to those who desire to rule, and have been staggeringly successful for the tyrants. This technique was explained very clearly in a quote by Karl Rove in 2004; a Republican policy advisor and Chief of Staff for George W. Bush. He stated it this way:
As to “guys like you,” (people in the media) you are “in what we call the reality-based community” which are people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality—judiciously as you will—we will act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
This was quoted by James Corbett today, as it has been in the past, and it is oh so telling, important, and on mark. What this indicates is that everything that happens concerning government, is planned in advance and therefore conspiratorial. I have been screaming this for years, but it has mostly fallen on deaf ears. Nothing in politics and ruling structures are natural, organic, or coincidence. All is a plot meant to achieve a particular end. This is so obvious that almost none should ever believe what they are told by the state, but wishing for that kind of clarity it seems, is nothing more than a pipedream.
Nothing irks me more than the notion that any single, or even multiple solutions, exists, and can be magically produced in order to not only change the minds of hundreds of millions, or billions, but also expect the bulk of society to go along with what is considered the perfect plan to fix all these problems within the system that currently exists. Almost every day, I am scrutinized, chastised, and cursed, for not giving the single perfect solution to the world’s ills. So, what is meant by, and expected, as ‘the’ solution?
Those who ask for and promote these simplistic answers to complicated problems, involving these millions and billions of individuals, seem to have lost sight of all logic. Any ‘solution,’ would necessarily require the involvement of the masses. But how is that possible, or even considered by anyone with any ability to think? Those who offer ‘solutions,’ often are giving good advice for certain individuals temporarily, but no one has, or ever will have, the single ‘solution’ to change the world so that all is good and rosy, and all are free. No one has, or ever will, be able to end all tyranny by coming up with a particular ‘solution.’
What has been offered so far? Voting for a new master is very common. Just get the right person as king and master, it is said, and all will be okay. How has that worked out the past 244 years? Another is to march in the streets in protest, which is nothing more than begging your rulers to please grant you some relief. Another is to wake people up by telling them what to do and how to act, but how is that possible? Some recommend forming groups of like-minded people, to work together, farm together, or to build private communities that can act independently. This may help some, but it is only meant to avoid the current system, while it remains in place.
Many attempt to form ‘different’ political groups in hopes of ‘improving’ government. Many choose to fight against or pick one or the other specific option that relies on there being one problem and one enemy; e.g., the Jews, the Federal Reserve, immigration, voting ‘integrity,’ (really) Masonic demons, the Muslims, China, Russia, etc. Some even say all that is necessary is to “follow the Constitution,” that secret government created document that set loose an unlimited and all-powerful and evil federal national central government. And many say the only solution is to follow, worship, and bow down to ‘their god.’
There are good solutions to temporary problems, such as being armed, growing and storing your own food, moving off grid, avoiding the abhorrent government school (indoctrination) system, getting off social media, blowing up your television, and many, many more. But none of these things mentioned address at any level the real problem.
The real problem is the allowance of, which is completely voluntary, a ruling class given the power to lord over and control the masses at will. It is the belief that humanity cannot function or survive without a king and master class called government to guide them, restrict them, steal from them, and kill them when deemed necessary. It is the acceptance of ‘laws’ and mandates said to be only for the good of the people, and only meant to protect them. The ruling class of so-called ‘elites, and their henchmen in government and all government enforcement, are the real problem; at least if one desires to discount the willingness of the masses who freely allow their own slavery.
Once again, and for the thousandth time, the solution to this totalitarian hell lies in understanding and accepting the fact that only the individual has the power to wake up and change himself. No one can do this for another, and no government will ever police itself by implementing its own destruction. Each of us has to take, sustain, and protect his own freedom if it is ever to exist. This does not mean that one is alone, as the many acting as free individuals together, and not allowing any unjust rule, (all government rule is unjust) can move mountains.
I have been told over and over again that negating and ignoring government, non-compliance, no obedience to the state, and ignoring all mandates, is not a solution, but I beg to differ. There are 330 million of us and only a handful of them in this country. If you cannot understand the dynamics of this power, and the numbers involved, then you will never see your way to any liberty. My solution is not something I can give you; it is no solution that can happen due to the efforts of the few, and it is not a fix-all for everyone. It is based solely on each and every individual deciding that he no longer desires to be ruled over and a slave. The responsibility falls directly on each of us, and if enough come to this conclusion, this tyranny would end quickly. I do not because of human nature, believe that enough people at this time will stand on their own two feet and say no regardless of risk. But in my mind, that is our only chance.
In order to gain freedom, you have to want it badly enough to do whatever it takes to gain enough self-respect to understand the importance of your life. No one can ‘give’ you freedom, you have to demand it unconditionally. You have to rebel within yourself, and not rely on any other to give you something that they have no power to give. This is an individual struggle, based on the cooperation of many who desire the same thing. It is not and cannot be accomplished by hiding in the crowd, cowering in fear, expecting others to give you an impossible easy solution, and avoiding the pain of becoming free. You, each of you, has to decide for yourself.
“The most important kind of freedom is to be what you really are. You trade in your reality for a role. You trade in your sense for an act. You give up your ability to feel, and in exchange, put on a mask. There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.”
Fear of death is intrinsic to human life. As our years accumulate, we watch friends and family drop off, one by one, disappearing from our presence and lingering only in memories.
Barring some miracle, divine or otherwise, we’re all soon to follow, down to the sweetest baby ever born.
Unfazed by this horror, the faithful are emboldened by belief in resurrection or reincarnation—a direct participation in the eternal. For religious people, the body is just a vehicle for a transcendent soul. The mystery of death is a rite of passage.
For the materialist, there is only this world, beyond which the dying meet total annihilation. The brain dissolves into black nothingness. Consciousness ends with the Big Zero at the end of our lives. And for all sentient beings, and all memory of our existence, there awaits the Big Zero at the end of the universe.
The cosmos is nothing but atoms and the void. To make matters worse, the atoms are slowly freezing to death.
Wallowing in this trance of sorrow, our elites, and most anybody else, would pay anything to live forever—or just a little longer. Held in thrall by old age, disease, and death, they put faith in biomedical protection racketeers who swear they can keep the Reaper at bay.
Today, it’s the vaxx-addicts and maskholes.
Tomorrow, it’ll be needle-pocked mutants with blinking devices stuck all over them, who pray to AI for a place in the cloud.
Transhumanism offers synthetic salvation through three basic methods—bio longevity, bionic continuity, and digital immortality.
Genomics will stop aging on the cellular level. Bionics will keep the body running with replacement parts. Once artificial intelligence is sufficiently advanced, mind uploads will allow eternal communion with the digital deities whom techies are busy creating.
“I think that there’s a good probability,” the human-reptile hybrid, Jared Kushner, recently said,“that my generation is—hopefully with the advances in science—either the first generation to live forever, or the last generation that’s gonna die.”
A more likely scenario? This is the first generation to merge with the machine, and the last generation to regret it.
Kushner is not alone. Many of our credulous elites, from Wall Street to the World Economic Forum, have been ensnared by a techno-religion. Its unfrocked priests are the scientists and futurists who push radical gene therapies, brain-computer interfaces, and various life-logging gadgets. As the actual technology becomes more and more sophisticated, you can be sure every atheist and his lapsed uncle will fall prey to this cosmic scam.
And for those who can’t afford it? Well, you know, there’s only so much room on the lifeboat.
—
Bio Longevity
In order to cheat death, at least for awhile, the first method is to preserve the body at the cellular level. One proposed line of attack is to correct defective genes and defuse the cell’s innate self-destruct programs. With the discovery of the CRISPR-Cas9 complex in 2012, geneticists now have the power to more easily knock out faulty genes, and even insert new, superior genetic codes.
Joe Biden’s recent executive order, the National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative, has slated $2 billion for these “high-risk, high reward” projects to “write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers.”
There are also less invasive procedures, to be used in conjunction with gene-editing, such as munching vitamins morning, noon, and night, or gaining self-knowledge through Internet of Bodies surveillance devices—wearable trackers which feed every biometric data point into an artificial intelligence system, putting flesh on the bones of your “digital twin.” In theory, the resulting simulation could be used as a reference for targeted gene-editing.
“By preventing 90 percent of medical problems,” Ray Kurzweil wrote in The Singularity is Near, “life expectancy grows to over five hundred years. At 99 percent, we’d be over one thousand years. We can expect that the full realization of the biotechnology and nanotechn
Inspired by this sort of statistical fantasy, Big Tech oligarchs are pouring billions into various life extension laboratories:
SENS Research Foundation – Co-founded by the transhumanist Aubrey de Grey in 2009, this organization seeks to halt and reverse aging. “No matter what caused a given unit of damage in the first place,” they assure us, “the same regenerative therapeutics can be used to repair it.”
Altos Labs– Founded by Jeff Bezos and the corporate transhumanist Yuri Milner in 2021, this is a “new biotechnology company focused on cellular rejuvenation programming to restore cell health and resilience, with the goal of reversing disease to transform medicine.”
Calico Labs – Acquired by Google in 2015 at the behest of Larry Page and Sergey Brin, this company is focused on “the convergence of biology and technology, coupled with a long-term perspective and funding” with high hopes of “curing death.”
Methuselah Foundation – Bankrolled by Peter Thiel (along with many other immortality start-ups), this foundation is on a mission to “make 90 the new 50 by 2030.”
And the list goes on and on. By all appearances, billionaires fear death as if hell awaits, and they’ll pay any amount to avoid it. If you’re lucky, you too might add a few years to your life through trickle-down immortality.
Should these gene-therapies and 3D-printed organs fail to keep your carcass shambling along, there are always cryonic doctors who’ll freeze you right before you die, then thaw you out once these transhumanists finally get their shit together.
Alcor Life Extension Foundation, for example, charges $80,000 to freeze your head, and $200,000 for the full body treatment. It’s a small price to pay for a shot at immortality.
—
Bionic Continuity
The second method is to replace failing tissues and organs with mechanical parts. We do this already with pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, cochlear implants, dental implants, deep brain stimulation devices, and flag-raising penile implants. In a real sense, the entire plastic surgery industry—from hair transplants to rubber duck lips to silicone boobs—is a means to stave off our inevitable dissolution, if only on a superficial level.
Transhumanists foresee a day, just over the horizon, when more advanced prosthetics will offer superior functionality—including brain function. We’ll have Swiss Army knives for fingers and versatile artificial genitals, sort of like today’s transgenders, but presumably way better. Any prospective immortal had better hope so.
This cyborg dream was fleshed out in the early 20th century by the Marxist thinker J.D. Bernal. “Already we know the essential electrical nature of nerve impulses,” he wrote in 1929, “it is a matter of delicate surgery to attach nerves permanently to apparatus which will either send messages to the nerves or receive them. And the brain thus connected up continues an existence, purely mental and with very different delights from those of the body, but now perhaps preferable to complete extinction.”
Bernal compared this bionic transformation to the metamorphosis of a butterfly, albeit one with hideous wings. “Apart from such mental development as his increased faculties will demand from him,” he speculated, “he will be physically plastic in a way quite transcending the capacities of untransformed humanity.”
As we hurtle toward this nightmare in the 21st century, futurists claim it’ll soon be possible to model the entire human brain—down to the last electrochemical thought pattern—using artificial intelligence. The transhumanist guru Ray Kurzweil predicts this will be accomplished by 2029. (It’s unclear if that will be early in the year, or just in time for Christmas.)
Following an AI-created digital template, doctors will replace our dying neurons with artificial neurons. Bit by bit, our meat brains will be transformed into a latticework of lightning fast transistors. It’s an upgraded mind-brain that could last forever—so be sure to get a warranty.
Would this mechanical monster still be you, though? The idea is that a pattern is a pattern, and the human “soul” is just a pattern of information. It doesn’t matter what the medium may be. Think of it this way—if you replaced every thread in a sweater, strand by strand, with artificial wool, it would still feel like the same old sweater. Maybe even better.
In a similar manner, many believe your personal consciousness will survive the transition from gray matter to circuitry. This mind-machine merger would be like looking out at the world through your smartphone—forever. You’d hardly notice the difference.
“If you think about replacing the neurons one at a time by prosthetic neurons made of silicon,” explains the philosopher of consciousness and NYU-employed transhumanist, David Chalmers:
Just say I replace ten percent of my brain with silicon chips…do it one at a time, and keep going and keep going…and they interconnect with the other ones in a perfect way. … I think as long as you do it gradually, and replace the neurons one by one, then it’s gonna be like getting prosthetic limbs or [an] artificial heart.
You’re gonna be replacing parts of me, but I’m gonna be present throughout, and I think I could even stay conscious.
Of course, these artificial neurons haven’t been developed yet—not even close—but they will be one day. You’ll see. Have a little faith. Scientists are working hard. It’s a solid investment.
—
Digital Immortality
The third method to attain quasi-eternal life is basically the digital side of bionic continuity. Rather than, or in addition to, replacing neurons with artificial neurons, the mind will be gradually uploaded to a computer, where the patterns of one’s personality can be entombed in perpetuity.
Transhumanists delight in pointing out we’re already doing this. Everyone from toddlers to creaky old codgers is feeding their inner self into Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, third-party data vultures, and any intelligence agencies with backdoor access to these companies. Perhaps one day they’ll sell our digital twins back to us so we can inhabit our virtual wraiths.
“Currently, when our human hardware crashes,” Ray Kurzweil wrote, “the software of our lives—our personal ‘mind file’—dies with it. However, this will not continue to be the case when we have the means to store and restore the thousands of trillions of bytes of information represented in the pattern that we call our brains.”
Kurzweil believes injectable nanobots are the key to this uploading process. These microscopic robots will travel through the brain, mapping every neuron and synapse, creating a perfect facsimile of the “soul” in a computer. But there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
As with most transhumanists, Kurzweil was deeply influenced by the Carnegie Mellon roboticist Hans Moravec, who in 1988 described a gruesome uploading procedure now known as the “Moravec Transfer.” Basically, the patient commits suicide by having his or her brain scraped off, like whittling an onion, with each skin copied in silico:
You are fully conscious. The robot surgeon opens your brain case and places a hand on the brain’s surface. This unusual hand bristles with microscopic machinery, and a cable connects it to the mobile computer at your side. …
The surgeon’s hand sinks a fraction of a millimeter deeper into your brain, instantly compensating its measurements and signals for the changed position. The process is repeated for the next layer, and soon a second simulation resides in the computer, communicating with the first and with the remaining original brain tissue.
Layer after layer the brain is simulated, then excavated. Eventually your skull is empty…your mind has been removed from the brain and transferred to a machine.
Some would call this biohorror, but transhumanists revere the “Moravec Transfer” as a pioneering vision of synthetic salvation.
One of Kurzweil’s distinguished disciples, the transgender tech innovator Martine Rothblatt, proposes a kinder, gentler man-machine merger by way of mind-cloning.
“This blessing of emotional and intellectual continuity or immortality,” she (he? whatever) wrote in Virtually Human, “is being made possible through the development of digital clones, or mindclones: software versions of our minds, software-based alter egos, doppelgängers, mental twins.”
In other words, with sufficiently detailed surveillance, our personal data can be processed through artificial intelligence to create a new, more durable “soul” in silico.
“When the body of a person with a mindclone dies,” Rothblatt goes on, “the mindclone will not feel that they have personally died, although the body will be missed in the same ways amputees miss their limbs but acclimate when given an artificial replacement. … The mindclone is to the consciousness and spirit as the prosthetic is to an arm that has lost its hand.”
Having been baptized in electromagnetic waves, you will become your digital ghost, floating forever among the AI angels.
The metaphysics of this process make no sense, but then, why should the transhuman techno-cult be any more realistic than traditional cults? Their delusions would be funny if they weren’t constantly intruding upon our lives through ubiquitous screens and surveillance devices, and blasted into our brains with wall-to-wall propaganda.
“If anything,” Rothblatt conceded in a TED interview, “I’m perhaps a bit of a communicator of activities that are being undertaken by the greatest companies in China, Japan, India, the U.S., Europe.”
You have to wonder if we’ll have social credit scores in heaven.
—
So You Want To Live Forever—Good Luck With That
Humanity is composed of three primary elements—the spiritual, the biological, and the technological. At best, we are eternal souls enshrined in bodies, with exceedingly powerful tools in our hands. At worst, we’re bumbling monkeys in the Machine.
As the materialist worldview erodes our spiritual consciousness, we’re left with nothing but mortal bodies. When God is dead, technology is exalted as the highest power, holding out the promise of free WiFi and synthetic salvation.
The delusion of physical immortality, whether bodily or digital—or both—is capturing our elites’ imaginations. It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to figure out that if they actually managed to live forever, and the planet has finite space and resources, some number of us will have to become compost for their biomechanical gardens.
Personally, I don’t mind the idea of being turned into mulch. That’s the fate of every man and woman ever born. What is eternal will endure.
My fear, writhing deep in my paranoid brain stem, is that our technocratic rulers, sweating over flawed calculations, are willing to huck us into the mulchers long before our time.
God will not be mocked. Nor will Mother Nature. I’m certain that, in the course of time, every billionaire cyborg and half-retarded upload will shuffle off this mortal coil. Unfortunately, I also suspect they’d happily push the rest of us offstage while they do their apocalyptic jig.
“It is the function of mass agitation to exploit all the grievances, hopes, aspirations, prejudices, fears, and ideals of all the special groups that make up our society, social, religious, economic, racial, political. Stir them up. Set one against the other. Divide and conquer. That’s the way to soften up a democracy.”― J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit
The U.S. government has become a master of deceit.
It’s all documented, too.
This is a government that lies, cheats, steals, spies, kills, maims, enslaves, breaks the laws, overreaches its authority, and abuses its power at almost every turn; treats its citizens like faceless statistics and economic units to be bought, sold, bartered, traded, and tracked; and wages wars for profit, jails its own people for profit, and has no qualms about spreading its reign of terror abroad.
Worse, this is a government that has become almost indistinguishable from the evil it claims to be fighting, whether that evil takes the form of terrorism, torture, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, murder, violence, theft, pornography, scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity.
With every passing day, it becomes painfully clear that this is not a government that can be trusted with your life, your loved ones, your livelihood or your freedoms.
Of the many weapons in the government’s vast arsenal, psychological warfare (or psy ops) can take many forms: mind control experiments, behavioral nudging, propaganda.
As Brianna Nofil explains, “MK-Ultra’s ‘mind control’ experiments generally centered around behavior modification via electro-shock therapy, hypnosis, polygraphs, radiation, and a variety of drugs, toxins, and chemicals.”
Similarly, the top-secret Montauk Project, the inspiration for the hit Netflix series Stranger Things, allegedly was working to develop mind-control techniques that would then be tested out on locals in a nearby village, triggering crime waves or causing teenagers to congregate.
As journalist Lorraine Boissoneault concludes, “Despite MK-ULTRA violating ethical norms for human experiments, the legacy of brainwashing experiments continued to live on in U.S. policy. The same methods that had once been used to train American soldiers ended up being used to extract information from terrorists in Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.”
Fast forward to the present day, and it’s clear that the government—aided and abetted by technological advances and scientific experimentation—has updated its psy ops warfare for a new era. For instance, the government has been empowered to use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technologies to influence behaviors en masse and control the populace.
Back in 2014, for example, a Fusion Center in Washington State (a Dept. of Homeland Security-linked data collection clearinghouse that shares information between state, local and federal agencies) inadvertently released records on remote mind control tactics (the use of “psycho-electronic” weapons to control people from a distance or subject them to varying degrees of pain).
This is how you persuade a populace to voluntarily march in lockstep with a police state and police themselves (and each other): by ratcheting up the fear-factor, meted out one carefully calibrated crisis at a time, and teaching them to distrust any who diverge from the norm.
This is not a new experiment in mind control.
Add the government’s inclination to monitor online activity and police so-called “disinformation,” and you have the makings of a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.
This “policing of the mind” is exactly the danger author Jim Keith warned about when he predicted that “information and communication sources are gradually being linked together into a single computerized network, providing an opportunity for unheralded control of what will be broadcast, what will be said, and ultimately what will be thought.”
We’ve already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime legislation that cracks down on so-called “hateful” thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on various subject matter.
The end goal of these mind-control campaigns—packaged in the guise of the greater good—is to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in re-shaping the country in the image of a totalitarian police state.
The government’s fear-mongering is yet another key element in its mind-control programming.
It’s a simple enough formula. National crises, global pandemics, reported terrorist attacks, and sporadic shootings leave us in a constant state of fear. The emotional panic that accompanies fear actually shuts down the prefrontal cortex or the rational thinking part of our brains. In other words, when we are consumed by fear, we stop thinking.
A populace that stops thinking for themselves is a populace that is easily led, easily manipulated and easily controlled whether through propaganda, brainwashing, mind control, or just plain fear-mongering.
Fear not only increases the power of government, but it also divides the people into factions, persuades them to see each other as the enemy and keeps them screaming at each other so that they drown out all other sounds. In this way, they will never reach consensus about anything and will be too distracted to notice the police state closing in on them until the final crushing curtain falls.
This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being brainwashed—manipulated—into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward.
It was almost 100 years ago when Bernays wrote his seminal work Propaganda:
“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of… In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, to this invisible government of rulers who operate behind the scenes—the architects of the Deep State—we are mere puppets on a string, to be brainwashed, manipulated and controlled.
For years now, the powers-that-be—those politicians and bureaucrats who think like tyrants and act like petty dictators regardless of what party they belong to—have attempted to brainwash us into believing that we have no rights: to think for ourselves, make decisions about our health, protect our homes and families and businesses, act in our best interests, demand accountability and transparency from government, or generally operate as if we are in control of our own lives.
Well, the government is wrong.
We have every right, and you know why? Because, as the Declaration of Independence states, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights—to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness—that no government can take away from us.
It’s time we started reminding the government that “we the people” are the ones in charge.
For the past 30 years, I’ve heard these terms thrown around. “Controlled opposition, gate keeper, infiltrator…”
In many cases, there wasn’t a shred of evidence on board. Not even a reasonable circumstantial case.
But people would direct these charges at someone AS IF they had the evidence in the bag.
“Did you read that ridiculous piece Fred wrote? It’s absurd. He’s controlled opposition. Someone higher up put him in an influential position to distract us from the truth, to block us from getting to the bottom of the rabbit hole. He’s an agent. He’s a plant.”
However, Fred actually has:
A blind spot on an issue.
He does good work in other areas, but on issue X he got it wrong.
Fred’s accuser has tried to reach Fred and convince him another issue must be covered, but the accuser couldn’t reach Fred. Therefore, Fred is a deceiver.
Fred isn’t perfect, and his accuser takes that as a sign that Fred must be controlled opposition.
Fred gets it wrong on issue X and then paints himself into a corner and refuses to admit he made a mistake. Instead, he doubles down. He looks ridiculous — so he must be an agent provocateur, a gate keeper, controlled opposition.
Because Fred got it wrong on issue X, everything else he talks about must be some kind of deception and an intentional limited hangout.
Fred’s accuser has spent years researching one particular issue, and Fred doesn’t talk about that issue, so Fred must be intentionally covering up the truth about the issue.
Fred hasn’t been attacked from all sides over the years. Therefore, he’s being protected by higher-ups. He’s controlled opposition.
Fred’s accuser thinks, “Since I know all about issues X, Y, and Z, Fred must know all about them, too, and yet he doesn’t talk about those issues, or he covers them superficially by my elevated standards. Therefore, Fred is a gate keeper, he’s a secret agent, he’s an infiltrator.”
Fred’s accuser has actually been through a very difficult meat grinder — a situation where he was wrongly and heavily attacked for doing a good and righteous thing. And so the accuser tends to be, shall we say, a bit oversensitive. Understandably so.
But then some superficial accusers go down this alley: Since there ARE actual persons who ARE put in place to deceive, confuse, and stir up trouble…Fred must be one of them. (The logic of that argument is stunning.)
People who have a habit of throwing around “controlled opposition” and similar terms, like hot burgers off the grill at a picnic…those people tend to have a paranoid world view (which is justified), but the world view gets out of hand. The world view becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Right next door to “he’s a gate keeper and controlled opposition,” we have: “He’s distracting us by covering the wrong issues. We should be focused on Q, R, S, not X, Y, Z.”
And it may be true that we should be focused on Q, R, S, but Fred isn’t trying to distract anybody. He thinks X, Y, and Z are important, and they are. Perhaps they’re not as important as Q, R, S, but so what?
To go down a different path, if Fred happened to be a person whose job it was to notice certain types of crimes and prosecute them in court, and there was a whole list of those crimes Fred obviously knew about, and yet he was doing nothing; then you would have a major case against Fred. That’s a different situation. And doing nothing while egregious crimes pile up is standard operating procedure in government work. Unfortunately.
But Fred isn’t that person. He’s a writer or a video maker or a broadcaster or an editor, and he happens to be limited, and from time to time he makes mistakes. Along the limited waterfront he’s covering, he makes mistakes.
Or Fred is on the crime beat, and he does expose a number of crimes, but not all of them, and not the favorite crimes of his accuser.
Or Fred deals with conspiracies of a deep nature, but not every conspiracy.
Or Fred works to pump himself up and embroider his reputation, and in that process, he sometimes jumps the fence and makes obviously wrong statements.
But he’s not a spy. He’s not a gate keeper. He’s not controlled opposition. He’s not a plant.
The unsupported and excessive spraying of these terms, like “controlled opposition,” into land, sea, and air, has a deleterious effect. It casts a weird glow. It distorts people and situations.
When I look back and think of times I was tempted to engage in that spraying of “controlled opposition,” there was a common denominator. I had my hands on a giant story. A giant crime. I had it nailed down. I put the story out there. And then I decided (rightly or wrongly) that nobody was listening. Nobody was paying attention. Nobody was willing to give the story the coverage it deserved.
And then I could say, if I wanted to — “There’s a whole lot of controlled opposition and gate keeping going on out there. Here’s one guy. There’s another. Here’s a third. They’re all intentionally covering up and deflecting the truth.”
And I was surely right. There were such people. Not the people I was thinking about, while I was so pissed off. But yes, there were such people. Probably a few. Like there always are. So what?
However, for the most part, the people who could have covered my story but didn’t: were afraid to; or were busy with other stories they knew were important; or were worn out; or were considering their audiences (what those audiences would think of my giant story); or just couldn’t see what I was driving at; or felt they lacked the knowledge to agree or disagree with me.
And regardless of their reasons (good or bad, understandable or not), those people who didn’t pick up on my story were not gate keepers or controlled opposition or hostile actors or plants or agents.
And if I went ahead and accused them of being those sorts of persons, that would be ridiculous. Laughable. Worst case, it would be like accusing a short order cook at a diner of intentionally keeping me away from the fantastically tasty Omaha steak he was storing in a special locked fridge — while serving me a cardboard burger instead. Because he was screwing with me. He was working for the elite Junk Food Association of America. And they knew who I was. For some criminal reason, they were keeping me away from the steak.
Nah. They were in the cardboard burger business. That’s all.
Now and then, while I’m sleeping, I might dream I’m chasing a bunch of these cardboard burger people down a long road, or they’re chasing me through a city, and they’ve got helicopters overhead, and they’re agents tasked with keeping my stories away from public view (by rubbing me out), but when I wake up, I shake that off and go to work. This work.
Part Two:
Now let’s look at an actual giant crime. For example, locking the world up.
I’m not talking about the COVID lockdowns. I mean the technocratic lock-up.
This would rate as a mother of all crimes.
You could loosely call this BEHAVIOR CONTROL.
From the top; coming down. Like a clean sanitized shit storm.
What?
It looks nice and neat — it doesn’t have detritus and garbage hanging off of it. It operates smoothly. Like a well-tuned machine.
And you can find a place inside the machine, if you do what you’re told to do. That’s the basic principle, and as you can see, it isn’t very sophisticated.
Now, the technology applied to make the machine work and to keep everybody inside it — that is definitely sophisticated, and it’s improving all the time.
Ultimately, people themselves would be engineered, as in Huxley’s Brave New World, from the womb. That’s some serious fucking behavior control.
And face it, why wouldn’t tech people bent on running the world opt for that sort of control, if they could achieve it? Why stop short at cell phones that report your location and buzz your brain and listen to you talk when you’re not on the phone?
I could go on and paint all sorts of pictures of the Brave New World. I have, and so have others. The ID packages, the wall to wall surveillance, the guaranteed income linked to social credit score, the destructive vaccines, the top-down control of your bank account no matter where you bank, which means the seizure of your assets for any reason under the sun…
Bleak. Bad, bad shit. Universal MKULTRA.
Yeah.
And this is why I keep pushing my favorite theme. The umbrella term is Decentralization of Power. The specific is BULLY PULPIT.
Which means people stepping forward and going all-out to talk to their audiences every day on live stream and deliver what they see and know and believe — NO HOLDS BARRED — about the insanity in our midst, and what sanity would look like. In vivid terms.
No matter what. Come hell or high water.
In my current articles and podcasts, I provide numerous illustrations of how this bully pulpit could look and sound.
I guess you could boil this idea down to: telling the whole truth as you see it, without stinting, without using damped-down neutral language, without holding back emotion, without hedging your bets.
The people who are watching and listening would be AFFECTED, trust me.
1000 bully pulpits, 5000, and more. Heavy action.
Millions and millions of people across the world want to listen and watch.
Here’s my view: These millions of people want to cut through all the bullshit about the COLLECTIVIST “WE” — what I call the cosmic cheese glob — they want to leave all that bullshit behind and get down to THE INDIVIDUAL, who is free to live in freedom as long as he doesn’t impinge on the freedom of others, and who makes his way in the world by EARNING IT. Freedom with responsibility.
The Brave New World is the Collectivist We to the nth degree.
We need to head in the opposite direction. Back to the I.
That’s my starting position.
My jumping off point.
And yes, there are HUGE audiences out there who believe that and want to hear it expressed with no-limit conviction.
The jail break from the fake WE to the real I.
They want to hear a president with conviction. A governor with conviction. A mayor with conviction. A sheriff with conviction. A CEO. A doctor. A movie star. A celebrity athlete. A race car driver. A whoever.
Bully pulpit. VOICES.
We’ve got them. Voices.
To turn around the fetid fake culture…and drown the Brave New World before it takes hold.
I talk about narrative all the time partly because narrative control is the source and foundation of the power of the US-centralized empire. The ability to control the way people think, act and vote with mass-scale psychological manipulation allows our rulers to dominate us more pervasively than we could ever be dominated by brute totalitarian force, which is why so much energy goes into keeping the people from controlling their own narratives. That’s all the current mainstream panic about “disinformation” is, for example. If narrative control were fully decentralized, our rulers couldn’t rule.
But I also focus on narrative because its consequences are so much more far-reaching than that.
The fascinating thing about paying attention to the way narrative differs from reality is that it doesn’t just change your understanding of politics and power throughout the world: you start to notice that your whole life is dominated by narratives — not just about the world, but about you.
You start out getting curious if the narratives you’ve been fed about your country, your government, and global power dynamics are really true, and if you’re sincere you start taking that curiosity to questions about narratives you’ve come to believe about your own life. Narratives about what’s important, about what’s real, about what’s true, about what’s helpful. Narratives about how you are, narratives about who you are. Narratives that were put in your head by teachers, preachers, friends and family, and narratives you made up yourself long ago and kept believing.
You start getting curious about the way your own life has been shaped by believed narrative, and you start to discover a whole reality underneath the matrix of stories which buzzes around in your consciousness. A reality that could not possibly be more different from your stories about it.
You start to discover that your entire framework for perceiving the world is based on believed stories which are not ultimately true and are generally very unhelpful for moving through life in a harmonious way. Stories about others. Stories about life. And stories about yourself.
That last one is the real kicker. Because it turns out that underneath the narrative matrix, what you are is more different from your mental stories about what you are than you could possibly imagine. And these misperceptions of identity shape your entire experience of reality. You start to see that this finite, separate “me” character your entire mental world has revolved around your whole life has no more reality to it than a fictional character in a storybook. After that illusion becomes clarified, life is no longer dominated by narrative.
To be clear, narrative in and of itself is not the problem; narrative in and of itself is a useful tool. “I went to the store” is a narrative. “Those berries are poisonous” is a narrative. “One should look both ways before crossing the street” is a narrative. The problem isn’t narrative, the problem is that it dominates our experience instead of serving as a tool. The goal isn’t to eliminate narrative but to put it in its proper place as a useful tool rather than the writer, director and star of the entire show of life. The problem isn’t narrative but believed narrative, in the same way watching a horror movie causes no problems for you if you remain clear that it’s just a movie.
Look closer and you see through the stories about your nation, your government and your world. Look closer still and you see through your believed stories about life which lead you to think the way you think and act the way you act. Look even closer and you see through the stories about your actual fundamental nature.
The reason propaganda works is because human experience is so thoroughly dominated by mental stories that if you can control the dominant narratives, you can control humanity. The quest is not just to refute propaganda, but to cease having an experience that is dominated by narrative.
And of course all this is a narrative too. But it points to something real which can be clearly perceived in your own experience without narrative, in the same way you can see your hand in front of your face without having to tell any stories about it.
This video on Alexander Hamilton is over an hour-long, and for several reasons (some better than others). But gave us lots of amusement about history and about bad wannabe hip-hop raps.
With a deluge of information, and mini-perseveration and obsessive focus on the facts of the founding period, against a setting of slow, clumsy medical recovery that is beginning to see the light of day – in that context, I slew the dragons in my mind with the ammunition I could scour from our library in something of an offshoot of our previous series ‘The Trust Game’.
Drawing a duel in my mind with fundamentally-flawed philosophy of Alexander Hamilton, and, mixed up with meta-layers of irony, at the same time dueling with the flawed and deceptive framing of today, the presentation of history by major foundations, by entertainment giants and by the education system.
These and other forces have seemingly teamed-up to inspire the next generation to believe that 2+2=5, that aristocracy was democracy, and that Hamilton reigns over an alternate-dimension of woke hip-hop fantasy legitimized by the power of using “words” to define “reality.” A bent pseudo-realness brought into existence either by scientists at CERN probing dark matter, or whisked into meta-being by influencers who often use the term “meta” in their speeches, or perhaps in combination with one or other creative writers in the entertainment business.
My quixotic quest to right the wrongs of modern remix-history thus morphed from a simple summary about the Rockefeller Foundation sponsoring a play and paying to get kids to watch it, into a meta-analysis disassembling the core significance of our historical founder Alexander Hamilton from our 21st Century dumpster-fire culture. Our chances for a bright future are, thus, impaired, as the powers-that-be have given the young-in-spirit-and-mind the wrong codes and keywords. Instead of treasuring our individual rights and traditions of freedom, to maintain and treasure, even as the future keeps changing our notions of how things ought to be, the powers-that-be have trained impressionable minds to celebrate their own mental enslavement; to cheer on incredible financial rapings, and call for a greater concentration of power in the name of besting dissidents and opponents.
The wisdom and knowledge that too much power in the hands of government is a recipe for disaster. In respect to this principle, takes away the focus on individual rights and limiting abusive powers in all its forms. Too much power has been given away, given to despots and political champions, and technology has made modern people appear and feel minuscule in the grand scheme of things with respect to decision making and agency in writing their own future.
It occurred to me, with a bit of a background in government studies, that the growing public misconception about such fundamental rights as the Freedom of Speech (and the freedom of conscience) is a significant and growing danger to our society. An alarming number of lost sheep are prone to believe that society is vulnerable to “haters” who must be disarmed of their expression by government policies, and by huge tech companies who own and control the prevalent mediums of expression. It is a generation prone to believe that words CAN hurt you, and hurt so much that online speech must be patrolled, terms terminated, certain language left unspoken, and expression narrowly confined with search terms so as to not offend. Verified information only. Vetted, sanitized, safe.
The catastrophic fallout from this kind of thinking — from just this example — has already besieged our generation. It has purged many dissidents, threatening their livelihoods and their rights to expression. It has emboldened those abusing powers, who seek excuses and rationales to grab and use further power, and has empowered the worst abuses we’ve seen in freedom of conscience and freedom of speech both under the cloak of medical emergency in recent years. You know, our generational trauma.
On top of that is Hamilton. Miseducation hidden in the casserole of a trendy musical: a clear example that the truth has become a catspaw to manipulative powers, kneading a dough of history into a tableau that expresses the values of power they way they wish them to be presented, to be perceived. Is there a controller behind the veil? Or are these just shadows, pixels, static?
What has transpired to make this or any other best-selling musical/book/movie speak for a generation IN FAVOR of a figure who specifically represents the quest for more government power?
What is behind the glorification of a reprobate who has been strongly criticized by his contemporaries and by historians for his Machiavellian works towards a Federal Government over-endowed with uncontrollable powers? Superlative powers over the several States, over the revolutionaries who believed in and fought for liberty?
We find a banker, a shadow banker, who instituted a government system vulnerable to the undue influence of the mega-wealth, the elite. Made in the image of his patrons. A founding father thinker who believed that Aristocracy was the most desired form of government, that the monarchy American colonists had just fought against represented not-the-worst-but-the-best system, and that democracy was a totally destructive, unstable, untrustworthy system of government. People in mass a monster.
Yet people today — the typified acolytes of the Hamilton! Musical and its political affiliates — clamor for “democracy” and swoon at the Histor-tainment surrounding Alexander Hamilton whom they see as a climber from the lower classes, as a self-made immigrant, as an abolitionist of slaves, and a beacon of – democracy.
But that’s the very opposite of what Broadway’s most celebrated man actually stood for.
How is that even possible? Are people really that misinformed?
As the Constitutional Convention concluded, Benjamin Franklin was reputedly asked: “Well, Doctor, what do we have, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin famously replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
This is our system, but this cannot be in of itself the best of all governmental-forms, because it did not produce or secure a significant-enough quantity of liberty, or distribute freedom widely enough to sustain true progress against ill intent on the part of those in power. Hence our modern disharmonies and disbalances. Things gravitating towards total disaster.
But a republic may have been the best of all outcomes under the circumstances for the young United States. It could have easily buckled under the pressures of world domination, intrigue, foreign loans and finance, and disagreements between political factions, economic sectors, and between the cultures of the Northern and Southern States — struggling to maintain the appearance of total unity in the wake of a doomed geopolitical marriage.
But a Republic based theoretically on past systems like Rome and tweaked by enlightenment insights, and which institutes divided and theoretically balanced powers, and which declares the principle of sustaining individual liberties, while separating duties and jurisdiction among different levels of government, and retaining unexpressed powers to the sovereign states – this Republic was as close as we Americans would get to a pseudo-healthy balance between the rock-and-a-hard-place of the threats of the “tyranny of the few” and that of the “tyranny of the many.”
A Democratic Republic in that elections and public opinion could influence or determine leaders; yet also an Aristocratic Republic, as Senators were selected by States whose politics were dominated by aristocratic land and property owners. Aristocratic, also, in the barriers between public election and the selection of the President, court justices and cabinet appointees, who Hamilton wanted appointed for life. Aristocratic in the heavy influence of the British system of titles, and the relationship between merchants, banks and money with the government that continued or was deliberately imitated by the colonies-turned-republic.
A Plutocratic Republic, in that the United States system was nauseatingly friendly and defenseless against the machinations of its richest, thanks in no small part to Alexander Hamilton himself, who represented for an elite cadre of extremely powerful land owning families, land speculators and investors who were especially dense in New York, fast-developing into one of the world’s foremost financial centers.
Our Republic was, thus, Plutocratic in the relationships and bonds that cemented in with Hamilton’s vision for the country. His role as a banker with a vision. The strings of capitol funds are absolutely connected to the institutions of the Federal capital and the governments of the States. The word puppet comes to mind.
Finance was and is a central pillar in the secretive and unquestionable foundations of the nation. The public face of good government for-the-people assumes the private, unimpeded operations of the wealthy players of plutocracy. This mold of capitalism, and hence its toxic derivatives, were ushered in by Alexander Hamilton, baked into our American traditions. The maker, in one sense, of some of the biggest Titans of Industry and capitalist fortunes. Philanthropists and Misanthropes alike.
And when it comes to the many, to the unfortunate who are dominated by this system, Hamilton enabled life-support and preferential treatment for the parasitic systems that denigrated human life on a grand-scale. He married into them, and cozied up to the powerful families of early America — he didn’t dismantle their institutions or moralize to them until their behavior changed. Abolition, racial justice and economic humanism were never a serious focus for Hamilton. Play things, maybe – concentrating power was his only true aim throughout his influential career.
So for the public to celebrate his cult of personality around these values – democracy, equality, et al. — is truly sickening. Especially when the soundtrack is saccharine-sweet with modern flair and over-hyped production value.
The young United States was a remarkable experiment in self-government and self-determination that espoused noble principles, but its final mold was still quite flawed. The powers-that-be did not make this mold of liberty and freedom easily transferable to less fortunate locales.
The young U.S., as now, had to endure competing interests including participants throughout the continent and abroad who held suspicious aims or dispassionate stakes in the economic factors, but who, nonetheless, helped to keep the weird glue of the union together, for better or worse. Its dark blemishes and severe philosophical oversights are fairly glaring in hindsight.
A Republic was as good as we got; Hamilton originally wanted a full-blown aristocratic monarchy, with total powers for the Federal government and political leaders who would rule for life – even if without an actual crown. The public has been so severely miseducated, however, that they now believe Hamilton fought for democracy.
This false notion had to be corrected. It is my duty, and it is also my pleasure.
The Republic he and other founders secured with his catspaw-Constitutional Convention was one set up to balance disagreements between the enfranchised, the “elect” of 18th Century society. This primarily, and almost exclusively, included property holders in society who were the only people who could vote or hold any true vestiges of power. It did very little to protect those that were subject to the dominance of the former “elect,” little for those under the thumb of any master, and for those who could only eek out an existence under duress, enslavement, indenture or indebtedness – for what was, at best, an illusory promise of freedom.
This was, after all, a system designed by Alexander Hamilton. He wrote more words than any of his nearest competitors; he worked hard. But who did he work for? And what were his words working to bring about? Is it something we should celebrate to a lively, hip-hop score?
Perhaps it’s time you met Hamilton. Once again. This time with feeling. Because he is a best-selling edition of history reshaped, remolded, redefined. Reality reconstructed like a lump of Playdoh.
I want to personally acknowledge and thank my beautiful wife, and partner in thought and expression, for her support in all things during this challenging time. Thank you, Melissa.
Jerome Corsi is an author with a special focus on energy and all things related to actual climate science (rather than the establishment garbage perpetuated daily).
Jerome has published 25 books on economics, history, and politics, including six New York Times bestsellers, and was a senior editor at World Net Daily.
Jerome is writing a trilogy in which he debunks all of the mainstream propaganda surrounding Sustainable Development, which is the UN’s version of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, which is essentially centralised global control (and has nothing to do with Earth’s climate).
Firstly, I’m not going to entertain the laughable, official story.
Sixteen years after a series of coordinated terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda (as the story goes) shook the United States and the world, the number of questions-raised-left-unanswered has perhaps never been any higher. Through their constant probing, investigating and challenging of the official story, world-class journalists, architects, engineers and families of the victims of 9/11 in particular have, however, to their credit, managed to unearth and pool together enough evidence over the years, to make a compelling case to suggest that the “official” narrative of 9/11 is only a “story” and not an accurate narration of what had actually happened.
Eresh Omar Jamal, The Daily Star, circa 2017
Secondly, understanding what actually happened is difficult due to mass censorship by The Cathedral (media plus government plus academia). A good indicator of where one might find (more of) the truth, however, is to search for what is being censored or outside of the Overton Window.
At least, that’s my rule of thumb.
Which is why I am intrigued by both Mike’s and Judy’s arguments. James Fetzer, who has been my podcast a few times, has been investigating 9/11 for many years and, in my opinion, has the most persuasive hypothesis.
Where is the aircraft?
Where is the aircraft?
Our Conversation
In the following two-hour conversation, James presents 135 slides and an enormous amount of critique, including
what happened (or didn’t happen) at the Pentagon;
what happened (or didn’t happen) at Shanksville;
why planes could not have crashed into the Twin Towers;
why two of the four planes didn’t even take off;
why Osama and Muslim “terrorists” were a false flag;
the use of “mini-nukes” (which gives weight to the spike in cancers);
the names and faces of those involved; and
the motivations behind the operation.
I recommend watching instead of listening, for obvious reasons.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth: 9/11 Intercepted — 9/11 Flight Path Data
Ace Baker: The Great American Psy Opera
911 Flight 175 Radar Data 3D Analysis by Richard D Hall
Everything posted on this site is done in the spirit of conversation. The views and opinions expressed in articles posted on this site are those of the authors and video creators. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Truth Comes to Light. Please do your own research and trust yourself when reading and when giving consideration to anything that appears here or anywhere else.
On December 29, 2021, I published my first Substack article, titled “Sadism.” I described what I saw as a disturbing trend in the pandemic of fear and irrationality—Americans taking pleasure in the suffering of others. I explained that it’s one thing to live in fear of your own safety but something altogether different to use that fear as a justification to torture and abuse others. The most egregious cases of this new sadism, as I called it, involved children as victims. If Americans are willing to intentionally sacrifice children on the altar of fear (with a smile on their face), what are they not willing to destroy? How are we now any different than the primitive Aztec and Mayan tribes who slaughtered their victims on physical altars on behalf of their own gods?
We have become them—primitives ruled by sadists. Irrational fear has now been harnessed by a new evil. And I cannot explain it psychologically. Unlike robbery, rape, and some forms of murder, this new crime wave confers no obvious benefit on the criminal. Its only function is to destroy what is good. And it being done by a very sick group of Americans who take pleasure in it.
This new evil is diabolical. Its primary target appears to be American children. The perpetrators are overwhelmingly women.
A majority of parents have turned their backs on the mRNA injections for their children. Millions of doses have now been destroyed, as it is inarguable that no children are dying from the Chinese Wuhan virus or any of its progeny. To the murderers’ great disappointment, the children may actually survive. So what’s next?
What’s next is scaring American parents into believing that unless they agree to chemically castrate and surgically mutilate their children, they can expect their children to commit suicide. This is what teachers, therapists, and doctors say when parents challenge the “gender fluidity” of their children. An entire industry, starting with teachers and ending with pediatricians and surgeons, has developed to brainwash impressionable children and adolescents into believing that the source of their normal developmental emotional challenges is the fact that they are actually the opposite sex, born in the wrong body.
Recently, the sick and truly evil nature of this movement has been exposed through actual advertisements (available online) of “gender affirming” clinics at renowned teaching hospitals in the US, such as Boston Children’s Hospital and the Yale School of Medicine. Boston Children’s Hospital, which offers double mastectomies and vaginoplasty to minors, encourages its “trans” patients to participate in the HOTT program, where adult men teach boys how to tuck their penis with medical tape to make it look like a vagina…until the boys are old enough to have it cut off and turned into a “real” vagina. The director of the Yale Pediatric Gender Program proudly treats children as young as three years old how to navigate their “gender journey.” Both program directors are women.
Where does this lead? In other countries it leads to lawsuits. Great Britain recently shut down the Tavistock gender identity clinic in London after hundreds of patients and their families complained about abuse, fraud, and medical injury from therapeutic brainwashing, cross-sex hormone developmental injury, and irreversible damage from surgical mutilation. Some patients are now sterile. All are emotionally unwell, if not psychiatrically ill. The British have rightly pushed back against this tide of child abuse.
Here in the US, we continue to encourage it. The American Medical Association voted last year to support the removal of sex designation on US passports. The American Academy of Pediatrics awarded “best research paper of the year” to a flawed study by a corrupt doctor who claimed that social contagion has nothing to do with the explosion in transgenderism among children, that “transitioning” children reduces suicide, and that any attempts by “conservative states” to regulate puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgeries in children should be resisted. The Democrat party actively pushes legislation aimed at removing all parental legal authority from making decisions on a child’s behalf, leaving decision-making up to the state, which is run by Democrats and those they appoint to do their bidding. Rendered compliant through fear and loyalty to the party, Democrat voters offer no resistance. Only in Republican-controlled states such as Florida do voting parents fight back with enough force to contain the cancer’s spread.
Nearly all the doctors, therapists, and teachers who promote this abuse are women. That this evil is being perpetrated and encouraged primarily by women is a disturbing sign that we have thoroughly lost our way in this country. That anyone, especially women, would delight in the abuse of children bodes poorly for our future. And I cannot explain this sickness as simply a mental illness. It is something more. It is sinister. What I can explain, though, is how it is sustained and what it feeds off of—fear. A courageous people would identify, fight, and cleanse this evil from their nation. We are doing none of that. We are still living in fear.
I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as the next theorist, and have welcomed some pretty eye-opening conversations in recent months, from Marilyn Monroe to 9/11 to the Titanic, but this one about Sandy Hook is absolutely next level.
Was Alex Jones Right?
After reading the memoranda that compose this series, how could anyone doubt that Alex had it right and the mainstream media had it wrong? That the vilification of Alex has no basis in fact and appears to be a massive propaganda campaign on behalf of the Deep State? At this point in time – with massive and compelling evidence available – what remains up for debate? Nothing! As he observed, it was a hoax.
James Fetzer, circa 2018
James reckons that Alex was right all along, despite all the legal and political backgammon currently being played.
The jury’s decision Friday came the day after it awarded the parents of slain first grader $4.1 million for mental anguish, bringing the total damages against the InfoWars founder to $49.3 million.
NPR, circa 2022
As James notes in our conversation, the “slain first grader” doesn’t exist. Or, rather, he does exist, but not in the way the mainstream narrative has been constructed.
What Actually Happened?
I don’t know.
But, once again, trusting the legitimacy of official stories is not a good strategy in piecing together puzzles. And being labelled a “conspiracy theorist” is empty and just an attempt to discredit, silence critical thinking, and perpetuate established views. Ignore such labels.
The Sandy Hook school.
And when censorship becomes the dominating force, like in the case with this particular event, alarm bells should ring. After all, why would “crazy conspiracy theories” need to be censored if they’re clearly crap? And why would people need to be protected and sheltered from them?
The following documentary (which, obviously, is not on YouTube) is long but superb.
Our Conversation
James showed some photos in this podcast, so watching it might be preferable to listening to it. He covers a lot of ground, including questions around
“A strong man cannot help a weaker unless the weaker is willing to be helped, and even then the weak man must become strong of himself; he must, by his own efforts, develop the strength which he admires in another. None but himself can alter his condition.” ~ James Allen, As a Man Thinketh
Contrary to popular belief, “waking up,” as in seeking and accepting truth, is not something that requires outside assistance, force, or consensus. It is not something that can be bought. It is not something that can be given to you. It is not something that can at once happen to the collective masses. There is no solution that can awaken a people. There is no ‘leader’ who can awaken the herd. There is only the individual, and each individual is responsible for his own awakening. That oh so rare awakening means gaining for self the ability to think, to think as an individual, to think critically, to accept what he alone thinks, to seek and know truth, and to act on that individual knowledge. This fact, in my view, is why most all humans remain completely unconscious for their entire lives, never understanding truth, or anything of value or honesty, and living only to accept the opinions of others, especially government, media, celebrities, and so-called experts and authority figures. They have to remain in the crowd, never straying from the ‘group think,’ never taking a risk, and therefore, never having an original or independent thought. This is considered the ‘safe place,’ and in the minds of this collective, this means protection from reality.
I am asked almost daily: “What is your solution to this madness?” “What plan do you have to fix our problems?” “What are you doing to wake everybody up?” “Who should we ‘elect’ to save us?” I am heavily criticized at times for telling the truth instead of staying ‘positive.’ I am cursed for being too critical and ‘negative.’ Questions and comments such as these are a sure sign of an unconscious mind, a non-thinking person, and a proud member of the unawakened herd of sheep.
One major example of the unawakened are those who cling to one political party or the other. In essence, the ‘party’ is simply a substitute for the original herd. One is Republican, one is Democrat, one is red and one is blue, one is conservative and one is ‘liberal.’ In fact, they are both herds supported by non-thinking drones. By claiming to be one or the other, no thinking is necessary, as all thought is accomplished by the red or blue herd as a whole. Obviously, when one votes, he is choosing a collective side, and picking who is to be his ruler, and in doing so, he becomes a slave, but he also acquiesces to the ‘thinking’ of the group instead of thinking for himself. This political structure was no accident, as this designed hostility of one against another guarantees group ‘think,’ and therefore eliminates the need for individuality, self, and responsibility. The amount of time and energy put into this asinine circus is evidence enough of the worthlessness of it all.
By looking to others, by looking outside, and by searching for opinions from the group instead of believing in self, one becomes dependent on what is mostly propaganda, and exposes that he does not have any trust in himself. This is why these seemingly helpless people cannot fix themselves or face the truth. This is why capitulation and submission to authority by the masses is now so rampant. This kind of behavior is similar to addiction in that the more people who look away for answers instead of looking inward, the less likely they will ever change, and actually, they will usually become more and more dependent as time passes.
There is no way to know for sure, but my belief is that at least 80% or more (maybe much more) of this population are a part of the collective herd that has little or no ability to think on their own concerning matters of importance. I do realize that this is a startling conclusion to reach, but given all that has happened to date, how can this be doubted?
There is no way to awaken the herd by force, by political means, by demands, or even by persuasion. Each individual has to delve inside himself, and awaken his own spirit so he can find the courage to improve self instead of relying on the crowd. This will lead to seeking the truth, and that is the first step toward independence. This is not an easy task, because to trust self requires personal responsibility for every thought, every action, and every life situation. When this occurs, all fear disappears, and the minds eye opens to bright light instead of darkness.
Maybe some reflection is in order. There is no real security in the group, there is only consensus, confusion, and emptiness. The next time you find yourself asking others for a solution to your problems, or asking questions about your own freedom and how to attain it; stop, close your eyes, and seek your answers from within. When those answers come, trust them, and escape from the hellish and barren existence that is the non-thinking collective horde.
“It was when I stopped searching for home within others and lifted the foundations of home within myself I found there were no roots more intimate than those between a mind and body that have decided to be whole.” ~ Rupi Kaur
In this excerpt from her upcoming book, Whitney examines the Wexner Foundation’s origins and the ties of Leslie Wexner’s philanthropy and Jeffrey Epstein to Harvard as well as the now infamous Young Global Leaders program of the World Economic Forum.
The following is an adapted excerpt from Whitney Webb’s upcoming book, One Nation Under Blackmail, which examines the network behind Jeffrey Epstein and traces it back to the merging of American organized crime and intelligence beginning in the early 1940s. In this excerpt, Whitney examines the Wexner Foundation’s origins and the ties of Leslie Wexner’s philanthropy and Jeffrey Epstein to Harvard as well as the now infamous Young Global Leaders program of the World Economic Forum. Whitney’s book can be pre-ordered here, here or here.
The Origins of the Wexner Foundation
It is hard to know exactly when the Wexner Foundation was originally created. The official website for the foundation states clearly in one section that the Wexner Foundation was first set up in 1983 alongside the Wexner Heritage Foundation. However, the 2001 obituary of Wexner’s mother, Bella, states that she and her son created the foundation together in 1973. Regardless of the exact year, Wexner’s mother, Bella, became the secretary of the foundation (just as she had with his company The Limited), which Wexner wanted people to refer to as a “joint philanthropy.”
The foundation’s website states that the original purpose of the Wexner Foundation was to assist “emerging professional Jewish leaders in North America and mid-career public officials in Israel.” Per the website, Wexner’s main philanthropic endeavors were created after Wexner “reached the conclusion that what the Jewish people needed most at that moment was stronger leadership.” As a result, Wexner sought to focus his foundation’s attention chiefly on the “development of leaders.” As a consequence of this, Wexner’s programs have molded the minds and opinions of prominent North American, as well as Israeli, Jewish leaders who went on to work at the top levels of finance, government and, even, intelligence.
One of the Wexner Foundation’s original advisors, and perhaps one of the most important, was Robert Hiller, who had previously been executive vice president of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds. Robert I. Hiller was described in an article in The Baltimore Sun as a “nonprofit leader who helped develop community fundraising strategies and was active in the Soviet Jewry movement.”
As well as being known as a community development leader, Hiller was also an executive with Community Chest of Metropolitan Detroit in 1948. In that position, Hiller helped bring together corporations such as General Motors to create “social service groups under an umbrella organization, a precursor to collective fundraising efforts today.” In 1950, Hiller became the associate director of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland and six years later he also joined the United Jewish Federation of Pittsburgh. He would spend another nine years in that position before his move to Baltimore.
In his autobiography, Hiller wrote about his extensive dealings with various Israeli heads-of-states, saying: “I had pictures of every Israeli Prime Minister from David Ben Gurion to Menachem Begin. I would have many more with Begin because he was the current Prime Minister. My favorite picture, however, (it was to be hung) was taken in Washington, D.C. at a gala party where Marianne and I were with the then Ambassador, Yitzhak Rabin, and his wife, Leah.”
Hiller was extremely proactive when it came to seeding suitable, high ranking candidates for appropriate positions in Jewish community organizations, a task that the Wexner Foundation would later reproduce on a grand scale via its various Fellowship programs and subsequently apply to the worlds of business and government. One example of this matchmaking was the appointment of Larry Moses as assistant to Rabbi Maurice Corson. Corson is credited as having co-founding the Wexner Foundation with Leslie Wexner in 1983, per the foundation’s website, and he served as its first president. After Corson left that post, Moses stepped in to serve as the foundation’s president.
Hiller wrote in his autobiography that he had “personally enticed” Moses to become Rabbi Corson’s assistant and this later resulted in Larry Moses becoming the executive vice president of the Wexner Foundation. When Hiller was 33 years-old, he was presented with an opportunity to become a member of the Big 16, which was classed as an informal grouping of the 16 largest communities in North America headed by prominent Jewish executive members. One of the people who Hiller connected with the Wexner Foundation was originally meant to lead the Big 16 Federation, Fern Katelman. Katelman declined this prestigious leadership role in order to join Larry Moses, where he became his assistant at the Wexner Foundation.
Hiller, when revisiting his life, would state: “One of the most stimulating relationships I had was with the Wexner (Leslie) Foundation of Columbus, Ohio, and New York City. Rabbi Maurice Corson was the foundation president. My relationship with him started in Baltimore where he had been a new rabbi for one of the city’s largest Conservative synagogues. He came from Philadelphia with an interesting background and credentials.”
Hiller goes on to write: “He [Corson], however, seemed bored and uneasy with the routine of being a synagogue rabbi. When he and the congregation decided to part company, I assisted in getting him an executive position with the United Israel Appeal of Canada. He did so well that he was recruited to return to the U.S.A. in an executive position with International B’nai B’rith. Leslie Wexner met him through his work with B’nai B’rith, and when Les began to put together a formal foundation, he engaged Rabbi Corson as the chief executive.” B’nai B’rith is a “Jewish fraternal organization” that was founded in the 19th century and is modeled as a secret society, leading some to compare the group to the freemasons.
Hiller went on to assist Corson in the initial stages of setting up the Wexner Foundation while they put together “a distinguished advisory group” with the group meeting in Columbus, Ohio, and New York City. Hiller describes assisting Corson in creating the foundation, which Hiller called: “an unusual foundation with its own agenda and programming.” After several years of service to the Wexner Foundation, Hiller retired from his consultancy role and was replaced by Philip Bernstein, the former executive of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds (CJF).
Now, it makes sense to examine Rabbi Maurice S. Corson himself. Corson was a prominent Jewish educator who, as previously mentioned, already had associations with various Jewish welfare organizations prior to serving as co-founder and then president of the Wexner Foundation. Corson had been ordained as a rabbi in 1960 through the Jewish Theological Seminary, after previously studying at the University of Cincinnati where he graduated in 1955. By 1964, Corson had become the president of the Religious Education Society in Seattle, and he remained in that position until 1966.
Over the following decade, he began working for the Zionist Organization America in Atlantic City and, shortly thereafter, became the Senior Rabbi at the Chizuk Amuna Congregation, a position he held from 1976 until 1979. Around this time, Hiller helped Corson get an executive position with the United Israel Appeal of Canada, where he went on to work for only a year before joining B’nai B’rith.
Once recruited into serving a leadership role within the influential “secret society,” Corson worked as director of development for B’nai B’rith International, based in New York City, between 1980 until 1985. During this very period, the board of overseers of B’nai B’rith included Edmond Safra, a notorious banker with close ties to Robert Maxwell and later Jeffrey Epstein; Edgar Bronfman, scion of the family behind Seagrams whose fortunes have long been tied organized crime and Max Fisher, a Detroit businessman who re-launched the Jewish Agency, worked as a “private” diplomat on Israel matters and later served as a mentor to Leslie Wexner.
As noted previously, while Corson was at B’nai B’rith, he first met Leslie Wexner, who persuaded him to co-found the Wexner Foundation (per the version of events on the foundation’s website). Although he had been recruited by Wexner and subsequently left the B’nai B’rith organization, Corson became a member of the executive committee of B’nai B’rith Hillel Commission in Washington in 1987.
Another key figure who is important to mention is the co-founder of the Wexner Heritage Foundation, Rabbi Herbert A. Friedman. Depending on which part of the Wexner Foundation site you visit, that Foundation is listed as having been founded in either 1983 or 1985. However, Friedman is clearly listed as the co-founder of the foundation and as having served as its president for a decade.
The Wexner Heritage Foundation, per its website, was created “to strengthen volunteer leaders in the North American Jewish Community.” It spawned the Wexner Heritage program, which “provides young North American Jewish volunteer leaders with a two-year intensive Jewish learning program, deepening their understanding of Jewish history, values, and texts and enriching their leadership skills.”
Friedman was a US Army chaplain during World War II and also served as an “adviser on Jewish affairs to General Lucius D. Clay, the commander of American occupation forces in Germany.” He was later personally recruited by David Ben-Gurion, who went on to serve as Israel’s first Prime Minister, to join the paramilitary group, the Haganah. The Haganah was the pre-cursor to the Israeli military and was armed in large part by organized crime-linked networks. Per the New York Times, “as a member of the Haganah, Rabbi Friedman participated in the Aliyah Bet, the illegal transport of European Jews to Palestine.”
From 1954 to 1971, Friedman was the chief executive of the United Jewish Appeal (UJA) and, in that role “raised more than $3 billion to support the fledgling state of Israel.” During this period, UJA was intimately involved in the relaunching of the Jewish Agency by Wexner’s mentor Max Fisher in 1970. Fisher was also intimately involved with the related United Israel Appeal. Throughout the 1980s, Wexner was “one of the largest individual contributors to the United Jewish Appeal in America” and, after creating the Wexner Heritage Foundation with Friedman, Wexner became UJA’s vice chairman.
While Wexner was serving in these capacities, he was also engaged in closed door meetings with the highest levels of Israeli leadership, not just about “philanthropy,” but also about his business interests. One specific meeting saw him meet with top Israeli government officials about “Chinese and Israeli interests” working with his company, The Limited, to establish factories in the occupied Golan Heights.
Notably, the Wexner Foundation has direct and controversial ties to at least one former Israeli head of state, Ehud Barak, who was intimately involved with Jeffrey Epstein and an alleged participant in his sex trafficking operation. As reported by Israel Today in 2019:
“[Barak’s ties to the Wexner Foundation] became an issue only after right-wing journalist Erel Segal called last October to investigate the $2.3 million ‘research’ grant Barak received from the Wexner Foundation, which has in turn for years been the beneficiary of Epstein’s financial contributions. According to Segal, the grant under question was given to Barak in 2004-2006, when he held no public position. Barak insists he has no authority to disclose details about this grant. Only the Wexner Foundation can, if they so choose (they choose silence).”
Developing Leaders
Set up simultaneously alongside the Wexner Foundation, Wexner’s Heritage Program (WHP) planned to connect American Jews with the ever expanding nation-state of Israel. The program was created so as to “expand the vision of Jewish volunteer leaders, deepen their Jewish knowledge and confidence and inspire them to exercise transformative leadership in the Jewish community.” The foundation defines the program as: “essentially a Jewish learning and leadership development program for volunteer leaders in North America.”
There have been, to date, around 2000 “leaders” who have taken part in the program. The WHP is a vehicle for standardizing a certain perspective on the history of Israel, as well as Judaic texts. The two year program is made up of 36 evening seminars, which occur bi-monthly for four-hour periods, as well as three short-term and out-of-town summer institutes hosted in either the US or Israel. Each of these summer institutes are between 5 and 7 days long and take place throughout the program.
As with other well-founded leadership programs, such as the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leader program, the Wexner Heritage Program targets a very specific age group, aiming at professionals who are generally between the ages of 30 and 45 years-old. Some of the most important criteria required of program participants include showing a demonstrated commitment to Judaism, the Jewish community and/or Israel and a track record of leadership in Jewish communal life.
The Wexner Foundation website claims that:
“The 2,300 Alumni of the Wexner Heritage Program are top lay leaders at the local, national and international level. In the 35 cities where we have convened WHP cohorts, virtually every Jewish communal organization continues to be supported by our alumni. They become presidents or chairs of synagogues, Federations, JCC’s, Hillels, day schools, camps and more; they often are founders or chairs of allocations or annual campaigns. They serve on the boards of JFNA, 70 Faces Media, the Foundation for Jewish Camp, International Hillel, AIPAC and J Street; The Shalom Hartman Institute, Pardes, Hadar and every US rabbinical seminary; the Jewish Education Project, Prisma, the JDC and so many more.”
It is worth noting that, of those aforementioned groups, the Wexner Foundation (and especially the Wexner Heritage program) enjoys particularly close ties to AIPAC. For instance, Elliot Brandt, AIPAC’s national managing director, is an alumnus of the Wexner Heritage Program and, in a 2018 speech at that year’s AIPAC policy conference, Brandt noted that “most of the [AIPAC] National Board consists of Wexner Heritage Alumni, not to mention its regional chairs and some of its most committed donors as well.”
Elliot Brandt and Alan Dershowitz at the 2017 AIPAC policy conference, Source: Screenshot
Wexner’s close ties to AIPAC take on a different tone when one considers, not only his close association with the Israeli intelligence-connected Jeffrey Epstein, but also the fact that AIPAC itself has long-standing and controversial ties to Israeli intelligence. For instance, AIPAC was at the center of an Israeli espionage scandal in the US in the mid-1980s as well as again in 2004, when a high-ranking Pentagon analyst was caught passing highly classified information over to Israel’s government via top officials at AIPAC.
Despite extensive evidence, particularly in the latter case, AIPAC itself avoided charges. As journalist Grant Smith noted at the time, “the Department of Justice’s chief prosecutor on the [AIPAC] espionage case, Paul McNulty, was suddenly and inexplicably promoted within the DOJ after he backed off on criminally indicting AIPAC as a corporation.” The charges against the specific AIPAC officials involved were also dropped.
In the years after the Wexner Heritage Program was launched, other similar efforts followed. In 1987, the Wexner Foundation announced it would begin channeling “$3-$4 million in grants to the first year of a program dedicated to the enhancement and improvement of professional leadership in the North American Jewish community.”
Per the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “Wexner said an Advisory Group drawn from among leading Jewish academicians and communal professionals recommended that attention be focused on three critical groups: rabbis, communal professionals and educators.” These efforts would result in the formal creation of the Wexner Graduate Fellowship in 1988. Chairmanship of the Wexner Fellowship Committee was given to Professor Henry Rosovsky.
Henry and Harvard
Henry Rosovsky was an economist at Harvard University. Like Wexner, and like many other of the Wexner Foundation’s associates, Rosovsky was born to Russian Jewish parents. He grew up speaking Russian, German, and French and, in 1940, Rosovsky emigrated to the United States of America with his parents.
During World War II, he served in Counterintelligence Corps of the US Army. He became a naturalized US citizen 9 years later. That same year, he received his B.A. degree from the College of William and Mary public research university in Williamsburg, Virginia, followed by his PhD from Harvard in 1959.
Rosovsky taught overseas as a visiting professor in Japan at Hito Subashi and Tokyo Universities, and subsequently taught Japanese studies, economics and history at the University of California at Berkeley until 1965. He also taught at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel, again as a visiting professor, as well as working as a consultant with the United States government, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and UNESCO.
Rosovsky settled down into his eventual career at Harvard in 1965 and brought with him the intention of making Jewish life at Harvard flourish. By 1978, Rosovsky had helped to establish the Center for Jewish Studies, which was led by Harry Wolfson, the first chairman of a Judaic studies center at any American college. Rosovsky was the first Jew to serve on the board of the Harvard Corporation. Rosovsky’s wife, Nitza Rosovsky, also had a presence at Harvard, and in 1986, during Harvard’s 350th anniversary celebrations, she wrote a piece entitled “The Jewish Experience at Harvard and Radcliffe,” which traces the Jewish history at the university dating back to the 1720s.
Henry Rosovsky posing with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Source: Harvard Hillel
Rosovsky developed a close relationship with some key faculty members at Harvard, including future US Treasury Secretary and Harvard president Larry Summers. In 2017, Summers stated in a video tribute to Rosovsky the following: “Thirty-five years ago, I sat in your office as a young recruit to the Harvard faculty, and I was trembling with the majesty of it all,” he said. “Over time I became less intimidated and came to value your wisdom and your experience.”
Rosovsky became involved with the Wexner Foundation in 1987, when the Wexner Foundation announced the aforementioned initiative to recruit, support, and retain “the highest quality professional leadership” in the American Jewish community through grant-making to individuals and institutions. Those individual grants were awarded as Wexner Foundation fellowships and the Foundation appointed Rosovsky to serve as the chairman of the Wexner Fellowship Committee.
Rosovsky was prominent and well-connected by the time Wexner approached him, with his connections including Israeli politicians and heads of state like Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin. By this point, Rosovsky was also being publicly honored for his many achievements. In 1987, after Wexner had launched several of his philanthropic endeavors, the American Academy of Achievement – a non-profit educational organization that recognizes some of the highest achieving individuals in the country – had awarded Rosovsky its “Golden Plate Award.”
One of Rosovsky’s most important links that were likely of interest to Wexner was his strong connection with Harvard Hillel. What is today referred to as the “Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel,” the Harvard Hillel is commonly described as a service organization that provides Jewish educational, cultural, religious, and social opportunities for students and faculty. Rosovsky had been a key player in paving the way for Hillel’s relocation from a simple home at the outskirts of campus to a location at the heart of Harvard life. Wexner’s subsequent involvement with Harvard Hillel would also mark Epstein’s own entry into what would become his controversial, and intimate, relationship with the prestigious university.
According to a 2003 article in the Harvard Crimson on Epstein’s donations to the University, Rosovsky was not only one of Epstein’s closest associates at Harvard, but was also Epstein’s “oldest friend of the bunch,” having been introduced to Rosovsky by Wexner around 1991. That is notably the same year that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell began their sexual blackmail/sex trafficking operation.
1991 was also the year that the New York Times reported that four donors, among them Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein, had pledged to raise $2 million for the construction of the new student center of Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel. In that article, the Times lists Epstein as the “president of Wexner Investment Company.” The building was completed in 1994 and named Rosovsky Hall in Henry Rosovsky’s honor. Rosovsky Hall is a 19,500-square-foot building, which cost $3 million to complete and includes a garden courtyard, a student lounge, a dining hall, a library, offices, and multi-purpose rooms for worship and meetings.
After Epstein’s 2019 arrest, Hillel executive director Rabbi Jonah Steinberg claimed that Epstein had merely “facilitated” a gift that was actually donated by the Wexners and did not involve Epstein’s personal money. However, a now-absent plaque on the building, cited by the Harvard Crimson in 2003, named both Epstein and Wexner as donors responsible for funding the center’s construction.
Steinberg did note that Epstein did donate $50,000 to Hillel in 1991, the same year that the gift for the construction of Rosovsky Hall was also made. The following year, records from Harvard’s Office of Alumni Affairs and Development reveal that Epstein was courted as a potential donor by the University, with Harvard’s “most senior leaders” first officially meeting with Epstein to “seek his support.” It is unclear exactly what resulted from this meeting, as Epstein’s first official donation to Harvard was recorded in 1998, raising the possibility that support could have been given in other ways that did not necessarily involve direct donations to the University.
Indeed, when Harvard moved to reject donations from Epstein following his 2008 conviction, Epstein continued to donate indirectly to the University by directly sponsoring several professors as well as a student social club at Harvard. Epstein may have contributed in this fashion during this earlier period, especially given that he had already donated to Harvard’s Hillel by the time of the 1992 meeting.
Jeffrey Epstein speaks with Larry Summers at a 2004 dinner he hosted for Harvard’s biggest names. Also pictured is Alan Dershowitz, among others. Source: Sott
It is worth noting that Epstein’s first “official” donation to Harvard in 1998 was the same year he was using his private plane, now best known to the public as the “Lolita Express,” to transport then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Lawrence “Larry” Summers. Summer’s then-boss, Treasury Secretary Richard Rubin, had previously facilitated Epstein’s first official visit to the Clinton White House in early 1993. Summers would become president of Harvard University shortly after the conclusion of the Clinton administration, in July 2001. During Summer’s tenure, Epstein’s access to Harvard’s campus and many of its most notable professors increased exponentially. While president of Harvard, Summers continued to fly on Epstein’s plane.
Developing Young Global Leaders
Though Epstein’s ties to Harvard have been scrutinized, Wexner also dramatically expanded his donations to Harvard during much of the same period. However, the role this may have played in facilitating Epstein’s own connections to the university have been largely glossed over by mainstream media reports on the matter.
Even before Wexner and Epstein donated to Harvard’s Hillel in 1991, Wexner’s philanthropic “development of leaders” had become entangled with Harvard University. In 1989, the year after the Wexner Graduate Fellowship was launched, the Wexner Israel Fellowship program was created to specifically “support up to 10 outstanding Israeli public officials earning their Mid-Career Master of Public Administration (MC/MPA) at Harvard Kennedy School.”
Per the Wexner Foundation’s website: “The goal of the Fellowship is to provide Israel’s next generation of public leaders with advanced leadership and public management training. More than 280 Israeli public officials have participated in the Israel Fellowship, including leaders who have gone on to become Directors General of government ministries, Generals and Commanders in the Israeli military, and top advisers to Prime Ministers.” As part of the program, participants “meet with senior U.S. government officials.” Wexner Israel Fellows also “commit to returning to Israel and remaining in the public sector for at least three years after completing the program.”
Similar claims can be found among Israeli media. For example, Israel 21c stated the following about the program in 2002:
“Several Wexner graduates have gone on to become Director-Generals of government ministries. Others have reached the highest echelons of the military, the health service, and the educational establishment. But ultimately, for Israel, the value of the program is not the titles of its participants, but in the quality of leadership exercised by these individuals at every level.”
That same article also notes that Wexner’s interest in having this program be hosted at Harvard’s Kennedy school “is the quality of the international exposure it permits. It attracts the highest caliber of public sector leadership from around the world and Israeli participants find themselves sitting next to ex-presidents and future prime ministers from every continent. It also creates a rare opportunity for high quality public relations, as future world leaders are exposed to some of the finest and most dedicated individuals Israel has to offer.”
Among the 10 alumni of the first class of Wexner Israel Fellows is Shay Avital, a prominent leadership figure in the Israeli military and who had first served under Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother, Yonatan Netanyahu. Other alumni include Avinoam Armoni, former special adviser to Teddy Kollek, as well as Israeli prime ministers; Moshe Lador, former Israeli state prosecutor; Arik Raz, former governor of Israel’s Misgav region; Uzi Vogelman, current justice on Israel’s Supreme Court;Eduardo Titelman Goren, a Chilean economist who has played a major role in managing Chile’s copper mining industry (the world’s largest); and Yossi Tamir, Director General of the JDC-Israel, “the leading global Jewish humanitarian organization.”
Another interesting alumnus from this first class was Amos Slyper, who was Deputy Director-General of the State Comptroller’s Office in Israel, making him responsible for the auditing of Israeli government ministries and offices. During Slyper’s tenure, the legal adviser to that office was Nurit Israeli, an alumnus of the second class of Wexner Israel Fellows.
As can be seen from just the first class of fellows, the Wexner Israel Fellow programs and its active alumni community have given Wexner considerable clout with prominent Israelis in major positions in government and industry. Years after this program was launched, it has since expanded to include the Wexner Senior Leaders program, which “leverages the training and scholarship of the Harvard Kennedy School to strengthen Israel’s public service leadership and spur innovative, collaborative projects across government departments and agencies.” It specifically seeks applicants from “senior level positions within Israel’s public service sector, including the civil service, local government, government agencies, and security forces.”
Thus, even before the 1991 donation by Wexner and Epstein, Wexner was actively bringing prominent Israelis, many with careers in Israel’s national security apparatus or in the public sector, to study at Harvard’s Kennedy school. In the years that followed, Wexner would become one of the guiding forces behind this particular school and would have even greater influence over the “development of leaders” at the institution.
Shortly before Larry Summers became Harvard’s president, Leslie Wexner, via the Wexner Foundation, funded the creation of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Center for Public Leadership (CPL). The CPL is described as “a premier training ground for emerging public leaders in the United States.”
The long-time director of CPL, who was likely chosen with direct input from Wexner, is David Gergen, an adviser to former presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton. Gergen has also had a parallel career in journalism and, in the late 1980s, “he was chief editor of U.S. News & World Report, working with publisher Mort Zuckerman.” Zuckerman was a close associate of Epstein and bought the New York Daily News after the death of its previous owner, Robert Maxwell. Gergen is also a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, where Epstein also had memberships.
Wexner’s contributions to Harvard’s CPL reached $19.6 million by 2006 and totaled more than $42 million by 2012. Notably, during this period, Jeffrey Epstein – one of Wexner’s closest associates until they parted ways between 2007 and 2008 – was also making major connections and gaining unprecedented access to the school.
In 2006, when the Wexner’s announced an additional donation of $6.8 million to the CPL, Gergen was quoted by the Harvard Crimson as saying:
“It has been a great personal privilege to work with Les and Abigail Wexner over the past half-dozen years, at the University and beyond. They are both leaders in their own right – people of vision, imagination, and keen dedication to advancing the quality of public life. They have been wonderful partners.”
In 2014, Gergen participated in the Wexner Foundation’s 30th anniversary gala, hosting a session where he interviewed former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres at length.
Before Epstein’s second arrest, the Wexner-dominated CPL saw Epstein associates like Glenn Dubin and Leon Black creep into its top leadership bodies. For example, Dubin had become a member of CPL’s advisory council, which Leslie and Abigail Wexner co-chaired. Both Wexner and Dubin were pressured to remove themselves from that council after Epstein’s second arrest and subsequent death and departed in February 2020. At the time, the Harvard Crimson noted that the chief of staff to then-Harvard president Lawrence Bacow, Patricia Bellinger, had been added to the board of directors of Wexner’s L Brands (the current corporate name of The Limited).
Also at the time, Dubin had been named in court documents as one of the men Virginia Giuffre was forced to have sex with when she was under Epstein’s control, with another being Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz. In addition, as noted by the Crimson, a “former manager of the Dubin household Rinaldo Rizzo recount[ed] his encounter with a 15-year-old girl allegedly trafficked by Epstein who was brought to the Dubins’ house in 2005.” In 2010, Dubin had donated $5 million to the CPL to create his own fellowship aimed at “developing leaders,” called the Dubin Graduate Fellowships for Emerging Leaders.
In another example, Leon Black, of Apollo Global Management and whose “philanthropic” family foundation was also managed by Epstein for years, was on the CPL’s leadership council. Black, however, did not resign his post after the Epstein scandal became a national concern. However, after Wexner and Dubin had left their positions on the advisory council, Black’s connection to Epstein resulted in considerable media scrutiny as well as an “internal investigation” by Apollo.As of 2022, Black is no longer listed on the CPL’s website as a member of its leadership council.
In 2006, plans were made for the Wexner-funded CPL to team up with the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders (YGL) program. The World Economic Forum, which describes itself as the pre-eminent facilitator of “public-private partnerships” on a global scale, originally created what would become YGL in 1992 under the name the Global Leaders of Tomorrow. It was rebranded as the YGL program in 2004.
In recent years, the Forum and its YGL program have become infamous in some circles, specifically after a clip of the Forum’s chairman Klaus Schwab went viral. In that clip, Schwab states the following of the YGL program:
“I have to say then I mention names like Mrs Merkel, even Vladimir Putin and so on they all have been Young Global Leaders of The World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now with the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, is that we penetrate the cabinets… It is true in Argentina and it is true in France now…”
Notably, that clip comes from a 2017 discussion between Klaus Schwab and the CLP’s David Gergen that took place at the Harvard Kennedy school. In the introduction to that discussion, the close ties between the Harvard Kennedy school and the World Economic Forum are highlighted and it is also mentioned that YGL participants are also present and attending the Harvard Kennedy school for an executive session. Gergen, in addition to his many roles and appointments, is also formerly a board member of the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship, which Klaus Schwab co-founded with his wife in 1998, and is also an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum.
The CPL began hosting an Executive Session for Young Global Leader participants in order to allow “the Young Global Leaders a much greater opportunity to form personal connections and bonds that will encourage opportunities for the leaders to working together, across multiple sectors, to solve international issues and problems in the future.”
These executive sessions were “designed and hosted by the Kennedy School of Government” and a significant amount of the funds raised were connected to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). In 2007, Epstein’s defense lawyers claimed that Epstein had played a major role in developing the CGI, writing to federal prosecutors that “Mr. Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative, which is described as a project ‘bringing together a community of global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world’s most pressing challenges’.”
At the time, the executive director of the CPL, working under David Gergen, was Betsy Meyers, a former senior adviser to president Clinton, specifically on women’s issues. Meyers also played a “critical role in Clinton’s re-election effort in 1996.” The corruption surrounding Clinton’s re-election campaign that year and Epstein’s own connections to that corruption are a key focus of my upcoming book.
Klaus Schwab’s now infamous “penetrate the cabinets” quote may offer insight as to Leslie Wexner’s own interest over the decades in “developing leaders” in American Jewish communities, in Israel and beyond. With nearly 40 years focused specifically on training men and women of influence in American Jewish society – as well as in Israel’s government and private sector – ideas and policies that benefit Wexner both personally and professionally have been instilled into generations of leaders and influencers, who then go on to influence many others. In the specific case of the Wexner Israel fellows, Wexner has been able to “penetrate” key posts in Israel’s government, and even its national security/intelligence apparatus, with people he has funded and who have participated in courses that were shaped by, and reflect, Wexner’s views.
Over the past two decades, Wexner’s foray into becoming one of the main donors of the Harvard Kennedy school allows for much the same to occur, but this time for leaders who operate and influence those far outside of the boundaries of the global Jewish community.
Wexner’s exact reasons for establishing and maintaining this legitimate yet massive influence operation, which paralleled Epstein’s own blackmail-based influence operation, have never been made explicit.
Yet, in speculating as to why he would want to mold the powerful and soon-to-be powerful, it is worth considering Wexner’s lesser known connections, including to organized crime and to Jeffrey Epstein.
Watch the official public release of Matador Films new “Uninformed Consent” documentary, presented by Librti.com and Vaccine Choice Canada.
An in-depth look into the Covid 19 narrative, who’s controlling it, and how it’s being used to inject an untested, new technology into almost every person on the planet.
The film explores how the narrative is being used to strip us of our human rights while weaving in the impact of mandates in a deeply powerful story of one man’s tragic loss.
Hear the truth from doctors and scientists not afraid to stand up against Big Pharma and the elite class who profit from mandates.
“This film reveals that we have been massively deceived by our own governments, public health, and mainstream media.” – Ted Kuntz – President – Vaccine Choice Canada
“Can’t wait for this movie to come out. Crude propaganda ‘crisis of the uninjected’ followed by censorship, reprisal and totalitarian brute force on the people. I say bring it on!” – Dr. Peter McCullough – Internist & Cardiologist – Professor of Medicine
“Todd is a brilliant filmmaker who has a unique way of exposing the devastation to families from the mandates.” – Odessa Orlewicz – Partner – Librti.com
“Uninformed Consent is the most scientific and factual TRUTH to come out of Canada in the last 3 years. If you are a parent, this should be on the TOP of your viewing list. It is TRULY an eye-opener. Everyone needs to see this film!” – Amanda Forbes – Children’s Health Defense
“This is the most powerful documentary of the Covid era.” – Sherri Strong – Children’s Health Defense Canada
Journalist Vanessa Beeley wrote this today on her Telegram channel
“When are people going to realise we all face one enemy and that there is no time for “neutrality”? There is no time for division over the concepts created by the enemy to divide and distract. Focus on the enemy”
This is my response…
—–
Dear Vanessa,
You became a dear friend during the two initial years of “covid” insanity, so I think – in fact I know – we completely agree about the need to face the common enemy in unity and not allow ourselves to be distracted.
But the question for me right now is – who is the “enemy”? Where are they? What are they?
Since 9/11 the neocons, the empire and their policies of endless war has been a major thing to be opposed and you have done great and courageous work in opposing them and revealing their crimes, for which you have never received due credit. I know what you have been through and nothing I say is intended to minimise that.
But I think 2020 showed us that denouncing the empire is no longer enough. The “enemy” is changing, evolving and we need to change and evolve as well.
We all know the “pandemic” was meant to be the launch pad for the New Normal. It was intended to be the moment literally everything in our geopolitical landscape changed permanently. They said so, repeatedly.
This wasn’t just a slogan – they meant it. They still mean it.
Yes grassroots resistance over the last two years has slowed that down, thankfully, but it hasn’t stopped. It’s pushing on, relentlessly, easing us into the Brave New World by inches every day.
We already know what that world is – it’s globalism, neo-feudalism, bug-burgers, travel only for the wealthy, eco-tyranny, bio-surveillance, UBI, CBDC, permanent pandemics.
And quite possibly permanent wars.
But not the old imperial wars. Globalism doesn’t seem to need the US or it’s empire any more, and in fact seems to be busy trying to pull the plug and sink it. Sure it might preserve the tattered remains for a while as a handy conduit for justifiable rage, and those remains are still vicious and ugly, but the true power center looks to have already moved elsewhere.
Maybe some time ago. Longer ago than any of us realise.
New globalism’s new schtick is “multipolarity”. The WEF talks about it. A federation of “free” and “independent” states with an economic focus in the East.
But of course all those “independent” states will run the same anti-human policies.
In fact – they already are.
This is the shocking fact that the “pandemic” , perhaps inadvertently, made so clear. That, already, there is a degree of lockstep conformity among world-leaders we had heretofore thought to be impossible.
Was it a new thing, or just newly exposed? It doesn’t really matter – the important thing is – we all saw it.
We saw China initiate the “covid” scam, then the US, Europe, Canada and Australasia pick it up instantly and Russia, Iran soon after.
We saw them, and see them still, working together to promote the same lies, the same fear and the same evil, forcing the same toxic sludge into their respective populations, promoting the same anti-human agenda. Cricket flour in the shops. CBDCs and QR codes.
We can’t un-see this and we mustn’t. Seeing it and being aware is our only hope. We glimpsed behind the curtain before they snatched it closed again. We saw the evolving truth.
The belief we all had that Russia or China were hold-outs against the “enemy” is simply not a reality any more. Either things have changed or it was always an illusion.
Either way – it’s gone.
They are not on the side of humanity any more than any other oligarchy is. They are not pushing back. They do not stand for a better world. They stand for the NN, or their version of it, which seems to differ very little.
We NEED to see this, accept it, adjust our paradigm and face the enemy in its new “multipolar” guise.
I think what you interpret as “neutrality” in some of your colleagues is that adjustment of focus.
I suggest the war in Syria was/is the last of the true imperial wars and the war in Ukraine is the first of the new kind of war, whatever that turns out to mean.
The first truly Orwellian war perhaps, waged, as he describes in 1984, not by one power block against another, but by the “elites”, united by mutual interest, against the rest of us.
A continuation of “covid” by other means.
After all we can’t deny this war launched at a very opportune moment for the NN didn’t it, and has helped promote a lot of the same agenda, as well as created a MASSIVE distraction from the most important lesson “covid” taught us.
The common purpose of those who think they rule us.
To answer the question I posed at the start –
I think the enemy is the anti-human agenda that the war and “covid” are helping to promote.
I think creating (fake) binaries is a part of the process.
I think this enemy wants us taking sides, often meaningless sides, and swapping outrage narratives because that stops us focusing on it and its agenda.
But, while I might decline to pick which set of Agenda 2030-promoting cynical murderous liars to support — I think I, and Off-Guardian, are anything but neutral.
I’m interested to hear your opinion on this. In fact I hope we can start a wider dialogue involving others too.
Because how we move on from this point may be crucial to how successfully we can resist the nightmare future our beloved leaders have planned for us.
We have just been through over two and a half years of total tyranny, leading to complete totalitarianism. The country’s slave-class (voluntarily) accepted home prison called lockdowns, they accepted the forced loss of their jobs, they accepted the loss of most all their freedom, they accepted state staged riots, property destruction and brutal violence, all allowed by the state, they accepted a loss of most all mobility to travel, they accepted wearing deadly masks by order, and they accepted experimental poisonous bioweapon injections by the hundreds of millions.
They lived with purposely manufactured food shortages, they lived with loss of income at the hands of the hypocritical monsters in political office, they abandoned their families and friends, they lost all decent medical care, (what little there was) they lived with mass state murder that is democide, they reported their neighbors and shunned all who did not comply with state-mandate idiocy, and they crawled under rocks pretending that nothing was amiss.
They watched as trillions of fake dollars were printed, (theft of property) stolen and fed to the banking and corporate masters, they watched as a staged war in Ukraine became the fodder for stupidity world-wide, they watched as prices doubled, tripled, and in some cases went up a hundred fold almost overnight. They watched as police beatings increased dramatically, allowed mass shootings staged by government and ignored by police, and they watched as the state threatened and are now implementing the poisoning and killing of children by lethal injection with fake ‘vaccines.’
This is not all that happened by any stretch of the imagination, but it is enough to understand that all this is the fault of the masses of sheep who continue to worship at the altar of government, media, and total political insanity. If ever mental illness were evident, it is now obvious that 99% of this population are consumed by this illness caused by ignorance, indifference, cowardice, and dependency, and even with all this, they continue to believe most everything they are told.
As of this morning, after everything I have mentioned above, and much more, stupidity and blind gullibility continues to consume this population of scared and naïve simpletons. After all that has happened, nearly 100% of what is being presented by most all the mainstream and alternative media today, is the so-called raid of Trump’s mansion. Forgotten is the reality that all liberty has been destroyed, the economy is nearly ruined, slavery of the masses is rampant, threats to turn loose the armed IRS on every citizen not protected by government is being implemented, and more fake ‘viruses’ are being planned. But all that is important today is the Trump ‘raid,’ which by all laws of logic, is probably a set-up, a scam, or false flag, being used for any number of reasons. Even if this was a legitimate story, it is irrelevant concerning the big picture. All are consumed by this nonsense, and by design.
Every president in my opinion, should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity before or after leaving office, and I would applaud any action of that nature, but this is just another dividing plot. And of course, it has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by what is referred to as the ‘right.’ But it has also been accepted as legitimate by nearly all the alternative media as well, including most all those claiming to be ‘libertarian.’ Whoever designed this coup, knew exactly what they were doing, and nearly the entirety of the ‘conservative’ and feigned ‘libertarian’ crowd have taken the bait.
This could be happening for any number of reasons, including to alter the upcoming idiot elections, to strengthen or destroy Trump and his brainless crowd of followers, it could be to purposely cause civil unrest among the natives, or it could be for other reasons. One thing is for sure, it is bizarre, and lacks credibility. Even Trump’s response seems to be self-promoting and fake, but who really knows?
My approach to life and especially ‘news’ is to believe nothing, trust nothing, and question everything. This weird set of events lately solidly confirms my position, and in the best interest of intelligence and sanity, I will take this ‘news’ event with a grain of salt, and not spend any of my energy buying into or considering another state narrative filled with holes. Of course, I never do. I consider this only as fraud and deceit, and most likely a scam that could have been initiated by either side or both.
Think before you jump, as in most every case, the cliff of nefarious lies is much higher than expected, and gullibility leads only to madness.
I’m moving on from Part 1 into a completely different area.
There is lab work in the sciences that crucially affects populations. Two examples: virologists claiming they’ve isolated SARS-CoV-2; and researchers deciding they’ve found a way to adapt RNA technology to produce a COVID vaccine.
In the first case, the purported discovery of SARS-CoV-2 enabled the launch of the global pandemic announcement, which eventually led to the lockdowns and the crashing of economies. In the second case, the RNA-vaccine “breakthrough” led to the vaccination of billions of people, and massive numbers of injuries and deaths.
These are crucial effects, to say the least.
And yet, those on the outside, who have no access to these labs AS THE WORK IS BEING DONE, those who are independent scientists and analysts and can only read the studies once they are published—
—This is an unconscionable situation, when you stop and think about it.
The whole world is changed by the research, but we can’t watch it IN PROGRESS.
People have been brainwashed into thinking this lack of access to labs is normal. Standard. Non-official persons entering these labs and tracking the work step by step would amount to a criminal invasion. That’s what we’re supposed to believe:
“Just accept our statements about our findings and shut up and obey.”
“We’re the pros. You’re the idiots.”
“We’re certified. You’re the guinea pigs.”
“Call security, call the FBI, call DHS, terrorists are trying to break into our lab.”
“This is a holy sanctum, anointed by God. You’re a mortal sinner.”
Here’s my kind of debate on the existence of SARS-Cov-2. Here’s my bottom, bottom line.
Virologists are compelled to replicate, in the lab, the so-called discovery of SARS-CoV-2. An outside team of truly independent scientists and journalists is present.
So is a camera crew. With many cameras. And many mics.
The team watches every single move the virologists make. Any member of the team can stop the work and ask a question or criticize a move.
The questions and answers and the criticisms and replies are all recorded. Ditto for every action the virologists take.
THIS is a REAL debate. The most real debate.
“Wait. That’s ridiculous. You can’t expect these highly trained virologists to submit themselves to this kind of…inspection.”
Of course I can.
For example: Our team member in the lab says, “All right, you’re observing that the monkey cells and the human cells in this soup you’ve created are dying off. You claim the killer must be ‘the virus’ in the patient’s tissue sample—the sample you dropped in the soup. You claim nothing else in the soup could be killing the cells. So let me ask you this? Where is the control experiment?”
“The what?”
“The control. My, my. You really forgot about that?”
“I don’t understand. Turn off the cameras.”
“Leave them on, boys. This is interesting. Let me explain, Dr. High Horse. You should have a second dish of soup that is absolutely identical to the first dish, except the second dish does NOT contain the tissue sample from a patient. You also keep an eye on that second dish and see whether the monkey cells and the human cells in it die off. If they do…then your contention that ‘the virus’ in the patient sample is killing those cells is worthless. And you have no evidence your virus is in the patient sample. Or that it exists.”
“Oh. Well…”
“Well, what? You don’t mean to say all those virologists in all those labs who claimed they found the new virus omitted the control experiment, do you?”
YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING. THAT KIND OF INVESTIGATION.
On camera, in the lab, in person.
“That would never happen. They would never let you in there.”
Which proves what? I’m just stating what the MOST REAL DEBATE WOULD CONSIST OF, in a half-sane world. It would look exactly like that.
Here’s a parallel for you. A civilian no one ever heard of develops a car he says runs on water. He says he’s got a new process that VERY cheaply splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the car runs on the hydrogen.
Over years and decades, the legend grows. Finally, major media are starting to nibble around the edges of the story.
So one day, a bunch of Saudis and oil execs and scientists and men in suits show up at this man’s garage, and express great interest in his work. THEY REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THIS CRAZY GUY HAS STUMBLED ON A REVOLUTIONARY WAY TO POWER A CAR.
So what would they ask him to do?
See, they’re the outsiders with no access, and he’s the insider.
Are they just going to ask him for assurances?
Hell no. They’re going to ask him to take the engine apart and put it back together again. They’re going to ask him to take the fuel system apart and put it back together again. They’re going to want to go through his whole car and his garage and his kitchen and his bathroom with a fine-toothed comb. BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS SITUATION, SINCE IT COULD AFFECT THE FUTURE OF CIVILIZATION, AND THEIR PROFITS, AND SO ON.
They’re not screwing around.
And neither should we.
Our lives and futures and the lives of future generations are on the line with this “virus thing.”
We should be looking at every beaker and tube and slide and instrument in the virology lab. We should be looking over the shoulders of the virologists and watching every move they make and asking pointed questions and demanding answers.
So we really know whether they’re doing science or preposterous bullshit.
And of course we wouldn’t be paying attention to random assurances from “highly qualified and respected scientists” along the way. We’d be studiously ignoring them.
If you need another parallel to the real kind of investigation I’m demanding, think of bringing a team into the Vatican and inspecting every inch of space in every building, including the basements and caverns…to see what’s really there. The whole enchilada.
All right, you get the idea. You see what I’m asking for.
Now, short of that, what do we have? What can we get access to?
Well, it’s not entirely reliable, but here it is:
We can read published studies which claim to have found SARS-CoV-2. Those studies all have methods sections. In them, the researchers describe, step by step, what they did to “isolate the virus.”
We have that.
I’m now going to republish one of those methods sections, chunk by chunk, and have Dr. Andrew Kaufman make his criticisms as we go along. I published all this about a year ago.
I want to emphasize that Dr. Kaufman’s analysis should be just the beginning of highly detailed analyses of these methods sections, from a number of other independent critics. We need much more of this.
The devil is in the details.
Here we go:
I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)”.
STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”
KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”
STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”
KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”
STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”
KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”
STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”
KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”
KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO). Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”
STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”
STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”
KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”
STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”
KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”
—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—
Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 500 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past two years) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?
The answer is no.
As I stated, Dr. Kaufman’s analysis should be just the beginning of intense and detailed examination of studies that describe “how the virus was isolated.”
As opposed to a few hours of Zoom debate in which people summarize their opposing positions, and then submit to a vote from a panel of judges who descend from the sky with motives as pure as Superman and Wonder Woman. All this happens with Steve Kirsch in the background holding a million dollar prize. In Vegas, Steve would be called the house. And the house always wins.
On 1 September, 1941, Chief of Reich Security Reinhard Heydrich, one of the most fanatical, mass-murdering Nazis, issued a now notorious decree ordering Jews above the age of six to wear an identifying badge in public. The Jewish Badge, a yellow Star of David with the word “Jew” inscribed inside the star, was meant to stigmatize and humiliate the Jews and was also used to segregate them and monitor and control their movements.
Nothing like that is happening currently, especially not in New Normal Germany.
What is happening currently in New Normal Germany is the fascist fanatics in control of the government are rewriting the “Infection Protection Act,” again — as they have been doing repeatedly for the last two years — in order to allow themselves to continue to violate the German constitution (the “Grundgesetz“) and rule the nation by arbitrary decree under the guise of “protecting the public health.”
This repeatedly revised “Infection Protection Act” — which has granted the government of New Normal Germany the authority to order lockdowns, curfews, the outlawing of protests against the New Normal, the mandatory wearing of medical-looking masks, the segregation and persecution of “the Unvaccinated,” etc. — is of course in no way remotely comparable to the “Enabling Act of 1933,” which granted the government of Nazi Germany the authority to issue whatever decrees it wanted under the guise of “remedying the distress of the people.”
There is absolutely no similarity whatsoever between these two pieces of legislation.
I mean, look at this “Autumn/Winter Plan” for the new revision of the “Infection Protection Act,” which will remain in effect from October until Easter, and which government officials and state propagandists (a/k/a the German media) are likening to “snow chain ordinances.”
There is absolutely nothing creepily fascistic or remotely Nazi about this plan.
Sorry, it’s in German. Allow me to translate.
On planes and trains and at the airports and train stations, everyone will be forced to wear doggy-snout masks — i.e., FFP2 “Filtering Face Pieces” as defined by the EN 149 standard — except for the staff of the airports and train stations, and the flight attendants, conductors, etc., who will only be forced to wear “medical-looking masks.” In hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices, nursing homes and other healthcare facilities, everyone, including the staff, will not only be forced to wear the dog-snout masks but they will also be forced to submit to testing, unless they can provide proof of “vaccination” (or recovery, which also means being tested) within the previous three-month period. On the premises of private companies, i.e., offices, factories, warehouses, and so on, the previously rescinded Arbeitsschutzverordnung (“Corona Occupational Safety Ordinance”) — masks, tests, forced “vaccinations,” “social distancing,” plastic barriers, etc. — will go back into effect in October and will remain in effect until the Easter holidays.
The individual federal states will be empowered to impose other senseless “restrictions,” like general mask mandates in shops, restaurants, and every other type of “interior spaces,” limits on the number of people who can gather publicly or in their homes, and mandatory masks for kids in schools and testing in kindergartens and daycare facilities. In restaurants, bars, theaters, museums, sports facilities, and pretty much everywhere else in society, the federal states can demand that people show proof of recent “vaccination” or recovery to be exempted from having to wear a mask.
OK, allow me to translate again.
What that last part means is that anyone who refuses to submit to repeated “vaccination” or testing will be forced to wear a mask in public to identify themselves as “Unvaccinated” (i.e., the New Normal Reich’s official “Untermenschen”).
So, OK, maybe it’s a little creepily fascistic and not as non-Nazi as I suggested above. I put it this way in a recent tweet …
Needless to say, this could get confusing, as the New Normals are extremely attached to their masks, which they’ve been wearing — like Nazis wore swastika lapel pins — to publicly signal their “solidarity” (i.e., mindless conformity to the new official ideology) for going on the last two and half years. And now the masks will function like the “Jewish Badges” with the Star of David that the Nazis forced the Jews to wear, except on public transportation, and planes and trains, unless the federal states decide to force everyone to wear masks everywhere, in which case … well, you get the general idea.
Still, the fact that everyone will have to present their “vaccination papers” (or their “recovery papers”) to enter a restaurant, or a bar, or go to the cinema or the theater, and, basically, to do anything else in society, should make up for the mask confusion. I mean, what kind of a fascist society would it be if you didn’t have to show your “papers” to some beady-eyed goon to get a cup of coffee?
But let’s be clear about what’s happening in Germany.
What is happening is, a new official ideology is being imposed on society. It is being imposed on society by force. And now, those of us who refuse to conform to it will be ordered to walk around in public wearing visible symbols of our non-conformity.
I’m sorry, but the parallels are undeniable.
This new official ideology has nothing to do with a respiratory virus or any other public health threat. At this point, I do not have to repeat this argument. The majority of countries around the world have finally rescinded their “emergency measures” and acknowledged the facts that we “conspiracy theorists” have been citing for the past two and a half years, and that we have been relentlessly demonized and censored for citing.
No, this new official ideology, the New Normal — which is still very much in effect in places like Germany, China, Canada, Australia, New York, California, etc. — is nakedly, undeniably, purely ideological. It is based, not on facts, but belief. It is a belief system, as is every other ideology. It is essentially no different than an official religion … one which demonizes and persecutes all other religions, and non-religions, and all other belief systems.
According to this new official belief system, those of us who maintain different beliefs, and refuse to convert to the new official beliefs (or pretend to convert to the new official beliefs), are dangerous, foreign elements in society. And thus, from now on, in New Normal Germany, we will be forced to wear a visible symbol of our different beliefs (our “otherness”) in public, so that the authorities and the Good German masses will be able to identify us.
Is any of this sounding vaguely familiar?
I’m fairly certain that someone will read this (and see the tweets I included above) and report me for “relativizing the Holocaust.” For the record, I am not “relativizing the Holocaust.” I’m comparing one totalitarian system to another. Yes, Nazi Germany and New Normal Germany are two very different totalitarian systems, and I have outlined their essential differences and similarities, but, come on, this is not that fucking hard. In Nazi Germany, the Jews were the scapegoats. In New Normal Germany, it’s “the Unvaccinated.”
How much more blatant does it have to get before people stop pretending that this isn’t what it is? Do the authorities have to literally put us in camps? How many more people have to die or be seriously injured by “vaccinations” they did not need but were forced to submit to? I’m not talking to the New Normals now, nor to the people who have been fighting this all along. I’m talking to the people who see what is happening, and are horrified by what is happening, but, for whatever reasons, have refused to speak out … and, yes, I know there are very good reasons. Some of you have families to support, and careers to protect, and, seriously, I get it. But how far does it have to go? At what point do you feel you have to speak out regardless of the personal and professional consequences?
Maybe take some time and meditate on that.
Oh, and here’s a little visual aid that might help folks with their meditations. It’s some graffiti that someone painted on the wall of a courtyard here in New Normal Germany, in the Autumn of 2021, I think. I posted it back then, but it didn’t make much of an impression. Perhaps it will make one now.
The pharmaceutical crime syndicate has been caught out scamming the public yet again.
This time the longstanding psychiatric con of “chemical imbalances” in the brain that can only be “rebalanced” by dishing out dangerous drugs with horrible side effects (without the “correct chemical balance” ever having been identified) has been thoroughly exposed as another overdose of mind-numbing pseudo-science.
The scam, of course, made a lot of money for the degenerates masterminding the unholy alliance of sociopathic drug manufacturers and the psychiatric control cult of drug pushers. It also incapacitated or murdered a large number of people in support of the globalist eugenics program to kill or cow the human race.
But it looks like the truth has finally penetrated the force-screens of disinformation for which the psycho-political-pharmaceutical con-plex is notorious.
This latest embarrassment for the subversives behind the pharmaceutical crime syndicate comes hot on the heels of the cash-and-burn of the covid psyop and the mounting vaxjab death toll.
The writing is on the wall for the genocidal scamsters as the number of people who still believe a ruddy word that dribbles from the forked tongues of these maniacs has dwindled almost to vanishing point.
Hopefully, heads will roll and these criminals will answer for the millions they have maimed and killed over the decades of the now vanishing Pharmaceutical Dark Age.
The following featured article from The Citizens Commission on Human Rights UK (CCHR UK) whose 60+ years of dedicated campaigning against psychopharmaceutical tyranny has now yielded a huge truth dividend, provides a cogent analysis of the “chemical imbalance” mass-drugging drive.
For decades, people have been prescribed antidepressants based on the belief that the psychiatric drugs could do something to resolve a so-called ‘chemical imbalance in the brain’.
Psychiatrists, pharmaceutical companies and their spin doctors used the idea to convince people there might be something useful in taking them, while at the same time, benefiting from increased antidepressant sales.
However, a new review of existing studies has found that depression is not likely to be caused by a chemical imbalance and has indicated people should be made aware of other options for treating it.
Consider this: if antidepressants were supposed to correct an imbalance of the brain, it would follow there would be a way of measuring when such an imbalance was corrected. For the record, there’s no way of measuring a balance or an imbalance of the brain.
Over the years, numerous requests have been made asking for data to support the claims of a chemical imbalance. The requests were never fulfilled yet psychiatrists, in an unholy alliance with pharmaceutical companies, continued to use unscientific rhetoric that resulted in a continual rise in prescriptions for the drugs. At the beginning of July, it was reported that nearly half a million more adults in England were taking antidepressants compared with the previous year.
At the end of the day, it has been indicative of an impressive marketing strategy, generating huge profits for drug companies while creating untold destruction. Since 2000, over 5 billion pounds has been spent on antidepressants in England alone. There’s no doubt this represents commercial success which has kept shareholders happy, but it has been at human expense.
There have been 151 warnings from 11 countries and the European Union warning that antidepressants cause harmful side effects. These include 37 warnings on antidepressants causing suicide risk or suicidal behaviour.
There have also been 279 studies from 35 countries showing that antidepressant drugs cause harmful side effects. These include 49 studies on antidepressants causing new-born complications and 27 studies on antidepressants causing suicide risk or suicide attempts.
The overriding factor in all of this is informed consent. By making it possible to be fully informed about the dangers of antidepressants, people can make up their own minds rather than accepting pseudoscientific claims.
Attempts will be made to protect the lucrative enterprise, but the antidepressant gravy train is like a house of cards about to fall. The time is up for the psychiatric charade.
Let me be clear. I’m speaking for myself here, as a reporter who says SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist. I’m not speaking for Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka, Tom Cowan, Christine Massey, Sam Bailey, or anyone else who has come to the same conclusion.
OK. Steve Kirsch frames the debate (see also here) this way: There are a set of facts about COVID you can lay on the table. Then you decide which hypothesis best explains those facts.
In his case, he chooses: “SARS-CoV-2 exists.”
This approach is an elementary mistake.
I’m not challenging any hypothesis. I’m ATTACKING A STRAIGHT-OUT LABORATORY PROCEDURE.
My attack is on the level of: “You poured the liquid from beaker A into beaker B. Wrong. You should have poured it into beaker C.”
Virologists employ a lab procedure to discover a virus they’ve never seen before. They claim this procedure ISOLATES the virus from all the surrounding material in a soup they create. I say their procedure doesn’t produce that result at all. Period.
I say there is no isolation.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Arguing about hypotheses is entirely beside the point.
But I will write a few words on that subject, just to clear the air.
If a real scientist laid a whole collection of facts on the table, he would then do a hard examination of each one, to make sure it is a true fact. When satisfied, he might sit and think and ask himself, “What hypothesis would explain these facts?”
Let’s say he comes up with one. That’s just the beginning of doing actual science. Why? Because the only scientific value of a hypothesis is its ability to PREDICT.
And by that I mean, MAKE A SPECIFIC AND VERY USEFUL PREDICTION THAT CAN BE VERIFIED OR DENIED BY ACTUAL EXPERIMENT.
Claiming a hypothesis which explains a set of facts as a reason to pop champagne corks signals a gross misconception about what science is.
Forming a debate on that basis would be futile, irrelevant, and a waste of time.
Finally, for now, carrying out a debate on video may impart useful information to viewers, but there is a reason why medical and science journals stubbornly persist in presenting studies as words on the page—as opposed to having the authors dress up and describe their work on camera instead.
Words on the page are much better.
They allow other scientists, journalists, and civilians to go over a study very carefully, phrase by phrase. They allow other scientists to REPLICATE the authors’ work, in order to discover whether the results and conclusions stand up.
Of course, in this “fast moving world, with people on the go, living the active lifestyle,” we should perhaps adopt Easier and Quicker as the mode of scientific decision-making.
“OK, Fred, are the cameras set up, are we ready to roll? Are all the debaters online? Have you got the poll screen in place, so the viewers can vote and decide what’s science and what isn’t when we’re done?”
I’m breathless with anticipation.
On the other hand, if we have “a panel of independent experts” on hand to make that ruling, we can rent them out, in the future, to The New England Journal and The Lancet. Yes, a roving panel making all sorts of judgment calls. They’ll spice up science, which is badly in need of instant melodrama and boffo box office.
Hell, let’s make this debate a game show.
“Great idea, Jim. A couple of tall models in bikinis walking around with big signs, and a host like, oh, Chris Wallace or that guy who keeps talking about laying down a bet for a million dollars. What’s his name? Kirsch. Steve Kirsch.”
Stevie, baby, nobody cares about your money. Nobody cares about your million dollars.
Yesterday, I had the absolute pleasure and honor of being on Dr. Tom Cowan’s Wednesday webinar to discuss a follow-up on the No “Virus” Challenge. We addressed a paper that was supplied by Steve Kirsch and Co. as the “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2.” The paper, a June 2022 non peer-reviewed preprint written by Dr. Sin Lee, is nothing but meaningless genomic data based on a fraudulent “SARS-COV-2” genome from January 2020. For some reason, the Fan Wu paper supplying the original fraudulent genome was not presented as “irrefutable evidence.”
Also discussed are cyro-EM images said to be considered evidence of live “virus.”
Please watch the webinar and find out why neither the genomic data nor the EM images constitute “irrefutable evidence” of a “virus” that was never purified and isolated.
Live Webinar With Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Mike Stone, and Mike Donio – Recorded on July 27th, 2022
In this webinar, along with Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Mike Stone & Mike Donio, we discussed the Virus Challenge in further detail.
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?
Why do governments salute when he predicts a pandemic and tells them to lock down their countries?
Does anyone care about his past?
Why does he still have a prestigious job?
Who is he connected to?
Note: I’m republishing this piece, from 2020, so people don’t forget the criminal and the crime…
Neil Ferguson, through his institute at London’s Imperial College, can call the shots on a major percentage of the global population.
He’s Mr. Genius, when it comes to projecting computer models of epidemics.
Fellow experts puff up his reputation.
According to the Business Insider (4/25/2020), “Ferguson’s team warned Boris Johnson that the quest for ‘herd immunity’ [letting people live their lives out in the open in the UK] could cost 510,000 lives, prompting an abrupt U-turn [massive national lockdown in the UK]…His simulations have been influential in other countries as well, cited by authorities in the US, Germany, and France.”
Not only cited, not only influential, but swallowed whole.
Business insider continues: “On March 23, the UK scrapped ‘herd immunity’ in favor of a suppression strategy, and the country made preparations for weeks of lockdown. Ferguson’s study was responsible.”
There’s more. A lot more.
Same BI article: “Dr Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration, told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [Ferguson’s computer projection] prompted the CDC’s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.”
Ferguson, instigator of LOCKDOWN. Stripping away of basic liberties. Economic devastation.
So let’s look at Ferguson’s track record, spelled out in the BI piece:
“Ferguson co-founded the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, based at Imperial, in 2008. It is the leading body advising national governments on pathogen outbreaks.”
“It gets tens of millions of dollars in annual funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and works with the UK National Health Service, the US Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), and is tasked with supplying the World Health Organization with ‘rapid analysis of urgent infectious disease problems’.”
Getting the picture?
Gates money goes to Ferguson.
Ferguson predicts dire threat from COVID, necessitating lockdowns—thus preparing people to accept a vaccine. The vaccine Gates wants.
Ferguson supplies a frightening computer projection of COVID deaths—to the CDC and WHO. Ferguson thus communicates a rationale for the Gates vaccine plan.
National governments surrender to WHO and CDC. LOCKDOWNS.
Business Insider: “Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, told the paper he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the [Ferguson] Imperial paper [on COVID], saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth [mad cow] outbreak.”
“Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”
“Similarly, he [Ferguson] was accused of creating panic by overestimating the potential death toll during the 2005 Bird Flu outbreak. Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds.” HELLO?
“In 2009, one of Ferguson’s models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.”
So you have to ask yourself, why would anyone believe what Ferguson has been predicting in this COVID hustle?
Are his fellow experts that stupid?
Are presidents and prime ministers that stupid?
And the answer is: This is a monumental covert op; some people are that stupid; some are caught up in the op and are afraid to say the emperor has no clothes; some are aware of what is going on, and they want to destroy national economies and lead us into, yes, a new world order.
Gates knows he has his man: Ferguson. As the recipient of tens of millions of dollars a year from the Gates Foundation, Ferguson isn’t about to issue a model that states: COVID is nothing to worry about, let people live their lives and we’ll be all right. The chance of that happening is on a par with researchers admitting they never properly identified a new virus as the cause of illness in 2019, in Wuhan.
In order to justify injecting every man, woman, and child in the world with heavy metals, synthetic genes that alter genetic makeup, a host of germs, and who knows what else, Gates needs A STORY ABOUT A DEADLY VIRUS THAT NECESSITATES SHUTTING DOWN AND IMPRISONING THE PLANET, ACHIEVING A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE.
He’s got the story, all dressed up in a computer model, composed by a man with a past record of abject and devastating failures.
Neil Ferguson is the ghost in the machine. The machine is the World Health Organization and the CDC. The man behind the ghost is Bill Gates.
If there is a silver lining to the catastrophic Covid experience for us here in New Zealand it is the very clear and indisputable exposure of the political establishment. The green clean smiling benevolent face of the New Zealand government is nothing more than a mask – yes, a mask – behind which is harsh dictatorial mien of a government that feels no need to answer to the needs of the people it purports to govern.
During the brief but compelling and compellingly beautiful gathering of the people at Parliament earlier this year, repeated calls for governmental officials simply to meet and simply to discuss issues of import, such as their imposed mandates and societal apartheid that resulted from them, went blithely and purposefully unheeded. Not one single politician from the Prime Minister’s office on down fulfilled their good-faith political obligations by engaging with those from whom they derive their political power.
Furthermore, on the eve of the brutal and unnecessary invasion of Parliament grounds to clear the protesters, it became clear that those in office never had a wish to engage. I was a member of a small task force who the afternoon before, at 1:30 PM to be precise, had gathered in Wellington to negotiate a settlement of the impasse. The police representative who was to join us cancelled at the last minute.
Later that same afternoon I sat as an observer at a meeting of the Human Rights Commission as a number of petitioners presented evidence of the harm against fundamental human rights, evidence of police abuses and other poignant testimony about the harsh consequences of the mandates. An honest Human Rights Commissioner would have taken up the mantle of protecting those whose rights had been violated and would be violated further by violence. He didn’t.
These past two and a half years have seen those who were, during that first harsh lockdown, lauded and thanked for being ‘essential workers’ terminated from their roles as physicians, nurses, midwives and other health-care practitioners for deciding personally and for their own reasons of health and conscience that a hastily concocted genetic inoculation masquerading as a vaccine was not for them.
As a psychiatrist who worked within the system in the general Wellington region and saw firsthand the tenuous nature of mental health services – services characterised by endemic staff shortages, variable levels of skill, and a form of management style emanating from the top which I can only describe as peculiarly vicious, corrupt and inept – the termination of much-needed and highly competent colleagues was a strange, sad and ironic testament to irrationality and a cold heedlessness of the public weal.
I remember working as a psychiatrist during the first lockdown, making home visits, volunteering time at a local primary care facility when I was on leave, and generally carrying on as one would expect a doctor to do: it was no big deal and I bristled at the division of society into ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential’. This division, however, was a template for the later division of New Zealand into a veritable apartheid society comprised of the jabbed and the unjabbed or, psychologically speaking, the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’, the ‘clean’ and the ‘unclean’, remnants of which we may see among those who mask and those who don’t.
I note, in looking at the past, that no-one in government provided any actual evidence that could justify the extraordinary measures imposed upon the entire country: lockdowns, distancing or masks. Nor have they provided any evidence to justify their demand that all healthcare workers be inoculated to be able to work face to face with clients. Nor, of course have they been able to justify, nor can they justify or explain rationally, the imposition of an inoculation that circumvented the laborious and necessary trials over time, and that have already produced an astonishing legacy of adverse events, including death. There is not nor can there ever be a substitute for time in the testing and approval of a medical intervention. Heaven knows what will transpire among the inoculated in the years to come.
Physicians who have from the beginning set about to explore the treatment of those who were afflicted by Covid found themselves in very lonely terrain, and worse. The New Zealand government, its Ministry of Health, and allied organisations such as the Medical Council, never once encouraged prevention or treatment. When I brought the issue of treatment up at my local hospital, I was referred to a specialist who told me, simply, that there was no evidence that any treatment worked. When I took the effort to send him quite a lot of substantive evidence, he was silent.
Over these past two and a half years the foundational principles of Medicine have been obliterated by our official organisations and our Ministry of Health: the principles of informed consent, individualised treatment and doing no harm. When physicians attempted to act in accordance with these principles they were hounded, derided and officially sanctioned, losing their licences and their jobs. When physicians attempted to discuss natural immunity, the irrationality of attempting to eliminate a respiratory virus, the necessity of early treatment; when physicians attempted to engage with public officials to discuss pertinent matters of science and medicine – they were persecuted and rebuffed.
As of today there are nearly thirty thousand doctors in the Medical Council’s register. Of those thirty thousand a pittance have joined with New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out for Science (NZDSOS) to stand up for these foundational principles of our profession. I am certain that if a mere ten percent of practicing physicians in New Zealand publicly affirmed the basic principles of Medicine we would not be living through the hell of the tyranny imposed by the government in the name of what they call ‘Medicine’ but which every physician understands is merely an Orwellian caricature.
Our government’s Medicine is a world where suffering patients go untreated, where a one-size-fits-all jab that neither prevents infection nor transmission of the pathogen for which it was engineered is safe as water, where informed consent is unnecessary and where masks, despite their inefficacy, should be worn to safeguard health despite the absurdity of how they have instructed people to use them, and despite the consquences of eliminating personal identity and depriving people of their quintessentially human features and means of emotional and expressive communication.
I am repeatedly asked how so many people can participate in cruelties and absurdities, how so many people can be persuaded to overlook what their eyes and ears and hearts tell them, how so many people can go along with what is so obviously destructive to us all. The comprehensive answer might require a long essay or a book to elucidate. But here I will offer an abbreviated response.
Psychological operations like Covid work successfully by creating shock and awe, instilling fear, and inducing a response akin to something that is supernatural, that draws upon our emotionally regressive attitudes towards the miraculous, which transcends the laws of common sense or reason. The origins story of Covid and the incessant and inescapable drumbeat of deceptive case counts and death by the mainstream media worked wonders on a mainly gullible and trusting population. The inclusion of ‘supernatural’ elements, clearly seen by any analysis of the ridiculousness of the rituals of masking, are purposeful, for it is these supernatural elements that grip us unconsciously. Masking is itself a propaganda tour de force; and propaganda is, at bottom, an act of violence.
I will conclude my ruminations with two quotations, which may help to frame my remarks. The first is from Freud who, in his work on group psychology, wrote:
“ … in a group the individual is brought under conditions which allow him to throw off the repressions of his unconscious instinctual impulses. The apparently new characteristics which he then displays are in fact the manifestations of this unconscious, in which all that is evil in the human mind is contained as a predisposition.”
“ … any explanation that fails to acknowledge the actors’ capacity to know and to judge, namely to understand and to have views about the significance and morality of their actions … cannot possibly succeed in telling us much about why the perpetrators acted as they did.”
The State, as all collections of Power tend, would like nothing better than absolute control over a faceless and masked citizenry of submissive digital peasants marching in lockstep to their pronouncements.
Many people, perhaps the great majority, relatively ignorant of history and politics, are primarily occupied with ekeing out an existence amidst the harsh realities of daily living. Trusting in government, they will accept the pronouncements of mainstream media and authorities as Gospel.
There is another group who see quite clearly through the captivating irrationalities and the Siren song of propaganda, and who willingly participate in falsehoods and cruelties not only to save their skins but also to derive pleasure and profit at the expense of others.
And then there are those who speak out.
We, as inherently free and autonomous individuals, are blessed with the responsibility of choice.
Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand.
The original source of this article is Global Research
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.
In the beginning, there was the word. The spoken word, that is.
This word, the written word, didn’t come along for countless generations.
And this word, the printed word, didn’t come along for thousands of years after that.
In fact, we’ve only had the movable type printing press for about 600 years, but without it our world would be unrecognizable.
From the Renaissance to the Reformation, from the fall of feudalism to the rise of capitalism, from the Scientific Revolution to the Industrial Revolution, from the way we order our thoughts to what we choose to think about, nothing survived the printing revolution intact.
Our world is the world that the printing press has created.
And that world started with this. [Holds up mirror.]
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 ONE: THE GUTENBERG CONSPIRACY
You see, in the Middle Ages, mirrors—especially curved mirrors—were fiendishly difficult to make.
And pilgrim badges—elaborately designed lead or pewter plates with a curved mirror in the middle—were even more difficult to make. But in fifteenth-century Germany, they were in hot demand.
It all goes back to the year 800, when Emperor Charlemagne gifted four holy relics from Jerusalem to the Cathedral in Aachen in modern-day Germany: the swaddling clothes and loin cloth of Jesus, Mary’s robe, and the cloth that held John the Baptist’s decapitated head. The relics were thought to have miraculous restorative powers. And so, after the Black Death of 1349, they were removed from the Cathedral’s golden shrine and put on display for the public once every seven years, attracting tens of thousands of pilgrims from across Christendom.
Soon, the belief developed that a curved mirror could be held up to the relics to capture their miraculous powers and bring them back to the pilgrims’ home in whatever far-flung land they hailed from.
Now, the mirror was not a mirror like the ones we’re used to today. It was a pilgrim badge and it was one of the few mass-manufactured items of the Middle Ages. They were lucrative products to make. So lucrative, in fact, that the goldsmiths and stamp cutters of Aachen couldn’t keep up with the demand.
Enter Johannes Gutenberg. Born around the turn of the fifteenth-century to a wealthy family in Mainz, in modern-day Germany, Gutenberg—whose father was a companion of the ecclesiastical mint—had a background in goldsmithing, coinmaking and metalwork.
Arriving in Strasbourg in 1434, he thought to put his skills to work on a profitable venture: creating badges for the next Aachen Pilgrimage in 1439. There was only one problem: he didn’t have the capital to make the badges himself. So he entered into a cooperative with three business partners, each of whom ponied up a portion of the money required for Gutenberg to start producing the mirrors.
But just as the pilgrimage approached and it looked like the inventor was going to make a tidy profit for himself and his business partners, the Black Death struck again. An outbreak of the plague ravaged the Upper Rhine Valley in 1438, postponing the pilgrimage by a year. Gutenberg had already produced a number of the mirrors, but his capital was running out. And so he set his sights on a new venture—one so audacious, so revolutionary that he made his partners sign a contract swearing them to secrecy before he would let them in on it.
In fact, so secret was this project that the only reason we know anything at all about it is because one of the business partners died and his brother tried to take his place in the cooperative. But after the surviving partners refused to let him in on the plot, the would-be co-conspirator sued Gutenberg in Strasbourg court.
The court documents that survive are themselves cryptic—referring to the “adventure and art” of “the work” that Gutenberg and his partners were engaged in, but never specifying what that work was, exactly. We know that it involved presses fastened with screws and engraved “forms” supplied by a local goldsmith, that some quantity of metal had been purchased for the venture, that the work was expected to take five years and—above all—that the object of this undertaking be kept a secret.
Gutenberg and his partners had quite literally entered into a conspiracy.
And that conspiracy, resulted in this. Now this may not look like much to you . . . and you’d be right. This is a pencil sharpener. But the Gutenberg movable type printing press that it’s modeled after? Now that truly was a work of art. In fact, there’s a solid argument to be made that it was one of the most important inventions in human history.
There were many existing ideas and technologies that went into Gutenberg’s creation: the screw press, the manufacture of paper, the idea of woodblock printing, the development of ink. But it took years of careful experimentation to solve the puzzle of how to create a perfect print every time.
At first glance, it seems straightforward. The type is arranged in a rectangular container and then beaten with ink balls. The paper is placed in a leather-covered frame called a “tympan” and covered by a frisket. The tympan is then laid on the type and fed into a screw press, which is turned to press the type onto the paper.
Simple, right? Hardly.
In fact, every part of the printing process involved years of laborious experimentation: finding the right paper to print on, finding the right moisture levels for the paper to absorb the ink, finding the right way to dry the paper, finding an ink that wouldn’t run off the metal type, finding the right alloy for casting the type, and on and on and on. Each problem tested the limits of medieval technology and the limits of Gutenberg’s own skill and ingenuity.
And the result was nothing short of a revolution.
How so?
Here, look at this manuscript. What do you see?
If you lived before Gutenberg, you saw a page of text. A totality. A clump of information. But Gutenberg saw something different. His core insight was that a page of text was not a thing in itself, but a collection of letters that could be broken apart and rearranged into any other collection of letters.
From that deceptively simple observation came this. The printed page. Mechanically produced, perfectly identical characters that could be arranged into any configuration the printer desires to create any text imaginable.
And that insight birthed the modern world.
It birthed the era of mass communication. Pre-Gutenberg, there were no books, no pamphlets, no newspapers. In fact, in the 50 years before Gutenberg, all the scribes in all of Europe struggled to produce 20,000 laboriously hand-copied manuscripts. In the 50 years after Gutenberg? The printers that sprung up around the continent churned out 12 million printed books.
It birthed mass manufacture. Beyond pilgrim badges, there were very few mass-produced items in medieval life. Clothes, tools, shelter, manuscripts—everything was handmade. The book accustomed the medieval mind to the idea of identical, mechanically produced objects. And the printing press—with its mechanically perfect type—prefigured the advances of industrial production.
It birthed the Scientific Revolution. The widespread publication of data, the collection of knowledge in widely available reference books, the ability to exactly reproduce illustrations—things that we take completely for granted today—were a revelation when they appeared in the fifteenth-century and created the conditions for the rise of the empirical method.
It birthed the Reformation. We all know it was Luther and his 95 theses nailed to the church door that launched the Reformation, but it was the printing press that allowed Luther’s ideas to spread so far, so fast. (And, bonus fact: Those theses were addressed to the Archbishop of Mainz, birthplace of Gutenberg’s press.)
The printing press even birthed the nation-state.
INTERVIEWER: Yes, now how would you describe the the impact of the invention of the printing press? Give us some instances of what happened as a consequence of this
MARSHALL MCLUHAN: It created almost overnight what we call a nationalism, what in effect was a public. The old manuscript forms were not sufficiently powerful instruments of technology to create publics in the sense that print was able to do. Unified, homogeneous reading publics.
Everything that we prize in our Western world in matters of individualism, separatism and of a unique point of view and private judgment; all those factors are highly favored by the printed word and not really favored by other forms of culture like radio or earlier even by manuscript.
But this stepping up of the fragmented, the private—the individual, the private judgment, the point of view—all in fact our whole vocabularies underwent huge change with the arrival of such technology.
The world that Gutenberg was born into was this world: the real world. If you learned anything at all about this world, you probably learned it from experience, or at least from someone who had that experience.
But the world that Gutenberg left behind was a world of mass communication. Books were no longer a rare and valuable thing, and it was increasingly likely that your information about the world came from someone you never met, someone who may have been long dead.
The movable type printing press didn’t just change the way people communicated; it changed what they communicated about.
In a very real sense, the printing press invented “the news.”
Before Gutenberg, “the news” was whatever you managed to gather from your neighbours, what you learned from travelers passing through your village, what you heard the town crier yelling through the streets or, at best, what you yourself read in the occasional proclamation or edict from the authorities.
But after the printing press, the news was for the first time collected, organized, printed on a regular basis and distributed far and wide.
In 1605, the world’s first newspaper was published in Strasbourg—the same city where Gutenberg was making his mirrors for the Aachen pilgrimage a century-and-a-half prior—and soon everyone and their dog was printing a newsletter or a pamphlet or a newspaper or a tract. And these ideas were spreading around the world like they never had before.
For the first time, someone could be reading the exact same news as someone in the next town over . . .
JAMES EVAN PILATO OF MEDIAMONARCHY.COM: . . . or someone on the other side of the planet . . .
. . . at the exact same time.
The printing press united people like never before and the result was an explosion in the spread of ideas, the likes of which would not be experienced again for centuries.
But not everyone was excited about this free flow of information. Entrenched power structures of medieval society—the crown, the church, the feudal lords—had persisted for centuries by controlling information and suppressing dissent. But as the barriers to new ideas collapsed, so did the old feudal order.
It’s no surprise, then, that wherever the printing press traveled, wherever the new cadre of printers and booksellers set up shop, the censors were not far behind. When Lutheran books began appearing in England in 1520, Cardinal Wolsey was quick to declare that anyone caught with the texts would be subject to heresy laws. Not to be outdone, King Henry VIII’s proclamation “Prohibiting Erroneous Books and Bible Translations” of 1530 afforded him the power to try readers of these “blasphemous and pestiferous” books in his own dreaded Star Chamber.
Parliament dissolved the Star Chamber in 1641, but they weren’t about to give up censorship of the press. They just wanted to take the power for themselves, and that’s exactly what they did. The Licensing Order of 1643 outlawed the printing, binding, or sale of books, except by persons licensed under authority of Parliament.
This prompted John Milton to write the Areopagitica, still recognized today as one of the most influential and passionate defenses of freedom of speech in history:
“Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God’s image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye.”
But even the loftiest language of Milton had little effect in swaying the censors. The Licensing Order was not overturned for half-a-century, when the Parliament chose not to renew the act.
Those in positions of power had good reason to fear the printing press. Gutenberg’s invention turned their world on its head. Suddenly, people who had been kept apart and largely in ignorance of the world around them had been brought into a community of readers; a gigantic societal conversation began, empowering radicals who sought to overturn the order that had existed for centuries and helping them to spread their dangerous new ideas faster and farther than they ever could have with pen and paper.
Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that these new ideas would come to their dramatic fruition in one of the most literate places on the planet: colonial America.
By the end of the 18th century, literacy rates in the colonies were upwards of ninety percent, and there were 180 newspapers being published on the Eastern Seaboard, twice as many as in England, a country with twice the population.
The colonists’ appetite for books and learning was celebrated far and wide. In 1772, the Reverend Jacob Duché wrote of the colonies: “Almost every man is a reader. [. . .] The poorest laborer upon the shores of the Delaware thinks himself entitled to deliver his sentiment in matters of religion or politics with as much freedom as the gentlemen or scholar [. . .] such is the prevailing taste for books of every kind.”
Just four years later, in 1776, Thomas Paine would publish Common Sense, a 47-page pamphlet that was to take those colonies by storm. In the first three months of its publication, a staggering 120,000 copies of the book had been sold; by the end of the year, it had sold 500,000 copies, or one pamphlet for every five men, women and children in the colonies. To put that in perspective, adjusted for population, Common Sense would be the thirteenth best-selling book of all time.
But this wasn’t any ordinary bestseller. This was a revolution.
At the beginning of 1776, before Common Sense, the average colonists believed themselves to be Englishmen engaged in a civil war; after Common Sense, they were revolutionaries engaged in a War for Independence. And that war was waged on the power of the printed word. That is the power of print.
The pen may be mightier than the sword, but the printing press is mightier than entire armies.
By the end of the nineteenth century, a new creature had emerged to capitalize on this new instrument of power: the press baron.
In America, William Randolph Hearst . . . that is, William Randolph Hearst inherited the San Francisco Examiner from his wealthy father, built it up into the biggest paper in town and plowed the profits into the purchase of the New York Journal. With the Journal and a growing number of dailies across the country under his belt, Hearst became a full-fledged press baron, taking on Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World in a circulation war, pioneering the eye-catching layouts and sensational stories that would come to define his brand of yellow journalism, and helping to gin up support for the Spanish-American War, among many other dubious causes.
In England, Alfred Harmsworth picked up the yellow journalism idea from Hearst and Pulitzer and used it to build his own press empire around The Daily Mail. From a lower caste of British society, Harmsworth found himself in the center of political power in Britain, using his influence to gin up public hatred of the Huns ahead of World War I, becoming director of propaganda for the government in 1918 and earning himself the title of Lord Northcliffe in the process.
In a sense, the Lord Northcliffes and the William Randolph Hearsts and the other press barons of that era were the end stage of the Gutenberg Revolution. The invention that had given a voice to the masses and started a conversation that would topple institutions, dethrone monarchs and reorder empires had now catapulted people at the fringes of power into its very heart. With the power of the press, these men were able to sway the minds of entire nations of people.
Naturally, the old tension between the ruling elite and the masses, empowered by the press, was still there. But censorship hadn’t proven to be an effective tool for keeping the masses in ignorance. There had to be another way.
That way, it turned out, was another conspiracy.
On February 9, 1917, Oscar Callaway, a US Representative from Texas’ 12th District, exposed that conspiracy in the Congressional record:
“In March, 1915, the J. P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship-building, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States. [. . .] They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”
The news was extraordinary, but it almost didn’t get reported at all. Callaway had not been given time to make his charges on the floor of the House; instead, they were “buried in the Record.” It wasn’t until another congressman demanded a full congressional investigation into the charges that the newspapers even bothered to cover the story at all.
Perhaps it is no surprise that the Gutenberg conspiracy ended up here, at the Morgan conspiracy. That a revolutionary step toward freeing man from the bonds of ignorance was met with a revolutionary counteraction designed to place those chains around him all the more tightly. That, at the zenith of the print revolution, the oligarchy finally found a way to control the free flow of information.
Ironic, then, that within the space of a few short years, the print revolution that Gutenberg had started was about to be overturned by another technology.
The World Health Organisation has reconfirmed its status as an unscientific politically driven globalist body by officially stating that there are more than two biological genders.
The WHO has announced that it intends to update its “widely-used gender mainstreaming manual.”
The suggestion that there’s a need for a manual on how many genders there are should tell you something about this organisation off the bat.
the WHO say they’re modernizing its “gender mainstreaming manual”….because apparently biology doesn’t matter anymore. https://t.co/23dp7wdrYt
— Toxic Masculinity (@toxicmasculin8t) July 12, 2022
The body says of the manual that it is “updating it in light of new scientific evidence and conceptual progress on gender, health and development.”
What exactly that ‘scientific evidence’ is is still a mystery.
The press release from the WHO states that part of its new findings to go into the manual is that “sex is not limited to male or female.”
The WHO states that it is “going beyond binary approaches to gender and health,” in order “[t]o recognize gender and sexual diversity, or the concepts that gender identity exists on a continuum and that sex is not limited to male or female.”
The globalist body, in partnership with the United Nations University International Institute for Global Health, also intends to introduce “new gender, equity and human rights frameworks and tools to further support capacity building around these concepts and the integration of their approaches.”
These, whatever they are, will be ‘finalised and rolled out’ in August and beyond:
In other words, the WHO is realigning to further push the social engineering message that is already being rammed down our throats ceaselessly via politics, business, policing and what passes for culture and entertainment.
However, despite its relentless promotion in virtually every sector of society, belief in the reality of this ideology is falling amongst Americans, with only 38% believing biological sex does not determine whether someone is a man or a woman.
According to new polling from Pew, 60% of Americans believe that gender is determined by sex assigned at birth, in comparison to 38% who say otherwise.
Since 2017, the electorate has shifted 12 points in favor of the position that gender is determined by biology. pic.twitter.com/5gxWhDNo9u
(@approject) 
