The Great Reset is a globalist plan that is moving forward at lighting speed. The COVID-19 pandemic was part and parcel of that plan, but to really fulfill the technocrats’ ambitions, a war of some kind is likely needed
They need chaos, mass casualties and financial chaos in order to create the desperation necessary for people to give up their freedoms and give in to tyrannical control
The World Economic Forum (WEF) has for years promoted the implementation of digital identification, and ensuring that everyone on the planet has a legal, digital identity is part of the United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goals
There’s a big difference between identity and identification. Identification refers to documents that prove you are who you say you are. A digital identity is NOT merely a form of identification. Your “identity” is who you actually are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7. These data can then be used against you
The WEF has clearly stated that our digital identity will determine “what products, services and information we can access — or conversely, what is closed off to us”
Whether people realize it or not, The Great Reset is a globalist plan that is moving forward at lighting speed. The COVID-19 pandemic was part and parcel of that plan, as detailed in Klaus Schwab’s book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset,”1 but to really fulfill the technocrats’ ambitions, a war of some kind is likely needed. As reported by Dr. Vernon Coleman with The Exposé:2
“Now that they’ve got most people cowering behind the sofa or under the bed because of the fake COVID threat, they have introduced two new threats to the menu: war and storms … they were always going to do this … To keep us on our toes some of the storms will be ferocious. Those will probably be the manufactured ones.
And there will be heat waves, heavy snow falls and probably a tsunami or two (easily created, as I previously explained, with an underwater explosion). You can’t kill billions with bad weather of course but you can push up the prices of food and energy and kill millions through wrecked economies, poverty and starvation.
The recent storms in the UK led to immediate closures of schools and railways (‘just in case a tree fell down and hurt someone’) and the halting of supermarket deliveries. All this was patently overkill to do more damage to society and the economy. We have to remember that population control is one of the purposes of everything that is happening.
Wars are coming too — as they threatened some time ago. We’re clearly heading for another long Cold War with Russia and China on one side and America and Europe on the other.
It is difficult to avoid the feeling that Schwab is behind the scenes pulling strings and if, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the West does decide to intervene militarily, it will be because the conspirators want it to happen and see it as a way to further damage the global economy and cause a few million deaths.
Remember that ruining the global economy is an essential step on the route to the Great Reset. The rhetoric coming from Washington and London certainly suggest that both Biden and Johnson are desperate to exacerbate the situation, cause more terror, push up energy prices and terrify everyone.
Once you realize what their plan is it is easy to see what is going to happen next … Remember: the COVID fraud was just the beginning. The conspirators have only just started their campaign to take total control.”
Total Control Through Digital IDs
Sadly, he’s correct. There’s no doubt calamitous weather events and world war have been part of the plan from the start. They need chaos, mass casualties and financial chaos in order to create the desperation necessary for people to give up their freedoms and give in to tyrannical control.
But the stick is not the only tool in the technocrats’ toolbox. They also use carrots, and perceived convenience is an oft-used one. Case in point: digital IDs. The World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by Schwab, has for years promoted the implementation of digital IDs, and ensuring that everyone on the planet has a legal, digital identity is part of the United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.3
“Convenience” is a key incentive for digital IDs. With a central digital ID on your phone (and eventually an implanted chip), you’d be able to do everything from checking into a doctor’s office to securing a mortgage.
In an article4 arguing for digital IDs, the WEF also stresses that millions of people who flee their homelands due to war or persecution cannot secure refugee status due to the fact that they lost their identity documents in the confusion. Apparently, they want us to believe that no one would ever flee a situation without the cell phone holding their digital identity. Or perhaps they’re jumping straight to implants?
They also claim nearly a billion people have no legal identity and therefore cannot open a bank account, get a loan or vote. But is that really justification enough to foist digital IDs on everyone, whether you have a real need for it or not? No, it’s not about need. It’s not about convenience. It’s about them getting control over us.
Financial Transparency — Who’s It Really For?
In that same article,5 the WEF reviews a digital ID app with an ingenious “transparency engine.” The argument is that this feature would enable charities to “follow the money they send to projects.” This way, they can account for where all the donations went.
Anyone who has looked into the WEF’s plans for mankind knows that this example is pure baloney. A system of financial transparency is never going to be used to give regular folk insight into an organization’s financial dealings. It will be used to give the ruling technocracy insight into our financial transactions — yours and mine.
The Canadian Freedom Convoy and prime minister Justin Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act offered a rare glimpse into the power they want over your finances. They want to be able to single out every single person that contributes to an anti-establishment cause, even if it’s just a few measly dollars, and seize everything you have in retribution. Trudeau had to invoke extraordinary emergency powers to do that.
In the future, the ruling cabal want to be able to do it automatically and continuously. Make no mistake, the digitization of your identity and finances means they’ll have the power to throttle your finances if you misbehave. In a worst-case scenario, they’ll have the power to turn you into a non-entity, locking you out of your identity credentials altogether.
I really cannot overstate the danger of digitizing and linking together all of your personal records. As noted by the WEF itself, our digital identity “determines what products, services and information we can access — or conversely, what is closed off to us.”6 Doesn’t that tell you everything you need to know?
Understanding the Scope of ‘Digital Identity’
In an article on The Sociable, Tim Hinchliffe warns:7
“Your digital identity can be used against you in the event of a great reset … [W]hile digital identities show great promise towards improving the livelihoods of millions, they are also used by authoritarian governments to profile and police citizen behavior under a social credit system.8
The idea behind digital identities is simple enough. All the data collected from every online interaction you make with the private and public sectors goes into forming your digital identity. This data can include your personal:
•Search history
•Social media interactions
•Online profiles
•Device location
•Medical records
•Financial ledgers
•Legal documents
•And more
By connecting your every online/offline interaction, the WEF envisions your digital identity being linked to:
•Every click, comment, and share you make on social media
•Every financial transaction you record
•Your location and where you travel
•What you buy and sell
•Your personal health data and medical records
•The websites that you visit
•Your participation in civic functions (i.e. voting, taxes, benefits, etc.)
•How much energy you consume
•And more
Thus, your digital identity becomes an account of your social behavior, which can be policed … [T]here will be a class system where people are given access to privileged information, products, and/or services based on the data recorded in their digital identities.”
The graphic below, from the WEF, illustrates their idea of how your digital identity will interact with the world. Every last thing you can think of is to be connected to your digital identity, and your behavior, beliefs and opinions will dictate what you can and cannot do within society. It will unlock doors where someone like you is welcome, and lock the ones where you’re not.
If you think the idea of vaccine passports is insane, wait until your access to critical infrastructure and services is dependent not just on your vaccination status, but also what books you’ve bought, what ideas you’ve shared, and who you’ve given money or emotional support to.
The Difference Between Identification and Digital Identity
Hinchliffe accurately notes that there’s a big difference between identity and identification. Identification refers to documents that prove you are who you say you are. A digital identity is NOT merely a form of identification. As you can see from the short-lists above, it’s much, much more. Your “identity” is who you actually are, and a digital identity will keep a permanent record of your choices and behaviors, 24/7.
“Identity encompasses everything that makes you unique,” Hinchliffe notes,9“and your identity is what the WEF is really interested in. Step out of line, and every social media interaction in which you partake, every penny you trade, and every move you make can be used against you.”
Indeed, having access to everyone’s digital identity is the key to successful manipulation and control of the global population. Writing for Coin Telegraph, hacker and tech executive Trent Lipinski also pointed out that:10
“With a few tweaks of code, blockchain can be corrupted by authoritarians to build social credit enslavement systems. If world governments legislate encryption technology for their own purposes and pervert consensus mechanisms for their own centralized enslavement systems, we will end up with digital currencies that can be used against the people of the world.”
The Fourth Industrial Revolution
People aren’t merely confused about what digital identity actually entails. Most also don’t understand the intended scope of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, another concept invented by Schwab and promoted through the WEF.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution is really just another name for transhumanism. I suppose they decided it would be easier to fool people with that term than to call it what it actually is.
Schwab and his technocratic allies dream of turning mankind into cyborgs with limited or no capacity to free will. My guess is that for most, that sounds more like what nightmares are made of. The inability to comprehend or accept just how twisted and power hungry these individuals are, is a psychological hurdle we need to overcome.
Schwab himself has stated that “the Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.”11 Beyond your own “enhanced” 5G cloud-connected self, the WEF foresees a near future in which everyone’s digital identity is connected to each other through an Internet of Bodies (IoB).12,13
The Internet of Bodies
In its 2020 briefing document on the IoB,14 the WEF describes the IoB as an ecosystem of “an unprecedented number of sensors,” including emotional sensors, “attached to, implanted within, or ingested into human bodies to monitor, analyze and even modify human bodies and behavior.”
See, I’m not the one predicting they might want to modify your behavior and control your psychological reality. THEY are the ones stating that this is what they intend to do. Every new technology, every new surveillance opportunity they bring forward is to further this aim.
“Now, who could possibly benefit from the massive consolidation of every intimate detail of your life?” Hinchliffe asks.15“According to a recent RAND corporation report,16 the IoB ‘might trigger breakthroughs in medical knowledge […] Or it might enable a surveillance state of unprecedented intrusion and consequence.’
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has taken the notion of the IoB to create an Orwellian surveillance state that pegs the digital identities of its ‘netizens’ to a social crediting system.
From ‘deadbeat debtor’ contact tracing apps that alert citizens with a warning whenever they come with 500 meters of someone who is in debt17 to the DNA phenotyping18 of over 1 million Uyghurs sent to ‘re-education camps’19 — the CCP is a living example of some of the horrible ways in which digital identities can be exploited …
The great reset is not a mandate from the people — It is a manufactured ideology concocted by a group of un-elected globalists trying to sway ‘stakeholders’ into creating a new economy and social structure out of the destruction of the old … But should society’s fate be mandated from the Davos elite?”
We’ve Been Played Like Fiddles
The shocking reality is that the COVID pandemic was not an “act of God.” It was part of the plan, like everything else. In 2018 and 2019, this global cabal planned, practiced and coordinated their responses during pandemic tabletop exercises (Clade X and Event 201). The solutions concocted during these pandemic scenarios “were in lockstep with The Great Reset,” Hinchliffe notes.20
In other words, all of the pandemic countermeasures we’ve all lived through for the past two years had one goal, and it had nothing to do with saving lives. It had to do with furthering The Great Reset goals, which require top-down governance.
Schwab himself has bragged about grooming and installing political leaders across the world’s governments,21 which answers the question as to how and why so many leaders have willingly gone along with policies that are clearly destructive to their own economies and societies.
The only way this makes sense is by accepting that the technocratic cabal, which for decades has been secretly pulling levers behind the curtain like the Wizard of Oz, want economies to fail. They want them to fail so they can replace them with a new all-digital system where they have access to your wallet and can control your behavior through financial penalties for undesired behaviors.
They want small businesses out of the way, so their monopolies are all that’s left. They want mass deaths, because robots and artificial intelligence are taking over the bulk of currently available jobs. The plan is to institute a universal wage, so the fewer people there are, the better.
They want frightened, uneducated and socially inept children because they’re easier to mold into obedient nonthinkers who will accept things like emotional trackers and AI that tells you when to take a pill.
They don’t care about what you want, because to them you’re not even human. They’re human; you’re just a commodity, and they’ve figured out how to profit from every move you make, and then some.22
All this talk about the common good, fairness and equity, that’s just PR. Technocrats’ idea of fairness and equity is everyone being the same level of destitute. As declared by the WEF, “by 2030, you will own nothing.” Who then will own everything? They will.
Is a Cyber Attack Next?
In another more recent Sociable article,23 Hinchliffe highlights emerging cyber security risks and the WEF’s July 2022 Cyber Polygon24 event, which will focus on “raising global cyber resilience” in sectors that use cloud services, such as finance, retail, health care, transportation and more. According to Schwab, “lack of cybersecurity has become a clear and immediate danger to our society worldwide.” In 2020, he stated:25
“We need vaccines to immunize ourselves. The same is true for cyberattacks … We need to build IT infrastructures that have digital antibodies built-in inherently to protect themselves …
We all know, but still pay insufficient attention to, the frightening scenario of a comprehensive cyber attack, which would bring a complete halt to the power supply, transportation, hospital services, our society as a whole … The COVID-19 crisis would be seen … as a small disturbance in comparison to a major cyber attack.”
Based on how other exercises have magically manifested in the real world, it’s not unreasonable to suspect that a major cyberattack is being planned by the very same people who claim they want to prevent it.
But even if that doesn’t happen, one thing we can be completely sure of is that whatever cybersecurity measures they come up with will serve the technocratic agenda, which again, is to enslave humanity in a 5G cyborg ecosystem and elevate themselves to the status of gods, micromanaging the lives of every person through the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence.
Preventing it will require an unprecedented level of unity and solidarity among the people of the world. There are billions of us and perhaps only a few thousand of them, but their technological and financial control still makes this a David versus Goliath battle.
The difference between our real-world situation and the Biblical version is that no one David can win this fight by himself. We must unite and stand as one, like billions of ants forming a single body. We may not have the weapons they do, but we have the advantage of sheer numbers.
I believe the answer is to refuse any and all “solutions” coming from this global cabal, en masse, and to build our own parallel societies and industries — a “reset,” but one that we actually want and not the one they’ve planned for us. It won’t be easy, but the alternative is the destruction of humanity.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”— George Orwell
The U.S. government, which speaks in a language of force, is afraid of its citizenry.
What we are dealing with is a government so power-hungry, paranoid and afraid of losing its stranglehold on power that it is conspiring to wage war on anyone who dares to challenge its authority.
All of us are in danger.
In recent years, the government has used the phrase “domestic terrorist” interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.” The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s latest terrorism bulletin, “These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.”
You see, the government doesn’t care if what you’re sharing is fact or fiction or something in between. What it cares about is whether what you’re sharing has the potential to make people think for themselves and, in the process, question the government’s propaganda.
Get ready for the next phase of the government’s war on thought crimes and truth-tellers.
For years now, the government has used all of the weapons in its vast arsenal—surveillance, threat assessments, fusion centers, pre-crime programs, hate crime laws, militarized police, lockdowns, martial law, etc.—to target potential enemies of the state based on their ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that might be deemed suspicious or dangerous.
For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
In other words, if you dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s, you may well be suspected of being a domestic terrorist and treated accordingly.
This latest government salvo against consumers and spreaders of “mis- dis- and mal-information” widens the net to potentially include anyone who is exposed to ideas that run counter to the official government narrative.
There’s a whole spectrum of behaviors ranging from thought crimes and hate speech to whistleblowing that qualifies for persecution (and prosecution) by the Deep State.
Simply liking or sharing this article on Facebook, retweeting it on Twitter, or merely reading it or any other articles related to government wrongdoing, surveillance, police misconduct or civil liberties might be enough to get you categorized as a particular kind of person with particular kinds of interests that reflect a particular kind of mindset that might just lead you to engage in a particular kinds of activities and, therefore, puts you in the crosshairs of a government investigation as a potential troublemaker a.k.a. domestic extremist.
Chances are, as the Washington Post reports, you have already been assigned a color-coded threat score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about your potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether you’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.
In other words, you might already be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the police state’s dictates.
As The Interceptreported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies have increasingly invested in corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.
Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.
And then at the other end of the spectrum there are those such as Julian Assange, for example, who blow the whistle on government misconduct that is within the public’s right to know.
Included among the leaked Manning material were the Collateral Murder video (April 2010), the Afghanistan war logs (July 2010), the Iraq war logs (October 2010), a quarter of a million diplomatic cables (November 2010), and the Guantánamo files (April 2011).
The Collateral Murder leak included gunsight video footage from two U.S. AH-64 Apache helicopters engaged in a series of air-to-ground attacks while air crew laughed at some of the casualties. Among the casualties were two Reuters correspondents who were gunned down after their cameras were mistaken for weapons and a driver who stopped to help one of the journalists. The driver’s two children, who happened to be in the van at the time it was fired upon by U.S. forces, suffered serious injuries.
In true Orwellian fashion, the government would have us believe that it is Assange and Manning who are the real criminals for daring to expose the war machine’s seedy underbelly.
This is how the police state deals with those who challenge its chokehold on power.
This is why the government fears a citizenry that thinks for itself. Because a citizenry that thinks for itself is a citizenry that is informed, engaged and prepared to hold the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law, which translates to government transparency and accountability.
After all, we’re citizens, not subjects. For those who don’t fully understand the distinction between the two and why transparency is so vital to a healthy constitutional government, Manning explains it well:
This is why the First Amendment is so critical. It gives the citizenry the right to speak freely, protest peacefully, expose government wrongdoing, and criticize the government without fear of arrest, isolation or any of the other punishments that have been meted out to whistleblowers such as Edwards Snowden, Assange and Manning.
The challenge is holding the government accountable to obeying the law.
A little over 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Washington Post Co. to block the Nixon Administration’s attempts to use claims of national security to prevent The Washington Post and The New York Times from publishing secret Pentagon papers on how America went to war in Vietnam.
As Justice William O. Douglas remarked on the ruling, “The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”
Fast forward to the present day, and we’re witnessing yet another showdown, this time between Assange and the Deep State, which pits the people’s right to know about government misconduct against the might of the military industrial complex.
Yet this isn’t merely about whether whistleblowers and journalists are part of a protected class under the Constitution. It’s a debate over how long “we the people” will remain a protected class under the Constitution.
Following the current trajectory, it won’t be long before anyone who believes in holding the government accountable is labeled an “extremist,” relegated to an underclass that doesn’t fit in, watched all the time, and rounded up when the government deems it necessary.
We’re almost at that point now.
Eventually, we will all be potential suspects, terrorists and lawbreakers in the eyes of the government.
Partisan politics have no place in this debate: Americans of all stripes would do well to remember that those who question the motives of government provide a necessary counterpoint to those who would blindly follow where politicians choose to lead.
We don’t have to agree with every criticism of the government, but we must defend the rights of all individuals to speak freely without fear of punishment or threat of banishment.
Never forget: what the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.
What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.
The right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.
In Orwell’s dystopian vision of the future, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.”
Much like today’s social media censors and pre-crime police departments, Orwell’s Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the other government agencies peddle in economic affairs (rationing and starvation), law and order (torture and brainwashing), and news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda).
Orwell’s Big Brother relies on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary.
Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.
The U.K. Ministry of Defense and the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning Human stress that human augmentation needs to be a key area of focus to win future wars
Human augmentation will not be restricted to the military ranks. It’s really a way to further separate classes of humans, with the rich and powerful elite eventually using their augmented “super-human” status as justification to rule everyone else
The goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution — introduced and pushed by the World Economic Forum — is transhumanism, the merging of man with machine
Human augmentation can directly affect behavior, either positively or to the detriment of that person
In the transhumanist view, the human body is a “platform” that can be augmented in myriad ways, physically, psychologically and socially
A May 2021 project report by the U.K. Ministry of Defense, created in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defense Planning, offers shocking highlights of the dystopian cybernetics future that global technocrats are pushing mankind toward.
The report, “Human Augmentation — The Dawn of a New Paradigm, a Strategic Implications Project,”1 reviews the scientific goals of the U.K. and German defense ministries, and they are precisely what the title suggests. Human augmentation is stressed as being a key area to focus on in order to win future wars.
But human augmentation will not be restricted to the military ranks. It’s really a way to further separate classes of humans, with the rich and powerful elite being augmented “super-humans.” It’s worth noting that anything released to the public is a decade or more behind current capabilities, so everything in this report can be considered dated news, even though it reads like pure science fiction.
“… the field of human augmentation has the potential to transform society, security and defense over the next 30 years,” the report states. “We must begin to understand the implications of these changes and shape them to our advantage now, before they are thrust upon us.
Technology in warfare has traditionally centered on increasingly sophisticated platforms that people move and fight from, or artefacts that they wear or wield to fight with. Advances in the life sciences and converging developments in related fields are, however, beginning to blur the line between technology and the human …
Many technologies that have the potential to deliver strategic advantage out to 2050 already exist and further advances will undoubtedly occur … Our potential adversaries will not be governed by the same ethical and legal considerations that we are, and they are already developing human augmentation capabilities.
Our key challenge will be establishing advantage in this field without compromising the values and freedoms that underpin our way of life …
When we think of human augmentation it is easy to imagine science fiction inspired suits or wonder drugs that produce super soldiers, but we are on the cusp of realizing the benefits in a range of roles now. Human augmentation will help to understand, optimize and enhance performance leading to incremental, as well as radical, improvements.”
Changing What It Means To Be Human
As noted in the report, “Human augmentation has the potential to … change the meaning of what it means to be a human.” This is precisely what Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), has stated is the goal of The Fourth Industrial Revolution.2
WEF has been at the center of global affairs for more than 40 years, and if you take the time to dive into WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution material, you realize that it’s all about transhumanism. It’s about the merger of man and machine. This is a dystopian future WEF and its global allies are actively trying to implement, whether humanity at large agrees with it or not.
Schwab dreams of a world in which humans are connected to the cloud, able to access the internet through their own brains. This, of course, also means that your brain would be accessible to people who might like to tinker with your thoughts, emotions, beliefs and behavior, be they the technocratic elite themselves or random hackers. As noted by history professor Yuval Noah Harari in late 2019, “humans are now hackable animals.”3 As noted in the featured report:4
“Human augmentation will become increasingly relevant, partly because it can directly enhance human capability and behavior and partly because it is the binding agent between people and machines.
Future wars will be won, not by those with the most advanced technology, but by those who can most effectively integrate the unique capabilities of both people and machines. The importance of human-machine teaming is widely acknowledged but it has been viewed from a techno-centric perspective.
Human augmentation is the missing part of this puzzle. Thinking of the person as a platform and understanding our people at an individual level is fundamental to successful human augmentation.”
Key words I’d like to draw your attention to is the affirmation that human augmentation can “directly enhance behavior.” Now, if you can enhance behavior, that means you can change someone’s behavior. And if you can change a person’s behavior in a positive way, you can also control it to the person’s own detriment.
Theoretically, absolutely anyone, any random civilian with a brain-to-cloud connection and the needed biological augmentation (such as strength or speed) could be given wireless instructions to carry out an assassination, for example, and pull it off flawlessly, even without prior training.
Alternatively, their physical body could temporarily be taken over by a remote operator with the prerequisite skills. Proof of concept already exists, and is reviewed by Dr. Charles Morgan, professor in the department of national security at the University of New Haven, in the lecture below. Using the internet and brain implants, thoughts can be transferred from one person to another. The sender can also directly influence the physical movements of the receiver.
The Human Platform
On page 12 of the report, the concept of the human body as a platform is described, and how various parts of the human platform can be augmented. For example:
Physical performance such as strength, dexterity, speed and endurance can be enhanced, as well as physical senses. One example given is gene editing for enhanced sight
Psychological performance such as cognition, emotion and motivation can be influenced to activate and direct desired behavior. Examples of cognitive augmentation include improving memory, attention, alertness, creativity, understanding, decision-making, intelligence and vigilance
Social performance — “the ability to perceive oneself as part of a group and the readiness to act as part of the team” — can be influenced. Communication skills, collaboration and trust are also included here
They list several different ways to influence the physical, psychological and social performance of the “human platform,” including genetics (germ line and somatic modification), the gut microbiome, synthetic biology, invasive (internal) and noninvasive (external) brain interfaces, passive and powered exoskeletons, herbs, drugs and nano technology, neurostimulation, augmented reality technologies such as external holograms or glasses with built-in artificial intelligence, and sensory augmentation technologies such as external sensors or implants. As noted in the report:
“The senses can be extended by translating frequencies beyond the normal human range into frequencies that can been seen, heard or otherwise detected. This could allow the user to ‘see’ through walls, sense vibrations and detect airborne chemicals and changes to magnetic fields.
More invasive options to enhance existing senses have also been demonstrated, for example, coating retinal cells with nanoparticles to enable vision in the infrared spectrum.”
They also point out that, from a defense perspective, methods to de-augment an augmented opponent will be needed. Can you even imagine the battlefield of the future, where soldiers are barraged from both sides with conflicting inputs?
As for ethics, the paper stresses that “we cannot wait for the ethics of human augmentation to be decided for us.” There may even be “moral obligations” to augment people, they say, such as when it would “promote well-being” or protect a population from a “novel threat.”
Interestingly, the paper notes that “It could be argued that treatments involving novel vaccination processes and gene and cell therapies are examples of human augmentation already in the pipeline.” This appears to be a direct reference to mRNA and vector DNA COVID jabs. If so, it’s an open admission that they are a human augmentation strategy in progress.
The Challenge of Unintended Consequences
Of course, there can be any number of side effects and unintended outcomes when you start augmenting an aspect of the human body or mind. As explained in the featured report:
“The relationship between augmentation inputs and outputs is not as simple as it might appear. An augmentation might be used to enhance a person’s endurance but could unintentionally harm their ability to think clearly and decisively in a timely fashion.
In a warfighting context, an augmentation could make a commander more intelligent, but less able to lead due to their reduced ability to socially interact or because they increasingly make unethical decisions. Even a relatively uncontentious enhancement such as an exoskeleton may improve physical performance for specific tasks, but inadvertently result in a loss of balance or reduced coordination when not being worn.
The notion of enhancement is clouded further by the intricacies of the human nervous system where a modifier in one area could have an unintended effect elsewhere. Variation between people makes designing enhancements even more challenging.”
Still, none of that is cause to reconsider or slow down the march toward transhumanism, according to the authors. We just need to understand the human body better, and for that, we need to collect and analyze more data on human performance, behavior, genetics and epigenetics. As noted by the authors:
“Devices that track movement, heart rate, oxygenation levels and location are already commonplace and will become increasingly accurate and sophisticated, making it possible to gather an increasingly wide array of performance data in real time. We can also analyze data in ways that were impossible even five years ago.
Artificial intelligence can analyze massive sets of information almost instantaneously and turn it into products that can inform decision-making. This marriage of data collection and analytics is the foundation of future human augmentation.”
Lab-Grown Designer Babies
As mentioned, by the time a technological advancement is admitted publicly, the research is already a decade or more down the road. Consider, then, the February 1, 2022, article in Futurism,5 which announced that Chinese scientists have developed an artificial intelligence nanny robot to care for fetuses grown inside an artificial womb. According to Futurism:6
“The system could theoretically allow parents to grow a baby in a lab, thereby eliminating the need for a human to carry a child. The researchers go so far as to say that this system would be safer than traditional childbearing.”
As of now, the AI robot is only in charge of lab-raised animal embryos, as “experimentation on human embryos is still forbidden under international law.” However, that could change at any time. In May 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research went ahead and relaxed the rules7 on human embryonic experimentation.8
Up until then, the rule had been that no human embryo could be grown in a lab environment beyond 14 days. Human embryos may now be grown beyond 14 days if certain conditions are met. In some countries, laws would still need to be changed to go beyond 14 days, but regardless, there’s no doubt that as transhumanism gets underway in earnest, ethical considerations about growing babies in laboratories will be tossed out.
Combine the announcement of an AI robot nanny to care for lab-grown embryos with the 2018 announcement that Chinese scientists were creating CRISPR gene-edited babies. As reported by Technology Review, November 25, 2018,9 “A daring effort is underway to create the first children whose DNA has been tailored using gene editing.”
The embryos were genetically edited to disable a gene called CCR5, to make the babies “resistant to HIV, smallpox and cholera.” The embryos were then implanted into a human mother using in vitro fertilization. At the time, the lead scientist refused to answer whether the undertaking had resulted in a live birth, but shortly thereafter it was confirmed that one trial participant had indeed given birth to gene-edited twins in November 2018.10
In June 2019, Nature magazine published an article11 questioning whether the CRISPR babies might inadvertently have been given a shorter life span, as research had recently discovered that people with two disabled copies of the CCR5 gene were 21% more likely to die before the age of 76 than those with one functioning copy of that gene. The babies might also be more susceptible to influenza and autoimmune conditions, thanks to this genetic tinkering.
Should We Breed Chimeras to Satisfy Need for Organs?
Ethical considerations about animal-human hybrids (chimeras) will probably also fall by the wayside once transhumanism becomes normalized. Already, human-monkey hybrid embryos have been grown by a team of Chinese and American scientists.12
The hybrid embryos are part of an effort to find new ways to produce organs for transplant patients. The idea is to raise monkeys with human-compatible organs that can then be harvested as needed. Here, the embryos were grown in test tubes for as long as 20 days — and this was done before the ISSCR officially agreed to relaxing the 14-day rule.
The question is, if this kind of research ends up being successful, and the creation of animals with human organs is actually feasible, at what point does the chimera become a human?
How do we know that what looks like a monkey doesn’t have a human brain, with the intelligence that goes with it? Taking it a step further, even, what’s to prevent scientists from growing human organ donors? Human clones, even? It’s a slippery slope, for sure.
Privacy in the Age of Transhumanism
Perhaps one of the greatest concerns I (and many others) have is that not only are we moving toward a merger of man and machine, but at the same time we’re also increasingly outsourcing human morality to machines. I cannot imagine the end result being anything but devastating. How did that happen? Timandra Harkness, a BBC Radio presenter and author of “Big Data: Does Size Matter?” writes:13
“As the recent pandemic years have shown, the desire to be free from scrutiny unless there’s a good reason to be scrutinized is widely seen as, at best, eccentric and, at worst, automatic grounds for suspicion.
We simply can’t articulate why a private life is valuable. We have no sense of ourselves as autonomous beings, persons who need a space in which to reflect, to share thoughts with a few others, before venturing into public space with words and actions that we feel ready to defend …
Part of the appeal of technologies like AI is the fantasy that a machine can take the role of wise parent, immune to the emotion and unpredictability of mere humans. But this tells us less about the real capabilities of AI, and more about our disillusionment with ourselves.
The urge to fix COVID, or other social problems, with technology springs from this lack of trust in other people. So does the cavalier disregard for privacy as an expression of moral autonomy.
Technology ethics can’t save us, any more than technology can. Even during a pandemic, how we regard one another is the fundamental question at the root of ethics. So we do need to treat technology as just a tool, after all. Otherwise we risk being made its instruments in a world without morals.”
“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”— Frank Zappa
We are no longer free.
We are living in a world carefully crafted to resemble a representative democracy, but it’s an illusion.
We think we have the freedom to elect our leaders, but we’re only allowed to participate in the reassurance ritual of voting. There can be no true electoral choice or real representation when we’re limited in our options to one of two candidates culled from two parties that both march in lockstep with the Deep State and answer to an oligarchic elite.
We think we have freedom of speech, but we’re only as free to speak as the government and its corporate partners allow.
We think we have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs, but those rights are quickly overruled if and when they conflict with the government’s priorities, whether it’s COVID-19 mandates or societal values about gender equality, sex and marriage.
We think we have the freedom to go where we want and move about freely, but at every turn, we’re hemmed in by laws, fines and penalties that regulate and restrict our autonomy, and surveillance cameras that monitor our movements. Punitive programs strip citizens of their passports and right to travel over unpaid taxes.
We think we have property interests in our homes and our bodies, but there can be no such freedom when the government can seize your property, raid your home, and dictate what you do with your bodies.
We think we have the freedom to defend ourselves against outside threats, but there is no right to self-defense against militarized police who are authorized to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, and granted immunity from accountability with the general blessing of the courts. Certainly, there can be no right to gun ownership in the face of red flag gun laws which allow the police to remove guns from people merely suspected of being threats.
We think we have the right to due process, but that assurance of justice has been stripped of its power by a judicial system hardwired to act as judge, jury and jailer, leaving us with little recourse for appeal. A perfect example of this rush to judgment can be found in the proliferation of profit-driven speed and red light cameras that do little for safety while padding the pockets of government agencies.
We have been saddled with a government that pays lip service to the nation’s freedom principles while working overtime to shred the Constitution.
By gradually whittling away at our freedoms—free speech, assembly, due process, privacy, etc.—the government has, in effect, liberated itself from its contractual agreement to respect the constitutional rights of the citizenry while resetting the calendar back to a time when we had no Bill of Rights to protect us from the long arm of the government.
Aided and abetted by the legislatures, the courts and Corporate America, the government has been busily rewriting the contract (a.k.a. the Constitution) that establishes the citizenry as the masters and agents of the government as the servants.
We are now only as good as we are useful, and our usefulness is calculated on an economic scale by how much we are worth—in terms of profit and resale value—to our “owners.”
Under the new terms of this revised, one-sided agreement, the government and its many operatives have all the privileges and rights and “we the people” have none.
Only in our case, sold on the idea that safety, security and material comforts are preferable to freedom, we’ve allowed the government to pave over the Constitution in order to erect a concentration camp.
The problem with these devil’s bargains, however, is that there is always a catch, always a price to pay for whatever it is we valued so highly as to barter away our most precious possessions.
We’ve bartered away our right to self-governance, self-defense, privacy, autonomy and that most important right of all: the right to tell the government to “leave me the hell alone.” In exchange for the promise of safe streets, safe schools, blight-free neighborhoods, lower taxes, lower crime rates, and readily accessible technology, health care, water, food and power, we’ve opened the door to militarized police, government surveillance, asset forfeiture, school zero tolerance policies, license plate readers, red light cameras, SWAT team raids, health care mandates, overcriminalization and government corruption.
In the end, such bargains always turn sour.
We asked our lawmakers to be tough on crime, and we’ve been saddled with an abundance of laws that criminalize almost every aspect of our lives. So far, we’re up to 4500 criminal laws and 300,000 criminal regulations that result in average Americans unknowingly engaging in criminal acts at least three times a day. For instance, the family of an 11-year-old girl was issued a $535 fine for violating the Federal Migratory Bird Act after the young girl rescued a baby woodpecker from predatory cats.
We wanted criminals taken off the streets, and we didn’t want to have to pay for their incarceration. What we’ve gotten is a nation that boasts the highest incarceration rate in the world, with more than 2.3 million people locked up, many of them doing time for relatively minor, nonviolent crimes, and a private prison industry fueling the drive for more inmates, who are forced to provide corporations with cheap labor.
We wanted law enforcement agencies to have the necessary resources to fight the nation’s wars on terror, crime and drugs. What we got instead were militarized police decked out with M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers, battle tanks and hollow point bullets—gear designed for the battlefield, more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year (many for routine police tasks, resulting in losses of life and property), and profit-driven schemes that add to the government’s largesse such as asset forfeiture, where police seize property from “suspected criminals.”
We fell for the government’s promise of safer roads, only to find ourselves caught in a tangle of profit-driven red-light cameras, which ticket unsuspecting drivers in the so-called name of road safety while ostensibly fattening the coffers of local and state governments. Despite widespread public opposition, corruption and systemic malfunctions, these cameras are particularly popular with municipalities, which look to them as an easy means of extra cash. Building on the profit-incentive schemes, the cameras’ manufacturers are also pushing speed cameras and school bus cameras, both of which result in hefty fines for violators who speed or try to go around school buses.
We’re being subjected to the oldest con game in the books, the magician’s sleight of hand that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.
This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.
With every new law enacted by federal and state legislatures, every new ruling handed down by government courts, and every new military weapon, invasive tactic and egregious protocol employed by government agents, “we the people” are being reminded that we possess no rights except for that which the government grants on an as-needed basis.
Indeed, there are chilling parallels between the authoritarian prison that is life in the American police state and The Prisoner, a dystopian television series that first broadcast in Great Britain more than 50 years ago.
The series centers around a British secret agent (played by Patrick McGoohan) who finds himself imprisoned, monitored by militarized drones, and interrogated in a mysterious, self-contained, cosmopolitan, seemingly idyllic retirement community known only as The Village. While luxurious and resort-like, the Village is a virtual prison disguised as a seaside paradise: its inhabitants have no true freedom, they cannot leave the Village, they are under constant surveillance, their movements are tracked by surveillance drones, and they are stripped of their individuality and identified only by numbers.
Much like the American Police State, The Prisoner’s Village gives the illusion of freedom while functioning all the while like a prison: controlled, watchful, inflexible, punitive, deadly and inescapable.
Described as “an allegory of the individual, aiming to find peace and freedom in a dystopia masquerading as a utopia,” The Prisoner is a chilling lesson about how difficult it is to gain one’s freedom in a society in which prison walls are disguised within the trappings of technological and scientific progress, national security and so-called democracy.
Perhaps the best visual debate ever on individuality and freedom, The Prisoner confronted societal themes that are still relevant today: the rise of a police state, the freedom of the individual, round-the-clock surveillance, the corruption of government, totalitarianism, weaponization, group think, mass marketing, and the tendency of mankind to meekly accept his lot in life as a prisoner in a prison of his own making.
The Prisoner is an operations manual for how you condition a populace to life as prisoners in a police state: by brainwashing them into believing they are free so that they will march in lockstep with the state and be incapable of recognizing the prison walls that surround them.
We can no longer maintain the illusion of freedom.
As of this writing, GoFundMe has cut off (stolen) $9 million from the Canadian Trucker Convoy.
The money was donated by thousands of individuals to support the truckers, who are demanding the Canadian government cancel vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, and brutal COVID restrictions.
After a major backlash from the enraged public, GoFundMe has stated it will automatically refund all $9 million to the individual donors.
Regardless, GoFundMe will not forward the money to the group it was intended for: the truckers.
All right: here come the dots—
A venture capital firm, Accel, and Technology Crossover Ventures, own the majority stake in GoFundMe.
The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel, in 2004.
Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same. (Breyer—billionaire, CFR, World Economic Forum, major fund investor in China.)
Earlier in 2004, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel.
In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.”
That’s not the only connection between Facebook funder and Accel’s Jim Breyer and the CIA’s man, Gilman Louie. In 2004, Louie went to work for BBN Technologies, headed up by Breyer. Dr. Anita Jones also joined BBN at that time. Jones had worked for the CIA’s In-Q-Tel and was an adviser to DARPA, the Pentagon’s technology department that helped develop the Internet.
With these CIA/DARPA connections, it’s no surprise that Jim Breyer’s jackpot investment in Facebook is not part of the popular mythology of Mark Zuckerberg. Better to omit it. Who can fail to realize that Facebook, with its endless stream of personal data, and its tracking capability, is an ideal CIA asset?
Accel co-owns the majority stake in GoFundMe. Accel has a history of rubbing shoulders with the CIA. Accel helped launch Facebook, the largest profiling and data-mining company in the world.
Given all this, it might be more surprising if GoFundMe DIDN’T cut off the Canadian truckers’ $9 million.
It’s also worth mentioning that Accel has invested in Spotify, the platform whose number-one star is Joe Rogan. Spotify is now under pressure to cancel Rogan, because his views and guests don’t align 100% with the official COVID narrative. In step one of a new censorship program, Spotify has stated it will post warning messages on all content that veers from official COVID positions and offer links to approved government and public health sources (for outrageous lies).
GoFundMe, Accel, Facebook, CIA, In-Q-Tel, Jim Breyer, CFR, World Economic Forum, major investments in China.
Basically, The Club.
The member’s statement of belief: “More money for me, less freedom for the peons, global control.”
“Do you really think it’s a coincidence that days after Neil Young’s music was pulled off of Spotify he debuts a 4-month free trial to any person who wants to sign up for Amazon music — who has struggled to gain market share and has long-standing connections with all of the big money people in the game?”
Joe Rogan in an Instagram video Monday addressed the growing controversy surrounding his podcast — “The Joe Rogan Experience” — telling fans he’s not interested in talking to people who have only one perspective. He also said he has a problem with the term “misinformation.”
Rogan’s statement came as the streaming platform Spotify on Sunday announced new rules designed to “combat” the spread of COVID “misinformation” on its platform.
The new rules came after a handful of musicians, including Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen’s guitarist Nils Lofgren and Joni Mitchell, pulled their music catalogs from Spotify, in an effort to force Spotify to choose between their music or Rogan’s podcast. Author Brené Brown also joined the protest, stating she won’t release new episodes of her Spotify-exclusive podcasts “until further notice.”
“We have detailed content policies in place and we’ve removed over 20,000 podcast episodes related to covid-19 since the start of the pandemic,” a Spotify spokesperson told The Washington Post in a statement. “We regret Neil’s decision to remove his music from Spotify, but hope to welcome him back soon.”
Saagar Enjeti, Washington correspondent at The Hill, said there could be more going on behind the scenes. Investment firms who own the music catalogs — and who also have ties to pharmaceutical companies — may be calling the shots.
“The people speaking out may be doing so organically, but it also happens to coincide with the financial or oligarchic interests of some very, very rich people,” Enjeti said in a “Breaking Points” episode that took a “deep dive into the hedge funds behind the campaign by Neil Young and others to cancel Rogan and boost other music services such as Amazon music.”
Rogan, Spotify’s star podcaster, signed a $100 million deal in 2020, giving the streaming service exclusive rights to his show. The podcast, available only on Spotify, reached No. 1 globally last year, the company said last month.
What used to be misinformation, now accepted as fact
According to Rogan’s 10-minute video, his podcast was accused of “spreading dangerous misinformation,” citing specifically his interviews with Dr. Peter McCullough and one with Dr. Robert Malone.”
Rogan said:
“Dr. Peter McCullough is a cardiologist and he’s the most published physician in his field in history. Dr. Robert Malone owns nine patents on the creation of mRNA vaccine technology and is at least partly responsible for the creation of the technology that led to mRNA vaccines.
“Both these people are very highly credentialed, very intelligent, very accomplished people and they have an opinion that’s different than the mainstream narrative. I wanted to hear what their opinion is.
“I had them on and because of that those episodes, in particular, those episodes were labeled as being dangerous, they had dangerous misinformation in them.”
Rogan said the issue he has with the term “misinformation” is that “many of the things we thought of as misinformation just a short while ago are now accepted as fact.”
Rogan explained:
“For instance, eight months ago if you said if you get vaccinated you can still catch COVID and you can still spread COVID, you would be removed from social media. They would ban you from certain platforms. Now that’s accepted as fact.
“If you said, I don’t think cloth masks work, you would be banned on social media. Now that’s openly, repeatedly stated on CNN.
“If you said, I think it’s possible that COVID-19 came from a lab, you would be banned from many social media platforms. Now, that’s on the cover as Newsweek.”
Rogan said all of those theories that “at one point in time” were banned, were openly discussed by McCullough and Malone who were accused of spreading dangerous misinformation.
Rogan said he wanted to make the video because he feels “people have a distorted perception” of what he does.
“I’m not trying to promote misinformation,” Rogan said. “I’m not trying to be controversial. I’ve never tried to do anything with this podcast other than just talk to people and have interesting conversations.”
Are Amazon and Hedge Funds trying to cancel Rogan?
In a video posted Jan. 31 on YouTube, Enjeti said there is more than meets the eye when it comes to musicians like Young pulling their catalogs from Spotify.
“The original impetus for Neil Young’s demand was a letter he posted on social media saying Spotify could either have Neil Young or Joe Rogan, but that letter was almost immediately deleted after it was posted,” Enjeti said.
“Who is demanding this? Enjeti asked. “Is it Neil Young or is it the people who own his music?”
Enjeti explained:
“You see a recent trend in the music business it that iconic artists such a Neil Young sell their catalogs to big-money groups who then reap the profits in perpetuity. Young actually sold his catalog in Jan. 2021 to a company called Hipgnosis. Now Hipgnosis is a $1 billion company that recently announced an ownership agreement with Blackstone.”
Enjeti said Blackstone is focused on taking over single-family housing and turning America into a nation of renters, but it also has interests everywhere.
“Blackstone, BlackRock and these big private equity giants are ruthless in their pursuit of profits and they’re savvy political players who know how to play the game,” Enjeti said. “They have all sorts of ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including announcing the former CEO and chairman of Pfizer would be joining Blackstone as a senior advisor.”
“Do you really think it’s a coincidence that days after Neil Young’s music was pulled off of Spotify he debuts a 4-month free trial to any person who wants to sign up for Amazon music — who has struggled to gain market share and has long-standing connections with all of the big money people in the game?” Enjeti asked.
“Open your eyes to see possibilities you may not have imagined,” Enjeti said. “At first it was simple, just Neil Young taking a stand.”
Now a lot of people with big money and a big agenda who would just so happen to profit if Rogan went down are speaking out, Enjeti added. “Joni Mitchell has come out and said she is going to stand in solidarity with Neil Young.”
Mitchell on Sept. 13, 2021, struck a publishing deal with Reservoir Media, Inc. (RMI). The top 10 owners of RMI are large private equity and investment firms.
Lofgren, who on Jan. 30 announced he was joining fellow musicians Mitchell and Young in their Spotify boycott, also does not own his music catalog.
Lofgren’s catalog was purchased on Dec. 16, 2021, by Sony Entertainment. The top 10 owners of Sony Group Corp. are large investment firms.
Enjeti said:
“You give into the mob, you give them an inch, they will keep coming. Will Spotify really be able to withstand up to the pressure? Who knows? Principles are not going to save you in this instance. Only money will.”
Enjeti said people better hold on to their seats and “hope that Joe prevails on this one,” as he is up against more powerful interests than many realize.
New Spotify rules don’t define ‘misinformation’
As part of its new rules, Spotify said it would add a content advisory to any podcast episode discussing COVID amid accusations it was allowing misinformation to spread on its platform.
The advisory will direct listeners to a “dedicated COVID-19 Hub,” which is described as a “resource that provides easy access to data-driven facts, up-to-date information as shared by scientists, physicians, academics and public health authorities around the world, as well as links to trusted sources.”
Spotify said this is the first content advisory of its kind and will roll out in the next few days.
The streaming giant also announced it will begin testing ways to highlight its platform rules to raise awareness around “what’s acceptable” and to help creators understand their accountability for the content they post on the platform.
The statement did not say who determines what is and is not misinformation and what is considered a “trusted source.”
Rogan said he supports Spotify putting a disclaimer on controversial podcasts about COVID and encouraging listeners to speak to their physicians.
It’s pretty clear that the goals of this section of the law are to reduce drunk driving fatalities and crashes via still-undetermined technological tools that somehow are able to “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired,” and/or “passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code,” and if either or both of these conditions are proven to be positive — if the car thinks you’re drunk, then it may “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.”
As expected, the details are disconcertingly vague, which leaves the government with a wide berth to sow the seeds of mischief and mayhem. For instance, nowhere does the legislation indicate how such a so-called “kill switch” would work, what constitutes a driver who is “impaired,” and what “other purposes” might warrant the government using such a backdoor kill switch.
Everything about this mandatory measure should set off red flares. First, use of the word “passively” suggests the system will always be on and constantly monitoring the vehicle. Secondly, the system must connect to the vehicle’s operational controls, so as to disable the vehicle either before driving or during, when impairment is detected. Thirdly, it will be an “open” system, or at least one with a backdoor, meaning authorized (or unauthorized) third-parties can remotely access the system’s data at any time.
This is a privacy disaster in the making, and the fact that the provision made it through the Congress reveals — yet again — how little its members care about the privacy of their constituents… The lack of ultimate control over one’s vehicle presents numerous and extremely serious safety issues… If that is not reason enough for concern, there are serious legal issues with this mandate. Other vehicle-related enforcement methods used by the Nanny State, such as traffic cameras and license plate readers, have long presented constitutional problems; notably with the 5th Amendment’s right to not self-incriminate, and the 6th Amendment’s right to face one’s accuser.
Once again, the burden of proof is reversed, and “we the people” find ourselves no longer presumed innocent until proven guilty but suspects in a suspect society.
These “vehicle kill switches” may be sold to the public as a safety measure aimed at keeping drunk drivers off the roads, but they will quickly become a convenient tool in the hands of government agents to put the government in the driver’s seat while rendering null and void the Constitution’s requirements of privacy and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Indeed, when you think about it, these vehicle kill switches are a perfect metaphor for the government’s efforts to not only take control of our cars but also our freedoms and our lives.
For too long, we have been captive passengers in a driverless car controlled by the government, losing more and more of our privacy and autonomy the further down the road we go.
Just think of all the ways in which the government has been empowered to dictate what we say, do and think; where we go; with whom we associate; how we raise our families; how we live our lives; what we consume; how we spend our money; how we protect ourselves and our loved ones; and to what extent our rights as individuals can be displaced for the sake of the so-called greater good.
In this way, we have arrived, way ahead of schedule, into the dystopian future dreamed up by such science fiction writers as George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick.
In keeping with Dick’s darkly prophetic vision of a dystopian police state—which became the basis for Steven Spielberg’s futuristic thriller Minority Report, which was released 20 years ago—we have been imprisoned in a world in which the government is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams and pre-crime units will crack a few skulls to bring the populace under control.
Minority Report is set in the year 2054, but it could just as well have taken place in 2022.
Incredibly, as the various nascent technologies employed and shared by the government and corporations alike—facial recognition, iris scanners, massive databases, behavior prediction software, and so on—are incorporated into a complex, interwoven cyber network aimed at tracking our movements, predicting our thoughts and controlling our behavior, Spielberg’s unnerving vision of the future is fast becoming our reality.
Both worlds—our present-day reality and Minority Report’s celluloid vision of the future—are characterized by widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, fusion centers, driverless cars, voice-controlled homes, facial recognition systems, cybugs and drones, and predictive policing (pre-crime) aimed at capturing would-be criminals before they can do any damage.
Surveillance cameras are everywhere. Government agents listen in on our telephone calls and read our emails. Political correctness—a philosophy that discourages diversity—has become a guiding principle of modern society.
The courts have shredded the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, SWAT teams battering down doors without search warrants and FBI agents acting as a secret police that investigate dissenting citizens are common occurrences in contemporary America.
We are increasingly ruled by multi-corporations wedded to the police state. Much of the population is either hooked on illegal drugs or ones prescribed by doctors. And bodily privacy and integrity has been utterly eviscerated by a prevailing view that Americans have no rights over what happens to their bodies during an encounter with government officials, who are allowed to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
We’re on the losing end of a technological revolution that has already taken hostage our computers, our phones, our finances, our entertainment, our shopping, our appliances, and now, our cars. As if the government wasn’t already able to track our movements on the nation’s highways and byways by way of satellites, GPS devices, and real-time traffic cameras, performance data recorders, black box recorders and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications will monitor our vehicle’s speed, direction, location, gear selection, brake force, the number of miles traveled and seatbelts use, and transmit this data to other drivers, including the police.
In this Brave New World, there is no communication not spied upon, no movement untracked, no thought unheard. In other words, there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.
Herded along by drones, smart phones, GPS devices, smart TVs, social media, smart meters, surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, online banking, license plate readers and driverless cars, we are quickly approaching a point of singularity with the interconnected technological metaverse that is life in the American police state.
Every new piece of technologically-enabled gadget we acquire and technologically-boobytrapped legislation that Congress enacts pulls us that much deeper into the sticky snare.
These vehicle kill switches are yet another Trojan Horse: sold to us as safety measures for the sake of the greater good, all the while poised to wreak havoc on what little shreds of autonomy we have left.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we’re hurtling down a one-way road at mind-boggling speeds to a destination not of our choosing, the terrain is getting more treacherous by the minute, and we’ve passed all the exit ramps.
From this point forward, there is no turning back, and the signpost ahead reads “Danger.”
Time to buckle up your seatbelts, folks. We’re in for a bumpy ride.
OTTAWA: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms today filed a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking to strike down the federal government’s mandatory Covid-19 vaccine requirements for air travellers. The court action is on behalf of several Canadians from across Canada whose Charter rights and freedoms have been infringed.
On October 30, 2021, the federal government announced that anyone travelling by air, train, or ship, must be fully vaccinated. The travel vaccination mandate has prevented approximately 6 million unvaccinated Canadians (15% of Canada’s population) from travel within Canada and prevents them from flying out of Canada. Some of the Canadians involved in the lawsuit cannot travel to help sick loved ones, get to work, visit family and friends, take international vacations, and live ordinary lives.
The main applicant in the case is former Newfoundland Premier, The Honourable A. Brian Peckford. Mr. Peckford, pictured, is the only surviving drafter and signatory 40 years after the 1982 Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted.
“It is becoming more obvious that being vaccinated does not stop people from getting Covid and does not stop them from spreading it”, says the former Premier. “The government has not shown that the policy makes flying safer—it simply discriminates”, he notes. “When I heard Prime Minister Trudeau call the unvaccinated ‘racists,’ ‘misogynists, ‘anti-science’ and ‘extremist’ and his musing ‘do we tolerate these people?’ it became clear he is sowing divisions and advancing his vendetta against a specific group of Canadians—this is completely against the democratic and Canadian values I love about this country”, adds Mr. Peckford.
“The federal travel ban has segregated me from other Canadians. It’s discriminatory, violates my Charter rights and that’s why I am fighting the travel ban,” explains Mr. Peckford.
The Justice Centre’s legal challenge cites violations of Charter rights including mobility, life, liberty and security of the person, privacy, and discrimination. The lawsuit also challenges whether the Minister of Transportation has the jurisdiction to use aviation safety powers to enforce public health measures.
In discussing effective border control measures at the start of the Covid-19 outbreak, Canada’s chief medical officer, Dr. Tam, said: “As you move further away from that epicentre, any other border measures are much less effective. Data on public health has shown that many of these are actually not effective at all… WHO advises against any kind of travel and trade restrictions, saying that they are inappropriate and could actually cause more harm than good in terms of our global effort to contain.” (Canada House of Commons, Standing Committee on Health Meeting, February 5, 2020)
The World Health Organization (“WHO”) continues to maintain that position and on January 19, 2022, urged all countries to: “Lift or ease international traffic bans as they do not provide added value and continue to contribute to the economic and social stress experienced by States Parties. The failure of travel restrictions introduced after the detection and reporting of Omicron variant to limit international spread of Omicron demonstrates the ineffectiveness of such measures over time.” The WHO repeated that countries should: “not require proof of vaccination against COVID-19 for international travel.” (World Health Organization, Statement on the tenth meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, January 19, 2022.)
“Despite the confirmed science that the vaccine does not stop people from getting or spreading the virus and the repeated warnings from the WHO, it’s clear the federal government is out of step and arbitrarily restricting Canadians fundamental rights and freedoms,” says Keith Wilson, Q.C., lead counsel for the legal challenge. “It is profoundly disturbing that a marginalized group in Canada—the unvaccinated—are essentially prohibited from leaving the country,” he adds.
“Canadians have been losing hope in the Charter and our courts. We are going to put the best arguments and evidence forward so that the court can clarify where governments overstep,” concludes Mr. Wilson.
The court will be asked to hear the case on an expedited basis given the serious infringement on Canadians’ mobility and other rights. Canada is the only country in the developed world that has banned Covid vaccine-free travellers from air travel.
by Arthur Firstenberg, ECHOEarth (End Cellphones Here on Earth)
January 26, 2022
In 1996, when almost no one owned a cell phone, and WiFi had not yet been invented, organizations formed to oppose wireless technology in order to protect our world from an unprecedented assault. The telecommunications industry planned to put a cell phone in the hands of every man, woman and child so they could communicate instantaneously from any point on Earth to any other point on Earth. In order to accomplish this, and for the first time in the history of the planet, every square inch of the Earth was going to be bathed in microwave radiation at all times. Also every human being — all seven billion of us – were going to become sources of such radiation. This was also unprecedented. Human beings, like all other creatures, were part of nature, not its enemy. But for the first time in the history of the Earth, every member of one of its species was going to be emitting radiation wherever they went.
Today, in 2021, when almost everyone owns a cell phone, WiFi, and an average of 23 other wireless devices, both the organizations and their goals have changed. Health and nature have already been destroyed, and the fight is no longer against wireless technology but, often, against each other. The purpose of this article is to review this history in order to remind people of the purpose of our movement and to unify and redirect global action once again to where it needs to be: against all of wireless technology in order to stop the radiation and recover our health and environment before it is too late. I will focus this article on the opposition in the United States because I am most familiar with it, but similar dynamics have been operating in other countries.
On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act was signed into law, mandating the rollout of wireless technology across America, and prohibiting local governments from protecting their citizens’ health and environment from the radiation that it produces. Both existing and new organizations all over the United States united to oppose wireless technology and to try to restore democracy.
The EMR Alliance, which until that time had focused on radiation from power lines and computers, now directed its energies to fight cell towers. Citizens for the Appropriate Placement of Telecommunications Facilities was organized. I helped found the Cellular Phone Task Force to oppose not just cell towers but cell towers’ reason for being, which is cell phones. Other organizations that formed included Noe Valley Families Against the Antennas; Healthy Home Alliance; Families for Appropriate Cellular Tower Siting; Ulysses Citizens for Responsible Technology; Hardwick Action Committee; Thistle Hill Neighborhood Alliance; Coalition of Concerned Citizens for Responsible Technologies; Citizens of Marin for Sensible Communications Planning; Northboro Residents for Responsible Tower Siting; Telecommunications Master Plan Coalition of San Francisco; and Rainier Valley Association for Safe Wireless Technology. These and other groups, individuals, public officials, and the Communications Workers of America, joined together to sue the Federal Communications Commission in order to protect health, nature and democracy.
In 2000, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against us, and the Supreme Court refused to hear our case.
In the aftermath of our failure, a national coalition called the EMR Network was formed to try to unify efforts to protect us all against radiation. But in the five years since the passage of the Telecommunications Act, a majority of the population had acquired cell phones, and many had also acquired WiFi, which had recently been invented. Cracks formed in the coalition, which was beginning to split into factions. One faction still opposed all of wireless technology. Another opposed cell towers but not cell phones, as if one could exist without the other, and as if the radiation did not come from both. A third represented the interests of people who called themselves electrically sensitive. And not only were there differences of opinion among us, but outside interests had infiltrated our movement and helped to divide us.
The EMR Alliance, which had previously functioned as a national coalition, vanished. Its corporate counsel, Michael Withey, was the head of a national network of personal injury lawyers hunting for million dollar lawsuits, called the Electromagnetic Radiation Case Evaluation Team (EMRCET). When those lawyers concluded that ours was a losing cause and there was no money to be made from lawsuits about electromagnetic radiation, EMRCET disbanded, and the EMR Alliance also disappeared.
Another lawyer, James Hobson, who had represented most of the parties before the Second Circuit, and who became counsel for the EMR Network, was a telecommunications lawyer who, simultaneous to representing the parties against the FCC, represented a number of telecommunications companies, as well as the Telecommunications Industry Association, on other matters. He had also previously been in-house counsel for the FCC.
George Carlo, a lawyer as well as a scientist, who had headed up the telecommunications industry’s effort to prove cell phones safe, made headlines when he switched sides and wrote a book condemning cell phones as dangerous. It was titled Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age. He attempted to join the national coalition against wireless technology, but like Hobson, not everyone trusted him. He had spent most of his career as a scientist-for-hire working for major polluters. In addition to being hired by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association to prove cell phones safe, he had been a consultant to the Tobacco Institute, Dow Chemical, Dow Corning, the Chlorine Institute and other polluters and published articles for two decades purporting to show that tobacco smoke, breast implants, dioxins, herbicides, and other chemicals were not dangerous.
Eventually the EMR Network, beset by internal quarreling, broke up and yet another coalition, called the EMR Policy Institute, formed. And gradually, over the years, as the wireless industry’s adversaries came more and more to also be its customers, they abandoned, for the most part, the fight to protect human health, nature, and democracy. Many opponents of cell towers today are not only not opposed to cell phones, but they are heavily addicted to them and have damaged their health from years of exposing themselves to their radiation. The birds, insects and animals have already disappeared from their yards and they have grown used to living without them. I used to get more calls asking how to help fight wireless technology. Now, more often, people call me or email me from their cell phones asking me what is the safest kind of cell phone to use, how far away from their body to hold it, what kinds of devices will best neutralize the radiation, and how to distinguish a 5G tower from a 4G tower. When I tell them that radiation is radiation, that there is no way to “neutralize” it, that distance doesn’t matter, and that it is destroying the Earth regardless of what you call it, they don’t understand what I am saying. More and more, they ask, in frustration, “What is the alternative?” And when I answer that the alternative to not having a cell phone is the imminent, well-under-way destruction of all life on Earth, including their own, they don’t seem to register what I am saying. They simply can’t imagine living without a cell phone. ECHOEarth (End CellphonesHere On Earth), an organization that I helped create in May 2020 in order to build a movement to abandon wireless technology, still has fewer than 2,000 members although 300,000 people and organizations have signed the International Appeal toStop 5G on Earth and in Space.
Meanwhile the EMR Policy Institute has also disappeared and a lot of new organizations have taken its place. The focus of many is not to stop wireless technology, or even cell towers, any more, but just to stop the newest version of them, which is called “5G”. There is an international coalition called Stop 5G International. In the United States there are Stop 5G Chicago, Stop 5G San Diego, Stop 5G Hawaii, Stop 5G Georgia, 5G Free California, 5G Free Vermont, 5G Awareness Now, 5G Colorado Action, Citizens Against 5G Cell Towers, and dozens of other organizations with similar names. For many it is not because they no longer think radiation is harmful, but because they have given up trying to stop it, and because most of their members own cell phones.
And there are still outside interests assuming positions of leadership in our movement, and telecommunications lawyers representing us in court. Children’s Health Defense, directed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is doing wonderful advocacy work. However, it has been represented in its legal work against 5G by Scott McCollough, a telecommunications lawyer. Like George Carlo and James Hobson, he claims to have switched sides, but his website does not say anything of the sort, and he has told me that he does not believe RF radiation harms everyone, just people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
And there is a new national coalition that is now filling the void left by the EMR Policy Institute. It holds Zoom meetings every other Friday, and has invited a series of excellent speakers to present at these meetings. But they are only speaking to the choir, and the organizer of that coalition, Odette Wilkens, is a technology lawyer who makes her living representing IBM. IBM is the company that launched a “Smarter Planet” campaign in 2008 and a “Smarter Cities Challenge” in 2010. Everything IBM does today depends on cell phones and wireless technology. I have asked Odette whether she has a conflict of interest, but she has not responded. She is also an animal rights activist for which I admire her and I would like to be able to trust her, but she has give me no reason to do so.
Odette tried to sabotage the amicus brief that was filed in support of our current petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. She convinced the coordinator of the amicus brief not to file it, after a lot of organizations had already signed on and people had already donated money toward it, so that I had to find another organization on short notice to take over the effort and get it filed. She told a lot of people why not to sign on to the amicus brief and why not to donate money toward it. It was after she did this that I investigated her and discovered who she works for. Her new website, wiredbroadband.org, doesn’t even have her name anywhere on it. In an interview (at 37:55) she said, falsely, that the preemption clause in the Telecommunications Act, which we are again asking the Supreme Court to strike down, does not apply to 5G and that people should not worry about it. She said that local governments are free to prohibit 5G towers to protect our health and environment because they provide “broadband” services and not “cell phone” services.
But that is false. Today “cellular” and “broadband” have merged and there is no difference. 5G provides both voice and internet services. And the preemption clause does not say “cell towers,” it says “personal wireless service facilities,” which encompasses everything. We are back before the Supreme Court after twenty years asking it, again, to strike down that clause, in order to restore to local governments the right to protect our health and environment, and impose liability on telecommunications companies that injure and kill people. In 2000, the Second Circuit addressed only the issue of States’ Rights. Today we are asking for our Personal Rights to life, liberty, and property. And in our petition to the Supreme Court we are represented not by telecommunications lawyers, but by lawyers with expertise in environmental law and civil rights.
The radiation emitted by cell phones is more, not less harmful than the radiation emitted by cell towers. There are 15 billion mobile devices in the world, and only seven million towers. And the phones are right next to everyone’s body. The main difference is that people have become used to them. People have become used to the absence of butterflies and sparrows. People have become used to being fat and diabetic, and at risk for heart attacks and strokes. By this newsletter I am reaching out to all organizations and people who love this Earth. I ask them to remember what they are fighting for and to unite together in a campaign to abandon wireless technology and eliminate cell phones from this planet in order to save it. Cell phones are not the only threat to life on Earth, but they are the most urgent.
Cell phones are effectively radioactive devices. The idea that they are not radioactive comes from a mistaken distinction that the medical community made a century ago, which most people persist in believing despite a century of research showing that distinction to be little more than a fantasy. It is a fantasy that says that (a) only radiation above a certain frequency is energetic enough to remove electrons from molecules to form ions, (b) this causes genetic mutations which are the cause of cancer, and (c) radiation is harmless if it does not cause cancer.
The most obvious of those fictions is that radiation has no effects besides cancer. Whereas in fact radiation acts directly on the electrons in our mitochondria, slowing metabolism, making us hypoxic, and causing diabetes, heart disease and, yes, cancer. Radiation also acts directly on all the electric transmission lines in our bodies, including our nerves, our blood vessels, our heart’s pacemaker, and yes — even though western medicine doesn’t recognize their existence — our acupuncture meridians. All this plays havoc with life and in just 26 years has wiped out most of the Earth’s insects, a large percentage of the small birds, and is imminently threatening to put an end to what’s left — including us — if we do not put an end to it.
Please work with me on a campaign to abolish cell phones. It is necessary, it is realistic, and the alternative is unthinkable. Thousands of people have written to me over the past few years asking how they can help. You can all help to begin this movement by throwing away your cell phones and joining ECHOEarth. As soon as enough people have joined ECHOEarth so that it has strength in numbers, I will contact the people who want to work on this in earnest and we can discuss the next steps.
In a single drop that has been left to dry, it has been possible to observe microstructures that would explain the phenomenon behind the generation of MAC addresses.
Orwell City brings to English this new visual material that La Quinta Columna has shared with the world.
As we suspected —and as we had been informed by certain people who have worked in the preparation of technical reports, and so on—, as the sample evaporates, this hydrogel solidifies. This substance somehow forms with heat. And we can also understand the fact that these samples were initially frozen. Practically, at an ideal temperature. Now we can understand many things.
I have subjected the sample to certain experimentation, such as exposing it to electromagnetic fields, magnetic fields from a magnet, and ultraviolet radiation. This is very important because as the days go by, the sample evolves. And that’s what you’re going to see today.
Well, I don’t know how you’re going to assimilate it mentally because the images are extremely shocking. And I believe that this is not news. We’d like to give the good news that all this is over and that it all was just a nightmare. But what we’re going to see is very important.
So we were waiting, José Luis, for you to come in so that you could also see it live. And so that we could all comment on what can be inferred or can be concluded from all this.
Dr. Sevillano:
Very good.
Ricardo Delgado:
Well, without further ado, let’s play this video. I’m going to ask you all to share it. Share this broadcast. Then I’m going to post it on La Quinta Columna’s Telegram channel so that you can download it. We’ll also upload it to Odysee, particularly. Download it and upload it to your Facebook profiles. It’s seven and a half minutes long, but they’re very intense minutes. So here we go. Ready?
The video is titled “Complex Microtechnology in Pfizer Vaccine.” Of course, aside from graphene, which is also there. In fact, it’s the raw material used, precisely, for all of this. Let’s watch it.
Video:
Micro-technology in Pfizer vaccine Haxon Aquiles II Microscope.
Ricardo Delgado:
Well, if you guys are freaking out about this, this is nothing.
It’s still nothing. Now you’re going to see some more evaporated samples. And the components are easier to see. Look at the rectilinear structures. And what’s in the center? A CPU? What a shock!
And here’s another “CPU,” so to speak. This is another one. I mean, they have the same formation in the center.
Look how easily it can be seen there. Well, that’s nothing. Can you see… Here… Gimme a second. Here. Can you see that some rectangles at the bottom? Well, these types of formations are self-assembling. In fact, we have seen it live, that more and more complex structures are being formed.
Let’s keep watching. Look at this. Unbelievable. It’s just unbelievable!
Ricardo Delgado:
Okay. I’m gonna make a little stop here. Here. José Luis, what impression does this give you? Do you think this is a crystal that forms naturally?
Dr. Sevillano:
Obviously not. These are microchips. They’re microscopic electronic circuits. And they would explain why we have received so many signals (MAC) from vaccinated people.
We already said at the time that graphene by itself, unstructured as raw material, wasn’t capable of emitting more signals than an “OFF/ON.” It couldn’t emit numbers, nor codes, nor… let’s say, nor could it interact intelligently with the environment, more than as a simple signal that’s simply received or sent as such. Raw.
That’s what graphene is for. That’s what graphene sheets are for. They impregnate to biological tissue and, from there, do what we saw in the image that Ricardo can show whenever he wants of the myocytes being excited by a light discharge. That’s what raw graphene is for. It permeates the tissue, the cell. And from there, it excites or inhibits it depending on the type of cell it’s adhered to.
But of course, that’s just an “ON/OFF.” It’s either excited or inhibited. And there’s no signal there. There’s no information other than excitation or inhibition.
On the other hand, when you have to send codes, in addition to several multi-digit codes, you need a circuit. I’m not an expert, but you need a circuitry that allows you to send signals with certain codes. Depending on the signal you receive, you’ll send them. That is, you need technology: microtechnology – nanotechnology.
What we’re wondering here, apart from the fact that this could be in a “health product” (to give it a name), is that the competent people in this topic haven’t already started to look at what’s being introduced surreptitiously into the population.
I don’t understand why the responsible people who have seen these videos that have been circulating for so many months and in which raw or elaborated material, where nanotechnology or microtechnology is seen, aren’t responding to this.
Ricardo Delgado:
Look, two identical ones.
Video:
The images were obtained from a single drop of a Pfizer vial. The structures evolve when stimulated with ultraviolet light and over time.
However, no clear evidence of self-assembly was found in the vaccine samples. However, the suspicions, more than founded on this process, were confirmed with the observation of the video produced by Ricardo Delgado on December 27, 2021 , in which the movement of thousands of particles in a sample of the Pfizer vaccine was witnessed. These particles seemed to come together to form more complex structures, defining simple geometric patterns, see excerpt in the following video 1.
In the scientific literature, this quasi-directed behavior or movement of the particles, in the context of the construction of micro / nano electronic objects and devices in an intracorporeal communications nano-network, had a high probability of corresponding to a self-assembly process based on DNA, epitaxial growth and origami. This deduction resulted in the location of the scientific article that, with high probability, could confirm the self-assembly of complex objects, including circuits, boards, routers, sensors and other micro / nano electronic components and devices.
This discovery explains how the components responsible for the bluetooth MAC address emission phenomenon would self-assemble (Sarlangue, G.; Devilleger, J.; Trillaud, P.; Fouchet, S.; Taillasson, L.; Catteau, G. 2021) .It would also explain the assembly of nano-devices,nano-sensors, nano-nodes, micro / nano-interfaces,micro / nano-routers , micro / nano-antennas , micro / nano-rectenas , with which configures the network hardware intra-body of nano-communications .
Figure 1 shows the signs of self-assembly observed in the scientific literature and its correspondence with the analyzed samples of the Pfizer vaccine. From a morphological point of view, there are important coincidences that allow us to infer and almost assume that self-assembly is a verifiable reality.
Fig. 1. Evidence of DNA-Origami Self-Assembly in Pfizer Vaccine
Due to the complexity of the self-assembly issue, as well as the relevance of the evidence discovered, a detailed analysis will be carried out, around three fundamental headings: a) directed self-assembly; b) self-assembly by smooth epitaxial growth; c) origami self-assembly.
Directed self-assembly
The article by (Kumar, P. 2010) presents the first clear indication of “directed self-assembly” that can be observed in the vaccine sample, see figure 2 and video 1. The observed nanoparticles seem to unite in clusters of larger size and with it, more complex structures that move in the sample drop.
Fig. 2. The vaccine sample presents particles with apparent self-assembly movement, which raises the suspicion that the hybridized DNA technique for directed self-assembly is being used. (Kumar, P. 2010)
According to (Kumar, P. 2010), the self – assembly directed is key to the development of electronic devices, magnetic and optical miniaturized, which fits with materials derived from graphene found in samples of the vaccine, in fact states that “the Nanoparticles have attracted a great deal of attention as such components due to their unique size-dependent properties, including super-paramagnetism, chemiluminescence, and catalysis. To take full advantage of the potential capabilities of nanoparticles, we need to develop new methods to assemble them into useful patterns or structures. These self-assembling structures promise new opportunities to develop miniaturized optical, electronic, optoelectronic and magnetic devices .”
On the other hand, Kumar reveals that the “directed self-assembly” method is suitable for generating nano- and micro-scale devices due to its ability to use quantum dots or nanopoints. He explains it in the following way ” as the size or functions of the device get smaller and smaller, conventional lithographic processes turn out to be limited for their production. It is necessary to develop alternative methods to overcome this difficulty. As they are developed Conventional manufacturing technologies, such as optical lithography, are also beginning to encounter fundamental limits … In addition, new manufacturing techniques are required to help extend both the life and range of application of existing techniques … Directed self-assembly technique can be used appropriately to produce functional nanostructures, for example nanowires and an organized array of nano-dots (understand quantum dots) . “In other words,” directed self-assembly “allows quantum dots to of a certain material (for example the graphene GQD Graphene Quantum Dots), they self-assemble according to a predefined pattern.
Among the possible types of directed or guided self-assembly, Kumar recognizes the “assembly guided by templates where they use atomic surface patterns; the assembly guided by electromagnetic field or electric field, by electron beam, light and laser, among others“.
Furthermore, it recognizes that “directed self-assembly is a robust and reproducible technique with future prospects for use on an industrial scale … which means building well-ordered, often intriguing structures, which has received a lot of attention for its ease of organizing materials. at the nanoscale in ordered structures and produce complex structures on a large scale.” This seems to be fundamental in the context of the intra-corporal network of nanocommunications and nano / micro devices, since thousands of devices must be created for their operation ( Zhang, R.; Yang, K.; Abbasi, QH; Qaraqe, KA; Alomainy, A. 2017 | Galal, A.; Hesselbach, X. 2018 | Galal, A.; Hesselbach, X. 2020)
Among all the forms of self-assembly, the most probable and the one with the greatest coincidences at the morphological level is self-assembly guided by biological DNA templates. Among its advantages, Kumar highlights “the manufacture of nanowires since they solve integration problems (eliminating the need to manipulate individual nanowires). They also solve problems related to contacts for electrical and magnetic transport.” This fits with the type of nanodevices observed, for example micro / nano rectenas and graphene-derived materials, GQD graphene quantum dots.
In fact, Kumar states that “the use of physical DNA templates, results in the growth of nanomaterials in a predefined position, eliminating the need for post-growth manipulation and providing the ease of electrical connections for additional characterizations“, which helps to understand how the structures are constructed and defined. Quadrangular shapes observed in the vaccine samples, which bear a great resemblance to PCBs, microchips, sensors and integrated circuits. He also adds that ” such templates give rise to the growth of nanopoints (quantum dots), vertical nanowires, which can be used in a controllable way to manufacture FET devices (Field Effect Transistors), magnetic tunnel junction devices and devices for optical applications” which confirms that with directed self-assembly it is possible to create miniaturized nanotechnology of any known electronic device.
In other words, self-assembly guided by biological DNA templates can be used to make all the devices required for an intracorporeal nano-network , being feasible that this is the technique used in vaccines, according to the observed images and the statements in the scientific literature (Catania, V .; Mineo, A .; Monteleone, S .; Patti, D. 2014 | Keren, K .; Berman, RS; Buchstab, E .; Sivan, U .; Braun, E. 2003).
Fig. 3. DNA template carbon nanotube FET field effect transistor. (Keren, K .; Berman, RS; Buchstab, E .; Sivan, U .; Braun, E. 2003)
To be exact, Kumar indicates that “l as directed strategies biomolecules (biological DNA templates) have shown great promise in the nanoparticle assembly in a wide variety of architectures, because of its high efficiency, high specificity and genetic programmability ( McMillan , RA; Paavola, CD; Howard, J .; Chan, SL; Zaluzec, NJ; Trent, JD 2002 ). These nanoassembled materials have been shown to have potential applications in new detection systems, such as biosensors ( Taton, TA; Mirkin , CA; Letsinger, RL 2000 ) and chemical sensors ( Liu, J .; Lu, Y. 2003 | Liu, J .; Lu, Y. 2006 ), and in the construction of nanoelectronic devices ( Keren, K .; Berman, RS; Buchstab, E .; Sivan, U .; Braun, E. 2003 ) [paradoxically configured with carbon nanotubes] ” Which again confirms that it is a convenient technique / method in the implementation of nanotechnology in the human body.
Self-assembly through smooth epitaxial growth
If evidence of directed self-assembly can be considered a well-founded hypothesis, “self-assembly by smooth epitaxial growth” presents even more compelling evidence. Figure 4 shows an exact equivalence between the scientific literature and the Pfizer vaccine samples analyzed by the doctor (Campra, P. 2021). Some of the most numerous objects, with a quadrangular and pyramidal shape, would actually be the result of an epitaxial self-assembly technique, which is in fact, “one of the manufacturing processes of integrated circuits” (Shen, J .; Sun, W .; Liu, D .; Schaus, T .; Yin, P. 2021 | Burns, MA; Mastrangelo, CH; Sammarco, TS; Man, FP; Webster, JR; Johnsons, BN; Burke, DT 1996 | Esener, SC; Hartmann, DM; Heller, MJ; Cable, JM 1998 | Krahne, R .; Yacoby, A .; Shtrikman, H .; Bar-Joseph, I .; Dadosh, T. ; Sperling, J. 2002 | Chen, Y .; Pepin, A. 2001 ) Epitaxy refers to the deposition of a layer of material (for example quantum dots of graphene, graphene oxide, hydrogel, etc.) on a Primary nucleation substrate. However, unlike traditional growth processes, in this case it is achieved through DNA hybridization. It is at this point, where (Liu, J .; Wei, J .; Yang, Z. 2021 ) develops one of the objects of his research.
Fig. 4. An exact match is observed between objects self-assembled by smooth epitaxial growth from the scientific literature (Liu, J .; Wei, J .; Yang, Z. 2021) and objects observed in the Pfizer vaccine (Campra, P. 2021).
According to (Liu, J.; Wei, J.; Yang, Z. 2021) the self-assembly of “inorganic nanoparticles into mesoscopic or macroscopic nanoparticle assemblies is an efficient strategy to manufacture advanced devices with emerging nanoscale functionalities. In addition, the assembly of Nanoparticles on substrates can allow the fabrication of substrate-integrated devices, similar to the growth of atomic crystals on a substrate. Recent progress in nanoparticle assembly suggests that ordered nanoparticle assemblies could well be produced on a selected substrate, which known as smooth epitaxial growth.”
This definition confirms that the manufacture of micro / nano electronic devices (integrated circuits) can be carried out by guided crystal growth on a DNA substrate or template. This is evident in the following explanation “DNA hybridization It has been applied to assemble nanoparticles into superlattices with crystalline structures that are surprisingly rich. The three-dimensional double helix structure of DNA (fixed pitch, fixed diameter) was found to have more advantages than other materials in guiding nanoparticles toward an ordered three-dimensional assembly (Nykypanchuk, D.; Maye, MM; Van-Der-Lelie , D .; Gang, O. 2008). Specific recognition between base pairs and the ability to control DNA strand length and base sequence make it a powerful weapon for nanoscale assembly. The programming capacity of DNA makes it an extremely attractive structure-oriented ligand .” This confirms that self-assembly by means of DNA not only allows the construction of 2D structures, since 3D structures can be generated thanks to the bonds of the double helix of the DNA, which allows it to be used to configure all kinds of shapes , including cubic and prismatic shapes seen in figure 4.
Among the experiences cited by (Liu, J .; Wei, J .; Yang, Z. 2021) it is worth highlighting the following paragraph on epitexial self-assembly, in which a wide experience in the experimentation of DNA- based crystalline constructions is revealed, with a tolerance to error (mismatch) of only 1%.
“According ( Lewis, DJ; Zornberg, LZ; Carter, DJ; Macfarlane, RJ 2020) and colleagues used this technique and a combination of nanoparticles functionalized with DNA and a substrate functionalized DNA strand to design a process of epitaxial assembly . They found that monocrystalline Winterbottom forms of nanoparticle crystals are formed by controlling the interfacial energies between crystals and fluid, substrate and crystal, and substrate and fluid . Other examples show that grafted DNA nanoparticles self-assemble into two-dimensional colloidal films can be applied as a substrate for smooth epitaxial assembly . For example, according to (Wang, MX; Seo, SE; Gabrys, PA; Fleischman, D .; Lee, B .; Kim, Y .; Mirkin, CA 2017 ) used DNA-coated nanoparticles as more elastic and malleable building elements to better adapt to network mismatch . Later studies ( Gabrys, PA; Seo, SE; Wang, MX; Oh, E.; Macfarlane, RJ; Mirkin, CA 2018) showed that superlattice thin films assembled by DNA functionalized nanoparticles can store elastic strains by deforming and reorganizing, with lattice mismatches of up to ± 7.7%, significantly overcoming the ± 1% lattice mismatches allowed by atomic thin films.It is important to highlight that these DNA-coated nanoparticles experience a progressive and coherent relaxation, dissipating the tension in an elastic and irrecoverable way through the formation of dislocations or vacancies. Therefore, it is possible to grow heteroepitaxial colloidal films by controlling programmable -soft- atomic equivalents of nanometers and microstructures using rigid nanocrystals coated with soft compressible polymeric materials.” (Liu, J.; Wei, J.; Yang, Z. 2021)
Self-assembly origami
Finally, among the most original forms of self-assembly is the “origami method“, also linked to the use of DNA templates. In this case, the evidence is found in the work of ( Wang, J.; Yue, L.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Tian, H.; Willner, I. 2019 ) entitled “Active generation of nano -holes in DNA origami scaffolds for programmed catalysis in nanocavities“. The pattern of a point or hole within a quadrangular structure is striking and characterizing from the morphological point of view. This detail was found in the images obtained by Dr. Campra, which together with the self-assembly study object, allowed infer that it was another piece of the puzzle and that in reality, there must be larger objects self-assembled with the origami method. The similarities are clear and evident, see figure 5, since the quadrangular structure of the objects coincides, the position of the nano -holes inscribed within the surface, as well as the number or quantity of them observed in the Pfizer vaccine samples.
Fig. 5. It is observed that the objects observed in the Pfizer vaccine samples have direct correspondence with the scientific literature related to origami self-assembly, where nano-holes are unmistakable characteristic elements. (Wang, J .; Yue, L .; Li, Z .; Zhang, J .; Tian, H .; Willner, I. 2019)
But, before proceeding to analyze the issue of holes in quadrangular objects, it is worth reviewing the introduction and state of the art provided by the authors in their work, as it helps to locate the capabilities of the technique and demonstrate its link to nanotechnology used in vaccines. In fact, surprising claims are made, since origami self-assembly is a “programmed assembly of two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) DNA nanostructures, representing a major advance in DNA nanotechnology” (Hong, F .; Zhang , F .; Liu, Y .; Yan, H. 2017 | Rothemund, PW 2006 | Endo, M .; Sugiyama, H. 2014), which confirms not only the possible dimensions or axes of self-assembly, but also that the origami method is compatible with self-assembly with smooth epitexial growth and therefore with directed or guided self-assembly. In all cases, the use of suitably configured synthetic DNA structures are the necessary precursors for the development of the structures and objects observed in the vaccine samples.
In addition, (Wang, J .; Yue, L .; Li, Z .; Zhang, J .; Tian, H .; Willner, I. 2019) confirm that the origami self-assembly method using DNA allows the anchoring of components for configure, among other devices, plasmonic antennas , previously identified in the vaccine samples as part of the nano-network centered on the human body . This is stated in the following literal quote: “In addition to creating ingenious forms of origami structures generated by the programmed folding of DNA, origami structures were functionalized with protruding nucleic acid strands, or strands of oligonucleotides with modified edges. The protruding strands were used as anchor sites for the organization of the polymers, proteins and nanoparticles in the scaffolds of each origami. Unique functions of assembled nanostructures in origami scaffolds were demonstrated, such as the operation of enzyme cascades, the design of plasmonic antennas, and the assembly of chiroplasmonic structures.”
This explanation is essential to understand the process of formation of superstructures, guided by DNA patterns, since they are linked through the strands that protrude from the building pieces, functionalized with nanoparticles (for example graphene quantum dots), which together with the scale factor and superconductor of the material, provide plasmonic characteristics, and quantum hall, which implies the self-assembly of transistors, and micro / nano chips of the complexity that is required.
In their introduction, (Wang, J.; Yue, L.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Tian, H.; Willner, I. 2019) also provide interesting annotations and quotes about the possibilities of the origami technique and the design of DNA walkers with motor capacity to start movement, turn and stop, according to molecular interaction patterns. In fact, according to ( Lund, K.; Manzo, AJ; Dabby, N.; Michelotti, N.; Johnson-Buck, A.; Nangreave, J.; Yan, H. 2010 ) these DNA walkers are essentially Molecular robots guided by substrate molecules (precursors) in a set of origami DNA structures (templates). This is confirmed in the following full-text quote from Lund, also corroborated by (Omabegho, T.; Sha, R.; Seeman, NC 2009 | Gu, H.; Chao, J.; Xiao, SJ;Seeman, NC 2010):
“Moving robotics to the level of a single molecule is possible a priori, but it requires facing the limited capacity of individual molecules to store information and complex programs. One strategy to overcome this problem is to use systems that can obtain complex behaviors from the interaction of simple robots with their environment. A first step in this direction was the development of DNA walkers, which have gone from being non-autonomous, to being able to perform brief but directed movements on one-dimensional tracks. In this work we show that random walkers, also called molecular spiders that comprise a streptavidin molecule as an inert -body- and three deoxyribozymes as catalytic -paws-, they exhibit elementary robotic behavior when interacting with a precisely defined environment. Single-molecule microscopy observations confirm that these walkers achieve directional motion by detecting and modifying the tracks of substrate molecules arranged in a two-dimensional DNA origami landscape.” (Lund, K .; Manzo, AJ; Dabby, N .; Michelotti, N .; Johnson-Buck, A .; Nangreave, J .; Yan, H. 2010 )
This can confirm the presence of molecules and pieces with the capacity for self-assembly, their movement, orientation and self-organization, to configure complex electronic devices, according to the patterns and templates of synthetic DNA, that are closer in a solution such as of the vaccine, as suggested by the observation in video 1.
Fig. 6. Schemes of operation of the origami DNA walkers that would explain the movement of components, particles and clusters of GQD graphene quantum dots in the analyzed samples of the Pfizer vaccine. This movement can be observed in video 1 and completely in the reference (Delgado, R. 2021).
Continuing with the analysis of (Wang, J.; Yue, L.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Tian, H.; Willner, I. 2019), it is added that “The functionalization of edges of the mosaics of origami (from DNA templates), was applied to design programmed multi-component origami structures and, in particular, to develop interchangeable origami dimers .” In other words, DNA templates can be defined in such a way that they are made up of specific pieces (particles, proteins, quantum dots, etc.) according to a predetermined program or pattern.
However, technology of origami DNA may cover additional areas, as stated experiences the state of the Wang and his team “s and manufactured ingenious systems of origami 3D. For example, demonstrated self – assembly of a box of origami, the staggered assembly of gigadalton -scale programmable DNA structures, and the light-driven movement of 3D origami packages to produce reversible chiroptic functions. Different applications of origami nanostructures were suggested, including programmed catalysis, controlled release of drugs, logic gate operations and detection“. Among the applications mentioned, it is worth highlighting the logic gate and detection operations, typical of the QCA (Quantum Cell Automata) circuit design already commented on in the identification of nanorouters among the patterns observed in vaccines. This is one more proof that DNA origami methodology is valid for developing electronic devices based on quantum dots, given the ability to control the orderly construction of cables and circuits.
After completing the review of the preambles of the article by (Wang, J.; Yue, L.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Tian, H.; Willner, I. 2019), the scientific discourse focuses on the object of the cavities or holes in the “origami rafts”, which in the shot are shown as quadrangular structures with a dot inscribed within their area. As indicated “Most of these functional origami structures involved, bottom-up modification of origami rafts, edge modification of origami tiles, or folding of the tiles into tubes. However, functionalization of origami structures with nanocavities (holes or barrels) that could act as containment or channels for guided chemical transformations can be considered. To date, such cavities have been fabricated within the passive assembly of origami tiles and these cavities have been used for site-specific coupling of antibodies, reconstitution of membrane proteins, and functionalization of solid-state pores for selective transport. What’s more, DNA structures (not origami) have been introduced into the membranes and these acted as channels for the stimulated potential transport of cargo species across the membranes. On the contrary, the present study introduces the concept of active manufacturing of nanoholes in origami tiles. We report on the active DNAzyme-guided formation of nanoholes in origami scaffolds and the molecular mechanical unlocking of nanoholes by lifting the covered window domains. By applying two different DNAzymes, the programmed and activated fabrication of nanoholes in origami structures is demonstrated. In addition, we use the cavities in the different origami scaffolds as confined nanoenvironments for selective and specific catalysis. What’s more, we highlight a design for the reversible mechanical opening and closing by light of the nanoholes, and the switchable catalysis in the nanocavities. We report on the active DNAzyme-guided formation of nanoholes in origami scaffolds and the molecular mechanical unlocking of nanoholes by lifting the covered window domains. By applying two different DNAzymes, the programmed and activated fabrication of nanoholes in origami structures is demonstrated. In addition, we use the cavities in the different origami scaffolds as confined nanoenvironments for selective and specific catalysis. What’s more, We highlight a design for the reversible mechanical opening and closing by light of the nanoholes, and the switchable catalysis in the nanocavities. We report on the active DNAzyme-guided formation of nanoholes in origami scaffolds and the molecular mechanical unlocking of nanoholes by lifting the covered window domains. By applying two different DNAzymes, the programmed and activated fabrication of nanoholes in origami structures is demonstrated. In addition, we use the cavities in the different origami scaffolds as confined nanoenvironments for selective and specific catalysis. What’s more, We highlight a design for the reversible mechanical opening and closing by light of the nanoholes, and the switchable catalysis in the nanocavities we use the cavities in the different origami scaffolds as confined nanoenvironments for selective and specific catalysis. What’s more, we highlight a design for the reversible mechanical opening and closing by light of the nanoholes, and the switchable catalysis in the nanocavities we use the cavities in the different origami scaffolds as confined nanoenvironments for selective and specific catalysis. What’s more, We highlight a design for the reversible mechanical opening and closing by light of the nanoholes, and the switchable catalysis in the nanocavities.” In this explanation, which leaves no doubt as to the intentionality of the origami technique, there is a fundamental detail that must be seriously considered. It is the ability of cavities in DNA origami structures to trap, immobilize and couple antibodies ( Ouyang, X .; De-Stefano, M.; Krissanaprasit, A.; Bank-Kodal, AL; Bech-Rosen, C.; Liu, T.; Gothelf, KV 2017), which was originally intended to be used for serological studies, but applied to the construction of intracorporeal micro / nano scale electronic devices, could achieve the objective of avoiding phagocytization and immobilization of self-shaped structures. It is also revealed that these holes play a very important role in the interaction with other origami DNA sequences, which can fit together (as if it were a Lego piece) to add new construction scaffolding, as explained ( Kurokawa, T. ; Kiyonaka, S .; Nakata, E .; Endo, M .; Koyama, S .; Mori, E .; Mori, Y. 2018 ) in figure 7.
Fig. 7. Assemblage of origami DNA in the holes of quadrangular plates, which are also plates made up of DNA origami structures ( Kurokawa, T .; Kiyonaka, S .; Nakata, E .; Endo, M .; Koyama, S .; Mori, E .; Mori, Y. 2018 ). This shows that DNA serves as a de facto building block that serves to guide the integration of other molecular components and materials, such as graphene quantum dots, with which electronic devices can be built.
Another of the applications cited by Wang and his team for holes is to serve as channels or pores that cross the plate or origami DNA structure, in order to develop biosensors, as they corroborate (Seifert, A.; Göpfrich, K.; Burns, JR; Fertig, N.; Keyser, UF; Howorka, S. 2015 | Burns, JR; Seifert, A.; Fertig, N.; Howorka, S. 2016). In fact it is stated that “Membrane-spanning nanopores from folded DNA are a recent example of artificial biomimetic nanostructures that can open applications in biosensors, drug delivery, and nanofluids … We establish that DNA pores exhibit two voltage-dependent states of conductance. Low transmembrane voltages favor a stable level of high conductance, which corresponds to an unobstructed DNA pore. The expected inner width of the open channel is confirmed by measuring the change in conductance as a function of the size of the poly (ethylene glycol) (PEG), thus it is assumed that smaller PEGs enter the pore.” This not only fits with one of the declared components in the Pfizer vaccine excipient list, but also matches the conductivity required for the components of the human body-oriented nano-network ( Yang, J .; Ma, M .; Li, L .; Zhang, Y .; Huang, W .; Dong, X. 2014 | Abbasi, QH; Yang, K .; Chopra, N .; Jornet, JM; Abuali, NA; Qaraqe, KA; Alomainy, A. 2016 | Oukhatar, A .; Bakhouya, M .; El Ouadghiri, D. 2021 )
Bibliography
Abbasi, QH; Yang, K .; Chopra, N .; Jornet, JM; Abuali, NA; Qaraqe, KA; Alomainy, A. (2016). Nano-communication for biomedical applications: A review on the state-of-the-art from physical layers to novel networking concepts. IEEE Access, 4, pp. 3920-3935. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2593582
Burns, JR; Seifert, A .; Fertig, N .; Howorka, S. (2016). A biomimetic DNA-based channel for the ligand-controlled transport of charged molecular cargo across a biological membrane. Nature nanotechnology, 11 (2), pp. 152-156. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.279
Burns, MA; Mastrangelo, CH; Sammarco, TS; Man, FP; Webster, JR; Johnsons, BN; Burke, DT (1996). Microfabricated structures for integrated DNA analysis = Microfabricated structures for integrated DNA analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93 (11), pp. 5556-5561. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.11.5556
Catania, V .; Mineo, A .; Monteleone, S .; Patti, D. (2014). Distributed topology discovery in self-assembled nano network-on-chip. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 40 (8), pp. 292-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2014.09.003
Delgado, R. (2021). Direct from the contents of a Pfizer vaccine under the microscope [Special program]. Fifth column. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1245191848
Endo, M .; Sugiyama, H. (2014). Single-molecule imaging of dynamic motions of biomolecules in DNA origami nanostructures using high-speed atomic force microscopy. Accounts of chemical research, 47 (6), pp. 1645-1653. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar400299m
Esener, SC; Hartmann, DM; Heller, MJ; Cable, JM (1998). DNA-assisted microassembly: a heterogeneous integration technology for optoelectronics = DNA-assisted microassembly: a hetrogeneous integration technology for optoelectronics. In: Heterogeneous Integration: Systems on a Chip: A Critical Review (Vol. 10292, p. 1029208). International Society for Optics and Photonics. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.300616
Gabrys, PA; Seo, SE; Wang, MX; Oh, E .; Macfarlane, RJ; Mirkin, CA (2018). Lattice mismatch in crystalline nanoparticle thin films = Lattice mismatch in crystalline nanoparticle thin films. Nano letters, 18 (1), pp. 579-585. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b04737
Galal, A .; Hesselbach, X. (2018). Nano-networks communication architecture: Modeling and functions = Nano-networks communication architecture: Modeling and functions. Nano Communication Networks, 17, pp. 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nancom.2018.07.001
Galal, A .; Hesselbach, X. (2020). Probability-based path discovery protocol for electromagnetic nano-networks. Computer Networks, 174, 107246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2020.107246
Gu, H .; Chao, J .; Xiao, SJ; Seeman, NC (2010). A proximity-based programmable DNA nanoscale assembly line. Nature, 465 (7295), pp. 202-205. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09026
Hong, F .; Zhang, F .; Liu, Y .; Yan, H. (2017). DNA origami: scaffolds for creating higher order structures. Chemical reviews, 117 (20), pp. 12584-12640. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00825
Krahne, R .; Yacoby, A .; Shtrikman, H .; Bar-Joseph, I .; Dadosh, T .; Sperling, J. (2002). Fabrication of nanoscale gaps in integrated circuits = Fabrication of nanoscale gaps in integrated circuits. Applied physics letters, 81 (4), pp. 730-732. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1495080
Kurokawa, T .; Kiyonaka, S .; Nakata, E .; Endo, M .; Koyama, S .; Mori, E .; Mori, Y. (2018). DNA Origami scaffolds as templates for functional tetrameric Kir3 K + channels. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 57 (10), pp. 2586-2591. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201709982
Lewis, DJ; Zornberg, LZ; Carter, DJ; Macfarlane, RJ (2020). Monocrystalline Winterbottom constructions of nanoparticle superlattices = Single-crystal Winterbottom constructions of nanoparticle superlattices. Nature materials, 19 (7), pp. 719-724. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-020-0643-6
Liu, J .; Lu, Y. (2003). A colorimetric lead biosensor using DNAzyme-directed assembly of gold nanoparticles = A colorimetric lead biosensor using DNAzyme-directed assembly of gold nanoparticles. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 125 (22), pp. 6642-6643. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja034775u
Liu, J .; Lu, Y. (2006). Fast colorimetric sensing of adenosine and cocaine based on a general sensor design involving aptamers and nanoparticles. Angewandte Chemie, 118 (1), pp. 96-100. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.200502589
Lund, K .; Manzo, AJ; Dabby, N .; Michelotti, N .; Johnson-Buck, A .; Nangreave, J .; Yan, H. (2010). Molecular robots guided by prescriptive landscapes = Molecular robots guided by prescriptive landscapes. Nature, 465 (7295), pp. 206-210. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09012
McMillan, RA; Paavola, CD; Howard, J .; Chan, SL; Zaluzec, NJ; Trent, JD (2002). Ordered nanoparticle arrays formed on engineered chaperonin protein templates. Nature materials, 1 (4), pp. 247-252. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat775
Nykypanchuk, D .; Maye, MM; Van-Der-Lelie, D .; Gang, O. (2008). DNA-guided crystallization of colloidal nanoparticles = DNA-guided crystallization of colloidal nanoparticles. Nature, 451 (7178), pp. 549-552. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06560
Omabegho, T .; Sha, R .; Seeman, NC (2009). A bipedal DNA Brownian motor with coordinated legs = A bipedal DNA Brownian motor with coordinated legs. Science, 324 (5923), pp. 67-71. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1170336
Ouyang, X .; De-Stefano, M .; Krissanaprasit, A .; Bank-Kodal, AL; Bech-Rosen, C .; Liu, T .; Gothelf, KV (2017). Docking of antibodies into the cavities of DNA origami structures. Angewandte Chemie, 129 (46), pp. 14615-14619. https://doi.org/10.1002/ange.201706765
Rothemund, PW (2006). Folding DNA to create nanoscale shapes and patterns. Nature, 440 (7082), pp. 297-302. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04586
Seifert, A .; Göpfrich, K .; Burns, JR; Fertig, N .; Keyser, UF; Howorka, S. (2015). Bilayer DNA nanopores with voltage-switching between open and closed state = Bilayer-spanning DNA nanopores with voltage-switching between open and closed state. ACS nano, 9 (2), pp. 1117-1126. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn5039433
Shen, J .; Sun, W .; Liu, D .; Schaus, T .; Yin, P. (2021). Three-dimensional nanolithography guided by DNA modular epitaxy = Three-dimensional nanolithography guided by DNA modular epitaxy. Nature Materials, 20 (5), pp. 683-690. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-021-00930-7
Taton, TA; Mirkin, CA; Letsinger, RL (2000). Scanometric DNA array detection with nanoparticle probes = Scanometric DNA array detection with nanoparticle probes. Science, 289 (5485), pp. 1757-1760. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5485.1757
Wang, MX; Seo, SE; Gabrys, PA; Fleischman, D .; Lee, B .; Kim, Y .; Mirkin, CA (2017). Epitaxy: Programmable atom equivalents versus atoms = Epitaxy: Programmable atom equivalents versus atoms. ACS nano, 11 (1), pp. 180-185. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.6b06584
Zhang, R .; Yang, K .; Abbasi, QH; Qaraqe, KA; Alomainy, A. (2017). Analytical characterization of the terahertz in-vivo nano-network in the presence of interference based on TS-OOK communication scheme. IEEE Access, 5, pp. 10172-10181. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2713459
No longer does the all-knowing, all-seeing, jolly Old St. Nick need to rely on antiquated elves on shelves and other seasonal snitches in order to know when you’re sleeping or awake, and if you’ve been naughty or nice.
Thanks to the government’s almost limitless powers made possible by a domestic army of techno-tyrants, fusion centers and Peeping Toms, Santa can get real-time reports on who’s been good or bad this year. This creepy new era of government/corporate spying—in which we’re being listened to, watched, tracked, followed, mapped, bought, sold and targeted—makes the NSA’s rudimentary phone and metadata surveillance appear almost antiquated in comparison.
Consider just a small sampling of the tools being used to track our movements, monitor our spending, and sniff out all the ways in which our thoughts, actions and social circles might land us on the government’s naughty list.
Tracking you based on your health status. In the age of COVID-19, digital health passports are gaining traction as gatekeepers of a sort, restricting access to travel, entertainment, etc., based on one’s vaccine status. Whether or not one has a vaccine passport, however, individuals may still have to prove themselves “healthy” enough to be part of society. For instance, in the wake of Supreme Court rulings that paved the way for police to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” government agencies are preparing to use virus-detecting canine squads to carry out mass screenings to detect individuals who may have COVID-19. Researchers claim the COVID-sniffing dogs have a 95% success rate of identifying individuals with the virus (except when they’re hungry, tired or distracted). These dogs are also being to trained to ferret out individuals suffering from other health ailments such as cancer.
Tracking you based on your behavior: Rapid advances in behavioral surveillance are not only making it possible for individuals to be monitored and tracked based on their patterns of movement or behavior, including gait recognition (the way one walks), but have given rise to whole industries that revolve around predicting one’s behavior based on data and surveillance patterns and are also shaping the behaviors of whole populations. One smart “anti-riot” surveillance system purports to predict mass riots and unauthorized public events by using artificial intelligence to analyze social media, news sources, surveillance video feeds and public transportation data.
Tracking you based on your spending and consumer activities: With every smartphone we buy, every GPS device we install, every Twitter, Facebook, and Google account we open, every frequent buyer card we use for purchases—whether at the grocer’s, the yogurt shop, the airlines or the department store—and every credit and debit card we use to pay for our transactions, we’re helping Corporate America build a dossier for its government counterparts on who we know, what we think, how we spend our money, and how we spend our time. Consumer surveillance, by which your activities and data in the physical and online realms are tracked and shared with advertisers, has become big business, a $300 billion industry that routinely harvests your data for profit. Corporations such as Target have not only been tracking and assessing the behavior of their customers, particularly their purchasing patterns, for years, but the retailer has also funded major surveillance in cities across the country and developed behavioral surveillance algorithms that can determine whether someone’s mannerisms might fit the profile of a thief.
Tracking you based on your social media activities: Every move you make, especially on social media, is monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to form a picture of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line. As The Interceptreported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies are increasingly investing in and relying on corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior. This obsession with social media as a form of surveillance will have some frightening consequences in coming years. As Helen A.S. Popkin, writing for NBC News, observed, “We may very well face a future where algorithms bust people en masse for referencing illegal ‘Game of Thrones’ downloads… the new software has the potential to roll, Terminator-style, targeting every social media user with a shameful confession or questionable sense of humor.”
Tracking you based on your phone and online activities: Cell phones have become de facto snitches, offering up a steady stream of digital location data on users’ movements and travels. Police have used cell-site simulators to carry out mass surveillance of protests without the need for a warrant. Moreover, federal agents can now employ a number of hacking methods in order to gain access to your computer activities and “see” whatever you’re seeing on your monitor. Malicious hacking software can also be used to remotely activate cameras and microphones, offering another means of glimpsing into the personal business of a target.
Tracking you based on your social network: Not content to merely spy on individuals through their online activity, government agencies are now using surveillance technology to track one’s social network, the people you might connect with by phone, text message, email or through social message, in order to ferret out possible criminals. An FBI document obtained by Rolling Stone speaks to the ease with which agents are able to access address book data from Facebook’s WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage services from the accounts of targeted individuals and individuals not under investigation who might have a targeted individual within their network. What this creates is a “guilt by association” society in which we are all as guilty as the most culpable person in our address book.
Tracking you based on your car: License plate readers are mass surveillance tools that can photograph over 1,800 license tag numbers per minute, take a picture of every passing license tag number and store the tag number and the date, time, and location of the picture in a searchable database, then share the data with law enforcement, fusion centers and private companies to track the movements of persons in their cars. With tens of thousands of these license plate readers now in operation throughout the country, affixed to overpasses, cop cars and throughout business sectors and residential neighborhoods, it allows police to track vehicles and run the plates through law enforcement databases for abducted children, stolen cars, missing people and wanted fugitives. Of course, the technology is not infallible: there have been numerous incidents in which police have mistakenly relied on license plate data to capture out suspects only to end up detaining innocent people at gunpoint.
Big Tech wedded to Big Government has become Big Brother.
Every second of every day, the American people are being spied on by a vast network of digital Peeping Toms, electronic eavesdroppers and robotic snoops.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people—weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands—add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence.
In an age of overcriminalization, mass surveillance, and an appalling lack of protections for our privacy rights, we can all be considered guilty of some transgression or other.
So you’d better watch out—you’d better not pout—you’d better not cry—‘cos I’m telling you why: this Christmas, it’s the Surveillance State that’s coming to town, and you’re already on its naughty list.
When CJ last joined me on my podcast, our internet connection was plagued with gremlins. Weirdly enough, we had similar issues this time around, which is why the conversation has a few cuts here and there.
Nevertheless, it turned out to be great.
He discusses
the Covidian cult to which millions of people have willingly succumbed;
how it’s driven by fear and no different to totalitarianism;
why being silent is a terrible idea; and
what we can do to push back against the global capitalists.
The International Grand Committee on Disinformation (IGCD) consists of “an international array of legislators, policy advisers, and other experts” who work together “to forge international alliances that bring shared, effective strategies into the battle against online disinformation”
The founders of the IGCD are four members of the British and Canadian Parliaments, including British MP Damian Collins, who is also on the board of the Centers for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The CCDH fabricates reports that are then used to strip people of their freedom of speech rights
Logistics for the IGCD are provided by the Reset Initiative (a not-so-subtle reminder that censorship is a requirement for The Great Reset), which is part of The Omidyar Group of philanthropies
Omidyar funds Whistleblower Aid, the legal counsel for the fake Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen, who has testified before U.S., French, British and European Union lawmakers, calling for more censorship
CCDH chairman Simon Clark also has ties to Arabella Advisors, the most powerful dark money lobbying group in the U.S.
If you suspected censorship was being coordinated on a global scale, you’d be right. The International Grand Committee on Disinformation1 (IGCD) consists of “an international array of legislators, policy advisers, and other experts” who work together “to forge international alliances that bring shared, effective strategies into the battle against online disinformation.” What could possibly go wrong?
The idea behind the IGCD came from four members of the British and Canadian Parliaments: Damian Collins and Ian Lucas from the U.K., and Bob Zimmer and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith from Canada. The first session of the IGCD took place at the end of November 2018, so they’ve been quietly working in the background for some time already.
Since then, they’ve held meetings in Canada and the U.K. and hosted seminars in the U.S., attended by spiritual leaders, journalists, technology executives, “subject matter experts” and parliamentary leaders from 21 countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore, St. Lucia, Sweden, the U.K. and the U.S.)
According to the IGCD, the organization functions as a “forum for information sharing, collaboration and harmonization of policies to … achieve common goals among democratic states. Never mind the fact that democracy cannot exist without freedom of speech.”
Logistics for the group are provided by an initiative called “Reset,”2 which feels like a not-so-subtle reminder that censorship is a requirement for The Great Reset. They know people would never go along with the Great Reset plan if allowed to freely discuss the ramifications.
‘Online Safety Bill’ Seeks to Shut Down Counternarratives
The IGCD helps shed light on the technocracy front group known as the Centers for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH),3 seeing how one of the CCDH’s board members, Damian Collins MP, is also one of the founders of the IGCD. Both groups were formed in 2018 and clearly have the same goals and agenda.
One of those goals is to eliminate free speech online, which is what the U.K.’s proposed “Online Safety Bill” would achieve. Not surprisingly, Collins is part of the Online Safety Bill Committee, charged with examining the Bill “line by line to make sure it is fit for purpose.”4
In an August 11, 2021, blog post, Collins asked for the public’s help to track down counternarratives, taking screenshots of the offending material and emailing it to him. “Unless harmful content is reported, whether it is terrible images of self-harm, violent or extremist content or anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, it can otherwise be unknowable to regulators and governments,” he said.
It’s impossible to miss the fact that Collins is lumping “anti-vaccine” content in with violent and extremist content that must be censored and, in reality, that’s probably one of the top categories of information this bill seeks to control.
As reported by iNews,5 “The Prime Minister [Boris Johnson] has repeatedly insisted the powers contained within the legislation would help crack down on … anti-vaccine disinformation.”
Online Safety Bill Is ‘Catastrophic for Free Speech’
While some might think it’s a good idea to spoon feed people “correct” information about vaccines, it’s important to realize that while vaccines are the issue of today, tomorrow another topic that is near and dear to your heart could be deemed out of bounds for public discussion. So, supporting censorship of any kind is a slippery slope that is bound to come back to bite you when you least expect it.
As reported by BBC News,6 the “Legal to Say. Legal to Type” campaign warns that if the Online Safety Bill becomes law, Big Tech firms will be in a position of extraordinary power:
“While the group supports the bill’s aim of ensuring online platforms remove images of child sexual abuse, terrorist material and content which incites racial hatred and violence, it fears other provisions will adversely affect free speech …
Under the bill, Ofcom [the British Office of Communications] will be given the power to block access to sites and fine companies which do not protect users from harmful content up to £18m, or 10% of annual global turnover, whichever is the greater.
Campaigners claim this gives tech firms an incentive to ‘over-censor,’ and ‘effectively outsources internet policing from the police, courts and Parliament to Silicon Valley’ …
Mr. [MP David] Davis described the bill as a ‘censor’s charter.’ He added: ‘Lobby groups will be able to push social networks to take down content they view as not politically correct, even though the content is legal’ …
Campaigners are also concerned that technology companies may use artificial intelligence to identify harmful content. That, they say, may introduce racial biases and will wrongly censor language, ‘especially when it comes to irony-loving Brits.’”
US Democrats Attack Free Speech
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Health Misinformation Act, introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., would suspend Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections in instances where social media networks are found to boost “anti-vaccine conspiracies,” and hold them liable for such content. In a July 22, 2021, article, Tech Crunch reported:7
“The bill would specifically alter Section 230’s language to revoke liability protections in the case of ‘health misinformation that is created or developed through the interactive computer service’ if that misinformation is amplified through an algorithm.
The proposed exception would only kick in during a declared national public health crisis, like the advent of COVID-19, and wouldn’t apply in normal times. The bill would task the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with defining health misinformation.”
As with the British Online Safety Bill, the Health Misinformation Act is an open portal for abuses. Ironically, the Act actually relies on misinformation to make its case. It specifically mentions the CCDH’s “Disinformation Dozen” report,8 which falsely claims a dozen individuals, myself included, are responsible for a majority of the “anti-vax misinformation” being shared on social media platforms.
‘Disinformation Dozen’ Have Negligible Reach
Meanwhile, in an August 18, 2021, statement,9,10 Facebook’s vice president of content policy, Monika Bickert, stated there’s no evidence to support the CCDH’s claims, and that the people named by the CCDH as being responsible for the vast majority of vaccine misinformation on social media were in fact only responsible for a tiny fraction — 0.05% — of all vaccine content on Facebook. Here’s an excerpt from Bickert’s statement:11
“In recent weeks, there has been a debate about whether the global problem of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation can be solved simply by removing 12 people from social media platforms. People who have advanced this narrative contend that these 12 people are responsible for 73% of online vaccine misinformation on Facebook. There isn’t any evidence to support this claim …
In fact, these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.
The report12upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users. They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.
Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as ‘anti-vax’ or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a ‘representative sample’ of the content shared across our apps.”
It’s quite clear that the CCDH exists to fabricate “evidence” that is then used to destroy the opposition in order to control the information. As such, it’s really nothing more than a front group for the much larger, global IGCD, which aims to shut down free speech across the world.
The ‘Whistleblower’ That Isn’t
One of the dirty tricks used to shut down free speech is to employ fake whistleblowers. Frances Haugen, the former Facebook employee turned “whistleblower” who testified before Congress October 5, 2021, accusing her former employer of aiding evildoers, is not an actual whistleblower.
She is being legally represented by a firm called Whistleblower Aid, founded by a national security lawyer, Mark Zaid, who is known for betraying his clients and siding with prosecutors.13
Whistleblower Aid is funded by tech billionaire and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and the Reset Initiative, which provides logistics for the IGCD, is part of The Omidyar Group of philanthropies.14 That tells you everything you need to know about the intended purpose behind Haugen’s testimony. As reported by The Gray Zone:15
“Haugen emphasized in her testimony that she ‘doesn’t want to break up’ Facebook; she was merely looking for increased ‘content moderation’ to root out ‘extremism’ and ‘(mis/dis)information’ … Haugen appears to be little more than a tool in a far-reaching plan to increase the U.S. national security state’s control over one of the world’s most popular social media platforms.”
In short order, Haugen managed what has been impossible for other whistleblowers. She secured audiences with lawmakers in France, the U.K. and the European Union to discuss the need for more censorship.
Dark Money
Over the past year, the CCDH’s fabricated “Disinformation Dozen” report has been repeatedly used as the foundation for calls to strip American citizens of their First Amendment free speech rights. It’s been used by attorneys general and elected politicians, and it’s been cited in all the Big Tech hearings.16
Aside from being directly tied to the global IGCD (remember, Collins is on the board of both the IGCD and the CCDH), the CCDH is also connected to Arabella Advisors — the most powerful dark money lobbying group in the U.S.17 — by way of CCDH chairman Simon Clark.18 (“Dark money” is a term that means the identities of those funding the organization are kept secret.)
Clark is a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress,19 where he specializes in “right-wing domestic terrorism” (are we to believe there’s no such thing as left-wing terrorism?), which is funded by a liberal Swiss billionaire named Hansjörg Wyss.20,21
Wyss also funds Arabella Advisors, which runs a large number of temporary front groups that pop in and out of existence as needed for any given campaign.22 Reporter Hayden Ludwig has described the inner workings of Arabella Advisors and the influence of the “dark money” flowing through it:23
“Arabella’s nonprofits act as the left’s premier pass-through funders for professional activists. Big foundations — including the Gates, Buffett, and Ford Foundations — have laundered billions of dollars through this network, washing their identities from the dollars that go to push radical policies on America.
But the real juice from these nonprofits comes from the vast array of ‘pop-up groups’ they run — called so because they consist almost solely of slick websites that may pop into existence one day and pop out the next, usually once the campaign is through.
We’ve counted over 350 such front groups pushing everything from federal funding of abortion to overhauling Obamacare to packing the Supreme Court. Arabella is as dark as ‘dark money’ gets. It’s also the prime example of liberal hypocrisy over anonymous political spending, operating in nearly total obscurity …
As more of this massive web of groups — responsible for churning out nearly $2.5 billion since its creation — has come into focus, one thing’s become clear: When a special interest donor goes to Arabella, they’re expecting a political payoff.”
You can learn more about Arabella Advisors and its hidden influence over U.S. politics through pop-up front groups in the Capital Research Center series, “Arabella’s Long War Against Trump’s Department of the Interior.”24
An Open War on the Public
We’re now in a situation where asking valid questions about public health measures are equated to acts of domestic terrorism. It’s unbelievable, yet here we are.
Over the past two years, the rhetoric used against those who question the sanity of using unscientific pandemic countermeasures, such as face masks and lockdowns, or share data showing that COVID-19 gene therapies are really bad public health policy, has become increasingly violent.
Dr. Peter Hotez has publicly called for cyberwarfare assaults on American citizens who disagree with official COVID narratives, and this vile rhetoric was published in the prestigious science journal Nature, of all places.25 His article should have set off alarm bells at the CCDH, were the CCDH actually about protecting us from online hate.
But the CCDH is not about protecting the public from hate. In classic Orwellian Doublespeak, it actually exists to foster and create it. Incidentally, the journal Nature also published an article by CCDH founder Imran Ahmed, in which he discusses the need to destroy the “anti-vaxx industry.” How he, who has no medical credentials, managed to meet publication requirements is a mystery, and just goes to show we cannot even trust some of our most esteemed medical journals.
In his article, Ahmed flat out lied, saying he “attended and recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers.” Far from being “private,” the meeting in question was actually a public online conference, open to anyone and everyone around the world, with access to the recorded lectures part of the sign-up fee.
The fact that Ahmed lied about such an easily verifiable point tells you everything you need to know about the CCDH — and by extension the IGCD, which it clearly is working with. In the end, lies cannot stand up to the truth, which is precisely why the CCDH and IGCD are working overtime to “harmonize” laws across the democratic world to censor any and all counternarratives.
Like I said before, right now, it’s primarily about silencing questions and inconvenient truths about the COVID shots, but in the future, these laws will allow them to silence discussion on any topic that threatens undemocratic rule by globalists.
To avoid such a fate, we must be relentless in our pursuit and sharing of the truth, and we must relentlessly demand our elected representatives stand up for freedom of speech and other Constitutional rights.
If people who torture animals are psychopaths, then what are government officials who use taxpayer dollars to fund animal torture? Many are asking this question in the wake of revelations that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci – high priest of the COVID cult – funded medical “research” involving the torture of puppies. This led “Fire Fauci” to trend on Twitter, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to call for his resignation.
The puppy torture story was followed by disclosures that the federal government funded the testing of experimental AIDS vaccines on orphans. Many of the orphans used as human guinea pigs subsequently died, and nurses who assisted in these experiments reported that many children got sick immediately after receiving the vaccines.
Testing dangerous drugs on orphans and torturing puppies in the name of “science” is certainly shocking, but is it really surprising that government would fund these types of activities? What is the difference between using orphans and puppies for cruel experiments in the name of protecting public health and killing innocent children in drone attacks in the name of stopping terrorism?
Ironically, these revelations come when Congress is on the verge of allowing the federal bureaucracy to destroy what remains of our medical privacy. Both the Senate and House versions of the Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services Appropriations bill remove the prohibition on the development of a “unique patient identifier.”
The prohibition on funding for the unique patient identifier, which I sponsored, has been in place since 1998. The push to allow the government to force every American to obtain a unique patient identifier is being justified as a means to efficiently monitor Americans’ “contact and immunization” status.
When I began fighting the unique patient ID in the 1990s, my opponents denied that medical identifiers would make it impossible to ensure confidentiality of medical records. Now, they are saying we should support medical identifiers because they allow government officials, employers, schools, airlines, and even stores and restaurants to discover what, if any, vaccinations or other medical treatments we have or have not received. The result of the identifier will be a medical caste system, where those who refuse to follow the mandates or advice of the “experts” are denied opportunities to work, receive an education, or even go to church or enjoy a night out on the town.
A unique patient identifier will weaken health care by making individuals reluctant to share personal information—such as drug and alcohol use and past sexual history—with health care providers. It will also discourage sick individuals from seeking medical care for fear their physicians will discover they are unvaccinated, smoke, are overweight, or engage in other unapproved behaviors.
A unique medical ID could also be tied to government records of gun purchases. Someone with “too many” guns could be labeled a potential mental health risk and harassed by law enforcement. This is especially likely if the gun grabbers are successful in their push to enact “red flag” laws in every state.
Fortunately, there is a growing resistance to vaccines and other mandates. This resistance is unlikely to passively accept a federally-issued unique patient identifier. If those of us who know the truth take advantage of the opportunity presented by the resistance to COVID tyranny, we can not only stop the scheme to force every American to obtain a “unique patient identifier” but end all government control of our health care.
In this one-hour video, Catherine Austin Fitts and Corey Lynn discuss Corey’s 4-part report on the Global Landscape on Vaccine ID Passports, and get into the specifics on where this is headed, who the key players are, how far along they are with each agenda, and solutions for combatting this tyranny.
This is about much more than just a “vaccine ID passport,” it is about getting you a QR code for a digital identity that will eventually go onto the blockchain where they will trace, track, and monitor your every move in order to control your health records, all personal records, housing, jobs, food, access to establishments, transportation, and the financial system.
Video footage of Melbourne police checking whether a man’s coffee cup was empty to verify his excuse for not wearing a mask is stirring the latest round of online outrage over Australia’s dystopian Covid-19 policies.
While it is unclear when exactly the video was recorded, the clip went viral on social media on Friday and Saturday, showing several police officers confronting a man on what appears to be a park trail. One of the officers grabs the man’s coffee cup while asking, “Do you mind if I check if there’s actually anything in that?” He shakes the cup, and after apparently establishing that there was liquid inside, he backs away and tells the man, “Enjoy your coffee.”
The 10-second clip ends with the coffee drinker telling the police, “Jesus loves you all. God bless. I’ll be praying for you all.”
While the parkgoer dealt with the confrontation calmly and cordially, and it remains unclear when exactly the footage was recorded, online observers expressed shock over yet another example of Australia’s apparent Covid-19 “authoritarianism.”
Australian podcast host Diogo Correa Coelho said the man would have been fined if police had found his cup to be empty. Pointing out the absurdity of the beverage crackdown, he quipped, “Coffee is known to kill Covid.”
Other Twitter users pointed to the incident as an indication of how severely personal freedoms have been crushed in the Covid-19 era. One commenter tweeted: “Two years ago, if anybody had said, in the future, groups of police officers will be checking to see whether you are carrying an empty coffee cup to avoid wearing a mask… we would have laughed in their face.”
Many observers pointed out the ridiculousness of supposedly protecting people against the spread of a virus by touching a man’s coffee cup while wearing a presumably dirty glove and giving it back to him. As one critic noted, the police officer “touched the coffee cup, thereby increasing the likelihood of transmission, all because someone is enjoying a walk – outside, where the likelihood of transmission is extremely low. But science.”
Others made Nazi comparisons, such as calling the Melbourne police the “coffee cup Gestapo.” One commenter argued that only in a “police state” would officers check someone’s coffee cup so they can fine the citizen for not wearing a mask if it’s empty.
Social media users appeared to give the police no slack for just following orders from higher-ups. Still other observers tried to illustrate the alleged police overreach through humor.
“I am about to go long coffee beans,” one Twitter user said. “This gentleman just found another utility for java. It’s a face-diaper exemption card.” Another commenter sarcastically praised the officers for their bravery, saying, “If just one person is saved, it is worth losing your freedom.”
But many critics suggested that the obliteration of individual liberties in the name of fighting the pandemic won’t be easily reversed. “These people aren’t getting their freedom back unless there’s a complete turnaround of their entire government,” one commenter tweeted.
Australia has imposed some of the world’s most stringent pandemic restrictions under its so-called “Covid zero” strategy of trying to completely shut down the virus. New South Wales chief health officer Dr. Kerry Chant, who advised residents in July to refrain from having conversations with people, later said Australians may have to continue wearing masks for years.
Residents of Melbourne have been subjected to the world’s longest Covid-19 lockdown, which has dragged on for more than eight months. The restrictions were eased marginally on September 29, when the state of Victoria hit its 80% first dose vaccination goal. The state’s premier, Daniel Andrews, promised to finally lift the lockdown on October 22, when 70% of residents aged over 16 are projected to be doubled-dosed.
I rarely devote an entire blog to someone else’s op-ed, but today’s submission by M.L.A. falls into that category, because rarely have I seen the agenda of Mr. Globaloney set forth with more clarity, other than perhaps in the analyses of Catherine Austin Fitts. For some time, she has been warning about the Great Reset, and the role of the quackcines in commoditizing and collateralizing that reset. How? By making the final step in the “human resources” shift that began several decades ago: humans as the collateralization of debt obligations. It’s a fancy form of slavery, but slavery nonetheless.
There are some minor differences between this analysis and that of Ms. Fitts, or even of my own, but nevertheless, the article is worth pondering carefully, and filing away. Consider just this paragraph, and I hope that will suffice to pique your interest to read the whole article:
The next synthetic product of debt that they can use – the only thing that’s bigger than housing – are human bodies. So human bodies are being repackaged as future debt obligations. I believe that this is what is inherently behind the global economic demolition – to make us dependents on the state, to offer Universal Basic Income (UBI) as part of this money to stay in the game, and that we will be controlled by our digital identity systems. We will become debt commodities burdens on the state through a new system that is being put into place called “Pay for Success Finance” which is literally privatizing the entire social welfare system and remaking it as an investment opportunity in human capital, that they can securitize us and gamble — put us on pathways to self-improvement whether that is improving your health, improving your mental health, getting off drugs, taking drugs – now they’re legalizing all these psychedelics – managing you as a series of continuum care program according to measured behavior change, and then betting on whether or not you’ll comply. That is their new game. That is the ultimate game they are planning; both you as a real person and you as a virtual character, will you comply with the pathway that you’ve been put on.
When reading this article, think again of that scenario that I’ve enterained elsewhere: a patent can only be taken out on something that would not occur in nature. In that respect, the technique and anything employing it is owned by the patent holder. This was the camel’s nose in the tent that gave big agribusiness – I.S. Farbensanto as we like to call it here – a cartel-choke-hold on the world’s food supply: GMO seeds are patentable, natural seeds are not. Now consider the quackcines, which are genetic in nature, and designed to modify an individual’s body in ways that would not occur in nature. Is it possible that, by submitting to the quackcine, one is literally putting oneself under a corporate lien, and establishing a precedent whereby the individual must obey corporate mandates?
It sounds so totally “out there” as to be laughable… but read the article, and then you tell me…
The Citizens’ Commission to Safeguard Freedom released a report which lays out detailed evidence of disruptive infiltrators who introduce top-down organizational structures that limit discourse and push well-intentioned health freedom groups towards right-wing extremism.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. And then you win.”
Whether or not Mahatma Gandhi actually said the above words, they’re an astute observation on the birth of meaningful change.
As history repeats itself, both tragically and triumphantly, the health freedom movement now finds itself at phase III. With each new study and Freedom of Information Act document release, it becomes increasingly clear that those who were initially dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” were simply bearers of inconvenient truth.
Now Big Pharma and the medical establishment are fighting hard to prop up a narrative that is rapidly crumbling.
And they are not fighting fair.
As health freedom advocates have organized and gathered in more than 180 countries around the world, Children’s Health Defense has been alerted to numerous instances of infiltrators finding their way into health freedom groups and preying on the best intentions of participating advocates, collecting and sharing private information and attempting to sabotage plans for peaceful demonstrations.
The Citizens’ Commission to Safeguard Freedom has released a report which lays out detailed evidence of disruptive infiltrators who introduce top-down organizational structures that limit discourse and push well-intentioned groups towards right-wing extremism.
According to the “The Themis Report: Anatomy of Infiltration in the Grassroots Health Freedom Movement”:
“Health freedom organizers from New York to California have become aware that there are repeated attempts to infiltrate and hijack existing authentic grassroots movements to steer them into unproductive or even destructive channels. It is essential for all health freedom activists to realize that this is indeed a real part of the struggle in which they are involved and must be taken into account with an alert eye.”
The report goes on to warn that “government and powerful allied forces” are working overtime to brand the heterogenous health freedom movement as a “monolithic right-wing group so that they can officially classify us as ‘extremists,’ if not ‘domestic terrorists.’”
The Themis report details how disruptive operatives:
Infiltrate, mimic and ultimately hijack existing groups by piggybacking on brand recognition.
Target group owners, earn trust and then install bots that enable the takeover of the group to assert new identities and goals.
Control content that can be shared within groups and distort group missions.
Steer groups toward aggressive or unproductive behavior and confuse members with regard to peaceful protest locations and assertion of values.
Harvest private data and information related to health freedom strategies.
According to the report, disruptors appear to heavily target the social media platform, Telegram. Among identified disruptors are individuals named “Harry” and “Gina,” both of whom were administrators for a decoy Telegram group, WorldWideUSA.
The group, which drew members from the authentic and decentralized grassroots group, World Wide Demonstration, had been organizing health freedom demonstrations in major cities throughout the world.
The report also identifies other potentially compromised Telegram offshoot groups and channels, including:
While the platforms and methods may vary, this coordinated sabotage is nothing new. But health freedom advocates need not be discouraged — these efforts are further evidence that we are winning, and that we are a formidable threat to a corrupt and broken system that can no longer conceal its failures.
Still, it makes sense to be informed and aware of the potential threats to the safety and integrity of the health freedom movement. Effective activism requires constant introspection and revisiting of values and goals.
Historically, this movement is a diverse and bipartisan one that embraces curiosity and makes room for a spectrum of ideas.
Children’s Health Defense advises advocates to be on the lookout for any group or individual that diverts attention from our shared goals of health freedom and respect for humanity and our environment, and to convene in the spirit of peaceful resistance and reject any calls to violence or aggression.
Despite some states tentatively beginning to lift lockdown restrictions, Australian authorities are building quarantine camps that won’t be completed until next year in order to prepare for “ongoing operations” and to house those “who have not had access to vaccination.”
According to ABC Australia, one such 1,000-bed quarantine facility at Wellcamp Airport outside Toowoomba will be fully completed by the end of March 2022.
“At this stage, the cabins will be used by domestic travellers returning from COVID hotspots,” states the report.
However, it also makes clear that the camp will be used for “ongoing operations” and will be a source of employment for the local area.
The camps is split into different zones and accommodates singles, doubles, and family rooms while being patrolled by police and security guards 24/7.
This is crazy! Who will be made to stay in these prison camps?! @AnnastaciaMP Wellcamp quarantine hub near Toowoomba to take travellers by year's end https://t.co/yJE9T02qcg via @ABCaustralia
— Parents are Immediate Family (@ParentsFamily) October 8, 2021
Citing new strains of COVID and people “who have not had access to vaccination,” Queensland Deputy Premier Steven Miles told the media outlet, “We anticipate there to be a continuing need for quarantine facilities.”
The government is leasing the land on which the camp is being built from the Wagner Corporation for 12 months with an option for a further 12 months after that.
Another 1,000-bed quarantine facility is also being built on a 30-hectare Army barracks site in the industrial area of Pinkenba, near Brisbane Airport.
“Why anyone who had left Australia would come back again is unclear,” writes Dave Blount. “It is possibly the most repressive country in the world regarding Covid tyranny.”
As we previously highlighted, state authorities in America are also constructing new “quarantine facilities” for Americans who are “unable to quarantine at home.”
As we reported last year, Authorities in Quebec City, Canada announced they will isolate “uncooperative” citizens in a coronavirus facility, the location of which remains a secret.
New Zealand also announced plans to place COVID infectees and their family members in “quarantine facilities.”
Back in January, German authorities also announced they would hold COVID dissidents who repeatedly fail to properly follow the rules in what was described as a ‘detention camp’ located in Dresden.
“Whether the mask is labeled fascism, democracy, or dictatorship of the proletariat, our great adversary remains the apparatus—the bureaucracy, the police, the military. Not the one facing us across the frontier of the battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our brothers’ enemy, but the one that calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this apparatus and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.”—Simone Weil, French philosopher and political activist
We labor today under the weight of countless tyrannies, large and small, carried out in the so-called name of the national good by an elite class of governmental and corporate officials who are largely insulated from the ill effects of their actions.
We, the middling classes, are not so fortunate.
We find ourselves badgered, bullied and browbeaten into bearing the brunt of their arrogance, paying the price for their greed, suffering the backlash for their militarism, agonizing as a result of their inaction, feigning ignorance about their backroom dealings, overlooking their incompetence, turning a blind eye to their misdeeds, cowering from their heavy-handed tactics, and blindly hoping for change that never comes.
The overt signs of the despotism exercised by the increasingly authoritarian regime that passes itself off as the United States government (and its corporate partners in crime) are all around us: COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates that strip Americans of their freedom of movement and bodily integrity; censorship, criminalizing, shadow banning and de-platforming of individuals who express ideas that are politically incorrect or unpopular; warrantless surveillance of Americans’ movements and communications; SWAT team raids of Americans’ homes; shootings of unarmed citizens by police; harsh punishments meted out to schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance; armed drones taking to the skies domestically; endless wars; out-of-control spending; militarized police; roadside strip searches; roving TSA sweeps; privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing Americans; fusion centers that spy on, collect and disseminate data on Americans’ private transactions; and militarized agencies with stockpiles of ammunition, to name some of the most appalling.
Yet as egregious as these incursions on our rights may be, it’s the endless, petty tyrannies—the heavy-handed, punitive-laden dictates inflicted by a self-righteous, Big-Brother-Knows-Best bureaucracy on an overtaxed, overregulated, and underrepresented populace—that illustrate so clearly the degree to which “we the people” are viewed as incapable of common sense, moral judgment, fairness, and intelligence, not to mention lacking a basic understanding of how to stay alive, raise a family, or be part of a functioning community.
It’s hard to say whether we’re dealing with a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves), a kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens), or if we’ve gone straight to an idiocracy.
This certainly isn’t a constitutional democracy, however.
This overbearing Nanny State despotism is what happens when government representatives (those elected and appointed to work for us) adopt the authoritarian notion that the government knows best and therefore must control, regulate and dictate almost everything about the citizenry’s public, private and professional lives.
The government’s bureaucratic attempts at muscle-flexing by way of overregulation and overcriminalization have reached such outrageous limits that federal and state governments now require on penalty of a fine that individuals apply for permission before they can grow exotic orchids, host elaborate dinner parties, gather friends in one’s home for Bible studies, give coffee to the homeless, let their kids manage a lemonade stand, keep chickens as pets, or braid someone’s hair, as ludicrous as that may seem.
This is what happens when bureaucrats run the show, and the rule of law becomes little more than a cattle prod for forcing the citizenry to march in lockstep with the government.
Overregulation is just the other side of the coin to overcriminalization, that phenomenon in which everything is rendered illegal and everyone becomes a lawbreaker.
That same overcriminalization mindset reared its ugly head again when police arrested a 90-year-old man for violating an ordinance that prohibits feeding the homeless in public unless portable toilets are also made available.
It’s no coincidence that both of these incidents—the fishing debacle and the homeless feeding arrest—happened in Florida.
Despite its pristine beaches and balmy temperatures, Florida is no less immune to the problems plaguing the rest of the nation in terms of overcriminalization, incarceration rates, bureaucracy, corruption, and police misconduct.
A few years back, in fact, Florida officials authorized police raids on barber shops in minority communities, resulting in barbers being handcuffed in front of customers, and their shops searched without warrants. All of this was purportedly done in an effort to make sure that the barbers’ licensing paperwork was up to snuff.
As if criminalizing fishing, charity, and haircuts wasn’t bad enough, you could also find yourself passing time in a Florida slammer for such inane activities as singing in a public place while wearing a swimsuit, breaking more than three dishes per day, farting in a public place after 6 pm on a Thursday, and skateboarding without a license.
In this way, the Sunshine State is representative of the transformation happening across the nation, where a steady diet of bread and circuses has given rise to an oblivious, inactive citizenry content to be ruled over by an inflexible and highly bureaucratic regime.
America has gone from being a beacon of freedom to a locked down nation. And “we the people,” sold on the idea that safety, security and material comforts are preferable to freedom, have allowed the government to pave over the Constitution in order to erect a concentration camp.
The problem with these devil’s bargains, however, is that there is always a catch, always a price to pay for whatever it is we valued so highly as to barter away our most precious possessions.
We’ve bartered away our right to self-governance, self-defense, privacy, autonomy and that most important right of all—the right to tell the government to “leave me the hell alone.”
In exchange for the promise of an end to global pandemics, lower taxes, lower crime rates, safe streets, safe schools, blight-free neighborhoods, and readily accessible technology, health care, water, food and power, we’ve opened the door to lockdowns, militarized police, government surveillance, asset forfeiture, school zero tolerance policies, license plate readers, red light cameras, SWAT team raids, health care mandates, overcriminalization, overregulation and government corruption.
In the end, such bargains always turn sour.
We relied on the government to help us safely navigate national emergencies (terrorism, natural disasters, global pandemics, etc.) only to find ourselves forced to relinquish our freedoms on the altar of national security, yet we’re no safer (or healthier) than before.
We wanted criminals taken off the streets, and we didn’t want to have to pay for their incarceration. What we’ve gotten is a nation that boasts the highest incarceration rate in the world, with more than 2.3 million people locked up, many of them doing time for relatively minor, nonviolent crimes, and a private prison industry fueling the drive for more inmates, who are forced to provide corporations with cheap labor.
A special report by CNBC breaks down the national numbers:
One out of 100 American adults is behind bars — while a stunning one out of 32 is on probation, parole or in prison. This reliance on mass incarceration has created a thriving prison economy. The states and the federal government spend about $74 billion a year on corrections, and nearly 800,000 people work in the industry.
According to the Washington Post, these funds have been used to buy guns, armored cars, electronic surveillance gear, “luxury vehicles, travel and a clown named Sparkles.” Police seminars advise officers to use their “department wish list when deciding which assets to seize” and, in particular, go after flat screen TVs, cash and nice cars.
In Florida, where police are no strangers to asset forfeiture, Florida police have been carrying out “reverse” sting operations, where they pose as drug dealers to lure buyers with promises of cheap cocaine, then bust them, and seize their cash and cars. Over the course of a year, police in one small Florida town seized close to $6 million using these entrapment schemes.
We fell for the government’s promise of safer roads, only to find ourselves caught in a tangle of profit-driven red light cameras, which ticket unsuspecting drivers in the so-called name of road safety while ostensibly fattening the coffers of local and state governments. Despite widespread public opposition, corruption and systemic malfunctions, these cameras—used in 24 states and Washington, DC—are particularly popular with municipalities, which look to them as an easy means of extra cash.
One small Florida town, population 8,000, generates a million dollars a year in fines from these cameras. Building on the profit-incentive schemes, the cameras’ manufacturers are also pushing speed cameras and school bus cameras, both of which result in heft fines for violators who speed or try to go around school buses.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is what happens when the American people get duped, deceived, double-crossed, cheated, lied to, swindled and conned into believing that the government and its army of bureaucrats—the people we appointed to safeguard our freedoms—actually have our best interests at heart.
Yet when all is said and done, who is really to blame when the wool gets pulled over your eyes: you, for believing the con man, or the con man for being true to his nature?
It’s time for a bracing dose of reality, America.
Wake up and take a good, hard look around you, and ask yourself if the gussied-up version of America being sold to you—crime free, worry free, disease free and devoid of responsibility—is really worth the ticket price: nothing less than your freedoms.
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, there was a flurry of action establishing and expanding the United States government’s infringements of freedom in the name of making Americans safer. Along the way, political writer James Bovard documented the vile developments. Speaking Tuesday at the Future of Freedom Foundation’s Restoring Our Civil Liberties webinar, Bovard provided a biting, and at times funny, introduction to destructive and absurd actions the US government has pursued since the September 11 attacks.
Starting off, Bovard notes that while in the 1990s he had much criticized out-of-control government, including in his book Lost Rights, it has turned out that “the 1990s were practically a golden age for freedom compared to what’s happened after 9/11.” From there, Bovard, in his speech, addresses some of the new government powers and agencies that have come into being over the last 20 years.
A chunk of Bovard’s presentation is focused on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Bovard’s unfortunate interactions with this US government agency created soon after the September 11 attacks. Since this is Bovard speaking, a fair amount of humor is included into the telling. Sprinkled through the stories are details about the TSA and its insufferable practices.
Bovard also addresses in the speech other abuses of Americans undertaken by entities including the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that were asserted after the September 11 attacks to be necessary for keeping Americans safe and winning a war on terror. Concerning expanded US government activities overseas that came at the same time, Bovard discusses drone killings and torture as well.
Bringing things forward to the last couple years, Bovard, in the conclusion of his speech, discusses how pumping up fear has again allowed large expansions of government power at the expense of freedom, this time in pursuing a “war on covid.”
Watch Bovard’s speech, and stick around for the wide-ranging question-and-answer period with Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger that follows, here:
Last week we covered Telosa, a technocratic metropolis slated to be home to 5 million people by 2060. Previously we’ve investigated plans to turn Nevada into a hub of technocracy. These stories need telling but we by just looking into the future we can miss sight of the fact that the truth the technocratic city is already here.
For better or worse, London has long been considered one of the world’s great cities. It has produced many of the world’s great artists, writers, and thinkers. Many of the world’s most renowned museums are here, housing priceless historical artifacts and works of art. London’s palaces, parks, gardens, and squares make it an architect’s playground.
Conversely, London is also known as a place where freedom and privacy are nearly extinct. It is one of the world’s most surveilled cities, ranking second globally in CCTV cameras per square (1,138) and third in CCTV cameras per person (73 per 1,000). The city’s police have recently purchased facial recognition technology in order to process historic images from these CCTV cameras as well as social media platforms and other sources. This is in addition to the Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology already deployed in the city.
But this is just one small part of life in one of the world’s most technocratic and surveilled cities. In 2018 the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan launched Smarter London Together, his roadmap to make London “the smartest city in the world.” This initiative builds on an older so-called roadmap from 2013, the Smart London Plan which was rolled out by then mayor and current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson. This perfectly illustrates how politicians may come, go, and move around while the technocratic agenda moves forward without resistance.
Jumping to 2020 we find the Smart London Board, the group which helps bring the objectives outlined in the Smarter London Together road map to fruition, developing the Emerging Technologies Charter, “a set of criteria that digital innovations based on artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, virtual reality and more should meet if they are deployed in the capital.” Meeting the criteria established by this charter is not mandatory in order for new technology to actually be deployed however. This is important to note in order to properly interpret what is laid out in this document.
The most recent version of the charter was published last week. The Mayor, an avowed globalist committed to fulfilling to The Great Reset agenda, says that the charter will play a significant role in the economic and social recovery of London. Let’s examine what that recovery will look like.
The document opens with praise for London already being one of the leading technocratic cities on the planet, highlighting the city as a hub for the research, development, and innovation of 5G, the Internet of Things (IoT), and artificial intelligence (AI). The charter claims this infrastructural is all in place to insure fast download speeds and rapid data processing capabilities. In reality, this is the infrastructure needed for the ruling class to manage all aspects of life, including the human body itself.
The charter then goes on to list the four principles for implementing technology in London.
Be Open
When trialling and deploying emerging technologies, the government will aspire to “work in the open” wherever possible and will describe what the technology is, what it can do, why it is being used and, “where appropriate”, the legal and ethical basis for doing so in what they call “Plain English.”
Translation: the government will work behind closed doors as much as possible, illegally and unethically as often as they feel like it.
When the government says Plain English they mean short words and short sentences meant for anyone with a 9 year old’s reading comprehension skills. In other words, the government will be deploying highly complicated technology, only telling you about it when they feel like it, and when they do, they’ll speak to you like you’re a child.
They also totally promise to speak with local communities, protect personal data, and give regular updates about their undertakings in the name of being open.
The second principle of the Emerging Technology Charter contains the usual banal platitudes about diversity and inclusiveness found at the center of any globalist or technocratic statement. However, there is one very telling detail here which reveals how this agenda paves the way for a two-tiered society. Amidst all the concerns about considering people from all walks of life, there is room to exclude others:
For public bodies, setting out how the technology or service meets the Public Sector Equality Duty for example…if certain groups are excluded from the benefit of new technologies, the technology should have a clear reason why it does not serve these groups.
Who are these certain groups? The charter doesn’t clarify but at a time when the UK government is currently trying to bypass Parliament in an effort to implement vaccine passports via the backdoor it doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to know who this is reserved for. In this technocratic surveillance system a resident of or visitor to London will need a digital vaccine certificate to take part in public life. If this comes to fruition it is only a matter of time until the vaccine certificate is rolled into a digital wallet for a blockchain-based Central Bank Digital Currency.
Today it is just different colored wristbands to differentiate between “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” students. Tomorrow, with just the flip of a switch or push of a button these bureaucrats behind the Emerging Technology Charter and Smart London Board will be able to disconnect anyone they deem unworthy of having access to these so-called beneficial new technologies.
Be Trustworthy With People’s Data
“London requires safe, secure, and useful ways of using and sharing data which build trust among our partners and citizens,” claim the authors of the charter. The principle goes on to list all of the ways in which they promise to ethically collect, review, and store data, including biometric data.
This is perhaps the most blatantly disingenuous section of the charter. Not only because following this charter is entirely voluntary to begin with but because it leaves out two crucial facets of how data is already collected and used in the United Kingdom.
The first is the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the English equivalent of the National Security Agency (NSA). The GCHQ collects, reviews, and stores an incomprehensible amount of data on the British public with little to no accountability or oversight and yet the Emerging Technology Charter makes no mention of this fact. So, even if those who follow the charter absolutely respected the privacy of Londoners it would be a moot point unless the mass surveillance of the CQHQ was ended.
Second, is the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, also known as the Snoopers Charter. This law enables the government to lie in court with impunity by enshrining parallel construction in law. It works like this:
Parallel construction occurs when the Government learns of criminal activity through one source, but then gives the information to a law enforcement agency to “reconstruct” the investigation so that the origin of that second investigation is different from the original source.
Again, even if the Emerging Technology Charter was made mandatory and truly protected the privacy of everyone in London it wouldn’t prevent the government from using that data to it’s advantage with the members of the public none the wiser as to how it was really collected.
Be Sustainable
What technocratic guideline would be complete without a pledge to sustainability? “London wants new technologies to be as sustainable as possible [and] contribute to the Mayor’s goal to be a net zero carbon city,” according to the charter. And when does the Mayor want London to be a net zero carbon city by? 2030 of course.
The lives of all Londoners will be recorded, listed to, analyzed, catalogued, tracked, traced, and controlled in Khan’s smart city but at least it will be done sustainably. And by sustainably we are to presume this means whatever it takes to further centralize and control the resources of the planet into fewer and fewer hands as part of what James Corbett calls the The 100 Trillion Dollar Bankster Climate Swindle.
The situation in London illustrates just how easily new technologies of control can be slotted into our existing infrastructure. That way, neither the residents riding the Underground or the tourist snapping pictures of Big Ben and Buckingham Palace can just go about their business without feeling the noticing the enslavement grid being built around them. Until one day when they can’t board their flight for lack of a health certificate, buy tickets to a play because the CCTV caught them running a red light, or buy meat because they’ve exceeded their monthly sustainable food allotment. But by then it’s already too late.
It’s no longer a question of whether the government will lock up Americans for defying its mandates but when.
This is what we know: the government has the means, the muscle and the motivation to detain individuals who resist its orders and do not comply with its mandates in a vast array of prisons, detention centers, and FEMA concentration camps paid for with taxpayer dollars.
It’s just a matter of time.
It no longer matters what the hot-button issue might be (vaccine mandates, immigration, gun rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare, criticizing the government, protesting election results, etc.) or which party is wielding its power like a hammer.
The groundwork has already been laid.
Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President and the military can detain and imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a terrorist.
So it should come as no surprise that merely criticizing the government or objecting to a COVID-19 vaccine could get you labeled as a terrorist.
After all, it doesn’t take much to be considered a terrorist anymore, especially given that the government likes to use the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
For instance, the Department of Homeland Security broadly defines extremists as individuals, military veterans and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”
Indeed, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
The government also has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
This is what happens when you not only put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police but also give those agencies liberal authority to lock individuals up for perceived wrongs.
It’s a system just begging to be abused by power-hungry bureaucrats desperate to retain their power at all costs.
It’s happened before.
As history shows, the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes.
One need only go back to the 1940s, when the federal government proclaimed that Japanese-Americans, labeled potential dissidents, could be put in concentration (a.k.a. internment) camps based only upon their ethnic origin, to see the lengths the federal government will go to in order to maintain “order” in the homeland.
The U.S. Supreme Court validated the detention program in Korematsu v. US (1944), concluding that the government’s need to ensure the safety of the country trumped personal liberties.
Roberts’ statements provide little assurance of safety in light of the government’s tendency to sidestep the rule of law when it suits its purposes. Pointing out that such blatantly illegal detentions could happen again—with the blessing of the courts—Justice Scalia once warned, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”
In fact, the creation of detention camps domestically has long been part of the government’s budget and operations, falling under the jurisdiction of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA’s murky history dates back to the 1970s, when President Carter created it by way of an executive order merging many of the government’s disaster relief agencies into one large agency.
During the 1980s, however, reports began to surface of secret military-type training exercises carried out by FEMA and the Department of Defense. Code named Rex-84, 34 federal agencies, including the CIA and the Secret Service, were trained on how to deal with domestic civil unrest.
FEMA’s role in creating top-secret American internment camps is well-documented.
But be careful who you share this information with: it turns out that voicing concerns about the existence of FEMA detention camps is among the growing list of opinions and activities which may make a federal agent or government official think you’re an extremist (a.k.a. terrorist), or sympathetic to terrorist activities, and thus qualify you for indefinite detention under the NDAA. Also included in that list of “dangerous” viewpoints are advocating states’ rights, believing the state to be unnecessary or undesirable, “conspiracy theorizing,” concern about alleged FEMA camps, opposition to war, organizing for “economic justice,” frustration with “mainstream ideologies,” opposition to abortion, opposition to globalization, and ammunition stockpiling.
Now if you’re going to have internment camps on American soil, someone has to build them.
Thus, in 2006, it was announced that Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, had been awarded a $385 million contract to build American detention facilities. Although the government and Halliburton were not forthcoming about where or when these domestic detention centers would be built, they rationalized the need for them in case of “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs” in the event of other emergencies such as “natural disasters.”
Of course, these detention camps will have to be used for anyone viewed as a threat to the government, and that includes political dissidents.
So it’s no coincidence that the U.S. government has, since the 1980s, acquired and maintained, without warrant or court order, a database of names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation.
As Salon reports, this database, reportedly dubbed “Main Core,” is to be used by the Army and FEMA in times of national emergency or under martial law to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security. There are at least 8 million Americans in the Main Core database.
Fast forward to 2009, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.
Incredibly, both reports use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably.
That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and other far-flung places, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”
These reports indicate that for the government, so-called extremism is not a partisan matter. Anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—is a target, which brings us back, full circle, to the question of whether the government will exercise the power it claims to possess to detain anyone perceived as a threat, i.e., anyone critical of the government.
The short answer is: yes.
The longer answer is more complicated.
Despite what some may think, the Constitution is no magical incantation against government wrongdoing. Indeed, it’s only as effective as those who abide by it.
However, without courts willing to uphold the Constitution’s provisions when government officials disregard it and a citizenry knowledgeable enough to be outraged when those provisions are undermined, it provides little to no protection against SWAT team raids, domestic surveillance, police shootings of unarmed citizens, indefinite detentions, and the like.
Frankly, the courts and the police have meshed in their thinking to such an extent that anything goes when it’s done in the name of national security, crime fighting and terrorism.
Consequently, America no longer operates under a system of justice characterized by due process, an assumption of innocence, probable cause and clear prohibitions on government overreach and police abuse. Instead, our courts of justice have been transformed into courts of order, advocating for the government’s interests, rather than championing the rights of the citizenry, as enshrined in the Constitution.
We seem to be coming full circle on many fronts.
Consider that two decades ago we were debating whether non-citizens—for example, so-called enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay and Muslim-Americans rounded up in the wake of 9/11—were entitled to protections under the Constitution, specifically as they relate to indefinite detention. Americans weren’t overly concerned about the rights of non-citizens then, and now we’re the ones in the unenviable position of being targeted for indefinite detention by our own government.
Similarly, most Americans weren’t unduly concerned when the U.S. Supreme Court gave Arizona police officers the green light to stop, search and question anyone—ostensibly those fitting a particular racial profile—they suspect might be an illegal immigrant. A decade later, the cops largely have carte blanche authority to stop any individual, citizen and non-citizen alike, they suspect might be doing something illegal (mind you, in this age of overcriminalization, that could be anything from feeding the birds to growing exotic orchids).
Likewise, you still have a sizeable portion of the population today unconcerned about the government’s practice of spying on Americans, having been brainwashed into believing that if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
It will only be a matter of time before they learn the hard way that in a police state, it doesn’t matter who you are or how righteous you claim to be, because eventually, you will be lumped in with everyone else and everything you do will be “wrong” and suspect.
Indeed, it’s happening already, with police relying on surveillance software such as ShadowDragon to watch people’s social media and other website activity, whether or not they suspected of a crime, and potentially use it against them when the need arises.
It turns out that we are Soylent Green, being cannibalized by a government greedily looking to squeeze every last drop out of us.
The 1973 film Soylent Green, starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, is set in 2022 in an overpopulated, polluted, starving New York City whose inhabitants depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation for survival.
Heston plays a policeman investigating a murder who discovers the grisly truth about the primary ingredient in the wafer, Soylent Green, which is the principal source of nourishment for a starved population. “It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people,” declares Heston’s character. “They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food.”
Oh, how right he was.
Soylent Green is indeed people or, in our case, Soylent Green is our own personal data, repossessed, repackaged and used by corporations and the government to entrap us in prisons of our own making.
Without constitutional protections in place to guard against encroachments on our rights when power, technology and militaristic governance converge, it won’t be long before we find ourselves, much like Edward G. Robinson’s character in Soylent Green, looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted, and go where we wanted without those thoughts, words and movements being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.
Los Angeles, CA — For decades now, federal government and their cohorts in law enforcement have been carrying out theft of the citizenry on a massive scale using Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF).
The 1980’s-era laws were designed to drain resources from powerful criminal organizations, but CAF has become a tool for law enforcement agencies across the U.S. to steal money and property from countless innocent people.
As the following case out of Beverly Hills illustrates, no criminal charge is required for this confiscation, resulting in easy inflows of cash for law enforcement departments and the proliferation of abuse. This phenomenon is known as “policing for profit” and the latest example is exceedingly egregious.
Using bogus excuses, the FBI raided roughly 800 safety deposit boxes at a single location in Beverly Hills. They made random and apparently unsubstantiated accusations that the U.S. Private Vaults in Beverly Hills was aiding criminal activity. The business was indicted in February on claims that it marketed itself to criminals to help them launder money and dodge government detection.
But no one was ever charged.
Instead, the FBI raided the place and confiscated, or rather robbed people like Joseph Ruiz and others of their life savings. These folks like Ruiz were then forced to prove their innocence in order to get their money back.
The FBI falsely claimed that Ruiz, who is a chef, made the &57,000 they stole from him from drug dealing because a drug dog alerted to the presence of drugs on the cash.
In fact, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that government does not have probable cause to seize cash from individuals based only on a drug-detection dog’s reaction; stating specifically that the majority of money in circulation has drugs on it.
But court precedents and ethical enforcement of the law apparently mean very little to the FBI who confiscated the life savings of hundreds of people for this very reason. Ruiz was forced to produce documents proving his innocence and show the source of the money was legitimate in order to get it back. In other words, he was guilty until proven innocent.
But Ruiz was one of many people robbed by these agents. In total, these thieving FBI agents robbed 800 people of $86 million in cash, jewelry, and precious metals. Hundreds of those involved have contested the government-sanctioned theft and 65 of them have filed suit.
“It was a complete violation of my privacy,” Ruiz said. “They tried to discredit my character.”
According to the LA Times, “prosecutors, so far, have outlined past criminal convictions or pending charges against 11 box holders to justify the forfeitures. But in several other cases, court records show, the government’s rationale for claiming that the money and property it seized was tied to crime is no stronger than it was against Ruiz.”
The feds claimed that the other robbery victims were guilty for the mere ways the money was stored and how it smelled. If it was wrapped in rubber bands, it had to come from drug sales. If it smelled like drugs to the dog, the owner was guilty.
“The notion that the old rubber bands mean they must be drug dealers is ludicrous,” one of the victim’s lawyers, Benjamin Gluck said.
Gluck told the Times that U.S. Private Vaults customers “included many immigrant business owners who escaped repressive regimes where banks are unsafe and have collected amounts of cash as their life savings over many, many years.”
In other words, the FBI is robbing innocent people of their life savings and using bogus excuses to justify the theft.
Unfortunately, this entire 4th Amendment violation carried out by the FBI is considered legal under current US law. Despite most everyone whose valuables were stolen being innocent, the U.S. Attorney’s office said “nothing requires the government to ignore evidence of a crime that it sees” while taking inventory of seized goods.
And this is why in the last 30 years, the amount of “profit” stolen through civil asset forfeiture has skyrocketed.
According to the US Department of Justice, the value of asset forfeiture recoveries by US authorities from 1989-2010 was $12,667,612,066, increasing on average 19.5% per year.
In 2008, law enforcement took over $1.5 billion from the American public. While this number seems incredibly large, just a few years later, in 2014, that number tripled to nearly $4.5 billion.
When we examine these numbers, and their nearly exponential growth curve, it appears that police in America are getting really good at separating the citizen from their property — not just really good either, criminally good.
To put this number into perspective, according to the FBI, victims of burglary offenses suffered an estimated $3.9 billion in property losses in 2014.
That means that law enforcement in America, in 2014, stole $600,000,000 more from Americans than actual criminal burglars.
When government surpasses the criminal accomplishments of those they claim to protect you from, there is a serious problem. We’ve seen horrible instances of criminal cops and feds using this legal doctrine to rob everyone from grandmas to musicians, and in fact, we have even reported on cops stealing tens of thousands of dollars from an orphanage and a church. Seriously.
As TFTP reported at the time, to “keep society safe,” sheriff’s deputies in Muskogee County, Oklahoma robbed a church and an orphanage of $53,000. Real American heroes.
The good news is that Americans have been waking up to this Orwellian notion of police robbing the citizens, and they are taking a stand. Hopefully, the court finds this seizure illegal and puts these FBI agents in their place.
cover image credit: A video screen capture taken from U.S. District Court documents show federal agents executing search and seizure warrants in late March at the U.S. Private Vaults store in Beverly Hills.(U.S. District Court)
20 Years of Government-Sponsored Tyranny: The Rise of the Security-Industrial Complex From 9/11 to COVID-19
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”—Osama bin Laden (October 2001), as reported by CNN
What a strange and harrowing road we’ve walked since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties. We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade a freedom-loving people to march in lockstep with a police state.
Our losses are mounting with every passing day.
What began with the post-9/11 passage of the USA Patriot Act has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse.
The citizenry’s unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has resulted in a society where the nation has been locked down into a militarized, mechanized, hypersensitive, legalistic, self-righteous, goose-stepping antithesis of every principle upon which this nation was founded.
Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, police violence and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms have been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.
The rights embodied in the Constitution, if not already eviscerated, are on life support.
Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s war on the American people, a war that has grown more pronounced since 9/11.
Indeed, since the towers fell on 9/11, the U.S. government has posed a greater threat to our freedoms than any terrorist, extremist or foreign entity ever could.
While nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government and its agents have easily killed at least ten times that number of civilians in the U.S. and abroad since 9/11 through its police shootings, SWAT team raids, drone strikes and profit-driven efforts to police the globe, sell weapons to foreign nations (which too often fall into the hands of terrorists), and foment civil unrest in order to keep the security industrial complex gainfully employed.
The American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, denied due process, and killed.
In allowing ourselves to be distracted by terror drills, foreign wars, color-coded warnings, pandemic lockdowns and other carefully constructed exercises in propaganda, sleight of hand, and obfuscation, we failed to recognize that the U.S. government—the government that was supposed to be a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”—has become the enemy of the people.
Consider that the government’s answer to every problem has been more government—at taxpayer expense—and less individual liberty.
Every crisis—manufactured or otherwise—since the nation’s early beginnings has become a make-work opportunity for the government to expand its reach and its power at taxpayer expense while limiting our freedoms at every turn: The Great Depression. The World Wars. The 9/11 terror attacks. The COVID-19 pandemic.
Viewed in this light, the history of the United States is a testament to the old adage that liberty decreases as government (and government bureaucracy) grows. Or, to put it another way, as government expands, liberty contracts.
This is how the emergency state operates, after all, and we should know: after all, we have spent the past 20 years in a state of emergency.
From 9/11 to COVID-19, “we the people” have acted the part of the helpless, gullible victims desperately in need of the government to save us from whatever danger threatens. In turn, the government has been all too accommodating and eager while also expanding its power and authority in the so-called name of national security.
This is a government that has grown so corrupt, greedy, power-hungry and tyrannical over the course of the past 240-plus years that our constitutional republic has since given way to idiocracy, and representative government has given way to a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves) and a kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens).
What this really amounts to is a war on the American people, fought on American soil, funded with taxpayer dollars, and waged with a single-minded determination to use national crises, manufactured or otherwise, in order to transform the American homeland into a battlefield.
Indeed, the government’s (mis)management of various states of emergency in the past 20 years has spawned a massive security-industrial complex the likes of which have never been seen before. According to the National Priorities Project at the progressive Institute for Policy Studies, since 9/11, the United States has spent $21 trillion on “militarization, surveillance, and repression.”
Clearly, this is not a government that is a friend to freedom.
Rather, this is a government that, in conjunction with its corporate partners, views the citizenry as consumers and bits of data to be bought, sold and traded.
This is a government that is laying the groundwork to weaponize the public’s biomedical data as a convenient means by which to penalize certain “unacceptable” social behaviors. Incredibly, a new government agency HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) will take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.
This is a government that routinely engages in taxation without representation, whose elected officials lobby for our votes only to ignore us once elected.
This is a government that railroads taxpayers into financing government programs whose only purpose is to increase the power and wealth of the corporate elite.
This is a government that uses fusion centers, which represent the combined surveillance efforts of federal, state and local law enforcement, to track the citizenry’s movements, record their conversations, and catalogue their transactions.
This is a government whose wall-to-wall surveillance has given rise to a suspect society in which the burden of proof has been reversed such that Americans are now assumed guilty until or unless they can prove their innocence.
This is a government that treats its people like second-class citizens who have no rights, and is working overtime to stigmatize and dehumanize any and all who do not fit with the government’s plans for this country.
This is a government that persists in renewing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows the president and the military to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely based on the say-so of the government.
This is a government that saddled us with the Patriot Act, which opened the door to all manner of government abuses and intrusions on our privacy.
This is a government that has militarized American’s domestic police, equipping them with military weapons such as “tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; a million hollow-point bullets; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft,” in addition to armored vehicles, sound cannons and the like.
This is a government that has provided cover to police when they shoot and kill unarmed individuals just for standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.
This is a government that treats public school students as if they were prison inmates, enforcing zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, and indoctrinating them with teaching that emphasizes rote memorization and test-taking over learning, synthesizing and critical thinking.
This is a government that is operating in the negative on every front: it’s spending far more than what it makes (and takes from the American taxpayers) and it is borrowing heavily (from foreign governments and Social Security) to keep the government operating and keep funding its endless wars abroad. Meanwhile, the nation’s sorely neglected infrastructure—railroads, water pipelines, ports, dams, bridges, airports and roads—is rapidly deteriorating.
This is a government that has empowered police departments to make a profit at the expense of those they have sworn to protect through the use of asset forfeiture laws, speed traps, and red light cameras.
This is a government that has allowed the presidency to become a dictatorship operating above and beyond the law, regardless of which party is in power.
This is a government that treats dissidents, whistleblowers and freedom fighters as enemies of the state.
This is a government that has in recent decades unleashed untold horrors upon the world—including its own citizenry—in the name of global conquest, the acquisition of greater wealth, scientific experimentation, and technological advances, all packaged in the guise of the greater good.
This is a government that allows its agents to break laws with immunity while average Americans get the book thrown at them.
This is a government that speaks in a language of force. What is this language of force? Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons.Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Contempt of cop charges.
This is a government that justifies all manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security, national crises and national emergencies.
This is a government that exports violence worldwide, with one of this country’s most profitable exports being weapons. Indeed, the United States, the world’s largest exporter of arms, has been selling violence to the world in order to prop up the military industrial complex and maintain its endless wars abroad.
This is a government that is consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population and seemingly unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process.
This is a government that routinely undermines the Constitution and rides roughshod over the rights of the citizenry, eviscerating individual freedoms so that its own powers can be expanded.
This is a government that believes it has the authority to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation, the Constitution be damned.
From the article, “The Illinois Department of Public Health is launching a program called “Vax Verify” that asks residents to verify and download a receipt of their vaccination status…Vax Verify will be contracting with consumer credit reporting company Experian, which will use an “identity verification process to gain access to their immunization history.” According to the article, Experian has lobbied to share consumer data with the NSA [National Security Agency], DHS [Department of Homeland Services], and other law enforcement agencies.”
Got that? Experian, a consumer credit report company which has access to your social security number, your credit card records, your bills, and other financial records enabling Experian to evaluate your financial history and provide a rating based on your track record, will now have access to your medical records to verify your vaccination status if you live in Illinois.
If that doesn’t scare you, it should.
Consider that governments around the world have telegraphed through a series of articles and white papers a desire to end paper money and introduce digital currencies. Some have even cancelled paper currency completely or certain high denominations. The purported intention is to serve the underbanked, but is that the true objective? I do not mean this in a pejorative sense at all, but are one billion primarily agrarian people living in remote locations genuinely lacking banking? Is banking their priority? Or is it someone else’s? Does someone just want them in “the system?”
Another initiative being implemented is universal basic income (UBI). Governments in Europe and the US have promoted or already launched UBI pilot programs under which individuals are simply GIVEN money. (See here, here, and here.) While we’re told these programs will help people survive an economy ravaged by COVID, many of them were launched well before COVID was even on the horizon. And let’s not forget to ask, what was the true culprit of this economic devastation, COVID or the reactionary government policies employed to address it? One thing is clear, these programs condition the populace to accept government handouts and to depend on the government for their income.
That Experian has lobbied in the past to share your information with NSA, DHS, and other federal agencies should be a red flag to any thinking person in particular when they’ll have access to vaccine records in addition to the financial and identity information they already possess.
These factors point to an alarming possibility, namely that in the near future, there may be no paper money to exchange for goods and services. Instead, in its place, there will be a government-issued digital currency and while that on its own may seem innocuous, when combined with a vaccine passport connected to our private information, the potential for abuse is enormous. Were that information to be shared with NSA, DHS, and other agencies, the potential for abuse is downright mammoth.
Given the steep reduction in the number of small and medium sized businesses which employ roughly two thirds of the American workforce, and the prospect of further closures should political leaders implement further lockdowns, many Americans are being left with fewer options to earn an income and be self-reliant.
Despite the utter failure of lockdowns to control the spread of COVID, a repeat of lockdowns will devastate the American economy and wage earners. And it may leave them increasingly dependent on UBI – and the government. When a person transitions to UBI, they cede almost all their power to government. What’s more, they must rely on the benevolence of that government and may be easily manipulated or outright controlled to serve any agenda.
A digital vaccine passport connected to your financial records, medical records, and potentially to your voter ID, travel documents, etc. – and all this information shared with federal security agencies – would make it all too easy for government to demand compliance to their dogmas and agendas lest they turn off your access to purchase goods and services, earn income, travel, or even to socialize, all at the push of a button.
You may be forced to make many choices: take an experimental drug or lose access to a job, your bank account, or any means to earn money to feed your family; speak out against government policies that trample your human rights or in support of differing scientific perspectives and lose your government bestowed privileges to live a normal life.
China has already implemented a social credit score system bolstered by mass surveillance which affords special privileges to those who comply with government directives. Those who obey receive high social credit scores, those who jaywalk, fail to wear a mask, or are simply friends with folks with low credit scores are not allowed to travel by plane or high-speed train or access other “privileges.”
China has gone so far as to announce the government will dictate the amount of time kids can spend gaming online, limiting kids to 3 hours per week. While limiting the amount of time kids play online games might be a commendable objective, is that a role any free society wants government to fill?
While Americans may say, well, that is all happening in China, let’s not forget China lead the way on lockdowns and other COVID measures, emulated by western nations and Americans are already being asked for ‘papers, please’ in CA and NY to enter a café, restaurant, retail store, etc. With IL implementing a complete vaccine passport system, the threat to our liberties, lives and livelihoods is clear.
If one chooses a path that cuts against the government grain, government will have the power to control him or her by denying his or her access to money, shopping, food, entertainment, travel, etc.
No free society should require proof of anything, let alone a medical intervention in healthy people, to live a normal life, yet just such programs are being hastily developed in America despite no consultation with the public. So much for government of, for, and by the people. Any student of history should be alarmed at the frightening future these authoritarian tracking and rating systems portend.
Technocrats in Silicon Valley are bonded to Technocrats in the National Security State. This is the glue that binds. Their common objective is to create a scientific dictatorship that will directly control the entire population, while condemning outliers as security risks.
In June 2021, the U.S. National Security Council released a new “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.”1 While it’s being largely framed as a tool to fight White supremacy and political extremism, the definition of what constitutes a “domestic terrorist” is incredibly vague and based on ideologies.
In a podcast with one of my favorite independent journalists, Whitney Webb,2 Media Roots Radio host Robbie Martin notes how this creates a dangerous slippery slope, one that’s connected to the attempts to have increased surveillance and tracking of Americans’ data after 9/11.3
The “War on Terror,” launched in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Martin says, “was merely a prelude to a larger domestic crackdown on political dissidents.”4 Webb agreed, stating that we’re “near the bottom part of the slippery slope” already, and it’s not a stretch that one day anyone who disagrees with the government could be labeled a domestic terrorist and charged with a crime.
Criminalizing Oppositional Ideology to the Ruling Class
The whole justification for the War on Terror was to target “precrime”, or terror acts before they happen. Initially, the legislation was meant to target foreign governments and individuals, but bills are pending that would make the legislation applicable to Americans in the U.S.5
Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald stated that the end goal of the newly emerging war on domestic terrorism is to “essentially criminalize any oppositional ideology to the ruling class,” adding, “There is literally nothing that could be more dangerous, and it’s not fear-mongering or alarmism to say it.”6
This isn’t a partisan issue, but something that’s been in the works for decades. Greenwald stated that viewing Washington as Democrat versus Republican, with one side being “your team” and the other being “your enemy” is a flawed belief, as an elite ruling class is truly in power:7
“There is a ruling class elite that is extremely comfortable with the establishment wings of both parties … who they fund equally because those are the people who serve their agenda. Then there’s a whole other group of people at whose expense they rule in. Some consider them on the left, some on the right,” but “it’s time to break down those barriers.”
It’s important to understand that the U.S. already has aggressive criminal laws in place, such that more people are imprisoned in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world.8 Do we need further laws to criminalize people put in place? A concerning pivot has occurred as well, shifting in focus to the FBI targeting this new model of terrorism while the terms like “incitement to violence” have been radically expanded in meaning.
“It is accompanied by viral-on-social-media pleas that one work with the FBI to turn in one’s fellow citizens (“See Something, Say Something!”) and demands for a new system of domestic surveillance,” Greenwald wrote.9
People Who Spread ‘Disinformation’ Classified as Extremists
You don’t have to be violent to be declared a terrorist. You may simply have what the government deems to be “extremist views” or could be accused of spreading disinformation — although there’s no clear definition of what “disinformation” is. According to Webb:10
“There is talk in the domestic terror strategy that people who spread disinformation can also be classified as extremists and a threat to national security and, of course, we’ve seen over the past several years, how this disinformation label can be applied to independent media as a way to promote censorship of voices that are critical of U.S. empire, among other things, or that just don’t fit a particular government narrative.”
As taken directly from the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism:11
“Domestic terrorists have — particularly in recent years — often been lone actors or small groups of informally aligned individuals who mobilize to violence with little or no clear organizational structure or direction. These individuals often consume material deliberately disseminated to recruit individuals to causes that attempt to provide a sense of belonging and fulfillment, however false that sense might be.
Their ideologies can be fluid, evolving, and overlapping. And they can, in some instances, connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation …
These elements combine to form a complex and shifting domestic terrorism threat landscape and create significant challenges for law enforcement. Especially on Internet-based communications platforms such as social media, file-upload sites, and end-to-end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety.
… These efforts speak to a broader priority: enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.
Fusion Centers Are Ready and Waiting
Webb is concerned about fusion centers, at which the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, NGOs and others in the private sector collaborate to decide who’s a terrorist and who’s not.
Fusion centers have been around for a while, but as the war on domestic terror progresses, Webb believes that fusion centers will take on the same role as the CIA-run Phoenix Program during the Vietnam War, which was designed to collate names of dissidents and people with extremist sympathies to databases so they could be pursued by the relevant authorities — many ended up being kidnapped, tortured and killed.
Fusion centers are waiting to take on a more active role in the newly declared war on domestic terrorism, but in order for them to gain widespread acceptance, Webb believes that an outrageous event needs to take place — one that goes further than the January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol, such as something that targets civilians and sparks outrage among the U.S. public that something must be done.
“This is why I worry that some other event may take place in order to push this strategy further. They’re setting up an infrastructure here that they plan to use, right? And I think given the current climate in the U.S. it would be hard for them to justify taking that where the strategy clearly shows they want to go,” Webb says.12
She also draws parallels between the present day and the U.S.-backed Operation Condor, which targeted leftists, suspected leftists and their sympathizers, resulting in the murders of an estimated 60,000 people, about half of which occurred in Argentina. Another 500,000 were politically imprisoned.13
“There was no investigation into whether the claims against these people were even true,” Webb explained. “There were no trials … it was a dragnet to create reorganized society using a climate of fear to encourage acquiescence to authority and complete obedience to the state.”14 It’s history that often gives the greatest clues about where society is headed, and Webb also details a bill President Biden introduced in 1995 in response to the Oklahoma City bombing.
It was initiated by the FBI as a charter to investigate political groups and included the following disturbing points. Fortunately, the bill wasn’t passed in this version — a lot was taken out and watered down — but if allowed to pass unrevised, it would have:15
Allowed the FBI, military and other groups to investigate political groups at their will, without any higher-up approval
Allowed a 10-year prison sentence for the crime of supporting the lawful activities of an organization if the president deemed the organization a terrorist entity
Made it so that the president alone decides who is a terrorist, and the decision could not be appealed
Loosened rules for wire taps
Reversed the presumption of innocent until proven guilty
Allowed the military to be used in domestic law enforcement activities and potentially made it legal for soldiers to invade people’s homes and take possessions without probable cause
Allowed secret trials for immigrants not charged with a crime, and allowed the use of illegally obtained evidence in those trials
Silicon Valley Is Fused With the National Security State
Silicon Valley and the national security state are now fused, Webb says. The decadeslong wars against domestic dissidence have always involved technology like databases, and now the link is inseparable.
Webb wrote about “tech tyranny” at the start of the pandemic, revealing that a document from the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) — acquired through a FOIA request — said changes were needed to keep a technological advantage over China:16
“This document suggests that the U.S. follow China’s lead and even surpass them in many aspects related to AI-driven technologies, particularly their use of mass surveillance.
This perspective clearly clashes with the public rhetoric of prominent U.S. government officials and politicians on China, who have labeled the Chinese government’s technology investments and export of its surveillance systems and other technologies as a major ‘threat’ to Americans’ ‘way of life.’”
Many of the steps to implement the program are being promoted as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. NSCAI is not only a key part of the Great Reset’s fourth industrial revolution, but also promotes mass surveillance, online-only shopping and the end of cash while noting that “having streets carpeted with cameras is good infrastructure.”
NSCAI’s chairman is Eric Schmidt, the former head of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Other notable Silicon Valley NSCAI members include:17
Eric Horvitz, director of Microsoft Research Labs
Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon Web Services (CIA contractor)
Andrew Moore, head of Google Cloud AI
Meanwhile, Greenwald highlighted a statement by Alex Stamos, a former Facebook security official, who recommends social media companies collaborate with law enforcement to crack down on extremist influencers online, especially those with large audiences in order to “get us all back in the same consensual reality.”18
Social Media Plays a Huge Role in the War
If you’re reading this and are concerned, I urge you to listen to the Media Roots Radio podcast with Whitney Webb in full.19 It’s just under 2.5 hours, but time well spent to understand the historical events that have led us to where we are today. For those who want to take action, a mass exodus from social media platforms is a good start.
Many suspect Facebook is the public-friendly version of the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Lifelog, a database project aimed at tracking the minutiae of people’s entire existence for national security surveillance purposes.20
The Pentagon pulled the plug on Lifelog February 4, 2004, in response to backlash over privacy concerns.21 Yet that same day, Facebook was launched.22
Lifelog — and likely its successor Facebook — was meant to complement Total Information Awareness (TIA), a program that sprang up after the 9/11 attacks that was seeking to collect Americans’ medical records, fingerprints and other biometric data, along with DNA and records relating to personal finances, travel and media consumption.23
Now Facebook is asking users to report “extremist” content and misinformation. Fortunately, there’s a way to passively disentangle yourself from the data mining and legacy social media that is intertwined with the war on domestic terror. Webb says: “Delete your Facebook and your Instagram and your Twitter, because you are feeding the domestic terror machine.”24
We have been told to live in mortal fear of online hackers and, as the “cyber pandemic” narrative ramps up, the fear-mongering over Chinese, Russian and even North Korean cyberwarriors is going into overdrive.
Strange, then, given this climate of non-stop cybersecurity hysteria, that we rarely hear mention of one of the world’s confirmed cyberhacking superpowers: Israel. Just as Israel’s nuclear arsenal is the worst kept secret in the world, it seems that mention of Israel’s cyber arsenal is strictly forbidden in the maintream press. But it is now undeniable that Israel is running one of the most sophisticated, pervasive and influential cyberhacking operations in the world.
The official silence on Israel’s cyber espionage changed last month when the story of Pegasus—a piece of military-grade spyware developed by Israeli surveillance firm NSO Group—made headlines for all the wrong reasons. The software, as Haaretz and other MSM half-truth peddlers inform us, is able to hijack the phones of its victims, recording from the phone’s cameras and microphone and collecting location data, call logs and contacts, all without the target’s knowledge. And, as the consortium of dinosaur media publishers who were given access to this treasure trove of information report, it is being used by “oppressive regimes” to target “180 journalists” and even scoop up personal contact details of national misleaders like French President Emmanuel Macron and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.
But there are some very important things you never learned about the Pegasus story in the dinosaur media’s coverage of it and, if you do rely on the lamestream media for your knowledge, there are a lot of things you won’t know about the history of Israeli cyberspying. So today, let’s take a look at the issue of Israel’s high tech espionage.
One severely underreported fact about the Pegasus story shines a light on the much larger story of Israeli cyber spying. According to Forbes, the co-founders of the NSO Group, Omri Lavie and Shalev Hulio, “are believed to be alumni of Israel’s famous Unit 8200 signals intelligence arm, as are many of the country’s security entrepreneurs.” NSO’s first investor, Eddy Shalev, asserts otherwise (“They didn’t come from intelligence”). Hulio himself, meanwhile, spins a rather tall tale about randomly meeting people in line at a cafe who were able to put him in touch with the tech geek who would become the company’s first employee and who, Hulio allows, “may have served in Unit 8200.” This unlikely story stretches the bonds of credulity so far that it prompts even ynetnews to note that “Some in Israel’s defense and intelligence community were skeptical of Hulio’s fanatic tale.” But the fact that Unit 8200 is in the picture at all is itself telling.
For those who don’t know, Unit 8200 is the branch of the Israel Defense Force responsible for signals intelligence, i.e., Israel’s equivalent of the NSA. Supposedly founded in 1952 (or was it the 1930s?), the unit was not officially acknowledged until the early 2000s, when stories of the incredible (and incredibly illegal) acts of cyber espionage it has perpetrated over the decades began to be publicized.
One particularly high profile piece of work bearing Unit 8200’s fingerprints was Stuxnet, the military-grade cyberweapon that specifically targeted Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz. It has long been known that Stuxnet was co-developed by the United States and Israel, but it was New York Times correspondent David Sanger who revealed that the worm was actually worked on by Unit 8200.
But beyond the cyberweapons and (still largely classified) military exploits of the unit itself is the undeniable fact that a surprisingly large number of high-profile tech startups and Silicon Valley ventures in recent years have been founded by “ex” members of 8200. One such “ex” member, Avishai Abrahami, asserted in 2016 that “there are more than 100 guys from the unit that I personally knew who built startups and sold them for a lot of money” including a team of ten who “created companies where the average market cap is a half-billion dollars.” (Abrahami himself created cloud-based web developer Wix, whose market cap currently sits at over $16 billion.)
From communication companies like AudioCodes and Viber to cybersecurity companies like Argus and CheckPoint to GPS navigation software services like Waze, the prevalence of Unit 8200 alumni in the private tech sector has received somuchpress that even trade publications have been forced to report on the matter, noting that the Israeli military is increasingly out-sourcing cybersecurity and intelligence projects to companies “that in some cases were built for this exact purpose.”
Other than NSO, some troubling startups from the “ex”-8200 crowd include:
Carbyne911, a tech startup marketed as a “a Next Generation Call Handling platform” for 9-1-1 and emergency call centers, that, as an in-depth 2019 exposé from Narrativ revealed, was founded and run by a gaggle of Israeli military and intelligence officials (including a Unit 8200 alumni) and was bankrolled by the likes of Jeffrey Epstein, Ehud Barak and Peter Thiel.
Comverse Infosys, which made wiretapping software used by US law enforcement that contained—as Carl Cameron reported in a quickly-quashed series on Israeli spying for Fox News in 2001—”a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties” and whose main product (known as “the Logger”) was later admitted to be “based on the Unit’s [8200’s] technology.”
And Toka, a spyware firm co-founded by Ehud Barak and headed by the former chief of the Israel Defense Forces Cyber Staff, which, as Whitney Webb has also extensively reported, is aiming to provide “a one-stop hacking shop for governments” specializing in IoT (“Internet of Things”) devices.
In fact, this represents only a small fraction of Unit 8200’s infiltration of the private cybersecurity space in recent years, so if you’re unfamiliar with the topic you have a lot to catch up on.
But, given that (as Whitney Webb rightly observes), “The abuse of Pegasus software in this very way has been known for several years” and “other Israeli companies with even deeper ties to Israel’s intelligence apparatus have been selling software that not only provides the exact same services to governments and intelligence agencies but purports to go even farther,” the sudden influx of MSM attention to the Pegasus story is curious.
One clue to the mystery of this sudden interest comes in the form of a little tidbit that is embedded in all the MSM articles on the Pegasus scandal (like this one from our friends at The Bezos Post):
Forbidden Stories, a Paris-based journalism nonprofit, and Amnesty International, a human rights group, had access to the list [of phones hacked by the Pegasus software] and shared it with the news organizations, which did further research and analysis. Amnesty’s Security Lab did the forensic analyses on the smartphones.
Forbidden Stories? What on earth is that?
Well, according to their website: “Forbidden Stories fosters collaboration among journalists to make visible and impactful the work of reporters who can no longer investigate,” including gathering “a consortium of local and international media outlets in order to investigate on a large scale.” This “consortium” reads like a who’s who of worldwide dinosaur media outlets, including Le Soir in Belgium, The Toronto Star in Canada, France Télévisions, Radio New Zealand, Reuters, bellingcat, The New York Times and literally dozens of other mockinbird outfits around the world.
And who funds this venture? The usual gaggle of “independent” “charitable” foundations, of course, including UNESCO and (you guessed it) George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
So why are these big hitters and known liars collaborating on this release of information about a known Israeli military front masquerading as a commercial spyware company? If you said “Because it’s a limited hangout!” then give yourself a cookie. I think you’re right.
But what is this hangout aiming to accomplish, exactly? Theories abound. Bernard over at Moon of Alabama, for example, has this take on the situation:
The U.S. often uses ‘intelligence’ as a kind of diplomatic currency that keeps other countries dependent on it. If the Saudis have to ask the U.S. for snooping on someone it is much easier to have influence over them. NSO is disturbing that business. There is also the problem that the first class spying software NSO is selling to somewhat shady customers might well fall into the hands of some big U.S. adversary.
The ‘leak’ to Amnesty and Forbidden Stories is thus an instrument to keep some monopolistic control over client regimes and over spying technology. (The Panama Papers were a similar kind of U.S. sponsored ‘leak’, only in the financial field.)
I think Bernard is right to compare this Pegasus story to the Panama Papers story, which was also cross-reported by an international consortium of mockingbird media dinosaurs. In fact, we could even cast our minds back to a much earlier story that was similarly reported by a gaggle of mainstream media conspirators from around the world: the Iraq War Logs, which that totally above-board, crusading secret-exposer Julian Assange made available exclusively to the truth tellers at The Guardian, The New York Times, Le Monde and his other favourite MSM outlets.
However, the idea that this whole story is an attempt by the US “to keep some monopolistic control over client regimes and over spying technology” rings hollow. After all, if the US were really trying to muscle Israel out of the cyberspying arena by dishing the dirt on the NSO Group, what about the many, many, many examples of similar or even worse spying by other Israeli companies (just some of which are listed above)? How would the exposure of this one piece of software upend the entire section of the global cybersecurity industry that has been seeded by the Unit 8200 gang?
No, in this case I believe it’s more likely that the powers-that-shouldn’t-be are throwing the NSO Group and its Pegasus software under the bus for the sake of protecting the larger Israeli military cyberwarfare industry, not undermining it. After all, the NSO Group has been in the crosshairs of cyber privacy activists for years, with even the all-powerful Blackstone Group having to back out of a deal to acquire a 40% stake in the company after it was revealed that Pegasus had been used by the Mexican government to spy on its own citizens.
The NSO Group is already tainted. By “exposing” this story about the company (one that was already known and reported), they are able to take attention away from the Cybereasons, Tokas and other companies that are performing similar functions for the Unit 8200-infested cybersecurity industry under much deeper cover.
Undoubtedly there is more to this story that will come out in bits and pieces in these controlled “Forbidden Stories” reports. But rather than shining a light on the larger question of Israeli cyber espionage and how deep the rabbit hole really goes, the intense focus on this one piece of spyware from this one company will only serve to obscure that story.
This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter. To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.
The mainstream media’s myopic focus on Israel’s Pegasus spyware and the threats it poses means that other companies, like Toka, go uninvestigated, even when their products present an even greater potential for abuse and illegal surveillance.
LONDON – This past Sunday, an investigation into the global abuse of spyware developed by veterans of Israeli intelligence Unit 8200 gained widespread attention, as it was revealed that the software – sold to democratic and authoritarian governments alike – had been used to illegally spy on an estimated 50,000 individuals. Among those who had their communications and devices spied on by the software, known as Pegasus, were journalists, human rights activists, business executives, academics and prominent political leaders. Among those targeted political leaders, per reports, were the current leaders of France, Pakistan, South Africa, Egypt, Morocco and Iraq.
The abuse of Pegasus software in this very way has been known for several years, though these latest revelations appear to have gained such traction in the mainstream owing to the high number of civilians who have reportedly been surveilled through its use. The continuation of the now-years-long scandal surrounding the abuse of Pegasus has also brought considerable controversy and notoriety to the Israeli company that developed it, the NSO Group.
While the NSO Group has become infamous, other Israeli companies with even deeper ties to Israel’s intelligence apparatus have been selling software that not only provides the exact same services to governments and intelligence agencies but purports to go even farther.
Originally founded by former Israeli Prime Minister and Jeffrey Epstein associate Ehud Barak, one of these companies’ wares are being used by countries around the world, including in developing countries with the direct facilitation of global financial institutions like the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the World Bank. In addition, the software is only made available to governments that are “trusted” by Israel’s government, which “works closely” with the company.
Despite the fact that this firm has been around since 2018 and was covered in detail by this author for MintPress News in January 2020, no mainstream outlet – including those that have extensively covered the NSO Group – has bothered to examine the implications of this story.
Toka was launched in 2018 with the explicit purpose of selling a “tailored ecosystem of cyber capabilities and software products for governmental, law enforcement, and security agencies.” According to a profile of the company published in Forbes shortly after it launched, Toka advertised itself as “a one-stop hacking shop for governments that require extra capability to fight terrorists and other threats to national security in the digital domain.”
Toka launched with plans to “provide spy tools for whatever device its clients require,” including not only smartphones but a “special focus on the so-called Internet of Things (IoT).” Per the company, this includes devices like Amazon Echo, Google Nest-connected home products, as well as connected fridges, thermostats and alarms. Exploits in these products discovered by Toka, the company said at the time, would not be disclosed to vendors, meaning those flaws would continue to remain vulnerable to any hacker, whether a client of Toka or not.
Today, Toka’s software suite claims to offer its customers in law enforcement, government and intelligence the ability to obtain “targeted intelligence” and to conduct “forensic investigations” as well as “covert operations.” In addition, Toka offers governments its “Cyber Designers” service, which provides “agencies with the full-spectrum strategies, customized projects and technologies needed to keep critical infrastructure, the digital landscape and government institutions secure and durable.”
Given that NSO’s Pegasus targets only smartphones, Toka’s hacking suite – which, like Pegasus, is also classified as a “lawful intercept” product – is capable of targeting any device connected to the internet, including but not limited to smartphones. In addition, its target clientele are the same as those of Pegasus, providing an easy opportunity for governments to gain access to even more surveillance capabilities than Pegasus offers, but without risking notoriety in the media, since Toka has long avoided the limelight.
In addition, while Toka professes that its products are only used by “trusted” governments and agencies to combat “terrorism” and maintain order and public safety, the sales pitch for the NSO Group’s Pegasus is remarkably similar, and that sales pitch has not stopped its software from being used to target dissidents, politicians and journalists. It also allows many of the same groups who are Toka clients, like intelligence agencies, to use these tools for the purpose of obtaining blackmail. The use of blackmail by Israeli security agencies against civilian Palestinians to attempt to weaken Palestinian society and for political persecution is well-documented.
Toka has been described by market analysts as an “offensive security” company, though the company’s leadership rejects this characterization. Company co-founder and current CEO Yaron Rosen asserted that, as opposed to purely offensive, the company’s operations are “something in the middle,” which he classifies as bridging cyber defense and offensive cyber activities — e.g., hacking.
The company’s activities are concerning in light of the fact that Toka has been directly partnered with Israel’s Ministry of Defense and other Israeli intelligence and security agencies since its founding. The company “works closely” with these government agencies, according to an Israeli Ministry of Defense website. This collaboration, per Toka, is meant to “enhance” their products. Toka’s direct IDF links are in contrast to the NSO Group, a company that does not maintain overt ties with the Israeli security state.
Toka’s direct collaboration with Israel’s government is also made clear through its claim that it sells its products and offers its services only to “trusted” governments, law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies. Toka’s Rosen has stated that Russia, China, and “other enemy countries” would never be customers of the company. In other words, only countries aligned with Israeli policy goals, particularly in occupied Palestine, are permitted to be customers and gain access to its trove of powerful hacking tools. This is consistent with Israeli government efforts to leverage Israel’s hi-tech sector as a means of countering the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement globally.
Further evidence that Toka is part of this Israeli government effort to seed foreign governments with technology products deeply tied to Israel’s military and intelligence services is the fact that one of the main investors in Toka is Dell Technologies Capital, which is an extension of the well-known tech company Dell. Dell was founded by Michael Dell, a well-known pro-Israel partisan who has donated millions of dollars to the Friends of the IDF and is one of the top supporters of the so-called “anti-BDS” bills that prevent publicly employed individuals or public institutions in several U.S. states from supporting non-violent boycotts of Israel, even on humanitarian grounds. As MintPress previously noted, the fact that a major producer of consumer electronic goods is heavily investing in a company that markets the hacking of that very technology should be a red flag.
The government’s initial admitted use of the hi-tech sector to counter the BDS movement coincided with the launch of a new Israeli military and intelligence agency policy in 2012, whereby “cyber-related and intelligence projects that were previously carried out in-house in the Israeli military and Israel’s main intelligence arms are transferred to companies that, in some cases, were built for this exact purpose.”
One of the reasons this was reportedly launched was to retain members of Unit 8200 engaged in military work who were moving to jobs in the country’s high-paying tech sector. Through this new policy that has worked to essentially merge much of the private tech sector with Israel’s national security state, some Unit 8200 and other intelligence veterans continue their work for the state but benefit from a private sector salary. The end result is that an unknown – and likely very high – number of Israeli tech companies are led by veterans of the Israeli military and Israeli intelligence agencies and serve, for all intents and purposes, as front companies. A closer examination of Toka strongly suggests that it is one such front company.
Toka — born out of Israel’s national security state
The company was co-founded by Ehud Barak, Alon Kantor, Kfir Waldman and retired IDF Brigadier General Yaron Rosen. Rosen, the firm’s founding CEO and now co-CEO, is the former Chief of the IDF’s cyber staff, where he was “the lead architect of all [IDF] cyber activities,” including those executed by Israeli military intelligence Unit 8200. Alon Kantor is the former Vice President of Business Development for Check Point Software, a software and hardware company founded by Unit 8200 veterans. Kfir Waldman is the former CEO of Go Arc and a former Director of Engineering at technology giant Cisco. Cisco is a leader in the field of Internet of Things devices and IoT cybersecurity, while Go Arc focuses on applications for mobile devices. As previously mentioned, Toka hacks not only mobile devices but also has a “special focus” on hacking IoT devices.
In addition to having served as prime minister of Israel, Toka co-founder Ehud Barak previously served as head of Israeli military intelligence directorate Aman, as well as several other prominent posts in the IDF, before eventually leading the Israeli military as minister of defense. While minister of defense, he led Operation Cast Lead against the blockaded Gaza Strip in 2009, which resulted in the deaths of over 1,000 Palestinians and saw Israel illegally use chemical weapons against civilians.
It’s true – they are looking through your trash! Waste Management companies are deploying trucks and dumpsters armed with cameras and AI to monitor your waste. Billionaires like Carlos Slim, George Soros and Bill Gates (plus Blackrock and Vanguard) have ALL invested heavily in these companies to fundamentally transform waste and recycling into the “circular economy” championed by the World Economic Forum.
This presages a system like China’s, where throwing away excessive food waste will penalize your social credit score. In this Ice Age Farmer report, Christian shines a light on this and the myriad other “bars” coming together to form a neo-feudal “prison” system — even as you sit in the comfort of your home. It’s time to put an end to this.
On June 29, 2021, Elon Musk spoke at the Mobile World Congress held in Barcelona, Spain. He said SpaceX presently has about 70,000 active beta testers of the Starlink satellites in 12 countries, and that full, global commercial service will begin in August. Beginning next month, anyone who purchases a user terminal for $500 and pays the
$100 per month subscription fee will have access to high-speed internet by satellite from their home or vehicle anywhere in the world except the polar regions. More than half a million people have already put down a deposit.
In his talk, Musk revealed that the solar array for each satellite generates more than 3,000 watts of actual power. It is these solar arrays that are disturbing both visual and infrared astronomy worldwide. And it is the radiation of (so far) more than 5 megawatts of combined power, focused into (ultimately) millions of powerful beams, that is radically disturbing the electromagnetic environment that we live in, that we evolved in, that surrounds and nurtures us, and that generates the electricity that runs through our veins, guiding our growth, health and life.
Musk also spoke about the gigantic Starship that SpaceX has built, which will be able to lift 150 tons into orbit, that he plans to use to build a base on the Moon and a city on Mars, and that will be ready for its first test launch in just a few months.
He also spoke about what drives him. His goal with SpaceX, he said, is “to extend consciousness beyond earth.” His goal with Tesla, he said, is “to show that life is good on earth, with sustainable energy.” And his goal with his newest company, Neuralink, he said, is “long-term AI/human symbiosis.”
Musk does not seem to know that instead of extending consciousness, he is destroying it; that instead of decreasing the use of fossil fuels, he is consuming phenomenal amounts of them launching his rockets on a soon-to-be daily basis. And he is clueless about radiation. When asked, back in February, whether cell phones are dangerous, he said: “If I had a helmet of cell phones strapped around my head and around my nuts, I would not worry… If you had a helmet that was made of cell phones, you would be fine.” Musk’s comments on radiation begin at minute 1:00 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvbgGUgADAE
I have been receiving inquiries for the past couple of weeks that indicate to me thatanxiety levels may be increasing globally. Please contact me to report any changes(ornot)in yourphysicaloremotionalwell-being.
AnewsurveybyDeloitte found that the average American household contains 25 different wireless devices.
There are smart phones, iPads, Kindles, wifi modems and routers, range extenders, wireless computers, wireless printers, wireless keyboards, wireless mice, wireless speakers, wireless headphones and earpieces, wireless garage door openers, wireless door locks, wireless doorbells, wireless baby monitors, wireless surveillance cameras, wifi video cameras, wifi digital photo frames, smart thermometers, smart thermostats, smart yoga mats, smart indoor lighting, smart security systems, voice controllers, gesture controllers, smart buttons, smart alarm clocks, smart air quality monitors, smart smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, smart navigation systems, connected exercise machines, fitness trackers, sleep trackers, location trackers, blood pressure monitors, heart rate monitors, smart appliances, controllers of smart appliances, ibeacons for home automation, smart ovens, smart irrigation systems, wireless garden sensors, Click and Grow Herb Gardens, smart grill thermometers, smart sprinkler controllers, smart air conditioners, smart TVs, video streaming devices for TVs, wireless gaming consoles, wireless leak detectors, smart watches, smart bracelets, smart air purifiers, smart home vent systems, remote pet feeders, smart light bulbs, bluetooth-connected espresso machines, and bluetooth-connected cookers.
Every one of these devices emits radiation. Every one of these devices, if you have it on your person or in your home, irradiates you and your family and your pets and your neighbors and the birds and bees and animals outside. This situation did not exist at all just 25 years ago and it must stop if we are to have a world to live in much longer. It is not necessary for a phone, computer or anything else to be wireless instead of wired in order for one to communicate and interact with the world.
All over the world, people are protesting against 5G.
InSwitzerland, apopularinitiativetoamendthefederalconstitution to make telecommunications companies liable for personal injury and property damage caused by their transmitters gathered 92,515 signatures. The organizers fell just short of the 100,000 signatures that they needed to collect by July 3 in order to put the initiative on the ballot. They have now submitted the initiative as a petition to the Federal Assembly.
In Italy, in May, the Alleanza Italiana Stop 5G delivered 340,000 signatures to the Minister of Health asking for a moratorium on 5G and the Internet of Things, which theirpetition says is threatening “an electromagnetic overdose that is unprecedented in the history of humanity.” In April, 135 people — politicians, doctors, lawyers, engineers, diplomats, school teachers and others — went on an 18-dayhungerstrike to protest the proposed relaxation of exposure limits for radio- frequency radiation from 6 V/m to 61 V/m. They ended their hunger strike when Parliament removed the proposed text from consideration. But the proposed amendments to the National Recovery and Resilience Plan are back, and Parliament is set to vote on them. Other amendments would prohibit municipalities from regulating the location of cell towers and antennas, and would eliminate all restrictions on telecommunications facilities in national and regional parks and reserves. All this week, from July 12 to July 16, the Alleanza has been holding a national information and media campaign, together with protests at Parliament.
In Montgomery County, Maryland, residents are mobilizing to oppose the adoption of a new zoning amendment that would allow cell towers to be built on the sidewalk 30 feet from homes without any public hearings and without any notice to residents. The City Council of Tacoma Park has written a letter to the County opposing this amendment.
People all over the world are asking for cell towers not to be built and satellites not to be sent into the sky, yet most are holding cell phones in their hands that cannot work without the towers and satellites, and that are creating the demand that is destroying this planet.
People are always writing to me asking “What can I do?” You can throw away your cell phone and get rid of every wireless device that you own. That is within your power and it is the most effective thing that you can do.
The last 21 newsletters, including this one, are available for downloading and sharing on the Newsletters page of the Cellular Phone Task Force. Some of the newsletters are also available there in German, Spanish, Italian and French.
“Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent.”—Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
More to the point, are you required to open the door?
The Biden Administration has announced that it plans to send federal “surge response teams” on a “targeted community door-to-door outreach“ to communities with low vaccination rates in order to promote the safety and accessibility of the COVID-19 vaccines.
That’s all fine and good as far as government propaganda goes, but nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims, especially not when armed, roving bands of militarized agents deployed by the Nanny State show up at your door with an agenda that is at odds with what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional “right to be let alone.”
Any attempt by the government to encroach upon the citizenry’s privacy rights or establish a system by which the populace can be targeted, tracked and singled out must be met with extreme caution. These door-to-door “visits” by COVID-19 surge response teams certainly qualify as a government program whose purpose, while seemingly benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.
First, there is the visit itself.
While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans have a right not to answer questions or even speak with a government agent.
Courts have upheld these “knock and talk” visits as lawful, reasoning that even though the curtilage of the home is protected by the Fourth Amendment, there is an implied license to approach a residence, knock on the door/ring the bell, and seek to contact occupants. However, the encounter is wholly voluntary and a person is under no obligation to speak with a government agent in this situation.
Indeed, you don’t even need to answer or open the door in response to knocking/ringing by a government agent, and if you do answer the knock, you can stop speaking at any time. You also have the right to demand that government agents leave the property once the purpose of the visit is established. Government officials would not be enforcing any law or warrant in this context, and so they don’t have the authority of law to remain on the property after a homeowner or resident specifically revokes the implied license to come onto the property.
When the government’s actions go beyond merely approaching the door and knocking, it risks violating the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant and probable cause of possible wrongdoing in order to search one’s property. A government agent would violate the Fourth Amendment if he snooped around the premises, peering into window and going to other areas in search of residents.
It should be pointed out that some judges (including Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch) believe that placing “No Trespassing” signs or taking other steps to impede access to the door is sufficient to negate any implied permission for government agents or others to approach your home, but this view does not have general acceptance.
While in theory one can refuse to speak with police or other government officials during a “knock and talk” encounter, as the courts have asserted as a justification for dismissing complaints about this police investigative tactic, the reality is far different. Indeed, it is unreasonable to suggest that individuals caught unaware by these tactics will not feel pressured in the heat of the moment to comply with a request to speak with government agents who display official credentials and are often heavily armed, let alone allow them to search one’s property. Even when such consent is denied, police have been known to simply handcuff the homeowner and conduct a search over his objections.
Second, there is the danger inherent in these knock-and-talk encounters.
Although courts have embraced the fiction that “knock and talks” are “voluntary” encounters that are no different from other door-to-door canvassing, these constitutionally dubious tactics are highly intimidating confrontations meant to pressure individuals into allowing police access to one’s home, which then paves the way for a warrantless search of one’s home and property.
The act of going to homes and taking steps to speak with occupants is akin to the “knock and talk” tactic used by police, which can be fraught with danger for homeowners and government agents alike. Indeed, “knock-and-talk” policing has become a thinly veiled, warrantless exercise by which citizens are coerced and intimidated into “talking” with heavily armed police who “knock” on their doors in the middle of the night.
“Knock-and-shoot” policing might be more accurate, however.
“Knock and talks” not only constitute severe violations of the privacy and security of homeowners, but the combination of aggression and surprise employed by police is also a recipe for a violent confrontation that rarely ends well for those on the receiving end of these tactics.
For example, although 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or threatened police, he was gunned down by police who knocked aggressively on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed Scott when he answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense. The police were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.
Carl Dykes was shot in the face by a county deputy who pounded on Dykes’ door in the middle of the night without identifying himself. Because of reports that inmates had escaped from a local jail, Dykes brought a shotgun with him when he answered the door.
As these and other incidents make clear, while Americans have a constitutional right to question the legality of a police action or resist an unlawful police order, doing so can often get one arrested, shot or killed.
Third, there is the question of how the government plans to use the information it obtains during these knock-and-talk visits.
Because the stated purpose of the program is to promote vaccination, homeowners and others who reside at the residence will certainly be asked if they are vaccinated. Again, you have a right not to answer this or any other question. Indeed, an argument could be made that even asking this question is improper if the purpose of the program is merely to ensure that Americans “have the information they need on how both safe and accessible the vaccine is.”
Under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, an agency should only collect and maintain information about an individual as is “relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency.” In this situation, the government agent could accomplish the purpose of assuring persons have information about the vaccine simply by providing that information (either in writing or orally) and would not need to know the vaccination status of the residents. To the extent the agents do request, collect and store information about residents’ vaccination status, this could be a Privacy Act violation.
Of course, there is always the danger that this program could be used for other, more nefarious, purposes not related to vaccination encouragement. As with knock-and-talk policing, government agents might misuse their appearance of authority to gain entrance to a residence and obtain other information about it and those who live there. Once the door is opened by a resident, anything the agents can see from their vantage point can be reported to law enforcement authorities.
Moreover, while presumably the targeting will be of areas with demonstrated low vaccination rates, there is no guarantee that this program would not be used as cover for conducting surveillance on areas deemed to be “high crime” areas as a way of obtaining intelligence for law enforcement purposes.
We’ve been down this road before, with the government sending its spies to gather intel on American citizens by questioning them directly, or by asking their neighbors to snitch on them.
Unlike the traditional census, which collects data every ten years, the American Community Survey (ACS) is sent to about 3 million homes per year at a reported cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, while the traditional census is limited to ascertaining the number of persons living in each dwelling, their ages and ethnicities, the ownership of the dwelling and telephone numbers, the ACS is much more intrusive, asking questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among other highly personal and private matters.
Individuals who receive the ACS must complete it or be subject to monetary penalties. Although no reports have surfaced of individuals actually being penalized for refusing to answer the survey, the potential fines that can be levied for refusing to participate in the ACS are staggering. For every question not answered, there is a $100 fine. And for every intentionally false response to a question, the fine is $500. Therefore, if a person representing a two-person household refused to fill out any questions or simply answered nonsensically, the total fines could range from upwards of $10,000 and $50,000 for noncompliance.
At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), the ACS contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire. These concern matters that the government simply has no business knowing, including questions relating to respondents’ bathing habits, home utility costs, fertility, marital history, work commute, mortgage, and health insurance, among others. For instance, the ACS asks how many persons live in your home, along with their names and detailed information about them such as their relationship to you, marital status, race and their physical, mental and emotional problems, etc. The survey also asks how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have in your house, along with the fuel used to heat your home, the cost of electricity, what type of mortgage you have and monthly mortgage payments, property taxes and so on.
However, that’s not all.
The survey also demands to know how many days you were sick last year, how many automobiles you own and the number of miles driven, whether you have trouble getting up the stairs, and what time you leave for work every morning, along with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. And the survey demands that you violate the privacy of others by supplying the names and addresses of your friends, relatives and employer. The questionnaire also demands that you give other information on the people in your home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak and when they last worked at a job, among other things.
While some of the ACS’ questions may seem fairly routine, the real danger is in not knowing why the information is needed, how it will be used by the government or with whom it will be shared.
Finally, you have the right to say “no.”
Whether police are knocking on your door at 2 am or 2:30 pm, as long as you’re being “asked” to talk to a police officer who is armed to the teeth and inclined to kill at the least provocation, you don’t really have much room to resist, not if you value your life.
Unfortunately, with police departments increasingly shifting towards pre-crime policing and relying on dubious threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state, we’re going to see more of these warrantless knock-and-talk police tactics by which police attempt to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
Here’s the bottom line.
These agents are coming to your home with one purpose in mind: to collect information on you.
It’s a form of intimidation, of course. You shouldn’t answer any questions you’re uncomfortable answering about your vaccine history or anything else. The more information you give them, the more it can be used against you. Just ask them politely but firmly to leave.
In this case, as in so many interactions with government agents, the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments (and your cell phone recording the encounter) are your best protection.
Under the First Amendment, you don’t have to speak (to government officials or anyone else). The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. And under the Fifth Amendment, you have a right to remain silent and not say anything which might be used against you.
You can also post a “No Trespassing” sign on your property to firmly announce that you are exercising your right to be left alone. If you see government officials wandering around your property and peering through windows, in my opinion, you have a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Government officials can ring the doorbell, but once you put them on notice that it’s time for them to leave, they can’t stay on your property.
It’s important to be as clear as possible and inform them that you will call the police if they don’t leave. You may also wish to record your encounter with the government agent. If they still don’t leave, immediately call the local police and report a trespasser on your property.
Remember, you have rights.
The government didn’t want us to know about—let alone assert—those rights during this whole COVID-19 business.
After all, 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 right 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.
But 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.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped the government from constantly trying to usurp our freedoms at every turn. Indeed, the nature of government is such that it invariably oversteps its limits, abuses its authority, and flexes its totalitarian muscles.
Take this COVID-19 crisis, for example.
What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) has become yet another means by which world governments (including our own) can expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents.
The government has made no secret of its plans.
Just follow the money trail, and you’ll get a sense of what’s in store: more militarized police, more SWAT team raids, more surveillance, more lockdowns, more strong-armed tactics aimed at suppressing dissent and forcing us to comply with the government’s dictates.
It’s chilling to think about, but it’s not surprising.
In many ways, this COVID-19 state of emergency has invested government officials (and those who view their lives as more valuable than ours) with a sanctimonious, self-righteous, arrogant, Big Brother Knows Best approach to top-down governing, and the fall-out can be seen far and wide.
It’s an ugly, self-serving mindset that views the needs, lives and rights of “we the people” as insignificant when compared to those in power.
That’s how someone who should know better such as Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, can suggest that a free people—born in freedom, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and living in a country birthed out of a revolutionary struggle for individual liberty—have no rights to economic freedom, to bodily integrity, or to refuse to comply with a government order with which they disagree.
Dershowitz is wrong: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, while the courts may increasingly defer to the government’s brand of Nanny State authoritarianism, we still have rights.
The government may try to abridge those rights, it may refuse to recognize them, it may even attempt to declare martial law and nullify them, but it cannot litigate, legislate or forcefully eradicate them out of existence.
Have you been reading things you shouldn’t online? Have you found yourself feeling frustrated and angry at the corruption of the ruling class, wealth inequality or the general state of the world?
Well then, the chances are good you’ve accidentally been exposed to “misinformation” or “extremist content” spread by “violent groups” in order to manipulate you.
But don’t worry, Facebook is on the case. Simply report the offensive and upsetting materials to your local content controller, and then contact their pre-approved counsellors for immediate de-programming.
If it’s not you that’s been exposed to harmful content, but a loved one, and they’re proving resistant to the proper un-extreming methods, then Facebook is here to help there, too.
Simply confidentially report your friend or family member to the proper authorities, and they’ll take it from there.
Remember that divergence of opinion is dangerous. Under no circumstances consume content that differs from your state-mandated opinions.
Report all infractions, refuse to see harmful facts, be sure to distance yourself from those who refuse to be corrected, for their own good and yours.
Following the (completely contrived) Capitol Hill “riot” on January 6th, Joe Biden made it clear – or rather, the people that control Joe Biden made it clear – “domestic terrorism” was going to be a defining issue of his presidency.
Indeed, in an act of startling prescience, the incoming administration had been talking about a new “Domestic Terrorism Bill” for well over three months before the “riot” happened. The media had been calling for one for at least six. Major universities were writing papers about it.
It’s funny how often that happens, isn’t it?
I wrote at the time that the Capitol Hill “riot” could prove to be America’s Reichstag Fire – a fake attack, blamed on an invisible enemy and used to rush through restrictive legislation and emergency powers. A 9/11 sequel, extending the Patriot Act franchise.
The first thing to say about the “strategy”…is that it’s not really a strategy. It’s more of a mission statement or even a press release. It hits talking points, but not real policies. Its watchword is “vague” – in both definition of the problem and proposed solutions (with a couple of noteworthy exceptions, but we’ll get to that.)
For starters – who or what IS a “domestic terrorist”?
Well, their answer to that is, essentially, potentially anybody. They’re not identifying any particular ideology or cause or group – but rather EVERY ideology cause or group. I wrote, back in January, that any definition would be kept intentionally loose, and the strategy does not disappoint.
The cause of “domestic terrorism” can be racism, religious intolerance, environmental protest, anti-government feeling, animal rights, anti-abortion campaigners, “perceived government overeach”, “incel ideology”, “anti-corporate globalization feeling” or a mixture of any of the above.
“Domestic terrorists” may espouse violence or they may not espouse violence. They may work in groups, or be loners, or be loose associations with no organizational structure. They can be left wing or right wing, religious or secular.
They can be anybody who thinks anything.
There is a lot of entirely intentional vagueness here. Again and again, we are told that “the domestic terrorism threat is complex, multifaceted, and evolving”. They are keeping their options open.
Don’t expect ANY specifics on who is a “domestic terrorist” until AFTER any legislation is passed. That way, the great American public can insert their own personal bugbear into the ellipsis (and then be taken completely by surprise when it turns out the new laws apply to everyone).
That said, there have been some clues as to the kind of person that might be the target of any new anti-terror legislation.
In the Washington Post, in February this year, California State Senator Richard Pam wrote:
Anti-vaccine extremism is akin to domestic terrorism
Even this document makes insinuations on that front.
In a startling contradiction, after spending five or six pages talking up the “complex” and “unpredictable” nature of “domestic terrorism”, they then make an incredibly specific prediction about a future “domestic terrorist attack”:
Taken from the “Assessment of the Domestic Violent Extremism Threat” (p. 10):
Newer sociopolitical developments–such as narratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol, conditions related to the COVID–19 pandemic, and conspiracy theories promoting violence–will almost certainly spur some DVEs to try to engage in violence this year.
Apparently, the official position of the FBI, CIA, NSA and DHS is that domestic terrorism is a vast cloud of mystery, swirling with unknown and conflicting motivations….but they definitely know when the next attack will happen, and why it will take place..
SO WHAT’S TO BLAME?
The evil “domestic terrorists” and “violent extremists” might be widely diverse in their ideologies, social structures, motives and political leanings…but nevertheless, they ALL use the same exact methods of communication, and the same platforms to host their “misinformation”.
It turns out, according to this strategy, there’s really only one thing at the root of all “domestic terrorism”: The internet.
Yes, the vast majority of this “strategy” is focused on the digital world. In only 28 pages of text the words “online”, “social media”, “internet”, “platform”, “encryption”, and “site” occur well over 60 times combined. Here’s some examples:
…social media, file–upload sites, and end–to–end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety…
*
DVEs exploit a variety of popular social media platforms, smaller websites with targeted audiences, and encrypted chat applications to recruit new adherents, plan and rally support for in-person actions, and disseminate materials that contribute to radicalization and mobilization to violence
*
Recruiting and mobilizing individuals to domestic terrorism [is] increasingly happening on Internet–based communications platforms, including social media, online gaming platforms, file–upload sites, and end–to–end encrypted chat platforms
*
…extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.
*
DVE attackers often radicalize independently by consuming violent extremist material online.
It goes on, and on and on in that fashion.
As much as the Deep State talks up the supposedly unknowable nature of “domestic terrorism” early on, they are equally sure that every single one of them is on the net. Which, fortunately from the state’s point of view, means they can all be tackled with the same solution.
WHAT THEY’RE GONNA DO ABOUT IT
You probably don’t need me to tell you what the supposed “solution” to this entirely created “problem” is. It’s the same grab-bag of solutions that a power-hungry state will always seek, given the opportunity. Yes, there’s a token reference to guns and “high-capacity” magazines, but really it’s all about controlling the internet.
Specifically – it’s about surveillance, censorship, and propaganda. The big three.
Of course, the document never ever uses those words. Surveillance is “information gathering”. Propaganda is “messaging” or “education”. Censorship is “countering propaganda” or “working with media partners to remove incitement of violence”.
They use the shifting, indirect language of government, but the meaning is clear if you know how to read it:
…the Department of Homeland Security and others are either currently funding and implementing or planning evidence–based digital programming, including enhancing media literacy and critical thinking skills, as a mechanism for strengthening user resilience to disinformation and misinformation online for domestic audiences. The Department of State and United States Agency for International Development are doing similar work globally.
Translation: The DHS is funding massive propaganda campaigns designed to both brainwash the public, and discourage them from reading any sources which disagree with the official line.
The Department of Homeland Security has expanded its efforts to provide financial, educational, and technical assistance to those well placed to recognize and address possible domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence and will ensure that its counter–domestic terrorism prevention efforts are driven by data and informed by community–based partners.
Translation: DHS is working with social media monopolies to censor certain people, and paying them to pass citizens’ private information to the government and/or intelligence agencies.
Enhancing faith in American democracy demands accelerating work to contend with an information environment that challenges healthy democratic discourse. We will work toward finding ways to counter the influence and impact of dangerous conspiracy theories that can provide a gateway to terrorist violence.
Translation: “Enhancing faith in democracy” means censoring anybody who posts evidence that elections are fixed, that the political class is corrupt or that the media are servants of the state who peddle lies for cash.
And then there are some phrases that need no translation at all:
the Department of Justice is examining carefully what new authorities might be necessary and appropriate.
…seems pretty clear.
The obvious end goal here is new legislation granting greater powers to the state.
THE NATURE OF “VIOLENCE”
Time to address the elephant in the room: “violence”. The word is used a lot in the report. One-hundred and eleven times in 28 pages. It’s never just “extremism” when it can be “violent extremism”. But what does that word really mean in this context?
The answer to that is “absolutely nothing”. It is a phrase robbed of meaning. Applied on an ad hoc basis, based on political convenience rather than physical reality.
A reminder that this is described as “violent extremism”:
And this as “mostly peaceful”:
And this is “inciting violence”:
If the President of the United States can be deleted from the internet, impeached and tried before the Senate because “go home in peace and love” and “stay peaceful” are “inciting violence”, then the word is totally meaningless and we should simply ignore it.
Essentially, they have demonstrated they will classify anything they want as violent, and ignore any actual violence if they need to.
THE ROLE OF IDENTITY POLITICS
I doubt any White House policy announcement has ever leaned so heavily into the politics of identity before now. “Hatred”, “bigotry”, “LGBTQI+” “racism”…and so on. They all get a lot of mentions. But why?
Well, the simple answer is camouflage. Generally, by draping the inevitable Patriot Act 2.0 in the language of identity, they can trick “liberals” into believing it’s some kind of progressive policy.
More specifically, they can align “anti-government” with “white-supremacy”, as if they are always the same. In this sentence for example:
Today’s domestic terrorists espouse a range of violent ideological motivations, including racial or ethnic bigotry and hatred as well as anti–government or anti–authority sentiment…
Look at the other causes listed alongside “White supremacy” in this document: “perceived government overreach”, “anti-corporate globalization”, “opposing government institutions”, “anti-authority sentiment”. Rational, reasonable anti-government positions, bracketed alongside bigotry and racism.
General Mark Miley recently testified in front of the senate about how the need to “understand white rage”.
As Glen Greenwald wrote, this is not about racism, but about aligning the “progressive left” with the military. Turning militaristic, totalitarian Imperialism into a progressive cause, whilst smearing all those who oppose it as bigots and potential “domestic terrorists”.
THE WAY AHEAD
This strategy is just the latest domino put in place. It’s a long con, with multiple moving pieces, but the end is clear. Though this document is deliberaletely cagy about the possibility of new legislation, that is all part of the dance.
The manipulation of the public has been government practice since the dawn of time. The contrived public reticence to act, concealing intrigues behind the scenes which create an apparent need for action. Eventually, the public will beg the state to “do something”, and they’ll unveil the something they were planning the whole time. Tale as old as time. True as it can be.
This is no different.
Only last night, the US Senate voted to create a “select committee” investigating the Capitol Hill riot. This political pantomime will roll on for a few weeks with “shocking testimony” from FBI agents and military intelligence operatives.
They will detail how “misinformation radicalised people online”, alongside admitting they “had knowledge, but lacked the power to act” or that “counter-terrorism forces were focused on foreign groups” and/or lacked “legal authority” to surveil domestic threats. There will be a couple of throwaway admissions, something akin to a “failure of imagination”.
Senators from liberal states will make speeches about how the military/CIA/FBI are institutionally racist because they assumed white people can’t be terrorists, and a few willing uniformed fall guys will look appropriately shame-faced behind their medals.
There will be no real inquest, and no new information. It will be an exercise in reinforcing an entirely fake reality. And the final findings will be that the FBI/CIA/NSA…or whoever…needs more money and power. A new bill (likely already written) will be pushed into the hands of some hip “liberal” politician, who will do a decent job pretending they wrote it.
If there is any noteworthy public objection to the new powers, well then we’ll see another “domestic terrorist” attack. Maybe there’ll be one anyway, just to underline how vital the new bill is. (They’re prepping us already, with the DHS warning about attacks on July 4th and a possible “summer of violence”).
And then, stirring itself to act only at the insistence of the Democrat-controlled Senate, the White House will sign-off on its Patriot Act 2.0.
The final paragraph of the strategy document reads:
This document represents that Strategy – a Strategy whose implementation is, already, well underway.
Vaccine “passports” being put in place by the European Union and Australia as well as some U.S. states and businesses are one of the more alarming instruments advancing the “heart and soul of Technocracy and Scientific Dictatorship.”
As must be increasingly apparent to anyone capable of digging beneath the media’s daily outpouring of Orwellian propaganda, the planet-wide changes ushered in by the conveniently timed COVID crisis have surprisingly little to do with health. Facilitated by big tech, big military, big pharma’s injectable operating systems and other tools of “biofascism,” the takeover being engineered by private central bankers and their technocratic partners represents no less than a complete end-run around human freedom.
So-called vaccine “passports” or “certificates,” being put in place by the European Union and Australia as well as some U.S. states and businesses, are one of the more alarming instruments advancing this tyrannical centralization and control agenda. Not one to mince words, author Naomi Wolf makes the case that the “passports,” if allowed to become the norm, could trigger “the end of civil society” and “literally the end of human liberty in the West.”
Why is there such a strong push to make travel and commerce contingent on vaccine passports? One important answer, well understood by Wolf as CEO of a tech company, is “location intelligence” — what technocracy expert Patrick Wood calls the “heart and soul of Technocracy and Scientific Dictatorship.” Without irony, the champions of location data rhapsodize that such data are “a powerful way to connect people to place, transactions to actions, responses to trends, and customers to where they do business and the kind of business they do” — ultimately facilitating the “digital transformation of society on the whole.”
Less cheerfully, technocrats understand, even if the general public does not, that location data permit control at the most granular levels and provide “a platform for understanding what’s going on at all scales.” This point was disturbingly illustrated in a June 21 study in JAMA Internal Medicine, which essentially denounced “small and informal social gatherings,” positing that children’s birthday parties are potential hotbeds of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
This willingness on the part of technocracy’s foot soldiers to be party poopers — literally — would be silly were it not for the study’s baleful messaging, which confirms Wolf’s concerns that we are not only in a battle for liberty but in “a war against human beings and the qualities that make us human.”
No fun allowed
On its webpage devoted to “small gatherings,” updated May 6, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) addresses the topic of social gatherings with family and friends, “such as small holiday parties, family dinners and small special celebrations.” To make such events “safer,” CDC counsels hosts and attendees to limit the number of guests, wear a mask “with two or more layers…indoors and outdoors except when eating or drinking,” socially distance, avoid handshakes and hugs, supply one’s own food and dishes — and (precluding any “Happy Birthday” songs) avoid any loud cheering or singing. Better yet, CDC says, simply have a virtual gathering!
The JAMA birthday party study helpfully reinforces the CDC’s dour advice. Conducted by private-sector researchers from RAND Corporation, Harvard and “healthcare navigation” company Castlight Health, the study looked at privately insured households whose members did or did not have a birthday in the preceding two weeks and county-level COVID-19 prevalence data — but included no data from actual social gatherings.
Taken at face value, one can see how the study’s take-home message — that households in certain counties were possibly a little bit more likely to receive a COVID diagnosis subsequent to an adult or child having a birthday — could direct worriers toward the CDC’s “virtual gathering” solution. However, one needs to parse the study’s definition of risk. As has become par for the course in risk pronouncements designed to steer COVID-related behavior in a particular direction, the researchers said nothing about absolute risk, even though many consider absolute risk statistics to be “the most useful way of presenting research results to help … decision-making.”
Thus, while the study reported a 31% “relative increase” in COVID diagnoses “associated with birthdays” — a finding, moreover, that pertained solely to households in the 10% of counties with the highest background prevalence of COVID — the increased absolute risk (again, only in the 10% of high-background-prevalence counties) amounted to a flimsy 0.086 increase over the COVID “background rate” of .278/100. Nevertheless, the researchers augmented their antisocial message with the conclusion that “policy interventions designed to limit disease transmission should also focus on informal gatherings.”
Defending freedom
The heavy-handed marketing of COVID injections and COVID vaccine passports as tickets to “freedom” has brought George Orwell’s inverted “freedom is slavery” logic fully to the fore. The “appendix” to 1984 explains that while the fictional totalitarian regime Oceania could readily condone use of the word “free” in statements such as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds,” usages such as “politically free” or “intellectually free” had gone entirely and intentionally extinct because the concepts themselves had been erased.
The alarming rapidity with which the U.S. and once “robust” Western democracies were able to implement “elements of a locked-in, 360-degree totalitarianism” was facilitated not just by a heretofore unimaginable level of global policy coordination but also by the public’s complacency. The pressing question of the day, therefore, is whether citizens will continue to tolerate blatant efforts to memory-hole freedom.
Lobbying for COVID vaccine mandates and passports in the U.S., one of the latest darlings of vaccine coercion recently argued that the Biden administration “shouldn’t be so squeamish about vaccine verification,” openly calling mandates and “verification” desirable tools to “push [the unvaccinated] in the right direction.”
And if we are to believe Gallup poll propaganda, more than half of Americans are already on board, supporting policies such as having to show proof of vaccination to fly or attend sporting events or concerts. On the other hand, in an “unscientific” poll on independent journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s website, 97% of respondents answered “absolutely not!” to the question “Do you support requiring ‘vaccine passports’?”
The dispiriting cold water now being thrown on children’s birthday parties is part and parcel of a set of COVID-inaugurated policies that, in Naomi Wolf’s words, “seem designed to ensure that humans will have no ‘analog’ space or ‘analog’ culture left — no way to feel comfortable simply gathering in a room, touching one another as friends or allies, or joining together.”
Fortunately, as writer Allan Stevo has noted, Americans “are becoming increasingly firm and resolute” about freedom, “saying ‘Yes!’ to good things” and “saying ‘No!’ to bad things” — and that, says Stevo, “is exactly how bad times turn into good times.”
The world’s richest medical research foundation, the Wellcome Trust, has teamed up with a pair of former DARPA directors who built Silicon Valley’s skunkworks to usher in an age of nightmarish surveillance, including for babies as young as three months old. Their agenda can only advance if we allow it.
A UK nonprofit with ties to global corruption throughout the COVID-19 crisis as well as historical and current ties to the UK eugenics movement launched a global health-focused DARPA equivalent last year. The move went largely unnoticed by both mainstream and independent media.
The Wellcome Trust, which has arguably been second only to Bill Gates in its ability to influence events during the COVID-19 crisis and vaccination campaign, launched its own global equivalent of the Pentagon’s secretive research agency last year, officially to combat the “most pressing health challenges of our time.” Though first conceived of in 2018, this particular Wellcome Trust initiative was spun off from the Trust last May with $300 million in initial funding. It quickly attracted two former DARPA executives, who had previously served in the upper echelons of Silicon Valley, to manage and plan its portfolio of projects.
This global health DARPA, known as Wellcome Leap, seeks to achieve “breakthrough scientific and technological solutions” by or before 2030, with a focus on “complex global health challenges.” The Wellcome Trust is open about how Wellcome Leap will apply the approaches of Silicon Valley and venture capital firms to the health and life science sector. Unsurprisingly, their three current programs are poised to develop incredibly invasive tech-focused, and in some cases overtly transhumanist, medical technologies, including a program exclusively focused on using artificial intelligence (AI), mobile sensors, and wearable brain-mapping tech for children three years old and younger.
This Unlimited Hangout investigation explores not only the four current programs of Wellcome Leap but also the people behind it. The resulting picture is of an incredibly sinister project that poses not only a great threat to current society but to the future of humanity itself. An upcoming Unlimited Hangout investigation will examine the history of the Wellcome Trust along with its role in recent and current events.
Leap’s Leadership: Merging Man and Machine for the Military and Silicon Valley
The ambitions of the Wellcome Leap are made clear by the woman chosen to lead it, former director of the Pentagon’s DARPA, Regina Dugan. Dugan began her career at DARPA in 1996; she led a counterterrorism task force in 1999 before leaving DARPA about a year later. After departing DARPA, she cofounded her own venture capital firm, Dugan Ventures, and then became special adviser to the US Army’s vice chief of staff from 2001 to 2003, which coincided with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2005, she created a defense-focused tech firm called RedXDefense, which contracts with the military and specifically for DARPA.
In 2009, under the Obama administration, Dugan was appointed director of DARPA by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Much was made over her being the first female director of the agency, but she is best remembered at the agency for her so-called “Special Forces” approach to innovation. During her tenure, she created DARPA’s now defunct Transformational Convergence Technology Office, which focused on social networks, synthetic biology, and machine intelligence. Many of the themes previously managed by that office are now overseen by DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office, which was created in 2014 and focuses on everything “from programmable microbes to human-machine symbiosis.” The Biological Technologies Office, like Wellcome Leap, pursues a mix of “health-focused” biotechnology programs and transhumanist endeavors.
While Dugan’s efforts at DARPA are remembered fondly by those in the national-security state, and also by those in Silicon Valley, Dugan was investigated for conflicts of interest during her time as DARPA’s director, as her firm RedXDefense acquired millions in Department of Defense contracts during her tenure. Though she had recused herself from any formal role at the company while leading DARPA, she continued to hold a significant financial stake in the company, and a military investigation later found she had violated ethics rules to a significant degree.
Instead of being held accountable in any way, Dugan went on to become a top executive at Google, where she was brought on to manage Google’s Advanced Technology and Products Group (ATAP), which it had spun out of Motorola Mobility after Google’s acquisition of that company in 2012. Google’s ATAP was modeled after DARPA and employed other ex-DARPA officials besides Dugan.
At Google, Dugan oversaw several projects, including what is now the basis of Google’s “augmented reality” business, then known as Project Tango, as well as “smart” clothing in which multitouch sensors were woven into textiles. Another project that Dugan led involved the use of a “digital tattoo” to unlock smartphones. Perhaps most controversially, Dugan was also behind the creation of a “digital authentication pill.” According to Dugan, when the pill is swallowed, “your entire body becomes your authentication token.” Dugan framed the pill and many of her other efforts at Google as working to fix “the mechanical mismatch between humans and electronics” by producing technology that merges the human body with machines to varying degrees. While serving in this capacity at Google, Dugan chaired a panel at the 2013 Clinton Global Initiative called “Game-Changers in Technology” and attended the 2015 Bilderberg meeting where AI was a main topic of discussion.
In 2016, Dugan left Google for Facebook where she was chosen to be the first head of Facebook’s own DARPA-equivalent research agency, then known as Building 8. DARPA’s ties to the origins of Facebook were discussed in a recent Unlimited Hangout report. Under Dugan, Building 8 invested heavily in brain-machine interface technology, which has since produced the company’s “neural wearable” wristbands that claim to be able to anticipate movements of the hand and fingers from brain signals alone. Facebook showcased prototypes of the project earlier this year.
Dugan left Facebook just eighteen months after joining Building 8, announcing her plans “to focus on building and leading a new endeavor,” which was apparently a reference to Wellcome Leap. Dugan later said it was as if she had been training for her role at Wellcome Leap ever since entering the workforce, framing it as the pinnacle of her career. When asked in an interview earlier this year who the clients of Wellcome Leap are, Dugan gave a long-winded answer but essentially responded that the project serves the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, international organizations such as the UN, and public-private partnerships.
In addition to her role at Wellcome, Dugan is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored taskforce on US Technology and Innovation policy, which was formed in 2019. Other members include LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman, McKinsey Institute Global Chairman James Manyika, former head of Google Eric Schmidt and President Biden’s controversial top science adviser Eric Lander.
The other executive at Wellcome Leap, chief operating officer Ken Gabriel, has a background closely tied to Dugan’s. Gabriel, like Dugan, is a former program manager at DARPA, where he led the agency’s microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) research from 1992 to 1996. He served as deputy director of DARPA from 1995 to 1996 and became director of the Electronics Technology Office from 1996 to 1997, where he was reportedly responsible for about half of all federal electronics-technology investments. At DARPA, Gabriel worked closely with the FBI and the CIA.
Gabriel left DARPA for Carnegie Mellon University, where he was in charge of the Office for Security Technologies in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. That office was created after 9/11 specifically to help meet the national-security needs of the federal government, according to Carnegie Mellon’s announcement of the program. Around that same time, Gabriel became regarded as “the architect of the MEMS industry” due to his past work at DARPA and his founding of the MEMS-focused semiconductor company Akustica in 2002. He served as Akustica’s chairman and chief technology officer until 2009, at which time he returned to work at DARPA where he served as the agency’s deputy director, working directly under Regina Dugan.
In 2012, Gabriel followed Dugan to Google’s Advanced Technology and Products Group, which he was actually responsible for creating. According to Gabriel, Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin tasked Gabriel with creating “a private sector ground-up model of DARPA” out of Motorola Mobility. Regina Dugan was placed in charge, and Gabriel again served as her deputy. In 2013, Dugan and Gabriel co-wrote a piece for the Harvard Business Review about how DARPA’s “Special Forces” innovation approach could revolutionize both the public and private sectors if more widely applied. Gabriel left Google in 2014, well before Dugan, to serve as the president and CEO of Charles Stark Draper Laboratories, better known as Draper Labs, which develops “innovative technology solutions” for the national-security community, with a focus on biomedical systems, energy, and space technology. Gabriel held that position until he abruptly resigned in 2020 to co-lead Wellcome Leap with Dugan.
In addition to his role at Wellcome, Gabriel is also a World Economic Forum “technology pioneer” and on the board of directors of Galvani Bioelectronics, a joint venture of GlaxoSmithKline, which is intimately linked to the Wellcome Trust, and the Google subsidiary Verily. Galvani focuses on the development of “bioelectronic medicines” that involve “implant-based modulation of neural signals” in an overt push by the pharmaceutical industry and Silicon Valley to normalize transhumanist “medicines.” The longtime chairman of the board of Galvani, on which Gabriel serves, was Moncef Slaoui, who led the US COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution program Operation Warp Speed. Slaoui was relieved of his position at Galvani this past March over well-substantiated claims of sexual harassment.
Jeremy Farrar, Pandemic Narrative Manager
While Dugan and Gabriel ostensibly lead the outfit, Wellcome Leap is the brainchild of Jeremy Farrar and Mike Ferguson, who serve as its directors. Farrar is the director of the Wellcome Trust itself, and Ferguson is deputy chair of the Trust’s board of governors. Farrar has been director of the Wellcome Trust since 2013 and has been actively involved in critical decision making at the highest level globally since the beginning of the COVID crisis. He is also an agenda contributor to the World Economic Forum and cochaired the WEF’s Africa meeting in 2019.
Farrar’s Wellcome Trust is also a WEF strategic partner and cofounded the COVID Action Platform with the WEF. Farrar was more recently behind the creation of Wellcome’s COVID-Zero initiative, which is also tied to the WEF. Farrar has framed that initiative as “an opportunity for companies to advance the science which will eventually reduce business disruption.” Thus far it has convinced titans of finance, including Mastercard and Citadel, to invest millions in research and development at organizations favored by the Wellcome Trust.
Some of Wellcome’s controversial medical-research projects in Africa, as well as its ties to the UK eugenics movement, were explored in a December article published at Unlimited Hangout. That report also explores the intimate connections of Wellcome to the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, the use of which has now been restricted or banned in several countries. As mentioned in the introduction, the Wellcome Trust itself is the subject of an upcoming Unlimited Hangout investigation (Part 2).
Jeremy Farrar, who was born in Singapore in 1961, had previously been director of the Oxford University Clinical Research Unit in Ho Chi Minh City, beginning in 1998. During that time, he authored numerous epidemiological research papers. He claimed in a 2014 Financial Times article that his decision to move to Vietnam was due to his disdain for conference halls full of white men. Southeast Asia was obviously a much less regulated environment for someone in the medical-research industry wishing to indulge in groundbreaking research. Although based in Vietnam, Farrar was sent by Oxford to various locations around the globe to study epidemics happening in real time. In 2009, when swine flu was wreaking havoc in Mexico, Farrar jumped on a plane to dive right into the action, something he also did for subsequent global outbreaks of Ebola, MERS, and avian flu.
Over the past year, many questions have arisen regarding exactly how much power Farrar wields over global public health policy. Recently, the US president’s chief medical adviser, Anthony Fauci, was forced to release his emails and correspondence from March and April 2020 at the request of the Washington Post. The released emails reveal what appears to be a high-level conspiracy by some of the top medical authorities in the US to falsely claim that COVID-19 could only have been of zoonotic origin, despite indications to the contrary. The emails were heavily redacted as such emails usually are, supposedly to protect the information of the people involved, but the “(b)(6)” redactions also protect much of Jeremy Farrar’s input into these discussions. Chris Martenson, economic researcher and post-doctorate student of neurotoxicology and founder of Peak Prosperity, has had some insightful comments on the matter, including asking why such protection has been offered to Farrar given that he is the director of a “charitable trust.” Martenson went on to question why the Wellcome Trust was involved at all in these high-level discussions.
One Fauci email, dated February 25, 2020, and sent by Amelie Rioux of the WHO, stated that Jeremy Farrar’s official role at that time was “to act as the board’s focal point on the COVID-19 outbreak, to represent and advise the board on the science of the outbreak and the financing of the response.” Farrar had previously chaired the WHO’s Scientific Advisory Council. The emails also show the preparation, within a ten-day period, of the SARS-CoV-2 “‘origins” paper, which was entitled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” and was accepted for publication by Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020. The paper claimed that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could only have come from natural origins as opposed to gain-of-function research, a claim once held as gospel in the mainstream but which has come under considerable scrutiny in recent weeks.
Shaping the presentation of an origin story for a virus of global significance is something Farrar has been involved with before. In 2004–5, it was reported that Farrar and his Vietnamese colleague Tran Tinh Hien, the vice director at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, were the first to identify the re-emergence of the avian flu (H5N1) in humans. Farrar has recounted the origin story on many occasions, stating: “It was a little girl. She caught it from a pet duck that had died and she’d dug up and reburied. She survived.” According to Farrar, this experience prompted him to found a global network in conjunction with the World Health Organization to “improve local responses to disease outbreaks.”
An article published by Rockefeller University Press’s Journal of Experimental Medicine in 2009 is dramatically titled, “Jeremy Farrar: When Disaster Strikes.” Farrar, when referring to the H5N1 origin story stated: “The WHO people—and this is not a criticism—decided it was unlikely that the child had SARS or avian influenza. They left, but Professor Hien stayed behind to talk with the child and her mum. The girl admitted that she had been quite sad in the previous days with the death of her pet duck. The girl and her brother had fought over burying the duck and, because of this argument, she had gone back, dug up the duck, and reburied it—probably so her brother wouldn’t know where it was buried. With that history, Professor Hien phoned me at home and said he was worried about the child. He took some swabs from the child’s nose and throat and brought them back to the hospital. That night the laboratory ran tests on the samples, and they were positive for Influenza A.”
With Farrar now having been revealed as an instrumental part of the team that crafted the official story regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2, his previous assertions about the origin of past epidemics should be scrutinized.
As the director of a “charitable trust,” Jeremy Farrar is almost completely unaccountable for his involvement in crafting controversial narratives related to the COVID crisis. He continues to be at the forefront of the global response to COVID, in part by launching the Wellcome Leap Fund for “unconventional projects, funded at scale” as an overt attempt to create a global and “charitable” version of DARPA. Indeed, Farrar, in conceiving Wellcome Leap, has positioned himself to be just as, if not more, instrumental in building the foundation for the post-COVID era as he was in building the foundation for the COVID crisis itself. This is significant as Wellcome Leap CEO Regina Dugan has labeled COVID-19 this generation’s “Sputnik moment” that will launch a new age of “health innovation,” much like the launching of Sputnik started a global technological “space age.” Wellcome Leap fully intends to lead the pack.
“Rulers” of the Gene-Sequencing Industry
In contrast to the overt DARPA, Silicon Valley, and Wellcome connections of the others, the chairman of the board of directors of Wellcome Leap, Jay Flatley, has a different background. Flatley is the long-time head of Illumina, a California-based gene-sequencing hardware and software giant that is believed to currently dominate the field of genomics. Though he stepped down from the board of Illumina in 2016, he has continued to serve as the executive chairman of its board of directors. Flatley was the first to be chosen for a leadership position at Wellcome Leap, and he was responsible for suggesting Regina Dugan for the organization’s chief executive officer, according to a recent interview given by Dugan.
As a profile on Illumina in the business magazine Fast Company notes, Illumina “operates behind the scenes, selling hardware and services to companies and research institutions,” among them 23andMe. 23andMe’s CEO, Anne Wojcicki, the sister of YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki and the wife of Google cofounder Sergey Brin, told Fast Company, “It’s crazy. Illumina is like the ruler of this whole universe and no one knows that.” The report notes that 23andMe, like most companies that offer DNA sequencing and analysis to consumers, uses machines produced by Illumina.
In 2016, Illumina launched an “aggressive” five-year plan to “bring genomics out of research labs and into doctors’ offices.” Given the current state of things, particularly the global push toward gene-focused vaccines and therapies, that plan, which concludes this year, could not have been any better timed. Illumina’s current CEO, Francis DeSouza, previously held key posts at Microsoft and Symantec. Also in 2016, Illumina’s executive teams forecast a future in which humans are gene tested from birth to grave for both health and commercial purposes.
Whereas most companies have struggled financially during the coronavirus pandemic, some have seen a massive increase in profits. Illumina has witnessed its share price double since the start of the COVID crisis. The company’s $1 billion plus in profits during the last tax year was obviously helped by the quick approval of the NovaSEQ 6000 machines, which can test a large number of COVID samples more quickly than other devices. An individual machine has a hefty price tag of almost $1 million, and thus they are mostly found at elite facilities, private labs, and top-tier universities.
In addition to his long-standing leadership role at Illumina, Jay Flatley is also a “digital member” of the World Economic Forum as well as the lead independent director of Zymergen, a WEF “tech pioneer” company that is “rethinking biology and reimagining the world.” Flatley, who has also attended several Davos meetings, has addressed the WEF on the “promise of precision [i.e., gene-specific] medicine.” At another WEF panel meeting, Flatley, alongside UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock, promoted the idea of making genomic sequencing of babies at birth the norm, claiming it had “the potential to shift the healthcare system from reactive to preventative.” Some at the panel called for the genomic sequencing of infants to eventually become mandatory.
Aside from Flatley as an individual, Illumina as a company is a WEF partner and plays a key role in its platform regarding the future of health care. A top Illumina executive also serves on the WEF’s Global Future Council on Biotechnology.
A New HOPE
Wellcome Leap currently has four programs: Multi-Stage Psych, Delta Tissue, 1KD, and HOPE. HOPE was the first program to be announced by Wellcome Leap and stands for Human Organs, Physiology and Engineering. According to the full program description, HOPE aims “to leverage the power of bioengineering to advance stem cells, organoids, and whole organ systems and connections that recapitulate human physiology in vitro and restore vital functions in vivo.”
HOPE consists of two main program goals. First, it seeks to “bioengineer a multiorgan platform that recreates human immunological responses with sufficient fidelity to double the predictive value of a preclinical trial with respect to efficacy, toxicity and immunogenicity for therapeutic interventions.” In other words, this bioengineered platform mimicking human organs would be used to test the effects of pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, which could create a situation in which animal trials are replaced with trials on gene-edited and farmed organs. Though such an advance would certainly be helpful in the sense of reducing often unethical animal experimentation, trusting such a novel system to allow medical treatments to go straight to the human-testing phase would also require trusting the institutions developing that system and its funders.
As it stands now, the Wellcome Trust has too many ties to corrupt actors in the pharmaceutical industry, having originally begun as the “philanthropic” arm of UK drug giant GlaxoSmithKline, for anyone to trust what they are producing without actual independent confirmation, given the histories of some of their partners in fudging both animal and human clinical trial data for vaccines and other products.
The second goal of HOPE is to open up the use of machine-human hybrid organs for transplantation into human beings. That goal focuses on restoring “organ functions using cultivated organs or biological/synthetic hybrid systems” with the later goal of bioengineering a fully transplantable human organ after several years.
Later on in the program description, however, the interest in merging the synthetic and biological becomes clearer when it states: “The time is right to foster synergies between organoids, bioengineering and immunoengineering technologies, and advance the state-of-the-art of in vitro human biology . . . by building controllable, accessible and scalable systems.” The program description document also notes the interest of Wellcome in genetic-engineering approaches for the “enhancement of desired properties and insertion of traceable markers” and Wellcome’s ambition to reproduce the building blocks of the human immune system and human organ systems through technological means.
Transhumanist Toddlers?
The second program to be pursued by Wellcome Leap is called “The First 1000 Days: Promoting Healthy Brain Networks,” which is abbreviated as 1KD by the organization. It is arguably the most unsettling program because it seeks to use young children, specifically infants from three months to three-year-old toddlers, as its test subjects. The program is being overseen by Holly Baines, who previously served as strategy development lead for the Wellcome Trust before joining Wellcome Leap as the 1KD program leader.
1KD is focused on developing “objective, scalable ways to assess a child’s cognitive health” by monitoring the brain development and function of infants and toddlers, allowing practitioners to “risk-stratify children” and “predict responses to interventions” in developing brains.
The program description document notes that, up to this point in history, “our primary window into the developing brain has been neuroimaging techniques and animal models, which can help identify quantitative biomarkers of [neural] network health and characterise network differences underlying behaviours.” It then states that advances in technology “are opening additional possibilities in young infants.”
The program description goes on to say that artificial neural networks, a form of AI, “have demonstrated the viability of modelling network pruning process and the acquisition of complex behaviours in much the same way as a developing brain,” while improvements in machine learning, another subset of AI, can now be used to extract “meaningful signals” from the brains of infants and young children. These algorithms can then be used to develop “interventions” for young children deemed by other algorithms to be in danger of having underdeveloped brain function.
The document goes on to note the promise of “low-cost mobile sensors, wearables and home-based systems” in “providing a new opportunity to assess the influence and dependency of brain development on natural physical and social interactions.” In other words, this program seeks to use “continuous visual and audio recordings in the home” as well as wearable devices on children to collect millions upon millions of data points. Wellcome Leap describes these wearables as “relatively unobtrusive, scalable electronic badges that collect visual, auditory and motion data as well as interactive features (such as turn-taking, pacing and reaction times).” Elsewhere in the document there is a call to develop “wearable sensors that assess physiological measures predictive of brain health (e.g., electrodermal activity, respiratory rate, and heart rate) and wireless wearable EEG or eye-tracking technology” for use in infants and children three and under.
Like other Wellcome Leap programs, this technology is being developed with the intention of making it mainstream in medical science within the next five to ten years, meaning that this system—although framed as a way to monitor children’s brain functioning to improve cognitive outcomes—is a recipe for total surveillance of babies and very young children as well as a means for altering their brain functioning as algorithms and Leap’s programmers see fit.
1DK has two main program goals. The first is to “develop a fully integrated model and quantitive measurement tools of network development in the first 1000 days [of life], sufficient to predict EF [executive function] formation before a child’s first birthday.” Such a model, the description reads, “should predict contributions of nutrition, the microbiome and the genome” on brain formation as well as the effects of “sensimotor and social interactions [or lack thereof] on network pruning processes” and EF outcomes. The second goal makes it clear that widespread adoption of such neurological-monitoring technologies in young children and infants is the endgame for 1DK. It states that the program plans to “create scalable methods for optimising promotion, prevention, screening and therapeutic interventions to improve EF by at least 20% in 80% of children before age 3.”
True to the eugenicist ties of the Wellcome Trust (to be explored more in-depth in Part 2), Wellcome Leap’s 1DK notes that “of interest are improvements from underdeveloped EF to normative or from normative to well-developed EF across the population to deliver the broadest impact.” One of the goals of 1DK is thus not treating disease or addressing a “global health public challenge” but instead experimenting on the cognitive augmentation of children using means developed by AI algorithms and invasive surveillance-based technology.
Another unsettling aspect of the program is its plan to “develop an in vitro 3D brain assembloid that replicates the time formation” of a developing brain that is akin to the models developed by monitoring the brain development of infants and children. Later on, the program description calls this an “in-silico” model of a child’s brain, something of obvious interest to transhumanists who see such a development as a harbinger of the so-called singularity. Beyond that, it appears that this in-silico and thus synthetic model of the brain is planned to be used as the “model” to which infant and children brains are shaped by the “therapeutic interventions” mentioned elsewhere in the program description.
It should be clear how sinister it is that an organization that brings together the worst “mad scientist” impulses of both the NGO and military-research worlds is openly planning to conduct such experiments on the brains of babies and toddlers, viewing them as datasets and their brains as something to be “pruned” by machine “intelligence.” Allowing such a program to advance unimpeded without pushback from the public would mean permitting a dangerous agenda targeting society’s youngest and most vulnerable members to potentially advance to a point where it is difficult to stop.
A “Tissue Time Machine”
The third and second-most recent program to join the Wellcome Leap lineup is called Delta Tissue, abbreviated by the organization as ΔT. Delta Tissue aims to create a platform that monitors changes in human-tissue function and interactions in real time, ostensibly to “explain the status of a disease in each person and better predict how that disease would progress.” Referring to this platform as a “tissue time machine,” Wellcome Leap sees Delta Tissue as being able to predict the onset of disease before it occurs while also allowing for medical interventions that “are targeted to the individual.”
Well before the COVID era, precision medicine or medicine “targeted or tailored to the individual” has been a code phrase for treatments based on patients’ genetic data and/or for treatments that alter nucleic acid (e.g., DNA and RNA) function itself. For instance, the US government defines “precision medicine” as “an emerging approach for disease treatment and prevention that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle for each person.” Similarly, a 2018 paper published in Technology notes that, in oncology, “precision and personalized medicine . . . fosters the development of specialized treatments for each specific subtype of cancer, based on the measurement and manipulation of key patient genetic and omic data (transcriptomics, metabolomics, proteomics, etc.).”
Prior to COVID-19 and the vaccine roll outs, the mRNA vaccine technology used by the DARPA-funded companies Moderna and Pfizer were marketed as being precision medicine treatments and were largely referred to as “gene therapies” in media reports. They were also promoted heavily as a revolutionary method of treating cancer, making it unsurprising that the Delta Tissue program at Wellcome Leap would use a similar justification to develop a program that aims to offer tailored gene therapies to people before the onset of a disease.
This Delta Tissue platform works to combine “the latest cell and tissue profiling technologies with recent advances in machine learning,” that is, AI. Given Wellcome Leap’s connections to the US military, it is worth noting that the Pentagon and Google, both former employers of Wellcome Leap CEO Regina Dugan and COO Ken Gabriel, have been working together since last September on using AI to predict disease in humans, first focusing on cancer before expanding to COVID-19 and every disease in between. The Delta Tissue program appears to have related ambitions, as its program description makes clear that the program ultimately aims to use its platform for a host of cancers and infectious diseases.
The ultimate goal of this Wellcome Leap program is “to eradicate the stubbornly challenging diseases that cause so much suffering around the world.” It plans to do this through AI algorithms, however, which are never 100 percent accurate in their predictive ability, and with gene-editing treatments, nearly all of which are novel and have not been well tested. That latter point is important given that one of the main methods for gene-editing in humans, CRISPR, has been found in numerous studies to cause considerable damage to the DNA, damage that is largely irreparable (see here, here and here). It seems plausible that a person placed on such a hi-tech medical treatment path will continue to need a never-ending series of gene-editing treatments and perhaps other invasive hi-tech treatments to mitigate and manage the effects of clumsy gene splicing.
Those behind Wellcome Leap frame the problem they aim to tackle with this program as follows:
“We understand that synaptic connections serve as the currency of neural communication, and that strengthening or weakening these connections can facilitate learning new behavioral strategies and ways of looking at the world. Through studies in both animal models and humans, we have discovered that emotional states are encoded in complex neural network activity patterns, and that directly changing these patterns via brain stimulation can shift mood. We also know that disruption of these delicately balanced networks can lead to neuropsychiatric illness.” (emphasis added)
They add that “biologically based treatments” for depression “are not being matched to the biology of the human beings they’re being used in,” and, thus, treatments for depression need to be tailored “to the specific biology” of individual patients. They clearly state that what needs to be addressed in order to make such personal modifications to treatment is to gain “easy access to the biological substrate of depression—i.e. the brain.”
Wellcome Leap’s program description notes that this effort will focus specifically on anhedonia, which it defines as “an impairment in the effort-based reward system” and as a “key symptom of depression and other neuropsychiatric illnesses.” Notably, in the fine print of the document, Wellcome Leap states:
“While there are many definitions of anhedonia, we are less interested in the investigation of reduced consummatory pleasure, the general experience of pleasure, or the inability to experience pleasure. Rather, as per the description above, we will prioritize investigations of anhedonia as it relates to impairments in the effort-based reward system—e.g. reduced motivation to complete tasks and decreased capacity to apply effort to achieve a goal.”
In other words, Wellcome Leap is only interested in treating aspects of depression that interfere with an individual’s ability to work, not in improving an individual’s quality or enjoyment of life.
Leap notes, in discussing its goals, that it seeks to develop models for how patients respond to treatments that include “novel or existing behavior modification, psychotherapy, medication, and neurostimulation options” while also capturing an individual’s “genome, phenome [the sum of an individual’s phenotypic traits], [neural] network connectivity, metabolome [the sum of an individual’s metabolic traits], microbiome, reward processing plasticity levels,” among others. It ultimately aims to predict the relationship between an individual’s genome to how “reward processing” functions in the brain. It implies that the data used to create this model should involve the use of wearables, stating that researchers “should seek to leverage high frequency patient-worn or in-home measurements in addition to those obtained in the clinic, hospital or laboratory.”
One of the main research areas included in the program looks to “develop new scalable measurement tools for reliable and high-density quantification of mood (both subjectively reported and objectively quantified via biometrics such as voice, facial expression, etc.), sleep, movement, reward system functioning, effort/motivation/energy levels, social interaction, caloric intake, and HPA axis output in real-world situations.” The HPA (hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal) axis is mentioned throughout the document, and this is significant as it is both a negative and positive feedback system regulating the mechanisms of stress reactions, immunity, and also fertility in the human body. The latter is especially important given the Wellcome Trust’s ties to the UK eugenics movement. It is also worth noting that some commercially available wearables, such as Amazon’s Halo, already quantify mood, sleep, and movement.
The program’s authors go even further than the above in terms of what they wish to monitor in real time, stating, “We specifically encourage the development of non-invasive technology to directly interrogate human brain state.” Examples include “a non-invasive spinal tap equivalent,” “behavioral or biomarker probes of neural plasticity,” and “single-session neural monitoring capabilities that define a treatment-predictive brain state.”
In other words, this Wellcome Leap program and its authors seek to develop “non-invasive” and, likely, wearable technology capable of monitoring an individual’s mood, facial expressions, social interactions, effort and motivation, and potentially even thoughts in order to “directly interrogate human brain state.” To think that such a device would stay only in the realm of research is naive, especially given that WEF luminaries have openly spoken at Davos meetings about how governments plan to use such technology widely on their populations as a means of pre-emptively targeting would-be dissent and ushering in an era of “digital dictatorships.”
The focus on treating only the aspects of depression that interfere with a person’s work further suggests that such technology, once developed, would be used to ensure “perfect worker” behavior in industries where human workers are rapidly being replaced with AI and machines, meaning the rulers can be more selective about which people continue to be employed and which do not. Like other Wellcome Leap programs, if completed, the fruits of the Multi-Channel Psych program will likely be used to ensure a population of docile automatons whose movements and thoughts are heavily surveilled and monitored.
The Last Leap for an Old Agenda
Wellcome Leap is no small endeavor, and its directors have the funding, influence, and connections to make their dreams reality. The organization’s leadership includes the key force behind Silicon Valley’s push to commercialize transhumanist tech (Regina Dugan), the “architect” of the MEMS industry (Ken Gabriel), and the “ruler” of the burgeoning genetic-sequencing industry (Jay Flatley). It also benefits from the funding of the world’s largest medical-research foundation, the Wellcome Trust, which is also one of the leading forces in shaping genetics and biotechnology research as well as health policy globally.
A 1994 Sunday Times investigation into the Trust noted that “through [Wellcome Trust] grants and sponsorships, government agencies, universities, hospitals and scientists are influenced all over the world. The trust distributes more money to institutions than even the British government’s Medical Research Council.”
It then notes:
“In offices on the building’s first floor, decisions are reached that affect lives and health on scales comparable with minor wars. In the conference room, high above the street, and in the meeting hall, in the basement, rulings in biotechnology and genetics are handed down that will help shape the human race.”
Little has changed regarding the Trust’s influence since that article was published. If anything, its influence on research paths and decisions that will “shape the human race” has only grown. Its ex-DARPA officials, who have spent their careers advancing transhumanist technology in both the public and private sectors, have overlapping goals with those off Wellcome Leap. Dugan’s and Gabriel’s commercial projects in Silicon Valley reveal that Leap is led by those who have long sought to advance the same technology for profit and for surveillance. This drastically weakens Wellcome Leap’s claim to now be pursuing such technologies to only improve “global health.”
Indeed, as this report has shown, most of these technologies would usher in a deeply disturbing era of mass surveillance over both the external and internal activities of human beings, including young children and infants, while also creating a new era of medicine based largely on gene-editing therapies, the risks of which are considerable and also consistently downplayed by its promoters.
When one understands the intimate bond that has long existed between eugenics and transhumanism, Wellcome Leap and its ambitions make perfect sense. In a recent article written by John Klyczek for Unlimited Hangout, it was noted that the first director general of UNESCO and former president of the UK Eugenics Society was Julian Huxley, who coined the term “transhumanism” in his 1957 book New Bottles for New Wine. As Klyczek wrote, Huxley argued that “the eugenic goals of biologically engineering human evolution should be refined through transhumanist technologies, which combine the eugenic methods of genetic engineering with neurotech that merges humans and machines into a new organism.”
Earlier, in 1946, Huxley noted in his vision for UNESCO that it was essential that “the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable,” an astounding statement to make so soon after the end of World War II. Thanks in large part to the Wellcome Trust and its influence on both policy and medical research over the course of several decades, Huxley’s dream of rehabilitating eugenics-infused science in the post–World War II era could soon become reality. Unsurprisingly, the Wellcome Trust hosts the archive of the formerly Huxley-led Eugenics Society and still boasts close ties to its successor organization, the Galton Institute.
The over-riding question is: Will we allow ourselves to continue to be manipulated into allowing transhumanism and eugenics to be openly pursued and normalized, including through initiatives like those of Wellcome Leap that seek to use babies and toddlers as test subjects to advance their nightmarish vision for humanity? If well-crafted advertising slogans and media campaigns painting visions of utopia such as “a world without disease” are all that is needed to convince us to give up our future and our children’s future to military operatives, corporate executives, and eugenicists, then there is little left of our humanity to surrender.
Author’s note: Johnny Vedmore contributed to this report.
On Friday, the state of Florida won a court victory against the United State government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The court decision restrained the CDC’s effort to require, in the name of countering coronavirus, that cruise lines implement vaccine passport requirements and various other CDC-defined mandates on cruises.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been pursuing a two-prong effort against a mandate from the CDC that cruise lines impose vaccine passport requirements for cruises. As I wrote about earlier this month, DeSantis has been both threatening fines against cruise lines that require cruise participants to have taken experimental coronavirus vaccines and challenging in court the legality of the CDC mandate.
The court effort that challenges vaccine passport requirements, plus many other CDC mandates, for cruises yielded victory on Friday when a US district court judge ruled on behalf of Florida. The court ordered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the CDC’s mandate that cruise lines impose vaccine passport requirements, and the court struck enforcement of the many other mandates on cruises contained in the “conditional sailing order” the CDC created in the name of countering coronavirus.
The Friday court decision in the case — State of Florida v. Becerra — may be read here.
Below is a rundown of some of the discussion in the decision by US District Judge Steven D. Merryday of the Tampa Division of the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The court’s decision pointed out the uniquely oppressive action that the US government, via the CDC, has taken over the last year-plus in shutting down cruises only to allow them to start up again under extensive restrictions in the CDC’s conditional sailing order, including the implementation of vaccine passport requirements. The decision states:
Never has CDC (or a predecessor) detained a vessel for more than fifteen months; never has CDC implemented a widespread or industry-wide detention of a fleet of vessels in American waters; never has CDC conditioned pratique as extensively and burdensomely as the conditional sailing order; and never has CDC imposed restrictions that have summarily dismissed the effectiveness of state regulation and halted for an extended time an entire multi-billion dollar industry nationwide. In a word, never has CDC implemented measures as extensive, disabling, and exclusive as those under review in this action.
“Pratique” is health clearance for a ship to use a port.
After discussing in detail the regulatory power of the CDC relative to cruises and disease, the decision concludes that “none of the regulations invoked by CDC justifies the conditional sailing order.” The CDC’s conditional sailing order is the means by which the CDC is imposing a variety of mandates on cruise operations, including those related to vaccine passports, all purportedly intended to counter coronavirus. The CDC has said no cruises can occur without adherence to the conditional sailing order.
The CDC’s expansive power assertion through the conditional sailing order fits in with an assertion of widespread power the decision notes the government agency asserts:
CDC claims a remarkable and generally unbounded power of the director of CDC to act athwart the president; to close industries; to restrict the movement of citizens in an out of their country, their state, their county, and city, and their home. And recent history demonstrates that the power of the director of CDC, unless and until corrected by the judiciary, can oust the ability of a state to exercise the police power — all without formal notice and comment from the public and continuing from year-to-year.
A government agency seeking to exercise such extensive power can run afoul of constitutional restraints. The decision argues:
Without the elemental distinctions, including the separation of powers, prescribed in the Constitution, what remains is neither constitutional nor a republic. The administrative state is nowhere expressed or adumbrated in the Constitution, which grants the entire legislative power to elected representatives, whom the Constitution contemplates will govern in fact and for their governing remain electorally accountable to those who selected and empowered them. Unaccountable administrative law, unbounded by ascertainable directives from the legislative branch, is not the product of an ascendant and robust constitutional republic.
The CDC’s conditional sailing order, the court decision concludes, “is arbitrary and capricious because the order imposes vague and shifting (but binding) legal requirements and because the order fails to offer any reasoned explanation about the inadequacy of local measures.”
In discussing the likelihood of irreparable harm to Florida from the CDC restrictions on cruises that must be established before a grant a preliminary injunction to Florida, the decision concludes that the restrictions “impose an imminent and irreparable financial injury on Florida”:
The likelihood of Florida’s irreparable injury is not materially affected by the fact that some cruises are undertaking to comply with the conditional sailing order. As of June 4, 2021, CDC lists only eleven cruise ships ready to begin phase two (of four phases) simulated voyages. CDC has scheduled these voyages to begin no earlier than June 20, 2021, and several begin in August 2021. (Doc. 72-1 at 2–4) Even under CDC’s timeline, few cruise ships, if any, appear poised to qualify by late summer to sail with a satisfactory complement of passengers. For all other ships, the summer season remains almost assuredly lost. The conditional sailing order not only impedes immediate cruising, but the conditional sailing order threatens the economic feasibility of scheduling cruises under restricted sailing. Ships obtaining a conditional sailing certificate remain subject to “restricted passenger voyages,” which, among other things, prevent a cruise ship from offering an “itinerary longer than [seven] days.” (Doc. 1-3 at 33) The restrictions burden the cruise industry’s capacity for profitable sailing. (Doc. 56 at 4–5) In sum, Florida plausibly alleges that the conditional sailing order cripples the cruise industry’s ability to begin sailing and to sail in a manner that avoids economic loss as a result of sailing. (Doc. 25 at 22) Owing to a disabled cruise industry, both obstacles impose an imminent and irreparable financial injury on Florida.
After discussing other measures taken by various parties to reduce the threat from coronavirus, cruise lines own interests in providing safety protections, and the fact that cruises are taking place elsewhere in the world while remaining stopped in America, the court concluded with awarding a preliminary injunction for Florida as of July 18:
Because of (1) Florida’s probability of success on the merits, (2) the imminent threat of irreparable injury to Florida, (3) the comparative injury depending on whether an injunction issues, and (4) the imminent and material threat to the public interest, Florida’s motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED, and CDC is PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from enforcing against a cruise ship arriving in, within, or departing from a port in Florida the conditional sailing order and the later measures (technical guidelines, manuals, and the like). However, the preliminary injunction is STAYED until 12:01 a.m. EDT on JULY 18, 2021, at which time the conditional sailing order and the measures promulgated under the conditional sailing order will persist as only a non-binding “consideration,” “recommendation” or “guideline,” the same tools used by CDC when addressing the practices in other similarly situated industries, such as airlines, railroads, hotels, casinos, sports venues, buses, subways, and others.
The court decision does, however, also leave open for the CDC the option to propose, by July 2, a more limited injunction for the court to consider, along with Florida’s response, at a hearing. Such a proposed order, though, the court says must be consistent with “both permitting cruise ships to sail timely and remaining within CDC’s authority as interpreted” in the court’s Friday decision. The court, in its Friday decision, also directed Florida and the CDC to return to related mediation.
Far from being a war against “white supremacy,” the Biden administration’s new “domestic terror” strategy clearly targets primarily those who oppose US government overreach and those who oppose capitalism and/or globalization.
In the latest sign that the US government’s War on Domestic Terror is growing in scope and scale, the White House on Tuesday revealed the nation’s first ever government-wide strategy for confronting domestic terrorism. While cloaked in language about stemming racially motivated violence, the strategy places those deemed “anti-government” or “anti-authority” on a par with racist extremists and charts out policies that could easily be abused to silence or even criminalize online criticism of the government.
Even more disturbing is the call to essentially fuse intelligence agencies, law enforcement, Silicon Valley, and “community” and “faith-based” organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, as well as unspecified foreign governments, as partners in this “war,” which the strategy makes clear will rely heavily on a pre-crime orientation focused largely on what is said on social media and encrypted platforms. Though the strategy claims that the government will “shield free speech and civil liberties” in implementing this policy, its contents reveal that it is poised to gut both.
Indeed, while framed publicly as chiefly targeting “right-wing white supremacists,” the strategy itself makes it clear that the government does not plan to focus on the Right but instead will pursue “domestic terrorists” in “an ideologically neutral, threat-driven manner,” as the law “makes no distinction based on political view—left, right or center.” It also states that a key goal of this strategic framework is to ensure “that there is simply no governmental tolerance . . . of violence as an acceptable mode of seeking political or social change,” regardless of a perpetrator’s political affiliation.
Considering that the main cheerleaders for the War on Domestic Terror exist mainly in establishment left circles, such individuals should rethink their support for this new policy given that the above statements could easily come to encompass Black Lives Matter–related protests, such as those that transpired last summer, depending on which political party is in power.
Once the new infrastructure is in place, it will remain there and will be open to the same abuses perpetrated by both political parties in the US during the lengthy War on Terror following September 11, 2001. The history of this new “domestic terror” policy, including its origins in the Trump administration, makes this clear.
It’s Never Been Easier to Be a “Terrorist”
In introducing the strategy, the Biden administration cites “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists” as a key reason for the new policy and a main justification for the War on Domestic Terror in general. This was most recently demonstrated Tuesday in Attorney General Merrick Garland’s statement announcing this new strategy. However, the document itself puts “anti-government” or “anti-authority” “extremists” in the same category as violent white supremacists in terms of being a threat to the homeland. The strategy’s characterization of such individuals is unsettling.
AG Merrick Garland: “In the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat comes from racially or ethically motivated violent extremists specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race.” pic.twitter.com/4JtruuMSv2
For instance, those who “violently oppose” “all forms of capitalism” or “corporate globalization” are listed under this less-discussed category of “domestic terrorist.” This highlights how people on the left, many of whom have called for capitalism to be dismantled or replaced in the US in recent years, could easily be targeted in this new “war” that many self-proclaimed leftists are currently supporting. Similarly, “environmentally-motivated extremists,” a category in which groups such as Extinction Rebellion could easily fall, are also included.
In addition, the phrasing indicates that it could easily include as “terrorists” those who oppose the World Economic Forum’s vision for global “stakeholder capitalism,” as that form of “capitalism” involves corporations and their main “stakeholders” creating a new global economic and governance system. The WEF’s stakeholder capitalism thus involves both “capitalism” and “corporate globalization.”
The strategy also includes those who “take steps to violently resist government authority . . . based on perceived overreach.” This, of course, creates a dangerous situation in which the government could, purposely or otherwise, implement a policy that is an obvious overreach and/or blatantly unconstitutional and then label those who resist it “domestic terrorists” and deal with them as such—well before the overreach can be challenged in court.
Another telling addition to this group of potential “terrorists” is “any other individual or group who engages in violence—or incites imminent violence—in opposition to legislative, regulatory or other actions taken by the government.” Thus, if the government implements a policy that a large swath of the population finds abhorrent, such as launching a new, unpopular war abroad, those deemed to be “inciting” resistance to the action online could be considered domestic terrorists.
Such scenarios are not unrealistic, given the loose way in which the government and the media have defined things like “incitement” and even “violence” (e. g., “hate speech” is a form of violence) in the recent past. The situation is ripe for manipulation and abuse. To think the federal government (including the Biden administration and subsequent administrations) would not abuse such power reflects an ignorance of US political history, particularly when the main forces behind most terrorist incidents in the nation are actually US government institutions like the FBI (more FBI examples here, here, here, and here).
Furthermore, the original plans for the detention of American dissidents in the event of a national emergency, drawn up during the Reagan era as part of its “continuity of government” contingency, cited popular nonviolent opposition to US intervention in Latin America as a potential “emergency” that could trigger the activation of those plans. Many of those “continuity of government” protocols remain on the books today and can be triggered, depending on the whims of those in power. It is unlikely that this new domestic terror framework will be any different regarding nonviolent protest and demonstrations.
Yet another passage in this section of the strategy states that “domestic terrorists” can, “in some instances, connect and intersect with conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation and misinformation.” It adds that the proliferation of such “dangerous” information “on Internet-based communications platforms such as social media, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, all of these elements can combine and amplify threats to public safety.”
Thus, the presence of “conspiracy theories” and information deemed by the government to be “misinformation” online is itself framed as threatening public safety, a claim made more than once in this policy document. Given that a major “pillar” of the strategy involves eliminating online material that promotes “domestic terrorist” ideologies, it seems inevitable that such efforts will also “connect and intersect” with the censorship of “conspiracy theories” and narratives that the establishment finds inconvenient or threatening for any reason.
Pillars of Tyranny
The strategy notes in several places that this new domestic-terror policy will involve a variety of public-private partnerships in order to “build a community to address domestic terrorism that extends not only across the Federal Government but also to critical partners.” It adds, “That includes state, local, tribal and territorial governments, as well as foreign allies and partners, civil society, the technology sector, academic, and more.”
The mention of foreign allies and partners is important as it suggests a multinational approach to what is supposedly a US “domestic” issue and is yet another step toward a transnational security-state apparatus. A similar multinational approach was used to devastating effect during the CIA-developed Operation Condor, which was used to target and “disappear” domestic dissidents in South America in the 1970s and 1980s. The foreign allies mentioned in the Biden administration’s strategy are left unspecified, but it seems likely that such allies would include the rest of the Five Eyes alliance (the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and Israel, all of which already have well-established information-sharing agreements with the US for signals intelligence.
The new domestic-terror strategy has four main “pillars,” which can be summarized as (1) understanding and sharing domestic terrorism-related information, including with foreign governments and private tech companies; (2) preventing domestic terrorism recruitment and mobilization to violence; (3) disrupting and deterring domestic terrorism activity; and (4) confronting long-term contributors to domestic terrorism.
The first pillar involves the mass accumulation of data through new information-sharing partnerships and the deepening of existing ones. Much of this information sharing will involve increased data mining and analysis of statements made openly on the internet, particularly on social media, something already done by US intelligence contractors such as Palantir. While the gathering of such information has been ongoing for years, this policy allows even more to be shared and legally used to make cases against individuals deemed to have made threats or expressed “dangerous” opinions online.
Included in the first pillar is the need to increase engagement with financial institutions concerning the financing of “domestic terrorists.” US banks, such as Bank of America, have already gone quite far in this regard, leading to accusations that it has begun acting like an intelligence agency. Such claims were made after it was revealed that the BofA had passed to the government the private banking information of over two hundred people that the bank deemed as pointing to involvement in the events of January 6, 2021. It seems likely, given this passage in the strategy, that such behavior by banks will soon become the norm, rather than an outlier, in the United States.
The second pillar is ostensibly focused on preventing the online recruitment of domestic terrorists and online content that leads to the “mobilization of violence.” The strategy notes that this pillar “means reducing both supply and demand of recruitment materials by limiting widespread availability online and bolstering resilience to it by those who nonetheless encounter it.“ The strategy states that such government efforts in the past have a “mixed record,” but it goes on to claim that trampling on civil liberties will be avoided because the government is “consulting extensively” with unspecified “stakeholders” nationwide.
Regarding recruitment, the strategy states that “these activities are increasingly happening on Internet-based communications platforms, including social media, online gaming platforms, file-upload sites and end-to-end encrypted platforms, even as those products and services frequently offer other important benefits.” It adds that “the widespread availability of domestic terrorist recruitment material online is a national security threat whose front lines are overwhelmingly private-sector online platforms.”
The US government plans to provide “information to assist online platforms with their own initiatives to enforce their own terms of service that prohibits the use of their platforms for domestic terrorist activities” as well as to “facilitate more robust efforts outside the government to counter terrorists’ abuse of Internet-based communications platforms.”
Given the wider definition of “domestic terrorist” that now includes those who oppose capitalism and corporate globalization as well as those who resist government overreach, online content discussing these and other “anti-government” and “anti-authority” ideas could soon be treated in the same way as online Al Qaeda or ISIS propaganda. Efforts, however, are unlikely to remain focused on these topics. As Unlimited Hangout reported last November, both UK intelligence and the US national-security state were developing plans to treat critical reporting on the COVID-19 vaccines as “extremist” propaganda.
Another key part of this pillar is the need to “increase digital literacy” among the American public, while censoring “harmful content” disseminated by “terrorists” as well as by “hostile foreign powers seeking to undermine American democracy.” The latter is a clear reference to the claim that critical reporting of US government policy, particularly its military and intelligence activities abroad, was the product of “Russian disinformation,” a now discredited claim that was used to heavily censor independent media. This new government strategy appears to promise more of this sort of thing.
It also notes that “digital literacy” education for a domestic audience is being developed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Such a policy would have previously violated US law until the Obama administration worked with Congress to repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, thus lifting the ban on the government directing propaganda at domestic audiences.
The third pillar of the strategy seeks to increase the number of federal prosecutors investigating and trying domestic-terror cases. Their numbers are likely to jump as the definition of “domestic terrorist” is expanded. It also seeks to explore whether “legislative reforms could meaningfully and materially increase our ability to protect Americans from acts of domestic terrorism while simultaneously guarding against potential abuse of overreach.” In contrast to past public statements on police reform by those in the Biden administration, the strategy calls to “empower” state and local law enforcement to tackle domestic terrorism, including with increased access to “intelligence” on citizens deemed dangerous or subversive for any number of reasons.
To that effect, the strategy states the following (p. 24):
“The Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Department of Homeland Security, with support from the National Counterterrorism Center [part of the intelligence community], are incorporating an increased focus on domestic terrorism into current intelligence products and leveraging current mechanisms of information and intelligence sharing to improve the sharing of domestic terrorism-related content and indicators with non-Federal partners. These agencies are also improving the usability of their existing information-sharing platforms, including through the development of mobile applications designed to provide a broader reach to non-Federal law enforcement partners, while simultaneously refining that support based on partner feedback.”
Such an intelligence tool could easily be, for example, Palantir, which is already used by the intelligence agencies, the DHS, and several US police departments for “predictive policing,” that is, pre-crime actions. Notably, Palantir has long included a “subversive” label for individuals included on government and law enforcement databases, a parallel with the controversial and highly secretive Main Core database of US dissidents.
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the “pre-crime” element of the new domestic terror strategy explicit on Tuesday when he said in a statement that DHS would continue “developing key partnerships with local stakeholders through the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) to identify potential threats and prevent terrorism.” CP3, which replaced DHS’ Office for Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention this past May, officially “supports communities across the United States to prevent individuals from radicalizing to violence and intervene when individuals have already radicalized to violence.”
The fourth pillar of the strategy is by far the most opaque and cryptic, while also the most far-reaching. It aims to address the sources that cause “terrorists” to mobilize “towards violence.” This requires “tackling racism in America,” a lofty goal for an administration headed by the man who controversially eulogized Congress’ most ardent segregationist and who was a key architect of the 1994 crime bill. As well, it provides for “early intervention and appropriate care for those who pose a danger to themselves or others.”
In regard to the latter proposal, the Trump administration, in a bid to “stop mass shootings before they occur,” considered a proposal to create a “health DARPA” or “HARPA” that would monitor the online communications of everyday Americans for “neuropsychiatric” warning signs that someone might be “mobilizing towards violence.” While the Trump administration did not create HARPA or adopt this policy, the Biden administration has recently announced plans to do so.
Finally, the strategy indicates that this fourth pillar is part of a “broader priority”: “enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.” In other words, fostering trust in government while simultaneously censoring “polarizing” voices who distrust or criticize the government is a key policy goal behind the Biden administration’s new domestic-terror strategy.
Calling Their Shots?
While this is a new strategy, its origins lie in the Trump administration. In October 2019, Trump’s attorney general William Barr formally announced in a memorandum that a new “national disruption and early engagement program” aimed at detecting those “mobilizing towards violence” before they commit any crime would launch in the coming months. That program, known as DEEP (Disruption and Early Engagement Program), is now active and has involved the Department of Justice, the FBI, and “private sector partners” since its creation.
Barr’s announcement of DEEP followed his unsettling “prediction” in July 2019 that “a major incident may occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues.” Not long after that speech, a spate of mass shootings occurred, including the El Paso Walmart shooting, which killed twenty-three and about which many questions remain unanswered regarding the FBI’s apparent foreknowledge of the event. After these events took place in 2019, Trump called for the creation of a government backdoor into encryption and the very pre-crime system that Barr announced shortly thereafter in October 2019. The Biden administration, in publishing this strategy, is merely finishing what Barr started.
Indeed, a “prediction” like Barr’s in 2019 was offered by the DHS’ Elizabeth Neumann during a Congressional hearing in late February 2020. That hearing was largely ignored by the media as it coincided with an international rise of concern regarding COVID-19. At the hearing, Neumann, who previously coordinated the development of the government’s post-9/11 terrorism information sharing strategies and policies and worked closely with the intelligence community, gave the following warning about an imminent “domestic terror” event in the United States:
“And every counterterrorism professional I speak to in the federal government and overseas feels like we are at the doorstep of another 9/11, maybe not something that catastrophic in terms of the visual or the numbers, but that we can see it building and we don’t quite know how to stop it.”
This “another 9/11” emerged on January 6, 2021, as the events of that day in the Capitol were quickly labeled as such by both the media and prominent politicians, while also inspiring calls from the White House and the Democrats for a “9/11-style commission” to investigate the incident. This event, of course, figures prominently in the justification for the new domestic-terror strategy, despite the considerable video and other evidence that shows that Capitol law enforcement, and potentially the FBI, were directly involved in facilitating the breach of the Capitol. In addition, when one considers that the QAnon movement, which had a clear role in the events of January 6, was itself likely a government-orchestratedpsyop, the government hand in creating this situation seems clear.
It goes without saying that the official reasons offered for these militaristic “domestic terror” policies, which the US has already implemented abroad—causing much more terror than it has prevented—does not justify the creation of a massive new national-security infrastructure that aims to criminalize and censor online speech. Yet the admission that this new strategy, as part of a broader effort to “enhance faith in government,” combines domestic propaganda campaigns with the censorship and pursuit of those who distrust government heralds the end of even the illusion of democracy in the United States.
Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:
A recently filed lawsuit accuses Digital Recognition Network of covertly collecting vehicle data on millions of Americans and selling it for a profit.
On May 26, several vehicle owners sued the company Digital Recognition Network (DRN) for using its fleet of unmarked surveillance vehicles to collect data on Americans. The plaintiffs claim that DRN has driven its vehicles around United States and covertly gathered data on unsuspecting Americans while reaping profits.
Courthouse News reports that DRN has “amassed more than 20 billion license plate scans — equal to 70 scans for every vehicle in the nation.” The Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial was filed by plaintiff Guillermo Mata in response to DRN’s use of automatic license plate reader (ALPRs) systems. ALPRs are used to gather license plate, time, date and location of a vehicle. They can also be used to create a detailed map of where an individual travels and what they are doing with their time. The devices can be attached to light poles or toll booths, as well as on top of or inside vehicles.
The lawsuit alleges, “Defendant DRN created a nationwide surveillance program that tracks vehicle’s movements and, in turn, individuals’ locations.” The plaintiffs also claim that DRN “stores all of the amassed information in a proprietary database and makes it available to anyone willing to pay for access to it.”
The claim states that DRN’s “privately-owned surveillance network” is its fleet of “unmarked vehicles that patrol America’s roadways, equipped with high-speed cameras that allow them to capture photos of license plates, together with the time and location data of the photographed vehicles.”
After collecting the data DRN applies its proprietary algorithm to scan the data and make predictions about where the vehicle is traveling and where the vehicle may be located a future time. The plaintiffs argue that because DRN’s cameras are attached to moving vehicles they are difficult to see and “nearly unavoidable”. Further, the individuals being scanned by the cameras are not subjects of any law enforcement investigations, nor are they part of state or federal watchlists. DRN has also failed to reasonably notify the public they are under constant surveillance by the network of vehicles outfitted with this technology.
DRN openly advertises their ability to collect “vehicle stories” that contain location and time data that can reveal private information that individuals may not wish to be public. The complaint states that, “DRN can reveal whether an individual has recently visited an abortion clinic, a cancer treatment clinic, a religious center, or an LGBT community center, thus giving insight into one’s health and medical history, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation.”
Digital Recognition Network uses the Reaper HD camera to gather this data from unsuspecting drivers. The Reaper is manufactured and sold by Motorola who describes it as a “complete, fixed solution” which allows users to “receive real-time alerts, conduct comprehensive searches and leverage advanced analytics to uncover new insights and operate more efficiently.”
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in the hopes that the court will find that DRN’s surveillance program is in violation of current California law. In 2016, California passed a law regulating and limiting the use of ALPRs. When passing the law California legislators acknowledged the breadth of privacy concerns associated with the technology. These concerns include:
The collection of a license plate number, location, and time stamp over multiple time points can identify not only a person’s exact whereabouts but also their pattern of movement.
Unlike other types of personal information that are covered by existing law, civilians are not always aware when their ALPR data is being collected.
One does not even need to be driving to be subject to ALPR technology: A car parked on the side of the road can be scanned by an ALPR system.
The Fight Against ALPRs
The concerns associated with Automatic License Plate Readers are not new. In 2014, I first reported on the dangers associated with ALPRs. At that time the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Sheriff Department claiming that the agencies were using ALPRs to gather information on drivers. The two watchdog agencies argued that the two departments were illegally keeping quiet on how the information is used.
In 2015, I reported on the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) investing in this controversial technology despite the known privacy concerns. That same year it was also revealed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had granted hundreds of thousands of dollars to local and state law enforcement agencies for the purchase of ALPRs systems.
I have also reported on the potential for abuse of ALPRs, specifically the potential for law enforcement departments and officers to create lists of “vehicles of interest” and alert other ALPR users when the vehicle is spotted. Officers can search individual plates numbers in the ALPR system to track during their shift. There is no prerequisite of reasonable suspicion or a warrant needed to be added to such a list, creating a situation that is ripe for abuse. For example, in 2009 the BBC reported on the case of John Catt, a regular attendee of anti-war protests in his home town, Brighton. His vehicle was tagged by police at one of the events and he was added to a “hotlist”. Catt said while on a trip to London he was pulled over by anti-terror police. He was threatened with arrest if he did not cooperate and answer the questions of the police.
More recently, the Biden administration has continued the push for militarizing the border with ALPRs. On February 25, more than 40 privacy, immigrants’ rights, and civil liberties organizations called on the Biden administration to abandon a bill which would extend the Trump administration’s border policy, particularly creation of a “virtual” or biometric wall. These organizations – including Mijente, Rio Grande Valley Equal Voice Network, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Fight for the Future, and Restore the Fourth – wrote a letter to the Biden admin scolding the recently minted president for continuing the militarization of the border.
The letter, titled A Virtual Wall Is Trump’s Wall by Another Name, warned that “the rapid expansion of license plate recognition technology used by Customs and Border Protection and other federal agencies is a major privacy and policing concern.” The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil liberties organizations have been warning about the rise in use of automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), high definition cameras capable of seeing not only a vehicle’s license plate, but the people in the vehicle.
While most Americans are likely unaware of this invasive technology, they are being monitored by ALPRs every single day. Not only do Americans face surveillance from ALPRs in the hands of law enforcement, but now they must contend with constant surveillance from a private company they have likely never heard of.
The World Economic Forum’s “Investing in Forests” program sounds great – who doesn’t want to plant more trees? But behind its philanthropic appeal lies a global surveillance grid, monitoring all activity on the planet — just as prescribed by Agenda 2030 and their 4th Industrial Revolution. Christian shares an unreleased document and reveals the truth in this special Ice Age Farmer broadcast.
Video available at Ice Age Farmer BitChute and Odysee channels.
This week on “James Corbett Redpills the Normies,” James talks to Alison Morrow, a self-described refugee from mainstream journalism who quit her 12-year career as an award-winning reporter after her attempts to report real news were consistently thwarted. (Learn more about Alison’s incredible story in this interview.) Today, Alison interviews James about the centralization of control, communication, and consciousness in the hands of an oligarchical elite and how we can combat their agenda.
One of two Facebook Insiders featured in Project Veritas’ recent #ExposeFacebook series that revealed the company’s censorship of vaccine concerns on a global scale has officially come out of the shadows.
Data Center Technician Morgan Kahmann felt compelled to speak out publicly and shine a light on Facebook’s decision to hide their censorship plans from users.
Kahmann informed Project Veritas of a Facebook decision to suspend and remove him from his office pending an “Investigatory Meeting” with Human Resources. Meeting was called off at the last minute.
Kahmann: “What happened was I was at work, and I got a message from my supervisor, out of the blue, basically saying ‘go ahead and wrap up your area and clean up your stuff, gather your personal belongings and meet me in a meeting room in the lobby of the building.’ They’re basically going to have me meet with the investigative team and grill me on this whole situation.”
Kahmann was able to secure additional internal Facebook documents before his suspension that confirm the “vaccine hesitancy” algorithm is live and being implemented globally across Facebook and Instagram platforms.
Kahmann hopes more are inspired to Be Brave, and Do Something about the wrongdoing they witness inside Big Tech, media, and government.
Kahmann is one of two Facebook insiders that came to Project Veritas with this information, and he explained in an interview how he found out about his suspension.
“What happened was I was at work, and I got a message from my supervisor, out of the blue, basically saying ‘go ahead and wrap up your area and clean up your stuff, gather your personal belongings and meet me in a meeting room in the lobby of the building,’” Kahmann said. “They’re basically going to have me meet with the investigative team and grill me on this whole situation.”
Kahmann also explained to Project Veritas what motivated him to blow the whistle on Facebook’s wrongdoing in the first place.
“What would happen if this [Facebook Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion policy] was scaled larger and scaled to Twitter and the internet as a whole is way worse than anything that could happen from me getting fired from my job,” he said. “To me, that, it far outweighs that. Because it’s about more than me. It’s about really everyone in the world.”
Before being suspended, Kahmann secured additional internal Facebook documents showing that the Big Tech giant’s “vaccine hesitancy” policy has now been fully implemented.
He says that by doing what he did, more brave patriots working inside powerful institutions will come forward when they witness corruption.
“I think that the main reason why people don’t want to come out [as whistleblowers] — because what if I, you know, I have two kids, I have my wife, and if I lose my job, it’s like ‘what do I do?’ But that’s less of a concern to me.”
The Conscious Resistance Network presents: The Pyramid of Power, a brand-new 16-part documentary series aimed at exposing the individuals and institutions which seek to manipulate our world.
By now, most viewers will be familiar with the well-publicized problems of social media. It’s purposefully addictive, produces jealousy, insecurity, and depression (and this) in some people, and the big socials sell your data for a profit. Despite the growing awareness of these problems, companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube are still some of the most widely used platforms in the world. Billions of people download these apps and use them to stay informed about the world. (Or, so they believe.)
While these issues are absolutely worrisome, they are not the only issues we should be concerned about. To understand the role social media plays in the “Pyramid of Power” we need to understand the origins of social media. More specifically, we need to understand the origins of the so-called “Big Tech” giants behind social media.
The Big Tech companies are the largest and most dominant companies in the information technology industry of the United States, namely Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft. Alternatively, there are other labels, such as FAANG, which refers to the five prominent American tech companies: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google, or Alphabet, Inc, Google’s parent company. The point is that these companies dominate information technology in most of the world and shape the direction of the various markets they operate in.
Amazon dominates the e-commerce/online sales market, as well AI smart assistants and smart speakers. Apple and Google share a monopoly on cell phones. Google, of course, claims the title of leading online search engine for most of the world, as well top video sharing with YouTube, and top online mapping and navigation with Google Maps. Microsoft dominates the operating system markets, shares the cloud computing market with Amazon, and is highly influential in the video game industry via their XBox system. Facebook is known for being one of the top 3 companies in digital advertising which they gained through their social networks. They also dominate image sharing with Instagram and messaging with WhatsApp and FB Messenger.
In fact, Big Tech’s growth in wealth and influence over the last decade has surpassed the wealth and influence of the Big Media companies we covered in chapter 2.
So where did these companies come from and are they influencing our world for ill or good?
The basic narrative, we are told, is that the Big Tech companies were started by brilliant men, mostly in California, in the area now commonly known as Silicon Valley. Through their hard work and determination, these companies were able to rise from garages and college dorms to become the giants we know them as today. There’s just one problem: this version of events is cartoonish at best and an outright deception at worst.
It’s important to understand that nearly every Big Tech tool you use today was funded, in part, by the U.S. intelligence community and supported in various ways by the U.S. government itself. The Rise of the Big Tech companies is not a fairy tale of free market success, but rather a dark and disturbing story of corporate welfare and deep ties to the intelligence community. In fact, most of the digital tools you use – including cell phones, GPS, and the internet itself started out as tools for the military. These tools were designed by the U.S. Department of Defense, under the direction of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA.
The Big Tech-Intelligence Complex
What we know as the internet, or the World Wide Web, was first developed by the military as the ARPANET. One of the best sources for the true origins of Big Tech is the book Surveillance Valley by researcher Yasha Levine. In his groundbreaking book, Levine outlines the role that the military and the intelligence apparatus played in advancing these tools from being used exclusively by the military, to being used by billions of people around the world.
Yasha Levine’s book Surveillance Valley cannot be overstated as an invaluable resource for understanding how the military and intelligence community helped fund various tools in the private sector in the hopes that doing so would provide them more data about the public at large.
In 2017, a former director of the the National Science Foundation shed more light when he published an article exploring the true founding of Google:
“The research arms of the CIA and NSA hoped that the best computer-science minds in academia could identify what they called ‘birds of a feather:'[sic] Just as geese fly together in large V shapes, or flocks of sparrows make sudden movements together in harmony, they predicted that like-minded groups of humans would move together online.
“Their research aim was to track digital fingerprints inside the rapidly expanding global information network, which was then known as the World Wide Web. Could an entire world of digital information be organized so that the requests humans made inside such a network be tracked and sorted? Could their queries be linked and ranked in order of importance? Could ‘birds of a feather’ be identified inside this sea of information so that communities and groups could be tracked in an organized way?”
Jeff Nesbit goes on to describe how Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the ostensible founders of Google, were originally funded “through an unclassified, highly compartmentalized program that was managed for the CIA and the NSA by large military and intelligence contractors. It was called the Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) project.”
Eventually, the research by Brin and Page under these grants became the heart of Google’s search engine. Nesbit writes, “The intelligence community, however, saw a slightly different benefit in their research: Could the network be organized so efficiently that individual users could be uniquely identified and tracked?”
In 2014, more details emerged regarding the relationship between Sergey Brin, former Google Executive Eric Schmidt and the National Security Agency. A Freedom of Information Act request revealed that Brin and Schmidt were on a first name basis with then-NSA chief General Keith Alexander. Additionally, Google was part of a “secretive government initiative known as the Enduring Security Framework,” and this initiative involved Silicon Valley partnering with the Pentagon and the US intelligence community to share information “at network speed.”
The connections between Google and the intelligence firms that have spent decades spying on the public, infiltrating the public school system and establishment media, also involve the CIA’s venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel. For example, we know that the software that would become Google Earth was born out of technology originally developed by the company Keyhole, Inc., which itself had a close relationship with the U.S. intelligence community.
However, Google was not the only Big Tech firm who maintained a relationship with In-Q-Tel. Facebook executives also had close ties to CIA venture capital firm In-Q-Tel. Journalist James Corbett reports (from here 14:49-15:50):
“Publicly, In-Q-Tel markets itself as an innovative way to leverage the power of the private sector by identifying key emerging technologies and providing companies with the funding to bring those technologies to market.
In reality, however, what In-Q-Tel represents is a dangerous blurring of the lines between the public and private sectors in a way that makes it difficult to tell where the American intelligence community ends and the IT sector begins.
Two of the names that come up most often in connection with In-Q-Tel, however, need no introduction: Google and Facebook.
The publicly available record on the Facebook/In-Q-Tel connection is tenuous. Facebook received $12.7 million in venture capital from Accel, whose manager, James Breyer, now sits on their board. He was formerly the chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, whose board included Gilman Louie, then the CEO of In-Q-Tel. The connection is indirect, but the suggestion of CIA involvement with Facebook, however tangential, is disturbing in the light of Facebook’s history of violating the privacy of its users.”
Around the time Facebook was launched, a similarly themed government project was coming to an end. LifeLog was a project of the Information Processing Techniques Office of DARPA, designed, “to be able to trace the ‘threads’ of an individual’s life in terms of events, states, and relationships”, with the ability to “take in all of a subject’s experience, from phone numbers dialed and e-mail messages viewed to every breath taken, step made and place gone”.
USA Today reported that, “Cameras and microphones would capture what the user sees or hears; sensors would record what he or she feels. Global positioning satellites would log every movement. Biomedical sensors would monitor vital signs. E-mails, instant messages, Web-based transactions, telephone calls and voicemails would be stored. Mail and faxes would be scanned. Links to every radio and television broadcast heard and every newspaper, magazine, book, Web site or database seen would be recorded.”
DARPA contractors stated that LifeLog’s software “will be able to find meaningful patterns in the timetable, to infer the user’s routines, habits and relationships with other people, organizations, places and objects.” Ultimately, the program was abandoned because of surveillance fears.
On February 4, 2004, Wired Magazine reported that the Pentagon was abandoning the Lifelog Project. Ironically, this is the exact day that Mark Zuckerberg launched his first iteration of Facebook.
Lifelog’s creator Douglas Gage recently told Motherboard he feels that in many ways Facebook has accomplished the goals of LifeLog. “I think that Facebook is the real face of pseudo-LifeLog at this point. I generally avoid using Facebook, only occasionally logging in to see what everyone is up to, and have never ‘liked’ anything.”
Another important note regarding social media and intelligence agencies, relates to the 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden. According to one of the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the British government maintains software for “Online Persona Management”. The British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) operates an elite unit known as the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG).
The documents outline tactics employed by the agency, including ways to manipulate public opinion, understand human thinking and behavior, and encourage conformity. One of the reports from 2011 outlines JTRIG’s tactics, including uploading YouTube videos containing “persuasive communications,” starting Facebook groups and Twitter accounts, and creating fake online personalities and supporters “to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter, delay or disrupt.” The unit used social media campaigns to encourage and foster “obedience” and “conformity”.
The British Intelligence and the US Intelligence community both desire to promote obedience and conformity within the public. They use social media to keep the public propagandized, distracted, misinformed, and fighting amongst themselves.
We could go on to detail the intelligence connections and partnerships between Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon, but the point is that the origins of the Big Tech firms which control information technology are much different from what is promoted in the mainstream. These companies have directly and indirectly benefited from the financial investments of the U.S. military and intelligence sectors. They have also shown a willingness to share user data with law enforcement.
These Big Tech firms are also furthering the all pervasive surveillance state. Not only are Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon tracking your habits (on and offline), they are profiting from that knowledge. With the growth of AI smart assistants and speakers like Amazon Echo, Google Nest, Apple’s Siri, and other devices, millions of people around the world are welcoming the surveillance state into their homes.
Amazon is well known for their online marketplace, but less people are aware that the Big Tech firm has been developing facial recognition software called Rekognition. Amazon has marketed the facial recognition tools to police departments in the United States, claiming that the software will allow real-time surveillance using body cameras.
In 2018, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and nearly 40 other organizations filed a lawsuit demanding that Amazon cease providing law enforcement access to surveillance technology.
“Amazon has been heavily marketing this tool—called “Rekognition”—to law enforcement, and it’s already being used by agencies in Florida and Oregon. This system affords the government vast and dangerous surveillance powers, and it poses a threat to the privacy and freedom of communities across the country. That includes many of Amazon’s own customers, who represent more than 75 percent of U.S. online consumers.”
In 2020, Amazon was reportedly talking with a police department from Jackson, Mississippi to connect their Ring doorbell cameras to a 24-hour surveillance center operated by the police. The Jackson police surveillance center would conduct a 45-day pilot program to live stream the security cameras of participating residents, including a direct line to residents’ Amazon Ring doorbell cameras. By June 2020, Amazon announced it was implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition, in response to the George Floyd protests. However, in February 2021, documents revealed that the LAPD had already used the Ring doorbell cameras to monitor activists.
The Big Tech-Military Industrial Complex
In 2020, the public became aware of the true power wielded by the Big Tech companies that run the popular social media platforms. Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Tik Tok, Google, and Amazon all sought to down rank, shadow ban, delete and/or ban information that went against the accepted narratives for COVID19, the 2020 election, and basically any other topic deemed controversial. While many people chose to frame this attack on free expression as an attack on “conservatives” or the “Right wing”, the reality is that prominent left wing pages and channels also suffered the same fate because they also committed the cardinal sin of social media: asking questions and making claims not accepted by the so-called authorities. In short, if you ask too many questions and do not parrot the mainstream Right or Left wing positions, it’s highly likely you will find yourself demonetized or banned altogether.
Some folks incorrectly argue that Big Tech is made up of private companies which have the freedom to decide what goes on their platforms. This argument ignores the wealth of evidence indicating the close relationship between Big Tech and U.S. intelligence, as well the seed funding received by many of the companies. Essentially, these companies would not be as monolithic as they are without the support of the government. They are hardly a representation of free market economics.
Which brings us to the final point: these Big Tech firms often serve the purpose of reinforcing a particular narrative that is beneficial to the U.S. government and intelligence community. It’s no mistake that the pages and channels which have been removed have often been those which expose the U.S. war machine, the violence of police, and overall, the lies of the U.S. government.
Although most of the public was unaware, the attacks on independent journalism and free voices began in earnest immediately after the election of Donald Trump in November 2016. The media began promoting story after story claiming that government insiders had evidence that the Russians interfered with the U.S. elections by propagating fake news stories that favored Trump and attacked Hillary Clinton. The Washington Post and other mouthpieces for the establishment ran with a report from the organization PropOrNot which claimed to identify websites that were spreading fake news and, possibly, working as Russian propagandists. The list contained many well-known American alternative media sites, including Activist Post, Mint Press News, The Free Thought Project, and The Anti Media.
Although Trump popularized the “Fake News” meme, it was very quickly used to demonize alternative and independent media who did not fall in line with the Russian narrative. The rise of the “Fake News” meme had immediate repercussions for the alternative media: many sites lost access to Google Ads for revenue generation, others were shadow banned on Facebook and Twitter, while still others were cut off from payment processors like Paypal and Patreon.
The relationship between the Military Industrial Complex and Facebook was made even more clear in May 2018, when Facebook announced a new partnership with the Atlantic Council, a think tank which officially claims to provide a forum for international political, business, and intellectual leaders. The social media giant said the partnership was aimed at preventing Facebook from “being abused during elections.” The press release promoted Facebook’s efforts to fight fake news by using artificial intelligence, as well as working with outside experts and governments.
The Atlantic Council of the United States was established in 1961 to bolster support for international relations. Although not officially connected to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Atlantic Council has spent decades promoting causes and issues which are beneficial to NATO member states. In addition, The Atlantic Council is a member of the Atlantic Treaty Association, an umbrella organization which “acts as a network facilitator in the Euro-Atlantic and beyond.” The ATA works similarly to the Atlantic Council, bringing together political leaders, academics, military officials, journalists and diplomats to promote values that are favorable to the NATO member states. Officially, ATA is independent of NATO, but the line between the two is razor thin.
Essentially, the Atlantic Council is a think tank which can offer companies or nation states access to military officials, politicians, journalists, and diplomats to help them develop a plan to implement their strategy or vision. These strategies often involve getting NATO governments or industry insiders to make decisions they might not have made without a visit from the Atlantic Council team. This allows individuals or nations to push forth their ideas under the cover of hiring what appears to be a public relations agency but is actually selling access to high-profile individuals with power to affect public policy. Indeed, everyone from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton have spoken at or attended council events.
Clearly, despite what Facebook says, this partnership will further align the goals of Facebook with the Western Military-Industrial Complex. This was made evident in October 2018, when Facebook announced they were unpublishing, or purging, over 500 pages and 200 accounts who were accused of spreading political spam. Several of these pages and writers were also removed from Twitter on the same day.
“Today, we’re removing 559 Pages and 251 accounts that have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior,” Facebook stated in a blog post. Facebook states that the people behind this alleged spam “create networks of Pages using fake accounts or multiple accounts with the same names” and “post the same clickbait posts in dozens of Facebook Groups”.
This action by Facebook became known as “The Purge of 2018” and was only the first of many to come. With Facebook and other Big Tech firms developing a revolvingdoorrelationship between the Military Industrial Complex, it’s highly likely that anti-establishment voices will continue to be stifled.
Now that we understand the Big Tech firms are cartels of information technology with deep ties to the U.S. intelligence community and military – who sell their users data and manipulate their emotions – it’s time to figure out what we are going to do about these problems.
Solutions: Better Tech
The solutions for dealing with Big Tech are deceptively simple: Boycott them. It’s as simple and difficult as that. If we each consciously choose to deny Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft our data and our money, we can limit the ways they affect our lives. So what does boycotting Big Tech look like?
Let’s start with social media. Right now, in this moment, you can choose to leave Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Tik Tok, and Twitter. You can starve them of your data and instead choose to participate with and support companies that do not steal or sell your data, or collaborate with the U.S. military industrial complex. There are better alternatives, including Flote.app, Odysee, Minds, Junto, PeerTube, Element, Matrix, and many others.
Obviously, these platforms do not have all the content you might be accustomed to seeing on the Big Tech sites but the sooner we encourage people to exit from these platforms and support better alternatives, the sooner we will see the content we know and love.
What about getting away from Big Tech email, storage, maps, and other digital services?
Again, there are alternatives to each of these which do not share your data with advertisers or governments. We are including some helpful links (1, 2, & 3) in the transcript to this documentary for anyone who seeks this information. The simple fact is that you have to make an effort to get away from Big Tech. It will inevitably involve changes to your lifestyle and habits.
When it comes to cell phones and computer operating systems it can be a bit more difficult and expensive to find alternatives, but they do exist. The Linux operating system has been offering consumers a non-Microsoft experience for decades, and recent years have seen the growth of cellphones which do not have Google or Apple built in. Again, we have included some tips for those seeking to move beyond the Big Tech paradigm.
Thankfully, there are also literally hundreds of thousands of developers working on decentralized technologies – including decentralized versions of the internet itself – which have the potential to free the people from the grips of Big Tech. With time, the people will have more options to choose from and the monopolistic control of our digital lives will come to an end.
For those interested in diving deeper into this topic, we recommend reading Surveillance Valley from Yasha Levine as well as the 2017 investigation by Jeff Nesbit. We also recommend watching the documentary, The Secrets of Silicon Valley, from The Corbett Report.
A new push is underway to sell wearable devices and sensors as the solution to the opioid and prison crises in the US. However, this “solution” is set to come at a major cost to civil liberties and human freedom in general.
However, at the same time, the marketing of wearable technology, or wearables, as a solution to both of these hot-button issues has become promoted by key players in both the public and private sectors. Especially since COVID-19, these electronic devices that can be worn as accessories, embedded in clothes or even implanted under the skin, are frequently heralded by corporations, academics and influential think tanks as “cost effective”, technological solutions to these deeply rooted problems.
Yet, as will be covered in this article, the shift towards wearables may offer more costs than benefits, particularly when it comes to matters of civil liberties and privacy.
The World Economic Forum and Wearables
On paper, the World Economic Forum (WEF, also known as the International Organization for Public Private Cooperation) is an NGO and think tank “committed to improving the state of the world.” In reality, it’s an international network of some of the wealthiest and most powerful people on Earth. The organization is best known for its annual gathering of the (mostly white, European and North American) ruling class. Each year hedge fund managers, bankers, CEOs, media representatives and heads of state gather in Davos to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.” As Foreign Affairs once put it, “the WEF has no formal authority, but it has become a major forum for elites to discuss policy ideas and priorities.”
In 2017, WEF Founder Klaus Schwab put out a book called “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.” The WEF uses the term Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) to denote the current “technological revolution” that is changing the way people “live, work, and relate to one another,” and with implications “unlike anything humankind has experienced before.” The 4IR is characterized by new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, 3D printing, and the “internet of things,” which essentially denotes embedding things with sensors – including human bodies in the form of wearables.
Like the industrial ‘revolutions’ that came before, the main theme for the WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution is that it will allow companies to produce more, more quickly and for far less money.
In the book, Schwab positions wearable technology as key to helping companies become organized around remote work by providing one’s employers “with a continuous exchange of data and insights about the things or tasks being worked on.” In a similar vein, Schwab emphasizes the “wealth of information that can be gathered from wearable devices and implantable technologies.”
But unlike the industrial ‘revolutions’ of the past, the WEF’s 4IR aims to blur the distinction between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. And the WEF is a vocal advocate for wearables in their propensity to propel what it calls ‘human enhancement.’
In 2018, Schwab teamed up with WEF’s “Head of Society and Innovation” Nicholas Davis to write a follow up book entitled “Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”Having been with the organization for over a decade, Davis was the obvious choice to co-author this book as he now “lead[s] the theme of the Fourth Industrial Revolution” at the WEF.
Schwab and Davis see wearables as just a stepping stone for the 4IR, writing that wearable devices “will almost certainly become implantable” in the body and the brain. “External wearable devices, such as smart watches, intelligent earbuds and augmented reality glasses, are giving way to active implantable microchips that break the skin barrier of our bodies, creating intriguing possibilities that range from integrated treatment systems to opportunities for human enhancement,” they write.
The authors note the potential to “drive an industry of human enhancement” that would, in turn, enhance “worker productivity.” However, other groups, including those partnered with the WEF, see other potential applications for their use well beyond the workplace.
Wearables, the Opioid Crisis and the War on Drugs
Deloitte, the world’slargest accounting firm and a longstanding partner of the WEF, has promoted wearables as a way to resolve the opioid epidemic. In 2016, Deloitte’s Center for Government Insights put out a report outlining how to fight the opioid crisis. The authors make the case that “technologists” and “innovators” should be part of the solution to the opioid crisis. Then, in 2018, the firm put out an article called “Strategies For Stemming The Opioid Epidemic,” explaining how data analytics could be used to help pharmacy benefit managers chart their course.
Other WEF partners are more directly involved in this effort. For example, WEF ‘Global Shaper’ Ryan O’Shea is the co-founder of Behaivior, a company that says it’s creating “technology to predict and prevent addiction relapses” using wearables. O’Shea, in addition to his WEF ties, is also the social media manager for Humanity Plus, formerly the World Transhumanist Association, which received $100,000 from Jeffrey Epstein in 2018 in addition to previous donations from Epstein-linked charities. Epstein also donated significant sums to Humanity Plus’ chair, Ben Goertzel.
According to the Behaivior website, the company’s mission is described as follows:
“We are creating software that can take real-time data streams from wearable devices that detect heart rate, heart rate variability, skin temperature, motion, and galvanic skin response (which is related to stress levels). This data is combined with other digital information about behavior, such as GPS location. As behavior and physiology changes, our software screens users for whether or not they are in a pre-relapse craving state.”
Hunter and his co-authors argue that remote monitoring through wearable sensors is a superior alternative to traditional surveillance cameras. “ … Our proposal requires prisoners to wear a series of remote sensors—including those for sound, video, and movement—that are connected to central computer systems that can detect unauthorized behavior,” they write.
Hunter and his co-authors further insist that the third step, the “remote immobilization of offenders,” would actually make this technological incarceration more secure than a conventional prison, since there is no chance of prisoner escape.
Hunter’s model of incarceration is declared as a “system that can determine whether a prisoner is having a psychotic episode (from speech recognition and audio processing of a prisoner’s emotional states), is threatening another (from audio processing of the emotional states of all the people within the prisoner’s environment and video processing of the prisoner’s behavior), or is seeking to leave a designated zone (from GPS tracking).”
Of note is the fact that several prisons and jails in the US are already using biometric voice identification technology and geolocation tracking on prisoners and the non-prisoners they call on the phone.
Additionally, Hunter’s plan to use wearables to move away from traditional prisons, first outlined a number of years ago, seems closer to coming to fruition than it did a few years ago. For example, in 2019, the DOJ gave a grant to researchers at Purdue University, to help them develop a wearables-based monitoring system for those who would otherwise be in prison. The electronic monitoring system was deployed in Tippecanoe County Corrections in Indiana under a “home detention” program.
What’s more, the other half of Hunter’s plan, utilizing AI to process prisoner communications and prevent crime, is already underway across the U.S.
Amazon now markets its AI transcription services to both prisons and law enforcement. The company’s AI system employs speech-recognition technology and machine learning software to build a database of words. As reported by ABC News, “they then notify law enforcement partners when the system picks up suspicious language or phrasings.”
“A year from now, all that slang could be obsolete – so investigators are constantly feeding new intelligence about prison slang into databases tailored to their unique jurisdiction or regional area,” explained ABC.
“We’ve taught the system how to speak inmate,” said James Sexton, an executive at LEO Technologies, a company using Amazon’s transcription services.
“Solving” Crises By Surveilling Everything
Additionally, due to the COVID-19 crisis, the federal government has adjusted both opioid treatment policy and prison policy to cater more to new, wearables-based solutions.
Under the Trump Administration, the Federal Bureau of Prisons began prioritizing home confinement to limit the spread of COVID-19 in prisons. While those inmates were to report back to prison when the ‘coronavirus emergency’ was over, Biden recently extended the national emergency and the HHS expects the crisis to last at least through December.
Furthermore, also because of the COVID-19 crisis, the US Department of Health and Human Services amended its regulations in 2020 so that treatment for opioid addiction can now be done remotely. “The pandemic has made it possible to see a licensed provider from home,” reported the New York Times.
In addition, the use of these health-tracking wearables has grown by more than 35% during the pandemic. “All of these surveillance technologies, like many other COVID-19 mitigations, are being rolled out rapidly amidst the crisis,” explained the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
Several wearable technologies have been marketed specifically as responses to the COVID-19 crisis, with a number focused solely on tracking the location of their users for social distancing or quarantining enforcement. “RightCrowd” is a lanyard employees can wear to help companies enforce social distancing and contact tracing at the office. “SafeZone” is a wearable sensor that emits a light when people get within six feet of one another, and is currently being used by the NFL. And, as reported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), “Courts in Kentucky and West Virginia have mandated electronic ankle shackles for individuals who refused to submit to quarantine procedures after testing positive for COVID-19.”
The Oura Ring biometric tracker. Source: https://ouraring.com/
Yet many of today’s new wearables are capable of accessing data that goes far beyond one’s location. The Oura Ring, a finger worn sleep tracker, monitors your temperature in order to predict the onset of fever in COVID-19, and is currently being used by the NBA. Amazon’s Halo, a wristband, will soon be able to detect COVID-19 symptoms. Halo scans the user’s body and voice, monitors blood pressure, and is meant to “report back on your emotional state throughout the day.” And, in March 2020, the US FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization to armbands made by a company called Tiger Tech. The bands are designed to monitor blood flow and analyze pulse rate and hypercoagulation, an onset symptom of COVID-19.
New York partnered with IBM to launch Excelsior Pass. The digital pass is portrayed as part of the state’s “safe reopening” plan, but is it really just a plan by Big Tech, Big Pharma and the government to commercialize personal health data?
On March 26, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the state had partnered with IBM to launch Excelsior Pass, a digital health pass billed by state officials as part of New York’s “safe reopening” plan.
The pass is designed to provide a “free, fast and secure” way for New Yorkers to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination in order to gain entry to major sporting events, theatre and arts performances, concert halls and wedding venues.
How does Excelsior Pass work?
Excelsior Pass is a free app that can be downloaded on phones. It allows users to display a QR code verifying either proof of COVID vaccination or proof of a negative COVID test result.
Venues use a companion app to scan the user’s QR code which then generates either a green checkmark or a red X, depending on vaccination status or COVID test result. Users have to show a photo ID with their name and birth date to verify the pass belongs to them.
New Yorkers have the option to show alternate proof of vaccination or test results, for example, a different mobile application or paper form, to gain entrance to the business or venue. Upon entrance, users are still required to maintain social distancing, abide by mask guidelines and use proper hand hygiene.
Initially designed to allow entry to major venues such as Madison Square Garden in New York City, Times Union Center in Albany and other large venues for weddings, concerts and special events, the pass was later expanded for use at smaller arts, entertainment and event venues throughout the state.
IBM has history of collecting personal data
This isn’t the first time IBM’s technology has played a key role in identifying and segregating people based on their health information.
The New York Times best-selling book by Edwin Black, “IBM and the Holocaust,” details the chilling role IBM’s past president, Thomas J. Watson, played while serving the Third Reich for 12 years.
According to Black, IBM was intimately involved in providing the punch cards and tabulating machines that helped Adolf Hitler carry out his ultimate plan. While this is not a well-known aspect of IBM’s history, the company has never denied any of the facts outlined in Black’s book. The book details evidence based on more than 20,000 documents from seven countries, including internal IBM correspondence, memos from the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Justice, and from concentration camps.
Black’s book chronicles how IBM played a pivotal role in the Holocaust, in not only the identification and tabulation of Jews, but also their expulsion from society, including the confiscation of their property, ghettoization, deportation and ultimately their extermination.
How will IBM’s role differ this time?
IBM used its Digital Health Pass technology, which is part of the tech company’s Watson Works, to develop the Excelsior Pass. The pass is built on IBM’s own blockchain technology, allowing organizations and businesses to verify health credentials of individuals, employees, customers and other end users based on predetermined criteria specified by an organization, state or business.
IBM claims privacy is central and the data is secured and verifiable. The company also says the encrypted information is protected on the user’s digital wallet, and the user has “complete control” over how and with whom they share the information.
But how is sharing personal health data with Big Tech considered private? If someone is refused entrance to the workplace, a business or venue based on the Excelsior Pass, the person’s status would become known to colleagues at work, or strangers nearby at a social venue.
And what will IBM do with this data? How do we know IBM won’t turn over the data to government officials or sell it to other entities?
Data security concerns, human rights infringement
Requiring proof of a vaccine or a negative test result is a violation of fundamental human rights and promotes segregation based on unproven and experimental medical interventions. Let’s evaluate a few key factors:
The COVID vaccine has yet to prove in any clinical trials that it can stop person-to-person transmission. Using the Excelsior Pass to show proof of having the vaccine to enter a public venue, business or workspace is not proof of lower risk of transmission to others.
PCR tests have been proven to have high rates of false positives. A study conducted in April 2020, showed when PCR tests have a cycle threshold around 33 they lead to false positives 80% of the time. PCR tests cycled above 34 can reach 100% false positives. Yet the FDA was recommending PCR tests cycled around 40 times. Excelsior Pass will grant access to businesses and venues based on proof of negative test results, however the methodology is inaccurate and based upon a faulty and broken system of testing.
While Cuomo touts the Excelsior Pass as a way to return to normal, the pass comes with the same restrictions that have been in place this entire time. Per the NYS guidelines, Excelsior pass holders are still required to wear facial coverings and social distance.
Slippery slope
Once Excelsior Pass rolls out, it will likely expand to include more businesses throughout New York and could expand to more states. Will New Yorkers be forced to show their Excelsior Pass to shop at their local groceries stores? Will New York follow in the footsteps of Los Angeles by mandating the COVID vaccine and use of a tracking app to attend school?
This appears to be a quid pro quo among Big Tech, Big Pharma and government that likely will lead to the commercialization of personal health data — and it could easily expand to other vaccine requirements in the future.
Many people are not aware of the Healthy People 2030 agenda, which ultimately will include an aggressive adult vaccine catch-up schedule. It’s easy to see how state government officials and businesses could easily add other vaccines to the Excelsior Pass for children and adults as necessary criteria for entry. This could lead to a systematic threat to our right to travel freely and could interfere with the ability to earn a living and conduct commerce.
Inching closer to a surveillance state
Yesterday in New York, bill S75, sponsored by Sen. Brad Hoylman, passed in the Senate Health Committee. Hoylman is also the author of the bill that repealed religious exemptions in 2019, and he has proposed legislation to mandate the HPV vaccine and annual flu vaccines for school children.
His most recent bill would require college students to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
S75 requires medical professionals who administer vaccines to patients 19 and older to enter their vaccine records in state-operated immunization registries which then provide the data to the New York State Department of Health or the New York City Department of Health (for providers treating patients in New York City).
Previously, the sharing of personal health information for adult vaccine status with the state was optional. By making it mandatory, the bill violates New Yorkers’ right to keep health information private.
Hoylman said during the Senate Health Committee hearing “ … this is important data that our health departments need as we battle COVID. This is really a matter of life or death, if we don’t get this information into public officials’ hands. This is not about consent or personal freedoms, this is about making certain that everyone is protected from this ravaging pandemic.”
The bill passed straight down party lines. Nine of the ten Democrats on the committee voted yes (with one Democratic member not present) and all five Republicans on the committee voted no.
The bill will now move forward to a full floor vote in the Senate, and the Assembly Health Committee will also vote on the companion bill. No dates have been scheduled yet but both votes are imminent.
This bill removes the right to privacy for vaccine status for adults in New York and confiscates personal health data in the name of “public health.” Any database collecting this information could be commoditized for broader use and will lead to targeting certain populations who aren’t receiving vaccines with efforts to coerce compliance and increase uptake rates.
A look at how health information has been commoditized in other countries and tabulated as a “social credit score” provides a glimpse into a dystopian future, where a person’s ability to participate in society is dependent on pharmaceutical consumption and participation in programs that track and trace every move and commoditize personal data for the benefit of corporations.
What can we do about it?
Together, we have the power to make a difference with our actions. Here are four actions we can take:
Boycott businesses requiring the Excelsior Pass. Refuse to shop, eat, or participate in any events from business that require the use of the Excelsior Pass. If it hurts a company’s bottom line, the company will take notice. Send letters addressed to the heads of corporations and businesses you frequent in New York to put them on notice that should they require the Excelsior Pass in the future, you will boycott their business. Find our template letter here to send to companies or businesses requiring mandatory COVID-19 vaccine or COVID-19 tests.
Sign this petition.Sign this petition stating you refuse to take part in using New York’s Excelsior Pass. Let Gov. Andrew Cuomo know this passport violates your rights. Even out-of-staters can sign — New York depends upon tourism.
Sound off to your reps. While the Excelsior Pass wasn’t based on state legislation, it’s still important for New York residents to share feedback with their state representatives. Cuomo, who has been accused of overreach and abuse of emergency powers during the pandemic, pushed out the digital health pass without any legislative process, public hearings or feedback. You can call, email and, if possible, visit the office of your state legislators. If you aren’t sure who your reps are, please look up your state senator here and your assemblyperson here.
Ask your state lawmakers to oppose bills to mandate the COVID vaccine for New Yorkers. A bill was written to mandate the vaccine for virtually all New York citizens — adults and children — in the 2019-2020 legislative session, but has not yet been re-introduced for the 2020-2021 session. Hoylman recently introduced a new bill this legislative session that would make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory for post-secondary education. Let your state representatives know how these bills would affect your family (e.g. force you to move out of state, lose your job, lose the rights for your children to attend school, etc.).
Find out if your state representatives will support freedom of choice when it comes to your personal health decisions. Ask them to support the counterbill, which prohibits mandatory vaccines and provides a vaccine bill of rights to respect constitutional rights of New York citizens, recently introduced by Assm. David DiPietro (R).
Get loud on social media. Let Cuomo, your state representatives and participating businesses know you refuse to use the Excelsior Pass. Share how this vaccine passport is an infringement of your privacy, violation of informed consent and your fundamental human rights. Let businesses know you will boycott them, as the Excelsior Pass is discriminatory, unethical and unconstitutional.
As President Biden and our federal government contemplate a vaccine passport on the national level, it’s imperative to take action now. There are a number of states protecting civil liberties and maintaining choice. As of now, the governors of Florida, Texas, Utah, Idaho, Montana and Arizona have all passed legislation or issued executive orders prohibiting vaccine passports. The governors of Tennessee, Iowa and Georgia have stated their opposition.
Now is the time to keep the pressure on all states to preserve our fundamental liberties. In a very short period, we could see our country change into a surveillance state that revokes the very liberties and freedoms that our country was founded upon.
We face a critical time, where taking a stand and taking action is of utmost importance. Take the actions above and ask others to do the same.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.” ~ Hannah Arendt (1951) “The Origins of Totalitarianism”
It is never enough to place all blame on the ruling class, regardless of the evil present, unless one is innocent, enlightened, and powerless to protect and stand up for self and truth. So long as the common man bows to power because he assumes that it may be of some good use, he has acquiesced his soul for an unsustainable and baseless self-interested goal. This attitude is not one of morality and proper purpose, but one of egocentrism, indifference, and greed. It is easy to lay blame at the feet of politicians, until one realizes that tyrants could never survive and prosper without the consent of the governed. Accepting this legitimate reality can be the impetus for achieving a free existence.
All that is going on today; the lockdowns, mask wearing, cold and heartless distancing from family, friends, and society, self-imprisonment, deadly injections, surveillance, censorship, economic destruction, and massive restrictions of life-sustaining activities, have all been willingly accepted. Does this mean that the people themselves are at fault for the horrible circumstances that currently threaten them? It certainly does, but not in the sense that the masses planned and wished for such a travesty, but in the manner that all of this carnage was voluntarily allowed to happen, even in the face of extreme hardship and suffering. It was brought about by fear, and fear can be a very convincing tool in the quiver of tyrants when they seek to trick the herd into accepting oppressive and authoritative rule in order to gain what is falsely termed as ‘safety.’ This is the result of mass propaganda meant to weaken the resolve of the many by fooling them into submission, while the power brokers simply stay in the shadows awaiting the voluntary surrender of their subjects.
Given this state of affairs, and understanding the implications of these truths should strengthen the determination and courage of the general population because it is obvious that without the consent of the people, none of this could continue to threaten our very existence. The American people in other words, hold all the real power to escape this tyranny, and simply have to unite to throw off the ‘claimed’ rulers. The idea of defeating this manmade travesty is really that simple, but the desire to implement this winning strategy is still lacking among the public at large. The importance of fighting back, and reclaiming freedom is imperative if any liberty is to be salvaged. Educating as many as is possible about the power they hold is necessary in order to start a fire in the bellies of all those that have the most to lose. Those are you and me, and everyone you know. All Americans are at great risk.
We are in the midst of an aggressive attack on humanity itself. Each of us at some point must accept the fact that without mass resistance, we will all be slaves. This stark realization is inevitable, and all that is required in order to stop this global reset is disobedience and non-compliance by large numbers.
Without that resistance, the possible, or more likely probable, terror that we will experience will be widespread and all encompassing. The next planned and telegraphed major attack against the people, the next “9/11’ type event if you will, in all probability, “will be a massive cyber attack meant to implode the entire financial system, and allow for a government censoring and takeover of the internet. This plot was designed in the near past, and has been openly simulated and the full strategy released just a few months ago.” In addition, this event will be used to bring about a national digital system, so that monetary policy can be controlled at a national and then global level. Of course, this will mean a vast increase in surveillance and censorship, so that the mainstream narrative can be continually pushed without any offsetting truth or scrutiny.
As I wrote recently: “A total digital system is desired by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF), along with the central banking cartel and its government and corporate partners, and the way forward with this scheme can only take place when the current economic system is destroyed. In other words, a new financial system has already been designed, and is ready to be implemented after an economic collapse. Technocratic control is sought, and we are already far into the plot to implement a takeover of the entire financial system. The new and dictatorial internet “Patriot Act” is already drafted, and will be introduced almost immediately following this staged cyber attack that is sure to come.”
And this is only one part of this plot to globalize and reset our current system. The immunity passport agenda will continue in earnest, and several tactics could be used to instill much more fear in this society, including targeted releases of bio-weapon technology, more lethal effects of injections, and intentional killing in order to continue to gain compliance. The deadly ‘vaccine’ agenda will also continue, and while many are properly rejecting this poison today, how many will line up when deaths begin to stack up due to the already large number of citizens that have taken this gene-altering, and deadly concoction that can be intentionally designed to destroy the natural human immune system?
In the interim, more anti-gun legislation, higher taxation, and massive inflation will consume this society, causing more unemployment, more bankruptcies, business closings, and poverty. All this will be used to decimate this already crippled economy and the weakened population will become even more dependent on government. All in all, much more hell is coming, so unity among all of us is imperative if survival and freedom are desired.
America is no longer a home to free individuals, and has become the poster child for almost absolute tyranny. The individual needs to once again reign supreme, and stand in total defiance against this nation state that seeks only to capture and control the bodies and minds of the people in order to gain dominance over all.
“Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority.” ~ Arthur Schopenhauer (2007). “Parerga and Paralipomena: A Collection of Philosophical Essays”, p.60, Cosimo, Inc.
One of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems is the criminalization of dissent. Not just the stigmatization of dissent or the demonization of dissent, but the formal criminalization of dissent, and any other type of opposition to the official ideology of the totalitarian system. Global capitalism has been inching its way toward this step for quite some time, and now, apparently, it is ready to take it.
Germany has been leading the way. For over a year, anyone questioning or protesting the “Covid emergency measures” or the official Covid-19 narrative has been demonized by the government and the media, and, sadly, but not completely unexpectedly, the majority of the German public. And now such dissent is officially “extremism.”
Yes, that’s right, in “New Normal” Germany, if you dissent from the official state ideology, you are now officially a dangerous “extremist.” The German Intelligence agency (the “BfV”) has even invented a new category of “extremists” in order to allow themselves to legally monitor anyone suspected of being “anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security,” like … you know, non-violently protesting, or speaking out against, or criticizing, or satirizing, the so-called “New Normal.”
Naturally, I’m a little worried, as I have engaged in most of these “extremist” activities. My thoughtcrimes are just sitting there on the Internet waiting to be scrutinized by the BfV. They’re probably Google-translating this column right now, compiling a list of all the people reading it, and their Facebook friends and Twitter followers, and professional associates, and family members, and anyone any of the aforementioned people have potentially met with, or casually mentioned, who might have engaged in similar thoughtcrimes.
You probably think I’m joking, don’t you? I’m not joking. Not even slightly. The Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution (“Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz”) is actively monitoring anyone questioning or challenging the official “New Normal” ideology … the “Covid Deniers,” the “conspiracy theorists,” the “anti-vaxxers,” the dreaded “Querdenkers” (i.e., people who “think outside the box”), and anyone else they feel like monitoring who has refused to join the Covidian Cult. We’re now official enemies of the state, no different than any other “terrorists” … or, OK, technically, a little different.
As The New York Times reported last week (German Intelligence Puts Coronavirus Deniers Under Surveillance), “the danger from coronavirus deniers and conspiracy theorists does not fit the mold posed by the usual politically driven groups, including those on the far left and right, or by Islamic extremists.” Still, according to the German Interior Ministry, we diabolical “Covid deniers,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “anti-vaxxers” have “targeted the state itself, its leaders, businesses, the press, and globalism,” and have “attacked police officers” and “defied civil authorities.”
Moreover, back in August of 2020, in a dress rehearsal for the “Storming of the Capitol,” “Covid-denying” insurrectionists “scaled the steps of Parliament” (i.e., the Reichstag). Naturally, The Times neglects to mention that this so-called “Storming of the Reichstag” was performed by a small sub-group of protesters to whom the German authorities had granted a permit to assemble (apart from the main demonstration, which was massive and completely peaceful) on the steps of the Reichstag, which the German police had, for some reason, left totally unguarded. In light of the background of the person the German authorities issued this “Steps-of-the-Reichstag” protest permit to — a known former-NPD functionary, in other words, a neo-Nazi — well, the whole thing seemed a bit questionable to me … but what do I know? I’m just a “conspiracy theorist.”
But, see, there I go, again “being anti-democratic” and “delegitimizing the state,” not to mention “relativizing the Holocaust” (also a criminal offense in Germany) by comparing one totalitarian system to another, as I have done repeatedly on social media, and in a column I published in November of 2020, when the parliament passed the “Infection Protection Act,” which bears no comparison whatsoever to the “Enabling Act of 1933.”
This isn’t just a German story, of course. As I reported in a column in February, The “New Normal” War on Domestic Terror is a global war, and it’s just getting started. According to a Department of Homeland Security “National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin” (and the “liberal” corporate-media propaganda machine), “democracy” remains under imminent threat from these “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority” and other such “grievances fueled by false narratives” including “anger over Covid-19 restrictions.”
These Covid-denying “violent extremists” have apparently joined forces with the “white-supremacist, Russia-backed, Trump-loving “Putin-Nazis” that terrorized “democracy” for the past four years, and almost overthrew the US government by sauntering around inside the US Capitol Building without permission, scuffling with police, attacking furniture, and generally acting rude and unruly. No, they didn’t actually kill anyone, as the corporate media all reported they did, but trespassing in a government building and putting your feet up on politicians’ desks is pretty much exactly the same as “terrorism.”
Or whatever. It’s not like the truth actually matters, not when you are whipping up mass hysteria over imaginary “Russian assets,” “white-supremacist militias,” “Covid-denying extremists,” “anti-vax terrrorists,” and “apocalyptic plagues.” When you’re rolling out a new official ideology — a pathologized-totalitarian ideology — and criminalizing all dissent, the point is not to appear to be factual. The point is just to terrorize the shit out of people.
As Hermann Goering famously explained regarding how to lead a country to war (and the principle holds true for any big transition, like the one we are experiencing currently):
“[T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”
Go back and read those quotes from the German Interior Ministry and the DHS again slowly. The message they are sending is unmistakeably clear. It might not seem all that new, but it is. Yes, they have been telling us “we are being attacked” and denouncing critics, protesters, and dissidents for twenty years (i.e., since the War on Terror was launched in 2001, and for the last four years in their War on Populism), but this is a whole new level of it … a fusion of official narratives and their respective official enemies into a singular, aggregate official narrative in which dissent will no longer be permitted.
Instead, it will be criminalized, or it will be pathologized.
Seriously, go back and read those quotes again. Global capitalist governments and their corporate media mouthpieces are telling us, in no uncertain terms, that “objection to their authority” will no longer be tolerated, nor will dissent from their official narratives. Such dissent will be deemed “dangerous” and above all “false.” It will not be engaged with or rationally debated. It will be erased from public view. There will be an inviolable, official “reality.” Any deviation from official “reality” or defiance of the “civil authorities” will be labelled “extremism,” and dealt with accordingly.
This is the essence of totalitarianism, the establishment of an inviolable official ideology and the criminalization of dissent. And that is what is happening, right now. A new official ideology is being established. Not a state ideology. A global ideology. The “New Normal” is that official ideology. Technically, it is an official post-ideology, an official “reality,” an axiomatic “fact,” which only “criminals” and “psychopaths” would deny or challenge.
I’ll be digging deeper into “New Normal” ideology and “pathologized totalitarianism” in my future columns, and … sorry, they probably won’t be very funny. For now I’ll leave you with two more quotes. The emphasis is mine, as ever.
“These extremists have not yet been held accountable, so they continue to escalate violence against the body public … We must now summon the political will to demand that domestic terrorists face consequences for their words and actions. Our democracy and our lives depend on it … They’ve been building alliances with white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and [others] on the far right …”
“The United Nations and the highest levels of governments must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States. Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures. The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counter-offensive.”
We’ll be hearing a lot more rhetoric like this as this new, more totalitarian structure of global capitalism gradually develops. Probably a good idea to listen carefully, and assume they mean exactly what they say.
Is there a connection between China, Bill Gates, YouTube, and DNA collection?
Recent reports reveal that a Chinese company with connections to the Gates Foundation is involved in COVID-19 testing and poses a potential threat to American privacy, particularly the medical and health data of those who have been tested for COVID-19.
“60 Minutes has learned Chinese company BGI Group, the largest biotech firm in the world, offered to build COVID labs in at least six states, and U.S. intelligence officials issued warnings not to share health data with BGI.
The largest biotech firm in the world wasted no time in offering to build and run COVID testing labs in Washington, contacting its governor right after the first major COVID outbreak in the U.S. occurred there. The Chinese company, the BGI Group, made the same offer to at least five other states, including New York and California, 60 Minutes has learned. This, along with other COVID testing offers by BGI, so worried Bill Evanina, then the country’s top counterintelligence officer, that he authorized a rare public warning.”
“Foreign powers can collect, store and exploit biometric information from COVID tests” declared the notice. Evanina believes the Chinese are trying to collect Americans’ DNA to win a race to control the world’s biodata.”
Evanina said a foreign entity could learn about a person’s current or future medical conditions by studying their DNA and using this information to gain a monopoly over necessary drugs and treatments.
BGI Group declined to be interviewed by 60 Minutes and said the idea that Americans genomic data has been compromised by BGI is “groundless”.
Concerns around BGI also arose in late January when Reuters reported that more than 40 publicly available documents and research papers show BGI’s links to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Reuters said the research dealt with topics as varied as mass testing for respiratory pathogens to brain science.
The Gates Foundation and BGI
In March, journalist Natalie Winter of National Pulseuncovered documentation of a relationship between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and BGI going back nearly a decade. Winter found a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Gates Foundation and BGI to “form a collaboration on global health and agricultural development with the goal of achieving common objectives in health and agricultural development.”
Specifically, this collaboration deals with developments in human, plant, and animal genomics, the study of DNA. In the press release for the MOU, the co-founder of BGI directly mentions the partnership as focused on genomics.
“BGI looks forward to partnering with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in this significant collaboration to apply genomics research to benefit global human health,” said Dr. Huanming Yang, Chairman and Co-Founder of BGI.
Bill Gates also visited BGI headquarters in 2010, according to a report from the Financial Times. The Times stated that BGI “is working towards a goal of building a huge library based on the DNA of many millions of people.” BGI’s goal is to use this information for new drugs, genetic research, and “transforming public health policy”.
It would appear the COVID-19 crisis has helped BGI and the Gates Foundation step into the role of influencing and transforming international health policy.
Winter’s report also notes that:
“the Gates Foundation has also funded BGI projects relating to genome sequencing alongside Chinese Communist Party bodies such as the Ministry of Science and Technology and Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
Similarly, Dr. Tadataka Yamada, the former president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s global health program, serves as the Chairman of BGI’s Scientific Advisory Board.”
It’s clear that BGI Group and the Gates Foundation have a documented relationship over the last the decade. It’s equally apparent that BGI Group has an extensive relationship with the Chinese military and government. It is these connections – the relationship that exists between the Chinese government, the BGI Group, and the Gates Foundation – which has sparked fears regarding the potential misuse for the COVID-19 tests manufactured by BGI.
BGI and the DNA Testing Industry
Since March 2020, BGI has sold millions of their COVID-19 test kits around the world, including the United States, Europe, and Australia. Reuters reports that shares of BGI Genomics Co. have doubled in the last year, giving BGI a market value of around $9 billion USD.
The company is based in Shenzhen, on the coast of Guangdong, China. They have made a name for themselves by selling genetic sequencing services around the world, which has helped them to create a large database of DNA. BGI is also well known for creating a cloned pig in 2010.
The company has regularly partnered with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. BGI and the PLA’s Academy of Military Medical Science share a dozen patents for DNA tests. Coincidentally, Reuters notes that one patent from 2015 is for a “low-cost test kit to detect respiratory pathogens, including SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and coronaviruses.”
Further, Chen Weijun, BGI’s chief infectious disease expert, is listed as an inventor on the patent while also holding the title of one of the first scientists reported to have sequenced COVID-19 used samples from a military hospital in Wuhan.
BGI says the test kit developed with the Chinese military is not the same one sold to foreign countries.
The danger of COVID-19 tests being used as a method for gathering genomic data on the unsuspecting public is part of a larger conversation about the dangers posed by genealogy companies generally. Millions of people around the world have voluntarily submitted their DNA in exchange for information about their ancestry. The vast majority of the users of these companies, such as Ancestry and 23andMe, do not read the Terms of Service which outline how the genealogy firms can use the data.
One of the ways this data is used is to sell it to biotech companies who are interested in developing new drugs and therapies. Clearly, there are governments and militaries who also have an interest in collecting this data.
Evanina, the former counterintelligence officer, told 60 Minutes that Chinese companies are investing in U.S. biotech companies to gain access to the health data. He says most people do not realize that their genetic material represents “your past and your future as well as your children’s future.”
While there are clearly reasons to be concerned about the influence of the Chinese government and what they might do with your DNA, the reality is most governments with the resources will likely seek to mine DNA as well. This absolutely includes the United States government, military, and private companies.
One such company is the aforementioned 23andMe. In the January 60 Minutes report Anne Wojcicki, CEO of 23andMe, answered questions regarding her company’s use of the data they are collecting. While Wojcicki says that her company has “empowered individuals with this opportunity to come together, to crowd source research”, she doesn’t shy away from acknowledging that her company plans to use the information to develop drugs.
“And I absolutely stand behind: we are going to develop drugs. So that everyone is actually benefiting from the human genome. So absolutely the data is valuable,” Wojcicki told 60 Minutes.
While she says she agrees that Americans should be concerned about China’s investments in genomic research, she believes the answer is for the United States to invest in genetic programs.
Wojcicki and 23andMe have faced their own criticisms regarding how they use the data and whether the public can truly expect records of their DNA to be safe. In February it was announced 23andMe would become a publicly traded company with help from billionaire Richard Branson. The Guardian noted that Branson’s Virgin Acquisition Group said 23andMe and their “vast proprietary dataset” of DNA would allow Virgin to “unlock revenue streams across digital health, therapeutics, and more”.
Branson’s interest in the study of DNA resembles the interests of wannabe billionaire Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein had an obsession with funding DNA programs. Bill Gates is also a part of this web because of his relationship with Epstein and partnership with the BGI Group. TLAV’s Whitney Webb recently reported:
“Epstein donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the institution and Epstein was also used as a channel for making donations to MIT by billionaire Bill Gates. Gates has yet to explain why he would funnel his donations through Epstein as opposed to publicly donating via his well-known “philanthropic” foundation. Epstein’s funding of the MIT Media Lab in particular led to the resignation of its former director Joi Ito in September 2019 following Epstein’s arrest and subsequent ‘suicide.’”
The DNA-Biosecurity-Big Tech Web
What is not mentioned in the 60 Minutes piece – or anywhere else – is the fact that Anne Wojcicki, CEO of 23andMe, is the sister of Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube. Additionally, Anne Wojcicki’s husband until 2015 was Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google and president of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc, until December 2019. Google also owns YouTube.
The reason these connections matter is because there are common threads between Google, the Gates Foundation, companies like 23andMe, and the Chinese government. While Anne Wojcicki and 23andMe work on DNA mining, her sister at YouTube censors reports on such topics that are often labeled misinformation. Understanding the incredible conflicts of interests here is of the utmost importance.
In a coming report I will dive deeper into this tangled web of Big Tech, Big Philanthropy, and the Chinese government.
The U.S. Postal Service is discovered to be running a ‘covert operations program’ that monitors Americans’ social media posts. This is stunning and inexplicable except that the USPS is already scanning every piece of mail it handlesThe USPS already reserves the right to open any piece of mail that it receives. Measuring your social media posts against so-called fact checkers could provide a list of senders or recipients whose mail needs to be “examined” more carefully. So, you thought your mail was private? Welcome to Nineteen Eighty-Four! ⁃ TN Editor
The law enforcement arm of the U.S. Postal Service has been quietly running a program that tracks and collects Americans’ social media posts, including those about planned protests, according to a document obtained by Yahoo News.
The details of the surveillance effort, known as iCOP, or Internet Covert Operations Program, have not previously been made public. The work involves having analysts trawl through social media sites to look for what the document describes as “inflammatory” postings and then sharing that information across government agencies.
“Analysts with the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) monitored significant activity regarding planned protests occurring internationally and domestically on March 20, 2021,” says the March 16 government bulletin, marked as “law enforcement sensitive” and distributed through the Department of Homeland Security’s fusion centers. “Locations and times have been identified for these protests, which are being distributed online across multiple social media platforms, to include right-wing leaning Parler and Telegram accounts.”
A number of groups were expected to gather in cities around the globe on March 20 as part of a World Wide Rally for Freedom and Democracy, to protest everything from lockdown measures to 5G. “Parler users have commented about their intent to use the rallies to engage in violence. Image 3 on the right is a screenshot from Parler indicating two users discussing the event as an opportunity to engage in a ‘fight’ and to ‘do serious damage,’” says the bulletin.
“No intelligence is available to suggest the legitimacy of these threats,” it adds.
The bulletin includes screenshots of posts about the protests from Facebook, Parler, Telegram and other social media sites. Individuals mentioned by name include one alleged Proud Boy and several others whose identifying details were included but whose posts did not appear to contain anything threatening.
“iCOP analysts are currently monitoring these social media channels for any potential threats stemming from the scheduled protests and will disseminate intelligence updates as needed,” the bulletin says.
The government’s monitoring of Americans’ social media is the subject of ongoing debate inside and outside government, particularly in recent months, following a rise in domestic unrest. While posts on platforms such as Facebook and Parler have allowed law enforcement to track down and arrest rioters who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6, such data collection has also sparked concerns about the government surveilling peaceful protesters or those engaged in protected First Amendment activities.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
