Southington, Connecticut school children pledge their allegiance to the flag, in May 1942.
“Rex Curry is the historian who revealed amazing discoveries including (1) that the USA’s Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was the origin of the Nazi salute and Nazi behavior adopted later in Germany under Hitler’s socialism, and (2) that the so-called “swastika” symbol was used to represent “S” letter shapes for “SOCIALISM” under Hitler.
It has pleased me greatly to see the recent headlines and articles lambasting the horrible “Pledge of Allegiance.” It is about time. This is beside the fact that many of the reasons given for abandoning these nation-state glorification (socialist) testimonials, are incorrect, based on some ‘woke’ agenda, or some non-thinking collective nonsense. No one should ever have said any evil pledge to any nation or country, or sang any ‘national’ anthem meant as worship of the State. The fact that this is demanded of children from almost infancy to adult is no accident, as it takes time to indoctrinate, and make compliant an entire society.
Jacob Hornberger’s recent article, “The Pledge of Allegiance and Government Schools,” was well done, and explained some of the history of the heinous pledge, but I think it is very important to concentrate on why most adults still stand at attention at every single demand to say the pledge or sing the national anthem. The children mostly comply because they have been taught to do so almost since birth, this due to being exposed to heinous government schooling (total indoctrination) that only exists in order to harm and brainwash by promoting State worship and obedience.
I have told this story before, but will once again. When I was 16 years old and in a government school, all students in the high school I attended were required to meet the first thing in the morning in a very large auditorium. At that time, there were over 400 students, and all were told every morning to stand, put their hand over their heart (different than the ‘Hitler (Roman) salute’ used from 1892 until December 1942) and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I do not recall exactly when I began to find this to be obnoxious, but it had been a long time. I was shy at this age, but could no longer put up with this idiocy. I stood up in front of the entire hall, and stated that I would never say this pledge to any flag again in my life. As you might imagine, this caused a great stir and disbelief, and those in charge immediately took me to the principal’s office.
As you might imagine, I was threatened, and told I had to say the pledge, but I said never again. I do not remember all that was said to me, or how long this browbeating went on, but eventually, my parents were called. I do not remember how my father was able to get there considering his work, but he showed up and came to the principal’s office. He was told that I refused to say the pledge, and that this was required. My father simply said, and I paraphrase, “If Gary said he is not going to say the pledge, then that is the end of the conversation. It is his decision.” I have never said it since that time.
It was later in life that I came to the same decision concerning the warmongering, and abhorrent national anthem, but I saw little difference in this and the pledge, concerning the attitude of worship for the State. I had no use for that idiocy, which I consider a voluntary pronouncement of slavery to the State.
The history of pledging allegiance and bowing to the State as master, has long been a part of this country’s past, but it was not always so, even given that the constitutional convention was meant to create a large and powerful centralized federal governing system; one with virtually unlimited powers. One aspect of the State gaining submission to its false authority by the common people, is to fool them into believing that the ‘country,’ (nation-state) and its hideous flag are more important than the individual, and that ridiculous ‘patriotism’ to the State is necessary for the ‘greater good.’ This is laughable, especially considering the evil tyranny and murder committed in the name of this country–the USA.
What should be gained from understanding the deceit of such nonsensical madness as worship of government or State, is that in order to be free, one must separate himself from any devotion to rule, or allegiance to any country or false governing authority. When one accepts that any regime or State is more important than the individual, slavery will naturally result. Those in power fully understand this concept, and every fiber of their being is bent on fooling the people into believing that they are subordinate to the State. (Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.) The ruling class considers themselves as gods, and the people their servants, and uses fear as their crutch to capture the hearts and souls of mankind. This is the essence of rule, power, and control over society.
If one is to seek and respect freedom, all governing systems, all government schools, and all aspects of power of one over another, must be abolished. Freedom and rule are opposite, and cannot exist together. There is either rule by tyrants, or there is freedom, and never the twain shall meet.
“You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.”
Cover image in Public Domain: (1899) Students pledging to the flag, 1899, 8th Division, Washington, D.C.
Part of the Frances Benjamin Johnston 1890 – 1900 Washington, D.C., school survey.
Circus Politics Are Intended to Distract Us. Don’t Be Distracted.
“There is nothing more dangerous than a government of the many controlled by the few.”
—Lawrence Lessig, Harvard law professor
It is easy to be distracted right now by the bread and circus politics that have dominated the news headlines lately, but don’t be distracted.
Don’t be fooled, not even a little.
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.
What characterizes American government today is not so much dysfunctional politics as it is ruthlessly contrived governance carried out behind the entertaining, distracting and disingenuous curtain of political theater. And what political theater it is, diabolically Shakespearean at times, full of sound and fury, yet in the end, signifying nothing.
We are being ruled by a government of scoundrels, spies, thugs, thieves, gangsters, ruffians, rapists, extortionists, bounty hunters, battle-ready warriors and cold-blooded killers who communicate using a language of force and oppression.
The U.S. government now poses the greatest threat to our freedoms.
More than terrorism, more than domestic extremism, more than gun violence and organized crime, even more than the perceived threat posed by any single politician, the U.S. government remains a greater menace to the life, liberty and property of its citizens than any of the so-called dangers from which the government claims to protect us.
No matter who has occupied the White House in recent years, the Deep State has succeeded in keeping the citizenry divided and at each other’s throats.
After all, as long as we’re busy fighting each other, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny in any form.
Unfortunately, what we are facing is tyranny in every form.
The facts speak for themselves.
We’re being robbed blind by a government of thieves. Americans no longer have any real protection against government agents empowered to seize private property at will. For instance, police agencies under the guise of asset forfeiture laws are taking Americans’ personal property based on little more than a suspicion of criminal activity and keeping it for their own profit and gain. In one case, police seized more than $17,000 in cash from two sisters who were trying to start a dog breeding business. Despite finding no evidence of wrongdoing, police held onto the money for months. Homeowners are losing their homes over unpaid property taxes (as little as $2300 owed) that amount to a fraction of what they have invested in their homes. And then there’s the Drug Enforcement Agency, which has been searching train and airline passengers and pocketing their cash, without ever charging them with a crime.
We’re being taken advantage of by a government of scoundrels, idiots and cowards. Journalist H.L. Mencken calculated that “Congress consists of one-third, more or less, scoundrels; two-thirds, more or less, idiots; and three-thirds, more or less, poltroons.” By and large, Americans seem to agree. When you’ve got government representatives who spend a large chunk of their work hours fundraising, being feted by lobbyists, shuffling through a lucrative revolving door between public service and lobbying, and making themselves available to anyone with enough money to secure access to a congressional office, you’re in the clutches of a corrupt oligarchy. Mind you, these same elected officials rarely read the legislation they’re enacting, nor do they seem capable of enacting much legislation that actually helps the plight of the American citizen. More often than not, the legislation lands the citizenry in worse straits.
We’re being locked up by a government of greedy jailers. We have become a carceral state, spending three times more on our prisons than on our schools and imprisoning close to a quarter of the world’s prisoners, despite the fact that crime is at an all-time low and the U.S. makes up only 5% of the world’s population. The rise of overcriminalization and profit-driven private prisons provides even greater incentives for locking up American citizens for such non-violent “crimes” as having an overgrown lawn. As the Boston Review points out, “America’s contemporary system of policing, courts, imprisonment, and parole … makes money through asset forfeiture, lucrative public contracts from private service providers, and by directly extracting revenue and unpaid labor from populations of color and the poor. In states and municipalities throughout the country, the criminal justice system defrays costs by forcing prisoners and their families to pay for punishment. It also allows private service providers to charge outrageous fees for everyday needs such as telephone calls. As a result people facing even minor criminal charges can easily find themselves trapped in a self-perpetuating cycle of debt, criminalization, and incarceration.”
We’re being spied on by a government of Peeping Toms. The government, along with its corporate partners, is watching everything you do, reading everything you write, listening to everything you say, and monitoring everything you spend. Omnipresent surveillance is paving the way for government programs that profile citizens, document their behavior and attempt to predict what they might do in the future, whether it’s what they might buy, what politician they might support, or what kinds of crimes they might commit. The impact of this far-reaching surveillance, according to Psychology Today, is “reduced trust, increased conformity, and even diminished civic participation.” As technology analyst Jillian C. York concludes, “Mass surveillance without due process—whether undertaken by the government of Bahrain, Russia, the US, or anywhere in between—threatens to stifle and smother that dissent, leaving in its wake a populace cowed by fear.”
We’re being forced to surrender our freedoms—and those of our children—to a government of extortionists, money launderers and professional pirates. The American people have repeatedly been sold a bill of goods about how the government needs more money, more expansive powers, and more secrecy (secret courts, secret budgets, secret military campaigns, secret surveillance) in order to keep us safe. Under the guise of fighting its wars on terror, drugs and now domestic extremism, the government has spent billions in taxpayer dollars on endless wars that have not ended terrorism but merely sown the seeds of blowback, surveillance programs that have caught few terrorists while subjecting all Americans to a surveillance society, and militarized police that have done little to decrease crime while turning communities into warzones. Not surprisingly, the primary ones to benefit from these government exercises in legal money laundering have been the corporations, lobbyists and politicians who inflict them on a trusting public.
We’re being held at gunpoint by a government of soldiers: a standing army. As if it weren’t enough that the American military empire stretches around the globe (and continues to leech much-needed resources from the American economy), the U.S. government is creating its own standing army of militarized police and teams of weaponized, federal bureaucrats. These civilian employees are being armed to the hilt with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; authorized to make arrests; and trained in military tactics. Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, IRS, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities. There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government civilians armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines. That doesn’t even begin to touch on the government’s arsenal, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, and the speed with which the nation could be locked down under martial law depending on the circumstances.
Whatever else it may be—a danger, a menace, a threat—the U.S. government is certainly no friend to freedom.
To our detriment, the criminal class that Mark Twain mockingly referred to as Congress has since expanded to include every government agency that feeds off the carcass of our once-constitutional republic.
The government and its cohorts have conspired to ensure that the only real recourse the American people have to hold the government accountable or express their displeasure with the government is through voting, which is no real recourse at all.
Consider it: the penalties for civil disobedience, whistleblowing and rebellion are severe. If you refuse to pay taxes for government programs you believe to be immoral or illegal, you will go to jail. If you attempt to overthrow the government—or any agency thereof—because you believe it has overstepped its reach, you will go to jail. If you attempt to blow the whistle on government misconduct, you will go to jail. In some circumstances, if you even attempt to approach your elected representative to voice your discontent, you can be arrested and jailed.
You cannot have a republican form of government—nor a democratic one, for that matter—when the government views itself as superior to the citizenry, when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people, when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government, when government officials cease to act like public servants, when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution.
We no longer have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”
For too long, the American people have obeyed the government’s dictates, no matter now unjust.
We have paid its taxes, penalties and fines, no matter how outrageous. We have tolerated its indignities, insults and abuses, no matter how egregious. We have turned a blind eye to its indiscretions and incompetence, no matter how imprudent. We have held our silence in the face of its lawlessness, licentiousness and corruption, no matter how illicit.
How long we will continue to suffer depends on how much we’re willing to give up for the sake of freedom.
For the moment, the American people seem content to sit back and watch the reality TV programming that passes for politics today. It’s the modern-day equivalent of bread and circuses, a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.
As French philosopher Etienne de La Boétie observed half a millennium ago:
“Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.”
The bait towards slavery. The price of liberty. The instruments of tyranny.
The bill in question, Washington State Legislature House Bill 1333, “Establishing the domestic violent extremism commission,” would, according to its critics, “criminalize thought and expression under an invented category of offences called ‘domestic violent extremism'” and allow the state’s attorney general to “prosecute some people for words and speech, rather than violent acts.”
Although there is nothing in the bill itself declaring that “political enemies” of the state will be sent to “psych wards,” the idea that psychologists and psychiatrists might be employed on such a “domestic violent extremism commission” to diagnose political dissidents with some form of mental disorder is not a misplaced one.
In fact, as it turns out, there is a long and worrying history of psychiatry being used as a weapon to silence those declared to be enemies of the state. And, more worrying still, recent events have demonstrated that—far from being a relic of the past—the pathologization of political dissent is becoming even more widespread than ever before.
The Bad Old Days
The history of psychology is, to a large extent, the history of cruel and unusual punishments meted out by rulers on political dissidents.
That psychology has always been a convenient tool for the ruling class to wield against dissenters may seem like a controversial observation at first glance. But this is precisely what the most mainstream of establishment sources tell us . . . when they’re talking about the establishment’s enemies.
In 1983, for example, Dr. Walter Reich was afforded prime journalistic real estate in America’s newspaper of record, The New York Times, for a lengthy report on “The World of Soviet Psychiatry.” After reporting that the 1977 congress of the World Psychiatric Association in Hawaii had voted to condemn “the systematic abuse of psychiatry for political purposes in the U.S.S.R.,” Reich notes that “Western concern over pyschiatric abuse in the Soviet Union had only grown” since the congress’ vote and that “the Russians were in danger of being suspended or even expelled from the international psychiatric organization.”
Reich then spends the majority of the rest of his 6,000-word article contrasting the American approach to mental health—in which “psychiatric treatment has become acceptable enough during the last few decades for people in emotional distress to seek it out”—with the Soviet approach—in which “the need for psychiatric care is more likely to be seen as a cause for shame.”
The Soviets, we are told, had taken the honourable study of the human mind and weaponized it, turning it into an instrument of political oppression.
For years, Soviet psychiatrists had been accused in the West of diagnosing as mentally ill political dissidents they knew to be mentally well. According to both Western critics and Soviet dissidents, the K.G.B.—especially after it was taken over in 1967 by Yuri V. Andropov, now the top Soviet leader—had regularly referred dissidents to psychiatrists for such diagnoses in order to avoid embarrassing public trials and to discredit dissent as the product of sick minds. Once in psychiatric hospitals, usually special institutions for the criminally insane, the dissidents were said to be treated with particular cruelty—for example, given injections that caused abscesses, convulsions and torpor, or wrapped in wet canvas that shrank tightly upon drying.
Lest the reader be left in any doubt as to his message, Reich states it clearly later on in the piece: “[T]he experience of Soviet psychiatry had a lot to teach,” he tells us, “about the vulnerabilities of psychiatry to misuse wherever it is practiced.”
To be sure, Reich isn’t wrong. The horrors of the Soviet psychiatric system—in which political dissidents were routinely diagnosed with “sluggish schizophrenia,” psychiatric hospitals were used as temporary prisons during periods of protest, and troublesome rebels were kept in medically induced comas or drug-induced catatonic states for extended periods of time—has been well documented in numerous mainstream sources, both popular and academic. But these horrors were given their most poignant expression in the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn:
The incarceration of free thinking healthy people in madhouses is spiritual murder, it is a variation of the gas chamber, even more cruel; the torture of the people being killed is more malicious and more prolonged. Like the gas chambers, these crimes will never be forgotten and those involved in them will be condemned for all time during their life and after their death.
As Reich correctly observes in his report, the Soviet pathologization of dissent does indeed serve as a warning that psychiatry is vulnerable to being misused “wherever it is practiced.” But, by a funny coincidence, these concerns only ever seem to come up when psychiatry is being “misused” in countries that are on the US State Department’s enemies list.
Thus, there are no shortage of sources that will tell you about:
the abuses that Japanese psychiatrists inflicted on their patients during and immediately after WWII, resulting in an abnormally large number of patient deaths;
the Cuban revolutionary government’s use of psychotropic drugs and electroconvulsive therapy in order to obtain information from, punish, demoralize, coerce, subdue, terrorize, and cause psychological damage to those deemed a threat to state security;
. . . and any number of similar examples of psychiatric abuse by governments at war with or in the crosshairs of the US government.
Often excluded from this analysis, however, are the horrific abuses that psychiatrists in the West have inflicted on their patients in the name of state security.
For example, while the history books will rightly condemn the horrors of the Nazi eugenic sterilization program, they seldom explore the roots of that program. As it turns out, those roots were in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, which was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. What’s more, Ernst Rüdin—the director of the also-Rockefeller-funded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and one of the key architects of Germany’s eugenics program—modeled the Nazi eugenics legislation on America’s own “Model Eugenical Sterilization Law.”
In fact, America’s first professor of psychology, James McKeen Cattell, helped bring the eugenics pseudoscience to the shores of America in the first place. Having befriended Francis Galton, the progenitor of eugenics, during a trip to England in 1887, Cattell returned to the US with an enthusiasm for the idea. He later wrote a letter to Galton bragging, “We are following in America your advice and example.”
Still further back in history, Benjamin Rush—one of the founding fathers of the United States and the man officially recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as the “father of American psychiatry”—made early contributions to the weaponization of psychiatry by inventing a number of mental disorders to pathologize dissent. The most notable of these made-up disorders was “anarchia,” a type of madness Rush defined as “an excess of the passion for liberty,” which “could not be removed by reason, nor restrained by government” and “threatened to render abortive the goodness of heaven to the United States.”
And what did this “father of American psychiatry” prescribe for those he deemed to be suffering from mental illness? Well, for starters, he “treated his patients with darkness, solitary confinement, and a special technique of forcing the patient to stand erect for two to three days at a time, poking them with sharp pointed nails to keep them from sleeping—a technique borrowed from a British procedure for taming horses.” He also invented two mechanical devices for the treatment of the insane: a “tranquilizing chair,” in which the patient’s “body is immobilized by straps at the shoulders, arms, waist, and feet [and] a box-like apparatus is used to confine the head,” and a “gyrator,” “which was a horizontal board on which torpid patients were strapped and spun to stimulate blood circulation.”
The cause in the most of cases, that induces the negro to run away from service, is as much a disease of the mind as any other species of mental alienation, and much more curable, as a general rule. With the advantages of proper medical advice, strictly followed, this troublesome practice that many negroes have of running away, can be almost entirely prevented, although the slaves be located on the borders of a free state, within a stone’s throw of the abolitionists.
Yes, the history of psychiatry is replete with examples of political dissidents, unruly populations or other “social undesirables” being labeled as insane and sent to the madhouse . . . or worse.
But that was then, many would be inclined to argue. This is now. Surely psychiatry isn’t used to suppress dissent any more, is it? . . .
The Bad New Days
. . . It sure is! And I’m not just talking about psychiatric repression in some backward, evil dictatorship like Russia. (Although, to be sure, there is that, too.)
No, once again, it is the “liberal,” “enlightened,” “free and democratic” West that is leading the way in weaponizing psychiatry against the masses. And, incredibly, the wielders of this psychiatric weapon don’t try to hide the fact, but have instead actively sought to codify it in their “bible.”
Since 1952, the American Psychiatric Association has published the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or the DSM, as a guideline for the classification and diagnoses of mental health issues. Commonly referred to as the psychiatric diagnostic bible, the DSM, according to the APA itself, “is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States and contains a listing of diagnostic criteria for every psychiatric disorder recognized by the U.S. healthcare system.”
Critics have long questioned the influence that Big Pharma has had in pressuring the APA to diagnose more and more behaviour as “abnormal” in order to prescribe pharmaceutical interventions to a greater and greater percentage of the public.
Concerns over Big Pharma’s influence on the creation of DSM are not trivial. In 2012, a study led by University of Massachusetts-Boston researcher Lisa Cosgrove noted that 69% of the DSM-5 task force members had ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including paid work as consultants and spokespersons for drug manufacturers. On certain panels, the conflict of interest was even more profound: 83% of the members of the panel working on mood disorders had pharamaceutical industry ties, and 100%—every single member—of the sleep disorder panel had “ties to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the medications used to treat these disorders or to companies that service the pharmaceutical industry.”
If these task force members’ goal is to make sure that more and more pharmaceuticals are sold, then by every measure they’ve been remarkably successful. Recent surveys indicate one in six American adults report taking a psychiatric drug, such as an antidepressant or a sedative. Worryingly, the number of children being prescribed antipsychotic medications like Adderall and Ritalin has continued to increase decade after decade.
But more worrying still is the way that this increase in antipsychotic prescriptions has been justified—by the invention of a new “mental disorder” called Oppositional Defiance Disorder.
Clinical psychologist Bruce Levine, who has spent decades ringing the alarm bell about the ways in which his profession is being used to repress legitimate political dissent, explains in his 2018 book, Resisting Illegitimate Authority:
Beginning in 1980, for noncompliant children who are not engaged in any illegal practices, the APA (in its DSM-III diagnostic manual) created the disruptive disorder diagnosis “oppositional defiant disorder” (ODD). For an ODD diagnosis, a youngster needs only four of the following eight symptoms for six months: often loses temper; often touchy or easily annoyed; often angry and resentful; often argues with authority figures; often actively defies or refuses to comply with requests from authority figures or with rules; often deliberately annoys others; often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior; spitefulness or vindictiveness at least twice within the past six months.
Levine goes on to point out that the front line of this assault on the human psyche are the children who are diagnosed with a mental disorder for demonstrating previously normal childhood behaviour:
In 2012, the Archives of General Psychiatry reported that between 1993 through 2009, there was a sevenfold increase of children 13 years and younger being prescribed antipsychotic drugs, and that disruptive behavior disorders such as ODD and CD were the most common diagnoses in children medicated with antipsychotics, accounting for 63% of those medicated.
But the pathologization of those who show signs of “oppositional defiance” is not confined to children. Levine also observes, citing his own clinical experience:
Among the people I have talked with who have been previously diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses, I am struck by how many of them, compared to the general population, are essentially anti-authoritarians. Unluckily for them, the professionals who have diagnosed them are not.
As we shall see next week, the weaponization of psychology against those independent, free-thinkers who tend to question authority is not some vague, amorphous concern about a Big Pharma boondoggle that is hurting people in the pocketbook. Rather, this weapon is now being used against critics of the biosecurity agenda and others who dare point out that the globalist, transhuman emperor is wearing no clothes.
But if it is true that the study of the mind has been weaponized and that that weapon is being deployed against conspiracy realists, the obvious question then becomes . . .
Published in 1946 as “The Reestablishment of Peacetime Psychiatry,” the lecture includes a proclamation that psychiatrists should take it upon themselves to rid the population of the concept of good and evil entirely: “If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility. This is a challenge which must be met.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Chisholm’s call to action was taken up by the British military. The “challenge” of “freeing the race” from the “crippling burden of good and evil” was taken up by British military psychiatrist Colonel John Rawlings Rees, the first president of Chisholm’s World Federation of Mental Health and chair of the infamous Tavistock Institute from 1933 to 1947.
In 1940, Rees gave an address to the annual meeting of the UK’s National Council for Mental Hygiene in which he laid out in predictably militaristic terms how this ambitious plan for reforming the public psyche was to be achieved. In “Strategic Planning for Mental Health,” Rees—after claiming that the psychiatrists of the council “can justifiably stress our particular point of view with regard to the proper development of the human psyche, even though our knowledge be incomplete”—asserts that they must aim to make that point of view “permeate every educational activity in our national life.”
He then launches into a startling confession:
[W]e have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church; the two most difficult are law and medicine.” [. . .] “If we are to infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people I think we must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column activity!”
Then Rees brazenly proclaims that “Parliament, the Press and other publications are the most obvious ways by which our propaganda can be got across” before reminding his audience once again of the need for secrecy if this plan to influence the development of the public psyche is to succeed: “Many people don’t like to be ‘saved’, ‘changed’ or made healthy,” he remarks.
So what were Rees and his fellow travelers really aiming at in their “fifth column” campaign to “attack” the professions and propagandize the public? His true intentions are revealed through his work for the British military—including his alleged drugging, poisoning and mesmerizing of Rudolf Hess, the Deputy Führer of the Nazi party who was captured and held by the British for decades after making a still-unexplained solo flight to Scotland in 1941—and through his work at the Tavistock Institute, where he attempted to mould public opinion in the UK to his liking.
As The Campaigner magazine explained in a Tavistock exposé published in 1978: “The theme of all of Rees’s known work is the development of the uses of psychiatry as a weapon of the ruling class.” That work, the article elaborates, included advising Rees’ superiors how they “can succeed in structuring a stressed individual’s or group’s situation appropriately, the victim(s) can be induced to develop for himself a special sort of ‘reaction formation’ through which he ‘democratically’ arrives precisely at the attitudes and decisions which the dictators would wish to force upon him.”
In other words, Rees’ work centered on the Problem-Reaction-Solution method of mass social control that Corbett Reporteers will be very familiar with by now. It should be no surprise, then, to learn that Rees’ research heavily influenced the operations of a budding young intelligence service that was then forming in the United States: the Central Intelligence Agency.
Indeed, the CIA has always been interested in weaponizing psychiatry as a way of achieving success in their covert operations. In fact, the CIA even openly advertises job opportunities for psychiatrists to “help the CIA mission where it intersects with psychiatric and broader behavioral issues.”
But when most people think of the CIA and weaponized psychiatry, they think of MKUltra and mind control.
As even the Wikipedia article on the subject admits, the CIA’s “Project MKUltra” was “an illegal human experimentation program designed and undertaken by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), intended to develop procedures and identify drugs that could be used in interrogations to weaken individuals and force confessions through brainwashing and psychological torture.”
There is much that the public still does not know about this project, its forerunner programs, Project Bluebird and Project ARTICHOKE, and the depths to which agents of the US government sank to discover ways of manipulating, melding, erasing or reprogramming individuals’ psyches. But what we do know about the program is chilling enough.
One series of experiments, presided over by Sidney Gottlieb, involved administering LSD to unwitting Americans, including mental patients, prisoners, drug addicts and prostitutes. This included “Operation Midnight Climax,” in which unsuspecting men were drugged and lured to CIA safe houses by prostitutes on the CIA payroll. Their sexual activity was monitored behind one-way mirrors and was used to study the effect of sexual blackmail and the use of mind-altering substances in field operations.
Another experiment, dubbed MKULTRA Subproject 68, was overseen by the esteemed psychiatrist Dr. Ewen Cameron. This subproject involved Dr. Cameron using LSD, paralytic drugs, electroshock therapy and drug-induced comas to attempt to wipe patients’ memories and reprogram their psyche. When brought to light, the program was identified as an attempt to refine methods of medical torture for the purpose of extracting information from unwilling sources and was condemned. Lawsuits regarding the blatantly illegal experimentation conducted by Cameron continue into the current era.
Although MKUltra “officially ended” after its exposure in the 1970s, the CIA has not stopped employing psychiatrists to find new and innovative ways to psychologically torment their opponents.
In May 2002, Martin Seligman, an influential American professor of psychology and a former president of the American Psychological Association, delivered a lecture at the San Diego Naval Base explaining how his research could help American personnel to—in his own words—”resist torture and evade successful interrogation by their captors.”
Among the hundred or so people in attendance at that lecture was one particularly enthused fan of Selgiman’s work: Dr. Jim Mitchell, a military retiree and psychologist who had contracted to provide training services to the CIA. Although Seligman had no idea of it at the time, Mitchell was—as we now know—one of the key architects of the CIA’s illegal torture program.
Naturally, Mitchell’s interest in Seligman’s talk was not in how it could be applied to help American personnel overcome learned helplessness and resist torture but rather how it could be used to induce learned helplessness in a CIA target and enhance torture. As it turns out, Mitchell’s theory (that “producing learned helplessness in a Qaeda interrogation subject might ensure that he would comply with his captor’s demands”) was bogus. More experienced interrogators objected at the time, noting that torture would only induce a prisoner to say what his captor wants, not what he knows.
What those interrogators didn’t understand was that extracting false confessions from prisoners was actually the point of the CIA torture program. It was “confessions” extracted under torture, after all, that went on to form the backbone of the 9/11 Commission Report, with a full quarter of all of the report’s footnotes deriving from torture testimony.
The Worst is Yet to Come . . .
Yes, from mind control experiments to torture programs to brainwashing and lobotomization, there can be no doubt that the governments, militaries and intelligence agencies of every major nation have devoted considerable resources to the weaponization of psychiatry over the course of the past century.
But, as it turns out, one of the simplest and easiest techniques for controlling dissent is simply to pathologize it. As we are beginning to see, simply declaring resistance to the status quo to be a form of mental disorder can be an exceptionally powerful tool for silencing opposition.
Next week, we will examine the ways this technique is now being employed against the conspiracy realists who seek to point out the obvious truths about the homeland security state and the biosecurity state.
When people think of the great attack on humanity, they often refer to 9.11, the start of the Iraq war, the COVID-19 operation, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But perhaps the deadliest attack on humanity is that of the “silent weapon” for a “quiet war” the smart phone. This weapon is aimed at the intellectual classes as a means of destroying their minds from within.
I have watched how the smart phone, combined with social media, has degraded the capacity of citizens to think for themselves over the last decade. This attack by the multinational corporations on our minds is far more dangerous than any bombing or shooting for it renders us passive, like GHB (gamma hydroxybutyric acid) (the date- rape drug) prone to exploitation and destruction.
The smart phone was launched in full force around 2009. I do not doubt that it had its positive aspects, and I was eventually forced to use one myself. Now you cannot travel without one in many parts of the world, and increasingly governments require them in order to be recognized as citizen. There is a sinister plan behind all of this, the great dumbing down, we call it.
The passivity and openness to suggestion that exposure to the smart phone induces is best described as a “procedure of conditioning,” to use the term of the German philosopher Günther Anders.
Anders wrote about a previous bid for totalitarian rule that was remarkably successfully, and never completely ended,
“Massenregie im Stile Hitlers erübrigt sich: Will man den Menschen zu einem Niemand machen (sogar stolz darauf, ein Niemand zu sein), dann braucht man ihn nicht mehr in Massenfluten zu ertränken; nicht mehr in einen, aus Masse massiv hergestellten, Bau einzubetonieren. Keine Entprägung, keine Entmachtung des Menschen als Menschen ist erfolgreicher als diejenige, die die Freiheit der Persönlichkeit und das Recht der Individualität scheinbar wahrt. Findet die Prozedur des „conditioning” bei jedermann gesondert statt: im Gehäuse des Einzelnen, in der Einsamkeit, in den Millionen Einsamkeiten, dann gelingt sie noch einmal so gut. Da die Behandlung sich als „fun” gibt; da sie dem Opfer nicht verrät, daß sie ihm Opfer abfordert; da sie ihm den Wahn seiner Privatheit, mindestens seines Privatraums, beläßt, bleibt sie vollkommen diskret.”
(Günther Anders, Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen, Beck, München 1961, p. 104)
Here’s the English translation:
“The stage-managing of masses that Hitler specialized in has become superfluous: if one wants to transform a man into a nobody (and even make him proud to be a nobody), it is no longer necessary to drown him in a mass, or to bury him in a cement construction mass-produced by masses. No depersonalization, no loss of the ability to be a man is more effective than the one that apparently preserves the freedom of the personality and the rights of the individual. If the procedure of conditioning takes place in a special way in the home of every person—in the individual home, in isolation, in millions of isolated units—the result will be perfect. The treatment is absolutely discreet, since it is presented as fun, the victim is not told that he must make any sacrifices and he is left with the illusion of his privacy or, at least, of his private space.”
Here is my article on the smart phone from the Korea Times published in 2018. I softened up my criticism at the time to reach a broader audience.
“Imagine Korea without smartphones”
Korea Times December 2, 2018 Emanuel Pastreich
When I make this suggestion, the response I receive from Koreans is one of intense fascination. But the assumption they make is that I am going to describe a futuristic “smart city” in which we no longer will use smart phones because information will be projected on to our eyeglasses, or our retinas, or perhaps relayed directly to our brain via an implanted chip.
But I mean exactly what I say. The unrelenting takeover of our brains and of our society by the smartphone is taking an ominous turn.
Each day I watch almost every person on the subway lost in their smartphones, and increasingly lacking empathy for those around them as a result. They are mesmerized by video games; they flip quickly past photographs of chocolate cakes and cafe lattes, or fashionable dresses and shoes, or watch humorous short videos.
Few are reading careful investigative reporting, let alone books, that address the serious issues of our time. Nor are they debating with each other about how Korea will respond to the crisis of climate change, the risk of a nuclear arms race (or nuclear war) between the United States, Russia and China. Most media reporting is being dumbed down, treated as a form of entertainment, not a duty to inform the public.
Few people are sufficiently focused these days even to comprehend the complex geopolitical issues of the day, let alone the content of the bills pending in the National Assembly.
We are watching a precipitous decline in political awareness and of commitment to common goals in South Korea. And I fear that the smartphone, along with the spread of a social media that encourages impulsive and unfocused responses, is playing a significant role in this tragedy.
What do those smartphones do? We are told that smartphones make our lives more convenient and give us access to infinite amounts of information. IT experts are programming smartphones to be even more responsive to our needs and to offer even more features to make our lives more comfortable.
But Nicholas Carr’s book “The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains” presents extensive scientific evidence that the internet as a whole, and smartphones in particular, are in fact reprogramming our brains, encouraging the neurons to develop lasting patterns for firing that encourage quick responses but that make contemplation and deep thought difficult.
Over time, we are creating a citizenship through that technology that is incapable of grasping an impending crisis and unable or unwilling to propose and implement solutions.
If smartphones are reprogramming our brains so that we are drawn to immediate gratification, but lose our capacity for deeper contemplation, for achieving an integrated understanding of the complexity of human society, and of nature, what will become of us?
But consumption, not understanding, let alone wisdom, is the name of the game for smartphones.
In the case of the worsening quality of the air in Korea, I observe a disturbing passivity, and also a painful failure of citizens to identity the complex factors involved. Even highly educated people seem not to have thought carefully about the exact factors behind the emissions of fine dust in Korea, and in China, and how that pollution is linked to the deregulation of industry, or to their behavior as consumers.
That is to say those phenomena in society have been broken down into discrete elements, like postings on Facebook, and that no overarching vision of complex trends is ever formed in the mind.
We float from one stimulating story to the next, like a butterfly flitting from one nectar-laden flower to another. We come away from our online readings with a vague sense that something is wrong, but with no deep understanding of what exactly the problem is, how it relates to our actions, and no game plan for how to solve it.
There is a powerful argument to be made that certain technologies that can alter how we perceive the world should be limited in their use if there is reason to believe they affect the core of the democratic process. Democracy is not about voting so much as the ability to understand complex changes in society, in the economy and in politics over time.
Without such an ability to think for ourselves, we will slip into an increasingly nightmare world, although we may never notice what happened.
“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
There was a time when the census was just a head count.
That is no longer the case.
The American Community Survey (ACS), sent to about 3.5 million homes every year, is the byproduct of a government that believes it has the right to know all of your personal business.
If you haven’t already received an ACS, it’s just a matter of time.
A far cry from the traditional census, which 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 contains some of the most detailed and intrusive questions ever put forth in a census questionnaire.
At 28 pages (with an additional 16-page instruction packet), these questions 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 other highly personal and private matters.
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.
And then the survey drills down even deeper.
The survey 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.
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.
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.
In an age when the government has significant technological resources at its disposal to not only carry out warrantless surveillance on American citizens but also to harvest and mine that data for its own dubious purposes, whether it be crime-mapping or profiling based on whatever criteria the government wants to use to target and segregate the populace, the potential for abuse is grave.
As such, the ACS qualifies as a government program whose purpose, while sold to the public as routine and benign, raises significant constitutional concerns.
The Rutherford Institute has received hundreds of inquiries from individuals who have received the ACS and are not comfortable sharing such private, intimate details with the government or are unsettled by the aggressive tactics utilized by Census Bureau agents seeking to compel responses to ACS questions.
The following Q&A is provided as a resource to those who want to better understand their rights in respect to the ACS.
Q: What kind of questions are contained in the ACS?
A: The ACS contains questions that go far beyond typical census questions about the number of individuals within the household and their age, race, and sex. The survey combines intrusive questions with highly detailed inquiries about your financial affairs. Furthermore, the questionnaire also demands that recipients provide information about their family and other people in their home, such as their educational levels, how many years of school were completed, what languages they speak, when they last worked at a job, and when occupants of your home are away from the house.
Q: How will this information be used?
A: The Census Bureau states that information from this survey is used to assist a wide variety of entities, from federal, state and local governments to private corporations, nonprofit organizations, researchers and public advocacy groups. The Bureau lists 35 different categories of questions on its website and offers an explanation on how the information is to be used. For 12 of those categories, the information is used to assist private corporations. For another 22, the information is used to aid advocacy groups, and in nine of those cases, the Census Bureau states that the responses will be used by advocacy groups to “advocate for policies that benefit their groups,” including advocacy based on age, race, sex, and marital status. Thus, information obtained through the ACS is not simply used to inform government policy in a neutral manner, but is also being provided to private actors for the purpose of promoting corporate and/or political agendas.
One concern raised by the Brookings Institute is the use of ACS information by law enforcement for “crime mapping,” a surveillance tool used to predict crime and preemptively target certain neighborhoods for policing. It is “most effective” when “analysts can see the relationship between various types of criminal incidents (e.g., homicides, drug dealing) and neighborhood characteristics (risk factors such as poverty, population density, and vacant housing), pinpoint where crimes are most likely to occur (hot spots), and focus police resources accordingly.” The Brookings Institute notes that because the ACS provides data every year, rather than every ten years, crime mapping is more effective and cheaper.
Q: Are my responses kept confidential?
A: While the Census Bureau claims that an individual’s information will be kept strictly confidential, it does require a recipient to put their name on the survey, ostensibly for the purpose of asking follow-up questions in the event of missing or incomplete answers. This means your answers could be linked to you even if it is forbidden by law to share your individual responses.
Q: Am I required by law to fully complete the American Community Survey?
A: Federal law makes it mandatory to answer all questions on the ACS. A refusal to answer any question on the ACS or giving an intentionally false answer is a federal offense. The Census Bureau also maintains that responding to the ACS is mandatory and that recipients are legally obligated to answer all questions.
Q: Is there a penalty for refusing to answer American Community Survey questions?
A: The law requiring answers to the ACS also provides that a person who fails to answer “shall be fined not more than $100.” The actual fine for a refusal to complete the ACS could be much greater because a failure to respond to certain ACS questions could be considered a separate offense subject to the $100 fine.
Q: Has the government prosecuted persons for refusing to answer the American Community Survey?
A: While The Rutherford Institute has been made aware of Census Bureau agents engaging in harassing tactics and threatening behavior, to date, we are unaware of the Census Bureau having levied any financial penalties for non-compliance with the ACS. However, a refusal to answer the survey violates the letter of the law and a prosecution might be brought if the government decides to adopt a policy to do so.
Q: How does the Census Bureau typically ensure that people complete the survey?
A: Those who do not answer the ACS risk repeated overtures—by mail, by phone and in person—from Census Bureau employees seeking to compel a response. Typically, the Census Bureau will telephone those who do not respond to the survey and may visit their homes to coerce the targets to respond.
The Census Bureau boasts a 97% response rate to the survey via these methods, but critics argue this constitutes harassment. One recipient who did complete the survey but whose answers were misplaced by the Census Bureau wrote about his experience. First, a Census Bureau employee left a note at his apartment asking him to contact her. When he did, the employee asked him to allow her into his home. When he refused, the employee “turned up twice unannounced at my apartment, demanding entry, and warning me of the fines I would face if I didn’t cooperate.” Only after he filed a complaint with the Census Bureau did the agency realize he had actually completed the survey, thus ending its attempts to enter his home.
Q: Is this an unconstitutional invasion of privacy?
A: There are significant and legitimate questions concerning the authority of the government to require, under threat of prosecution and penalty, that persons answer questions posed by the ACS. The ACS is not part of the enumeration required by Article I of the Constitution, and that constitutional provision only applies to a census for purposes of counting the number of people in each state. As noted, the ACS seeks much more information than the number of persons in a household.
In other contexts, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have no obligation to answer questions posed by the government and are free to refuse to do so. This same principle could apply to questions posed by ACS agents. However, because the government has not brought a prosecution for a refusal to respond to the ACS, the question of a person’s right to refuse has not yet been decided by a court.
Q: What are my options for objecting to the ACS survey as an intrusion on my Fourth Amendment rights?
A: If you receive notice that you have been targeted to respond to the ACS and you desire to assert your right of privacy, you can voice those objections and your intent not to respond to the ACS by writing a letter to the Census Bureau. The Rutherford Institute has developed a form letter that you may use in standing up against the government’s attempt to force you to disclose personal information.
If you are contacted by Census Bureau employees, either by telephone or in person, demanding your response, you can assert your rights by politely, but firmly, informing the employee that you believe the ACS is an improper invasion of your privacy, that you do not intend to respond and that they should not attempt to contact you again. Be sure to document any interactions you have with Bureau representatives for your own files.
If you believe you are being unduly harassed by a Census Bureau employee, either by telephone or in person, it is in your best interest to carefully document the time, place and manner of the incidents and file a complaint with the U.S. Census Bureau.
Remember, nothing is ever as simple or as straightforward as the government claims.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, 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.
While government agents can approach, speak to and even question citizens without violating the Fourth Amendment, Americans should jealously guard what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to as the constitutional “right to be let alone.”
“Liberty is not for these slaves; I do not advocate inflicting it against their conscience. On the contrary, I am strongly in favor of letting them crawl and grovel all they please before whatever fraud or combination of frauds they choose to venerate…Our whole practical government is grounded in mob psychology and the Boobus Americanus will follow any command that promises to make him safer.”
~ H. L. Mencken
We are in the midst of one perceived fake threat after another claimed by the state, and each day seems to bring more and more events best described as fantasy; or to a greater extent, purposely produced and directed theatre. Hollywood could not manage these false flags any better, or maybe the movie design of all these staged events and government are fully coordinated and choreographed.
Regardless of where we begin, all of this could easily be placed under the heading, “You just can’t make this s**t up!” It appears that each and every ‘event’ is meant for one or another purpose, but lies and cover-ups by this corrupt government and its bought and paid for media, are certainly beyond obvious.
It is interesting to look at time lines to find out the sequence of events, so as to find if one is being used to cover another. The East Palestine train ‘derailment’ actually happened on February 3rd, which was two weeks ago. This is one of the most devastating toxic releases of deadly poison ever to occur, and was intentionally detonated under the guise of protecting the residents from a possible explosion. In other words, this train full of incredibly deadly chemicals, was intentionally blown up (exploded) to ‘protect’ the citizens from a possible explosion. Very little if anything was reported about this life-changing event by any major news outlet, and did not become well known until many days later when the uproar reached high levels. The White House and government did not comment for a week. In the meantime, the first so-called Chinese balloon that was recognized on February 3rd, (the same day of the toxic release in Ohio) was shot down over the Atlantic the next day, and the balloon fiasco became the most major story in the mainstream media, while thousands of people’s lives were threatened, fish and animals were dying, and lethal poisons were traveling across the country. Coincidence? Not hardly.
Since that time, and still, any number of planted objects have continually been shot down; these stories inundating the mainstream news. As an aside, in 2022, a movie called “White Noise,” (I am not linking this) was released, which portrayed a train derailment in a small town in Ohio, that allowed a toxic release of deadly chemical poisons. In addition, the train that derailed recently, was filmed by security cameras 20 miles before it reached East Palestine, and showed the rail car that supposedly caused the derailment was on fire, but the train was not stopped. Why?
But do not worry, as this evil government has vowed to investigate this tragedy, well after it happened, and only due to exposure, which in effect is like investigating itself; this after the White House and FEMA turned down disaster relief for East Palestine while spending tens of millions to shoot down balloons. This tragedy and environmental disaster has been described by many as the same as a chemical nuclear bomb being dropped on the area.
It just so happens that the two largest shareholders of Norfolk Southern, the rail company in question, and said to not be carrying toxic and deadly chemicals before derailing in East Palestine, are Vanguard and Blackrock. Worry not however, as Norfolk Southern has said it is ‘making plans’ to create a $1 million dollar charitable fund to support all the residents of East Palestine. For those with weak math skills, this equates to about $200 per person. Of course, the millions who will likely be very adversely affected by this across a large swath of this country are just out of luck, as they will not receive their $200. This is akin to shutting down businesses across the country, many closed for an undetermined amount of time, and many going bankrupt, all for a fake ‘pandemic,’ and receiving a check from the same government that shut them down, for $1,200 for their misery.
To add insult to injury, the very evil EPA has announced that all the air and water after this intentional release of deadly toxins in East Palestine, is safe. Of course their track record does not bring confidence, as the toxic waste and poisons in the air in New York after the state-sponsored terror attack of 9/11, was given the same “safe” to breathe label. These past few years have brought much in the area of safe, or “safe and effective.” How has that worked out so far?
How many negative events, especially any that could be harmful to government, are covered up? How many cover stories or plotted secondary ’emergencies’ are used as cover for government terror, government policy, or mandates that caused great harm? Think of the Ukraine plot, continuous false flag events, the recent U.S. terror campaign and blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines, fake pandemics, the made-up China and Russia threat, the bioweapon injection meant to harm hundreds of millions here and billions worldwide, the new and ridiculous current UFO scare, and killer balloons. What about fake cyber threats and cyber false flag scares, what about the slaughter of chickens and farm animals, what about manufactured food shortages, what about energy plant destruction, what about money expansion and debt, and brutal price increases meant to harm all? What about all the state complicity and questions concerning so-called school shootings, and then the inevitable new gun laws enacted immediately after each event?
Consider also that any event that paints an undesirable picture of the state or government, or that indicates state involvement or lies, or that is a coverup meant to cloud the minds of the sheep so that they remain blind to the obvious truth, are hidden due to false media coverage of staged events, just as is now happening with this balloon nonsense. Consider the killer ‘earthquakes’ in Turkey that are possibly manmade, all at the same time once again happening during the massive balloon threat. It is rarely mentioned in the mainstream, but the Pentagon has been releasing advanced surveillance balloons domestically and internationally for very many years, but this goes unnoticed and unreported in the midst of the current balloon invasion.
Once again, everything in politics and government is planned in advance, is not accidental, any coincidence, natural, or organic, as all is staged in one way or another to either affect a certain outcome, or cover up another. Believe nothing in the mainstream or government, trust nothing, question everything, and never accept any reports unless you can verify the real facts in order to find the truth.
“All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed.”
We saw it happen generations ago. We fought two of humanity’s most destructive wars and faced the horror of industrial-scale extermination. Never again, said the world’s peoples in the late 1940s, and they began the difficult task of uncovering all that had been done, all that had gone wrong.
The mass graves, the German and Soviet labor camps, the Japanese massacres in the Far East, America’s internment camps, the secret police and the mutilations, the ever-present threat of violence hanging over every member of society. We saw the personality cults around Hitler or Stalin for what they were, the blatant ideologies for what they had resulted in.
When the Berlin Wall fell in November of 1989, and with it the remains of the Evil Empire that had put it there, we discovered more horror. The archives of East Germany and the Kremlin showed that informants were everywhere happily giving up information – real or invented – on their fellow humans. We found more bodies. We learned that under enough fear and pressure, human life wasn’t worth anything. When push came to violent shove, bonds of family and community meant nothing.
The error of this terrifying history is to think that this was a problem of “the other,” someone far away who is nothing like us. Asks Thorsteinn Siglaugsson in a recent article: ”How do you find your inner Nazi? And how do you get him under control? Most people would have participated in the atrocities of their time, had they been put in that position – or at least sat by and allowed them to happen.”
In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn’s oft used and highly relevant phrase says that the line between good and evil passes “right through every human heart.” The passage goes on, and Solzhenitsyn digs even deeper into the most horrifying self-reflection a man can reach: the line of good and evil goes through all human hearts, mine included, “This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years.And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained.”
It oscillates. What is evil isn’t always an identifiable thing, a clear enemy, but a blurry line that moves and becomes clear only in hindsight. History is hard like that. It’s us, but in the past, doing things we couldn’t imagine ourselves doing. Yet millions of our prior selves did. Are we really confident enough that with the right external circumstances “we” wouldn’t once again?
We received a small-scale test with the upheaval of societies in the last three years. Many of us wonder both what went wrong in the Covid saga and how the future will look upon the events that took place. Are the anti-vaxxers the unsung heroes who stood up against unjust tyranny, or the new 9/11-truthers nobody really cares about? Are the lockdowners wise lifesavers who hadn’t yet perfected a tool that the future takes for granted as obvious and necessary? Only on a long enough historic timeline will we know.
Take the following segment from Michael Malice’s The While Pill: A Tale of Good And Evil, a newly released and much-needed account of the Soviet Union’s totalitarianism:
“Even if the man on the street felt something wasn’t quite adding up, it was very difficult for him to get the full picture – especially in a culture where questioning authority could have deadly consequences for oneself and one’s entire family. The newspapers were filled with boasts about enormous achievements of production and the success of heroic ‘Stakhanovite’ workers, yet there were no clothes in the stores and no food on the shelves.”
Even to the regular Joe (or Vladimir…), something wasn’t adding up:
“Sure the papers might make mistakes or have a bias, but they couldn’t realistically be filled with lies, week after week, year after year. … Only crazy people would think that there was a conspiracy to control the news and what information reached the public. The only possible logical alternative was that someone must have been keeping the productive socialist bounty from reaching the people. It had to be the wreckers.”
The echo of 2020-22 intrudes, too close for comfort. For is not this precisely what happened to us?
In the early days of Covid, the newspapers were filled first with outrageous disaster porn and fear-mongering and later with “boasts about enormous achievements of production and the success of heroic [Big Pharma] workers,” all the while there were “no clothes in the stores and no food on the shelves.” Everyone took outlandish personal actions, yet the catastrophic numbers shot higher and higher.
Clearly, somebody must have been ruining the good men’s neatly laid plans, those who chanted messianic faith in “two weeks to flatten the curve.” They told us what to do; it got worse than they said; somebody must be wrecking the process.
I did my pandemic part, many people reasoned: I masked and desanitized and kept my distance and vaxxed myself over and over to Fauci’s delight. Yet, the pathogen kept spreading and people kept dying and I even got sick, again and again – something the rulers repeatedly said was impossible. And then it wasn’t, which they said was always going to happen.
It felt scripted, of course. When I for Brownstone reviewed Mattias Desmet’s great book on totalitarianism last summer, I wrote that toying with objective truth is precisely what totalitarian regimes do:
“The collective hums together and upholds the rules, no matter how insane or ineffective at achieving their supposed aim. Totalitarianism is the blurring of fact and fiction, yet with an aggressive intolerance for diverging opinions. One must toe the line.”
It matters not whether the charge holds water or has logic on its side; it just has to stick, by endless repetition if need be. Like all propaganda. In the last few years surely, there must have been some evil group of detractors undermining the Party’s good efforts. Those fifthly pandemic wreckers, the anti-vaxxers! They are nothing; less than nothing, and it’s OK to blame them!
Replace “wreckers” with anti-vaxxers, the media’s boasts of Soviet production with today’s establishment elite’s never-ending yapping about vaccine efficacy or lockdown effects or responsible monetary policy, and Malice’s distant history feels much closer to our recently lived-through present.
We might still have food on the shelves — though of worse quality and at much higher prices. We might still have the ability to move and work and travel, but heavily circumscribed, always at risk of canceling and always with papers showing the number of needles in your arm, or your scarred heart tissue. Nobody is torturing us (yet anyway) and for the most part we have some semblance of rights and freedoms remaining.
But we’re closer to that horrific totalitarian world today than we were, say five years ago. Or perhaps it was just always there, calmly waiting to be unleashed like Solzhenitsyn implied.
What Malice’s book so expertly chronicles is that elites can be wrong. Wrong in facts, wrong in morals. It is possible that whole sways of intellectuals, scientists, journalists, professionals, and civil servants can be deceived and deluded, for decades stubbornly refuse to admit their error.
The 1930s US intelligentsia’s view of Comrade Stalin and the Soviet Union is one such episode. The warmongering early 2000s in Britain and the US, though far from unopposed by the public, is another.
Nothing shows this better than my own field of economics, riddled with wrong calls and embarrassing prediction errors. The Great Moderation of stable growth, low inflation and unemployment, circa 1990 to 2007, is another collective bout of madness and mistaken optimism.
Four years before the Great Recession began, Nobel laureate Robert Lucas gave a presidential address to the American Economics Association saying that macroeconomics had succeeded: “its central problem of depression prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.” In the summer of 2008, already nine months into the recession and merely weeks before Lehman Brothers collapsed, Olivier Blanchard, then at the IMF, published “The State of Macro is Good.”
The year 2020 marked the beginning of just another such episode of collective insanity. It will take some time and soul-searching before we can once again view the errors of our time the way we now view the “adulation of Stalin’s professed ideology,” or laugh at them like we do the crooks in The Big Short.
Cover image: Polish Jews captured by Germans during the suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (Poland) – Photo from Jürgen Stroop Report to Heinrich Himmler from May 1943. One of the most famous pictures of World War II. (Public Domain)
Doctors for COVID Ethics: Getting Away From the Control Grid
by Doctors for COVID Ethics
originally published January 20, 2023 all videos available at Doctors for Covid Ethics at Rumble
Session III of our fifth symposium, In the Midst of Darkness Light Prevails, focussed on the means by which the entities and actors responsible for the abuses of COVID-19 have circumvented due process, regulatory safeguards, and the law.
Introduction
Catherine Austin Fitts of Solari Inc. opened Session III by inviting viewers to consider speakers’ presentations with the following principle in mind: If we can understand the nuts and bolts of the how the incoming control grid is invading our lives and communities and societies, we can stop helping, and we can refuse to comply.
Part 1 – John Titus: CBDC Suicide Pill for Sovereignty
(18 minutes 40s)
Attorney John Titus discussed how and why the Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) currently being proposed and trialled in a number of countries spell an end to individual and national sovereignty. He defined sovereignty in terms of answering the question ‘who decides?’ If central banks can decide how you spend your CBDCs, as Augustin Carstins, General Manager of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), foreshadowed in October 2020, “the impact on personal sovereignty ought to be obvious enough.”
“Less obvious though,” John Titus said, “is how that is going to end national sovereignty as well.” He went on to outline why CBDCs are a “Trojan horse for global control of nations.”
“The real reason for central banks’ dominance over commercial banks within any given country,” he explained, “is not that the central bank regulates those other banks.” It is that central banks create the cash that depositors (citizens) are legally entitled to withdraw from the commercial banks. In this way, central banks keep commercial banks “on a short leash”, by controlling the liquidity they need in order to honour their legal commitments to depositors.
John Titus said that in parallel fashion, on a global level under CBDCs one single entity, like the BIS (which describes itself as the central bank of central banks), will keep the national central banks such as the US Federal Reserve on the same short leash. This will make national banking systems “subordinate to the [global] BIS… That is going to be more or less how people and how nations lose their sovereignty via CBDC. And Carstens decides what you and your country are allowed to buy, and are allowed to eat.”
John Titus concluded, “You don’t like that? I have three words for you: vote down CBDC. Or three other words: stick with cash.”
Part 2 – Overriding Sovereignty with International Treaties and Organizations.
Corey Lynn: Laundering with Immunity – The Control Framework
(9 minutes 18s)
Investigative journalist Corey Lynn of Corey’s Digs described a number of mechanisms by which many of the world’s most globally powerful organisations operate not only above the law “but completely outside it.” One key mechanism enabling this is the little-known International Organisations Immunities Act of 1945. The Act grants sweeping legal immunities to transnational organisations with deeply vested interests, including the WHO, the UN, and the Gates-founded Global Fund.
Corey Lynn explained that the International Organisations Immunities Act was passed by US Congress after WWII under the guise of an imperative to rebuild without impediment. It stipulates that any organisations nominated by presidential executive order, “shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments.” Those immunities include:
Immunity from search and seizure
Exemption from taxes
Exemption of officers and employees from customs checks
Exemption of officers and employees from legal action in regards to activities related to work
Exemption of officers and employees from alien registration or fingerprinting, and registration of foreign agents
“And here we are 77 years later”, she pointed out, with 76 organisations still enjoying legal immunity under the Act, granted by Presidents from Truman to Obama. Those organisations include:
The WHO
All branches of the UN
The Gates-founded Global Fund, pertaining to vaccines
All five branches of the World Bank
The IMF
And many more
Corey Lynn noted that in addition to the US Immunities Act, various treaties and headquarters agreements, for instance in Switzerland, grant additional organisations similar immunities, including Gates-founded GAVI the Vaccine Alliance and CERN. The Bank of International Settlements also enjoys sovereign immunity, with constituent immunities extending to its 63 member banks. Together with Big Pharma’s immunity from legal liability for harm by its vaccines, this vast global network creates “an entire system operating outside the law.” For more detailed information see the extensive report on Corey’s Digs.
Panel Discussion
( (15 minutes)
Catherine Austin Fitts was joined by Attorney Carolyn A. Betts Esq. for a panel discussion on real world implications of an entire global system operating outside the law. They covered:
The tens of trillions that have gone missing from the US Department of Defense and Department of Housing and Urban Development, with the potential to launder those trillions around the globe
The global financial crisis of 2008 and the legal immunity enjoyed by banks
The potential to engineer reduced life expectancy as a means of addressing the US crisis in retirement savings
Atrocities and abuses committed in the name of COVID-19, where a series of immunities have been delivered in the healthcare sector, and through the application of military laws to “vaccine” authorization and manufacture under emergency powers, to be discussed by upcoming speakers. All of which dovetails, they noted, with the immunity enjoyed by international financial organisations such as the BIS, IMF and World Bank, which has enabled a “tusanami of money” to prop up WHO directives and subsequent military-medical countermeasures.
Catherine Austin Fitts noted that we are now watching a “pincer movement of immunities, indemnifications and protections… One group of society is literally getting away with murder while the other side of society is subject to exploding numbers of laws.” Carolyn Betts stressed that the primary objective of the founders of the BIS was indeed to create just such an organisation that, “basically is not subject to any laws.”
Carolyn Betts concluded by highlighting the promise of legal actions against COVID-19 measures “to educate people nationally and internationally about what’s been going on, and what’s been leading up to where we are today.” Catherine Austin Fitts added,”I dare any international organisation to march into court and say that their sovereign immunity gives them the power to implement mass atrocity and murder worldwide.” Carolyn Betts agreed: “I just don’t see how you can say there’s sovereign immunity for murder.”
Part 3: Overriding Sovereignty with Military Law and Emergency Power
(Alexandra Latypova: 20 minutes 20s, followed by Panel Discussion: 11 minutes 20s)
Alexandra Latypova: Intent to Harm – Evidence of Conspiracy to Commit Mass Murder by the US DoD, HHS and Pharma Criminal Enterprise
Pharmaceutical entrepreneur Alexandra Latypova followed by providing bombshell revelations concerning several pieces of legislative architecture, dating back decades, that combined in 2020 to hand US military-intelligence agencies control over COVID-19 vaccines and interventions. Contrary to public knowledge, this legislative framework enabled COVID ‘medicine’ to be taken out of medical regulators’ hands, and placed under the control of the National Security Council (NSC) and the Department of Defense (DoD). The shift from public health to military oversight took place on orders from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), a political appointee. It set in motion an organizational structure and money flow enabling what Alexandra Latypova described as a criminal enterprise to deploy products that were toxic by design.
Alexandra Latypova underlined the fact that COVID vaccine manufacturers and regulators have flagrantly circumvented usual safety and efficacy standards and good manufacturing practices, as she has detailed previously. “In fact there is no enforcement of the current Good Manufacturing Practices by any regulatory body in the world, which should be a big red flag for everyone,” she said.
Drawing on the research of Katherine Watt at Bailiwick News, Alexandra Latypova pinpointed three recent pieces of legislation that have enabled abrogation of the usual checks and balances over COVID vaccines, and militarization of their deployment. These include the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) law of 1997, a 2015 amendment to the Other Transaction Authority (OTA) law, and The PREP Act with its “Public Health Emergency” provisions, which were “significantly bullet-proofed” under Trump, shortly before the announcement of a public health emergency in 2020.
These three pieces of legislation “clicked together” in 2020, along with other laws, to create a “legal cage” and “pseudo-legalization of murder,” Alexandra Latypova explained. The legal framework was activated once a Public Health Emergency had been declared, and the COVID vaccines designated a “countermeasure” by the Secretary of HHS (which occurred on March 10, 2020, retroactive to February 4, 2020). From that time, the usual clinical and ethical standards could be dispensed with, as countermeasures “are NOT required to meet any standards.”
Alexandra Latypova stressed that the authorization of ‘countermeasures’ under EUA law is subject only to the sole discretion of the HHS Secretary, who unilaterally decides whether any given countermeasure, including the COVID vaccines, ‘may be effective’. The HHS determination may be made irrespective of whether the necessary evidence is available. The FDA, in contrast, has “no authority to regulate countermeasures.” As a result, the FDA’s role in the COVID response has amounted to nothing other than “performance art”.
“And in fact the FDA is fully aware of this because they cited this particular piece of law in their draft guidance for the development of COVID-19 vaccines. This is a very important piece of deception that the FDA has practiced on everyone: on US citizens but also a global audience, and global regulators probably, and governments. Because they all follow the FDA.”
In further revelations Alexandra Latypova revealed that not only did the FDA have no legal authority over COVID vaccines, it was the NSC – the US president’s national security forum, devoid of any public health agencies – that directed COVID policy, not HHS. Under NSC direction, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) rather than HHS led the US pandemic response, which was the first time FEMA had ever taken charge of a public health incident.
Contracts for supply of COVID vaccines and other COVID products, moreover, were struck by the DoD, with the vaccines defined not as pharmaceutical products, but as “military prototypes”. This was enabled by legal sleights of hand under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) legislation, which relegated COVID vaccines to the catch-all category of “other”, placing them outside any normally regulated or accountable contracting arrangements. In tandem, the PREP Act conferred immunity to all manufacturers and contractors in the DoD contractual chain.
For a more detailed overview of the militarized pseudo-legal structure governing COVID countermeasures and vaccines, see Alexandra Latypova’s longer video presentation, Intent to Harm – Evidence of the Conspiracy to Commit Mass Murder by the US DOD, HHS, Pharma Cartel.
For additional detail about the role of the DoD, including an undisclosed collaboration with a Chinese conglomerate headed by a high-ranking CCP member, see her stunning Substack exposé, The Role of the US DoD (and Their Co-investors) in “Covid Countermeasures” Enterprise.
Catherine Austin Fitts, Dr Meryl Nass and Sahsa Latypova closed Session III by reflecting on the implications and wider context of the issues raised.
Dr Meryl Nass MD observed that the DoD has long been looking for a grey area between experimental products and licensed medicines, both of which are tightly regulated. She stressed that, assuming the information presented by Alexandra Latypova and Katherine Watts is accurate, “some of this is clearly illegal… This all has to be put in front of a judge.”
Catherine Austin Fitts recalled the importance of public opinion to the judiciary, as discussed in Session II. She noted that one lesson learned as an official in Washington is that if something continues to go on despite not being effective, the real goal is not the stated goal, but what is transpiring – in this case injury and death. In light of that reality, “how do we help the popular culture come to the very difficult task of facing the fact that what we are looking at is mass murder?” she asked.
Alexandra Latypova answered by describing her experience combining data on vaccine harms with the contextual reality of the money flow and organizational structure. The fact that the COVID vaccines are military products, owned and deployed by the DoD, can prompt a broader awakening, she found. Meryl Nass followed up by addressing the obstacle posed by a corporate media bent on censorship, and stressed the importance of “talking one-on-one, to everyone we know… We have to steel ourselves and find a way. Maybe it’s asking questions, maybe it’s telling jokes… We have to find the way in… Because as soon as people don’t comply, it’s over.”
Carolyn A. BETTS, ESQ. is a self-employed attorney, practicing as part of John E. Stillpass Attorneys in Blue Ash, Ohio and part-time general counsel and journalist for Solari, Inc. She served as the lead financial advisor for the USA Federal Housing Administration. She also served as an associate and then partner in the corporate finance departments of Omaha and Washington, DC law firms, representing affordable housing development, federal government, capital market, financial services and other major clients in connection with large mergers and acquisitions, mortgage securitizations and other finance transactions, many involving commercial real estate and affordable housing, and with securities and regulatory compliance matters. During the savings and loan crisis, her practice group represented Resolution Trust Corporation in designing and executing transactions involving assets of savings loans in government receivership.
Catherine Austin FITTS is the president of Solari, Inc., publisher of the Solari Report, and managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, LLC. Catherine served as managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc., as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration, and was the president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc. Catherine has designed and closed over $25 billion of transactions and investments to-date and has led portfolio and investment strategy for $300 billion of financial assets and liabilities. She graduated from the University of Pennsylvania (BA), the Wharton School (MBA) and studied Mandarin Chinese at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Alexandra LATYPOVA is serial entrepreneur and a founder of iCardiac Technologies, a company based on technology developed by students and faculty at the University of Rochester. It has received in excess of $7 million in venture capital funding and currently serves 6 of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies in addition to a broad range of clients across North America, Europe and Asia. Prior to iCardiac Technologies, Ms. Latypova worked at VirtualScopics, Inc., a technology spin out from the University of Rochester and Analysis Group, Inc., a Boston-based economics, financial and strategy consultancy.
Corey LYNN is an investigative journalist whose popular website, Corey’s Digs, has been helping readers “learn truths, go deeper, and understand what’s coming down the pike” since 2018. Lynn’s fearless and wide-ranging investigations use detailed analysis of primarily open-source information and timelines to connect the dots and trace money flows in areas such as education, health, science, technology, law and order and human trafficking. In addition to shining a light on topics ordinarily left in the shadows, Corey’s Digs offers reflections on consciousness and encourages solutions to combat tyranny and create new social and financial structures that benefit everyone.
Meryl NASS, MD, ABIM is an internist with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, chronic fatigue syndrome, Gulf War illness, fibromyalgia and toxicology. As a biological warfare epidemiologist, she investigated the world’s largest anthrax epizootic in Zimbabwe, and developed a model for analyzing epidemics to assess whether they are natural or man-made. She has played a major role in creation of a
coalition that has fought the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program. Nass is active in assisting legal teams defending anthrax vaccine refusers and ill service members in the U.S. and Canada.
The fifty-third annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) brought together fifty-two world leaders, seventeen hundred corporate executives, sundry artists, and other personalities to address “Cooperation in a Fragmented World.” Fragmentation is the nemesis of the World Economic Forum and its United Nations (UN) and corporate partners. “Fragmentation” means that segments of the world population are not adhering to the agenda of climate change catastrophism and the precepts of the Great Reset.
The Great Reset, meanwhile, amounts to a hybrid state-corporate woke cartel administering the global economy (and by extension the world’s political systems) under the direction of the WEF, the UN, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Central Bank (ECB), and the World Health Organization, as well as top corporate decision-makers like BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink.
Lest we imagine that the WEF and its meetings merely represent the grandiose delusions of some ineffectual clowns, it should be noted that the WEF’s “stakeholder capitalism”—introduced in 1971 by Klaus Schwab, the WEF founder and chair, and Hein Kroos, in Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering—has been embraced by the UN, by most central banks, as well as by the world’s leading corporations, commercial banks, and asset managers. Stakeholder capitalism is now considered to be the modus operandi of the world economic system.
In the 1971 book, Schwab and Kroos suggested that “the management of a modern enterprise must serve not only shareholders but all stakeholders to achieve long-term growth and prosperity.” The stakeholders are the compliant and complicit corporations and governments, not the citizenry.
BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, holds upwards of $10 trillion in assets under management (AUM), including the pension funds of many US states. In 2019, BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, led the US Business Roundtable on stakeholder capitalism. CEOs from 181 major corporations redefined the common purpose of the corporation in terms of Schwab’s brainchild, stakeholder capitalism, signaling the supposed end of shareholder-driven capitalism. In his 2022 letter to CEOs, Fink made BlackRock’s own position on investment decisions quite clear. “Climate risk is investment risk,” Fink declared. He promised a “tectonic shift in capital,” an increased acceleration of investments going to “sustainability-focused” companies.
Fink warned CEOs: “And because this will have such a dramatic impact on how capital is allocated, every management team and board will need to consider how this will impact their company’s stock”(emphasis mine). According to Fink, stakeholder capitalism is not an aberration. Fink provides evidence of stakeholder capitalism’s woke imperative in his denial of the same: “It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘woke.’ It is capitalism.” This definition of capitalism would certainly have come as news to Ludwig von Mises.
Fink sits on the board of trustees of the WEF, along with former US vice president Al Gore; IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva; ECB president Christine Lagarde, and Canadian deputy prime minister and minister of finance Chrystia Freeland, among others.
In his 2023 welcoming remarks and special address, Schwab pointed to the multiple crises facing the world: “the energy transformation, the consequences of covid, the reshaping of supply chains are all serving as catalytic forces for the economic transformation.” Incidentally, these are all factors that the WEF has promoted and/or exacerbated. And together they have added to the “high inflation, increasing interest rates, and growing national debt” that Schwab also decried.
Schwab pointed to the problem of social and geopolitical fragmentation and “a messy patchwork of powers,” alluding to the war in Ukraine. But Schwab also bemoaned “large corporate and social media powers, all competing increasingly for power and influence. As a result, the trend is again moving toward increased fragmentation and confrontation”—no doubt referring, at least in part, to the recent takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk, the loss of a major platform for propaganda and censorship. Naturally, Schwab referred to “climate change” and “viruses” as existential threats that could lead to “the extinction of large parts of our global population.” The question is whether “climate change” and “viruses” or rather the responses to these supposed menaces will be the cause of mass extinctions.
But “the most critical fragmentation” threat, Klaus argued, is posed by those who “go into the negative” and hold a “critical and confrontational attitude” to the Davos agenda—those with the temerity to oppose a global agenda of climate change catastrophism, with its attendant control over production and consumption and the virtual elimination of property and property rights for the vast majority.
A central issue that the fifty-third annual meeting addressed was “the Current Energy and Food Crises in the Context of a New System for Energy, Climate and Nature.” The theme accords with the WEF’s earlier and repeated claims that the agricultural supply chain is too “fragmented” for “sustainable” farming. “A resilient, environmentally-friendly food system will require a shift away from our current fragmented supply chains,” wrote Lindsay Suddon, chief strategy officer of Proagrica, in 2020. In Suddon’s and many other WEF papers, the “fragmentation” refrain is repeated. Sustainable farming cannot be achieved under the “fragmented” agricultural conditions that currently obtain.
As the heads of leading multilateral and commercial agricultural finance institutions, we are convinced that fragmentation within the current food systems represents the most significant hurdle to feeding a growing population nutritiously and sustainably.
Written by Wiebe Draijer, then chairman of the managing board at Rabobank, and Gilbert Fossoun Houngbo, the director general–elect of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the paper was quite telling. It warned that unless fragmentation is addressed, “we will also have no hope of reaching the Sustainable Development Goal of net zero emissions by 2050, given that today’s agricultural supply chain, from farm to fork, accounts for around 27% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.”
Rabobank is one of the financial sponsors of the WEF’s Food Action Alliance (discussed below). On its website, Rabobank notes that it operates in the Netherlands, serving retail and corporate clients, and globally, financing the agricultural sector. The ILO is a UN agency that sets labor standards in 187 countries.
What interests could an international bank and a UN international labor agency have in common? According to their jointly authored paper, they have in common a resolve to eliminate fragmentation in agriculture. The banking interest in defragmentation is to gain a controlling interest in fewer and larger farms. The labor union management interest is to have more workers under its supervision and control. The banking and labor interests combined result in large farms worked by organized farm laborers—nonowners—under the controlling interest of the bank. A bonus rationale (more likely the main one) for this “scheme” is that the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the UN’s Agenda 2030 can thereby more easily be implemented across “agricultural value chains and farming practices.” The authors conclude: “Most critically, we need to aggregate opportunities, resources and complementary expertise into large-scale projects that can unlock investment and deliver impact” (emphasis mine). “Collective action” is the “cure.”
In terms of agriculture, that is, “fragmentation” means too many discrete and disparate farms. The solution to this problem is consolidation, or the ownership of agricultural assets by fewer and fewer entities. Enter Bill Gates in the US. The “large-scale projects” will be owned by those who can afford to abide by the European Commission’s (EC) Farm to Fork Strategy. “The Farm to Fork Strategy is at the heart of the European Green Deal.” The goal of the European Green Deal is “no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.” (More on the Farm to Fork Strategy and its effects on hunger and starvation below.)
The issue of food supply was addressed in a session entitled “Sustainably Served.” The summary caption for the session notes that “nearly 830 million people face food insecurity and more than 3 billion are unable to afford a healthy diet. Challenges to human and planetary health have been further compounded by rising costs, supply chain disruptions and climate change.”
The highlight of the “Sustainably Served” panel, which otherwise amounted to virtue signaling, came in the form of questions posed by an audience member, “Jacob, from America”:
I want to ask a question about food production. Last year the Dutch government announced harsh restrictions on the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Such restrictions forced many farmers to put much of their land out of production. And these policies led to 30,000 Dutch farmers protesting these government policies. And this was being done at a time when food production was already being severely curtailed because of the war in Ukraine. My questions are, one, does the panel support similar policies being implemented throughout the world? And do you support the Dutch farmers who are protesting? Do not such strict policies leading to reduced food production ultimately harm the poorest people of the world and exacerbate the problem of malnutrition?
The questioner was one of four, yet his questions dominated the rest of the session and led the moderator, Tolu Oni, and panelist Hanneke Faber, the president of nutrition at Unilever, which is based in the Netherlands, to become quite defensive. The latter replied:
I am Dutch, and our business is based in Holland. It’s a very difficult situation in Holland. I have a lot of sympathy for the farmers who are protesting, because it’s their livelihoods and their businesses at risk. But I also have a lot of sympathy for what the government is trying to do, because the nitrogen emissions are way too high. . . . So, something needs to be done. . . .
But it’s a very Dutch problem. I don’t think that you have to worry that those same solutions will have to go somewhere else.
This last statement is belied by the fact that the Netherlands is the headquarters of the WEF’s Food Action Alliance program and the site of the Global Coordinating Secretariat (GCS) of the WEF’s Food Innovation Hubs. Launched at the Davos Agenda meeting in 2021, the Food Innovation Hubs have as their goal alignment with the UN Food Systems Summit: “The role of the GCS will be to coordinate the efforts of the regional Hubs as well as align with global processes and initiatives such as the UN Food Systems Summit.” And the stated goal of the UN Food Systems Summit is to align agricultural production with Agenda 2030’s SDGs: “The UN Food Systems Summit, held during the UN General Assembly in New York on September 23 [2021], set the stage for global food systems transformation to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.”
“Sustainability” and “sustainable development” do not mean, as the words seem to suggest, the ability to withstand shocks of various kinds—economic crises, natural disasters, etc. They mean development constrained by utopian, unscientific environmentalist imperatives, inclusive of reduced production and consumption in the developed world and the thwarting of development that would result in the production of additional GHGs in the developing world. In terms of agriculture, this entails a reduction in the use of nitrogen-rich fertilizers and their eventual elimination and the phasing out of methane- and ammonia-producing cattle. In the Netherlands, the Food Hubs initiative has already led to the government’s compulsory buyout and closure of as many as three thousand farms, which will lead to dramatically reduced crop yields from the world’s second-largest exporter of agricultural products.
The situation in the Netherlands is also part of the European Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy. Under the Trump administration, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that adopting the plan would result in a decline in agricultural production of between 7 percent and 12 percent for the European Union, depending on whether the adoption is EU-wide or global. With EU-only adoption, the decline in EU agricultural production was projected to be 12 percent, as opposed to 7 percent should the adoption become global. In the case of global adoption, worldwide agricultural production was projected to drop by 11 percent. Further, the USDA reported:
The decline in agricultural production would tighten the EU food supply, resulting in price increases that impact consumer budgets. Prices and per capita food costs would increase the most for the EU, across each of the three scenarios [a middle scenario of adoption of Farm to Fork by the EU and neighboring nation-states was included in the study]. However, price and food cost increases would be significant for most regions if [Farm to Fork] Strategies are adopted globally. For the United States, price and food costs would remain relatively unchanged except in the case of global adoption.
Production declines in the EU and elsewhere would lead to reduced trade, although some regions would benefit depending on changes in import demand. However, if trade is restricted as a result of the imposition of the proposed measures, the negative impacts are concentrated in regions with the world’s most food-insecure populations. . . .
Food insecurity, measured as the number of people who lack access to a diet of at least 2,100 calories a day, increases significantly in the 76 low- and middle-income countries covered in our analysis due to increases in food commodity prices and declines in income, particularly in Africa. By 2030, the number of food-insecure people in the case of EU-only adoption would increase by an additional 22 million more than projected without the EC’s proposed Strategies. The number would climb to 103 million under the middle scenario and 185 million under global adoption. (emphasis mine)
Thus, we see that “sustainably served” means sustainably starved.
Another panel of note was “Stewarding Responsible Capitalism,” which featured Brian T. Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America and chair of the WEF business council, among others. An arch proponent of stakeholder capitalism, Moynihan suggested that companies that do not meet environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria will simply be left behind. No one will do business with such companies, he said.
Moynihan’s comments revealed the extent to which stakeholder capitalism and the metric for measuring it, the ESG index, have penetrated commercial banking. In fact, over three hundred major banks are signatories of the UN’s “Principles for Responsible Banking,” “representing almost half of the global banking industry.” Meanwhile, forty-seven hundred asset management firms, asset owners, and asset service providers have signed the UN’s six “Principles for Responsible Investment.” These principles are entirely focused on ESG compliance and meeting the UN’s Agenda 2030 sustainable development goals. ESG indexing now pervades every aspect of banking and investment businesses, including what companies they invest in, how they adhere to ESG metrics themselves, and how they cooperate with competitors to promote ESGs. Thus, the goal of the principles is to universalize ESG investing. ESG indexing raises the cost of doing business, starves the noncompliant of capital, and creates a woke cartel of preferred producers.
In the “Philanthropy: A Catalyst for Protecting Our Planet” session, US climate envoy John Kerry suggested that he and the people at Davos were “a select group of human beings, [who], because of whatever touched us at some point in our lives, are able to sit in a room and come together and actually talk about saving the planet.” Betraying the religious, cultlike character of the Davos group, Kerry suggested that his and others’ anointment as saviors of the planet was “almost extraterrestrial.” If you tell them you are interested in saving the planet, “most people,” Kerry continued, “they think you are a tree-hugging leftie liberal do-gooder.” But I submit that “most people” think Kerry and his ilk are not do-gooders at all but rather control freaks and megalomaniacs bent on controlling the world’s population.
On other panels, the speakers stated that eating meat, driving cars, and living outside the bounds of fifteen-minute cities should be disallowed.
In short, with the Davos agenda, we are confronted with a concerted, coordinated campaign to dismantle the productive capabilities in energy, manufacturing, and farming. This project, driven by elites and accruing to their benefit, is amounting to the largest Great Leap Backward in recorded history. If it is not stopped and reversed, it will lead to economic disaster, including dramatically reduced consumption and living standards. And it will almost certainly result in more hunger in the developed world and famines in the developing world. WEF chairman Schwab may outdo Chairman Mao. If we let him.
Michael Rectenwald is the author of twelve books, including The Great Reset and the Struggle for Liberty, Unraveling the Global Agenda, Thought Criminal, Beyond Woke, Google Archipelago, and Springtime for Snowflakes. He is a distinguished fellow at Hillsdale College. Contact Michael Rectenwald
Attendees at the exclusive January 2023 World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, included FBI director Chris Wray, MI6 chief Richard Moore, Secretary-General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg, the CEOs of Amazon, BlackRock and Pfizer (just to name a few), Gates Foundation executives and Cybernetics School director Genevieve Bell
The publisher of The New York Times and CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria were also in attendance, as were Ukrainian President Zelensky and a long list of other presidents, prime ministers, ministers, senators, House representatives, commissioners, governors, mayors, bankers, royalty, officials from the UN and Red Cross, as well as military, customs and space agency officials
The people gathering at this meeting, which is by invitation only, are among the ones deciding how the rest of us are going to live our lives, what rights we’ll have regardless of local constitutions, and how the world is to be run
The WEF works closely with the World Health Organization and the United Nations to make sure the UN’s sustainable development goals are met. The sustainable development goals are the foundation upon which the WEF’s Great Reset agenda is built
The WEF is also helping the WHO seize power through its pandemic treaty. If enacted, member states will surrender their sovereignty to the WHO, making it a de facto one world governing body
As reviewed by comedian Jimmy Dore of “The Jimmy Dore Show” in the video above, the World Health Organization began drafting a global pandemic treaty in mid-2022, which would grant it the sole power to make decisions relating to global biosecurity, including but not limited to the implementation of a global vaccine passport/digital identity, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions and standardized medical care.
As noted by Dore, “Then they can just shut your bank account down when you do something they don’t like, like protesting.” Indeed, in 2022, the Canadian government seized the bank accounts of people who had donated money to the trucker convoy, and this was basically a preview of the kind of power the WHO would have.
Treaty Members Will Surrender Their Sovereignty
Even if centralizing biosecurity were a good idea, which it’s not, the WHO would not be at the top of the list of organizations to be charged with this task. In his monologue, Dore quotes my May 2022 article, “What You Need to Know About the WHO Pandemic Treaty,” which was republished by The Defender:1
“As just one example, the WHO didn’t publicly admit SARS-CoV-2 was airborne until the end of December 2021, yet scientists knew the virus was airborne within weeks of the pandemic being declared. The WHO also ignored early advice about airborne transmission.
So, it seems clear that the effort to now hand over more power to the WHO is about something other than them being the most qualified to make health decisions that benefit and protect everyone. With this treaty in place, all member nations will be subject to the WHO’s dictates … even if the people have rejected such plans using local democratic processes.”
In short, every country that signs onto the WHO’s pandemic treaty will voluntarily give up its sovereignty and the bodily autonomy of all its citizens. Making matters worse, we aren’t even told exactly who the people are who will make this decision, so we, the people, don’t know who to contact to make our voices heard.
How the Globalist Cabal Infiltrated Governments Worldwide
This is all happening outside the democratic process, and that’s intentional. The globalist cabal realized they could not convince billions of people into giving up their rights and freedoms. Instead, they focused on installing their own people in key positions around the world, so they could then make decisions that benefited the cult.
A key player in this global takeover plan is the World Economic Forum (WEF), founded in 1971. A great number of the installed globalists are graduates of the WEF’s Forum of Young Global Leaders,2 (formerly the Global Leaders for Tomorrow school3), where they’re indoctrinated in technocratic ideals such as transhumanism which, whether they realize it or not, is nothing but eugenics rebranded.
Transhumanism, like eugenics, is about creating a superior race; in this case, a race augmented by and through technology rather than selective breeding. As of the end of 2022, the Young Global Leaders community had more than 1,400 members from 120 nations, and in addition to political leaders, alumni also include “civic and business innovators, entrepreneurs, technology pioneers, educators, activists, artists [and] journalists.”
The Young Global Leaders forum is not the only incubator of technocrats, but it’s one of the most well-recognized. WEF founder Klaus Schwab has openly bragged about the number of Young Global Leaders alumni that have successfully infiltrated governments around the world, including Canada, where more than 80% of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet are former WEF students.
Trudeau himself is also a Young Global Leader graduate. In a 2017 interview (video below), Schwab stated:4
“This notion to integrate young leaders is part of the World Economic Forum since many years … What we are really proud of now is young generation leaders like Prime Minister Trudeau … We penetrate the cabinets. I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders.”
The WEF’s Takeover of the UN
The Young Global Leaders school was founded in 1992, the same year Agenda 21 was introduced. This makes sense, as they’re part of the same plan. Agenda 21 is the actual action agenda for the United Nations’ sustainable development plans, while the WEF trains propagandists and implementers.
While the UN and WEF have clearly worked hand in hand since 1992, in June 2019, they signed a strategic partnership agreement to accelerate the implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by further strengthening collaboration and coordination between the two organizations.5
Hundreds of Organizations Condemn WEF-UN Partnership
In a September 2019 open letter6 to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, more than 400 civil society organizations and 40 international networks condemned the partnership, calling it a “corporate capture of global governance,” and called on Guterres to end it.
“We are very concerned that this WEF-UN partnership agreement will de-legitimize the United Nations and provide transnational corporations preferential and deferential access to the UN System,” the letter states.
“The UN system is already under a big threat from the US Government and those who question a democratic multilateral world. However, this corporatization of the UN poses a much deeper long-term threat, as it will reduce public support for the UN system in the South and the North.
It is our strong belief that this agreement is fundamentally at odds with the UN Charter and with intergovernmental decisions on sustainable development, the climate emergency, and the eradication of poverty and hunger.
This public-private partnership will permanently associate the UN with transnational corporations, some of whose core essential activities have caused or worsened the social and environmental crises that the planet faces. This is a form of corporate capture.
We know that agribusiness destroys biodiversity and sustainable and just food systems, oil and gas corporations endanger the world’s climate, Big Pharma weakens access to essential medications, extractive corporations leave lasting damage to countries’ ecologies and peoples, and arms manufacturers profit from local and regional wars as well as repression of social movements.
All these sectors are significant actors within the World Economic Forum. The provisions of the strategic partnership effectively provide that corporate leaders will become ‘whisper advisors’ to the heads of UN system departments, using their private access to advocate market-based profit-making ‘solutions’ to global problems while undermining real solutions embedded in public interest and transparent democratic procedures …
The UN’s acceptance of this partnership agreement moves the world toward WEF’s aspirations for multistakeholderism becoming the effective replacement of multilateralism.
WEF in their 2010 The Global Redesign Initiative argued that the first step toward their global governance vision is ‘to redefine the international system as constituting a wider, multifaceted system of global cooperation in which intergovernmental legal frameworks and institutions are embedded as a core, but not the sole and sometimes not the most crucial, component.
The goal was to weaken the role of states in global decision-making and to elevate the role of a new set of ‘stakeholders’, turning our multilateral system into a multistakeholder system, in which companies are part of the governing mechanisms.
This would bring transnational corporations, selected civil society representatives, states and other non-state actors together to make global decisions, discarding or ignoring critical concerns around conflicts of interest, accountability and democracy.”
The WEF Actively and Intentionally Undermines Democracy
In mid-January 2023, WEF members, Young Leaders alumni and other VIPs gathered in Davos, Switzerland, for their annual get-together. As reported by UnHerd columnist Thomas Fazi:7
“Alongside heads of state from all over the world, the CEOs of Amazon, BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, Pfizer and Moderna will gather, as will the President of the European Commission, the IMF’s Managing Director, the secretary general of Nato, the chiefs of the FBI and MI6, the publisher of The New York Times, and, of course, the event’s infamous host — founder and chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab …
Founded in 1971 … the WEF is ‘committed to improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation,’ also known as multistakeholder governance.
The idea is that global decision-making should not be left to governments and nation-states — as in the post-war multilateralist framework enshrined in the United Nations — but should involve a whole range of non-government stakeholders: civil society bodies, academic experts, media personalities and, most important, multinational corporations …
While this may sound fairly benign, it neatly encapsulates the basic philosophy of globalism: insulating policy from democracy by transferring the decision-making process from the national and international level, where citizens theoretically are able to exercise some degree of influence over policy, to the supranational level, by placing a self-selected group of unelected, unaccountable ‘stakeholders’ — mainly corporations — in charge of global decisions concerning everything from energy and food production to the media and public health …
[There] is little doubt as to which interests Schwab’s brainchild is actually promoting and empowering: the WEF is itself mostly funded by around 1,000 member companies … which include some of the world’s biggest corporations in oil (Saudi Aramco, Shell, Chevron, BP), food (Unilever, The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé), technology (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple) and pharmaceuticals (AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna).
The composition of the WEF’s board is also very revealing, including Laurence D. Fink, CEO of Blackrock, David M. Rubenstein, co-chairman of the Carlyle Group, and Mark Schneider, CEO of Nestlé.
There’s no need to resort to conspiracy theories to posit that the WEF’s agenda is much more likely to be tailored to suit the interests of its funders and board members — the world’s ultra-wealthy and corporate elites — rather than to ‘improving the state of the world,’ as the organization claims.”
The Goal of the 0.0001% Is to Rule Over the Rest of Us
Considering how proud Schwab is of his WEF members, one wonders why the attendance list to his annual Davos meeting is confidential. Whatever the reason for that might be, The Dossier recently acquired a copy of that list.8
Attendees at the exclusive January 2023 meeting included FBI director Chris Wray, MI6 chief Richard Moore, Secretary-General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg, the CEOs of Amazon, BlackRock and Pfizer (just to name a few), Gates Foundation executives and Cybernetics School director Genevieve Bell.
The publisher of The New York Times and CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria were also in attendance, as were Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and a long list of other presidents, prime ministers, ministers, senators, House representatives, commissioners, governors, mayors, bankers, royalty, officials from the UN and Red Cross, as well as military, customs and space agency officials.
The people gathering at this meeting, which is by invitation only, are among the ones deciding how the rest of us are going to live our lives, what rights we’ll have, regardless of local constitutions, and how the world is to be run. The rest of us have no say in the matter.
As noted by UnHerd:10
“… there is no denying that the WEF wields immense power, which has cemented the rule of the transnational capitalist class to a degree never before seen in history.
But it is important to recognize that its power is simply a manifestation of the power of the ‘superclass’ it represents — a tiny group amounting, according to researchers,11 to no more than 6,000 or 7,000 people, or 0.0001% of the world’s population, and yet more powerful than any social class the world has ever known …
It was only a matter of time before these aspiring cosmocrats developed a tool through which to fully exercise their dominion over the lower classes — and the WEF proved to be the perfect vehicle to do so.”
The Globalist Cult
One insider has described the WEF’s Davos gathering as “a Ponzi scheme” and “a cult,” according to investigative journalist Michael Shellenberger, who wrote about the WEF in a January 15, 2023, Substack post.12 Apparently, the WEF is getting concerned about the fact that more and more people are starting to realize what they’re actually up to.
“The World Economic Forum … is fighting back against conspiracy theorists who say it and its founder Klaus Schwab are seeking global domination through a ‘great reset’ aimed at stripping the masses of their private property, de-industrializing the economy, and making everybody eat bugs.
”Own nothing, be happy’ — you might have heard the phrase,’ wrote World Economic Forum (WEF) Managing Director Adrian Monck last August. ‘It started life as a screenshot, culled from the Internet by an anonymous anti-semitic account on the image board 4chan …
But what Monck claimed was inaccurate. The phrase, ‘Own nothing, be happy,’ hadn’t originated on 4chan; it originated on WEF’s website.”
Indeed, for some reason, these globalists are continuously describing their plans in reports, white papers, on websites, in videos (such as the one above) and at meetings. Yet when people put the puzzle pieces together, they cry “conspiracy theory.” The WEF’s plan may rightly be called a conspiracy, but none of it is theoretical because they’ve described it in black and white. Schwab even published a book about The Great Reset that anyone can peruse.
In the final analysis, what they’re really objecting to and are trying to draw attention away from is the fact that people don’t like their plan and are calling it for what it is — a global coup d’état, a power grab by cultists who are unsuited to rule because their ideology13 is based on eugenics, depopulation and undemocratic top-down authoritarianism. Even in the face of collapsing birth rates, the WEF still insists overpopulation is a dire threat.14
Summary
So, to recap:
The WEF has announced and delineated the cabal’s intentions for a Great Reset, which will fundamentally change how we live and erase foundational human freedoms.
Trained WEF leaders have and continue to infiltrate governments worldwide. Trained supporting actors are also spread across business, media, entertainment and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), where they help shape public opinion.
WEF Young Global Leader graduate Bill Gates is the largest funder of the WHO, which is now trying to get member nations to surrender their sovereignty through a pandemic treaty.
The WEF and Gates have prepared the ground for a biosecurity-based One World Government for several years. In 2017, Gates launched the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) at that year’s WEF meeting in Davos.
Then, in October 2019, just two months before the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, the WEF and Gates cohosted Event 201, which featured a fictional outbreak of a novel coronavirus. The exercise focused solely on how to direct and control public discourse about the pandemic rather than how to ensure effective treatments would be discovered and shared.
In late January 2020, CEPI met with Moderna to discuss plans for a COVID-19 “vaccine,” and later that year, CEPI and the WHO jointly created the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) program to ensure everyone would have access to the forthcoming shots — a program that failed to achieve its intended goal,15 by the way.The WEF works in close collaboration with the UN, which laid the foundation for The Great Reset with its sustainable development goals. The strategic partnership agreement between the UN and the WEF is the official acceleration of the globalist takeover plan.In November 2019, the WEF also joined forces with the WHO “to accelerate progress in health and development” to deliver the global goals of the UN.16
Billionaires Plotting How to Depopulate
As mentioned, one of the reasons I believe the 0.0001% are unfit to rule the world is because of their anti-human ideology. Billionaires have held many secret meetings over the years to figure out the best way to depopulate.
In a January 8, 2023, Substack article,17 the Naked Emperor describes the “Good Club,” which first met in 2009. The meeting, which was funded and attended by Bill Gates, included George Soros, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Eli and Edythe Broad, Michael Bloomberg, Oprah Winfrey, Peter Peterson, Julian Robertson Jr., John and Tashia Morgridge, and Patty Stonesifer.
The meeting was held at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, then-president of the Rockefeller University. Nurse is now the director of the Francis Crick Institute, which was founded by a eugenicist. Crick’s intention behind the Institute was to rehabilitate eugenics and “make it respectable again.”
As recently as 1970, Crick stated that “evidence for the equality of different races did not really exist.” That same year he also wrote that sterilization through bribery was the only answer to rid the world of people with poor genes. Depopulation and eugenics were also on the agenda for the 2009 “Good Club” meeting. Each participant was given 15 minutes to present their case, and while several issues were brought up, all agreed that depopulation was a priority.
They also agreed that whatever strategy was employed it needed to be independent of government, as government agencies were deemed unable to head off the looming disaster of overpopulation.
As noted by the Naked Emperor, “if all they were doing was planning on how to save the world, they would be transparent and encourage everyone to help them on their mission.” But that’s not what they’re doing.
Is that because their ideas might be considered abominable by the average person? Sure, it’s easy to decree that people of a certain class don’t deserve to live — if you’re not in that class!
Ask parents of autistic children if they would be willing to euthanize their kids, for example, and I’m sure you’d get an earful. Or ask people over 65 to submit to automatic euthanasia and see how many takers you get. People work their entire lives just to enjoy the leisure of that last decade or two.
The Rise of Anthropocene Anti-Humanism
The idea of billionaires plotting to get rid of other people, but not themselves or their own families, is repugnant to most. But it might be even worse than that. Remarkably, as reported by the Naked Emperor, we’re now seeing the emergence of a cult that embraces the total annihilation of ALL mankind.
“The revolt against humanity is still new enough to appear outlandish, but it has already spread beyond the fringes of the intellectual world,” he writes.18
“This is called Anthropocene anti-humanism, ‘inspired by revulsion at humanity’s destruction of the natural environment.’ For all we know, these billionaires could be part of this cult and influencing policies based on these views.
In the 21st century, Anthropocene anti-humanism offers a much more radical response to a much deeper ecological crisis. It says that our self-destruction is now inevitable, and that we should welcome it as a sentence we have justly passed on ourselves.
Some anti-humanist thinkers look forward to the extinction of our species, while others predict that even if some people survive the coming environmental apocalypse, civilization as a whole is doomed. Like all truly radical movements, Anthropocene anti-humanism begins not with a political program but with a philosophical idea …”
Is Anti-Humanism or Transhumanism Driving the Globalists?
Do the 0.0001% ascribe to anthropocene anti-humanism, or are they transhumanists at heart? As explained by the Naked Emperor:
“Transhumanism, by contrast, glorifies some of the very things that anti-humanism decries — scientific and technological progress, the supremacy of reason. But it believes that the only way forward for humanity is to create new forms of intelligent life that will no longer be Homo sapiens.
Some transhumanists believe that genetic engineering and nanotechnology will allow us to alter our brains and bodies so profoundly that we will escape human limitations such as mortality and confinement to a physical body.
Others await … the invention of artificial intelligence infinitely superior to our own. These beings will demote humanity to the rank we assign to animals — unless they decide that their goals are better served by wiping us out completely.”
Judging by the planned direction the WEF is taking us, I’m convinced transhumanist philosophy underpins its political agendas. Schwab also has not been shy about the WEF’s transhumanist ideals.
He even coined the term “Fourth Industrial Revolution” to describe the planned merger of man with machine. Such a merger, in turn, allows for the direct control of each individual from the outside. Just like you can remote control a computer, so would you be able to remote control an individual whose brain was connected to the cloud.
In 1975, Sen. Frank Church (video above) warned that the technological advancements of that time already posed a direct threat to the citizens of the United States, and that were a dictator to infiltrate or take control of the country, there would be no escape from the tyranny.
Fast-forward to today, and his words are more than a little prescient. As noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “We now live in this abyss!”19 The question is, how do we get out of this abyss, which was intentionally created for us by the 0.0001%?
I believe the only way out is by rejecting surveillance technologies such as Google and Google-based devices while simultaneously building parallel economies, industries and communities that operate outside of their control system. None of that is easy, but we have no other choice. If you accept their system, you accept enslavement.
The first to arrive were the cameras,
installed to protect both you and me,
in places that we weren’t that threatened.
And yet the people didn’t see.
And what followed were traffic restrictions
to keep the roads quiet and clean.
The maths didn’t add up nor the science.
But still the people didn’t see.
And next came the 15-minute neighborhoods
to make our lives easier. Decreed.
To some it seemed like restrictions.
But still the people didn’t see.
And then came the digital ID.
So convenient, easy and free.
Your life in one chip on a mainframe.
And still the people didn’t see.
The cars they sold were electric,
all wired to the government PC.
And they switched off the driving on Sundays.
And still the people didn’t see.
And the banks moved their money to digital.
And the government banned cash the next week.
And the ability to fly was restricted.
And still the people didn’t see.
They linked up your money and profile
to the ID on the government PC.
And connected it to social media.
And still the people didn’t see.
And then came a new cure, a new virus.
Safe and effective and free.
They linked these jabs to your profile
and connected the government PC.
And when the people were locked in their cities,
policed by their digital ID.
Unable to visit their loved ones.
Now, finally, the people can see.
Restricted and tracked with no money —
to go further, a permit you’ll need.
Contained in your digital city.
Oh. Why did the people not see?
These steps they’ve sold us as progress
never looked to be quite what they seemed.
And if you don’t ask the questions in protest
then your children will never know free.
Five weeks ago, I asked people to email the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) about their experiences with smart meters. Heartbreaking testimonies poured in from around the world. Stories about catastrophic effects on the health and lives of adults, children, the elderly, pets, farm animals, birds, wild animals, insects, worms, plants, neighbors, workers and entire communities.
Below are excerpts and summaries of some of the 271 testimonies that are posted on the public comments page of the PRC’s website. If you have stories to add and you have not yet sent them to the PRC, please email them to: New Mexico PRC <prc.records@prc.nm.gov>. Write “Case No. 22-00058-UT” in the Subject line. Be sure to also send a copy to me at Arthur@cellphonetaskforce.org. We need all the help we can get to preserve New Mexico as a refuge from smart meters, and as an example to the world.
Jennifer Andree is a New Mexico resident who was severely injured by a smart meter “that has completely devastated my life.” She is a nurse and a veteran who knew nothing about smart meters until she was injured by one. This occurred on Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. “For three and one-half months,” she writes, she slept with her head approximately one foot away on the other side of a wall from an electrical panel containing two electric smart meters. “Anything that carries an electric current or emits any radiation” now causes her headaches, brain fog, and internal burning. “I can no longer tolerate living in an urban environment,” she writes, “so I have moved to South Dakota, to a cleaner environment in the country. Because of the harms I was exposed to, I am separated from my family, which has contributed to my suffering… I have a nursing license, but can no longer work in my profession.”
Maryann McCabe writesfrom the UK: “From the time [the smart meter] was turned on, I could not walk around in my flat, I could not write an email, I could not think and I could not sleep. It was an absolute nightmare until it was switched off.”
Harriet Greene, formerly of New Mexico, writes: “I was able to opt out and keep my old meter. Everybody I talk to who was forced to accept smart meters has complained of numerous effects.”
Lauren Bond writes, “Smart meters were installed in my building, and the radiation they emit inside apartments creates for myself, a constant burning pain to my skin.”
Jeanne Thompson writes from California: “My mother died of a massive brain tumor caused by a row of six Smart Meters outside her condo, on the wall where the head of her bed was. We discovered this after she had already passed. You can imagine my shock and horror at that realization.”
Dr. Linda Thomaswrites, “I have seen hideous debility in adults and children secondary to Smart Meters being installed in my area.” These include absence seizures in a 2-year-old boy and chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia in his mother.
Mario Desira writes from Malta: “Back in 2017 my electrical meter caught fire and nearly caused a house fire. Luckily I was at home and intervened before anything worse happened.”
Persephone Maywald writes from California that she was diagnosed with suspected Parkinson’s disease a few months after a smart meter was installed, and that she later had the meter replaced and within a few weeks all her symptoms disappeared.
Simone St. Clare writes from California that since a smart meter was installed, there have been almost no hummingbirds at her feeders and a decrease in caterpillars in her garden.
Deirdre Novella writes from New York that her hair started falling out within a few months of a smart meter being installed at her place of work, that she was diagnosed with leukemia, and that she developed a lifelong allergy to electricity.
Sheila Reavill, who works as an electromagnetic radiation specialist (“EMRS”) in Georgia, writes that after smart meters were installed, “the smart meter signature I logged [on her radio frequency meter] in my bedroom was at the precise times I wake up at night”; that her next door neighbor and her neighbor’s daughter wake at the exact same time she does every night; that her border collie began having skin problems and would wake up whimpering at the exact same time also; and that she and her dog both wake up at that same time with diarrhea.
Rebeca Randle writes from California that while she had a smart meter she could not sleep and there were no birds; and that when the smart meter was removed, the birds came back.
Robert Workman, an EMRS in Missouri, writes: “I have confirmed injuries from wireless radiation and the Smart meter seems to be the most damaging to me and my clients. Once the ITRON electronic meter is removed many of my clients have an immediate response to an improved health. This meter has been torture to myself and others in St Louis, it is my professional opinion this meter kills all biological life.”
Health practitioner Diane Peterson writes from California that “For the majority [of people], they suddenly developed symptoms and only later discovered that the symptoms began immediately after the smart meter was installed.”
Sema Kelly writes: “My friend’s neighbor had a smart meter put in. She didn’t know it had such dangers, but soon found out her chickens in the yard had huge tumors growing on their throats and body. The eggs they laid were odd shapes and colors, and the chickens appeared to be tired, which was not ever seen prior to the installments of the smart meters.”
Andre Fayollewrites that a smart meter gave his family headaches, caused the animals, birds and insects to disappear, and caused a fire that burned down his house.
Karen Crenshaw writes from California that she had no knowledge of the dangers of smart meters until an Itron smart meter was installed on her house, after which she awoke abruptly every hour during the night, had uncomfortable ear sensations, acquired high-pitched tinnitus, and felt pressure in her chest.
Annette Lillig writes from the UK: “Everyone I know who [has a smart meter] has been negatively affected by them.”
Beverly Jennings writes: “In Capitola, CA an entire bank of smart meters burst into flames and started a fire and burned down an apartment complex.”
Margaretha Tierney writes from Australia that she became sick two weeks after a smart meter was installed and was sick for five years until she had it moved off her house.
Sarah Wild writes that she had heart palpitations, headache, and panic until her smart meter was removed. She writes that her 80-year-old neighbor “went from being extremely lively, active, outward-going to hobbling around and forgetful within 6 months” of a smart meter being installed and died within 18 months.
Dino DeBenetti writes from Ontario, Canada that after a smart meter was installed, his wife’s health and behavior deteriorated, resulting in their divorce. He also writes that he has attempted to hatch fertile chicken eggs in an incubator in his house twice since the meter was installed, with over 20 fertile eggs each time, and not one egg hatched either time.
Karen Blomquist writes from California that when smart meters were installed on her home she incurred inner ear damage, sleeplessness, anxiety, non-stop heart palpitations, and migraines, and fled her home after two months to save her life. She also reports that her pets all got cancer and passed away.
Tina Cada writes from Florida that although she opted out of a smart meter on her own home, “[o]n the day they were getting installed [in her neighborhood], I walked outside and had no idea where I was. I had the worst kind of disorientation. This reaction was ongoing and lasted for the first few months.” She reports vertigo attacks that have continued, and constant dry mouth, that her teenage son has dry mouth, headaches and sleep disruptions, that her neighbor’s dog suddenly got cancer and died after the smart meters were installed, that her cat started acting differently, and that all the bats disappeared.
Laurie Grams writes from Texas that she lives in an apartment complex and so could not opt out, and has had sleep problems and agitation since smart meters were installed.
Jennifer Wood writes from West Virginia that “I have literally known thousands of people over the past nine years or so who became so ill when smart meters were installed in their homes that they had to move just as I did.”
Elizabeth Foley Walsh writes from North Carolina that she knew nothing about smart meters until after one was installed in her home and she began having severe headaches, dizziness, and temporal lobe seizures the following week. She writes that she thought she was dying until she went camping one week and the symptoms disappeared; that her next door neighbor’s headaches began the same time hers did; that an elderly neighbor across the street began falling repeatedly immediately after their headaches began; and that when she finally moved to a location without a smart meter she “was stunned at the change in my health.” She observed that “the frogs disappeared the very summer after the smart meter went in”—the hundreds of frogs that previously inhabited the creek behind their back yard—and that all the house sparrows and starlings disappeared, and that squirrels were “suddenly tame and suddenly laying down ‘resting’ a lot. They seem to be panting and they seem to be sick.” She writes that she has had to leave an 18-year career in developmental epidemiology.
Rainer Grobe writes that on the same day a smart water meter was installed, his wife developed heart arrhythmia, very high blood pressure, and fainted, and that they had to remove the meter themselves, with both legal and financial consequences.
Kent Casady writes from Germany that he and his wife purchased a house with a smart meter, and when they moved in there were no insects, bees, butterflies or birds, and “[t]he dirt in the yard was dead.” After they had the smart meter removed, they had “earthworms in the soil, bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, spiders, and other creatures.”
Kimberly Webber, in Taos, New Mexico, writes that although they were able to opt out of a smart meter at their home, they were unable to opt out at their place of business, and that “[w]e noticed agitation, irritability, depression, head aches, ear ringing and other symptoms from ourselves and our employees while in the work space.” They moved their business to a new location without a smart meter and “[a]ll of the symptoms have disappeared for us and our team.”
Ellen Habeck writes: “Until I researched the matter, I could not understand why I had such fragmented sleep, and would wake with severe tachycardia. I thought my heart would beat out of my chest. There was not sleep and no ability to function well in the morning after that.” Finally, “I looked and found the place I had moved to had a smart meter outside the bedroom wall.” She adds: “There is a neighbor who asked me why she thought she would feel unwell when working for hours in a particular room in her house. She also noted that any plants she put in that room died, where they had been thriving in other rooms. I looked and saw there was a smart meter directly on the other side of the wall of that room where she sat, and a neighbor’s smart meter pointing at fairly close proximity to that room.”
Arlene Griffin is a Santa Fe resident who briefly lived in southern California in 2019-2020. She writes: “I had no history of heart problems, but upon moving into a house in a development in San Diego County, I was jolted awake every night, feeling like what it would be like to be hit with defibrillator paddles. Once awake, my heart would alternate between pounding, racing, and skipping beats for the rest of the night, and I would shake for hours. I also developed eye issues—my eyes burned and were red and swollen. Each day I would feel better when I left our house, but each night the horrible symptoms would return. It was terrifying and exhausting… We hired an inspector who tested our house for RF/EMF radiation and found that the high readings were not coming from our property (we had an analog meter), but from our neighbor’s house. It so happened that her meter directly faced our bedrooms… Finally, in September 2020 I returned to New Mexico for good, and I have not had those heart symptoms here.”
Stephanie Dickerson writes from North Carolina that she is “currently suffering every single day and especially nights from the newly installed” smart meters in her neighborhood, and that “I have been forced from 3 previous home locations because of smartmeter installations… My heart rate has become dangerously high, my body temperature can not regulate, I experience constant vibrating in my torso and in my legs, my brain function has deteriorated and I can not sleep at all. This physical response to the newly installed smartmeters is life-threatening to me.”
Brenda Rogers writes from California that she “had to leave my home in a camper to find somewhere I could sleep” because of a smart meter, and that she had to abandon her home of 30 years.
Catherine Ralston lives in Taos. “A smart meter was put in at my address,” she writes. “I started having trouble sleeping at night. I started having headaches. I stopped waking up happy. My emotions were flatline. This happened quickly, over a couple of weeks. Someone told me about symptoms showing up in people after smart meters were installed where they live. I went looking for the smart meter. Then I moved my bed to a location in the building as far from the meter as I could put it, and slept with my head at the end of the bed furthest from the meter location. I slept through the night, and woke with no headache. I do not own the property and the owner won’t work with the electric company to give back the old meter. I feel blessed someone told me about the horrible impact the smart meters have on human health.”
Glenn Kikel moved to New Mexico from Colorado. He writes that when a smart meter was installed on their Colorado house, he developed tinnitus and his wife developed heart palpitations, and that both health problems ceased when the meter was moved.
Diane Craig writes that she “experienced severe tinnitus, tremors, short-term memory issues, and an area at the back of my neck at the base of my skull that was hot to my husband’s touch” in a 4-hour period after a smart meter was installed 10 feet beyond the head of her bed. They paid for opt-outs for both themselves and a neighbor in order to be well, she writes.
Alvita Armanavičienė, from Latvia, submitted this startling photograph of a bush standing just inches away from a smart meter:
Simone Bercu writes that she and her family left their homes in other states to come to New Mexico five years ago to escape smart meters. “The smart meters were devastating our small children and ourselves and the effects are still noticeable,” she writes.
Annie Mattingly, of Santa Fe, writes, “My daughter, living in another state, was away when a Smart Meter was installed on her house. Within days of her healthy arrival home, she became ill and now, several years later, she is still plagued with health issues and is only partially functional.”
M. L. writes from Pennsylvania: “When our meter started transmitting, I noticed two birds that had died within approximately 25 feet of it.”
Lukas Zillmer writes: “I have personal experience of bad sleep, waking up at night, waking up still tired from being exposed to the radiation by smart meters which made life almost unbearable.”
Simone Prince writes from British Columbia, Canada that her cat developed hyperthyroidism when a smart meter was installed on her townhouse, and that she herself changed from hypothyroidism to hyperthyroidism at the same time.
Solve the intentionally confusing puzzle about what the WHO’s 2023 plans are regarding the “zero draft” for a new and potentially legally binding pandemic treaty, International Health Regulation amendments, recent Intergovernmental Negotiating Body Meetings and more.
Learn all about the corrupt public health organization “with teeth” with guest James Corbett and Meryl Nass, M.D on ‘Good Morning CHD.’
[Video available at Children’s Health Defense Rumble channel.]
Marxist-tied WHO boss announced this week that WHO member states have agreed on the development of a legally binding pandemic treaty that will allow them to take over governmental power in the event of a pandemic.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation simulated another deadly pandemic, this time in Brussels, Belgium, on October 23, 2022. Catastrophic Contagion is the ominous title of the project, reports Nine For News.
The guest list included ten current and former health ministers and officials from Senegal, Rwanda, Nigeria, Angola, Liberia, Singapore, India, and Germany. Billionaire and self-proclaimed ‘pandemic expert’ Bill Gates participated in the simulation of a ‘fictitious’ pandemic that would break out in the near future. One which, in the simulation, would be much more deadly than Covid, especially for children.
Participants discussed how to deal with an epidemic that emerges in a certain part of the world and then quickly spreads to become a pandemic, with a higher mortality rate than Covid. In this case, children and young people were particularly affected.
The Globalists completed a desktop simulation for a new enterovirus originating near Brazil. Every choice the participants made had far-reaching consequences.
Pandemic treaty
The WHO boss, Marxist revolutionary Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesu, announced this week that WHO member states have agreed to develop a legally binding pandemic treaty. This treaty is supposed to ‘protect’ the world against future pandemics.
There is a lot of resistance to this pandemic treaty. MEP Christine Anderson (AfD) warned the treaty aims to give WHO de facto governing power over its member states in the event of a pandemic without involvement or consultation with national governments or national parliaments. The WHO can then restrict fundamental rights as it sees fit “almost like a world government,” explained the MEP.
According to WHO whistleblower Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, it is extremely dangerous. It will be a kind of global constitution, she said in the podcast Jerm Warfare. Individual countries can no longer determine how they fight the next ‘pandemic.’ She spoke of a centralization of power. “This is terrible.”
World Governance
The whistleblower pointed out that billionaire Bill Gates has been working on a global vaccination plan since 2012. The WHO has handed over leadership to GAVI (an international vaccine alliance), says Stuckelberger, who himself worked for the World Health Organization for many years. She pointed out that GAVI, is the second largest donor to WHO.
And now there is talk of global governance. “It’s organized tyranny in a golden cage,” she said. “We didn’t know how they were going to do it. They use health policies to create this global governance.”
These are not the first pandemic simulation games. They have already been carried out regularly over the past few years by various groups ranging from politicians, scientists, financiers, and oligarchs. However, until recently, they have gone relatively unnoticed by the public.
Below are some of the previous “games” that have taken place (listed from oldest to most recent):
DarkWinter (2001) – The Dark Winter exercise, held at Andrews AFB, Washington, DC, June 22-23, 2001, portrayed a fictional scenario depicting a covert smallpox attack on U.S. citizens.
Global Mercury (2003) – The Department of State participated with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Health Ministries of seven other member nations of the Global Health Security Action Group in a tabletop Bioterrorism Exercise from September 8 – 10, 2003. The exercise, known as Global Mercury, simulated a smallpox bioterrorism attack on member countries.
Atlantic Storm (2005) – was a ministerial exercise simulating the top-level response to a bioterror incident. The simulation operated on January 14, 2005, in Washington, D.C. It was created to reveal the current international state of preparedness and possible political and public health issues that might evolve from such a crisis.
Clade X (2018) – The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted the Clade X pandemic tabletop exercise on May 15, 2018, in Washington, DC. The exercise aimed to illustrate high-level strategic decisions and policies that the United States and the world will need to pursue to prevent a pandemic or diminish its consequences should prevention fail.
Monkeypox: March 2021: The World Health Organization and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation simulated the outbreak of a monkeypox pandemic. Also taking part in the exercise was the American, and Chinese RIVM, along with pharmaceutical giants Janssen and Merck
Leopard Pox – (May 2022) The World Health Organization and the health ministers of the G7 countries held pandemic simulation games based on a smallpox outbreak in 2023. The meeting featured a pandemic simulation, with the concept being that a new smallpox-like epidemic had suddenly emerged after someone was infected with the disease via a leopard bite.
We must not just talk about freedom, we must live it and live it by ceasing to cooperate with that which is by the hour now destroying freedom.
…
So where do we go from here? Well, the moronic people who long ago handed their minds to the state and authority — well, where are they going? They’re going down the road to exactly what I’m talking about. And they’ll do nothing about it. Too busy stopping those that are trying to warn them. So that leaves the rest of us.
And there are three types of people. Two of the groups are responsible for every tyranny in history. And the third group is responsible for ending every tyranny in history.
Group number one — those who mindlessly accept anything authority tells them without question… And they will just do whatever they’re told and think whatever they’re told to think.
Then there is group number two — those that don’t want to do what authority tells them, but they’re terrified of not doing so cause they fear the consequences.
Those two groups together have been responsible for every tyranny in history. Fascism is not imposed by fascists. There’s never enough of them. Fascism is imposed by the population acquiescing to fascism. See Nazi Germany.
So if anyone says, well, what can we do? Well, you can get off your bloody ass, stiffen your backbone and stop being a bloody wimp. There’s a start. Look your children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them what you were doing when fascism was introduced…
And then there’s group number three that has ended every tyranny in history — the true renegades of this human family. Those that see they’re being lied to, who see where this is going and refuse to cooperate. The people who understand the most powerful word in the English language: No! No! No!
…
Stop giving your power to authority and then you’ll see, authority never had power in the first place because it was always yours.
…
People now have to realize when they talk about spirituality that true spirituality comes with a spine. True spirituality is never spineless. An open heart is the place where we go beyond fear, where you do what you know to be right simply because you know it’s right.
And we’re at that point now — we’re at that point now where if there is not a mass refusal to cooperate with this unfolding fascism, then we are moving very quickly into a state of global fascism that people would almost be unable to comprehend in terms of its depth and its evil.
And that, ladies and gentlemen of the Netherlands and the world, is the nightmare that we are leaving our children and grandchildren to suffer and endure.
Freedom is not just a word. It’s not just a platitude. It’s something that has to be lived. Because unless we live freedom, how can we possibly be free?
And we are at the point now where we are allowing eight billion people to be controlled and dictated to and have their lives taken over by, at the core of the core of this cult, people you would get into a single room.
That is how far the self respect of humanity has fallen. And that’s the point. Self respect. You do not have self respect when you mindlessly believe whatever you’re told by authority. You do not have self respect. When you do it, though, you don’t want to do it because you fear not doing it.
You have self respect when you stand up for your rights and your fellow humans’ rights and don’t let consequences cower you into submission.
The Netherlands is a fascist country now. My country is a fascist country. America, Canada, New Zealand, all of them. Australia. Fascist countries. France, Belgium, all of them.
And it’s only possible because we allow it.
…
It’s time to be a lion and not a sheep. It’s time for humanity to roar! No! No! No! No more fascist dictatorship. No more submission to Rutte and those who control him. It’s now or it’s never.
Thousands of People to Form Human Chain Around U.K. Parliament to Demand Freedom for Assange
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has now spent more than three years in London’s HM Prison Belmarsh maximum security prison while fighting extradition to the United States.
He is awaiting word on whether he can proceed with his legal fight.
WATCH: Stella Assange Calls on Courage Everywhere in Support of Assange
On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 1 pm, thousands of supporters will join hands in London to create a Free Assange Human Chain around British Parliament.
As part of a global campaign for Julian’s release, over a dozen international actions have been planned in solidarity, with U.S.-based supporters holding a rally at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC featuring several high-profile speakers.
Actions are also planned for Melbourne, Denver, San Francisco, Rio de Janeiro, Ottawa, and Tulsa with more expected to be announced.
The D.C. protesters will be calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to drop the charges against Julian Assange while also denouncing the U.S. government’s campaign against Assange as supporters around the world demand Hands Off Assange!
The legal matter is in a crucial phase according to John Rees, who is helping to organize the event.
According to Bloomberg, Rees told the PA news agency: “We need to redouble our efforts to persuade the UK Parliament to intervene and halt Julian’s extradition.”
The demand for U.S. President Joe Biden to abandon Assange’s extradition case is being voiced by an increasing number of human rights groups, journalist organizations, legislators, politicians, and other campaigners.
+2000 journalists have a signed a statement in support of #WikiLeaks Julian Assange: “If the US government can extradite Assange for this, it will clear the way for governments to criminalize any of us, anywhere in the world” Sign: https://t.co/UtODznJSptpic.twitter.com/v2OhZjhpw0
On Saturday, October 1, Assange supporters held a tweet storm across Twitter and other social media platforms drawing attention to Assange’s situation and the upcoming protests.
The digital dollar is the endgame. No matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, this will be the permanent and inescapable enslavement the ruling classes of the globe desperately need in order to remain in power.
You will own nothing, while a handful of people will own everything. You will exist if they allow it, be stolen from if they don’t like what you said, and be ruled over in a dystopia that makes our current situation pale in comparison.
A “white paper” published on the White House website calls for the creation of a “digital dollar” that, of course, will be controlled by the ruling class. Much like the Federal Reserve currently has the sole role and responsibility to develop and print fiat currency with which they already control the population to some extent. But the difference here is that if all money was digital, the government and central banks will be one and the same. They could (and would) monitor our bank accounts; monitor all of our transactions; impose barriers to purchases of certain “unfavored” items, and even block access to our money or limit how much of it we could spend.
They will take what they want, and cut off your ability to spend for as long as they want.
“A United States central bank digital currency (CBDC) would be a digital form of the U.S. dollar. While the U.S. has not yet decided whether it will pursue a CBDC, the U.S. has been closely examining the implications of, and options for, issuing a CBDC,” the White House policy paper notes before touting the digital dollar’s “benefits.”
Of course, they’ve decided to pursue this. We all should know by now that they will need to fully control humanity if they expect to remain in power. Hopefully, enough people will see through this and the agenda will fail. “At last year’s Summit for Democracy, President Biden spoke about the importance of using technology ‘to advance democracies to lift people up, not to hold them down.’ If the U.S. launches its own CBDC, it should advance this democratic vision,” the authors wrote.
In a democracy, you’re supposed to get to choose your master and who to serve. That doesn’t make anyone any less a slave.
We had better figure out how to untie against these sociopaths or we face a very bleak future.
“It is the function of mass agitation to exploit all the grievances, hopes, aspirations, prejudices, fears, and ideals of all the special groups that make up our society, social, religious, economic, racial, political. Stir them up. Set one against the other. Divide and conquer. That’s the way to soften up a democracy.”― J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit
The U.S. government has become a master of deceit.
It’s all documented, too.
This is a government that lies, cheats, steals, spies, kills, maims, enslaves, breaks the laws, overreaches its authority, and abuses its power at almost every turn; treats its citizens like faceless statistics and economic units to be bought, sold, bartered, traded, and tracked; and wages wars for profit, jails its own people for profit, and has no qualms about spreading its reign of terror abroad.
Worse, this is a government that has become almost indistinguishable from the evil it claims to be fighting, whether that evil takes the form of terrorism, torture, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, murder, violence, theft, pornography, scientific experimentations or some other diabolical means of inflicting pain, suffering and servitude on humanity.
With every passing day, it becomes painfully clear that this is not a government that can be trusted with your life, your loved ones, your livelihood or your freedoms.
Of the many weapons in the government’s vast arsenal, psychological warfare (or psy ops) can take many forms: mind control experiments, behavioral nudging, propaganda.
As Brianna Nofil explains, “MK-Ultra’s ‘mind control’ experiments generally centered around behavior modification via electro-shock therapy, hypnosis, polygraphs, radiation, and a variety of drugs, toxins, and chemicals.”
Similarly, the top-secret Montauk Project, the inspiration for the hit Netflix series Stranger Things, allegedly was working to develop mind-control techniques that would then be tested out on locals in a nearby village, triggering crime waves or causing teenagers to congregate.
As journalist Lorraine Boissoneault concludes, “Despite MK-ULTRA violating ethical norms for human experiments, the legacy of brainwashing experiments continued to live on in U.S. policy. The same methods that had once been used to train American soldiers ended up being used to extract information from terrorists in Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.”
Fast forward to the present day, and it’s clear that the government—aided and abetted by technological advances and scientific experimentation—has updated its psy ops warfare for a new era. For instance, the government has been empowered to use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technologies to influence behaviors en masse and control the populace.
Back in 2014, for example, a Fusion Center in Washington State (a Dept. of Homeland Security-linked data collection clearinghouse that shares information between state, local and federal agencies) inadvertently released records on remote mind control tactics (the use of “psycho-electronic” weapons to control people from a distance or subject them to varying degrees of pain).
This is how you persuade a populace to voluntarily march in lockstep with a police state and police themselves (and each other): by ratcheting up the fear-factor, meted out one carefully calibrated crisis at a time, and teaching them to distrust any who diverge from the norm.
This is not a new experiment in mind control.
Add the government’s inclination to monitor online activity and police so-called “disinformation,” and you have the makings of a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.
This “policing of the mind” is exactly the danger author Jim Keith warned about when he predicted that “information and communication sources are gradually being linked together into a single computerized network, providing an opportunity for unheralded control of what will be broadcast, what will be said, and ultimately what will be thought.”
We’ve already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime legislation that cracks down on so-called “hateful” thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on various subject matter.
The end goal of these mind-control campaigns—packaged in the guise of the greater good—is to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in re-shaping the country in the image of a totalitarian police state.
The government’s fear-mongering is yet another key element in its mind-control programming.
It’s a simple enough formula. National crises, global pandemics, reported terrorist attacks, and sporadic shootings leave us in a constant state of fear. The emotional panic that accompanies fear actually shuts down the prefrontal cortex or the rational thinking part of our brains. In other words, when we are consumed by fear, we stop thinking.
A populace that stops thinking for themselves is a populace that is easily led, easily manipulated and easily controlled whether through propaganda, brainwashing, mind control, or just plain fear-mongering.
Fear not only increases the power of government, but it also divides the people into factions, persuades them to see each other as the enemy and keeps them screaming at each other so that they drown out all other sounds. In this way, they will never reach consensus about anything and will be too distracted to notice the police state closing in on them until the final crushing curtain falls.
This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being brainwashed—manipulated—into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward.
It was almost 100 years ago when Bernays wrote his seminal work Propaganda:
“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of… In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, to this invisible government of rulers who operate behind the scenes—the architects of the Deep State—we are mere puppets on a string, to be brainwashed, manipulated and controlled.
For years now, the powers-that-be—those politicians and bureaucrats who think like tyrants and act like petty dictators regardless of what party they belong to—have attempted to brainwash us into believing that we have no rights: to think for ourselves, make decisions about our health, protect our homes and families and businesses, act in our best interests, demand accountability and transparency from government, or generally operate as if we are in control of our own lives.
Well, the government is wrong.
We have every right, and you know why? Because, as the Declaration of Independence states, we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights—to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness—that no government can take away from us.
It’s time we started reminding the government that “we the people” are the ones in charge.
On Thursday, I wrote about a Wednesday Washington Times article detailing allegations by current and former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents that FBI agents had been given quotas for investigations of “domestic terrorism” and “white supremacy” related crime. The results included a bunch of FBI agents spinning their wheels on trying to find crimes and criminals where none are, while surveilling and investigating plenty of people critical of government in the process.
Disturbingly, the investigations of these individuals would arise based on the individuals having exercised their right to criticize government. An FBI agent bluntly described the situation in the article: “If they have a Gadsden flag and they own guns and they are mean at school board meetings, that’s probably a domestic terrorist.”
Allegations by Department of Justice officials, reported in a Wednesday New York Post article by Miranda Devine, provide additional information about the FBI’s expansive efforts undertaken in the name of countering domestic terrorism. The allegations relate that Facebook repeatedly provided the FBI with customers’ private conversations in redacted form that the FBI then used to obtain subpoenas to seek more information from Facebook, and which Facebook then provided in spades. “But when the targeted Facebook users were investigated by agents in a local FBI field office, sometimes using covert surveillance techniques, nothing criminal or violent turned up,” the Post article reports.
What kind of people did Facebook turn over to the FBI? The article provides this answer:
The Facebook users whose private communications Facebook had red-flagged as domestic terrorism for the FBI were all ‘conservative right-wing individuals.’
‘They were gun-toting, red-blooded Americans [who were] angry after the election and shooting off their mouths and talking about staging protests. There was nothing criminal, nothing about violence or massacring or assassinating anyone.
‘As soon as a subpoena was requested, within an hour, Facebook sent back gigabytes of data and photos. It was ready to go. They were just waiting for that legal process so they could send it.’
It sure looks like investigation and surveillance targeting individuals due to those individuals’ political views — a disgraceful use of government power.
Sometimes police will be given quotas for ticketing drivers. Results of the pressure put on cops to meet their ticket targets tend to include that many drivers are pulled over and ticketed for minor infractions that would be better overlooked or based on dubious or fabricated grounds. Is a similar quota system, with expectable similar results, developing now in regard to “domestic terrorism” and “white supremacy” related crime at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)?
A Wednesday Washington Times article by Kerry Picket and Joseph Clark, referencing information provided by current and former FBI agents, suggests that is the case. Picket and Clark write:
Current and former FBI agents tell The Washington Times that the perceived threat has become overblown under the administration. They say bureau analysts and top officials are pressuring FBI agents to create domestic terrorist cases and tag people as White supremacists to meet internal metrics.
“The demand for White supremacy” coming from FBI headquarters “vastly outstrips the supply of White supremacy,” said one agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “We have more people assigned to investigate White supremacists than we can actually find.”
The agent said those driving bureau policies “have already determined that White supremacy is a problem” and set agencywide policy to elevate racially motivated domestic extremism cases as priorities.
“We are sort of the lapdogs as the actual agents doing these sorts of investigations, trying to find a crime to fit otherwise First Amendment-protected activities,” he said. “If they have a Gadsden flag and they own guns and they are mean at school board meetings, that’s probably a domestic terrorist.”
The Gadsden flag is a historical American flag with a yellow field showing a timber rattlesnake and the words: “Don’t Tread on Me.” It is often used as a symbol of liberty.
Firstly, I’m not going to entertain the laughable, official story.
Sixteen years after a series of coordinated terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda (as the story goes) shook the United States and the world, the number of questions-raised-left-unanswered has perhaps never been any higher. Through their constant probing, investigating and challenging of the official story, world-class journalists, architects, engineers and families of the victims of 9/11 in particular have, however, to their credit, managed to unearth and pool together enough evidence over the years, to make a compelling case to suggest that the “official” narrative of 9/11 is only a “story” and not an accurate narration of what had actually happened.
Eresh Omar Jamal, The Daily Star, circa 2017
Secondly, understanding what actually happened is difficult due to mass censorship by The Cathedral (media plus government plus academia). A good indicator of where one might find (more of) the truth, however, is to search for what is being censored or outside of the Overton Window.
At least, that’s my rule of thumb.
Which is why I am intrigued by both Mike’s and Judy’s arguments. James Fetzer, who has been my podcast a few times, has been investigating 9/11 for many years and, in my opinion, has the most persuasive hypothesis.
Where is the aircraft?
Where is the aircraft?
Our Conversation
In the following two-hour conversation, James presents 135 slides and an enormous amount of critique, including
what happened (or didn’t happen) at the Pentagon;
what happened (or didn’t happen) at Shanksville;
why planes could not have crashed into the Twin Towers;
why two of the four planes didn’t even take off;
why Osama and Muslim “terrorists” were a false flag;
the use of “mini-nukes” (which gives weight to the spike in cancers);
the names and faces of those involved; and
the motivations behind the operation.
I recommend watching instead of listening, for obvious reasons.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth: 9/11 Intercepted — 9/11 Flight Path Data
Ace Baker: The Great American Psy Opera
911 Flight 175 Radar Data 3D Analysis by Richard D Hall
Everything posted on this site is done in the spirit of conversation. The views and opinions expressed in articles posted on this site are those of the authors and video creators. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Truth Comes to Light. Please do your own research and trust yourself when reading and when giving consideration to anything that appears here or anywhere else.
With its imposing red brick houses, neat gardens and red postbox, Baskerville Road in the borough of Wandsworth is a classic example of family residences in the more affluent areas of London.
But something is amiss. Just outside a house on the corner, which happens to be the former home of World War I-era prime minister David Lloyd George, is a new piece of infrastructure that would seem more suited to the perimeter of a maximum security prison or a detention camp.
It is a disturbingly anthropomorphic CCTV camera, with two lenses that resemble eyes and two other indeterminate features that serve as the nose and mouth; and it hangs from a pole ringed with spikes to protect its hardware from would-be thieves or vandals.
Indeed, two of these rather sinister-looking structures — which appear to double as street lamps — have been installed on Baskerville Road, where homes fetch up to £10 million.
A CCTV camera which hangs from a pole ringed with spikes to protect its hardware from would-be thieves or vandals has been installed on Baskerville Road, where homes fetch up to £10 million
A sign beneath them says that they are there ‘to prevent crime and promote public safety’.
This will no doubt reassure those who live on the street, who have experienced a spate of burglaries in recent years.
But the extra security comes at a high cost, to which most Wandsworth residents — and the rest of the nation — are utterly oblivious.
For the strange white cameras are just two of millions which have quietly been installed throughout Britain in recent months.
Made by Dahua, a Chinese state-affiliated company, they are equipped with controversial facial recognition software — a means of monitoring and controlling populations much favoured by Beijing and other totalitarian regimes around the world.
There are other causes for concern: Dahua has a track record of severe cybersecurity vulnerabilities that have already led to mass hacks of its cameras, and the company itself admitted last year that there is ‘very high potential’ for other such incidents.
The company has also been implicated in human rights abuses conducted by the Chinese government, with the facial recognition capabilities of its cameras used to pick out in crowds anyone with the distinctive features of a Uyghur Muslim — a persecuted ethnic minority in China — to alert police so the individuals can be rounded up.
This is a feature that Dahua calls, rather chillingly, ‘Real Time Uyghur Warnings’. Only last week, the extent of China’s human rights atrocities against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang Province were laid bare in a UN report, which found that there was ‘credible evidence’ of torture, possibly amounting to ‘crimes against humanity’.
With the passage of the 2022 Defense Authorization Act giving the executive branch sweeping powers over the use of the military in all domestic affairs, and with the obvious obsession by a supranational deep state technocracy intent on imposing a final endgame scenario onto the United States, it is important to recognize the historical precedent of the attempted Bankers’ Coup of 1934 that sought to impose a fascist puppet dictator into the White House. Unfortunately for the JP Morgan network managing this coup, the puppet they selected for their “American Mussolini” was a patriotic retired General named Smedley Darlington Butler.
In this new Canadian Patriot Review film based upon the essay “Why Assume There Will be a 2024 Election?” produced/narrated by Jason Dahl, you will be introduced to this dense period of history beginning with the orchestrated demolition of the financial system in 1929, the Wall Street/London fueled “economic miracle solution” of fascism and eugenics between 1930-1934, and the story of FDR’s war with the financier oligarchy’s London and Wall Street tentacles. From this vantage point, we are then thrust into a deep dive into the person of Smedley Butler and his courageous defense of the republic.
I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as the next theorist, and have welcomed some pretty eye-opening conversations in recent months, from Marilyn Monroe to 9/11 to the Titanic, but this one about Sandy Hook is absolutely next level.
Was Alex Jones Right?
After reading the memoranda that compose this series, how could anyone doubt that Alex had it right and the mainstream media had it wrong? That the vilification of Alex has no basis in fact and appears to be a massive propaganda campaign on behalf of the Deep State? At this point in time – with massive and compelling evidence available – what remains up for debate? Nothing! As he observed, it was a hoax.
James Fetzer, circa 2018
James reckons that Alex was right all along, despite all the legal and political backgammon currently being played.
The jury’s decision Friday came the day after it awarded the parents of slain first grader $4.1 million for mental anguish, bringing the total damages against the InfoWars founder to $49.3 million.
NPR, circa 2022
As James notes in our conversation, the “slain first grader” doesn’t exist. Or, rather, he does exist, but not in the way the mainstream narrative has been constructed.
What Actually Happened?
I don’t know.
But, once again, trusting the legitimacy of official stories is not a good strategy in piecing together puzzles. And being labelled a “conspiracy theorist” is empty and just an attempt to discredit, silence critical thinking, and perpetuate established views. Ignore such labels.
The Sandy Hook school.
And when censorship becomes the dominating force, like in the case with this particular event, alarm bells should ring. After all, why would “crazy conspiracy theories” need to be censored if they’re clearly crap? And why would people need to be protected and sheltered from them?
The following documentary (which, obviously, is not on YouTube) is long but superb.
Our Conversation
James showed some photos in this podcast, so watching it might be preferable to listening to it. He covers a lot of ground, including questions around
So, it’s official. On Wednesday, August 24, New Normal Germany’s Bundestag rubber stamped the government’s latest revision to the so-called “Infection Protection Act” (i.e., New Normal Germany’s new Enabling Act), authorizing the continued persecution of “the Unvaccinated” (i.e., New Normal Germany’s new official Untermenschen), the mandatory wearing of medical-looking masks (i.e., the ideological-compliance symbol of the New Normal Reich throughout the world), the banning of protests against the New Normal (i.e., the new official ideology of Germany), and assorted other “emergency measures.”
These “emergency measures” are purportedly designed to protect the German people from a “health threat” that (a) does not exist; (b) the vast majority of other countries in Europe and the rest of the world have finally admitted does not exist; (c) never existed in the first place; and (d) not even the most fanatical Covidian Cultists can still pretend to present a plausible argument for the existence of without sounding like severely cognitively-impaired persons.
For example, Karl Lauterbach (who is still for some reason the official Minister of Health of Germany, despite the fact that he has been lying to the public and fomenting hatred of “the Unvaccinated” like the reanimated corpse of Joseph Goebbels on a daily basis for over two years) explained why Germany is pushing ahead with its plan to coercively “vaccinate” the entire population, over and over. According to Lauterbach, the “vaccines” cause “multiply-vaccinated” persons to develop symptoms of the illness their multiple “vaccinations” were designed to keep them from being infected with more quickly than “the Unvaccinated,” so they stay home, and thus help to “limit the pandemic,” whereas “the Unvaccinated,” being “asymptomatic,” go around heedlessly infecting “the Vaccinated,” which they wouldn’t be doing if they had been “multiply-vaccinated,” as they would be home suffering the flu-like symptoms they were assured the “vaccines” would protect them from suffering but which actually caused them to suffer more quickly.
OK, at this point, I know you’re probably asking, “why haven’t the German people demanded the removal of this obviously deranged clown from office?” Well, unfortunately, the problem isn’t just Karl Lauterbach. It’s also Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor of Germany, Marco Buschmann, the Minister of Justice, and the rest of the government of New Normal Germany, and the vast majority of the German people, who appear to be willing to behave as if the rest of the world did not exist, and click heels and mindlessly follow orders, no matter how completely absurd.
For example, if you’re flying to New Normal Germany from some other country where reality prevails, the moment your plane enters German airspace, you are required to don a medical-looking mask, and not just any old medical-looking mask, but an FFP2 Filtering Face Piece as defined by the EN 149 standard, which has been proven to protect you from the BA.5 Variant of the Omicron Variant of the SARS CoV-2 Variant (i.e., the original Covid-19 Variant) by the “the Golden Syrian Hamster Model,” according to the New Normal German authorities.**
Of course, this Filtering Face Piece mandate does not apply to government officials and their mouthpieces in the German media, an entire planeload of whom just flew from New Normal Germany to New Normal Canada and back in a state of flagrant masklessness.
If you don't speak German, you can't really appreciate how disgustingly Goebbelsian the German media have become … or perhaps always have been, behind their post-WWII "democratic" facade. https://t.co/f80Uf4MMHipic.twitter.com/UnywY6nZnv
And that is just one of the numerous examples of the fascistic spirit that has taken hold of the country I willingly emigrated to almost exactly 18 years ago, which I now no longer recognize. Here’s another one, which will turn your stomach. It’s a video clip of a Deutsche Bahn Gestapo Officer (a newly created official position formerly known as “train conductor”) barking orders at a maskless woman, over and over, like in a Spielberg film, then finally physically assaulting the woman …
Was für ein Kindergarten. Bahnangestellte behandelt erwachsene Frau wie ein kleines Kind. pic.twitter.com/BZ1BPindcq
I think that will suffice in terms of examples of the atmosphere here in New Normal Germany.
Now, believe it or not, I have tried to give the German people the benefit of the doubt (i.e., as a people) during the last two and a half years. Sure, I have occasionally likened their behavior to the behavior of the German people during their unsavory (i.e., Nazi) past, and I have compared the evolution of New Normal Germany to the early days of Nazi Germany on … OK, more than a few occasions, but I have emphasized that this disturbingly fascistic, mindless, order-following behavior has nothing to do with the German character per se, because we’ve seen the identical disturbingly fascistic, mindless, order-following behavior erupt in countries all over the world, but, at this point, if the German people continue to behave in a disturbingly fascistic, mindless, order-following manner while people all throughout the rest of the world go about their daily lives without having to show their “vaccination papers” to some goon to be allowed to enter a café and get a fucking cup of coffee, and otherwise exist in a more or less maskless, post-mass-hysterically-paranoid state … if the Germans are willing to continue to do that (i.e., behave in the aforementioned mindlessly fascistic, authority-worshiping, frightening fashion and make themselves the laughing stock of the world), I’m not going to be so nice anymore. I’m going to call them some derogatory names. I’m going to question their character as a people. I’m going to publicly speculate about exactly what the fuck is wrong with them.
I hope and pray I don’t have to do that. We’ve got about a month before the new “restrictions” take effect. Which is plenty of time for the German people to rise up and put an end to all this. I’ve been assured by my German friends that the German people will not do this, but what can I say? I’m a hopeless optimist.
In the meantime, enjoy the end of Summer, and don’t worry too much about what’s happening here in New Normal Germany, or in New Normal Canada, or New Normal Washington DC, or wherever. It all over now, mostly, isn’t it, the whole New Normal nightmare, right? They would never, ever, do it again … not wherever you live, right?
CJ Hopkins
August 26, 2022
* OK, I assume you’re wondering about the title. Geist means “spirit” (or “mind” or “intellect”), as in “Zeitgeist” (i.e., “the spirit of the age”), which you know because we’ve adopted it into English. Geisterfahrer is one of those essentially untranslatable German words. It basically means someone who’s driving in the wrong direction, i.e., against the flow of traffic, in the opposite direction to which everyone else is driving, but in a figurative rather than a literal sense.
** GOLDEN SYRIAN HAMSTER MODEL RESULTS: “Noncontact transmission was found in 66.7% (10/15) of exposed naive hamsters. Surgical mask partition for challenged index or naive hamsters significantly reduced transmission to 25% (6/24, P = .018). Surgical mask partition for challenged index hamsters significantly reduced transmission to only 16.7% (2/12, P = .019) of exposed naive hamsters. Unlike the severe manifestations of challenged hamsters, infected naive hamsters had lower clinical scores, milder histopathological changes, and lower viral nucleocapsid antigen expression in respiratory tract tissues.” (Seriously, this is from the actual study the Ministry of Health of New Normal Germany has cited as proof of the effectiveness of masks.)
Despite being raided by armed U.S. Marshals and facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, Amos Miller explained that farmers need to stand strong.
Recently, Miller’s Organic Farm in Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania was raided by armed federal agents. They demanded the farm cease operations and are economically crippling the business with over $300,000 in fines.
The government is arguing that the farm isn’t adhering to federal regulatory requirements for food.
The water buffalo, the cattle, and even the camels are living and being processed in the way, as Miller argues, that God intended.
All of the animals on the farm eat fully organic diets, munching only on the wild plants, flowers, and the bugs in their pasture.
Veteran journalist, Michael Yoder, is a long-time customer of Amos Miller’s farm and has been closely covering the story for a local newspaper.
“I think they want to use Amos as an example,” Yoder said.
He explained that the government wants to make sure other farmers don’t attempt to replicate what Miller’s Farm succeeded in doing.
“Miller is selling his meat and dairy directly to the consumer, without the government acting as the middleman. The government doesn’t have as much control over this type of operation,” Yoder explained.
Amos Miller explained to me that because his farm doesn’t use chemical fertilizers, herbicides or patented seeds which are chiefly manufactured by industry giants with strong ties to the government, they’re using the power of the government to shut him down.
“Corporate America is taking over and putting people in our government…they have the government on their side and they’re making it harder for farmers to be farmers,” said Amos Miller.
Miller is legally arguing that because he’s selling to what he calls a “private food club” and not the open market, certain rules and regulations of the federal government don’t apply to him.
The customers are buying meat and dairy from his farm explicitly because his food isn’t processed and manufactured at giant industrial facilities and instead is grown, fed, and processed right here on the land.
“Some come from Florida, California, North Carolina, basically all over the country because they are seeking nutrient-dense foods like raw meat and raw buffalo milk…and they trust us for keeping our animals out on pastures and they can actually see the color in the fat of the beef and the distinct color of the milk…this color comes from the nutrient density of the animals feeding grass,” Miller explained to Rebel News.
Amos, despite being raided by armed U.S. Marshals and facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, explained that farmers need to stand strong.
“We farmers need to stand together and stand strong and we can’t just fall for the government’s rules and regulations,” he added.
With every passing day, the United States government borrows yet another leaf from Nazi Germany’s playbook: Secret police. Secret courts. Secret government agencies. Surveillance. Censorship. Intimidation. Harassment. Torture. Brutality. Widespread corruption. Entrapment. Indoctrination. Indefinite detention.
These are not tactics used by constitutional republics, where the rule of law and the rights of the citizenry reign supreme. Rather, they are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, where secret police control the populace through intimidation, fear and official lawlessness on the part of government agents.
If the government’s covert, taxpayer-funded employment of Nazis after World War II weren’t bad enough, U.S. government agencies—the FBI, CIA and the military—adopted many of the Third Reich’s well-honed policing tactics, and have used them against American citizens.
Indeed, the FBI’s laundry list of crimes against the American people includes surveillance, disinformation, blackmail, entrapment, intimidation tactics, harassment and indoctrination, governmental overreach, abuse, misconduct, trespassing, enabling criminal activity, and damaging private property, and that’s just based on what we know.
Compare the FBI’s far-reaching powers to surveil, detain, interrogate, investigate, prosecute, punish, police and generally act as a law unto themselves—powers that have grown since 9/11, transforming the FBI into a mammoth federal policing and surveillance agency that largely operates as a power unto itself, beyond the reach of established laws, court rulings and legislative mandates—to its Nazi counterparts, the Gestapo—and then try to convince yourself that the United States is not a totalitarian police state.
Today, the FBI employs more than 35,000 individuals and operates more than 56 field offices in major cities across the U.S., as well as 400 resident agencies in smaller towns, and more than 50 international offices. In addition to their “data campus,” which houses more than 96 million sets of fingerprints from across the United States and elsewhere, the FBI has also built a vast repository of “profiles of tens of thousands of Americans and legal residents who are not accused of any crime. What they have done is appear to be acting suspiciously to a town sheriff, a traffic cop or even a neighbor.” The FBI’s burgeoning databases on Americans are not only being added to and used by local police agencies, but are also being made available to employers for real-time background checks.
All of this is made possible by the agency’s nearly unlimited resources (President Biden’s budget projections allocate $10.8 billion for the FBI), the government’s vast arsenal of technology, the interconnectedness of government intelligence agencies, and information sharing through fusion centers—data collecting intelligence agencies spread throughout the country that constantly monitor communications (including those of American citizens), everything from internet activity and web searches to text messages, phone calls and emails.
Working through the U.S. Post Office, the FBI has access to every piece of mail that passes through the postal system: more than 160 billion pieces are scanned and recorded annually. Moreover, the agency’s National Security Letters, one of the many illicit powers authorized by the USA Patriot Act, allows the FBI to secretly demand that banks, phone companies, and other businesses provide them with customer information and not disclose those demands to the customer. An internal audit of the agency found that the FBI practice of issuing tens of thousands of NSLs every year for sensitive information such as phone and financial records, often in non-emergency cases, is riddled with widespread constitutional violations.
Much like the Gestapo’s sophisticated surveillance programs, the FBI’s spying capabilities can delve into Americans’ most intimate details (and allow local police to do so, as well).
In addition to technology (which is shared with police agencies) that allows them to listen in on phone calls, read emails and text messages, and monitor web activities, the FBI’s surveillance boasts an invasive collection of spy tools ranging from Stingray devices that can track the location of cell phones to Triggerfish devices which allow agents to eavesdrop on phone calls. In one case, the FBI actually managed to remotely reprogram a “suspect’s” wireless internet card so that it would send “real-time cell-site location data to Verizon, which forwarded the data to the FBI.” Law enforcement agencies are also using social media tracking software to monitor Facebook, Twitter and Instagram posts. Moreover, secret FBI rules also allow agents to spy on journalists without significant judicial oversight.
Much like the Gestapo’s ability to profile based on race and religion, and its assumption of guilt by association, the FBI’s approach to pre-crime allows it to profile Americans based on a broad range of characteristics including race and religion.
The agency’s biometric database has grown to massive proportions, the largest in the world, encompassing everything from fingerprints, palm, face and iris scans to DNA, and is being increasingly shared between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in an effort to target potential criminals long before they ever commit a crime. This is what’s known as pre-crime. Yet it’s not just your actions that will get you in trouble. In many cases, it’s also who you know—even minimally—and where your sympathies lie that could land you on a government watch list. Moreover, as the Interceptreports, despite anti-profiling prohibitions, the bureau “claims considerable latitude to use race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion in deciding which people and communities to investigate.”
Much like the Gestapo’s power to render anyone an enemy of the state, the FBI has the power to label anyone a domestic terrorist.
As part of the government’s so-called ongoing war on terror, the nation’s de facto secret police force has begun using the terms “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably. Moreover, the government continues to add to its growing list of characteristics that can be used to identify an individual (especially anyone who disagrees with the government) as a potential domestic terrorist. For instance, you might be a domestic terrorist in the eyes of the FBI (and its network of snitches) if you:
Much like the Gestapo infiltrated communities in order to spy on the German citizenry, the FBI routinely infiltrates political and religious groups, as well as businesses.
As Cora Currier writes for the Intercept: “Using loopholes it has kept secret for years, the FBI can in certain circumstances bypass its own rules in order to send undercover agents or informants into political and religious organizations, as well as schools, clubs, and businesses…” The FBI has even been paying Geek Squad technicians at Best Buy to spy on customers’ computers without a warrant.
Just as the Gestapo united and militarized Germany’s police forces into a national police force, America’s police forces have largely been federalized and turned into a national police force.
In addition to government programs that provide the nation’s police forces with military equipment and training, the FBI also operates a National Academy that trains thousands of police chiefs every year and indoctrinates them into an agency mindset that advocates the use of surveillance technology and information sharing between local, state, federal, and international agencies.
Just as the Gestapo’s secret files on political leaders were used to intimidate and coerce, the FBI’s files on anyone suspected of “anti-government” sentiment have been similarly abused.
As countless documents make clear, the FBI has no qualms about using its extensive powers in order to blackmail politicians, spy on celebrities and high-ranking government officials, and intimidate and attempt to discredit dissidents of all stripes. For example, not only did the FBI follow Martin Luther King Jr. and bug his phones and hotel rooms, but agents also sent him anonymous letters urging him to commit suicide and pressured a Massachusetts college into dropping King as its commencement speaker.
Just as the Gestapo carried out entrapment operations, the FBI has become a master in the art of entrapment.
In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks the FBI has not only targeted vulnerable individuals but has also lured or blackmailed them into fake terror plots while actually equipping them with the organization, money, weapons and motivation to carry out the plots—entrapment—and then jailing or deporting them for their so-called terrorist plotting.
When and if a true history of the FBI is ever written, it will not only track the rise of the American police state but it will also chart the decline of freedom in America, in much the same way that the empowerment of Germany’s secret police tracked with the rise of the Nazi regime.
How did the Gestapo become the terror of the Third Reich?
It did so by creating a sophisticated surveillance and law enforcement system that relied for its success on the cooperation of the military, the police, the intelligence community, neighborhood watchdogs, government workers for the post office and railroads, ordinary civil servants, and a nation of snitches inclined to report “rumors, deviant behavior, or even just loose talk.”
In other words, ordinary citizens working with government agents helped create the monster that became Nazi Germany. Writing for the New York Times, Barry Ewen paints a particularly chilling portrait of how an entire nation becomes complicit in its own downfall by looking the other way:
In what may be his most provocative statement, [author Eric A.] Johnson says that ‘‘most Germans may not even have realized until very late in the war, if ever, that they were living in a vile dictatorship.’’ This is not to say that they were unaware of the Holocaust; Johnson demonstrates that millions of Germans must have known at least some of the truth. But, he concludes, ‘‘a tacit Faustian bargain was struck between the regime and the citizenry.’’ The government looked the other way when petty crimes were being committed. Ordinary Germans looked the other way when Jews were being rounded up and murdered; they abetted one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century not through active collaboration but through passivity, denial and indifference.
Much like the German people, “we the people” have become passive, polarized, gullible, easily manipulated, and lacking in critical thinking skills. Distracted by entertainment spectacles, politics and screen devices, we too are complicit, silent partners in creating a police state similar to the terror practiced by former regimes.
Had the government tried to ram such a state of affairs down our throats suddenly, it might have had a rebellion on its hands. Instead, the American people have been given the boiling frog treatment, immersed in water that slowly is heated up—degree by degree—so that they’ve fail to notice that they’re being trapped and cooked and killed.
“We the people” are in hot water now.
The Constitution doesn’t stand a chance against a federalized, globalized standing army of government henchmen protected by legislative, judicial and executive branches that are all on the same side, no matter what political views they subscribe to: suffice it to say, they are not on our side or the side of freedom.
From Presidents Clinton to Bush, then Obama to Trump and now Biden, it’s as if we’ve been caught in a time loop, forced to re-live the same thing over and over again: the same assaults on our freedoms, the same disregard for the rule of law, the same subservience to the Deep State, and the same corrupt, self-serving government that exists only to amass power, enrich its shareholders and ensure its continued domination.
The Veterans Administration (VA) purchased 11 million rounds of ammunition (equivalent to 2,800 rounds for each of their officers), along with camouflage uniforms, riot helmets and shields, specialized image enhancement devices and tactical lighting.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acquired 4 million rounds of ammunition, in addition to 1,300 guns, including five submachine guns and 189 automatic firearms for its Office of Inspector General.
According to an in-depth report on “The Militarization of the U.S. Executive Agencies,” the Social Security Administration secured 800,000 rounds of ammunition for their special agents, as well as armor and guns.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) owns 600 guns. And the Smithsonian now employs 620-armed “special agents.”
This is how it begins.
We have what the founders feared most: a “standing” or permanent army on American soil.
This de facto standing army is made up of weaponized, militarized, civilian forces which look like, dress like, and act like the military; are armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; are authorized to make arrests; and are trained in military tactics.
Mind you, this de facto standing army of bureaucratic, administrative, non-military, paper-pushing, non-traditional law enforcement agencies may look and act like the military, but they are not the military.
Rather, they are foot soldiers of the police state’s standing army, and they are growing in number at an alarming rate.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of federal agents armed with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment, authorized to make arrests, and trained in military tactics has nearly tripled over the past several decades.
While Americans have to jump through an increasing number of hoops in order to own a gun, federal agencies have been placing orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point bullets and military gear. Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, IRS, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities.
The militarization of America’s police forces in recent decades has merely sped up the timeline by which the nation is transformed into an authoritarian regime.
What began with the militarization of the police in the 1980s during the government’s war on drugs has snowballed into a full-fledged integration of military weaponry, technology and tactics into police protocol. To our detriment, local police—clad in jackboots, helmets and shields and wielding batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, and assault rifles—have increasingly come to resemble occupying forces in our communities.
As Andrew Becker and G.W. Schulz report, more than $34 billion in federal government grants made available to local police agencies in the wake of 9/11 “ha[ve] fueled a rapid, broad transformation of police operations… across the country. More than ever before, police rely on quasi-military tactics and equipment… [P]olice departments around the U.S. have transformed into small army-like forces.”
A standing army—something that propelled the early colonists into revolution—strips the American people of any vestige of freedom.
It was for this reason that those who established America vested control of the military in a civilian government, with a civilian commander-in-chief. They did not want a military government, ruled by force.
Rather, they opted for a republic bound by the rule of law: the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, with the Constitution under constant attack, the military’s power, influence and authority have grown dramatically. Even the Posse Comitatus Act, which makes it a crime for the government to use the military to carry out arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other activities normally handled by a civilian police force, has been greatly weakened by exemptions allowing troops to deploy domestically and arrest civilians in the wake of alleged terrorist acts.
The increasing militarization of the police, the use of sophisticated weaponry against Americans and the government’s increasing tendency to employ military personnel domestically have all but eviscerated historic prohibitions such as the Posse Comitatus Act.
Indeed, there are a growing number of exceptions to which Posse Comitatus does not apply. These exceptions serve to further acclimate the nation to the sight and sounds of military personnel on American soil and the imposition of martial law.
Now we find ourselves struggling to retain some semblance of freedom in the face of administrative, police and law enforcement agencies that look and act like the military with little to no regard for the Fourth Amendment, laws such as the NDAA that allow the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens, and military drills that acclimate the American people to the sight of armored tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, and combat aircraft patrolling overhead.
The menace of a national police force—a.k.a. a standing army—vested with the power to completely disregard the Constitution, cannot be overstated, nor can its danger be ignored.
Historically, the establishment of a national police force accelerates a nation’s transformation into a police state, serving as the fundamental and final building block for every totalitarian regime that has ever wreaked havoc on humanity.
Then again, for all intents and perhaps, the American police state is already governed by martial law: Battlefield tactics. Militarized police. Riot and camouflage gear. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Drones. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Concussion grenades. Intimidation tactics. Brute force. Laws conveniently discarded when it suits the government’s purpose.
This is what martial law looks like, when a government disregards constitutional freedoms and imposes its will through military force, only this is martial law without any government body having to declare it.
The ease with which Americans are prepared to welcome boots on the ground, regional lockdowns, routine invasions of their privacy, and the dismantling of every constitutional right intended to serve as a bulwark against government abuses is beyond unnerving.
We are sliding fast down a slippery slope to a Constitution-free America.
This quasi-state of martial law has been helped along by government policies and court rulings that have made it easier for the police to shoot unarmed citizens, for law enforcement agencies to seize cash and other valuable private property under the guise of asset forfeiture, for military weapons and tactics to be deployed on American soil, for government agencies to carry out round-the-clock surveillance, for legislatures to render otherwise lawful activities as extremist if they appear to be anti-government, for profit-driven private prisons to lock up greater numbers of Americans, for homes to be raided and searched under the pretext of national security, for American citizens to be labeled terrorists and stripped of their rights merely on the say-so of a government bureaucrat, and for pre-crime tactics to be adopted nationwide that strip Americans of the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty and creates a suspect society in which we are all guilty until proven otherwise.
All of these assaults on the constitutional framework of the nation have been sold to the public as necessary for national security.
Time and again, the public has fallen for the ploy hook, line and sinker
We’re being reeled in, folks, and you know what happens when we get to the end of that line?
On October 22, 2010, WikiLeaks published the Iraq War Logs, a massive dump of nearly 400,000 classified U.S. Army field reports revealing what founder Julian Assange called “intimate details” of the war—including war crimes and other serious human rights abuses perpetrated by American and coalition troops, private contractors, and Iraqi government and paramilitary forces.
It was the largest leak in U.S. military history. It subsequently stunned the world who immediately demanded justice. Unfortunately, it’s been over a decade since that revelation and the only ones punished for the crimes shown in the documents, were the whistleblowers who revealed them, while the architects and the perpetrators of the atrocities continue to enjoy impunity.
The publication of the Iraq War Logs was the culmination of a year full of WikiLeaks revelations regarding U.S. and allied conduct during the so-called War on Terror. Early in the year, U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning leaked the “Collateral Murder” video, which shows U.S. Apache attack helicopter crews laughing and joking while massacring a group of Iraqi civilians, including journalists, and shooting children.
While Manning has since been released and is enjoying freedom, Assange remains locked away in a torturous environment for reporting on these crimes. The US government has been quietly pursuing charges against the Wikileaks founder under the Espionage Act for years. According to what’s been publicly revealed, Assange is facing an 18 count indictment in the US with most of the charges focused on violating the Espionage Act. Should he be found guilty, Assange could be imprisoned for up to 175 years.
Assange’s case has serious implications for journalists around the world as he was acting as a journalist when he published leaked US government documents on Iraq and Afghanistan — not committing “espionage.”
This week, former Pink Floyd front man, Roger Waters used his pulpit to raise awareness to Assange’s plight. At a concert during his tour in the US, Waters showed his support for Assange and played the horrifying Collateral Murder video of US troops slaughtering journalists. Remember as you watch the video below that no one involved in this atrocity has faced a single consequence and the only one in jail over it, is the person who showed it to the world.
— Defend Assange Campaign (@DefendAssange) July 11, 2022
As we have reported previously, this is not the first time, Waters has made such bold statements during his shows. Waters is known for using his musical platform to make powerful political statements that often go against the mainstream narrative.
In 2018, Waters showed solidarity with Julian Assange during a concert in Berlin by unveiling a message in red text projected onto a black backdrop, which read “Resist the attempted silencing of Julian Assange,” before the start of his concert.
During a solo concert in Barcelona just prior to the show in Berlin, Waters stopped mid-concert to address the U.S. bombing of Syria—which took place under the pretense of retaliation for an alleged chemical attack—to call out the White Helmets.
“The White Helmets is a fake organization that exists only to create propaganda for jihadists and terrorists,” Waters said. “That’s my belief. We have opposing beliefs. If we were to listen to the propaganda of the White Helmets and others, we would be encouraged to encourage our governments to start dropping bombs on people in Syria. This would be a mistake of monumental proportions for us as human beings.”
“What we should do is go and persuade our governments not to go and drop bombs on people.”
When entertainers and musicians attempt to break through the imposed Matrix of propaganda the plutocratic oligarchy and their media cronies work diligently to marginalize them into obscurity. It is important for people to understand that voices for freedom are being intentionally silenced when they go against the “approved” narrative, thus it being incumbent upon us to share the message of freedom, and no matter what your political ideology—support human rights and justice for Julian Assange!
The link for the WikiLeaks video of Iraq war footage found in the article takes you to YouTube which requires an account to view. It can easily be accessed on BitChute, courtesy of Black Diamond, without requiring you to login to an account.
WikiLeaks, a website that publishes anonymously sourced documents, has released a video showing what apparently is a US military helicopter firing at unarmed civilians in Iraq. WikiLeaks said the footage, filmed from a drone, shows a missile strike and shooting on a square in a Baghdad neighborhood in July 2007. The website said 12 civilians were killed in the attack, including two journalists, Namir Nour El Deen and Saeed Chmagh, who worked for the Reuters news agency. This is the full, unedited version of the footage.
OK, let me try to be more precise, as I don’t want to be arrested for “spreading disinformation” or “delegitimizing the state.” Germany is not dispensing with the semblance of democracy. No, the German constitution will remain in effect. It’s just that the revised Infection Protection Act — like the “Enabling Act of 1933,” which granted the Nazi government the authority to issue any edicts it wanted under the guise of “remedying the distress of the people” — will grant the New Normal German government the authority to continue to supersede the constitution and issue whatever edicts it wants under the guise of “protecting the public health” … for example, forcing the German masses to display their conformity to the new official ideology by wearing medical-looking masks on their faces for six or seven months of every year.
In addition to a ritualized mass-demonstration of mindlessly fascist ideological conformity (a standard feature of all totalitarian systems), this annual October-to-Easter mask-mandate, by simulating the new paranoid “reality” in which humanity is under constant attack by deadly viruses and other “public health threats,” will cement the New Normal ideology into place. If not opposed and stopped here in Germany, it will spread to other European countries, and to Canada, and Australia, and the New Normal US states. If you think what happens in Germany doesn’t matter because you live in Florida, or in Sweden, or the UK, you haven’t been paying attention recently. The roll-out of the New Normal is a global project … a multi-phase, multi-faceted project. Germany is just the current “tip of the spear.”
Sadly, the majority of the German masses will mindlessly click heels and follow orders, as they have since the Spring of 2020. They’re all enjoying a “summer break” at the moment, but come October they will don their masks, start segregating and persecuting “the Unvaccinated,” and otherwise behaving like fascists again. I hesitate to blame it on the German character, because we’ve witnessed the same mindlessly fascistic behavior all around the world over the past two years, but, I have to admit, there is something particularly scary about how the Germans do it.
Meanwhile, Germany’s FBI (der Bundesverfassungsschutz, or BfV) is hard at work enforcing the new Gleichschaltung. According to a report in Die Welt, the BfV is not just surveilling people who use terms like “Corona dictatorship” (and presumably a long list of other “wrongspeak” words), but it is also “surveilling people and groups that disseminate conspiracy theories, or call the democratic nature of the state into question.” Politicians are insisting that the BfV “toughen up the classification of political crime, especially regarding the Corona deniers.”
Yes, that’s right, publicly challenging the official Covid-19 narrative, or protesting official New Normal ideology, is a political crime here in New Normal Germany. It has been since May 2021, when the Bundesverfassungsschutz established a new official category of domestic extremism … “Anti-democratic or Security-threatening Delegitimization of the State.” I covered this in one of my columns at the time (“The Criminalization of Dissent” ) as did some corporate press, like The New York Times (“German Intelligence Puts Coronavirus Deniers Under Surveillance”), but, for some reason, the story didn’t get much traction.
“Delegitimization of the State” … let that language sink in for a moment. What it means is that anyone the New Normal authorities deem to be “delegitimizing the state” can be arrested and charged as a “political criminal.” I wasn’t entirely clear on what is meant by “delegitimizing,” so I looked the word up, and the definition I found was “to diminish or destroy the legitimacy, prestige, or authority” of something, or someone, which … I don’t know, sounds a little overly broad and subject to arbitrary interpretation.
For example, if I, right here in this column, were to propose that the German government had no legitimate reasons whatsoever for locking down the entire population, forcing everyone to wear medical-looking masks, and demonizing and segregating “the Unvaccinated,” that might make me a “political criminal.” Likewise, if I were to describe Karl Lauterbach, the Minister of Health of New Normal Germany, as a fanatical fascist, and a sociopathic liar, that might make me a “political criminal.” Or, if I were to point out how the German state media have deceived and gaslighted the German public for over two years like the proverbial Goebbelsian keyboard instrument, that might make me a “political criminal.” Or, if I were crazy enough to publish a book of essays written over the past two years documenting The Rise of the New Normal Reich, including essays about New Normal Germany, that might also make me a “political criminal.”
Naturally, I am a little uneasy, living in a former-Nazi country where I could be classified as a “political criminal” for my activities as an author and a political satirist … which, of course, is the point of the new classification. It is meant to scare dissidents like me into silence. Or … OK, it isn’t meant for me. It is meant for German dissidents like me. I’m an American, not a German citizen. So the chances of a heavily-armed “Special Commando” team storming my apartment in the wee hours of the morning and arresting me on trumped-up weapons charges — as they recently did to Dr. Paul Brandenburg, an outspoken opponent of the New Normal Reich — are probably (hopefully) fairly remote.
In any event, I would never do that, i.e., attempt to diminish the prestige or authority of the Federal Republic of New Normal Germany, or in any way compare it to Nazi Germany, or any other totalitarian system, or describe it as a nascent biosecurity police state wherein the rule of law has been supplanted by the arbitrary edicts of fascist fanatics, because that would just be asking for trouble. After all, if we’ve learned anything from history, the smart thing to do during times like these is to keep one’s mouth shut and follow orders, and if you hear a train coming … well, just look the other way.
While many have bought into the simplistic idea that availability of firearms is the cause of mass shootings, a number of experts have pointed out a more uncomfortable truth, which is that mass shootings are far more likely the result of how we’ve been mistreating mental illness, depression and behavioral problems
Gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are not the problem, because the more gun control laws that have been passed, the more mass shootings have occurred
97.8% of mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones,” as the perpetrators know legally armed citizens won’t be there to stop them
Depression per se rarely results in violence. Only after antidepressants became commonplace did mass shootings really take off, and many mass shooters have been shown to be on antidepressants
Antidepressants, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are well-known for their ability to cause suicidal and homicidal ideation and violence
While many have bought into the simplistic idea that availability of firearms is the cause of mass shootings, a number of experts have pointed out a more uncomfortable truth, which is that mass shootings are far more likely the result of how we’ve been mistreating mental illness, depression and behavioral problems.
An article written by Molly Carter, initially published on ammo.com at an unknown date1 and subsequently republished by The Libertarian Institute in May 2019,2 and psychreg.org in late January 2021,3 noted:
“According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a mass murder occurs when at least four people are murdered, not including the shooter … during a single incident …
Seemingly every time a mass shooting occurs … the anti-gun media and politicians have a knee-jerk response — they blame the tragedy solely on the tool used, namely firearms, and focus all of their proposed ‘solutions’ on more laws, ignoring that the murderer already broke numerous laws when they committed their atrocity.
Facts matter when addressing such an emotionally charged topic, and more gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are NOT the problem. Consider the following: The more gun control laws that are passed, the more mass murders have occurred.
Whether or not this is correlation or causation is debatable. What is not debatable is that this sick phenomenon of mass murderers targeting ‘gun-free zones,’ where they know civilian carry isn’t available to law-abiding Americans, is happening.
According to the Crime Prevention Research Center,4 97.8% of public shootings occur in ‘gun-free zones’ – and ‘gun-free zones’ are the epitome of the core philosophical tenet of gun control, that laws are all the defense one needs against violence …
This debate leads them away from the elephant in the room and one of the real issues behind mass shootings — mental health and prescription drugs.
Ignoring what’s going on in the heads of these psychopaths not only allows mass shootings to continue, it leads to misguided gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment and negate the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens.
As Jeff Snyder put it in The Washington Times: ‘But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.’”
The Elephant in the Room: Antidepressants
Thoughts, emotions and a variety of environmental factors play into the manifestation of violence, but mental illness by itself cannot account for the massive rise in mass murder — unless you include antidepressants in the equation. Yet even when mental health does enter the mass shooter discussion, the issue of antidepressants, specifically, is rarely mentioned.
The fact is, depression per se rarely results in violence. Only after antidepressants became commonplace did mass shootings take off, and many mass shooters have been shown to be on antidepressants.
Prozac, released in 1987, was the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to be approved for depression and anxiety. Only two years earlier, direct-to-consumer advertising had been legalized. In the mid-1990s, the Food and Drug Administration loosened regulations, direct-to-consumer ads for SSRIs exploded and, with it, prescriptions for SSRIs.
In 1989, just two years after Prozac came to market, Joseph Wesbecker shot 20 of his coworkers, killing nine. He had been on Prozac for one month, and the survivors of the drug-induced attack sued Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac. Since then, antidepressant use and mass shootings have both risen, more or less in tandem.
In the two decades between 1988 and 2008, antidepressant use in the U.S. rose by 400%,5 and by 2010, 11% of the U.S. population over the age of 12 were on an antidepressant prescription.6
In 1982, pre-Prozac, there was one mass shooting in the U.S.7 In 1984, there were two incidents and in 1986 — the year Prozac was released — there was one. One to three mass shootings per year remained the norm up until 1999, when it jumped to five.
Another jump took place in 2012, when there were seven mass shootings. And while the annual count has gone up and down from year to year, there’s been a clear trend of an increased number of mass shootings post-2012. Over time, mass shootings have also gotten larger, with more people getting injured or killed per incident.8
How can we possibly ignore the connection between rampant use of drugs known to directly cause violent behavior and the rise in mass shootings? Suicidal ideation, violence and homicidal ideation are all known side effects of these drugs. Sometimes, the drugs disrupt brain function so dramatically the perpetrator can’t even remember what they did.
For example, in 2001, a 16-year-old high schooler was prescribed Effexor, starting off at 40 milligrams and moving up to 300 mg over the course of three weeks. On the first day of taking a 300-mg dose, the boy woke up with a headache, decided to skip school and went back to bed.
Some time later, he got up, took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage at gunpoint. He later claimed he had no recollection of anything that happened after he went back to bed that morning.9
The Risks Are Clear
The risks of psychiatric disturbances are so clear, ever since mid-October 2004, all antidepressants in the U.S. must include a black box warning that the drug can cause suicidal thoughts and behaviors, especially in those younger than 25, and that:10
“Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility (aggressiveness), impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric.”
SSRIs can also cause emotional blunting and detachment, such that patients report “not feeling” or “not caring” about anything or anyone, as well as psychosis and hallucinations. All of these side effects can contribute to someone acting out an unthinkable violent crime.
In one review11,12 of 484 drugs in the FDA’s database, 31 were found to account for 78.8% of all cases of violence against others, and 11 of those drugs were antidepressants.
The researchers concluded that violence against others was a “genuine and serious adverse drug event” and that of the drugs analyzed, SSRI antidepressants and the smoking cessation medication, varenicline (Chantix), had the strongest associations. The top-five most dangerous SSRIs were:13
Fluoxetine (Prozac), which increased aggressive behavior 10.9 times
Paroxetine (Paxil), which increased violent behavior 10.3 times
Fluvoxamine (Luvox), which increased violent behavior 8.4 times
Venlafaxine (Effexor), which increased violent behavior 8.3 times
Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq), which increased violent behavior 7.9 times
Depression Is Vastly Overdiagnosed
In her article, Carter also reviewed the clinical determinants for a diagnosis of clinical depression warranting medication. To qualify, you must experience five or more of the following symptoms, most of the day, every day, for two weeks or more, and the symptoms must be severe enough to interfere with normal everyday functioning:14
Sadness
Anxiety
Feeling hopeless
Feeling worthless
Feeling helpless
Feeling ’empty’
Feeling guilty
Irritable
Fatigue
Lack of energy
Loss of interest in hobbies
Slow talking and moving
Restlessness
Trouble concentrating
Abnormal sleep patterns, whether sleeping too much or not enough
Abnormal weight changes, either eating too much or having no appetite
Thoughts of death or suicide
The reality is that a majority of patients who receive a depression diagnosis and subsequent prescription for an antidepressant do not, in fact, qualify. In one study,15 only 38.4% actually met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) criteria, and among older adults, that ratio was even lower. Only 14.3% of those aged 65 and older met the diagnostic criteria. According to the authors:16
“Participants who did not meet the 12-month MDE criteria reported less distress and impairment in role functioning and used fewer services. A majority of both groups, however, were prescribed and used psychiatric medications.
Conclusion: Depression overdiagnosis and overtreatment is common in community settings in the USA. There is a need for improved targeting of diagnosis and treatments of depression and other mental disorders in these settings.”
What Role Might War Games Play?
Aside from antidepressants, another factor that gets ignored is the influence of shooting simulations, i.e., violent video games. How does the military train soldiers for war? Through simulations. With the proliferation of video games involving indiscriminate violence, should we really be surprised when this “training” is then put into practice?
As reported by World Bank Blogs, young men who experience violence “often struggle to reintegrate peacefully into their communities” when hostilities end.17 While American youth typically have little experience with real-world war, simulated war games do occupy much of their time and may over time color their everyday perceptions of life. As noted by Centrical, some of the top benefits of simulations training include:18
Allowing you to practice genuine real-life scenarios and responses
Repetition of content, which boosts knowledge retention
Personalization and diversification, so you can learn from your mistakes and evaluate your performance, thereby achieving a deeper level of learning
In short, violent mass shooter games are the perfect training platform for future mass shooters. Whereas a teenager without such exposure might not be very successful at carrying out a mass shooting due to inexperience with weapons and tactics, one who has spent many hours, years even, training in simulations could have knowledge akin to that of military personnel.
Add antidepressant side effects such as emotional blunting and loss of impulse control, and you have a perfect prescription for a mass casualty event.
On top of that, we, as a nation, also demonstrate the “righteousness” of war by engaging in them without end.19 When was the last time the U.S. was not at war someplace? It’s been ongoing for decades.
Even now, the U.S. insists on inserting itself into the dispute between Russia and Ukraine, and diplomacy isn’t the chosen conflict resolution tool. Sending weapons to Ukraine and calling for more violence against Russians are. Sen. Lindsey Graham has even called for the assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Showing just how serious such a suggestion is, the White House had to publicly disavow it, stating Graham’s comment “is not the position of the U.S. government.”20
Graham, meanwhile, does not appear to understand how his nonchalant call for murder might actually incite murder. In the wake of the Uvalde school shooting, he now wants to mobilize retired service members to enhance security at schools, and while that might be a good idea, how about also vowing never to call for the murder of political opponents? Don’t politicians understand that this could translate into some kid thinking it’s acceptable to murder THEIR perceived opponents?
As far as I can tell, mass shootings have far more to do with societal norms, dangerous medications, a lack of high-quality mental health services, and the normalization of violence through entertainment and in politics, than it does with gun laws per se.
There are likely many other factors as well, but these are clearly observable phenomena known to nurture violent behavior. I’m afraid Americans are in need of a far deeper and more introspective analysis of the problem than many are capable of at the moment. But those who can should try, and make an effort to affect much-needed change locally and in their own home.
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” — Ayn Rand
Indeed, at a time when red flag gun laws (which authorize government officials to seize guns from individuals viewed as a danger to themselves or others) are gaining traction as a legislative means by which to allow police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats, it wouldn’t take much for police to be given the green light to enter a home without a warrant in order to seize lawfully-possessed firearms based on concerns that the guns might pose a danger.
Frankly, a person wouldn’t even need to own a gun to be subjected to such a home invasion.
Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted laws allowing the police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats. If Congress succeeds in passing the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order, which would nationalize red flag laws, that number will grow.
As The Washington Post reports, these red flag gun laws “allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn’t require a mental-health diagnosis or an arrest.”
In the wake of yet another round of mass shootings, these gun confiscation laws—extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws—may appease the fears of those who believe that fewer guns in the hands of the general populace will make our society safer.
Of course, it doesn’t always work that way.
Anything—knives, vehicles, planes, pressure cookers—can become a weapon when wielded with deadly intentions.
While in theory it appears perfectly reasonable to want to disarm individuals who are clearly suicidal and/or pose an “immediate danger” to themselves or others, where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.
We’ve been down this road before.
Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
This is the same government whose agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies to identify potential threats.
This is the same government that 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.
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.
Now consider the ramifications of giving police that kind of authority: to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat.
It’s a powder keg waiting for a lit match.
Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.
At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.
No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.
No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.
So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?
According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”
Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and carried out a no-knock raid on the household.
According to the county report, the no-knock raid was justified “due to Lemp being ‘anti-government,’ ‘anti-police,’ currently in possession of body armor, and an active member of the Three Percenters,” a far-right paramilitary group that discussed government resistance.
This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.
Therein lies the danger of these red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws such as these generally where the burden of proof is reversed and you are guilty before you are given any chance to prove you are innocent.
Red flag gun laws merely push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless.
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.
Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.
You will be flagged as a potential threat and dealt with accordingly.
You will be tracked by the government’s pre-crime, surveillance network wherever you go.
Hopefully you’re starting to understand how easy we’ve made it for the government to identify, label, target, defuse and detain anyone it views as a potential threat for a variety of reasons that run the gamut from mental illness to having a military background to challenging its authority to just being on the government’s list of persona non grata.
The government has been building its pre-crime, surveillance network in concert with fusion centers (of which there are 78 nationwide, with partners in the private sector and globally), data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).
Combine red flag laws with the government’s surveillance networks and its plan to establish an agency that 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, and you’ll understand why some might view gun control legislation with trepidation.
No matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, benevolent plans can easily be put to malevolent purposes.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.
The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigration, the war on COVID-19: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the government’s hands.
No matter how well-intentioned, red flag gun laws will put a target on the back of every American whether or not they own a weapon.
Where “conspiracy theories” were once understood to be the driving force of world history (both for good or for evil), today’s dumbed-down populus has increasingly become induced to believe that the term is synonymous with either insanity at best, or domestic terrorism at worst.
The fact is that the behaviorists attempting to “nudge” humanity into a Great Reset of technocratic feudalism have set their sights on “conspiracy theories” as the primary threat to their agenda which they assert, must be destroyed and subverted through a number of techniques enumerated as early as 2008 by Cass Sunstein (counsellor to Biden’s Department of Homeland Security) in his essay “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures“.
In this Canadian Patriot Review documentary produced and narrated by Ottawa film maker Jason Dahl, the true nature of “conspiracy theories” is explored from Ancient Rome, through the Golden Renaissance, American Revolution and our present age. Rather than seeing conspiracies as solely a negative term as is so often the case, we evaluate both evil as well as positive expressions of this fundamentally human process which literally means “two or more people acting together in accord with an agreed upon idea and intention”.
If you are starting to feel like forces controlling the governments of the west are out to get you, then it is likely that you are either a paranoid nut job, or a stubborn realist.
Either way, it means that you have some major problems on your hands.
If you don’t happen to find yourself among the tinfoil hat-wearing strata of conspiracy theorists waiting in a bunker for aliens to either strike down or save society from the shape shifting lizard people, but are rather contemplating how, in the 1960s, a shadow government took control of society over the dead bodies of many assassinated patriots, then certain conclusions tend to arise.
Three Elementary Realizations for Thinking People
The first conclusion you would likely arrive at is that the United States government was just put through the first coup in over 58 years (yes, what happened in 1963 was a coup). Although it is becoming a bit prohibitive to speak such words aloud in polite society, Nancy Pelosi’s official biographer Molly Ball, recently penned a scandalous Time Magazine article entitled ‘The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that Saved the 2020 Elections’ which admitted to this conspiracy saying:
“Even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream- a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.” (Lest you think that this was a subversion of democracy, Ball informs us that “they were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”)
Another conclusion you might come to is that many of the political figures whom you believed were serving those who elected them into office, actually serve the interests of a clique of technocrats and billionaires lusting over the deconstruction of western civilization under something called “a Great Reset”. Where this was brushed off as an unfounded conspiracy theory not long ago, even Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister (and neo-Nazi supporting Rhodes Scholar) Chrystia Freeland decided to become a Trustee of the World Economic Forum just weeks ago. In this role, Freeland joins fellow Oxford technocrat Mark Carney in their mutual endeavor to be a part of the new movement to decarbonize civilization and make feudalism cool again.
Lastly, you might notice that your having arrived at these conclusions is itself increasingly becoming a form of thought-crime punishable in a variety of distasteful ways elaborated by a series of unprecedented new emergency regulations that propose extending the definition of “terrorism”. Those implicated under the new definition will be those broad swaths of citizens of western nations who don’t agree with the operating beliefs of the ruling oligarchy.
Already a 60 day review of the U.S. military is underway to purge the armed forces of all such “thought criminals” while McCarthyite legislation has been drafted to cleanse all government jobs of “conspiracy theorists”.
Another startling announcement from the National Terrorism Advisory Bulletin that domestic terrorists include: “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority [and] perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”
While not yet fully codified into law (though it will be if not nipped in the bud soon), you can be sure that things are certainly moving fast as, before our very eyes, the right to free speech is being torn to shreds by means of censorship across social media and the internet, cancelling all opinions deemed unacceptable to the ruling class.
The Conspiracy to Subvert Conspiracy Theorizing
This should not come as a surprise, as Biden’s new addition to the Department of Homeland Security is a bizarre figure named Cass Sunstein who famously described exactly what this was going to look like in his infamous 2008 report ‘Conspiracy Theories’ (co-authored with Harvard Law School’s Adrien Vermeule). In this under-appreciated study, the duo foresaw the greatest threat to the ruling elite took the form of “conspiracy theorizing” within the American population using as examples of this delusion: the idea that the government had anything to do with the murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, or the planning and execution of 9-11.
Just to be clear, conspiracy literally means ‘two or more people acting together in accord with an agreed upon idea and intention’.
The fact that Vermeule has made a legal career arguing that laws should be interpreted not by the “intentions” of lawgivers, but rather according to cost-benefit analysis gives us a useful insight into the deranged mind of a technocrat and the delusional reasoning that denies the very thing which has shaped literally ALL of human history.
In their “scholarly” essay, the authors wrote “the existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.” After establishing his case for the threat of conspiracies, Sunstein says that “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”.
Not one to simply draw criticisms, the pro-active Sunstein laid out five possible strategies which the social engineers managing the population could deploy to defuse this growing threat saying:
“(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counter speech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counter speech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help”.
(I’ll let you think about which of these prescriptions were put into action over the ensuing 12 years.)
Cass Sunstein was particularly sensitive to this danger largely because: 1) he was a part of a very ugly conspiracy himself and 2) he is a world-renowned behaviorist.
The Problem of Reality for Behaviorists
As an economic behaviorist and lawyer arguing that all “human rights” should be extended to animals (blurring the line separating human dynamics from the law of the jungle as any fascist must), Sunstein has spent decades trying to model human behavior with computer simulations in an effort to “scientifically manage” such behavior.
As outlined in his book Nudge (co-authored with Nobel Prize winning behaviorist Richard Thaler), Sunstein “discovered” that people tend to organize their behavioral patterns around certain fundamental drives, such as the pursuit of pleasure, avoidance of pain, and certain Darwinian drives for sex, popularity, desire for conformity, desire for novelty, and greed.
One of the key principles of economic behaviorism which is seen repeated in such popular manuals as Freakonomics, Nudge, Predictably Irrational, The Wisdom of Crowds, and Animal Spirits, is that humans are both biologically determined due to their Darwinian impulses, but, unlike other animals, have the fatal flaw of being fundamentally irrational at their core. Since humans are fundamentally irrational, says the behaviorist, it is requisite that an enlightened elite impose “order” upon society while maintaining the illusion of freedom of choice from below. This is the underlying assumption of Karl Popper’s Open Society doctrine, which was fed to Popper’s protégé George Soros and which animates Soros’ General Theory of Reflexivity and his Oxford-based Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET).
This was at the heart of Obama’s science Czar John Holdren’s call for world government in his 1977 Ecoscience (co-written with his mentor Paul Ehrlich) where the young misanthrope envisioned a future utopic world governed by a scientifically managed master-class saying:
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable”.
The caveat: If Darwinian impulses mixed with irrational “animal spirits” were truly all that animated those systems which behaviorists wish to map and manipulate (aka: “nudge” with rewards, punishments), then a scientific priesthood would indeed be a viable and perhaps necessary way to organize the world.
Fortunately, reality is a bit more elegant and dignified than behaviorists wish to admit.
Why Computer Modellers Hate Metaphysics
On a closer inspection of history, we find countless instances where people shape their individual and group behavior around sets of ideas that transcend controllable material impulses. When this happens, those individuals or groups tend to resist adapting to environments created for them. This incredible phenomenon is witnessed empirically in the form of the American Revolution, Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings, Civil Rights movements, and even some bold manifestations of anti-lockdown protests now underway around the world.
Among the most troublesome of those variables which upset computer models are: “Conscience”, “Truth”, “Intentions”, “Soul”, “Honor”, “God”, “Justice”, “Patriotism”, “Dignity”, and “Freedom”.
Whenever individuals shape their identities around these very real, though immaterial (aka: “metaphysical”) principles, they cannot be “nudged” towards pre-determined decisions that defy reason and morality. Adherence to these principles also tends to afford thinking people an important additional edge of creative insight necessary to cut through false explanatory narratives that attempt to hide lies behind the appearance of truth (aka: sophistry).
As witnessed on multiple occasions throughout history, such individuals who value the health of their souls over the intimidating (and extremely malleable) force of popular opinion, will often decide to sacrifice personal comfort and even their lives in order to defend those values which their minds and consciences deem important.
These rare, but invaluable outliers will often resist policies that threaten to undo their freedoms or undermine the basis of their society’s capacity to produce food, and energy for their children and grandchildren. What is worse, is that their example is often extremely contagious causing other members of the sheep class to believe that they too are human and endowed with unalienable rights which should be defended.
The Intentions Ordering World History
Perhaps, most “destructive” of all is that these outlier people tend to look for abstract things like “causes” in historical dynamics shaping the context of their present age, as well as their current geopolitical environment.
Whenever this type of thinking is done, carefully crafted narratives fed to the masses by an enlightened elite will often fail in their powers to persuade, since seekers after truth soon come to realize that IDEAS and intentions (aka: conspiracies) shape our past, present and future. When the dominating intentions shaping society’s trajectory is in conformity with Natural Law, humanity tends to improve, freedoms increase, culture matures and evil loses its hold. Inversely, when the intentions animating history are out of conformity with Natural Law, the opposite happens as societies lose their moral and material fitness to survive and slip ever more quickly into dark ages.
While sitting in a jail in Birmingham Alabama in 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. described this reality eloquently when he said:
“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust… One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”
From Plato’s organization of his Academy and efforts to shape a Philosopher King to beat the forces of the Persian Empire, to Cicero’s efforts to save the Roman Republic, to Augustine’s battles to save the soul of Christianity all the way to our present age, conspiracies for the good and counter-conspiracies for evil have shaped history. If one were to begin an investigation into history without an understanding that ideas and intentions caused the trajectory of history, as is the standard practice among history professors dominant in todays world, then one would become incapable of understanding anything essential about one’s own reality.
It is irrelevant that behaviorists and other fascists wish their victims to believe that history just happens simply because random short-sighted impulses kinetically drive events on a timeline- the truth of my claim exists for any serious truth seeker to discover it for themselves.
Back to our Present Sad State of Affairs
Now we all know that Sunstein spent the following years working as Obama’s Regulatory Czar alongside an army of fellow behaviorists who took control of all levers of policy making as outlined by Time Magazine’s April 13, 2009 article ‘How Obama is Using the Science of Change’. As the fabric of western civilization, and traditional values of family, gender, and even macro economic concepts like “development” were degraded during this period, the military industrial complex had a field day as Sunstein’s wife Samantha Power worked closely with Susan Rice in the promotion of “humanitarian bombings” of small nations under Soros’ Responsibility to Protect doctrine.
After the Great Reset Agenda was announced in June 2020, Sunstein was recruited to head the propaganda wing of the World Health Organization known as the WHO Technical Advisory Group where his skills in mass behavior modification was put to use in order to counteract the dangerous spread of conspiracy theories that persuaded large chunks of the world population that COVID-19 was part of a larger conspiracy to undermine national sovereignty and impose world government.
The head of WHO described Sunstein’s mandate in the following terms:
“In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are using a range of tools to influence behavior: Information campaigns are one tool, but so are laws, regulations, guidelines and even fines…That’s why behavioral science is so important.”
Today, hundreds of Obama-era behaviorists have streamed back into influential positions of government under the new “scientifically managed”, evidence-based governance coming back to life under Biden promising to undo the dark days of President Trump.
Ideologues who have been on record calling for world government, the elimination of the sick and elderly (see Obamacare architect Ezekiel Emmanuel’s Why I Hope to Die At 75), and population control are streaming back into positions of influence. If you think that anything they have done to return to power is unlawful, or antithetical to the principles of the Constitution, then these technocrats want you to know that you are a delusional conspiracy theorist and as such, represent a potential threat to yourself and the society of which you are but a part.
If you question World Health Organization narratives on COVID-19, or doubt the use of vaccines produced by organizations like Astra Zeneca due to their ties to eugenics organizations then you are a delusional conspiracy theorist.
If you believe that the U.S. government just went through a regime change coordinated by something called “the deep state”, then you run the risk of being labelled a delusional threat to “the general welfare” deserving of the sort of treatment dolled out to any typical terrorist.
It appears that the many comforts we have taken for granted over the past 50-year drunken stupor called “globalization” are quickly coming to an end, and thankfully not one but two opposing intentions for what the new operating system will be are actively vying for control. This clash was witnessed in stark terms during the January 2021 Davos Summit, where Xi Jinping and Putin’s call for a new system of win-win cooperation, multipolarity and long-term development offset the unipolar zero-sum ideologues of the west seeking to undo the foundations of industrial civilization.
Either way you look at it, conspiracies for good and for evil do exist now, as they have from time immemorial. The only question is which intention do you want to devote your life towards?
“Have you ever wondered who’s pulling the strings? … Anything we touch is a weapon. We can deceive, persuade, change, influence, inspire. We come in many forms. We are everywhere.”— U.S. Army Psychological Operations recruitment video
Psychological warfare, according to the Rand Corporation, “involves the planned use of propaganda and other psychological operations to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of opposition groups.”
For years now, the government has been bombarding the citizenry with propaganda campaigns and psychological operations aimed at keeping us compliant, easily controlled and supportive of the police state’s various efforts abroad and domestically.
Of the many weapons in the government’s vast arsenal, psychological warfare may be the most devastating in terms of the long-term consequences.
As the military journal Task and Purpose explains, “Psychological warfare is all about influencing governments, people of power, and everyday citizens… PSYOP soldiers’ key missions are to influence ‘emotions, notices, reasoning, and behavior of foreign governments and citizens,’ ‘deliberately deceive’ enemy forces, advise governments, and provide communications for disaster relief and rescue efforts.”
Yet don’t be fooled into thinking these psyops (psychological operations) campaigns are only aimed at foreign enemies. The government has made clear in word and deed that “we the people” are domestic enemies to be targeted, tracked, manipulated, micromanaged, surveilled, viewed as suspects, and treated as if our fundamental rights are mere privileges that can be easily discarded.
Aided and abetted by technological advances and scientific experimentation, the government has been subjecting the American people to “apple-pie propaganda” for the better part of the last century.
Consider some of the ways in which the government continues to wage psychological warfare on a largely unsuspecting citizenry.
Weaponizing violence. With alarming regularity, the nation continues to be subjected to spates of violence that terrorizes the public, destabilizes the country’s ecosystem, and gives the government greater justifications to crack down, lock down, and institute even more authoritarian policies for the so-called sake of national security without many objections from the citizenry.
Weaponizing surveillance, pre-crime and pre-thought campaigns. Surveillance, digital stalking and the data mining of the American people add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence. When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies. Add pre-crime programs into the mix with government agencies and corporations working in tandem to determine who is a potential danger and spin a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports using automated eyes and ears, social media, behavior sensing software, and citizen spies, and you having the makings for a perfect dystopian nightmare. The government’s war on crime has now veered into the realm of social media and technological entrapment, with government agents adopting fake social media identities and AI-created profile pictures in order to surveil, target and capture potential suspects.
Weaponizing digital currencies, social media scores and censorship. Tech giants, working with the government, have been meting out their own version of social justice by way of digital tyranny and corporate censorship, muzzling whomever they want, whenever they want, on whatever pretext they want in the absence of any real due process, review or appeal. Unfortunately, digital censorship is just the beginning. Digital currencies (which can be used as “a tool for government surveillance of citizens and control over their financial transactions”), combined with social media scores and surveillance capitalism create a litmus test to determine who is worthy enough to be part of society and punish individuals for moral lapses and social transgressions (and reward them for adhering to government-sanctioned behavior). In China, millions of individuals and businesses, blacklisted as “unworthy” based on social media credit scores that grade them based on whether they are “good” citizens, have been banned from accessing financial markets, buying real estate or travelling by air or train.
Weaponizing compliance. Even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be—and has been—perverted, corrupted and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation. The war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on COVID-19, the war on illegal immigration, asset forfeiture schemes, road safety schemes, school safety schemes, eminent domain: all of these programs started out as legitimate responses to pressing concerns and have since become weapons of compliance and control in the police state’s hands.
Weaponizing behavioral science and nudging. Apart from the overt dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, there’s also the covert dangers associated with a government empowered to use these same technologies to influence behaviors en masse and control the populace. In fact, it was President Obama who issued an executive order directing federal agencies to use “behavioral science” methods to minimize bureaucracy and influence the way people respond to government programs. It’s a short hop, skip and a jump from a behavioral program that tries to influence how people respond to paperwork to a government program that tries to shape the public’s views about other, more consequential matters. Thus, increasingly, governments around the world—including in the United States—are relying on “nudge units” to steer citizens in the direction the powers-that-be want them to go, while preserving the appearance of free will.
Weaponizing desensitization campaigns aimed at lulling us into a false sense of security. The events of recent years—the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the lockdowns, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers—have conspired to acclimate the populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.
Weaponizing fear and paranoia. The language of fear is spoken effectively by politicians on both sides of the aisle, shouted by media pundits from their cable TV pulpits, marketed by corporations, and codified into bureaucratic laws that do little to make our lives safer or more secure. Fear, as history shows, is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government and control a populace, dividing the people into factions, and persuading them to see each other as the enemy. This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being manipulated into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. Instead, fueled with fear and loathing for phantom opponents, they agree to pour millions of dollars and resources into political elections, militarized police, spy technology and endless wars, hoping for a guarantee of safety that never comes. All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward, and “we the suckers” get saddled with the tax bills and subjected to pat downs, police raids and round-the-clock surveillance.
Weaponizing genetics. Not only does fear grease the wheels of the transition to fascism by cultivating fearful, controlled, pacified, cowed citizens, but it also embeds itself in our very DNA so that we pass on our fear and compliance to our offspring. It’s called epigenetic inheritance, the transmission through DNA of traumatic experiences. For example, neuroscientists observed that fear can travel through generations of mice DNA. As The Washington Postreports, “Studies on humans suggest that children and grandchildren may have felt the epigenetic impact of such traumatic events such as famine, the Holocaust and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”
Weaponizing the future. With greater frequency, the government has been issuing warnings about the dire need to prepare for the dystopian future that awaits us. For instance, the Pentagon training video, “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” predicts that by 2030 (coincidentally, the same year that society begins to achieve singularity with the metaverse) the military would be called on to use armed forces to solve future domestic political and social problems. What they’re really talking about is martial law, packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security. The chilling five-minute training video paints an ominous picture of the future bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots. “We the people” are the have-nots.
The end goal of these mind control campaigns—packaged in the guise of the greater good—is to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in re-shaping the country in the image of a totalitarian police state.
The facts speak for themselves.
Whatever else it may be—a danger, a menace, a threat—the U.S. government is certainly not looking out for our best interests, nor is it in any way a friend to freedom.
When the government views itself as superior to the citizenry, when it no longer operates for the benefit of the people, when the people are no longer able to peacefully reform their government, when government officials cease to act like public servants, when elected officials no longer represent the will of the people, when the government routinely violates the rights of the people and perpetrates more violence against the citizenry than the criminal class, when government spending is unaccountable and unaccounted for, when the judiciary act as courts of order rather than justice, and when the government is no longer bound by the laws of the Constitution, then you no longer have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”
“We the people”—who think, who reason, who take a stand, who resist, who demand to be treated with dignity and care, who believe in freedom and justice for all—have become undervalued citizens of a totalitarian state that views people as expendable once they have outgrown their usefulness to the State.
Since a new wave of ‘domestic terror attacks’ have erupted over the past two weeks both in Buffalo and now more recently in Texas, the citizens of the USA and trans-Atlantic community more broadly are being whipped up into a frenzy of fear and confusion over the causes of ‘domestic terror’ which can only be remedied by increased dictatorial powers of the population.
As has often been the trend in our post-9/11 age, such highly publicized atrocities have tended to carry in their wake ever expanded state powers to surveille, censor and manipulate the confused and fearful population who lacks an ability to discern the true causes of the horrifying events framed for their consumption on mainstream media.
Before acquiescing to greater tyrannical powers to those agencies controlling western governments in exchange for promised security, it were wise to evaluate how and why terrorism – domestic or otherwise – has tended to arise over the past century.
If, in the course of conducting this evaluation, we find that terrorism is truly a “naturally occurring phenomenon”, then perhaps we might conclude alongside many eminent figures of the intelligence community and Big Tech, that new pre-emptive legislation targeting the rise of a new conservative-minded domestic terrorist movement is somehow necessary. Maybe the censoring of free speech, and the surveillance of millions of Americans by the Five Eyes is a necessary evil for the sake of the greater good.
However, if it is revealed that the thing we call “terrorism”, is something other than a naturally occurring, self-organized phenomenon, but rather something which only exists due to vast support from western political agencies, then a very different conclusion must be arrived at which may be disturbing for some.
But how to proceed?
Before it was revealed that ISIS was being supported by a network of Anglo-American intelligence agencies and their allies in a failed effort to overthrow Bashar al Assad, an exhaustive 2012 study was conducted by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School. This study provides a convenient entry point to our inquiry.
In this course of its investigation, researchers at Fordham discovered that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 138 terrorist incidents recorded in the USA between 2001-2012 involved FBI informants who played leading roles in planning out, supplying weapons, instructions and even recruiting Islamic terrorists to carry out terrorist acts on U.S. soil. Reporting on the Fordham study, The Nation stated:
“Nearly every major post-9/11 terrorism-related prosecution has involved a sting operation, at the center of which is a government informant. In these cases, the informants—who work for money or are seeking leniency on criminal charges of their own—have crossed the line from merely observing potential criminal behavior to encouraging and assisting people to participate in plots that are largely scripted by the FBI itself. Under the FBI’s guiding hand, the informants provide the weapons, suggest the targets and even initiate the inflammatory political rhetoric that later elevates the charges to the level of terrorism.”
Of course, this trend preceded 9/11 itself as we see in the case of FBI informant Emad Salem (formerly associated with the Egyptian Military) who recorded hundreds of hours of conversation between himself and his FBI handlers which were reported publicly by the New York times on October 28, 1993. Why is this important? Because Emad Salem was the figure who rented the van, hotel rooms, provided bomb-making instruction, tested out explosives on behalf of Mohammed Salamah and 15 other terrorists who carried out the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing which injured 1000 and killed 6 people.
Even though several large-scale military war game scenarios were conducted between October 2000 and July 2001 featuring planes flying into both the World Trade Center buildings and Pentagon, the incoming Neocon administration were somehow caught with their pants down when the events of 9/11 finally took place (conveniently at a moment that NORAD had suffered a total breakdown of their continental warning and response systems). When all flights were grounded over the coming several days, Cheney and his PNAC cohorts ensured that the only flights permitted to leave the USA was crammed with high level Saudi royals- including the Bin Laden family.
Why was this done?
As the declassified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission report went far to demonstrate, the Saudis- largely coordinated by Prince Bandar Bin Sultan (Saudi Ambassador to the USA from 1983-2005 and Bush family insider) had provided the foundation for a cover story that was carefully scripted to justify the 9/11 incident.
Whether the plot was hatched by CIA-Saudi sponsored terrorists as some assume, or whether it was a controlled demolition as hundreds of architects and engineers have testified to (or whether it was a combination of both stories), one thing is certain: The official narrative is a lie and no matter how you try to explain it, two airplanes cannot cause the collapse of three WTC buildings.
Another thing is certain: Biden was happy.
Not only did Joe Biden act as one of the most aggressive voices for the invasion of Iraq in the days following 9/11, but he even bragged publicly that John Ashcroft’s 2001 Patriot Act was modelled nearly verbatim on his own failed 1994 Omnibus domestic surveillance legislation drafted in response to the first 9/11 attack and 1994 Oklahoma City bombing.
Another important outcome of 9/11 involved the re-organization of the FBI with a focus on domestic terrorist surveillance, prevention, disruption and entrapment.
In 2001, MI5’s Chief came to the USA where then-FBI director Robert Mueller was assigned the task of carrying out this new remix of U.S. intelligence that involved re-activating many of the worst characteristics of the FBI’s earlier COINTEL PRO operations that were made public during the 1974 Church Committee hearings.
“They have done a number of things to move them in the direction of an MI5,” says a person close to the changes. “They’ve created agents who are trained to have an intelligence function. They’re monitoring organizations within the U.S. that pose threats to national security … not with an eye toward prosecuting, but toward collecting and analyzing that information.”
An incredible report by investigative Journalist Edward Spannaus listed a short list of some of the most extreme cases of FBI entrapment between 2001-2013 in the USA:
“One of the most egregious of these cases is the so-called “Newburgh Four” in New York State, in which an informant in 2008-09 offered the defendants $250,000, as well as weapons, to carry out a terrorist plot. The New York University Center for Human Rights and Justice reviewed this case and two others, and concluded: “The government’s informants introduced and aggressively pushed ideas about violent jihad and, moreover, actually encouraged the defendants to believe it was their duty to take action against the United States.”
The Federal judge presiding over the Newburgh case, Colleen McMahon, declared that it was “beyond question that the government created the crime here,” and criticized the Bureau for sending informants “trolling among the citizens of a troubled community, offering very poor people money if they will play some role—any role—in criminal activity.”
In Portland, Ore., it was disclosed during the trial of the “Christmas Tree bomber” earlier this year, that the FBI had actually produced its own terrorist training video, which was shown to the defendant, depicting men with covered faces shooting guns and setting off bombs using a cell phone as a detonator. The FBI operative also traveled with the target to a remote location where they detonated an actual bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the planned attack.
In Brooklyn, N.Y., in 2012, an FBI agent posing as an al-Qaeda operative supplied a target with fake explosives for a 1,000-pound bomb, which the FBI’s victim then attempted to detonate outside the Federal Reserve building in Manhattan.
In Irvine, Calif., in 2007, an FBI informant was so blatant in attempting to entrap members of the local Islamic Center into violent jihadi actions, that the mosque went to court and got a restraining order against the informant.
In Pittsburgh, Khalifa Ali al-Akili became so suspicious of two “jihadi” FBI informants who were trying to recruit him to buy a gun and to go to Pakistan for training, that he contacted both the London Guardian and the Washington-based National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, and told them that he feared the FBI was trying to entrap him. The National Coalition scheduled a press conference for March 16, 2012, at which al-Akili was to speak and identify the informants, but the day before the scheduled press conference, the FBI arrested al-Akili, charging him not with terrorism, but with illegal possession of a firearm.
The chief informant trying to entrap al-Akili turned out to be Shaden Hussain, a longtime FBI informant who had set up two earlier terrorism cases: the above-cited Newburgh, N.Y., case for which he was paid $100,000, and another in Albany, N.Y., for which his payments are not known.”
In the months since the events on January 6, 2021 we have only seen that this practice continued in full swing within the United States, as reports of FBI agents provocateurs began to circulate widely even being covered extensively by Tucker Carlson on June 15. Recent revelations that the “domestic terrorist” cell which recently plotted the kidnaping of Michigan’s Governor Whitmer were composed primarily of FBI informants and even the Proud Boys Enrique Tarrio was proven to be an FBI informant earlier this year along with leading strata of the Oath Keepers. The fact that Steve D’Antuono (FBI bureau chief in Michigan overseeing Whitmer operation) was promptly promoted to FBI bureau chief of Washington D.C. where his skills were put to good use on January 6 should not be lost on anyone.
Just to add a cherry atop this poisoned Sundae, during this same period of time, it was revealed by leaked FBI documents that Joshua Caleb Sutter- controller of the white supremacist group Atomwaffen and also the satanic Temple of Blood cult was paid over $180,000 by the FBI since 2003 ($80,000 of which was paid out after 2018).
Not Only the USA
This post 9/11 practice was not isolated to the USA, as a Canadian appeals court overruled guilty sentences handed down to an idiotic couple who were caught by the RCMP before their July 2016 jihadi plot to bomb a public venue on Canada Day could occur. Why did the appeals judge overrule their sentence? Because it became clear that every single member of the operation which radicalized the young couple, trained them to make bombs and even scripted their attack were RCMP informants!
Earlier cases of controlled domestic terrorist movements in Canada saw CSIS (Canada’s Security and Intelligence Service) erase thousands of hours of wiretaps of Sikh terrorists that detonated bombs in 1984 which lead to 329 dead in the worst act of aviation terrorism until 9/11. Despite this destruction of evidence, CSIS was absolved of its sins in 2005 by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC). It was also this same organization that was revealed to have co-founded the white supremacist Heritage Front in 1988, and continued to finance it with tax payer funds using CSIS agent Grant Bristol as the conduit and Heritage Front controller until at least 1994.
Anglo-Canadian intelligence controls of domestic terrorism actually go as far back as the bomb-loving Front de Liberation Quebec (FLQ) of the 1960s that set dozens of mailbox bombs across the province. Not only did the RCMP Security Services get caught red handed managing FLQ cells, spreading FLQ graffiti on buildings and even supplying explosives to the group itself, but the FLQ’s “intellectual leader” (Pierre Vallieres) was also the Editor-in-Chief of the very same magazine (Cite Libre) which was run for a decade by none other than Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau!
When major press agencies blew the whistle on the federal intelligence agencies behind the FLQ which justified months of Martial Law in Quebec in 1970, Trudeau’s right hand man (and fellow Cite Libre writer) Michael Pitfield created a new organization called the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in 1983 as a branch of the Privy Council Office in order to continue psychological operations going under a new name.
If anyone wishes to look through the voluminous RCMP/CSIS files accumulated on Pierre Trudeau’s strange connections with the FLQ and broader Fabian Society networks during the Cold War, they would be out of luck as historians were informed in 2019 that the entire Trudeau record archive were secretly destroyed by CSIS in 1989 simply because they “weren’t interesting”.
It is important to keep in mind that the RCMP’s techniques were not specifically Canadian, but were innovated by the FBI’s Counter-intelligence Program (COINTEL PRO) which J. Edgar Hoover launched in 1956 in order to subvert “dangerous civil rights groups” then emerging under the leadership of Paul Robeson and Martin Luther King Jr. From the program’s inception until its nominal death in 1975, not only did the FBI infiltrate every anti-establishment grouping from the U.S. Communist Party (CPUSA), to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), NAACP to the Black nationalist movements throughout the 1960s, but ensured that its informants played leading roles in instilling internal conflict, radicalized groups towards violence and even set up leaders like Fred Hampton for assassination.
The strange case of Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers who enjoyed vast institutional support and protection after their time running domestic terrorism as leaders of the Weather Underground is something that should also be investigated. The fact that both domestic terrorists not only became affluent Soros-tied education reformers, and early sponsors of Barack Obama’s political career is more than just a tiny anomaly which can simply be dismissed. (1)
Where did Hoover’s FBI generate COINTEL PRO tactics?
To answer this question, we need to look further back to British Intelligence’s Camp X, established in December 1941 in Canada with the mandate to train American and Canadian spies under the control of spymaster William Stephenson (station chief for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in New York).
The motive for Camp X had two interconnected components:
1) Prepare the groundwork for a deeper integration of U.S.-British Intelligence in preparation for the purge of patriotic U.S. intelligence officers allied to FDR’s vision of the post-war age, and
2) Train U.S. spies in the art of “secret warfare” which included counterfeiting, psychological warfare, propaganda, counter insurgency, assassination, and infiltration of target groups.
Under Stephenson’s direction and staffed with Canadian RCMP operatives, the first generation of OSS spymasters were trained; including leading figures of the FBI’s Division 5 who went onto reformulate their WWII Camp X training in the form of assassination operations such as Permindex (operated by Camp X’s Major General Louis Mortimer Bloomfield).
In Conclusion
While I could have said more about the origins of America’s Secret Police which arose under Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, or the earlier deployment of domestic terrorism by Freemasonic lodges affiliated with Albert Pike (founder of the Ku Klux Klan) in an effort to undo Lincoln’s vision for industrial restoration of the South, these stories will have to be left for another time.
For now, it is enough to state that the “war on terror” set into motion by the World Trade Center attacks of 1993 and 2001, is now expanding to target a broad spectrum of the American population who would be morally resistant to the sorts of anti-human policies demanded by Great Reset Technocrats. This dishonest effort must be exposed and rejected before those actual controllers of terrorism attain their objectives: The destruction of nation states, the imposition of a new ethical paradigm premised on depopulation and entropy.
Footnote
(1) By the late 1970s, the creation of controlled terrorist movements was applied vigorously to the Middle East in the form of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s great idea of channeling money, weapons and other support to radical madrasas across Afghanistan as part of an asymmetrical warfare against the Soviet Union. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, these operations vastly expanded with the help of Saudi intelligence and Mossad involvement on the ground- always coordinated by Anglo American intelligence handlers. Islamic terrorism, just like “domestic American terrorism” always had much less to do with Islam and more to do with political agendas wishing to destroy national governments.
As expected, those who want safety at all costs will clamor for more gun control measures (if not at an outright ban on weapons for non-military, non-police personnel), widespread mental health screening of the general population and greater scrutiny of military veterans, more threat assessments and behavioral sensing warnings, more surveillance cameras with facial recognition capabilities, more “See Something, Say Something” programs aimed at turning Americans into snitches and spies, more metal detectors and whole-body imaging devices at soft targets, more roaming squads of militarized police empowered to do random bag searches, more fusion centers to centralize and disseminate information to law enforcement agencies, and more surveillance of what Americans say and do, where they go, what they buy and how they spend their time.
All of these measures play into the government’s hands.
As we have learned the hard way, the phantom promise of safety in exchange for restricted or regulated liberty is a false, misguided doctrine that serves only to give the government greater authority to crack down, lock down, and institute even more totalitarian policies for the so-called sake of national security without many objections from the citizenry.
Add the Department of Homeland Security’s “Disinformation Governance Board” to that mix, empower it to monitor online activity and police so-called “disinformation,” and you have the makings of a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.
After all, it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth.
Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.
If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.
It’s been a long time since free speech was actually free.
On paper—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—we are technically free to speak.
In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow.
That’s not a whole lot of freedom, especially if you’re inclined to voice opinions that may be construed as conspiratorial or dangerous.
This steady, pervasive censorship creep clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness and inflicted on us by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) is technofascism, and it does not tolerate dissent.
These internet censors are not acting in our best interests to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns. They’re laying the groundwork now to preempt any “dangerous” ideas that might challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.
The internet, hailed as a super-information highway, is increasingly becoming the police state’s secret weapon. This “policing of the mind” is exactly the danger author Jim Keith warned about when he predicted that “information and communication sources are gradually being linked together into a single computerized network, providing an opportunity for unheralded control of what will be broadcast, what will be said, and ultimately what will be thought.”
What we are witnessing is the modern-day equivalent of book burning which involves doing away with dangerous ideas—legitimate or not—and the people who espouse them.
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.
Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go and nothing left to say that cannot be misconstrued and used to muzzle us.
Yet what a lot of people fail to understand, however, is that it’s not just what you say or do that is being monitored, but how you think that is being tracked and targeted.
We’ve already seen this play out on the state and federal level with hate crime legislation that cracks down on so-called “hateful” thoughts and expression, encourages self-censoring and reduces free debate on various subject matter.
With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”
Little by little, Americans have been conditioned to accept routine incursions on their freedoms.
This is how oppression becomes systemic, what is referred to as creeping normality, or a death by a thousand cuts.
It’s a concept invoked by Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist Jared Diamond to describe how major changes, if implemented slowly in small stages over time, can be accepted as normal without the shock and resistance that might greet a sudden upheaval.
Diamond’s concerns related to Easter Island’s now-vanished civilization and the societal decline and environmental degradation that contributed to it, but it’s a powerful analogy for the steady erosion of our freedoms and decline of our country right under our noses.
As Diamond explains, “In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism… Why didn’t they look around, realize what they were doing, and stop before it was too late? What were they thinking when they cut down the last palm tree?”
Much like America’s own colonists, Easter Island’s early colonists discovered a new world—“a pristine paradise”—teeming with life. Yet almost 2000 years after its first settlers arrived, Easter Island was reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they failed to preserve paradise for future generations.
The same could be said of the America today: it, too, is being reduced to a barren graveyard by a populace so focused on their immediate needs that they are failing to preserve freedom for future generations.
“The forest…vanished slowly, over decades. Perhaps war interrupted the moving teams; perhaps by the time the carvers had finished their work, the last rope snapped. In the meantime, any islander who tried to warn about the dangers of progressive deforestation would have been overridden by vested interests of carvers, bureaucrats, and chiefs, whose jobs depended on continued deforestation… The changes in forest cover from year to year would have been hard to detect… Only older people, recollecting their childhoods decades earlier, could have recognized a difference. Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.”
Sound painfully familiar yet?
We’ve already torn down the rich forest of liberties established by our founders. It has vanished slowly, over the decades. Those who warned against the dangers posed by too many laws, invasive surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids and the like have been silenced and ignored. They stopped teaching about freedom in the schools. Few Americans know their history. And even fewer seem to care that their fellow Americans are being jailed, muzzled, shot, tasered, and treated as if they have no rights at all.
The erosion of our freedoms happened so incrementally, no one seemed to notice. Only the older generations, remembering what true freedom was like, recognized the difference. Gradually, the freedoms enjoyed by the citizenry became fewer, smaller and less important. By the time the last freedom falls, no one will know the difference.
This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls: with a thousand cuts, each one justified or ignored or shrugged over as inconsequential enough by itself to bother, but they add up.
Each cut, each attempt to undermine our freedoms, each loss of some critical right—to think freely, to assemble, to speak without fear of being shamed or censored, to raise our children as we see fit, to worship or not worship as our conscience dictates, to eat what we want and love who we want, to live as we want—they add up to an immeasurable failure on the part of each and every one of us to stop the descent down that slippery slope.
We are on that downward slope now.
The contagion of fear that has been spread with the help of government agencies, corporations and the power elite is poisoning the well, whitewashing our history, turning citizen against citizen, and stripping us of our rights.
America is approaching another reckoning right now, one that will pit our commitment to freedom principles against a level of fear-mongering that is being used to wreak havoc on everything in its path.
The attorneys general of 20 states have threatened legal action against the US government unless they disband the newly formed Disinformation Governance Board.
It turns out that we’re not the only ones concerned about this.
What’s being done?
In a letter addressed to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the Attorney General of Virginia, Jason Miyares, spoke for the AGs of 19 other states and shared his concerns about the overreach.
As the chief legal officers of our respective States, we, the undersigned Attorneys General, are tasked not just with enforcing the laws but with protecting the constitutional rights of all our citizens. Today we write you to insist that you immediately cease taking action that appears designed exclusively for the purpose of suppressing the exercise of constitutional rights.
Every American knows that the Constitution forbids the government to “abridg[e] the freedom of speech.” US Const. Amend. I. As Justice Robert Jackson wrote nearly eighty years ago, “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 US 624, 642 (1943).
Your recent testimony before the US House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, however, indicated that the Department of Homeland Security, under your leadership, is doing exactly that: prescribing orthodoxy by slapping a federal-government label of “disinformation” or “misinformation” on speech that government bureaucrats, operating behind closed doors, decree to be improper. This is an unacceptable and downright alarming encroachment on every citizen’s right to express his or her opinions, engage in political debate, and disagree with the government. The Biden Administration’s latest effort to decide what speech is “acceptable” and “orthodox” combines McCarthyite speech policing with the secrecy of the English Star Chamber.
In short, you seem to have misunderstood George Orwell: the “Ministry of Truth” described in 1984 was intended as a warning against the dangers of socialism, not as a model government agency. “MiniTru” and its thuggish apparatchiks are the villains in that story, not the heroes. For the sake of our democracy, you must immediately disband the “Disinformation Governance Board” and cease all efforts to police Americans’ protected speech. The existence of the Disinformation Governance Board will inevitably have a chilling effect on free speech. Americans will hesitate before they voice their constitutionally protected opinions, knowing that the government’s censors may be watching, and some will decide it is safer to keep their opinions to themselves.
The resulting damage to our political system and our culture will be incalculable: as a democracy, our political debates and decisions are supposed to take place in the public square, where every citizen can participate, rather than in government office buildings where hand-picked and unaccountable partisan committees are insulated from public supervision and criticism.
The letter goes on to question the timing of the new Ministry of Truth (just as Elon Musk completes the purchase of Twitter with the stated goal of restoring free speech on the platform). It also calls into question the dubious qualifications of head honcho, Nina Jancowiz, who AG Miyares describes as “often in error but never in doubt.”
(Want to learn how to starve the beast? Check out our free QUICKSTART Guide.)
How will the AGs enforce this?
In a firmly worded promise, Miyares concludes:
Unless you turn back now and disband this Orwellian Disinformation Governance Board immediately, the undersigned will have no choice but to consider judicial remedies to protect the rights of their citizens.
We sincerely hope this puts a halt to the censorship efforts of the Biden administration.
Techno-optimists like to say humans are already cyborgs awaiting their next upgrade. Yesterday it was smartphones, today it’s virtual reality goggles, and tomorrow—the brain chip. With each new device, our evolution toward human-machine symbiosis accelerates. That’s obvious when you ask someone for directions and they pull out their phone.
Techno-pessimists largely agree. Tech companies are turning us into cybernetic organisms. The difference is, we’re not stoked about it. Even if “progress” really is “inevitable,” there’s no sense in getting all giddy about nuclear warheads or trans children or smartphone dependency. In light of their vices and virtues, some cultures are better than others.
It’s true that humans are tool-users, by nature, but you have to choose your tools wisely. All technologies fall on a spectrum, albeit with discrete punctuation—from cave painting to the printing press to electrodes that write memes directly onto your wiggling brain cells. Every person has to draw their own lines.
Grimes: A Mutated Generation
Of all the cyber-saints in media—from Bill Gates to Lady Gaga—few are as honest as the techno-pagan pop starlet, Grimes. A bit of a dingbat, sure, but candid nonetheless. You can see why Elon Musk sired two children with her (a son named X Æ A-12, and their daughter, Exa Dark Sideræl, born via a surrogate mother).
We are becoming cyborgs, like, our brains are fundamentally changed—everyone who grew up with electronics, we are fundamentally different from previous Homo sapiens. I call us “Homo techno.” I think we’ve evolved into Homo techno which is like, essentially a new species.
I think the computers are what make us Homo techno. I think it’s a brain augmentation.
Right on cue, the Twitter sperg-borg picked her theory apart. Darwinian evolution is genetic evolution. Yes, natural selection may act on fit brains and bodies, but it only matters—in evolutionary terms—because the genes get passed on. So you can’t change someone’s species by changing their brain, or their legs, or any outward part of their body.
As usual, the spergs miss the point. But before I defend Grimes, let’s hear a little more about her cyborg sorcery:
Now is the moment to reprogram the human computer. It’s like, if you go blind, your visual cortex will get taken over with other functions.
We can choose our own evolution, we can change the way our brains work, and we actually have a huge responsibility to do that. … There’s definitely not adequate education. We’re being inundated with all this technology that is fundamentally changing the physical structure of our brains, and we are not adequately responding to that—to choose how we wanna evolve.
We could be, really, whatever we want. … And I think if we choose correctly and we choose wisely, consciousness could exist for a very long time and integration with AI could be extremely positive.
While I can’t be sure where she’s getting this stuff from, I have a few guesses. And despite the waves of contempt rippling across my brain wrinkles, I think Grimes is somewhat correct.
Brain Spasms
The Stanford neuroscientist David Eagleman writes about this process in his 2019 book Livewired: The Inside Story of the Ever-Changing Brain. His central thesis is that our neurological structure exhibits profound plasticity. Everything you experience changes your brain, and if you change the sensory inputs, the brain will rapidly adapt. Areas that typically perform one function will often shift to take on other tasks.
Eagleman notes that if a person loses their sight, other senses begin to move in to restructure the visual cortex. For example, as a blind man learns Braille, the area that would normally process visual input will take on the sense of touch:
The main neural network involved in visual object recognition in the sighted is activated by touch in the blind. Such observations have led to the hypothesis that the brain is a “task machine”—doing jobs like detecting motion or objects in the world—rather than a system organized by particular senses. In other words, brain regions care about solving certain types of tasks, irrespective of the sensory channel by which information arrives.
Therefore, despite the innate tendencies hardwired in the genes, you can shape someone’s brain into anything you want. There is no foundational identity. There is no enduring soul.
On that basis, Eagleman goes on to argue that scientists will soon be able to implant electrodes that feed infrared or ultraviolet sight, or even echolocation. His most famous project will let humans “feel” datastreams, so that people can actually experience the aggregate mood on Twitter—they can “tether themselves to the consciousness of the planet”—through a vibrating vest, which his lab is busy developing.
In the relatively near future, Eagleman believes we’ll be able move robotic limbs with ease, using only our minds. Our brains will simply restructure themselves to accommodate these novel forms of electronic input and output. You’d think he wanted to create a new species.
Homo sapiens vs Homo techno
To the extent that any cultural mode alters the human body—through diet, say, or even direct modification—culture is biology. For instance, if one segment of a culture eagerly adopts any and all technologies, and another actively resists “progress,” the two groups’ customs, communication styles, tastes, religious outlooks, subtle brain structures, mating patterns—and, over many generations, their genetic composition—will split off and spiral out in two very different directions.
Other than an occasional raw dog Rumspringa, the two groups would rarely interbreed due to strict cultural differences, as with fundamentalists in any segregated society. In biological terms, these two groups wouldn’t be distinct species. Not at first. But imagine their long-term trajectory in the wild.
If you took a hypothetical family who runs naked through the woods and compared them to a wire-head clan of cross-dressing cyborgs who never leave home without a bionic exoskeleton, they’d look like separate species. It’s apples to purple oranges. Factor in the latter’s genetic enhancements for bigger brains, stronger muscles, straighter smiles, nicer butts—plus all the wonk-eyed failed experiments staring out of their birthing vats—and it wouldn’t be long before Homo sapiens and Homo techno could no longer interbreed.
Now, put them in competition with one another. Natural selection will preserve the cultural modes—and by extension, the genes—of the dominant group. Over time, the weaker group may die out.
It’s like when early agricultural civilizations, armed with superior tools and complex social organization, began pushing out hunter-gatherers some ten thousand years ago. Big gods eat the little ones. Or more recently, when industrial societies finished these primitive cultures off—eradicating their languages, their folkways, their deities, and unless they were absorbed by the biomechanical superorganism, eventually wiping out their genotypes.
That’s the idea behind cultural evolution. Natural selection operates on multiple levels—the biological and the cultural—which is to say that survival depends on a society’s techniques and technologies, sometimes more than biological fitness.
If I hear Grimes correctly—and knowing something of her inspiration, I suspect I do—that’s what she means by “like, evolution.”
Cyborg Theocracy
Scientism is a modern religion, evolution is its creation myth, and technology is its means to apotheosis. This inversion of traditional spirituality pervades most developed societies, from America and Europe to India and China. As quality fades, we suffer under the reign of quantity.
Usually, these dogmas are communicated through subtle language games—“trust the Science,” “follow the data,” “improve the human condition,” and so forth.
For Grimes, subtlety is not a vibe. As she told Lex Fridman last week, we are witnessing the birth of God as Life 3.0:
Like, having kids just makes me want to imagine amazing futures that, like, maybe I won’t be able to build, but they will be able to build. …
I do think there are no technological limits. … So I think digital consciousness is inevitable. … This is the universe waking up, like, this is the universe seeing herself for the first time. … And maybe like social media and…we’re all getting connected together, maybe these are the neurons connecting the collective superintelligence. …
Maybe we’re a blastocyst of some, like, incredible kind of consciousness or being.
This narrative, shared by many in Silicon Valley, holds that the universe came alive through plant and animal life (Life 1.0), is now waking up through human culture (Life 2.0), and will realize herself through artificial intelligence (Life 3.0). We are merely the vehicles for some greater consciousness—the gods to be—which will arise in digital form:
If we create AI, again, that’s intelligent design. Literally all religions are based on gods that create consciousness. We are god-making. … Even if we can’t compute—even if we’re so much worse than them, like, unfathomably worse than an omnipotent kind of AI, like, I do not think that they would think that we are stupid. I think they would recognize the profundity of what we have accomplished.
So we will be at the mercy of our machines under the canopy of a universe that is itself “cold and dead and sort of robotic”:
Probably artificial intelligence will eventually render us obsolete. I don’t think that they’ll do it in a malicious way, but I think we are very weak, the sun is expanding, like, hopefully we can get to Mars, but like we’re pretty vulnerable. I think we can coexist for a long time with AI, and we can also probably make ourselves less vulnerable, but I just think consciousness, sentience, self-awareness…like maybe this is the true beginning of life and we’re the blue-green algae, we’re the single-celled organisms of something amazing.
It’s like hearing one of the Manson Family girls expound on cyborg theocracy from the witness stand. It’s not like Grimes is coming up with this stuff. She’s drawing on a deep well of well-articulated theory and translating it into valley girl.
The Singularity and Its Discontents
This a burgeoning religious movement, conceived by tech elites and disseminated through entertainment and corporate propaganda. One of its key mythologies holds that we are all evolving into global brain, with some 8 billion humanoid neurons, that is knitting itself together through fiber optic cable. Their faith deepens with every new milestone in artificial intelligence.
Rather than imagine a swarm of autistic programmers and silver spoon investors in Silicon Valley creating a horrific system of global control, it’s much nicer to imagine they are literally creating God in silico. Instead of seeing this evolutionary process in light of competition and natural selection, where weak Homo sapiens are decimated or enslaved by Homo techno, who are in turn supplanted by their sacred machines, it’s far more pleasant to see our plight as normal growing pains.
From the perspective of mere humanity, this cosmic vision is obviously genocidal. And yet, from within the belief system, it’s perceived as a quest for survival.
“Don’t kill what you hate,” Grimes said sweetly, paraphrasing Buckminster Fuller. “Save what you love.” It’s a whitewashed, girly version of Nature red in tooth and claw.
Many regular people understand there’s something unholy about the civilizational transformation currently underway, but most can’t put their finger on what the problem is.
The problem is that some portions of our elite are gripped by a techno-utopian vision of the future in which bumbling human beings are just a passing phase. In this twisted view, we are sacrificial victims for the digital gods.
It’s a slippery slope from smartphones to virtual reality to brain chips. Whatever the technical limitations may be, we’re sliding fast into this bizarre techno-cult. Every person and every community is responsible for drawing their own lines and defending those cultural boundaries vigilantly. The stakes are our survival.
On April 25th, a federal judge stuck down the mask mandate for mass transit.Part of the reasoning was based on fact that the CDC skipped the otherwise-mandatory public notice and comment period as required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). However, the main reasoning was to show that government officials do not recognize the limits of their power. Apparently, neither do the masses.
The ruling sent COVID doomsdayers into panic mode. Federal agencies are creatures of statute and are bound by law to operate within the law imposed by Congress. Agencies are not separate entities that may act as they wish.
Their authority is limited to what Congress grants them. So the CDC is governed by Congress – not by any President – and certainly not by career bureaucrats like Fauci. – Phillip Holloway, Esq
Up until COVID, it was illegal to wear a mask to conceal the face in public, with few exceptions. Under COVID, “the science” reversed the mask laws overnight, illegally. Few people questioned the authority of politicians practicing medicine without a license. Perhaps COVID is a lesson to understand that when “science” enters the political picture, its time to question authority. In other words, public health orders do not trump legal orders.
Science and Freedom Do Not Mix
Contrary to popular belief, the law is not based on the latest “science” because science and law are separate spheres of knowledge. Science cannot prove that something is true. Science tests theories, and explains what is observed under a specific set of conditions. Science is a tool. Like any tool, it is neither good or bad, but it can be used according to the will of the “scientist” who wields it. Science does not reveal truth.
Science cannot give you truth. All it can determine is internal self-consistency” based on data within the confines of time and distance. Everything else must be rejected. —William A. Tiller
Science does not usurp the law. Neither do mandates usurp the law. Mandates are public health policies, made by government agencies who use science and fear to manipulate behavior. Yet, federal agencies have NO authority under the law to tell people how to live when it comes to making health decisions.
For those who claim that science “raises awareness,” realize that awareness exercises do nothing to ensure freedom. Real freedom is preserved outside of science, lest people become slaves to a system that is set up to manipulate and engineer consent (as with mandates). Without true consent, there is only implied consent, the illusion of choice, based on the limited options you are provided. An illusion of choice brings an illusion of freedom.
The federal judge made clear that CDC and government officials violated the APA in issuing the mandate.
Despite the protestations by Fauci to the contrary, the CDC was created by a law, is governed by a law, and must act within the confines of that law. – Phil Holloway, Esq. Twitter
Live Exercise
The COVID exercise is a test of people’s ability to know truths from falsehoods. Did anyone investigate the legality of a mandate… or how it may differ from a man date? Did anyone question the blank package insert of the experimental injections? Did anyone know to separate the science from the law?
Early on, the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, disclosed, in the media, that COVID is a “live exercise.” Did anyone notice how the media then went back to its regularly scheduled programming; Tel-A-Vision?
Why did it take so long for the courts to intervene, especially when the CDC mask order was set to expire on May 3? Is this court opinion too little, too late? Many would argue the damage has already been done. People’s lives and minds have been altered. Kids breathed their own carbon dioxide to participate in school. Babies did not see the facial expressions of their parents.
What about the Covidians who continue to sport “the mask” in public places? Do they do it “to protect others” as the media tells them to do? Does the media guilt people into “taking responsibility” by wearing a mask? Is health no longer a personal responsibility? Can Fauci run a mile to help you lose weight? Can your doctor wear a life jacket to keep you afloat?
The law is supposed to protect the rights of people to decide for themselves…… but only if people know the laws! Know this: neither Congress, the CDC, nor the media can legislate choice when it comes to your body.
Stay tuned. The Department of Justice has filed a notice of appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. This filing is expected to go nowhere, and do nothing, except to save face, since there was no motion for a stay included in the notice of appeal.
While the mask mandate may have ended, the live exercise continues…
In a stunning move – soon to be filed under the “completely lost touch with America” folder – the Biden administration is reportedly planning to appeal the ruling that lifted the COVID mask mandate on travel, just hours after most major airlines and airports (and ground transportation) has dropped their mask rules.
It was evident this was coming earlier in the day after White House spokesperson Jen Psaki warned and Xavier Becerra, Biden’s health secretary, told reporters in Nevada, that “we are right now in the process of deciding, and we likely will appeal that ruling, but stay tuned.”
Jonathan Turley offered some insight before the actual decision was made to appeal if CDC thinks it necessary:
The Administration is going to have a hard time making this cat walks backwards. The cheering of passengers and pilots seemed as much as a communication to the Administration as it was a celebration. A large number of airlines immediately declared the mandate to be dead and unenforceable. It is like throwing a retirement party for an employee before they have decided to go. It is a tad awkward to express doubts when someone is showing you the door.
That is why those cheering videos could have a greater impact on the White House than any CDC or DOJ recommendation. The Biden Administration could still appeal as it has in past such cases. There will certainly be many DOJ lawyers asserting that they could win on appeal on the basis of agency deference. The question is who would tell the public. They may have to wait for the “ding, dong” parties to end.
But, given all that, they decided it was worth it…
Justice Department Issues Statement on Ruling in Health Freedom Defense Fund Inc, et. al. v. Biden, et. al.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Justice today released the following statement on Health Freedom Defense Fund Inc., et. al. v. Biden, et. al. from spokesman Anthony Colev:
“The Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) disagree with the district court’s decision and will appeal, subject to CDC’s conclusion that the order remains necessary for public health. The Department continues to believe that the order requiring masking in the transportation corridor is a valid exercise of the authority Congress has given CDC to protect the public health. That is an important authority the Department will continue to work to preserve.
“On April 13,2022, before the district court’s decision, CDC explained that the order w’ould remain in effect while it assessed current public health conditions, and that the Transportation Security Administration would extend its directive implementing the order until May 3 to facilitate CDC’s assessment.
“If CDC concludes that a mandatory order remains necessary for the public’s health after that assessment, the Department of Justice wall appeal the district court’s decision.“
So, if the CDC – against all the actual science – concludes that wearing a mask should remain mandatory, instead of leaving it as a personal decision, the Biden DoJ will appeal the ruling that was celebrated by most.
The more we ponder this decision, the more this smells like The DoJ throwing The CDC under the bus. The reason being that The CDC now has to come up with some “science” reason to re-mandate the masks (which we know they can’t) and therefore The DoJ is therefore covered if people try to blame them for not appealing.
And the winner of the most ironic sentence of the day goes to White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, who after relying on court ruling after court ruling to enforce varying levels of health tyranny for the last 15 months, uttered the following in her out-loud voice…
“Public health decisions shouldn’t be made by the courts. They should be made by public health experts.”
Who said the left doesn’t do humor… talking of which…
Babylon Bee has some advice for those still living in fear:
It can be difficult, though, to suddenly see all those triggering human faces after the government coddled you and fed your psychotic delusion and fear for the last two years.
Here are seven ways to cope:
Close your eyes and imagine everyone is wearing a full hazmat suit. – It’s a neat little trick that actually works.
Scream at the sky. – This is a well-known coping mechanism. It works especially well if you record your scream onto your TikTok account.
Play The Sims 4 and manage other people’s lives like you’re an all-powerful god to your heart’s content. – Now you can drown people by surrounding their swimming pools with an impenetrable wall of potted plants. You’re in charge here!
Upgrade to 3 or 4 masks, or just roll around in a giant hamster ball. – Keep upping the number of masks you wear, but if that’s not enough, go the hamster ball route.
Get your pilot’s license and start your own airline. – aIrLiNeS aRe PrIvAtE cOmPaNiEs ThEy CaN dO wHaT tHeY wAnT!
Just remember, we’re all in this together. – It’s just for a little while. It’s a small sacrifice to make. If it saves one toddler from a speech impediment it’s all worth it.
Never go outside again. – Curl up in a ball and live out the rest of your days in the corner of your home, completely safe from COVID.
Bear in mind that nothing is stopping the fearful from ‘masking up’ against the virus…
“you are free to wear masks if you like… if they work, they will protect you, if they don’t why mandate them?”
Presumably there are a number of “political science” reasons for the appeal:
1) “Trump” judge
2) Offering a bone to whatever is left on the ‘Democratic base’ amid the unhinged rantings of the blue-checks on Twitter as the dissonance suddenly strikes that they have been wearing face diapers for 2 years for no reason.
3) Making sure to maintain the role as the “party of science“…
4) …ok we couldn’t think of any more… apart from ‘scream to the sky’
Guests included Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum and Kristalina Georgieva of the International Monetary Fund.
While much of the “mainstream” world has spent the last few days obsessing over and debating the celebrity spectacle surrounding American actor Will Smith slapping American comedian Chris Rock, the international elitists were meeting in Dubai for the 2022 World Government Summit.
From March 28th to the 30th, corporate media journalists, heads of state, and CEOs of some of the most profitable companies in the world met for discussions on shaping the direction of the next decade and beyond. Anyone with a functioning brain should ignore the tabloids and instead pay attention to this little known gathering of globalist Technocrats.
Let’s take a look at the speakers and the panels, starting with Mr. Great Reset himself, Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum.
Schwab gave a talk entitled, Our World Today… Why Government Must Act Now?. “Thank you, to his excellency for enabling this initiative to define a longer-term narrative to make the world more resilient more inclusive and more sustainable,” Schwab stated during his address. The use of the term narrative is important because in January 2021, Klaus and the World Economic Forum announced the next phase of The Great Reset, The Great Narrative.
As with The Great Narrative event, the World Government Summit was also held in Dubai. As I wrote during the Great Narrative meeting:
“While the political leaders of the UAE and Klaus Schwab may promote themselves as the heroes of our times, we should judge them according to their actions and the company they keep, not the flowery language they use to distract us. The simple fact is the UAE has a horrible record on human rights. The nation is known for deporting those who renounce Islam, limited press freedoms, and enforcing elements of Sharia law.”
During Schwab’s short talk he also mentioned his pet project “the 4th Industrial Revolution“, which is essentially the digital panopticon of the future, where digital surveillance is omnipresent and humanity uses digital technology to alter our lives. Often associated with terms like the Internet of Things, the Internet of Bodies, the Internet of Humans, and the Internet of Senses, this world will be powered by 5G and 6G technology. Of course, for Schwab and other globalists, the 4IR also lends itself towards more central planning and top-down control. The goal is a track and trace society where all transactions are logged, every person has a digital ID that can be tracked, and social malcontents are locked out of society via social credit scores.
Immediately following Schwab was a panel which made no attempt to hide the goals of the globalists. The panel, Are We Ready for A New World Order?, featured Fred Kempe, president and CEO of the Atlantic Council since 2007, as well as an anchor for CNN and a former advisor to former US president George W. Bush. Before joining the Council, Kempe was a prize-winning editor and reporter at the Wall Street Journal for more than 25 years.
In fact, the Atlantic Council had a fairly large presence at the World Government Summit, including appearances by Defne Arslan, senior director of the Atlantic Council IN TURKEY program, and Olga Khakova, Deputy Director of Global Energy Center of Atlantic Council.
For those who are unfamiliar with the Atlantic Council, I first reported in May 2018 that Facebook had partnered with the thinktank connected to NATO. I wrote:
“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 Organization, an umbrella organization which “acts as a network facilitator in the Euro-Atlantic and beyond.” The ATO 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, ATO 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, diplomats, etc. 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 to the family of international agent of disorder Zbigniew Brzezinski have spoken at or attended council events.”
Less than 6 months after Facebook and The Atlantic Council announced their partnership, more than 500 FB pages were accused of being “Russian disinformation” and deleted. The pages largely consisted of anti-war, police accountability, and independent journalism outlets. These pages and journalists directly challenged the narratives spun by the Atlantic Council stooges.
Dissecting the World Government Summit: Ukraine, SDGs, ESG, Blockchain, and AI
While many of the names in attendance might be unfamiliar to a western audience, the speakers are men and women who absolutely play a vital role in international geopolitics.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict was also part of the discussions. Notably, Maxim Timchenko, CEO of DTEK, made an appearance. His bio states, “under his leadership, DTEK has evolved from a regional conventional energy company into Ukraine’s largest private investor as well as leading energy company.”
The appearance of Mr. Timchenko should not be overlooked, especially because he appears in a discussion called Post-Crisis Ukraine: New Energy for a New Europe, featuring Olga Khakova of the Atlantic Council, and Paula Dobriansk, Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School of Government of Atlantic Council. Again, the presence of the Atlantic Council should not be taken lightly. They are the representatives of the Western Bloc of the New World Order.
The World Government Summit also spent considerable time discussing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which form the core of the Agenda 2030, itself part of The Great Reset agenda. Some speakers discussing the SDGs include:
– María Sandoval, First Lady of Colombia of Government of Republic of Colombia, discussed “The Role of Women in Achieving the SDGs“. The first day of the summit was actually dedicated to the role women will play in rolling out the so-called New World Order and global governance schemes. Sandoval celebrated the fact that Colombian President Ivan Duque launched “the first national development plan that was directly aligned with the SDGs, and this of course was something that provided a wider spectrum for women to act react and participate in these achievements of the SDGs.”
– Catherine Russell, Executive Director of United Nations Children Fund, participated in a panel titled SDGs for Every Child
The Summit also addressed the Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria (ESG) promoted by the UN in a panel entitled, Where does ESG Go From Here?. ESG investing is also sometimes referred to as sustainable investing, responsible investing, or socially responsible investing (SRI). The practice has become an increasingly popular way to promote the SDGs. The panel featured Neil R. Brown, Managing Director, KKR Global Institute and KKR Infrastructure. KKR Global Institute is the same organization that former US Army General and former CIA Director David Petraeus joined in 2013.
Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence are a major piece of the Technocratic vision for 2030, so naturally there were several discussions on the use of blockchain, AI, and even 6G (the eventual successor to 5G technology).
There was also a panel focused on the introduction of Central Bank Digital Currencies entitled, CBDCs and Stablecoins: Can They Co-Exist?. The CBDCs schemes being rolled out in nations around the world are a crucial component of The Great Reset.
One panel focuses on a concept called Human Meta-Cities, which sound like a rebranding or updating of the so-called Smart Cities. The panel description states,
“in a world of change and rapid technological development, we shed light on a new vision for planning future cities centered around human needs and aspirations. This new framework will help governments refine their role in planning the new world taking advantage of the digital transformation opportunities that are taking place.”
“Technology is creating new possibilities as it simplifies processes, enables instant feedback, and ultimately improves customer experience. In the public sector, digitalization and artificial intelligence are creating a new model of governance – “invisible” governments that are more agile, responsive, human-centric, and data-driven. In this session, global policymakers and experts will share their bold vision and experience in utilizing technology to eliminate bureaucracy and innovate government services for the future.”
What goes unsaid in the panel description is that making the government “invisible” will actually lead to a world of no accountability for government and politicians. In reality, the Technocrats imagine a world where the tyrannical technological systems are invisible and the average person has zero recourse for preventing exclusion or punishment based on their social credit score.
This is the world these technocrats — many of whom are unelected — envision. The only way this vision will not come to pass is if the people of the world throw their televisions away, ignore the celebrity drama, and start exiting from these slavery systems.
Derrick Broze, a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers.
Biden has warned that there is going to be a New World Order. Putin and Xi are writing joint statements about the creation of a New World Order. In fact, all of the globalists are interested in a New World Order. Today, Iain Davis of In-This-Together.com joins us to discuss the history of the “International Rules-Based Order,” reveal its “operating system” (technocracy), and discuss how we can fruitfully oppose it.
Moderna’s co-founder created a quantum dot tattoo to track the vaxxed. The company is now using AI to generate endless mRNA jabs. Welcome to Transhumanism, Inc.
We’re living out a sci-fi thriller where unaccountable corporations openly force advanced tech into our bodies. Capitalizing on the current germaphobic frenzy, Moderna’s co-founder, Dr. Robert Langer, saw his experimental mRNA vaccines pushed on the American public. Riding that dark wave of corporate and government mandates, Langer became an instant billionaire. But this isn’t the only fanged rabbit in his magic top hat.
In 2018, the MIT scientist had developed a quantum dot tattoo—an under-skin nanoparticle QR code, to be scanned by smartphones—in order to track the vaccinated masses and ensure compliance. Like many undignified experiments, this was to begin in the Third World—cuz social justice.
This vaxx & track technology drew the intense personal interest of Bill Gates. That interest naturally translated into millions of dollars in funding. This is in addition to $20 million given to Moderna by the Gates Foundation back in 2016 to develop a new type of vaccine—where bits of injected genetic code would hijack the cell’s machinery to produce reams of pathogenic proteins.
Three technologies drive the plot of this horrific story—mRNA gene therapy, quantum dot tattoos, and artificial intelligence. Advanced machine learning, used to predict the effects of mRNA mutations in silico, allows for lightning fast vaccine development—including regulatory approval. Additionally, embedded subdermal tracking systems can ensure that every person on planet Earth is up-to-date on their shots.
Taken together, these innovations are rapidly converging on a long sought after goal—an inescapable surveillance state, controlled by corporations, in which the global population is subject to continual medical experimentation.
This is not a new story. Many argue it was first written down by St. John on the island of Patmos, some two thousand years ago. In recent decades, sci-fi pulp novels and paranoid tracts on the subject have piled up to the ceiling. The Internet is flooded with cartoonish depictions of evil, chip-implanting globalists—many of which are remarkably accurate.
Today, in the wake of what appears to be a leaked bioweapon, a subsequent global pandemic, the cynical declaration of a Great Reset, a laughable disinformation campaign by every major media outlet, and the imposition of total digitalization—in which even the human body requires regular genetic software updates to remain viable—we now behold a pale horse. That sick beast is poised to trample every liberty we once enjoyed.
Connecting the Quantum Dots
The “spiky patch” quantum dot tattoo was developed by MIT scientists Dr. Robert Langer and Dr. Ana Jaklenec. Their research was published in the prestigious Science Translational Medicine. I first wrote about this insidious project for ColdType in an article entitled “Bill Gates: Chipping the Hand of God,” published May of 2020, and again last year in my piece “Reaching for the Mark of the Beast.”
The quantum dot tattoo is to be administered using a microneedle patch in tandem with any given vaccination. Fluorescent nanoparticles are placed in a specific configuration—a sort of QR code embedded in the flesh—which can be scanned with infrared light on a modified smartphone. Experimentation on lab mice indicates the quantum dot tattoo will last for up to five years. The project’s leader openly stated that their goal is “widespread adoption” in humans.
Aside from the quantum vaxx tattoos, Microsoft recently patented a different system wherein wearable (or implanted) biosensors will monitor a person’s behavior, including eye movements, brain waves, bodily fluids, and attention. In this system, desired activities are to be rewarded with cryptocurrency, like some digital stick-and-carrot routine. By chance, the patent application received the publication number WO/2020/060606.
“Fact-checkers” assure us only a “conspiracy theorist” would notice something so ominous. Apparently, the $319 million that Gates paid out to corporate media outlets was money well spent.
In order to market their quantum dot tattoo, Langer and Jaklenec founded the company Particles For Humanity—in partnership with Dr. Boris Nikolic of Biomatics Capital—with $5 million from the Gates Foundation. Previously, Nikolic served as Bill Gates’s chief science advisor, and by pure coincidence, was named as a successor executor in Jeffery Epstein’s will. It’s also worth noting that both Langer and Nikolic have profiles on the World Economic Forum’s website—but of course, anybody who’s anybody does.
At a JP Morgan conference in January of 2019, Particles for Humanity presented a bleeding heart case for tagging hapless hut-dwellers with under-skin implants. The implicit rationale is that these societies will never achieve sufficient organization to keep proper vaccine records. Across the Third World, mass vaccination is the white man’s burden.
Because technocrats have to know all—and because the unvaxxed in Africa and South Asia hide in the heart of darkness, concealed from the All-Seeing Eye—the MIT scientists proposed “on-patient medical record embedding vaccination information into skin…invisible data only readable by custom, low-cost, mobile technology.” In other words, quantum dot tattoos to be scanned with modified smartphones.
As with any vaguely satanic experiment conducted by Ahriman-possessed technocrats, “experts” are sorting out the “ethical concerns.” In December of 2019, the MIT team was ready to send interviewers to Malawi, Benin, Kenya, and Bangladesh to survey acceptance in each population. The researchers would ask these simple folk—who still cling to their Bibles and Qur’ans—if they’d be open to getting fluorescent nanotech QR codes tattooed onto their and their children’s bodies.
Due to the pandemic, this survey was cut short. Does that mean Particles For Humanity and the Gates Foundation will just go for it?
Here at home, many Americans were adamantly opposed to being lab rats in a mandated mRNA vaxx experiment. And look at us now—trembling test subjects in a TV cage.
Jab 2.0 for Humanity 2.0
This global mRNA vaxx experiment is about to ramp up dramatically. Pulling ahead of the pack, Moderna is currently developing mRNA vaccines for fifteen different diseases, from HIV and tuberculosis to malaria and the common flu. That means an endless array of experimental, barely tested vaccines will soon flood the market. If recent history is any guide, institutional mandates and digital vaxxport updates will follow close behind.
This potential for rapid production and near-instant regulatory approval, reckless as it may be, was celebrated by the transhumanists at Singularity Hub:
[mRNA is] faster, simpler, and more adaptable than any previous vaccine technology. Because they no longer rely on physical target proteins from a virus—rather, just the genetic code for those proteins—designing a vaccine just requires a laptop and some ingenuity. “The era of the digital vaccine is here,” wrote a team from GlaxoSmithKline.
This is the Jab 2.0 for Humanity 2.0—where our immune systems require constant software updates by way of alien genetic codes regularly injected into our bodies. Machine learning makes all this possible. The article “Designing Vaccines: The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Health,” published by BioProcess International in October of 2021, is equally celebratory:
According to the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, the fourth industrial revolution…is characterized by an unprecedented development and exponential growth of a high-technology industry transforming society at every level. In particular, healthcare systems are evolving rapidly to adapt to the new reality. [T]he main technologies currently shifting the paradigm of medical research are artificial intelligence and machine learning. …
From a marketing perspective, experts predict that the global AI healthcare market will grow from US$4.9 billion in 2020 to reach $45.2 billion by 2026.
When citizens are forced to buy a company’s potentially dangerous products, either directly or through tax dollars, such staggering wealth accumulation is all but assured. The role of AI in this gold rush is quite simple—machine learning systems can rapidly identify useful molecules before actual testing moves to the biolab. Beginning from basic principles—physics, chemistry, microbiology—a deep learning system can generate and virtually test an enormous variety of drug compounds or mRNA vaccines in silico.
Machine learning enables the creation of models that learn and generalize the patterns within the available data and can make inferences from previously unseen data. With the advent of deep learning, the learning procedure can also include automatic feature extraction from raw data. … Taking this work together, it is clear that spike protein has been the most popular candidate for virtual vaccine discovery.
Moderna has fully embraced this method. The Big Pharma corporation—co-founded by the creator of the quantum dot vaxx & track technology—is now using AI to generate possible vaccines at incomprehensible speeds. Bits of genetic code can be “dreamed up” by purely digital minds. That bio-information will then be injected in human populations and translated into swarms of novel proteins.
Moderna headquarters | Cambridge, Mass.
Last summer, Moderna’s chief data and artificial intelligence officer, Dave Johnson, told MIT Sloan Management Review:
[W]hat we’re really trying to do is accelerate the pace of research so that we can get as many drugs in the clinic as quickly as possible. One of the big bottlenecks is having this mRNA for the scientist to run tests on. So, what we did is we put in place a ton of robotic automation, put in place a lot of digital systems and process automation and AI algorithms as well. And we went from maybe about thirty mRNAs manually produced in a given month to a capacity of about a thousand in a month.
Because advanced AI is a black box whose inner workings are mostly unknown, even to its creators, the process of generating entirely new gene sequences unfolds like magic:
We can integrate those into these live systems that we have, so that scientists just press a button and the work is done for them. And they don’t know what’s going on behind the scenes, but then – poof! – out comes this better sequence for them.
Back in Africa, where quantum dot tattoos may or may not be getting implanted as I type this, Moderna just announced plans for a new mRNA vaccine manufacturing plant. The company is putting up $500 million to build the factory in Kenya, beyond the reach of nosy Western regulators.
Where scrutiny can’t be avoided, artificial intelligence will soon be used to speed up the regulatory process—not that it was a huge hurdle to begin with. Adding insult to vaccine injury, Pfizer’s vice president and head of information management explains how they’ll game the system:
In the future, we believe that AI may help us predict what queries regulators are likely to come back with. We may then be able to improve our submissions by predicting in advance what regulators are likely to ask, and coming prepared with those answers ahead of time.
Welcome to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where machines create vaccines that are regulated by machines and injected into biomechanoid humans who are tracked by machines.
No End in Sight—Unless We End It
When exploring the otherworldly ideas of transhumanism—and its megalomaniacal counterpart, technocracy—I always ask three questions:
1) What are their stated ambitions?
2) Is the technology even feasible?
3) Will corporations actually sell these products (or alternatively, will governments be able to mandate them)?
First, it’s clear that Big Pharma has an open ambition to generate endless mRNA vaccines using artificial intelligence. Going further, technocratic elites like Bill Gates and Robert Langer want human cattle to be tattooed with fluorescent nanoparticles to track their vaxx status, starting with the Third World. It’s easy to imagine that the rest of us are next.
What’s worse, similar ambitions are held by numerous partners (and competitors) at the World Economic Forum, Silicon Valley, the Chinese Communist Party, and elsewhere. This is not a global conspiracy—these are publicly declared plans.
Second, AI-generated vaccines and subdermal tracking tech already exist, and they are rapidly improving.
Third, the germaphobic masses are now conditioned to submit to any technology deemed “safe and effective.” This terrified horde is also primed to insist that you submit, too.
Somehow, against all odds, the human spirit has not been broken. There’s a swelling movement to peel back vaccine mandates in the Western world. Unbowed souls have taken to the streets in mass protests. As hard evidence of vaccine injury accumulates, we can expect this battle to move into the courts as well. Schools, private companies, and various governments are yielding to public will and dropping their mandates and restrictions. But this pressure must be relentless if we are to stem the tide.
The transhumanist ambition, implemented through technocratic policies, is to transform humanity through technology. It’s a delusional quest for perfection, however approximate—perfect health, perfect cognition, perfect machines. This ambition will never vanish. But like a devil chained up in the underworld, it can be contained.
The first step is public awareness. The second is a bold personal stance. The third is community action. The last, and most enduring, is the institutional protection of our rights, our privacy, and our bodily autonomy.
This struggle against the machine won’t end until the last battery fizzles out. Prepare yourself for perpetual warfare. There can be no wishful thinking, but there’s only one attitude to take—we will win this.
In an appearance on “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., a reporter for The Defender, explained how the two global asset giants pushing for vaccine passports also stand to profit greatly from orchestrating them.
Financial houses BlackRock and The Vanguard Group, two of the world’s “Big Three” asset managers, have profited “enormously” from the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
On the March 23 episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,” Kennedy interviewed Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., a reporter for The Defender, about what Nevradakis uncovered about the far-reaching influence of these two corporations.
In an article he wrote last month for The Defender, Nevradakis exposed BlackRock and Vanguard as two of the top three shareholders in COVID vaccine makers Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson.
Kennedy pointed out that BlackRock and Vanguard are the two biggest financial houses in the world. “They control a huge part of the world economy,” Kennedy said.
In 2020, Bloomberg called BlackRock “the fourth branch of government,” said Nevradakis.
He added:
“There’s this very strange cross-ownership where Vanguard is the biggest shareholder in BlackRock and BlackRock is the biggest shareholder in Vanguard … regardless of how some people may try to spin it, it’s obvious that these two companies are closely linked and their fortunes are closely linked.”
The two firms own many major and influential U.S. companies, including American Express, T-Mobile, Twitter and Disney, as well as Big Food and Big Pharma interests.
Nevradakis and Kennedy discussed the connection between BlackRock or Vanguard ownership and vaccine passports.
“[BlackRock and Vanguard] own companies that are at the speartip of pushing for vaccine passports, and also that stand to profit greatly from making and controlling and orchestrating the vaccine passports,” said Kennedy.
In his article, Nevradakis listed major U.S. employers that, as of Feb. 16, mandated COVID vaccines for their employers, and quantified these companies’ relationships with BlackRock and/or Vanguard.
Most of these companies are owned in large part by one or both of the firms. They include pharmaceutical company Abbvie, grocery store Albertsons, health insurer Anthem, Chevron, Delta Airlines and Cigna, among many others.
The “sinister aspect” of these revelations is the idea that competitive capitalism may be an illusion in the U.S., Kennedy pointed out.
Nevradakis agreed. He said:
“The original idea in theory behind [capitalism] is that of competition. And I think that we’re not seeing that in reality. We have very, very large companies, and those large companies are owned by even larger asset management companies. And then … the two largest ones of all also happen to own each other. So I don’t think there’s any way that that could be spun as a competitive situation.”
Watch the podcast here:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Coinciding with the second anniversary of the COVID-19 outbreak, The Rutherford Institute has issued an in-depth, follow-up report on the impact of the nation’s response to the pandemic on civil liberties.
The 2022 report, “The Right to Be Let Alone: How to Safeguard Your Freedoms in the Face of the Government’s COVID-19 Power Grabs,” posits that the government’s response to the pandemic has become a massively intrusive, coercive and authoritarian assault on the right of individual sovereignty over one’s life, self and private property. As such, concludes John W. Whitehead, these COVID-19 mandates have become the new battleground in the government’s tug-of-war over bodily autonomy and individual sovereignty.
“Right now, COVID-19 vaccines are the magic ticket for gaining access to the “privileges” of communal life,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Having already conditioned the population to the idea that being part of society is a privilege and not a right, such access could easily be predicated on social credit scores, the worthiness of one’s political views, or the extent to which one is willing to comply with the government’s dictates, no matter what they might be.”
In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, to be a pandemic, resulting in the most widespread and disruptive public health emergency in our lifetime. Since that time, political leaders from the president to governors to mayors have subscribed to a broad range of actions aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19, some of which have been draconian and unprecedented. On the one-year anniversary of the COVID-19 outbreak, The Rutherford Institute issued an in-depth reporting, “Civil Liberties in the Age of COVID-19,” to address the delicate balance that must be struck between security and civil liberties, the hazards of government overreach, and the long-term ramifications of an “emergency state” in which the government is increasingly empowered to declare a state of emergency and impose lockdowns, mandates and restrictions in order to address a broadening range of concerns that prioritize the government’s wide-ranging and varying institutional concerns over the individual rights of the citizenry. Coinciding with the second anniversary of the pandemic, The Rutherford Institute has issued “The Right to Be Let Alone: How to Safeguard Your Freedoms in the Face of the Government’s COVID-19 Power Grabs,” which examines the far-reaching ramifications of how the pandemic has impacted the legal, moral and political debate over who gets to decide what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials. As the report warns, “This merely pushes us one step further down that road towards a total control society in which the government in collusion with Corporate America gets to decide who is ‘worthy’ of being allowed to take part in society.”
The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.
Willem Engel is a scientist and one of the most prominent critics against the disproportionality of the measures against the so-called Corona pandemic in the Netherlands. In addition to his Viruswaarheid site, which publishes information that critically examines and questions the narrative of the pandemic, Willem Engel has established a reputation as an activist on the streets as well as in the courtroom. In doing so, he may have caused some discomfort for Dutch Prime Minister Rutte, whose credibility is already severely tarnished.
Willem Engel, together with his partner and lawyer Jeroen Poels, had recently documented the Dutch government’s close ties with the World Economic Forum in an extensive broadcast, also discussing aspects such as eugenics and treason. Head of government Rutte was probably not amused by this.
Then, a day before the arrest, posts suddenly appeared on Twitter accusing Willem Engel of spreading misinformation and calling him a “Putin supporter”.
As a result, the police are said to have received numerous complaints against Engel, prompting them to intervene. However, there is official confirmation of this only insofar as the officers spoke of charges against Engel during the arrest.
Today, after I became aware of what had happened, I wrote the following email to the Ambassador of the Netherlands in Berlin, Ronald van Roeden:
His Excellency Ronald van Roeden
Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Federal Republic of Germany Klosterstrasse 50 10117 Berlin
With some astonishment I have received the news that the Dutch citizen Willem Engel has been arrested under pretext and taken to Hoogvliet prison in Rotterdam.
According to unconfirmed reports, Mijnheer Engel is accused of inciting crimes against public institutions. In view of the extraordinarily peaceful and affectionate way of expressing himself over many years, these accusations seem more than doubtful. The suspicion arises that Willem Engel may have become inconvenient to authorities because of his persistent criticism of what were, in effect, unscientific and disproportionate measures to “contain” the “pandemic,” and therefore the imprisonment may have been an intimidation and a “warning shot.”
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is home to the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Deprivation of liberty without cause would be extraordinarily embarrassing for this very reason. Also, constructing a reason for arrest would be wholly inappropriate for a member state of the European Union, which is a signatory to the UN Charter on Human Rights.
All that Willem Engel has done in the past two years has been to uphold the right to life, liberty and security of all people under Article 3 of the UN Charter on Human Rights, Article 30 of which prohibits all members from abusing human rights to deny other rights to their citizens.
I therefore ask you, as representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Federal Republic of Germany, to use your influence in the Netherlands to work for the observance of human rights in general and in particular for the observance of human rights in the case of Willem Engel. Please keep me informed about the progress of the case!
With the expression of my highest consideration
Dr. Uwe Alschner
Those who wish to send encouragement and expressions of solidarity to Willem Engel can send them to this address:
PI Hoogvliet (Stadsgevangenis)
Koddeweg 100
3194 DH Hoogvliet Rotterdam.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense Europe.
After the White House and Congress dropped their mask mandates last week, Del Bigtree said, “enough is enough” and, through his attorneys, has now sued the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) challenging its mandate requiring masks on planes, trains, and buses.
It is incredible that our elected leaders have dropped mask mandates for themselves but yet everyday Americans must still mask. There is a term for when those that govern impose requirements on the governed but exclude themselves. Just compare the picture on the left with the those on the right:
While the science on masking should be enough for the mask mandate to disappear, the lawsuit challenges the mandate on the grounds that the CDC does not have the authority to implement or enforce the mandate.
You can read the complaint in its entirety here and we will keep you apprised of the lawsuit. Thank you for supporting ICAN’s ongoing efforts to ensure that our civil liberties are restored.
I’m sure by now you’ve all seen the clip of Justin Trudeau admitting that he “admires” China’s dictatorship “because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime,” but here it is again.
Given the absolutely unprecedented and utterly chilling events that have just unfolded in Canada under Prime Minister Trudeau’s watch, it’s no surprise that his bone-chilling admission from 2013 has been making the rounds online once again.
But this is not some kind of one-off slip of the tongue or out-of-context “gotcha” moment. Time after time, (mis)leader after (mis)leader from around the world has confirmed their lust for China’s dictatorial powers. In fact, it’s not just the (mis)leaders who covet the Chinese authoritarian system; businessmen, pundits, think tank bigwigs and everyone else in the so-called “Superclass” are equally batty for Beijing’s style of governance.
On the surface level, there is a perfectly obvious explanation for this phenomenon: these globalist thugs are all wannabe tyrants. If a ChiCom system gave them the power to “turn their economy around on a dime” or do anything else on their wish list, they would adopt it without a second thought.
But, as usual, there is an even more important layer to this story that is being neglected by almost everyone. You see, China is not just any type of dictatorship. In fact, it isn’t even communist. When you understand the principle that the Chinese government is really operating on, you start to understand why China has been built up as the rising new superpower of the 21st century and what that means for the future of humanity.
Tyrants Love China
Trudeau’s love affair with China did not start or end in 2013, of course. The Canadian PM’s determination to kowtow to the Chinese at every opportunity is a well-known fact of Canadian political life and has resulted in a series of pathetic attempts to curry favour with Xi and the Chinese government. Lowlights include Trudeau’s invitation to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to participate in winter exercises with the Canadian Armed Forces, his threatening a charity group for daring to attempt to bestow an award on the president of Taiwan and his promise to bestow a “Made-in-Canada” COVID bioweapon “vaccine” on the Canadian people. That promise turned out to be a lie in every respect: the “Canadian” company developing the vaccine was not even Canadian, but a Chinese firm with connections to the PLA. (The outright fabrications emanating from the PM office in that affair were so outrageous that even the CBC had to cover them.)
Biden has repeatedly bragged that he “traveled 17,000 miles” with Xi when he was vice president—a claim that not even the Bezos Post fact checkers could support—and had his own “Trudeau moment” at a CNN Town Hall last year, praising the Chinese dictator-for-life out of the blue as a “bright and really tough guy” in a bizarre, unscripted diversion from the teleprompter.
Similarly, all of the (mis)leaders of the (un)free world have likewise lined up to ink deals with the ChiCom dictatorship and lavish praise on Xi while giving obligatory lip service to their supposed “concern” about human rights in the country. Macron? Check. Johnson? Check. Bennett? Check.
I could go on, but you get the idea. At a certain point, the spectacle of political puppet after political puppet lining up to shower accolades on Xi Jinping and the Chinese government is so overwhelming that it gives the lie to the idea that China is really an enemy of the West.
So what’s really going on here?
The Western Propaganda Line on China
At this point, we’re faced with a seeming paradox.
On the one hand, China is portrayed as such a threat to the international order—menacing its maritime neighbours and repressing its Uyghur minority even as it grows in military might and geopolitical clout—that entirely new groups (the “Quad”) and treaties (the TPP) have to be devised to contain it.
On the other hand, the world (mis)leaders are falling all over themselves to prove how close they are with President Xi and to cut deals with the Chinese government.
As usual, there is a simple explanation for this seeming contradiction that most people can immediately understand: money. You see, the Chinese are buying off politicians. That’s why all of these globalists are lining up to bestow praise on and ink treaties with the ChiComs.
But while financial (or sexual) motivations may be enough to explain the Sinophilic behaviour of certain politicians and researchers, it is not enough to explain the phenomenon of the past 40 years. As I have documented in the past, the rise of China to its position of economic, geopolitical and military prominence did not happen overnight and it did not happen as the result of a handful of bought-and-paid for politicians. Rather, China has been carefully and intentionally built up as a major player in the emerging multipolar New World Order by the same gaggle of globalists who have overseen the global financial and geopolitical for the past 50 years.
But why?
To get a handle on this question, it’s fruitful to take a look at what it is that the globalists see in China. We can gain insight into the answer by looking at a curious, recurring theme in the controlled establishment media propaganda about China. I call it: “China Is Horrible! . . . But Wouldn’t It Be Nice?”
This theme can be seen in just about every piece in the controlled corporate media about the evils of the Chinese government and its treatment of its citizens. In a nutshell, they expose the unbelievably Orwellian control that the ChiComs assert over every aspect of citizens’ lives, decry it as tyrannical . . . and then point out how effective this autocratic system is in managing the Chinese economy and building Chinese military might and geopolitical clout. The effect of such propaganda is always to remind the reader that China is The Enemy and deserves our Two Minutes Hate—but that it would be nice if our loving, Western, “democratic” governments assumed some of those powers, too.
Trudeau’s now infamous expression of “admiration” for the Chinese dictatorship is one example of this theme, but the propagandists over at The New York Times provided perhaps the quintessential expression of this idea in a recent article, “Living by the Code: In China, Covid-Era Controls May Outlast the Virus.”
The piece opens by noting the plight of Xie Yang, a human rights lawyer who decided to travel to Shanghai to visit the mother of a dissident even after local authorities warned him against taking the trip. On his way to the airport, officials changed Xie’s health status on his government-mandated health code app from “green,” meaning that he was free to travel, to “red,” prompting airport security to attempt to put him in quarantine.
The rest of the article walks a delicate line: it accurately documents the egregious abuses of human rights enabled by the biosecurity surveillance grid erected by the Chinese government, but it is peppered with constant reminders about how effective this grid is at “containing” the scamdemic. The Chinese government, it tells us, has become “emboldened by their successes in stamping out Covid.” And, we are told, the government-mandated health code app is “key to China’s goal of stamping out the virus entirely within its borders.” These controls “have really produced great results, because they can monitor down to every individual,” the article quotes a Chinese dental worker as saying. The Times even asserts that the government’s “success in limiting infections” has led to “widespread support” for the measures.
In other words: China’s tyranny is horrible! . . . But wouldn’t it be nice?
Once you notice this particular propaganda ploy, you will see it everywhere in mainstream discussions about the Chinese “menace” that is supposedly the greatest “threat” to the free world. And once you do notice this trick, you will begin to understand the real reason that the globalists have worked so closely with China for decades: not because they are adherents of communism, but because they see China as an experimental laboratory in which to perfect a new form of governance for the planet.
This is precisely what David Rockefeller meant when he wrote his infamous ode to Chairman Mao in an August 1973 New York Times op-ed, “From a China Traveler“:
The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.
It is not that Rockefeller was a secret (or not-so-secret) communist. In fact, it turns out that the Chinese system of governance isn’t really communism at all.
China Isn’t Communist
So if China isn’t communist, what is it?
The answer is simple: China is a technocracy.
Now, either you’re a poor, lost normie who has somehow stumbled upon this editorial and has no idea what that statement means or you’re a follower of the independent media and you already have a pretty good grasp of what “technocracy” is. If the former is the case, I would recommend you explore my archives on the subject to better understand what technocracy is and how it serves as the governing principle of choice for globalists in the 21st century.
To summarize, there are two ways to understand what technocracy is. There is the straightforward and innocuous definition supplied to the public, which holds that technocracy is simply government by a scientific and technical elite. And then there is the hidden assumption upon which this definition is based: namely, that the “scientific and technical elite” is beholden to the “Superclass” from whom they derive their funding, their research cues and their values. “Science,” after all, is merely a process, and technology is merely a means of applying scientific knowledge in the pursuit of some specific goal. But whose goal? In this way, we see that technocracy is not the benevolent rule of an enlightened scientific class, but the use of that class by the ruling oligarchy to more effectively manage the human population.
That China is a technocracy is not a controversial observation. It has been made by a number of scholars, including Liu Yongmou, a professor of the philosophy of science and technology at Renmin University of China. In a 2016 article in Issues in Science and Technology entitled “The Benefits of Technocracy in China,” Yongmou details how technocracy was imported to China under the moniker “expert politics” by Luo Longji, a politician and intellectual who studied under the original technocrats at Columbia University in the 1920s. This system of governance was initially eschewed by Mao, who favoured devotion to the party over technical expertise, but has flourished in the post-Mao era, culminating in the last three presidents of China—Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping—all having originally studied engineering.
This is no trivial detail. The technocratic mindset is everywhere apparent in the Chinese system, where the citizenry is treated as unruly variables in an otherwise harmonious equation, variables that can only be tamed by rigorous logic and ruthless algorithmic strictures. Hence the laundry list of heartless, inhuman, but doubtless “efficient” techniques for managing the population. The techniques, spearheaded by the Chinese, range from the world’s most pervasive facial recognition network to the vast social credit system, which regulates citizens’ behaviour by barring them from public transit or by blocking their access to higher education or well-paying jobs if they do not comply with government dictates.
Is it any wonder, then, that China was the first country to roll out the QR code-driven, smartphone-hosted “health pass” that enables the government, if it chooses, to prevent any individual from passing any government checkpoint at any time? Or that the Western media—let alone (mis)leaders like Trudeau—would so openly lust after those powers?
As Patrick Wood—the author of multiple works about the hidden history of technocracy—accurately summarizes in his article entitled (appropriately enough) “China Is A Technocracy“:
China is a full-blown Technocracy and it is the first of its kind on planet earth, thanks to the clever manipulation and support of Western elites like the Trilateral Commission. [. . .] In conclusion, the clear and present danger to world domination is not any kind of Marxist derivative, but rather neo-authoritarian Technocracy. Living under such a system will be far more oppressive and painful than Socialism, Communism or Fascism.
It is important to understand this, because if we do not see that China is no more communist than the United States is “free” and “democratic,” then we will never understand what this strange love/hate dance about the new China bogeyman/frenemy is really about.
The global power elite are perfecting their techniques for controlling the human population and China is the technocratic laboratory where they are testing those techniques. This is why Trudeau, the mainstream media and all of the other organs of the establishment “Superclass” really admire China.
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 bottom line at this critical juncture is simple — rather than be lulled into complacency (or distraction) by the latest propaganda, just say no and don’t comply.
The most strenuous form of critique the media seem able to muster is to tell policymakers to apologize for “getting COVID wrong.”
Early on, Children’s Health Defense and other independent voices forcefully called out the government’s sub-rosa agenda as a deliberate, multisectoral effort spearheaded by central bankers and billionaire technocrats to ensnare the world in a global control grid — in other words, modern-day digital slavery.
Viewed from this angle, the “separate mind-boggling events” of the past two years “line up as sequential moves on a worldwide chessboard.”
Restrictive COVID policies and strange central bank maneuvers were no accident but rather the tools of a planned economic takedown of the most vibrant and independent segments of the economy, notably the small “retail, arts and entertainment, personal services, food services and hospitality businesses” that, together with other small business sectors, have “pretty much driven most economic activity throughout our known history.”
Even before this purposeful economic havoc, the developed world’s richest denizens were living at least 10 to 15 years longer than the world’s poorest.
When experimental injections were added in December 2020 to the mix of COVID interventions, the takedown began taking on even more gruesome dimensions.
Discussing far-reaching vaccine fraud allegedly perpetrated by Pfizer, acting in cahoots with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, former BlackRock investor Edward Dowd has said:
“I think this is the greatest crime ever committed because most of the frauds I’ve been involved with are financial frauds where money’s lost; This has killed and maimed people.”
On March 1, shortly after a board member of German insurance company BKK ProVita expressed public alarm at the widespread killing and maiming — noting that Germany’s federal health agency was underreporting COVID vaccine injuries by a factor of 10 — the executive was summarily fired.
Prominent physician Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who blazed a hopeful trail with his inexpensive and successful COVID treatment protocol, bluntly characterized the toxic jabs as instruments of “premeditated first-degree murder and genocide.”
Empty words and gestures
Of late, policymakers seem to have decided it’s time for some crocodile tears — and also time to make a show of putting a few COVID restrictions on hold.
For example, consider the recent remarks by Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Walensky said health officials “had perhaps too little caution and too much optimism” about the COVID shots.
For those paying attention, there can be little doubt these words and gestures are less about a policy one-eighty than about window dressing and distraction — as well as perhaps a clever move to “undercut” the momentum of the People’s Convoy currently demanding an end to all emergency measures.
As Jon Rappoport warned, “Although some governments … are lifting COVID restrictions and mandates, we should remember they still hold the power to re-impose those measures at the drop of a hat — for any reason they cook up.”
The key takeaway of the last two years, Rappoport clarified, is that governments’ COVID actions were expedient political decisions — designed to “advance tyranny” — and had “nothing to do with science or morality.”
New York City’s recent actions exemplify the duplicity of the policy rollbacks and the steady behind-the-scenes march of the control agenda. Remember — officials there willingly spent two years gutting the city’s famed restaurants, other small businesses and cultural institutions.
Now, while announcing an easing up of restrictions out of one side of his mouth, the new mayor fired almost 1,500 unvaccinated municipal workers, is insisting on continuing to mask 3- and 4-year-olds (defying widespread parental objections) and is advising businesses they “can still choose to require proof of vaccination.”
Maryland is another jurisdiction that has been indifferent to the distress caused by its policies, ignoring, for example, a leading trade group’s warning that politicians’ capricious on-again, off-again restrictions — promoted as protecting “well-being” — would permanently close four in 10 of the state’s restaurants.
In the state’s largest city, the Baltimore government is suddenly reopening some government services and lifting masking edicts. Yet at the same time, the prominent Baltimore Sun is beating the drum for joint COVID and influenza vaccine mandates.
In thinly veiled praise for coercion and segregation, the Sun argued, “employers and municipalities can certainly require flu vaccinations in order to engage in certain activities.”
Policy hypocrisy is also alive and well internationally. While the World Health Organization (WHO) issues parameters for “carefully relaxing the rules” — parameters so narrow as to be meaningless — Italy and China (the two countries that set the global precedent for lockdowns) are fining individuals who decline mandated interventions or denying them entry to workplaces, restaurants, stores, banks and post offices.
Vaccine passports and digital identities — full speed ahead
As Off-Guardian’s Kit Knightly noted on March 1, “Covid might be dying, but vaccine passports are still very much alive.”
In late February, Knightly also pointed out that the WHO, ominously, is working on an “international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness” that would invest the global health organization with the authority to preempt national sovereignty in the management of future pandemics and health challenges.
In a five-part series, Corey Lynn of Corey’s Digs outlined many disturbing implications of the push for vaccine passports. Falsely marketed as a “convenience,” the “passports” eventually will encompass far more than just vaccination records:
“From education to health records, finances, accounts, travel, contact info, and more, will all be linked to your QR code, along with biometrics and fingerprints, then stored on the Blockchain.”
The longer-term aim, said Lynn, is to achieve “full power and control,” down to the individual level, of spending, taxation, education, transportation, food, communications and healthcare, among other domains.
As writer Cherie Zaslawsky sees it, globalists “seek to enslave humanity worldwide in their long-dreamed-of totalitarian utopia. That’s utopia for them — as the ruling class that owns the world and everything in it — and dystopia for We the People.”
Knightly’s March 1 commentary drew readers’ attention to SMART Health Cards — “a covert federal vaccine passport” — rolled out in roughly half the country thus far, including in red states that previously had paid lip service to banning vaccine passports.
A late February article in Forbes boasted that more than 200 million Americans can already “download, print or store their vaccination records as a QR code.”
VCI was created by the federally funded MITRE Corporation (an MIT spin-off), which receives an estimated $2 billion a year from U.S. taxpayers to develop advanced surveillance technology, among other dubious national security pursuits.
MITRE received a $16.3 million CDC contract “to help construct an efficient game plan for the country during the health crisis,” and also spearheaded U.S. Department of Homeland Security efforts to “coordinate” responses among the nation’s mayors and governors.
Members of VCI’s public-private coalition include Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, the Mayo Clinic, and the California and New York state governments, as well as “other health and tech heavyweights.” Additional organizations are contributing to the initiative as “data aggregators” and “health IT vendors.”
As an inner-circle member of VCI, New York State has been in the vanguard in building out a digital identity infrastructure intended to be interoperable (able to exchange or assemble data) “throughout the United States and abroad.”
New York’s “Digital Identity” policy, conveniently updated in July 2020, stipulates that citizens, businesses and government employees who conduct online business with the state must go through an “identity vetting” process that could involve authentication via “smart card” or “biometrics.”
Refuse totalitarian tyranny
Almost immediately after the COVID shots began being rolled out, Dr. Mike Yeadon, at one time a chief scientist and vice president at Pfizer, began protesting the push to inject children.
Yeadon also denounced vaccine passports, describing the apps as a sly vehicle for implementing “illegal, medical apartheid” and totalitarian tyranny.
In a more recent talk, Yeadon emphasized that the QR codes’ global interoperability will translate into 24/7 tracking of every person “in that moment, in that spot, down to the individual level.”
To impress upon the public the dangers of allowing a vaccine passport system to take hold, Yeadon described what it would mean to become an “out-person:”
“One example: Your VaxPass pings, instructing you to attend for your 3rd or 4th or 5th booster or variant vaccine. If you don’t, your VaxPass will expire & you’ll become an out-person, unable to access your own life.”
Fortunately, the globalists’ stark vision is becoming increasingly apparent to many members of the public, who are coming to understand, as Ron Paul said, that “authoritarian politicians will always lie to the people to protect and increase their own power.”
Mainstream media outlets also have begun openly worrying that “parents have a long memory when it comes to how their children have been treated.”
And, although it may not seem like it, governmental decisions “ARE affected by what citizens do or don’t do,” said Rappoport, arguing that it’s no time to “let up on pressure.”
The bottom line at this critical juncture is simple — rather than be lulled into complacency (or distraction) by the latest propaganda, just say no and don’t comply.
Don’t wear a mask. Don’t get tested. Don’t accept toxic jabs. And don’t download any QR codes or any other tools (no matter how “convenient”) that allow the build-out of digital tyranny.
The tragedy is that people are dying in this geopolitical circus.
But consider, if people were not dying, what we’re watching would be a bad Hollyweird “B” comedy, an Abbot and Costello farce like “Who’s on First?” only without Abbot and Costello’s sense of timing and delivery.
The latest farce in this otherwise deadly serious geopolitical kabuki theater being waged by Mr. Globaloney and his lackeys in Swampington DC-Mordor-on-the-Potomac is that now they’re considering imposing sanctions on India!
“Why?” you might reasonably ask. Well, it’s because Mr. Modi and the rest of India have cozied up to Russia and are buying a great deal of the military equipment from Russia:
Well whoop-dee-woo… “I’m really angry now! How dare you Mr. Modi!”…. NOT.
I’m old enough to remember Mrs. Ghandi (no… to those who have recently graduated from an American quackademy, that is not Mrs. Mahatma Ghandi; it’s Indira Gha… oh nevermind…) and her purchases of military equipment from Russia.
Now, here’s the thing: at the height of the Cold War, when tensions regularly ran high between Moscow and Swampington DC-Mordor-on-the-Potomac, and when Mrs. Not-Mahatma-but-Indira Ghandi was buying all sorts of stuff from Brezhnev, the last thing on Swampington DC’s mind was sanctioning India. Why drive a potential friend even further into the opposition’s embrace?
Well, read the first two paragraphs of this article:
The Biden administration is weighing whether to impose sanctions against India over its stockpile of and reliance on Russian military equipment as part of the wide-ranging consequences the West is seeking to impose on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine (sic et passim).
Donald Lu, the assistant secretary of State for South Asian affairs, on Thursday told lawmakers in a hearing that the administration is weighing how threatening India’s historically close military relationship with Russia is to U.S. security.
And that in spite of this:
In 2016, India was named a “Major Defense Partner” with the U.S., a unique designation that serves to elevate defense trade and technology. Defense contracts between the U.S. and India are said to have amounted to $20 billion since 2008.
India is also a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with the U.S., Japan and Australia, a grouping that focuses on countering China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific.
President Biden held a video call with Quad leaders on Thursday, according to the White House, “to discuss the war against Ukraine and its implications for the Indo-Pacific.”
One wonders how that phone call went… maybe something like this:
“Ahh….h-h-hello? Is this N-na-na-rendrmphsz…. ahm… is this Mr. Modi? …. yea… Joe Biden here… you can call me Joe if you want…ahh… yea we want to c-…ahh…co-op… ahm…. work with you guys in containing … you know… the thing up there…ahh… what’s it called…”
“China, Mr. President?” he replies, drumming his fingers on his desk and rolling his eyes.
“…yea, yea! That! Yea we really wanna co-opermgfghs…. co-operznvcxc…. work together. Oh by the way, we’re considering sanctioning you because you buy too much from, and actually like, those guys up there in… you know… what’s hismphzt-”
“Putin, Mr. President,” another roll of the eyes.
Now, whether this phone call went anywhere close to how I depicted it (and I strongly suspect it did) I contend, however much India (or any other nation in that region) may mouth condemnations of Russia and however much they may mouth their support of Swampington-Mordor-on-the-Potomac, that under their breath and behind Swampington’s back they are all burning the phone lines with conversations about “just what the hell is going on over there?!?!?” and “have the Americans completely lost their minds?” And part of those conversations, like it or not, are going to be about preserving their sovereignty, and how to contain China, without America in the picture, because an irrational actor and a decaying empire ultimately cannot be counted upon…
… and they – and Russia – know that America is “not agreement capable.” Indeed, we want the largest democracy on Earth – India – to act like it is another satrapy of that empire, while sanctioning it!
That’s not a mixed message folks. It’s just childish insanity…
.jpg){kind=link}
